Heat. Hey, Heat. Hos is attending virtually >> here. Councelor Teranzo is not here yet and President Wandowski >> here.
>> You have a quorum. >> Great. Thank you. Our first order on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance which is voluntary. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Next, we have approving the city council minutes from July 16, 2025. Can I have a someone read a the motion
for me, please? Page five. >> Councelor Garrett, please. Thank you. >> I am going to spin my metaphorical wheels as it loads. Okay. Sorry. >> I'll move to approve the minutes.
>> Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, I thought there had to be a fiscal order. >> All right. Well, we have to do a roll call on this. >> Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes.
>> Councelor Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. Vice President Garrett. >> Yes.
>> Councelor Minhos. Councelor Minhos. >> I'll come back. Thank you. >> Uh, President Wandowski. >> Yes. >> The minutes passed by unanimous. >> I don't see the superintendent. Oh, there you are. Yay. Come on up and give
us an update. Thank you for being here. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Good evening everyone. Summer's almost coming to an end for those who are going back to school. Almost. I say right. Not yet. But uh we have a lot of things going on in the
schools and happy to fill you in on a few things that are happening. Uh we had a wonderful visit. We had a great visit from our congressman McGovern recently. Came to see our summer eats program and he came out along with our um got I got to put my cheaters on here.
The lighting here a little little low from Look at that. Perfectly clear now. Right. Uh we had our secretary of education come out Patrick Tutweiler along with the congressman and our new commissioner of education Pedro Martinez who just started on July 1st for the commonwealth came out to see our summer
eats program and you've heard about that before obviously and I've mentioned that >> superintendent I'm really sorry we didn't get any um topics from your office so in will be an open meeting law violation if you go further. Okay. So can I
>> So I'm just going to ask you what's new what's happening in the schools right now. Um, now that we're getting started and maybe there's some other questions from counselors. >> Thank you. I I appreciate that and I apologize for not submitting that. I I'll give you an idea of what's new. So, thank you. We had a visit from our
congressman come through and that was great to see our summer eats. We served over 75,000 meals this summer. And and as mentioned too, that is a huge number out there. And not only did this year they do breakfast, lunches, they also did dinners and weekend meals for people
on that. Um, couple things that we've participated in. Last night we participated in the back to school event at at the public library here, which was very well attended from. It was nice crowded room in there. A lot going on. And the kids were excited to get back to school. At least they they appeared
excited last night, right? As excited as they could to see their friends. It's always nice to go back and see your friends sometimes who you haven't seen in a little while. In that sense, we're doing a lot of wrapped up summer school, a great successful summer school program, and our maintenance department is really working hard and to have our
schools ready for everybody in that scenario. We had new teacher orientation today. Right now, we right now we have 14 new teachers. Still anticipate hiring a few more actually in the next couple of days. So, we have that today and tomorrow. And also did a bus tour of the city of Greenfield. took them on a bus
tour because many people could actually give the tour who we've hired are residents and locals and know what's going on, but others are from out of the city and new to the area. So, it was nice to show them different parts of the city and what we have to offer here for them. I've continued to meet with city
departments. Still have a few more to go, but had a nice visit with the police chief and lieutenant, and they gave me a nice tour of the renovation down at the police station and their communication or dispatching room. I don't want to say it wrong, but which was really nice down there. So hopefully we have some great
things working with the schools in that scenario. And for our students, our teachers and our students back to work next week. Our teachers come back on Monday for two days of professional development and our students will be in next Wednesday the 27th. So those are
kind of the the quick versions of updates. >> Great. Thank you counselors. Any questions for the superintendent? Uh, councelor Garrett and then I have councelor Golo. >> You may have already said this but I might have missed it. The summer eats program roughly how many folks are we serving through that program like how
many families you know and a ballpark I'm sure you >> I gave you the 75,000 number of meals. So that was the number of meals that we did. I can look back up and find out. >> No, that's just helpful to have. Okay. Thank you. I appreciated the article in the paper
um about considering teacher and staff pay. Wondering if you could speak to that conversation. >> Um our school committee is always looking for different ways to increase our employees and the number of employees. As I mentioned, if you look at our jobs, our jobs are posted on
schoolspring.com. That's generally what a lot of school districts post on in Massachusetts. And in some of our hourly jobs, which would generally be cafeteria workers, bus drivers, maintenance positions, it's hard to get positions. I've been doing this for 35 plus years
in this business. And I can tell you 20 years ago, people would beg to get on a list just to even get a job for their kids or their neighbors and wait in line, right, on that old civil service list of hundreds of people. But then there's some other factors that play into it, too. It's the the wages, right?
Our starting wages, as I mentioned, to our school committee, and our school committee knows this are 1795 for a what you might call a pair of professional or individual aid, instructional assistant in that sense. And um it can or cannot be competitive with the local area,
right? Depending on how many work hours you want to work a week, some people can go and work at local big box stores or different places for 18, 19, 20 and maybe have different hours. Well, we have great things to offer as many of you know, right? given the city whether it's a retirement system some nice
benefits for people which they can't get in other places what people really look at is the dollar the dollar figure how much am I bringing home to my family and what am I doing so we're looking at different options of what we can do to increase that >> any other questions
all right thank you so much we appreciate you're being here in a very busy time of year. >> Thank you. All right. Next, we have updates from the city. Um, so we've got the mayor first, um, and then we'll go later to
our, um, public health nurse. Good evening, everybody. Uh, I want to begin my comments tonight by recognizing Alan Ball who passed away on August 5th. Allan served Greenfield as uh a licensing commissioner for
nearly a decade. He also volunteered at Bayate Franklin and with building bridges where he served meals to his fellow veterans. He will be missed. Uh, so let's start with Allen's spirit of community service as we begin our
work today. We issued a voluntary water ban uh voluntary water use restrictions last week and I want to thank everyone for their uh efforts and parts to conserve our collective efforts resulted in a reduction in usage of about 300,000
gallons of water per day which is a reduction of about 15% of the normal use. The recent rain has been helpful but our supplies remain well below normal. The Department of Public Works has been closely monitoring the
situation and we will issue mandatory restrictions if needed. In the meantime, we encourage everyone to be mindful of their water use. We continue to face challenges with our facilities. At the beginning of this
month, DPW closed a section of the transfer station um uh the transfer station floor above a dumping bay due to concern about its safety. Paul Newell brought in a structural engineer who determined that the floor is not safe for use and that temporary bracing is
not feasible. We are waiting for the engineer to provide repair plans so that we can issue an RFP and receive estimates. In the meantime, staff at the transfer station are loading trailers outside the wall. This is a great deal more labor
intensive. I appreciate the the clerk's office and the city council helping us to get this on tonight's agenda for a first reading. We heard right before we came here tonight that the transfer station will be closed on Friday and we'll be putting that out on
our Facebook page and regular pages. In other concrete related news, DPW staff has made repairs to the city hall and they are open for business. Thank you to the staff of DPW for working on this project.
Mark Snow and Eric Torog are starting the property compliance meetings again where the where the committee that includes both building inspections and planning and health and public safety to look at properties around the city that
have had ongoing issues that should be addressed. The issues range from health code violations to abandonment. This is an important way that the city can work with property owners to bring the buildings into health and safety compliance as well as address properties
that have become real problems for the neighbors. We reconvened the library building committee to address some of the ongoing issues with the finalization of the library. Thank you to Carol Collins for identifying the issues that happened
during the initial installation of um solar. The sign is also an ongoing issue that we have been working on for over a year. There were multiple issues with that from the get-go. The protective box um was not weatherproofed so that the
equipment inside was open to the elements and much of the hardware um was not rated for outdoor use. Our IT department has been working on that and the plan going forward is that Lisa Perman is working with DA Sullivan to
design and in install a sign that works so we can finally make use make sure our library's fantastic events are more easily accessed. Um, I want to thank community volunteers,
uh, especially Don Morren and Maria Burge for organizing the Fridays on the common evening events. Um, this is a series of free events open to the public. They're familyfriendly and taking place. We have two more Fridays.
Um, and this Friday evening, I just heard just before this meeting, Councelor Garrett and I will both be judging the um the bike, stroller, and wagon parade. Thank you. Thank you so much. Um, that's this come this Friday
night and the last Friday evening will be the 29th. That's a vendor night. All of them start at 6 p.m. And I hope that folks will come down and check out these events. Um, we were honored to host Senator Marky in Greenfield last Thursday. The
senator toured our new fire station before leading a conversation focused on regional public safety um collaboration with regional emergency response leaders, our state delegation planners and community representatives.
Erin attended for me because I was visiting my grandchildren and she reported that it was a very productive conversation that will result in continued progress and much needed modernization and regionalization of Franklin County's dispatch facility and
system. One of the issues that was touched on was how we are facing a crisis in finding staff for municipal and public safety jobs. Greenfield Community College has started a fantastic program
training emergency medical technicians that consistently has waiting lists. Young people from Greenfield are attending this program and are hoping to spend their careers and lives in Greenfield. But the reality is that many of them cannot find a place to live as
our housing stock is critically low. So they continue to leave Greenfield and Franklin County. In the same vein, Erin and I both attended an evening with our neighbors in Bernardston and Leiden where they were discussing shared services and regionalization largely because they
cannot find employees who can find a place to live um or or municipalities that that can afford to pay municipal municipal workers a competitive salary. The housing crisis is now is now a
crisis that is impacting public safety, education, public works, manufacturing, and much more. Before closing, I want to touch on the Hope Street. Um, as I'm sure you're aware, a group of residents have submitted a a petition to the city clerk's office which asks that you
resend the 10 to1 vote that you made in July, which will allow the city to move forward with selling the Hope Street lot for development. I firmly believe that moving ahead with development of this property is the
right thing for our community. Restoring the Hope Street lot to usable condition for parking would cost the city a minimum of $400,000. That's a rough estimate by DPW just off the cuff on yesterday. My office worked
with our economic development and planning teams, Furcog, the Greenfield Business Association, the Franklin County Chamber of Commerce, and multiple other entities to best determine how to use that property. The decision was not
made lightly, nor was it made in a vacuum. The Secretary of Housing and Livable Communities presented the city of Greenfield with the Housing Hero Award earlier this summer, citing the use of
the Hope Street lot for more housing development as a fabulous and innovative plan. Just two days ago, the Lieutenant Governor and Secretary Augustus visited Greenfield to better understand the unique challenges that we have in
building new housing. You can't create more land. And the best way to build housing is on top of each other. We waited for this council to pass the zoning change before preparing this RFP
and attempting to stop growth in this community is an affront to the taxpayers. I am saddened and dismayed to hear those who oppose this development spreading rumors about what was planned. I am not and never have ad advocated for
lowincome housing on that lot. I have said from the beginning that I would like to see market rate housing, perhaps even condos with groundf flooror retail built in that location. Housing is one of the most critical needs in Greenfield. We struggle to fill
jobs in the schools, the DPW, and every other municipal department. Local businesses, including advanced manufacturing, are struggling to fill their jobs. And across the board, one of the major reasons cited is a lack of
housing. More housing, especially market rate housing, is a critical component to lowering the tax rate for our residents of Greenfield. I want to reiterate that my intention has been has never been to to place any
income restrictions on what housing is developed as part of the project. We need all types of development here. and I urge you to maintain your support of the project. Thank you. >> Thank you, mayor.
Questions for the mayor? Uh, councelor Bulock. >> Yeah. Um, I wanted to thank you for speaking to this. Um, I think it's really important to have your voice on the record since um, initially this request came from your office. Uh, and
as a counselor, I was happy in precinct 5 counselor was happy to support this. Um, and I also appreciate your welcomeness to joining into the process to design the RFP and talk about some of the safety issues that are happening in
that area. I'm wondering if you're able to share tonight any um of the ways that you envision that process moving forward. I know that the the vote we're talking about tonight, it does not hinge on that. So, we won't be able to speak to that process at all when we when we
get to that piece, but I'm wondering if you can share if there's been any thought about what community engagement would look like as we enter into an RFP process if this continues on the trajectory. So I just want to emphasize that for right now this would be on
hold. Okay. But as I think we said the at the last time that we met that it was planned to have to have at least another meeting with community members to see what things that they had wanted. Um I
did hear things last um last month about the parking and have already been up there perusing the sidewalks which people brought forward as an issue. So we are more than willing and and we'll be having something where we are meeting
with neighbors and concerned abutters. Um then the RFP will be written. As I'm sure you're aware, an RFP isn't actually written by a group, but um it will be taken into account all of the things
that people bring forward. You saw Amy Khillain here. She'll probably be the person that's writing that RFP and she is here this evening. if you have specific questions on that. >> Mayor, I had a question. I didn't see your hand. I apolog
>> I also want to thank you for addressing the Hope Street lot and I especially appreciate the information about the resurfacing of the lot uh costing $400,000. You know, obviously it's an estimate. I remember when the DPW lot was repaved, uh, Director Warner at the
time said the estimates ended up coming in much higher because asphalt prices rose and as we know, you know, things don't generally get cheaper. So, I just for the members of the public that $400,000 number is not necess is not going to stay there and it's an estimate and so it's very possible it could cost
more. Um the other piece of that puzzle as far as parking is concerned that I would be curious to know and I don't have access to this information is when it was an active parking lot. It would be interesting to know what the revenue for
that lot was because we have different ideas about what to you know if the city doesn't isn't able to sell this we have to make a decision about what to do with it. And for example we have a bunch of vans that need parking. you know, maybe that's going to be more of a cost savings than turning it back into a, you
know, commercial lot. So, if that information can be conveyed to us at some point, that would be very helpful just to be able to make a decision for the community, the community to be able to make a decision fully informed about what's going on. So, thank you.
I do want to say to that I I meet um every other week with the DPW director and and and assistant director and so that was an estimate and Paul Newell would be here next month to talk about the transfer
station floor. So um if you have further questions for him on that by all means. They talked about the reasons for the cost, the grading and clay and the utilities that were put in there for the temporary fire station.
Again, I shouldn't be explaining pavement, but I guess doing things around um utilities with manhole covers makes it more difficult or expensive. And you know, they could give you more information about that. And yes, we
could find out what the, you know, previously perhaps I could find that out. I can tell you offhand because I remember numbers. We used to make about $400,000 a year on the total parking in the city and now it's closer to $250,000.
So that's for all over the city. Um, so I think there were kiosks there before. Is that correct? Okay. So, you know, that would be a it would be a guess, but I'd be happy to to divide and give you a little estimate on
that this Okay, thank you. Um, you probably don't know the answer to this and I know when the DPW is back here, but I remember when we were working on the recycling grant discussions and I thought
somewhere in the recycling grant was some upgrades for the DPW station. So, is this out I'm just wondering if this is outside of what they were planning to do with the um single stream?
This was definitely outside of anything that was planned for within that. >> Thank you, councelor Bulock. >> Yeah, you just jolted my memory with the kiosk question. Um, but and before I forget, I just want to say a huge thank
you to the DPW. They finished the fence on Hope Street, which seems, you know, maybe it didn't matter to a lot of people, but that was really a um hazard in the neighborhood. And um I'm it's why I ran for council. So, it was to fix
that fence. And so, a huge thank you to Anna Alman who helped get the funds we needed for that and do a community survey and anyone else who did the community survey to get that done. And the DPW did really quick work. They were in and out of there. Um and it looks great. It's so much better than it's
ever been. So, thank you. Um, and so you jotted my my memory with the kiosk question because um, at this point, the last 48 hours has been pretty constant text messages, emails, phone calls from
people in my precinct regarding this issue. Um, uh, I've talked to 32 people, uh, since Sunday night about this. And uh one of the things that's been repeated to me multiple times in like a hush hush way
is that there is potentially a development that wants to come that there's a development in the Armory building that's going to build housing um market rate housing which we desperately need to happen in our city. Um but there's a parking issue that would happen there. And so there's a
desire potentially for that lot to remain a lot so that parking could go in there. And what I'm remembering now is that the we had the kiosk parking in there, but like after five that parking was free. And so there's just a question
I have about when we're looking at long-term planning for that. One, I guess, like have you heard that? And then two, I'm wondering um when we're looking at long-term planning, is that the type of thing that private residents would be able to park
overnight for free? So, the city would be resurfacing a lot at the expense of the taxpayer for a private developer to be able to have his tenants park potentially overnight. So, it's just it just when you said the
thing about the kiosk, it like jolted my memory that, you know, if you went to the Hope and Olive after 5, you could park there or the Y or whatever, that was free parking after 5 for the kiosk. And so, um, I'm just wondering if you've heard anything about that, the use of that lot for, um, parking for a new
development or if that's the type of thing, you know, if we were going to reinstate that as a parking lot, would we allow free overnight parking in it for residents or that type of thing? Or would we need to recoup the revenue
uh to maintain it? Because although I know the co now you're saying the cost of the resurfacing, but there's also the maintenance on that um and the upkeep, right? Like we have to now plow that every time it snows, de ice it, all of that type of thing. So, um, yeah.
>> So, I haven't I have not heard that and I did just get the name of the person and the telephone number of the person who is um working on the armory and I have not since I've gotten back I have not had a chance to call that person.
So, I really have no idea. Um, but I will find out. Um, I will just say that there's always spaces in the parking garage which we have just worked very hard to make clean and have a plan to do that. It was cleaned for
the first time a couple of month um, no within Yeah, a couple months ago and um, Joe Pugs and Central Maintenance have put it on. They're going to do it three times this year because it needed a lot of work. We put new lighting on October. It's going to be done again in October.
We put um you know increased lighting on Olive Street because we had a complaint about that and I've spoken to the to the police who are going through there more often so that we are really working on making sure that that's used more
because there's a lot of spots but I don't know what this developer is even I don't even know all of his plans but we'll find out. Councelor Healey. >> Yeah, I just kind of joged my memory. I thought we also had discussed that Mark
Zakio might have had a lot behind that he was maybe going to work a lease agreement out with the army building. Am I recalling that correctly? >> I think I recall that as well. But >> uh councelor Menhos. >> Thank you. Um, I just want to start off
by saying thank you for addressing this. Um, I don't want to demonize anyone on any side of this because I can see both of the perspectives here. One of the things that's brought up about parking by a lot of residents when they're concerned about this Hope Street
parking lot potentially being lost is how the parking garage that we have right now, especially considering our elderly residents and that number is increasing and how it's not the most accessible.
Um, is there anything if that lot doesn't uh stay as as parking that we can do as a city to make sure that it's a bit more accessible? One of the things that I've heard of potentially, and I know this could be costly, is if there
was some sort of a shuttle during specific times running from uh the parking garage to up Main Street cuz that hill I mean for like I mean I can go up and down it fine, but a lot of uh people that I've talked to uh it is a
serious concern for them and it stops them from coming into Main Street because parking itself on Main Street is hard for them. So, um, they try to use the garage, but that's that's a little difficult. Is there anything that we can do or any any discussions that, uh, the
city is having on this thing? >> Thank you, Councilman H. I haven't really had any discussions on that, and I definitely will admit that it it's it's uphill. If you go to when I'm coming from Furcog for a meeting there
and walking up the hill, I can't change the geography of it. Um, and but you know, as a senior who's had three back surgeries, I'm I'll definitely admit that it's it's definitely uphill. Um,
it's not it's not um it's not totally flat to get from that other lot to Main Street either, but you know, there was a parking study done and we have a lot of parking here and and if you ever want to have a fight with anybody, just talk
about parking. I've been at I I don't know that I actually want to be here when we're doing the main street um over because I'm afraid of like tomatoes being hurled. It's a tough issue and I feel like everyone in the world would like the parking space that's right in
front of the place that they're going. So, but we haven't done any research into like shuttles for uphill because, you know, you wouldn't know when somebody was going to need that. That's true. But, you know, as far as the accessibility
um you know that's the reason for that we would talk about accessibility is the that you know the incline I I didn't put it there but there it is so this is not a question more of a comment
we have Franklin County uh buses and Um, I don't see why if that were the case, we could work out a bus stop there for folks uh that runs on a normal schedule.
Um, so I I don't see that being a huge issue. And you know, there there are bus stops downtown. There's bus stops on on Main Street and then of course the last stop is always at the John Oliver Center. But
all right, I think we're wrapping up because we're going to talk about this a lot for the next couple of months, my guess. So, thank you, Mayor. as we've done periodically uh every month we try and have a different city department uh come up and and give us
some updates and our um director of the health department isn't able to be here but uh we have nurse Megan I'm going to say your name wrong Tyran >> Tudran >> Tedrin thank you so thanks for being here and we'd love to get an update on
what's going on in the health department and what some of your issues are right now and then we'll take some questions. >> Okay. So, um I think our our biggest change right now is that the bill SAFE 2.0 has passed. Um it's a new law that
um it puts guidance out for from the DPH to local health departments. It says that we are mandated to perform certain performance standards. We're going to have to report to the DPH every year. those performance standards. I'll go
through a bit of a list because probably nobody knows how much we really do. Um, one of them is environmental health and under that and that would be like your health inspector that would be doing that role and it would be um pool inspections, housing inspections, food, body art, tanning, um, title five perk
tests, burials, bathing beaches, camps for children, water supply and pollution. um indoor I can't see um oh indoor skating rinks, beavers, beaches and air pollution. Um so that's just what the inspector does.
Then we also have to do tobacco use and prevention, disease control and prevention, emergency preparedness, animal and vector control, maternal child and family health, access and linkage to clinical care, chronic disease and injury prevention. So, those
are the things that we are going to have to meet certain performance standards and report to the DPH. We um we do have a grant that is called the public health excellence grant that provides $487,000
a year, but we are and Greenfield is the host agency and we have to um work with Deerfield, Sunderland, Monagu, Lever, and Sheesberry. So, that money is to um support all of those towns right now. that money is going mostly to training
because with that safe 2.0, they made um new workforce development requirements. So, anyone who's an inspector now has to have a registered sanitarian license. They need a bachelor's degree to be able to even sit for that test. Um certified
health officer also need a bachelor's degree to sit to for the test and 30 science credits. um lead determinator, tier one through tier three, housing and food courses, soil evaluator, title five system inspector. Um there's there's a lot of things that that new inspectors
are going to have to do. So that's what we're spending most of our money on is the training part of it. Um we do have one health inspector that we share for the region. Um he's brand new so he is only capable of doing food inspections right now because to get all these
certifications um most of them will take at least a year to two years to get. Um some of them will take up to five years because of the degrees and things that they need. Um you can't even sit for your Title 5 system inspector until you've
worked for the health department for a year. So saying that um we are in a massive staffing shortage. Um, right now it's just Mike, um, the health director who works full-time and myself, who is technically for the city of Greenfield, I'm only the public health nurse and I'm
only supposed to be working 20 hours a week. Um, I am hired for 20 hours through the grant program um, as the shared service coordinator. So, I run that grant. Um, but with that, when we were short staffed, I just piled a ton
on my plate. I got a lot of training and I am now certified in almost all of those things that I said are required with the exception of lead determinator and I'll get that within a few weeks. Um so I've been helping Mike on inspections um because there's nobody else to do it. We've had an open inspector position for
over a year. Um another one or for a year another one that's been open since January. Um so there's really nobody to do the work except for Mike who's the director and then he has to go to all these other meetings. So staffing is our huge issue right now. We've had um the
positions posted for quite a while. Um we hold we we say that we want to hold interviews, but nobody shows up for the interviews. Um our wages are super low compared to other towns. Um we have a position posted for a health inspector right now. The highest pay is $20,000
less than what Ammeris is offering and they have an open position for the same thing right now. So, I don't see us getting any staff anytime soon. >> Thank you. >> I think Yeah, sorry. I think that that's our biggest issues right now.
>> Yeah, clearly. Um, counselors, any questions? Councelor Garrett? >> I know this is going to be a question that's might be hard to answer, but what kind of resources would you need to be sufficiently staffed for the city's needs? like if you know money is of
course an object but what how big is the gap between what we're offering and what we should if we're going to actually take care of the city's needs be paying >> I think um you would have to give your inspectors at least $20,000 more. Most
of the inspectors are getting $41 an hour or so. Um and we start at say 27 28 something like that. So it's it's a big difference. people are just not going to come here for that much less.
Um, and the other thing is, um, I would say offering some sort of stipend for school because a lot of the folks that live around here, um, who might want to do these type of jobs because they're messy jobs, they're
dirty. you know, going to watch a Title 5 is, you know, you're stepping in feces and things like that. And going into houses with bed bugs, they're not they're not clean jobs. Um, so it would be, you know, a sip to pay people to go and get their degrees would be another
thing that might entice people to come to us. >> Thank you. and thank you for doing this work in spite of all the challenges of uh being here. >> No problem. I really do love public health. It's it's fantastic.
>> It looks like no other questions. So, thank you so much. We appreciate the update and understanding more about the work you do. >> No problem. Thank you. All right. And I see John is back here. So, John, um, we'd love to hear, uh, updates since we haven't seen you a
little while. Good evening. Uh I'm here to talk a little bit about the north build update for GE set. We are working on putting the backbone fiber uh up that will allow us to power the entire area. Just a
refresher, we're going up Bernardston Road up to Seth Street where we go underneath 91 to what we call an LCP. That's our local convergence point which has all the switches and electronics
that will power the entire expansion. Uh from Severance Street, we go uh over the the train tracks uh where it becomes Log Plane Road. We then go up to Barton Road, all the way down Barton Road to Leiden Road, and then all the way down
Leiden Road to uh Nash's Mill Road. Last time was here, I talked about laterals. So, we pull laterals off of that. So that doesn't mean we're not going to be on the streets that we're not talking about now. It means you have to get the main backbone done so you can move the
data you need to get uh everyone lit up up there too. It's about a seven mile route, 300ish poles more or less. Um we have finished stranding which is putting the wire that holds uh the fiber up that has
to go first. We've done all seven miles of that. Um you I'm sure people up north have seen our trucks out and about for a while. Um that's something that we do in house because it saves a tremendous amount of money to use our labor where
we can. Um we have completed the essentially the eastern half of the fiber pull up Bernston Road that's gone all the way to the LCP. We worked with the contract partners for that. But then
we need to go back after and then lash that fiber to the strand. And it may sound like overkill, but you want these to last for decades. And they have to really be done correctly. It's poles, so
they have to be exactly to the inch where you have your license or that's a problem. So we do um get that all done. We do that inhouse as well. We'll save over well into six figures in the amount
of money it would take to contract this out and we need that for sustainability and we also have a really good outside plant team who can get that work done. Uh we've begun the process of configuring excuse me
um the local convergence point um which is essentially doing all the work to uh configure the machinery in the local convergence point. There will be at least a thousand homes up there. So the network has to be completely mapped out.
every point along the network has to be tagged so it can fit into uh the system we have when so we can properly route traffic to and from people's homes. uh that will be a lot easier now because one of the last things we've been
waiting for which was occupancy rights over the uh railroad uh that the railroad has monopoly rights to anything going across the bridge over their tracks and we applied about six months
ago uh and we finally did get um the processing of the uh application. So, we do have occupancy rights. It's in the system with the city. Now, that means we were able to get back in touch with our
contractor. So, we're finalizing the date in September to get the other side pulled. Um, that will include going, we will likely start down near Nash's Mill and pull northward up Leiden and then
across. And then while we're doing that, because we literally got everything done except the several hundred feet over the um railroad tracks because you have to have that in place. So we'll have that stranded and ready to go. Once that's
done, um the LCP should be mainly configured. There's some that we have to wait until the actual other fiber is plugged in to be able to do that. But um once that's done, there are hundreds of homes just
right off the backbone before we start um pulling any laterals at all. And we will pull and I'm talking about just an example, Grave Street on the east side and then Picket Lane would be an example
over on the west side. Um, and the we actually all of going out into the meadows for us is a lateral pole off of the main line. So, we're not talking about um backbone fiber going all the way out there because we don't need to
at that point. So, we've gotten a lot of things done. Our I will say we have a twoerson outside plant team and they've put in many many hours of work to get us to where we are now. We have no more
make ready finally in the uh backbone area. Getting the uh occupancy rights was the last bit of that. And we've also worked to the point where the last bits of make ready out in the meadows we
found workarounds and we're just done dealing and waiting for working with Eversource and Verizon because it's incredibly frustrating. So we will be finishing that up and uh start to pull
laterals and we'll connect people who are directly off the backbone first and there are people who are waiting to be connected. I think I said last time generally the laterals sort of spiral out from the LCP. That's how it works best. So, uh, and that that will take a
while and and instead of waiting to do the whole thing, we'll do a section and light it up and get customers set and keep moving on from there. Um, that's just sort of the basics of what we're doing. It's mostly outside plant work now. All the engineering work is done.
Um, I know you asked about the North Bill. Just really quickly, we're actually a little bit ahead of schedule at the Weldon, too. So, um, that's another grant that we're working with that, uh, we will be placing a, uh, we
negotiated an easement to place a poll so we don't have to do make ready. We're getting much better at just getting around the issue of make ready. So, we should be moving there pretty well. And where we do have to still do make ready
uh for the GAP grant for the even farther out sections. Uh we've developed really good relationships with the head of digital equity for the executive office of economic development and I have a good working relationship with the uh chief executive of the mass
broadband institute and they were able to put together a working group of us other MLPs who have the same issues with make ready that we do and we meet monthly with Eversource and Verizon for the grants and the state has been
terrific in putting more pressure on saying you have to be able to provide better dates. It can't take four years. The average now is four years for any make ready work to be done. So I really appreciate that and give a shout out to them and the division of local services
has helped out there too. So I think it's being widely recognized as an issue and and they've really stepped in to help and I think it really will help too. So, I'm very hopeful that the GAP grant make ready will move along a lot more quickly than it has in the past
because quite frankly, those people have a lot more juice than we do and that's what you need to get that done. So, uh that's a just a quick sketch of where we're at at the moment. A lot of implementation right now. >> Thank you, Councelor Gulip.
>> Thank you for coming and talking with us today. Two questions. One you might have mentioned this, but I'm I have this the area that you're speaking to in my mind, most of it is my precinct, >> and I don't think that I've heard you mention Green River Road or Country Club Road.
>> That's part of what I don't know. I I think of that as the Meadows, that whole area out there. So, it would be going up Green River Road. It would be uh Mary Potter Lane. It would be all the way up to um uh the development up there and a
little bit farther up Green River Road. That's part of that whole area. >> Okay. I wanted to make sure. And Country Club Road. >> Country Club Road. We will be going down Country Club Road. And one of the things we're doing is piloting some uh
underground installation because make ready has become so expensive that it's actually getting to the point where you can lay a conduit for almost the same price as you would pay for make ready. We spend a lot of time working with other MLPS
and we are going to pilot that. it. We will also first pilot uh fiber directly dropped to homes. The first place that we'll get that is the weldon. But if we're going to lay fiber underground in some areas, and it's a pilot, I'm not
saying that we're switching over immediately to uh burying all cable underground. Um that we would go directly to homes from there as well. So we will be going down Country Club Road. We do have to finish the backbone and
lateral stuff first. So that will come after that. >> So I I believe that Plantation Circle was one of those places. >> Yeah, we would go to it's >> And also if you if you go I'm sorry. >> No, we're thinking we're thinking
simultaneously. I think you heard my question, but just want to make sure. >> Do you have hope that Plantation Circle >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think that the the first stopping point will be when we get back to the railroad beyond Plantation Circle
because then population thins out a lot and we're just trying to be driven by going where there are the most houses in the beginning. >> So when can people sign up? >> Well, we're again we have to pull uh
next month we'll be pulling the other side. We'll be trying to configure after that. So this fall certainly um I'm just hesitant because it's take it's been a long project. It's taken a long time. It has and I want to make sure that we're
not telling people things that aren't true. But we certainly this fall should be signing people up on the back. >> That's great news. Thank you, >> Councelor Williams. And then I have Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. Thank you. I I appreciate the
complexity of uh this project. It's uh pretty amazing to me. Um but what I'd like to know is can you project how long it's going to be before all of Greenfield will have accessibility?
>> Uh that's as much a question of money as it is of time. Uh we do like any business need access to bonding to capital bonds so we can do some of the work we need to do. That's been a little hard for the last couple of years. So we
are going to come back and ask for some more bonding to expand. Um we do a lot of the work oursel but there is some work that we can't do. We've managed to replace bonding. We've gotten about $3 million worth of grants over the last
four or five years. uh and that helps a lot. But if we're going to get everywhere in Greenfield, some of that will not be able to be done through grants and we'll have to bond so we can buy capital equipment and
that's just how expansion and businesses work. And GET really does run like a business. So we have to be able to access capital to buy expensive equipment and pay it off over time. And when we get to the point where we can have access to bonding again, that would
speed that process up enormously. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure, >> Councelor Gordon. >> Thank you. Thanks for the update. Sure. >> Um I So I'm in precinct 2, kind of the other half of Northern Greenfield. >> Um and this is, you know, one of the
questions that I get the most often from constituents is is there any update on G set and when I'll have access, right? um as I'm sure you you well know and have experienced. Um and I'm wondering if there's a place where members of the public can go to see kind of the the
overall plan and you know what progress has been made and and kind of a broad I know you don't want to make promises that you can keep. I support that. But like you know just so people kind of know what's happening if they're not watching the recording of council meetings. >> We've been working on a page on our
website that people can go to regularly and we just haven't gotten it done yet. It's a busy time, but we do recognize that that's something that needs to be done and something we frankly need to do a better job of. So, we're going to work on getting a a big button on the
homepage that we are in the plan and and get to the point where people can see, you know, there's engineering maps. There's a ton of work that's gone into it and we should do a better job showing people. >> Yeah. I mean, I know you all are working really hard on that. I do think that
that would go a long way. I think it would be helpful and also just so people know that it really is advancing, right? That it's not just >> someday that it'll never come, but like no, it's really coming. >> Yep. No, I agree. >> Thank you. >> I agree, >> Councelor Healey.
>> Thanks for coming, John. Um, >> yeah, great things. I've seen Bill out there in the bucket truck working on those hot summer days. So, yep. >> Um, progress has been amazing >> driving by, seeing him out there almost every single day. Um, so thank you that. Um, another thing that kind of came up
was um the jail. Is the jail a current customer or plans? >> I I have spoken with the jail. They are still We left it that they were going to figure out sort of where they're at in terms of funding. We're very happy to um
I spoke with the mayor about this a while ago. Um, we can set up for the jail uh a VPN on what essentially you don't even have to leave our uh our network to communicate because the idea
is can the jail communicate with the police department and there is some work that needs to be done. They're very different systems. Um, and I'm waiting to hear back from the sheriff's office about sort of
they I know they have funds to commit. I've said you you need to tell us what that is so we can figure out what we can do to get going and we'll do a lot. We've added a lot of VPNs for different departments. We never charge the city for that. We think that's part of our
mission and we certainly anything on the police department side. We wouldn't charge anything at all, but we certainly would charge the sheriff's department. So, I'm waiting for them to sort of determine their sources of fun and then they have to expl to us exactly from
their side. We understand better from the police side working with uh Greenville IT what they need, but we're less clear on exactly what the sheriff's department is looking for. They may not be entirely clear on that themselves. So once we get that
information, we can we're at the point where we would be able to tie in with them reasonably easily. Another grant we're doing, the digital equity grant means we'll be completely redoing Elm Terrace. We'll be completely redoing Oak Courts. We'll be adding the Winslow,
basically all gha buildings in um the city where we will at least provide internet. They're still deciding if they want us to provide all the um ISP services for that, which is their call, not ours. Um, but we'll be in that area
and we could. So, we're just waiting to get a little more information. That's I mean the the north bill is a massive project. That's a lot easier. >> Yeah. And I will say I do like the the business plan of getting houses connected as soon as possible because then you're making revenue as you're
finishing up the project, right? So, >> yeah. >> Great job. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Councelor Gul. >> Yeah. Yeah, I quickly realized that I was remiss in not naming Light and Woods and I'm curious. I I believe that was another area that was hard to reach and
so I'm wondering it seems to me that in the digital equity work that you're doing that that is a location that needs to be prioritized. So I'm curious if that's possible. >> So Leiden Woods to the did not apply in the first round of digital equity. they
applied in cast. I can't remember if it was the second or third round. I do believe they have applied um that's a difficult location in that it has to be underground, but you go a couple inches below the dirt and it's
solid rock. So, they will end up asking for a very large amount of money. And I don't know yet. I don't believe they've awarded the round three digital equity grants. The grants we got are enough for
us, but the to all of the GHA combined would be less than half of what getting to just Lighten Woods would be in terms of the work required to put um any kind of significant underground
conduit in what's essentially a giant rock ledge. So that's the issue for us and for them. I know they've asked for it. I I just don't know if they'll get it. >> Okay. Well, thank you for any work that you can do. >> Sure. Sure.
>> Great. Thank you so much and so glad to hear that there's been a lot of progress since we last spoke. So, >> we are too. >> I'm I'm sure you are. >> Thank you. So, it's 7:34 and we're going to open up public comments. So, thank you everybody
for being here this evening and hopefully the all this other city business has been informative while you've been waiting and writing your comments for tonight. So, appreciate to have everybody here. Um, we're going to start with uh Vern Sun.
And just as a reminder, everybody has three minutes and um you push the button till it turns green and you have to say your name and street address or your city town. Burn Sun
81 81 Barton Road Greenfield Mass 131. I know what all you go through. I was a consulate for four years.
But um the main thing I'm talking about is the Hope Street condominiums. I would say um I live in Greenfield for 77 years.
that has been used as a parking lot and it was Cly Moving Company was there on the upper part by Prospect Street and um
the more you houses you put in that smaller space, it's going to instead of a town city. It'll look like um New York City or Boston or or Springfield. All the houses
will be right on top of each other. And I don't think as a town we need that because I I've lived here 77 years. There's plenty of houses for sale around
that people can move into and it might not be uh low rent, but you can always talk to l land landlord and maybe they can help you out. But
that's the main reason I'm against this. Now I I know what town counselors they got to flip. Do you want a head or a tail on the subject? And um Kathy knows who I am, but um
I I appreciate all the work you guys do because it's hard to make a so everybody's happy. And the best way to do it to find out how every
everybody feels is put it on a ballot. And um a lot of times you'll know how everybody in the town feels rather than just a few. And um
some of the things I had put on the ballot didn't go the way I did, but it helped the town. So um that's what I got to say. >> Thank you, Don Warren. Hello, Don Morren, 88 Hope Street in
Greenfield. So, I am here to talk about the future of the Hope Street parking lot. Um, I'm assuming that you guys are not going to rescend the vote that you did last month. And I'm not a referendum
expert despite what some people think. Um, so I don't know if that means it goes to ballot or not, but I haven't really seen this council prove to me that they're truly representatives of their constituents. So, I would be okay with it going to ballot because then
citizens can really represent themselves by going to the, you know, to vote. Um, and I'm here tonight actually more so just to have this on record and for the
public to hear um what I have to say. And I'm back to work, so you won't see me at any more meetings for the next until next summer. Um, but that doesn't mean I'm not paying attention and still watching. Um, I want to start out by saying
because I hate dirty campaigns and I can kind of already see where this housing campaign is going to go if it goes to ballot. Um, that back when the library and citizens had concerns about the library because
of financial reasons and the ripple effect that it would cost for the building of the fire, we were labeled library haters. Oh, we hate books. We're ignorant. And I just don't want this
campaign for the housing to turn into being labeled. Just because somebody might be against the housing on the Hope Street lot does not mean they're anti-housing. It doesn't mean they're being classist.
And so that being said, can we please, please run a clean campaign because nothing gets me fired up more than a dirty campaign. And you guys don't want to keep hearing from me, do you? Um, so the second thing I want to say is
I am a Hope Street business and um, homeowner resident. I live right there and I can tell you firsthand that residents and clientele from the businesses are vying for parking spaces in that neighborhood. Even the web building that has the big
parking lot, he has finally said enough and he's not letting people park in there anymore in our neighborhood as neighborhood parking lot. Um we have neighbors with difficult driveways, we have my business, we have his business and he's just done. Um,
and so if my Hope Street counselors want to state that they're they're not acknowledged that there's parking issues, then they're not being honest. Um, and if I'm being completely honest, your wife works for the Franklin Regional
Housing, and I do have an issue with that. I've been in that neighborhood for 38 years and you come in and you have this housing agenda and I feel like this sucks. >> Thank you. >> I have more but obviously my time's up. Thanks.
>> Thank you. >> I've got Emily Kuster. >> Good evening. My name is Emily Kester. I live at 87 Davis Street in Precinct 6. I want to thank um my counselor, councelor Patty Williams, for bringing the
resolution to support an act establishing a climate change super fund to your attention. The principle of the Make Polluters Pay campaign is simple. Those who make a mess should be the ones to clean it up. As both an early childhood consultant
and a parent of three, I can tell you that most four-year-olds understand this concept. It's similar to the tobacco company settlement of the 1990s and the more recent opiid settlement
um that were decided in the courts. However, in this case, Massachusetts and several other states are aiming to pass legislation to create a climate change super fund to enable the Commonwealth to prepare for the coming climate impacts
caused by the actions of fossil fuel companies. The state legislature needs to know that cities and towns support this action. For this reason, I ask you to vote in favor of the resolution to support an act establishing a climate change super
fund. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Next, I have Sarah Ahern. Sarah Ahern, precinct 8. Good evening, members of the city council. Um, I am here um as a former member of the steering committee that
helped create the opioid use and prevention commission. Um, I'm also here as the newly elected chair of the opioid use and prevention commission. Um, I'm here tonight to speak in favor of moving our opioid abatement funds into a special revenue fund.
This is a timely and important action that has been authorized by the Commonwealth. In December 2023, Governor Moore Healey signed Chapter 77 of the Acts of 2023 into law. Following this, the Division of Local Services or DLS issued a bulletin um which clearly
states that cities and towns can now create a special revenue fund for these monies. This change is crucial because once the funds are in this account, they can be expended at the direction of the chief executive officer, in this case the mayor, without further appropriation
from this body. The steering committee before the creation of the opiate use and prevention commission had discussed this new authority at length. We believe it is an essential step forward for our community. Placing these funds into a special revenue fund puts a decision-making power in the hands of
the people who are most impacted by the opiate crisis. It allows us to be responsive and agile in our approach to abatement, prevention, treatment, and recovery. Frankly, it also prevents us from having to come before this council and beg for every penny of our money. A process that
can be both time-consuming and retraumatizing for those who have already endured so much. By allowing the commission to manage the budget in collaboration with the mayor, you are empowering those who are on the front lines of this epidemic. A specific example of this autonomy came up recently with the dedicated burial fund,
which is a vital part of our mission. The commission voted to authorize both the commission and the mayor as the decision makers for that specific portion of the dedicated funds. This is a model that demonstrates our commitment to transparency and our ability to responsibly manage the funds to directly
serve the people of Cranefield. And we will have to obey the opiate settlement agreement, including accountability to the attorney general of Massachusetts for every set u excuse me, every cent spent. I ask you to vote in favor of this motion tonight to establish the special revenue fund and would like to
request that it be added that the funds could be dispersed by a simple majority of the opuse prevention commission pending mayoral approval. Thank you for your time and your for your commitment to our community.
>> Thank you David Singer. Thank you. My name is David Singer. I live at 41 Grenell Street here in Greenfield. I'm I'm coming here generally to encourage you to vote yes to get the measure to to vote yes on the measure that you voted on either a month or two
months ago and to place so that the measure will be placed on the ballot. I think it is important for this issue to be to go to the voters. Um there are many competing ideas out there. Two of the competing ideas that I've heard are housing and parking. And
um so there's now two and a half months for the mayor, counselors, and community members to explain to the public specifically what the plan is that you all have in mind. I would especially say this to the mayor. It was her
initiative. I look forward to hearing uh more detail about a proposed RFP, how she imagines uh what the housing would look like uh and what would be on that lot. I just want to say this, I'll I'll I'll
join with what Don Morren said. As we move ahead, let's keep the conversation on topic and not descend to personal attacks and innuendo as we go through this. Um, I also want to say that in a
small community, everybody's connected to some issue. So, your spouse, yourself, your children, your parents, you're all you're all you're all connected to something. And that doesn't mean that you have a conflict of interest. In many
cases, it means that you bring something to your position so that we can all learn what you know more than we do. And there's other members of each of the boards in which we all sit on that can weigh in against or contrary to what you
say. It's not your vote alone that um that moves the the measure. It's everyone's vote. So I would like to keep that out of the conversation if we can and just look at the merits of what people are saying. Um so that's my
that's my conversation about uh that the Hope Street issue. I'm also I would also like to say that I hope you will support Isaac Moss's resolution. Uh even though it doesn't have any weight and I'm not normally supportive of resolutions. I think it's it's it's it's a time gone by
already where these folks that work hard for the rights of criminals or rights of not criminals, rights of defendants, people accused of crimes, um get paid a fair wage. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm going to go to online.
And I have Edie Heinman. Edie, if you're there, you can unmute mute yourself. >> Thank you. That took me a couple minutes. Uh Edie Hinaman, uh precinct 641 Garfield Street in Greenfield. Um I'm here simply to add to the
conversation regarding the Hope Street parking area. I truly appreciate the efforts and the uh feelings of the neighbors in the in the neighborhood as well as the business owners. And I also
appreciate what I hear from the council members um to this date just in just in this short brainstorming session tonight. There are many great solutions that are yet to be discovered and can be
placed into the decision-making process regarding that particular area. I am in that area often for the Y for Hope and Olive for Salvation Store. I understand the parking and getting down Crescent
and Prospect Street is quite amazing. I sympathize with the neighbors, but I think that with adequate listening power, I'm glad to hear there'll be another open meeting or a meeting with the neighbors. And I have full trust in
this council from what I've experienced and observed over the year that all good possibilities will be considered and maybe even not so good possibilities, but it will engage a process that will make this area in the future
uh one that's more than satisfactory for all of us in the town using the businesses and living in the area. It's hard with the complexities that we live with now to foresee something truly positive, but we've got great developer
minds and I see that the council uses them and I'd like to see that happen with this issue. So stick with it. Uh housing I think is a bigger issue. That's my personal opinion than parking. Um, especially since I've tried to park
in major metropolitan areas and I know what it can be like to live in that nightmare and we don't want that for Greenfield. But we have to accept that populations grow and one car families become three car families. So, thank you
for your listening to my comments and good luck to you with this issue down the line. >> Thank you, Maria Burch. Good evening everyone. I'm here on a lighter note. As many of
you know, >> did I get your I'm sorry. I got to get >> I'm sorry. Yes. Uh Garfield Street, Greenfield, Precin 6. Um, as many of you know, I am a Vietnam era
veteran of the Marine Corps and I am happy to share that my new priest is a Marine Corps veteran and he asked me to come and um, you know,
present a proposal that he has. Um, Father John Williams, the parochial vicor of Blessed Trinity Parish in a Marine Corps com combat veteran, respectfully asked the city of Greenfield to organize a 5K walk run in
honor of our veterans on on the early afternoon of Sunday, November 9th. While the parish cannot be the direct organizer, it could provide volunteer support similar to the past Fourth of July events at the Federal Street campus.
Veterans of Greenfield would be welcome to attend the 11:00 a.m. Sunday mass at the Blessed Sacramento Church on November 9th. This invitation would be extended to all parishes in Franklin County. He thanks you for your
consideration and is happy to speak further to anyone who may have any questions. Now, I added I suggested that if we're going to have this 5K, we could probably challenge all the other
branches of um and I challenged the city to um have a representative from each department if they have a veteran in their department or even if they don't, they have a family member or whatever.
I have dedicated a lot of my recent years to provide support to the veterans. Um I am a trained um uh not I can't remember the hold on a second here. I'm having one of those
after 8:00 p.m. I'm sorry. um super suicide prevention uh counselor for the veterans in the rural areas and you know I I I am passionate about working with veterans and I think that
this challenge is really would be a lot of fun to have all the other branches you know um run this race. It's a run and walk or pull, you know, push the um uh wheelchairs.
So, thank you for your time and if anybody has any questions, please reach out to Father Williams at Bless. Thank you. >> Thank you, Isaac Mass. Good evening. Uh, I want to thank you
all tonight for considering the resolution on the crisis in the courts. And I'm so glad that I'm not here every month like all of you. Thank you for all the work that you do. Uh, I want to let you know that >> Did I get your I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Yes. Isaac Mass, 248 Green River Road. Thank you. >> Um, I want to let you all know that you
have already had an impact just by considering this resolution. Um, you're the first city council in the Commonwealth to start the process of considering a resolution like this, but last night based on your consideration, the city of Cambridge passed similar resolution. I know that about half a
dozen other cities are having similar resolutions introduced based on that passage. That that notice came today. And there has been uh the this you may be aware that the legislature did pass a $10 increase for bar advocates, but I can assure you that the situation has
gotten far worse since that happened. As of today in the city of Quincy in North Oak County, which had not been an impacted county, um none of the defendants who were arraigned today could get counsel because the four bar advocates who were taking work in that
city had all reached their 250 case maximum. To give you a comparison, we regularly won't take cases when we're between 45 and 50 cases here in Franklin County. So that is a a tremendous the good work really can't be done at that
level. Um sitting where you are what I primarily want to address is sort of the virtue signaling nature of resolutions that I I was always as a counselor opposed to sort of things that didn't have a real impact. Um but I want you to
understand that this resolution does have a real impact and it does directly affect um the what happens with the city. That's why, by the way, I should recognize and thank councelor Bulock and councelor Golop who were instrumental in putting this before you. This really
does have an impact because the bar advocates who work around the Commonwealth, there's several thousand of them, but they appear to be not a real constituency. They're not they they don't collectively bargain. They're not part of a union. They're not organized
in any way. There's no association. There's no infrastructure for them to speak to their legislators. So legislators think that this issue is a couple of cranky lawyers who are worried about how much they're paid. But it has a real impact on the city and the work
that you do. You spend over $3 million to keep the c the the city of Greenfield safe through our police the budget. And I can tell you the Greenfield Police Department does an excellent job. They really do. But part of that, part of
their work requires there to be a defense attorney to provide due process to protect people's rights. Um because they don't always get it right and they don't always have all the information. They're putting doing the work that they can with what they have. Um when people
it's not just a matter of cases um where people are denied access for counsel being let out on the street. It's not just a case of cases being dismissed without prejudice. The delay that takes place and we are seeing delays in Franklin County where people are going
without time. And if I can just get 30 seconds more um when when cases are delayed just delayed justice is justice denied not only for the victims but also for people who are accused of crimes because they're not able to get the
evidence that they need to pro protect themselves going forward. Thank you so much. I appreciate your consideration. >> I'm gonna go online to Susan Warft. >> Thank you, counselors. I'm Susan Warft. I live at 45 Forest Avenue in Greenfield. Um you've heard heard me
talking about housing many times. I'm not going to reiterate um chapter and verse of what I've said before. I just want to ask you to go with the um vote that you had in July. That is a
statement of the fact that we do need to be able to look at the hope hope street lot as being something that will take care of a small piece of the very large um deficit we have of housing
right now. Um we have um we have less than the number of houses than the number of houses we need for the people who who presently live here. We're not talking about bringing people in. And secondly, um I think the the parking
issues are are possible to be dealt with in in that neighborhood through some engineering, traffic calming, and some other issues that I think the city is beginning to think through. And um I understand the issue, but I think that we can work on it and I think we can
make it work for everyone. This is also an issue of taxes. Um, if this is an issue for every single person, renter or owner of housing in this area, if we do
not figure out ways to develop and support the growth within this community, we cannot have the fire department that we need. We cannot have the police department that we need. We can't pay the health department people that we need the money that they should
get. we have to think this through and we have to look at this more broadly. Very frankly, a parking lot is not going to give us any taxes. So, I ask you to support the um once again the resolution that you did in July and I appreciate
your time. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Back in the room, we have Carol Lutson. Good evening, Carol Leon, 29 Allen Street, Pre Saint 3. And uh I'm very happy to be able to speak with you again
on the same topic, which is uh for um Hope Street Lot. And uh for several years, maybe three years now, I've been advocating for housing on that lot. and I am so eager to see it come to the end.
The uh vote that the council took is very much appreciated. Um thank you for your work and uh on the code amendments including a new chapter for a downtown
parking benefit district which will um wait a minute, I'm reading the wrong side of my notes. No, I want to applaud another action of the city council when you approved the former parking lot on Hope Street to be designated for additional housing. I
have been enthusiastically in support of this plan for several years and have attended other public meetings to speak in support of this idea which will augment housing options for area employees. We have employees.
Well, we heard earlier this evening that many agencies can't uh attract employees to come to Greenfield. Um, one of the things might be that the cost of housing here and the limited housing here is
difficult for people to uh navigate. Greenfield needs more housing for our employees. and thank you for your recent work on this and I look forward to hearing the completion of the final
project. I'm happy to be here tonight to speak to you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Pamela Goodwin. Good evening, councilors. Uh Pamela Goodwin, 54 High Street here in
Greenfield. Um I want to start by saying that I fully support the resolution that um attorney mass just spoke with you about. I think it's really very much needed. I also um want to echo what David Singer just
said. Um, I have lived at this age of 77 through two church splits. They are not fun. It's always us versus them. It's a horrific experience. And I feel like that's what's going on
here with, you know, parking versus housing. Um, and I have been a member of the housing green field for six years since I have moved back here from the eastern part of the state. I do know of a couple who was just evicted. She has an impairment.
The landlord said, "I want you to get out. I'm going to fix the downstairs apartment and I want to charge $3,000 for that apartment right on Union Street. People are still becoming unhoused. The mayor put me on the ad hoc for the
unhoused. I'm in the process of along with some other people doing a survey. What are you looking for as an unhoused person? They want a roof over their head to be blunt. They also don't want to be in a shelter because some of them know
what that's like. A few of them have lived in a house run either by cso or service net and they don't they can't be there anymore. They chose that for their opinion um it was unsafe. So there's all kinds of housing needs
and I have always said it can be low income, it can be low low income. The state house talks about low low income, highend income, all of that. I did all of that for a long time on the state level and and don't want to even go
there as far as housing things for the most part except for one state group. Um I tried to unfollow everything Greenfield. It drives me nuts and it's still there and I don't want to ever
look at it. I don't want to ever see it. I don't People said, "Oh, you just don't go there." Well, I don't want to be on Facebook anymore because of this horrific back and forth, constant fighting that people do on everything Greenfield.
I'm going to go to other Greenfield groups if I can figure out how to get rid of that. I thought if I unfollowed, I shut my phone off, I'd be done. It's right there at the very top. And it's never fun. It is always horrible on
who's saying what about everything. It drives me crazy to be honest. I love Greenfield. I have always loved Greenfield, but now I want to go live in a small town somewhere with like three select people and a town manager, and I'm
forced to stay right here. So, thank you for your time. I know this is not fun and I don't like anybody attacking anybody either. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Back to online. Uh Nikki Garrett.
>> Uh yes, thank you. Um and thank you counselors for all of your hard work. I know uh as everyone has said, it's not easy. Um and I appreciate your time. So, uh, I'll try and be brief tonight. Um, I'm speaking because I'm concerned about
if and when the Hope Street issue gets Oh, I'm sorry. I realized I didn't say my name. Nikki Garrett, 93 Hope Street. Um, I'm concerned about if and when the Hope Street issue uh gets on the ballot this November. Um, that when it's important to me that the public knows
what they're voting for. Voting to resend the council's vote and to prohibit the mayor from selling the lot is not just a vote against having housing on that lot. It's a vote to tie the city's hands. It's a vote to remove the community engagement process that would be guaranteed with an RFP. It's a
vote to limit the possibilities for this vital downtown parcel. It's a vote to perpetuate an ugly heat island that takes away from the charming character of Hope and Prosp Hope Street and Prospect Street. So, as our city councilors, I urge you to be clear with your constituents about
what this vote really means. Our the future of our city depends on it. And lastly, to my neighbor Dawn, I would deeply appreciate if you spoke with me directly about my employment with the housing authority before you bring me into your public comments. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And last, we have Wisty Roarbacher. I don't have you on the list. >> I don't need to speak. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I got it. >> Wendy, you can come up. >> Thank you. Wendy Goodman, Green River
Road. I want to really thank you guys. you are in the middle of really challenging times with really challenging questions and um I just really appreciate all of you. I do not envy any of you. That said, um I
appreciate what David had to say. He always speaks wisdom which I appreciate sharing. Um, one of the pieces that I was listening to about the parking is years ago there was a study about how we've built for parking and we've built
for cars and we haven't really built for people. So I just think about like what is the future? Are we all going to have as many cars as we have now? And that's I so that's just what I was thinking of when I came and when I heard this whole
discussion and I really encourage you to consider what kind of future we're bringing especially since we're tearing down the present so much. Um the other piece is Patty Williams resolution. Um I encourage you to support it. I think it's really important that we hold
people accountable and get the funds to take care of our environment. And I also want to support Isaac Mass's resolution because I think that that is so important. You know, for folks that don't have to deal with the legal system, we don't really know the level
of work that they do, but it is criminal the amount of money that they're making for the kind of work they do. So, please support all of it. And again, thank you so much for your service and thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. And thank you everybody for
being here tonight and for making your views known. We will really appreciate it. Adds to our conversation. So, um, we're not at the break moment, even though it feels like we should take a break. If if it's okay, let's keep going, council. Okay, >> great.
>> President, um, at the chair's discretion, I'm wondering if, um, I can make a quick uh a quick comment about um
specifically about the way that uh people are personally attacking one another in recent uh times over the last week. >> Uh I just want to make sure we're not in
open meeting violation. I know there's times that public by during after public comment there's limited response or at the discretion of the chair um you know you can't have a debate or that type of thing but followup is is allowed
>> allowed >> um I obviously didn't plan this but I there's three times over the last week that I've experienced um volunteer uh PE
people who volunteer a lot of their time for the city be publicly attacked um and to a point of like even have a a hit piece out on them potentially. Um, and there's a couple things specifically
I want to say about this. One is that it's that's dirty to bring your neighbors, to bring your the people who are volunteering in a government that's mostly volunteerrun
um, personally uh, to drag them is disrespectful. Um, and the only other thing I want to say is that we have many seats that were open this
year uh for city council. And personally, I can say that the reason I wasn't going to run uh was because of some of the ways that people have spoken about me in public and the lies that have been repeated about me and the way
that my children have had to deal with these things in public. And so, if you want to complain that we don't have people running for city government, you have to think about the way that you're treating those people in public, uh online, uh in the newspaper. Um, and the
last thing I'll say is that regarding the opioid abatement funds, um, personally I have recently been dragged and I want to thank Sarah for the public comment you gave today. And there's, um, similar to some of my colleagues recently who there's been this
underlying uh, conspiracy theories about why people do the volunteer work they do in the community. that has been being said about myself that um the reason that I took part in the opioid abatement funds was because I was going to get
some kickback of funding which is ridiculous. there's, you know, the no government writes a check to an city council, whatever. I'm Anyways, but what I want to specifically say about that is that the reason that I do that work is
because I care and I don't care because it's connected to my income. What I care about, and I when I sat here and I was thinking about this, is that I care about the fact that on December 27th, one of my lifelong best friends
overdosed and died. I care about that there's actually I wrote it down when I was sitting here, not one month that goes by that there's not someone that I've known who has died from an overdose over the last 20 years. people that I've worked with, people that I'm related to,
people that I've loved for many, many years. And so that's why I do the work that I do. And we are going to lose good people in who would do good work in this city because they can't take
being torn down anymore. So I just respectfully ask that if we don't want to run dirty campaigns, nobody runs the dirty campaign. Thank you. I I see councelor Menhas has his hand up, but it's I don't want to open this
up to a discussion. So, if you have one comment, I will take it, but if it goes beyond that, we're going to stop. >> Yeah. I I'd just like to piggyback on on councelor Bulock's uh comment there and say we can disagree with each other and
the one possible disagreement I would have is if someone sitting on the board the public has a right to disagree with them but like that previous comment that was just made about uh councelor Garrett's family member that's like that's not okay that's not needed you know just we can we can debate the
merits of of um our positions, but let's let's try to refrain. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So, our next order of business is a public hearing and second reading of which there are none.
So, we're going to next go to motions, orders, and resolutions. Um and the first order business is rescending order number FY26. Um, can I have counselor? >> Councelor Wandleski, could we please take a break for five minutes before we go there?
It's 8:20 and we've been sitting here for an hour and 50 minutes. I think that would be really helpful. >> Thank you. >> Okay, sure. So, we'll take a five 10 minute break. >> Recording stopped.
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] All right, folks. I think we're done with our 15 minute, five minute break.
>> So, I just want to acknowledge that councelor Minhos as well as councelor Williams are back online for the public. So, we are ready to roll. Okay. So, our first order um is the rescend
order and councelor Healey. >> Order number FY26-033. City Council moved that it be ordered pursuant to the Greenfield City Charter section 7-8A that the following order number FY26-00001 A2 approved by the council on July 16,
2025 be rescended that the Greenfield City Council authorizes the mayor to sell 53 Hope Streets Map 52 lot 25 pursuant to the city council policy for the sale of city-owned land and authorized the mayor to execute all documents necessary to accomplish the
same. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. So, before we enter into any discussion, I just want to ask um Clerk Scott to explain why we're here right
now and then if we vote yes, what that means and if we vote no, what that means, just so everybody's really clear what's in front of us to the best of her ability. There have been a lot of emails with lawyers and other folks. Um, and I can't follow them
all sometimes. So, the order before you is because of the council vote last month to sell the Hope Street parking lot or to authorize the mayor to sell the Hope Street parking lot. There was a
group of citizens who got together and under Charter 778, hold on, I got to admit somebody from the waiting room. There you go. Um, a group of citizens got together and put a petition together. They collected the
proper amount of signatures, which was a minimum of 430. You can read the charter to find out all the ins and outs. was based on the last bianial election and how many people voted in it. The number 430 was given to
them. They exceeded that number. We certified 512 voter and resident voter signatures on that petition. There were signatures left uncertified because we didn't need to do that.
Um, the charter outlines the process that this vote is one of. The charter outlines the process for the council to have the option to resend their vote. If the council resends their
vote under this order, then there doesn't need to be a ballot question on the November ballot. If the council does not resend their vote,
the charter says that the council shall place the ballot question on the November ballot for the citizens to vote on. the form of the ballot question that is in this packet that is not currently on
the floor for the council consideration. But the council has to vote the form of the question which is also prescribed through our charter under 77G. The form of the question again as
prescribed by charter has been approved by the attorney. It is similar to the ballot question that went before the voters regarding the library. That's why the form that this is in
was approved by the attorney and it also follows the charter. I'm rambling. Um, we asked the attorney to ensure that if the ballot question went on the November
ballot that it would be binding. He said yes, it would be binding. And I think that's all for now. >> Okay. U the vote tonight that is before you that's on the floor sorry to rescend
is a majority vote. What this vote does if you were to vote in favor of it would be to resend the vote for the to authorize the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street. So if you want to resend your vote, you would vote yes.
If you want your vote to stand in the question to be placed on the ballot, you would vote no. Although we might not want our to go on the ballot, but that's what happens. Yes.
So, um, councelor Perry. >> So, I'm the one no vote. If I resend my vote, I'm rescending my no vote. It's rescending the council's vote, not your personal vote. >> The council's vote.
>> You said you I I misinterpreted what you said. You as the council. >> Yes. >> I apologize. >> I think council master >> Oh, councelor Master Toro, did you have a question? >> Yes. About I'm just reading this off
page and you tell me. >> It's page 24. A yes vote. No, this is page 21. >> 24 is a ballot question. >> That's a valid question. Page 21. >> Okay. >> See?
Any other questions about the mechanics? other discussion. Councelor Golib. So, I'll first ask my colleagues to forgive me for repeating a story that I've shared before, but I imagine that people from the community may be listening and will soon face the
decision about how to vote on this. So I want to share what's coming to my mind as I am going to vote no to rescend and yes in November. Um, so when I was running for precinct when I after I was appointed, I was running for precinct
one and I went around and I knocked on all the doors of all of the um frequent voters in municipal elections. And I asked them the question, what issue matters the most to you? And like I've said many times, the two issues that mattered most to people were educational
funding and taxes. They were about tied. So I because I tallied up the numbers and I trust that many of my colleagues will speak to the taxes issue that has been named many times but close second was a longing amongst my constituents
for a thriving downtown. Most of my constituents are older than me. Most of I've lived here 13 years. Most of my constituents have lived here uh longer than me and they have a nostalgia for the days of J. C. Penies and Sears and Wilson's. And I heard about t-shirts. I
heard about underwear. I heard about socks and towels. And while I told them I can't this, I have very limited power to bring back department stores or options for purchasing textiles downtown. I promised them that I would do everything in my power to build a
thriving downtown. And in the last three years that I've been on council, this is the most significant opportunity that I have to uphold that promise to them. And it is a very clear in my mind uh it
is a very clear choice we have for that lot. It is not hyperbole that it would cost upwards of $400,000. Couple years ago we needed to vote on paving the portion of the parking lot
behind Greenfield's Market that the city owns. We delayed that in order to attempt to fund our schools. We had that that difficult decision. That lot cost $75,000. So the size of the Hope Street lot to
repave that and make that a parking lot is is an ex upwards of $400,000 or more. Given the fact that we know that we have a surplus of over of about 45% of
surplus of parking at peak hours. It would not be diligent on my part to vote for that paving. So either this lot is likely to be an empty lot which does
not contribute to a thriving downtown or we have an opportunity to see what creative solutions are available to us. And it is inaccurate when people say it will definitely be luxury condominiums or it'll definitely be low-income
housing or it'll definitely look like New York City. That is inaccurate because the truth is that what we are voting on and what the city will be voting on in November is to enter into a process of of putting out a request for
proposals with community engagement to see what is possible and to make the best possible decision based on the creative solutions that we can generate. And so either we have this empty lot or
we have probably new housing which was also an issue that many people told me about. People want a place for the kids to live housing income from taxes and a thriving downtown. So to me, the choice for the good of the whole and that project can
can include and will will include because we will be paying attention parking for that location and s sufficient parking. That is within our power. So I will be
voting no on reciting my vote and I will be voting yes for Hope Street in November. And I hope very much that my neighbors in this city will see that very clear choice. And I also want to say that because this is not going to be
a parking lot. Again, we will not be funding a parking lot. The images in the recorder of the parking lot are misleading. I don't know if it is deliberately disingenuous or if it is just misguided, but to continue to have
those images misleads people because that is a the past image of the place. It is not what is going to be there in the future. So, please take that into account. Councelor Perry,
>> everybody knows my vote. I had nothing to do with the petition. I was kind of surprised to tell you the truth to see that petition. I didn't see that coming. It surprised me. But I just want to remind everybody to be very very very very very
careful because we heard tonight from a lot of el speakers talking about uh and even you tonight councelor Bulock talking about how uh divided the town can be, how divided people can be, how
people are frustrated and hurt. and we had 512 verified signatures and I heard somewhere that was over 780 people who signed those petitions. If we decide that we're not going to resend the vote, we're telling people that we
know better than you. And so I just believe on principle alone we should let it go to ballot and let the people decide. I'm guessing that the ballot question for Hope Street parking will
fail probably by about 6040 at least. So there's it's hope sheet parking lot is not going to pass. People are going to vote for housing. But we should give them that opportunity to do that. we can wait two and a half months for people to
decide what is best for Greenfield and not let u the reputation of this council pay the price because we felt that we knew better. >> Thanks. >> Point of clarification. I just want to
make sure that everyone knows what we're voting on that there are two distinct votes. >> Can you maybe repeat that if that's if that's helpful? because right now we're voting on whether to rescend our vote and next we will vote on whether to send it to the ballot. So those are two different
>> Okay, >> I think we're I think we're set. Thank you. >> Councelor Bullock, >> that that was a sheepish hand raise too. Um okay, there. Yeah. I also just want to
be clear that if we rescend our vote, this does not go to ballot. If we res vote, if we vote to rescend our vote for that we made last month, it does not need to go to va ballot because it's rescended. So if we don't rescend our
vote, then it does have the opportunity to go to ballot and go to the people, which is I'm happy for it to do. Um, so I'm I am going to stick by my vote. And I want to say that I actually heard from about a dozen people
who signed the citizens um initiative who said they don't actually agree that the land should remain a parking lot um and that they do want housing, but they believe that it should go to the people.
So they signed for that. And I I respect that that stance a lot. Um I want to be clear and have it on the record that um in you know in the last week I received uh 27 emails in favor of
um keeping the vote as it is and for the the RFP to move forward. Um, I also want to be clear that uh something that councelor Golib said, right, is that there's no done deal that we rescend
this uh and it becomes a parking lot, right? It could become a pickle ball court. It could become a public pool. It could become a dog park. We could a community center. Like, what do we want to invest in in that area of town,
right? There's many things. Personally, I support this idea of housing. I and commercial. I would love another cool place to walk to in my neighborhood. Um, but I do think that anything there's going to be people who don't want
anything we want to put there, right? There's people who don't want a parking lot. There's going to be people who don't want anything. Um, I want to be clear that the people that I heard from this week, I heard from um, three different business owners. I heard
from two people who teach in our public schools who've had an issue finding housing in this area uh, and have had to commute. Um, I heard from five parents uh, who all expressed dismay. Uh, and this is all in precinct 5. And of the 27
emails that I received, um, 11 of those were from precinct 5 members that were in support of this, um, just in the last day. Um, and the parents that I talked to about this were speaking about the fact that this year we as a city council
were not able to successfully fully fund our schools. And so we are told that one of the reasons we're not fully funding our schools is because we're seeing declining enrollment. But then we are not allowing people to move here. I
spoke to a friend of my my sons who um they moved here from out of state a few years ago. They were not able after many months to find a house on the market and were had to find an off-market house to buy. Um and were lucky enough to do that
before the school year started. that they had started looking months in advance for that. Um so I am going to keep my vote. The last thing that I will say um is that all it took for me to get the answer of
like can I be involved in helping create these community meetings, shape the RFP, talk about these specifics was to message the mayor and to email the economic development department of the city. That's all it took, right? I didn't have to put anything in
everything green field. I didn't have to blast anybody in public comment. I didn't have to anything. I just had to go directly to the source and say, "Can I be a part of this?" And the answer was yes. Um, and there's been a lot of good ideas that I've heard when as I've been
talking to people over the last few weeks, some of them are that actually there should be three more handicap spots in that area. So regardless of what happens when this goes if this goes to ballot, um I do think that we're that for precinct
5, we're in a generative time where there's ideas for that area that are coming out that are really good ones. Um but yeah, and I the last the last last thing I'll say is that there's been a lot of
misinformation. So when I talked to people over the past few weeks, especially when I was getting signatures um myself, everybody, the narrative everybody has is that this is public housing. Public housing is going there. Public housing
is going there. Public housing is going there. That's actually not anywhere stated that that's what that that's what is happening. Um as much as I would support public housing in my neighborhood, um it's not uh what's happening there. And so, um, I just
think that for that to be the narrative that has been used that people have latched on to to be in opposition of is concerning, especially since we live in the poorest county in the state. um we
have, you know, an area median income of $53,000 while at the same time the the median house price is $330,000. So housing is unattainable for more than 30% of the people who live
here because those people live in poverty and the numbers higher if you have a kid under five. So, it's disingenuous to say that people do not need housing here. Um, and I will do
whatever I can to push forward responsible housing in Greenfield. And as someone who's lived on Hope Street for 15 years and has now talked to many neighbors, I think that this is actually what people want. And we'll find out if it goes to ballot for sure.
Councelor Bottomley. >> Um, I'd like to echo some of what the counselors have said so far and at least talk a little bit, probably not as eloquently as the other counselors about why this is so important to me. Um,
because we talk about housing, you hear housing, housing over and over again and it it starts to lose meaning because we're actually talking about people and whether we have wealth or not, we all strive to provide for ourselves and our families. And housing is absolutely essential for that. Anyone that's moved
to the Pioneer Valley in the last decade knows how difficult it is to find housing. Even my students at UMass, some have to um commute 40, 50 miles because that's the most affordable apartment they can find. So, this affects every level in the Pioneer Valley. So, I fully
support creating housing on the Hope Street lot. Uh the voters of Greenfield certainly have a right to vote this opportunity away. Um, but I urge the public to not be sucked into fear-based messaging, personal attacks, and
predictions of doom. This is a tremendous opportunity to increase our tax base, help revitalize downtown, and welcome new people to our city. Thank you, >> Councelor Garrett, and then councelor Gordon.
>> I'm going to go back to my uh comfort zone here and quote with Declaration of Independence. Um, so we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and down by the creator with certain nail rights. Amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I'm going to skip ahead several paragraphs because
you don't want to hear the whole declaration of independence. And there's a line here that I always think about which is all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to write themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. And as councelor Bottomley and other folks have
said very articulately, we have an opportunity and there to make changes to our city. There's a housing crisis going on currently regardless of whether we want to believe it or not. And it's extremely difficult to pursue your happiness if you don't have a roof over
your head and you don't have your health and you don't have the ability to take care of yourself. And so regardless of the way this vote goes in the fall and the voters have every right and I'm grateful frankly to even the people that knocked on my door and discuss with me why they wanted me to sign that
petition. You know, I got to know some neighbors better and I got to get some respect for some of the things they've gone through their lives. It was lovely. You know, he thanked me for my service and I'm positive that this person that I discussed with will be voting the other way on the ballot. But that doesn't matter because I know my neighbor
better. And so for the rest of the time I'm on this council, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure people are able to pursue their happiness. And that means their basic needs are taken care of. And the most basic need is a home. Period. You know, it doesn't matter how
long you live in this community or not. You deserve to be here if you want to be part of here. And we should welcome you because that's what makes communities better. That's what makes this country better. And we should go to basic principles including decency but also including understanding that everyone has equal value regardless of who they
are. >> Councelor Gordon, >> my colleagues have said a lot of things that I could not agree more with. Um so I'm not going to repeat those points. Um but you know I do want to say thank you to everybody who came and and spoke on
this and has been reaching out. I've also received dozens of emails about this. Um, and in fact, I've received emails and communication the whole time that I've been in office and and when I was running also specifically talking about the need for housing. And you know, it just could not be more clear
that this is a really important issue. So, I urge everybody to come out in November if and when this is on the ballot to demonstrate how much you do care about building more housing in Greenfield. Um, and I will just say, you know, if you handed me half a million dollars, I would not spend it to build a
parking lot. Um, I wouldn't even repave my own driveway first thing. And it actually really needs it. Um, and if we had an extra half a million dollars suddenly appear, you know, in the city budget and we held a a public vote on how to use it, I can't imagine that the
number one choice would be a parking lot. Um, you know, because that that parking lot actually benefits a relatively very small number of people in this city. Um, and you know, imagine I'm just imagining what else we could do with that money. Uh, we could invest in
our schools, which you know, had a big budget shortfall this year. Uh, that benefits all of Greenfield, that benefits the children and families across the city. We could hire more health inspectors, as was noted earlier, which benefits everybody in town in visceral ways. um you know, but no one's
going to hand us half a million dollars. So, the best that we can do is make sure that we're spending the money that we do have wisely. Um and I know change is hard. I I understand that people are really attached to the neighborhood that they live in. Um and you know, miss some
things about how it was before. And we really have to weigh all of the factors um and invest green fields really precious limited resources in smart and sustainable ways for the benefit of the whole city. Um and you
know if we sank half a million dollars into a parking lot somehow if we had that money which we don't it would definitely not do that. Um, so housing does move Greenfield forward, more people paying property taxes, a vibrant, you know, lively downtown, people
shopping and eating at local businesses. This is a chance, you know, to turn a vacant lot into something that's really alive, um, and lasting and will benefit everybody in the city. So, um, I'm not going to vote to rescend. Um, and I look
forward to voting yes in November. I guess I'll close it out. Um, I haven't changed my mind since last month. Um, I still believe that housing is more important for people than for cars. I want a vibrant downtown. That's why I'm
on the council. Um, I love having that I can walk to downtown and I'm not as close as Hope Street, but do that regularly. Um, we need to make sure that our downtown is vibrant and that happens when we have a mixture of housing and
maybe we get the first floor developments that councelor Mr. Churro has been talking about. That would be fantastic having some more retail. Um, on that end, I also would be remiss when we failed to
get $350,000 to the schools that really need it and instead we're going to give $400,000 to pavement. Um, I want to give it to my kids and our kids and and not to cars. So, I'm I'm not going to vote to resend,
but Councelor Minhas. >> Uh, thank you. Um, I think when this is framed in the context of
a parking lot versus somebody having a roof over their head, I I don't I don't see anyone who would say, "Oh, I'd rather see lifeless pavement there, no matter how nice or fancy it could be or how many cars it could house." Um, we would obviously want people to have
their basic needs met. Um, however, I do think that this comes in the context of the way that this push for housing has been. And at times I agree with it, at times I disagree with
it. But I think one thing that this does highlight is how there's a sentiment in the public that they have been left out on this conversation about what happens to city
property, what happens to their taxes, what happens to their general makeup of of their of their neighborhoods. And people feel this sense of um
helplessness like things around them are changing in a way in which they don't have a say in. And I think that's kind of the context as to why this is uh kind of blown. Like uh counselor Perry said, I this was completely out of nowhere. I
was not also involved uh in in um pushing this forward or anything. this this petition. Um, even though I can agree with some of the stuff. Um, but I also would not like to see a parking lot. Uh I think the concern uh after
talking with a bunch of those people is that potentially like with the uh old library which a which is still beyond me that a fully functioning building that's that was historic was
just given away to a entity for a meager few thousand dollars. And when it's stuff like this has been ingrained into the public psyche, people have this kind of skepticism about what is happening to
their public property. Um, and so people are wary of development in general in in in small towns um because they're afraid of what what change might look like because we're in an economic
downturn. And so usually when things change, things change for the worst. Um, so I don't want to demonize them, but I also don't want to be like, "Okay, yay. I'd love to dump a half a million dollars into a parking lot because what the the hell is that going to do?" Um,
I'd rather like to see tax revenue being generated. Um but also at the same time we another uh part of the equation is that we have millions of dollars in property in properties
here in Greenfield that are tax exempt um that simply are just off the tax role. Um and the burden on the taxpayers is enormous. And if those properties um
expand, uh that would be to the detriment of of of Greenfield residents. And I so and that's not a guarantee that that would happen, right? That that would go to a nonprofit or something like that. But the fact is that
Greenfield has a history and a context in which people are wary of of of development of these sorts. And so I believe in the spirit of democracy. I believe in people having a right to uh
choose what their neighborhoods are going to look like and them having a say in that. And regardless of how the outcome would be, uh I would support this going to the ballot and people
making a decision for themselves. And I appreciate the energy that that that this conversation has created, but also I'm a little just disappointed in some of the back and forth, the personal attacks and just judgment on people. Um
I'm glad that we are concerned about our city, but as someone who's lived here forever, like let's not have this be another uh wedge between our communities. Um let's let's have this be something where we
can collaborate in and this provides a chance for the city to be like okay we're not leaving people out of the conversation. This is how we will have a transparent process so you can also be part of this development so you can also
have a say in this. Um and I think that would go a long way. Thank you. Has everybody who wanted to speak first got a chance to speak? >> I'm gonna vote yes. Mostly to defend my vote the last month and to continue to
represent the people who want to keep the park there and just to send the because I think a 10 11 to one vote is better than a 12 nothing vote. And I just want to explain why I'm voting yes. I want it to go to the ballot. It's going to go to the ballot. That's great.
But I still think people need to be represented on the council uh in the minority and that's why I'm gonna vote yes because I don't after hearing everybody talk we know what's going to happen and I think the people on Prospect Street neighborhood are going
to feel a little bit sold out even you know so for the people the 40% who may or may not vote uh for the Pope City parking lot I just want to represent them here as a council member. So, thank you.
>> Okay, one last counc there. twice tonight there's been this narrative um about the library but I actually think the library is a really good example of um of like a mirror to this process right
where it went to ballot and the people spoke on it and they wanted the library and now we have it um and so it seems like there has been this like spin tonight as if like the people didn't want it and then the city did this thing
Um but that's not what happened. What happened was that it went to ballot and we voted on it and we voted for it and me and many of us use it. Um and very similarly like this is a parallel thing where we had a building that was lovely.
I mean, I spent weeks of my life in that building with my children and playgroups and over the years and um but we would have had to maintain that building and there's a cost to that and so we have to think long range about where do we want
to put the investment in our city. Um, and I think there's a piece of this that I was thinking about the other day when I was reading one of the articles, uh, one of the my turns or opinion pieces in in the recorder. Um, and I can't remember which one it was, but
it was basically saying that like the burden of people needing housing is on us in Greenfield and not on the county, even though we have like 50% of the affordable housing or whatever. But we also have 20% of the population of Franklin County. And so I just think
that we can we have to decide like how do we want to invest in this population. Um and I think the library is a really good mirror for us to look at to say there was a real divide about do we want it or
don't we and is the trade-off worth it. Um and in the end the people said yes it's worth it and so it moved forward. Um and I think we're in a similar place now. All right, I'm going to call the questions. So,
good. So, just to clarify, a yes vote to this order would resend the vote. A no vote would leave it as is. Councelor Goolum,
>> no. Councelor Gordon, >> no. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> no. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> no. >> Councelor Bullock, >> no. >> Councelor Williams, >> no. >> Councelor Perry,
>> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> no. >> Councelor Brown, >> no. >> Vice President Garrett, >> no. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. Thank you,
councelor Wandowski. >> No, >> the motion is defeated by majority. >> On to number two. Um, ballot question referendum petition. I don't know who should read this.
Okay. >> Order number FY26-034. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council directs the following question be placed upon the official ballot at the local general city election to be held on November 4th, 2025. Ballot question.
Shall the following measure which was proposed to be rescended by the voters in the citizens referendum petition take effect? that the Greenfield City Council authorizes the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street, Assessor's Mat 52, lot 25 pursuant to the city council policy for
the sale of city-owned land and authorize the mayor to execute all documents necessary to accomplish the same. Yes. A yes vote would uphold the city council's vote to allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street. A no vote will resend the city council's vote above and
not allow the mayor to sell the property at 53 Hope Street. Is there a second? >> Second. >> So, I'm just going to ask clerk Scott again um just the rules of engagement on
this and um what we're voting on and I know there was the shall part of it uh and anything else that you can add to the the background before we ask questions. Thank you. So in charter section 78,
when the council does not resend their vote that a citizen's petition has been submitted on, the council shall place the question on the ballot for the citizens to vote on.
So it shall go on the ballot. What you're voting on here is the form of the question, not not that it shall go on the ballot because it shall
there's the word. >> Um it's it's it's happening folks. Yeah. Um, but this is the form of the question and the form of the question is also outlined
in the charter in section 77G that lays out the way the question shall be phrased. Also in charter 78, the form of the question
needs to be reviewed and approved by the city attorney and that has also happened. The form was sent to him, he reviewed it and he approved it. So now the council needs to vote the
form of the question to be on the November ballot. regard >> a clarifying question. Well, a couple of clarifying questions. So, when you say the form, do you mean like the wording? >> Yes. Even though it's outlined in the charter on how it should be worded.
>> Yes. Thank you. So, just to make sure then that I'm understanding this correctly, the language that's in the motion, um, what we're voting on is all of this language, including like the summaries under yes and no. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Great. Thank you.
>> And those summaries cannot be um amended at a later date. We're locked in whatever we say tonight. >> Correct. >> Sorry, I do have another question about that. Um because I'm looking, you know, at the summary under the no vote. I
appreciate the the summary language. I think ballot questions can often be super confusing to people and they end up voting the opposite of the way they actually intended and I think the summaries help with that. Um, a place where I'm getting stuck is a no vote would rescend the council vote and not
allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street. Is that like in perpetuity forever or Yeah. Sorry, >> that my question to you is is that time
unlimited or you know or like are there future ways that it could you know the different decision could be made in in future decades in Greenfield. >> So I don't think I can speak to a hundred years from now. No. Um, this
would be a binding ballot question. If the voters said no, you can't sell it. That's a binding ballot question. I have to believe there is some sort of mechanism,
but I don't know it. >> C. >> Yeah. Couldn't you do another citizens petition to put on the ballot if you wanted to sell it in the future, you know, and get collect your signatures and do the same. >> So that would be charter 77.
>> Seven. Yes, exactly. So there is a process. It's just you have to do the same amount of work that these people just did. Councelor Master Turo >> without getting specific as to the letter because that may be client
attorney client privilege unless we say otherwise but I believe it's 90 days before we can revisit this from what I read in the attorney's letter. >> No, it's I'm sorry. 90 days to revisit
what nine months. >> No, we we have to address this with and it's nine months if we were to hear another another motion like to to sell or something again. But we it didn't say
that we could do that if this goes on the ballot and passes. This is a binding like a ballot question is binding. We the mayor can't just give us another motion in nine months, another order in nine months to to um annex this land. uh
we have to go with what the voters voted on. Like if if the library hadn't passed the ballot, they couldn't have just nine months later brought it back and done it again. Nine months is if we if we'd rescinded, we couldn't hear it again for nine
months. >> Councelor Gold there. I think there is some precedent for a reconsideration of what was on the ballot because I mean councelor Healey and I have been on a commission to revisit 77 and 78 and this
has inspired me to rethink that just how reading how convoluted this language is that we have in the charter and how hard it is to interpret. But after the ballot uh referendum or initiative, I'm not sure which one it was, happened around the the number of voters, we did have a
of a deep conversation about it. And we are, you know, we are able to change that language otherwise we wouldn't have had that conversation in the first place. So I do know that there's a precedent to reconsider previous ballot votes.
So, I'm I don't remember exactly the language or the process when there was a ballot question about Charter 77 or 78. So, take this with a grain of salt. I don't
believe that was a binding question. This is a binding question. again if I had 20 minutes I can look back through and but so there are different types of ballot
questions there are binding and there are non-binding I believe the council under a separate charter section chose to put the ballot question 47778
on the ballot it. It wasn't an initiative petition. It wasn't a citizens referendum. If you if you give me a minute, I can maybe find it because there's a section of the charter, but I'm sorry, I don't remember it by heart.
>> I I just want to I think we're some of this is we're talking about the language here and I think we're going down a rabbit hole of what if into the future. So, I just want to caution us to not get too far a field. Um,
>> do we have any power to make changes to the language? I'm I'm guessing I'm assuming no. >> I'm sorry. I was reading. >> Yes. >> I mean, the other thing about debating language is do we actually have any power to change the language in this or
would it does it need to go on the ballot as written by the petitioners? Yes, it needs to go on the ballot as written by the petitioners as approved by the attorney. There multiple layers. If I can go back for
one section second, I believe that question that was talked about was put on the ballot. Charter section 710, submission of other matters to the voters. The city council may have its own motion and shall at the request of
the school committee. If the me if the measure originates with that body and pertains to the affairs under its jurisdiction, submit to the voters at end any regular bianial city election for adoption or rejection any measure in the same manner
and with the same force and effect that are hereby provided for submission by petitions of voters unless they shall designate that the measure is nonbinding. And I sorry letting people in. Um
I believe but that was a few years ago. I believe that was a non-binding question. >> So I'm looking at the charter as well. Mhm. >> Section C. If not, placed before the voters at a regular by annual
>> section >> 78 77 citizen or no, where am I here? 78 section C. Yeah. So, it says if not placed before the voters at a regular bianial election in order for the refereum to be binding upon the city,
25% of registered voters shall vote on measures or issues placed in the city. So, if we don't get at least a 25% turnout, it's not buying you. >> No, >> I don't think we've had a 25% turnout in like >> I think that's incorrect. >> Oh, >> please. >> Okay.
Okay. This is this question if it's okay. This question is going on a regular bianial election ballot. Okay. This charter section is saying if not
placed before the voters on a regular bienial election ballot. If not placed then we need to reach the benchmark of 25% of the registered voters voting.
What is that noise? >> Okay. Um, so this is a regular bianial election. In the emails that you all were sent and
copies given by the attorney Um, the attorney was asked if the council did not resend and the ballot was placed the question was placed on the ballot, would it be binding?
And the response is yes. In their opinion, the question would be binding because it's a given that if it's on a regular bianial election ballot, which this is, the
question would be binding because we don't need to meet the 25% voter turnout if it was on a non regular election ballot. Council
Garrett and Councelor Bullock. >> Councelor Garrett. >> This may be a kind of stupid question, but it's 9:30. Um, by annual means every two years. >> Yes. >> Don't we have an election every year? >> No. Well, there is there are elections every year,
>> right? >> But local elections are bianial. >> Really? It feels like it was so much sooner. >> Tell me about it. Right. >> Yeah. like it feels like just yesing, you know. >> Councelor Bullet, >> last year was a state
federal. This is local. Sorry. >> So, hypothetically speaking, >> I know you love these questions. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome, Kathy. I hope vacation soon. Um, hypothetically speaking, if
this passes in November and then a different group of people initiated a petition to repeal this, which is what would need to be done if
we wanted to do anything for 53 Hope Street other than spend half a million dollars to pave it. then or I mean that's I think sorry that's not true. We could do whatever we want with that if the city's going to pay for it and
then we would need to initiate a new citizens petition and hold a special election and assuming it was after the November to repeal this and then we would need the 25% which is
an ridiculous threshold since we don't even see that in a big election. I think I got it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, I do have a question though. >> When you say if this passes,
so if people say yes, the mayor can sell this property. >> Sorry. If people say no, the mayor can't sell this property. Okay. >> And then a new group of people said, "We're going to do a citizens petition
now because can't we just like people can't people just go back and forth forever and we have you have to hold elections for it?" So, couldn't a new group of people say we want it on the ballot again to sell this property and then you'd have to
hold a special election and we'd need it at that 25% threshold. I would have questions. >> Okay. I'm just trying to figure out like what the undo proc like how to hit the undo button. >> Um but I think you don't have to answer this for me right now. As as far as like
tonight goes, it seems like the only real option here is to vote on the language in front of us because we can't change it and move forward with this process. And then if there has to be
another step two, we worry about that through an attorney's opinion. Councelor Gordon. Um, hypothetically, I'm guessing
that if this does not pass, if people vote no and the mayor cannot sell the property, again, I'm going back to this is a binding ballot question. I believe someone could file under charter 77,
not 78, requesting that a measure be passed, but I don't know if it would make it through that process because we've had a binding ballot question and the voters
have said No, you can't sell it. So, yeah, >> thank you. >> Councelor Gol, >> I have a couple of questions as I think this so I think I'm hearing two
different things and please let me know what's happening with these two different things or if I'm hearing two different things. On the one hand, I'm hearing you say that we don't have Well, first of all, I just want to acknowledge how convoluted this is and like expecting you to interpret the law
because I I do actually have a different slightly different interpretation or any of us to interpret this is unfair. So like just want to name that. Um, and I think I hear you saying two different things, which is like, which is one, we don't have the power to change language at all. And two, we're voting on the
form, which is the language, and so we are voting on the language, which would assume that we did have some ability to amend it. So, what do I make of this? >> But the So, the form of the question is
prescribed by charter. The form of the question charter 77G which is applicable in 78 B or C or whatever it is says the ballot used when voting on the
measure proposed by voters under this section shall contain a question substantially insubstantially the following form. Shall the following measure which was proposed by voters in
an initiative petition take effect right there. That's the whole >> Okay, I'm stopping. >> So then a follow because I have I may have another follow-up question to this. A follow-up question to is could we
amend this and cross out and allow the mayor to sell and cross out and not allow the mayor to sell? Because if the question is shall the following measure which was proposed to be rescended take effect,
it would be enough to say a yes vote would uphold it and a no vote would rescend it without the added language of allow or not allow. Could we make a motion to amend and cross strike through that those words?
Can I add a follow on to that because what I was going to say is very related to that. Like this is a question for you Kathy to clarify the summaries. Who wrote the summary parts of this motion? >> I wrote the summaries. Okay.
>> Based on the summaries used for the library. >> Interesting. Okay. >> And the attorney approved it. Gave the thumbs up to it. That is it's helpful to know. I think
yeah my I share councelor Golib's question then about whether we actually can't change anything on here. I have no interest in changing what the petitioner submitted. I understand that we cannot change that and we can't vote to not put
it on the ballot and I that's totally fine. The language that concerns me most is actually in the summary because that's where we get into the question I asked before about like if it
says not allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street, would that be binding forever? Like that's the actual wording that I'm concerned about. And if that wasn't in the petitioner's original submission, then it seems to me that it wouldn't make sense for us to have to put that on
the ballot. like I understand why he wrote it that way, but I'm also would argue that I think we can and should be able to change that. >> Sorry, can you repeat what you wanted to change it to? I missed that part. >> Or did you say that part? I didn't
actually have uh summary language to propose immediately, but I would at the very least strike out um allow and not allow. I think I this I would just have the summary read a yes vote would uphold the city council vote above and a no vote would resend the city council vote
above. I I mean I'm open to other people's suggestions around that. So >> yeah and and that that is the summary of the petition >> on page two of the documents that you were given and emailed. The email will be longer. It won't be page two there.
The attorney says, and I'm going to summarize the ballot question being phrased in the form of whether the city council measure, which is proposed to be rescended, takes
effect, then the effect of a yes vote is to uphold the city council measure. And the effect of a no vote is to resin the measure and disallow the sale. So they go on to say that they
don't agree that it would be appropriate to flip the descriptions. That's a whole, >> right? Um, but I I think if you're This is again, this is a guess, folks. I'm not an attorney.
If all you wanted to change was the summary, somebody please write it down and give it to me so there's no mistakes. So if an amendment is made, we know exactly what is being proposed.
Council Garrett and Gord has a hand and council Williams and councelor Perry. >> Garrett, Golib, Williams, Perry. That's the order in which I saw them.
Sorry. Councelor Garrett. >> So, I'm a little confused on and I'm not opposed to it necessarily, but the changing of the language in the summaries like it says the word authorize the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street in the petition language.
Um, and then the word allow to me is just a synonym for authorize. That's a little bit clearer. So, I'm not really sure what the goal is. Um, and I'm again if I'm not like what? >> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind. I mean, my concern is that having the
words not allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street would be binding for a very long time. That if that language is in there that it's essentially saying we do not allow the mayor to sell this lot with no end date, no pro like potential process if
future greenfielders wanted to do something differently. It sounds like there may be some remedies for that in other ways, but I yeah, I I think that that wording actually makes it a little more confusing about how this
um would actually take effect and what it means for Greenfield in the long. >> Councelor Williams, it's next. Okay. Councelor Perry. Yeah, I'd be very wary to do anything
that the clerk and the lawyer has already agreed upon. I just think it's dangerous. One, but we could abstain from a vote if you have a hard time with the language. Abstaining would, you know, kind of send a message that, you know, we agree with it. But at this
stage of the game, to start asking these questions now seems to be a slippery slope to me. So I'm, you know, and I think the remedy that has been discussed about a follow on petition, if people are really interested in doing that,
would answer that question we're having. >> Councelor Gallob, >> do we does anyone have ready access to what the petition said? Like I'm trying to find that in my emails. I think that we should see what's actually submitted.
So just a question or point I mean I we can go down this road but none of us are attorneys and we're not the city attorney and the city attorney is says in charter has to approve this. That's part of the approval process. So I I don't know that there are too many
options. I mean, we'd either table it, have to do a special meeting if we have a question for the lawyer and come back. But I part of me likes the clarity of it. I know it's scary, but it also the summary makes it very very clear what the citizens are voting for. So I kind
of actually like the clarity of it even if it is uh the binding nature of it is a little frightening. Sorry, just >> I have councelor Bullock and then councelor Golib. >> Just for a point of clarification, um
if we vote no, if the a ballot is voted no on, it's considered a no vote by the council and so it can't be um brought up again for two years. just for I know I did this thought experiment
with you Kathy and um I just wanted to say because that's what happened with Sanctuary City. Um and so that's the process is that it would have to wait two years to be brought up again. >> What's the timeline from?
>> I'm not sure. I can't find the actual um I can't find the actual I'm searching for the actual language around it right now. I think two I'm assuming it's two years from the binding ballot measure, but
that's an assumption. >> Yes. Are you finding that in MGL? Are you finding that on a website? I was reminded by a constituent in my email that a prior counselor that that is the case. And so I'm searching right now
through um the council rules. >> Okay. >> Uh I had councelor Golib and then councelor Gordon. I'm looking at the actual language that they submitted
and they say that we hereby protest and seek the recision of the following city council measure adopted and signed. They're not asking for the mayor to
never be allowed to sell the lot. And so I'm working quickly to email you language to amend the summary and I will make a motion to
strike through the words and allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street and to strike through the words and not allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street. Is that a motion?
>> Yes. >> I second that. >> Councelor, can I have you read it again? Just make sure we're all completely clear. second. >> Uh, councelor Gordon and then councelor Mr. Tuturro.
I think councelor Golden is maybe saying this more clearly than I am. I think the summary language goes beyond in fact it's not just I think the summary language does go beyond the language that the petitioner submitted. That is my concern and that's why I
agree with councelor Golub on striking out that language. I think that to be true to what was submitted, we need to actually be true to that language and what these folks worked really hard to gather signatures to get on the ballot
and not through our own sort of like attempt to explain it, which is, you know, very well-intentioned and and for good reason, but not actually uh bind ourselves to something more than what
the petitioner submitted. And I I do understand, you know, word smithing and it gets very frustrating and it gets late and like none of us as lawyers and I I totally appreciate that. And I think I didn't under totally appreciate when I came into this how, you know, essentially on the substance of this, we
do like have to vote yes to put the question on the ballot. I'm not entirely sure why council votes on this at all since we have to vote yes. Um but I will also say you know we heard people uh express frustration that uh you know
they felt like the process of of you know surplusing the lot and issuing RFP happened so quickly and you know that it didn't give them time to really understand what was happening. Um as has as was stated earlier that process actually didn't happen really quickly.
It's been under discussion for a long time, but I do really feel that pain of like we got this a few days ago. And so, you know, I just I guess appreciate and and ask for the patience of the public
and my fellow counselors as we go through this because I think we all could have definitely used more time to understand this language to run it by the lawyers to actually make sure that what we're voting on here is what we are
meant to be voting on. Um, and we just didn't have that luxury of time. Um, and so that's why these questions are coming up now. >> Councelor M. >> Yeah, I I'm just trying to understand by
removing these words doesn't change the wording in the ballot question because the ballot question says that the Greenfield City Council authorizes the mayor to sell to 53 Hope Street. So whether we remove them or leave them in,
I don't think it changes anything. uh councelor Bonly and then we'll come back. >> Not to throw a wrench in it, but we if we wanted to follow the exact same language of the ballot question, you could use the word authorize instead of allow. I don't know how much difference legally there is between the two, but
then there'd be no change in the ballot question from the wording. But I still don't know how we can do this without running it through the attorney. But >> councelor Brown, >> sorry, I was just going to echo that the
word authorize might be um more matching what's written in the text. And I'm mainly just concerned that we're already in a tongue twister and if it goes to the public and people are not clear about it, it's making it worse and harder to vote on. Um, but I do also
hear the concern about like what are we binding ourselves to? Are we making it even worse? I I do understand that. But can we also table this till we can't table this till next month. >> If we table it, we have to have a
special meeting or if it doesn't hit the deadline, we have to have a special election. We can't do that to Kathy. All eyes are on Kathy. Oh, I can't hear. Sorry, Councelor Williams. Um,
so it could be tabled. A special meeting could be called. The theory was to have this um voted on to allow the ballot for the November
election to be ordered as soon as possible after the September preliminary election, but it could be tabled. You could have a special
meeting rather than a special election. Council Williams has her hand up. Councelor Williams, is your hand up for a question or because you couldn't hear? >> Oh, you're muted.
>> No, I'm not muted. Correct. Okay. So the question I have is this. The language as I'm looking at it right now was was uh determined by both what is in the
charter and the city lawyer. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. So then the if in fact we it must be come from the chart and be
approved by the city lawyer, why would we have the ability to change it at this point if this is the language that has been approved? And I understand the concern about uh will it the never
never question of not allow but it seems that the lawyer would have taken that into consideration. That would be my assumption. Just want to say councelor Minhouse is no longer in the meeting. Um, councelor Gordon, uh, if I think you had
an answer to councelor Williams question. Um, yeah, I it is it may have slipped my mind now. Um, oh, right. The the thing is like I understand that the
attorney approved this language that Kathy drafted regarding the summaries. I also understand that the question was first posed to attorney Quinn on Monday of this week, right? And if we had had any time to really consider this there,
I personally would have asked some follow-up questions just about clarifying the language so that we don't get ourselves trapped in something that, you know, we don't necessarily want um and that the petitioners are not asking for.
we didn't have that time to ask those clarifying questions and so that's why we are raising this point. That's why I'm raising this point now. Um I would definitely be in favor of tableabling this just to give us a little more time to ask those clarifying questions from the attorney. Uh because I think it it's
you know it's nice to say the attorney looked at this and thought it was fine. Attorneys are also human. Uh you know they give us their opinions. We've gotten differing opinions from different cities city attorneys in the past. Um, and the better questions that we're able to ask, the better the answer we're going to get from our attorneys, which
is why I would love a little more time to ask the question. Just really quick from me, um I really appreciate what clerk Scott has put together in a very short amount of time, but I'm also realizing that we as a council didn't get a chance to even put
any language or think about it or ask the questions of the attorney. So, I I personally think buying a little bit more time, not a lot, might do us well. And we might land on the same language. Um, but I'd rather digest it and make
sure that we're all clear be before it goes to the public or to the lawyer for that matter. So, um, I'm going to go to councelor Bulock. >> Okay. Um,
I am def I'm amicable to tableabling it and and asking questions, but I also there's two pieces for me. one is that when I read this um response it's um
the lawyer's responding to a to to to the question of is this specific language allowable or acceptable? Um, and what they express is that
it's about flipping the yes and the no. That's what he responds to. The spirit of the language that he mentions in paragraph 1 and paragraph three in his response. He uses different language. He uses
authorizing a sale in the third paragraph while he uses not allow and allow in the first paragraph. So my the alternative is that I would think that we could amend the language, run it
by the attorney, and then if it's not acceptable, we have to revote on it anyways and call
a special uh a special meeting. So, can we make the amendment tonight, run it by the attorney, and if the attorney says, "No, I would not recommend that language," then we have a special meeting.
>> Councelor Perry, >> just want to remind everybody that the president has already been set. the language came from a previous thing from the library. So, it's not as if, you know, this stuff is made up. It's already been used before. That's
where the language came from. I just have a real problem with second guessing the city clerk and second guessing the the attorney over minutia type stuff. It just seems to me we're wasting time. But that's
just that's just me. So I want to come back. Is there an amendment or proposal from someone? >> No. Oh, there's an amendment on the floor already. Okay. >> Repeat.
>> I just have a question. Um, if it said authorize instead of allow, that's still like not >> because that's literally the first sentence of it. Okay. the if I may. >> Okay. Because it's just about
>> the problem. I think that the language that makes me nervous is not allow, >> right? I think that that's where potentially the summary language puts a more restrictive decision on us than the
language that was actually submitted by the petitioners. So like not authorized would have the same problem, right? like that's it's not the authorize versus allow. And like I say, I do really appreciate the effort to have summaries because ballot questions are confusing. Um but I I do
really appreciate um councelor go councelor Bulock's suggestion. Sorry. um about amending now to be on the safe side and getting another legal opinion just to make sure that that we're good because I think that we could spend a
little bit of time on that now and you or potentially uh a whole lot of time in the future of competing citizens petitions that would have to happen for things to change, lots of money that the city spends, etc.
Um, and I think that like this is a much safer and actually more efficient way to to do this is if we amend and get another legal opinion. >> Yeah, I have two folks lined up. So after they comment, then we'll read it again. Uh, councelor Garrett. So the one
part that, you know, regardless of what we end up doing next, I would love to know if this is truly a I think councelor William said a never ever situation, you know, if we don't change the language because I that's that's information that we don't have from the attorney. He answered a number of different questions and I would love to
know is it only because it's clear that the city council can initiate another referendum process, but is that the only way to change it? you know, and so if we can ask the attorney that question regardless of the rest of this, I think that would be helpful for every city council in the future just to understand
our charter, you know, because it is deeply confusing and I have a lot of empathy for folks trying to process this and I know the petitioners has some difficulty with it as well and this gives me some empathy for their struggles as well. Council Master Toro,
>> I'm wondering if to prevent much delay rather than amending this or proposed amendment and then having the the attorney review it and then us voting on it.
You know, we schedule a meeting with the attorney, go over with him the language change and then vote on it.
Then and there it will save time, I think. >> Sorry, I'm writing statues. Um, I'm going to go to councelor Healey because >> we're going to call the question. I'm done with this. >> And there was a ask to read the amendment one more time before we vote
on it if that is that's okay within calling the question. So documents open. What page is it on? Okay. So the amend the proposed amendment is to strike
through and allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street and also to strike through and not allow the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street. Okay. So, the vote is on the amendment as stated by councelor Goolan.
>> Don't we have to vote on the call the question? >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Yeah. All right. Call the question. On calling the question. Councelor Golum. >> No.
>> Councelor Gordon. >> No. >> Councilor Master Tataro. >> I'm going to pass for a moment or two. Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulock, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry,
>> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> pass. >> Vice President Garrett. >> No. No.
>> Uh, councelor Minhos is still not there. Council Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown. >> Um, abstain.
>> Does the president wish to vote? Yes. Yes. The question is called by majority. It passes 34 amendment. >> So now we will be voting on the amendment.
Now it's the amendment as stated by councelor Golum. On the amendment, councelor Goolum, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> no. >> Councelor Bottomley,
>> yes. >> Councelor Bulock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> no. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. Councelor Brown, >> yes.
>> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The amendment passes. Okay. So now I need a motion for the vote as amended.
>> It's on the Okay. So we're >> as amended. >> Okay. So we are going to roll call again as amended. you vote on this. Is this going to go to an attorney
or or is it binding? We both vote on the on this motion as amended. that sounds to me is if we vote on this as amended, this is what it is without
any uh uh >> my if I can answer because my understanding is our charter says that it has to be attorney approved so they'll have to look at it again.
Is that the right assumption, Kathy? >> That makes sense. >> Okay. Um, I've got councelor Golib and then councelor Perry. >> And and just to follow up in terms of like the timing and why I think it's important that we vote on this tonight is because you're right, we could have a
special meeting like you said that does delay the clerk's timeline. And so my preference in order to support them in getting the ballot out is for us to vote on it, it will have to like I'm just repeating, it has to be approved by the attorney. If it's not, then we'll meet
again. >> Yeah. saves our time too. >> Councelor Perry, >> at the beginning of all this 15 hours ago, you presented this as we had no choice but to vote yes. So now, how can
I vote no? >> Well, you can, but it'll still go on there. Yeah. So, >> so there's a lot of chatter. Um, can I just councelor Bulock and if anybody wants to speak, please raise your hand.
>> This is very, this is we've done this. We do these things before, right? We have to vote on this. It doesn't matter if we unanimously vote no that we do not want this. The charter says it will. So
even if we all voted no, this still goes to ballot, correct? Right. So you have your own free will to vote however you want and the charter says sorry wid it's going to ballot >> as amended. Well if the if it's attorney
approved which is also in the charter. It also says in the charter that it will be approved by us and the attorney. >> Question for Kathy. Is is there any chance that this timeline would would mess things up if it go like how much time does the lawyer have to respond
before all of this? So, at this at this point, I mean, we're still working on September election, you know, we haven't we haven't made it to the November ballot yet because we can't do that until after the September election.
So, even if I wanted to send it to be printed right now, I can't because I don't know the results of the preliminary yet. Um, so
yes, we can send it to the attorney and have him review what is now the question. Um, councelor Haley, >> I just I don't see a time limit like section 77 where we have to give a
response in 78. So, I think the cleanest way to do this is we table the amended uh motion, we go to the attorney, we have him review it, he approves it at our next meeting
>> in September. In September, we vote on it, take it off the table because it doesn't have to be on the ballot until November, >> right? >> When do you normally print the ballots? >> As soon as we can because we have them.
>> It's August 20th. It is August 20th, but on September 10th, which is the day after the election, it's probable depending on many things. Um, the I can
tell you that the vote for the September 9th election will be certified before I leave work on September 11th. Not because I'm nice, but because I go on vacation the next day.
And when is our meeting in September? >> The 20th, I believe. >> I also want to make sure >> the 17th. >> Yeah. >> I think the other issue is making sure that both sides have the language so
that they can be campaigning. And so if we wait until after September, >> I I just also think it's cleaner table for this reason. If we vote this and the lawyer says you can't do this, then we have to resend our vote and re revote
again. So either way, we need a special meeting, right? >> Unless the lawyer says he approves this language. >> Yes. >> Which I mean, ideally, what would have happened is that this, you know, the process would have been on a different timeline and we would have had a couple
days or a week to go back and forth before the five-day rule, which never happens. Like, it never happens that way. and but that didn't happen. And so regardless, we're gonna follow the charter. This is going to be looked at and approved
by a lawyer. It's going to be looked at and approved by the city council. We are reversing that process, but it doesn't say in the charter. It has to be in that order. And then if we need to hold a special meeting to help keep to the timeline, we
can hold a special meeting before the September 9th >> and amend the language again with an update from the lawyer. But voting voting tonight doesn't mean that if we
made a bad choice, we can't change the choice with the with the lawyer's opinion. >> No, we just have to resend our vote, >> right? And which we'd have to do. We'd have to do anyways if you know we'd have to have a special meeting if we tabled it. We'd have to have a special
meeting if we pass it and it's bad language. If we pass it and it's fine, we can make Kathy happy. We can move forward with both sides knowing what the language is for the preliminary election. For me, there's like no loss
in us voting on this if it's going in front of a lawyer regardless, which it has to because of the charter. Councelor Garrett, >> if we do find out that this is a the not allow language would create a never- situation, we're not allowed to change
it. A special meeting would also give us an opportunity to resend our vote, creating a nine-month timetable versus a never ever timetable. So, I think we should just vote on this thing and let the lawyer figure it out. >> Not quite. I'm sure I understood
everything you said, but >> me neither. >> But I get the gist of it. And I think uh I don't see any other comments. So, let's go to roll call.
This vote is to consider the motion as amended. Councelor Golib, >> yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> abstain. >> Councelor Bottomley,
>> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> abstain. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes.
>> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes, >> the motion passes with nine favorable votes. >> Okay. >> Okay, now we only have 20 more things to
go through. We got through two and everybody stuck with us. Amazing. All right, so um resolution to support an act establishing a climate change super fund. Um, Councelor Williams, would you be willing
to read that motion since it came from the community relations committee and and we love this? >> Yes. >> Um, it's on page 25. Page 25. Okay.
Order number FY26-021. City Council order, City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council approves the attached resolution titled a resolution in support of an act
establishing a climate change super fund aka the climate super fund bill. Uh majority vote required. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. So, this came out of community relations
on Monday like and it was a unanimous positive. >> Yes. >> Um, Councelor Williams, do you if and I know we had a citizen um speak to it earlier, but if there's anything else
you want to add about what this does. I think what's important to note here is that uh this is about accountability. Uh this is going before the state legislature and they have requested that
municipalities consider this. Uh what this does is creates a super fund that the big oil and gas companies pay into. Uh it's the amount they pay into it is determined by the executive office of
energy environment and environmental protection. Uh the super fund then deals with issues that arise from pollution uh like illnesses um clean the cleaning up of waterways the
cleaning up of earth etc. um especially where we have obviously cut backs in federal funding and therefore cutbacks in state funding, we're going to feel our budget getting tighter and tighter. And in terms of the
welfare and health of the citizens of Greenfield, it seems it only makes sense that those that create the problem are accountable for fixing it up. Like Emily said when she spoke, uh you make the mess, you clean it. So that's what this
is really about and I do encourage my fellow counselors to consider this seriously and give it a positive vote. Thank you. >> Councelor Healey, >> I have a long filibuster and I just sat through 45 minutes of conversation. So
I'm going to try to cut it from like 30 minutes to about five. So bear with me as I talk quickly. I cannot support this. Um, one, it's government overreach, and I believe in small government. Two, going after the gas companies and oil companies that have
over the years helped fund found what this country is and how this country has become as big as it is and funded all the construction projects, the diesel that we use in construction, everything else because there was no alternate energy at the time. And um, it's just it's just unfair. It's an unfair shake.
They've they've put in work. If you look at Exxon Mobile, I've worked with them um on on a project where they're actually doing carbon capture technology and they're taking CO2 and they're pumping it back into the ground and they're storing it in reservoirs in the
crust of the earth. And they're doing this all throughout the South. They've invested tons and tons of dollars in carbon cleanup throughout the past 10 years in technology and they've come a long way, right? Um, if you look at what
you guys like to call renewable energy, which to me it's alternative energy because look at every renewable energy out there. You have solar. It's great. What do we do with the solar panels when they're dead in 10, 15 years? Where do they go? Go up to Maine. They're cutting
down acres and acres and hundreds and thousands of acres of forestry. At one time, the same people that support solar said, "You can't cut those trees down for the paper industry." And at least the paper industry replanted trees in place of the trees they cut
down. So in 25, 30 years, they had more trees to remove and they constantly replaced and replaced. These solar fields are taking up acres of prime forestry, prime agriculture. They're not recycling them. Then you have lithium. What do you need to get lithium and rare
earth minerals? mining equipment. It runs on diesel. It's the dirty process and we're putting in battery storage solutions. Then you have hydroelectric. What's the downfall of hydroelectric? Well, it affects fish, streams,
environments, maybe on a smaller scale because we put fish ladders, but look at the salmon population in the Connecticut River. Zero. You want to talk about wind turbines next? The foundations for wind turbines are
massive. They take more concrete. They use which comes in a diesel fueled pickup truck. The list goes on. It's And then even if everybody in this country could electrify right now, the amount of diesel and fuel it's going to take to
upgrade every transmission line in this country and every substation in this country, you're 60 years out before you could even touch that. Is it a problem? Yes. I'm not denying that. But to go after somebody who their goal, if you go on Exxon's website right now, it says
providing industry solutions needed to help reduce emissions during this energy transition. They know it's coming. They know big oil is out of the game in 60 years. They're doing these CO2 projects and finding ways to make it alternate solutions like hydrogen. They're do
investing in hydrogen generation projects because electricity isn't going to fuel a large train. It's not going to work. You're not going to have it. It's not going to fuel a large piece of equipment. Hydrogen will do it. Hydrogen burns clean. There's so much technology out there that's being funded by these
companies. And to come at them and punish them and say, "Hey, you we want to hold you accountable for what you did. What What about your accountability?" 11 out of 13 city councilors at this table use either oil or gas to heat their home. There's two
that use electric. I'm one of them. Thank you, >> Council Master Toro. >> I have to agree with Council Healey on this. First off, we're punishing this
referendum for this bill punishes the the energy companies for past sins
and if if you read the whole thing and and also says that it's not going to affect the consumer. That's BS because they're not going to eat they're not going to eat the money. Ultimately, the consumers pay.
Uh, council Healey asked, you know, how many people run on natural gas at this table? I don't know. Well, how many people run on electric? Guess what? 43%
of Electricity is produced by gas. So if you run electric heat, it's gas that's creating it. If you run a heat pump, it's gas that's creating
it. The governor wants everybody to change over to heat pumps. They want everybody to change to electric cars. Motors and electric cars are uh rees rare earth elements that are
scraping the crust of the earth. We lose no matter what folks. And what this is going to do is just make everything more expensive for us. If you want clean, inexpensive energy, and nobody in this
room wants to hear it, is put the US Navy in charge because they run submarines on nukes and they're just when submarines don't sink. Submarines are safe. You could put all these energy
companies out of business if you build nuke plants in each city, small nuke plants like they have in submarines, and you don't hire an energy company to run them. You hire the US Navy, and it's cheap. It costs nobody anything at that point. But that'll never happen because
it's big oil. The fact is, this is BS. I am a no. >> Oh, sorry. My mic It's me, right? Um, I have to say this conversation has taken a surprising turn. Um, I didn't think that we would
get quite this heated about it. I totally appreciate where councelor Healey is coming from. There's certainly no perfect source energy source out there. Like absolutely, it's all dirty. There's no purity under capitalism. Here we are. Um, this idea of like punishing
the oil companies is it just doesn't quite sit right with me. Like I get what you're saying and I just it's it's you know Shell earned 16 billion dollars in net profits last year and in 2022 they
had 43 billion in net profits. Like they are clearing a lot of money. I don't think that we're punishing them for anything. I think that it's a a question of people taking responsibility for the impacts that they have. And
what's actually not fair is them getting to get all of that money, billions and billions and billions of dollars in profits for themselves like that. We don't see that. um while externalizing the costs and you know people
particularly people who of you know live in poorer areas um you know lower income folks like they're suffering the consequences and they don't have the ability to pay for it. Um so to me this just kind of makes sense um you know will they pass the
costs on to us? Sure. Will they pass other costs on to us? Sure. Because that's what they do because they really want to end up with the highest possible profits. Um, so I just like I don't feel a lot of sympathy uh for the idea of of them being punished because you know
they they're doing fine. >> Councelor Bulock. >> Yeah. Um I'm I am also I'm going to support this. Um I I actually agree with some of what both of you said, councelor healing counselor master to like
and I agree that all of the options we have for alternative energy right now um cause some harm to the environment, right? The way that we live has a tradeoff um and its impact is real. and the and the piece you said
about like turn it over to the military. I I actually love the idea of the military uh being in the business of operating energy production and not war. Um but
and I actually think that the whole problem here is that we don't have public utilities, right? is that we have we have privatized utilities that are making capital at a a disproportionate amount off of people who like need these things to live, right? Like we're
talking about basic human rights here, right? People deserve housing. People deserve heat. People deserve water. These are all things that we pay for. And when we pay a municipality for our water bill, we're paying into our public utility so that they can do the upkeep
and keep us safe. I trust my the DPW and the public utility to keep my water safe much more than I trust BP to to keep me safe. I mean, I lived in Pensacola, Florida. I saw the effects of what happened from the oil spill there. I
have friends that were had their entire lives uh livelihoods, generational um of fisher people no longer able to fish in those waters. Um, and
the idea that this would be a punishment or a harm to a corporation that makes multibillion dollars a year versus specific
cities and towns and people that have been targeted. Uh, in Hartford, Connecticut, right? There's a plant in Hartford, Connecticut that was built right next to a public housing project, right? I've worked with some of those organizers over the last few years, uh, who are organizing for environmental
justice. And it's a it's a transfer station hub, right, where the energy comes in and the energy goes out. And this whole area of town that these people have lived for decades is it's a substation now, right? It's decimated.
And so it's not about punishment, right? It's it is about accountability and like paying your fair share. And when when billionaires are making billions of dollars and people are getting sick and dying and hurt uh
off because of the actions that are made, it's not you're not being punished. Um you're being accountable. And so and I do agree like these places they invest in good ways and there's a lot of people there's foundations attached to them that do good things.
Um, and so that's really it's really good that we have this and I don't I don't see this as a punishment. I wish we had better options. I wish resolutions didn't bring us down these wormholes, but I'm up next. So, here we go. Um, but I I'm going to
support this because uh I'd love to see the day where uh billionaires are held accountable. All right. Can we vote on this, please? >> Thank you. >> Councelor Goolum,
>> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> nope. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> abstain.
>> Councelor Haley, >> no. Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Wand, uh, President Wandelowski, >> yes. And yes, >> the motion passes by majority.
>> Okay. Uh, next were emergency resolution in support of public safety and equal justice. um that came to community relations. Um so we can either read it or have councelor
Bullock read it. Do you have a preference? >> I'm happy to read it. >> Okay. >> Um the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council approves the attached resolution titled an emergency resolution in support of public safety and equal justice.
Majority vote required. an emergency resolution in support of public safety and equal justice. Whereas the sixth amendment Oh, sorry. >> Second. Do >> you have a second? Thank you. >> Whereas the sixth amendment to the US Constitution and Article 12 of the
Massachusetts Constitution guarantee guarantee the council to the guarantee the council in a guarantee there's a typo here. Sorry. Guarantee council in a criminal proceeding. >> You don't have to read the whole thing. Oh, thank you.
>> That's wonderful. >> So, this came to community relations as well and got a um unanimous positive. >> Thanks. Any discussion, comments? >> I'll just share I want to thank Isaac
Mass for bringing this up. Um I know we have a lot of talk about uh whether uh resolutions are useful. I when I received this I did reach out to a handful of um legislators
who specifically to bring up um how this impacts Franklin County. Um I don't know some of you might know but I worked inside the women's jail down in Chipe for 10 years. Uh I sat in trials for many years. Uh once again, I think that
this issue specifically affects our region very differently than it can affect other regions because we have such a large population of low-income people. Um and on top of that, 80% of people that are inside of our jails um
are low income and can't afford a lawyer. And so we have a disproportionate amount of people that couldn't afford a lawyer. Anyways, uh the majority of those people that are in there are in there because they can't make bail. It's not because they've been convicted of a crime. Um and what's happening right now, as Isaac said, is
that after I believe it's seven days, uh if you haven't been appointed a lawyer, you're released on the street. And so there had been a couple examples of people uh in the community that had shared people had been um picked up for like domestic violence incidents and
then couldn't receive a lawyer. And so they were released without without any charges pending. Um so it's a safety issue. Um and this is again it's a constitutional guarantee uh that we
provide um an an appointed attorney for someone to speak to. So uh this is exasperated and um we invest at the starting point very heavily in our police force and so we should be investing as well. um in the process of
justice for people. >> Councelor Perry, >> I agree that resolutions go down the rabbit hole. That's why abstain, but on this particular one, the courthouse is right behind process street where I work. Most of our clients go through the
courthouse and they are in need of public defense. And I just believe that this is something that affects the community that we live in every day. We don't see it. Most of it, unless we get called a jury duty or we're in the courthouse because of our jobs, we don't
see it. But this affects us uh as a as a city. And so I will support this one. Council Gordon, >> it was just to make a small amendment to the line that you were reading to add back in um whereas the sixth amendment
to the US Constitution and Article 7 of the Massachusetts Constitution guarantee the right council in a criminal proceeding. So adding in the word right in between the and that's it.
Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Do you have the language down? >> Great. >> Okay. Just want to make sure. >> So, this is a vote on the amendment. >> Yes. >> Right now.
>> Councelor Gool. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Master Daro. >> Yes. Councelor Bottomley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bullock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes.
>> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> President, was does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously.
>> Okay. So, next we're moving on to the full motion. Does anybody have any comments before councelor Gordon? >> Yeah, I was just going to say before I I really appreciate councelor Bulick bringing this forward um and Isaac Mass suggesting it. I've been talking about
this with some bar advocate friends for a a long time and I want to recognize that not only is it a due process and rights and public safety issue. Um but the bar advocates themselves deserve better than they are getting right now,
like to a ridiculous extent. Um, and you know, similar to the to what we heard about health inspectors earlier, when the the town next door is offering $20,000 more, they're going to get the good people. And right now, the states next door to us who have less money than
Massachusetts does are paying their bar advocates a lot more, like a lot. Um, and so we're also going to lose the best people who could be doing these jobs that are so critical uh to public safety. So, I I just want to appreciate
um you bringing this forward. I want to appreciate the bar advocates who do work day in and day out. It is a hard job and they are doing their best for you know in some of the toughest people in some of the toughest situations in our community. So, I'm I'm very happy to support this.
Okay. So, we'll move it to a vote. >> Councelor Gool, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry,
>> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously.
All right, we're at the twohour mo. So we have a five minute break unless you guys want to power through. But I think we should take a five minute break. Okay. Heat. Heat. [Music]
Welcome back. It's 10:38. Um, we have councelor Williams here remotely and no other counselors remote. Giddy up. All right. So, uh, next order is accept land donation from Randall Gy and
Shirley Young. I believe that's EDC and councelor Healey. >> Order number FY26-019. The city council moved that be ordered that the Greenfield City Council accepts the land donation of Randall M. Dolly and Shirley Young of parcel R37-57-0
to the Greenfield Conservation Commission for conservation purposes and transfer said property to the conserv conservation commission to be named the Kiy conservation area. >> Second second
>> this was a unanimous um vote in EDC. Uh we had Travis Drury present. He explained kind of the the goals for the land. So, this land is being conserved. Um the idea is it would be open for
walking, hiking, um certain activity restrictions, like there's no hunting based on our conservation rules on the property. So, it just seemed like a no-brainer to everybody. You know, we love green space. We love to preserve
green space. I love trees. Um so, yeah, that's my speech. There you go. Any discussion? >> I also >> Great. And I love solar on roofs, not on top of
trees. >> Just want to get that in there. Let's vote. Councelor Gollum. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. Councelor Master Taro. >> Yes. Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulock, >> yes.
>> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. I said, >> President Wandowski, would you like to vote? >> Yes. Yes. >> Motion passes unanimous.
>> All right, we have another land donation from Council Haley. >> Order number order number FY26-020. The city council moved that be ordered that the Greenfield City Council accepts the land donation of Richard H. and
Gloria J. Eastston of parcels R37-53-0 and R37-54-0 to the Greenfield Conservation Commission for the conservation purposes and transferred said property to the conservation commission to be named the Kiggaly Conservation Area.
>> Second out there. This was another property in the same area. Um, this was a unanimous positive decision by conservation. And my explanation for this one is I love the trees on that property more. >> Is this the one with that like weird
skinny easement? >> Great. Any other discussion? >> Was there any coordination these two families about this or just happened? from I didn't ask that question to Travis, but they did come to the conservation commission willing to
donate this land. So, >> um I think we're ready to vote. Mayor has raised her hand. >> Oh, the the mayor can answer the question. Yeah. Yes, there was coordination.
Um I walked through the lands, the two neighbors had spoken with each other. There was coordination on it and it it looked perfect for conservation, not for anything else. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Yeah, mayor. If you talk to them again, just thank them for us. This is very
generous on both those families parts. I can see our conservation person is on there and we'll make sure that a thank you goes out to them. Thank you very much all of you. >> All right, we're ready to vote. >> Councelor Golden, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes.
>> Councelor Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulock, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett,
>> yes. Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes and yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> All right. Next one is taking from the table. I believe that that goes to ways and means and >> Yep. Um this is order number FY26-027.
The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council take from the table order number FY25- Z003 quote revoke the revenue dedication of Massachusetts state subdivision for statewide opioid opioid settlement funds
to the special purpose opioid settlement stabilization fund end quote which was tabled at the August 21st 2024 city council meeting. Majority vote required. >> I see a second. second >> explanation.
>> Um I don't do we want to take it from the table before I >> So we have to take it from the table before you can tell me anything about it. >> So let's vote on that please. >> Councelor Golib. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Master Tutaro.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Bottomley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bullock. >> Yes. >> Council Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Perry. >> Yes. Councelor Healey. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote?
>> Yes. Yes. >> The motion is now on the floor. >> Now, do I need to read the next one? The next motion? Yep. Okay. Um FY, this is order number FY25- Z003. The city
council moved that it be ordered that the city revoke the revenue dedication of Massachusetts state subdivision for statewide opioid settlement funds to the special purpose opioid settlement stabilization fund established under MGL chapter 40 section 5B local option
paragraph. This is in accordance with MGL chapter 44 section 53 clause 4 which now allows for establishment of a special revenue fund which allows funds to be expended without further appropriation. Twothirds vote required.
>> Second. >> It doesn't need to be a second but um can I just get a explanation of of this and then we can take questions. Yeah, this was a unanimous positive. Um, it seems like the money need there's urgent
need to spend this money. It's sitting there unused and the committee has already been formed to advise the mayor. So, it seemed like this we should make this happen as soon as we can. >> Great. And councelor Bulock, did you have anything to add to it or you all? >> Yeah, just that this is a clear it's
clearly laid out in the ordinance that we've already passed like what the process is for approving money. And so all this does is move it from an account that would make it so that all of us would have to approve money moving in a meeting to the mayor being able to approve based on the recommendation from
the committee. >> Great. Thank you, Councelor Gallup. >> Thanks. I was just going to ask if councelor Williams could mute her mic. That was one. And I and I will definitely vote yes on this. I just want to state that it it it does make me
nervous to have this not be subject to appropriation. I I believe that the current mayor will follow the recommendations of the committee, but had one a mayor in the future who doesn't, it does make me nervous. Um that said, I hear the request from the
committee to do this now. might not be what I would do, but I hear the request and I will vote yes on this because of that. Any other question or discussion? >> Okay, let's go forward with a vote. >> Councelor Gool, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes.
>> Council Master Tutoro, >> yes. >> Council Bottomley, >> yes. Councelor Bulock, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yep. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote?
>> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Okay. So, next to the downtown parking benefit district. >> Yep. And this is order number FY26-024. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger moved that it be ordered
that the city council approves the establishment of accounts for revenue and expenses associated with the newly created downtown parking benefit district. Majority vote required. >> Second. >> Uh this also received unanimous
positive. This was we felt like this was just kind of following up on EDC that went through the discussion and it's just establishing uh the account. I don't see any need to further this unless councelor Gordon >> I just want to say a big thank you to
councelor Haley for bringing this forward um and working with the downtown business association and other folks on it. I think that there's as we discussed in EDC there's no downside to this. It's like only good. Um so really appreciate you doing the work on it.
All right, we're going to vote on it. >> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tutaro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes.
>> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Okay. Next, we're on the preliminary election warrant, um, which is page 65
in your packet. Would somebody be able to read that for me today? >> I can do that. >> Thank you. >> Uh, this is order number FY26-028. The city council moved that it be ordered that it be ordered. of the Greenfield City Council hereby approves
the attached local preliminary election warrant for September 9th, 2025 and further authorizes the city council president to sign said warrant on behalf of the city council. Majority vote required. >> Do I have a second?
>> Thank you. >> Did not go through committee. So, let's vote on this. >> Councelor Goolib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Jataro, >> yes. >> Council Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulock, >> yes. >> Council Williams,
>> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Okay, it's signed.
Okay. Uh, next one is uh assigning sufficient number of police officers to the polling location. >> Did not go to the committee. >> This did not go to committee. Who who would like to read this one? Page 67.
>> I can do this one. >> Thank you. >> Um, order number FY26-029. Uh, the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council, as required by the voters by the votes act section 72, assign a sufficient number of police officers up
to two to our polling location, Greenfield High School Gymnasium for all elections and preliminaries held in the calendar year 2025 and authorize the city clerk in coordination with the police chief or a police department designate to assign specific officers for this purpose. Majority vote
required. Thank you. >> All right, move into a vote. >> Councelor Gool, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tutoro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes.
>> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. The motion passes unanimously.
>> All right, we're moving to mayor's appointments. Um, Councelor Golib, if you could read it. >> Sure. Order number fiscal year 26031, the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council, pursuant to chapter section
210, affirms the following appointments by the mayor. GCTV board of directors Jonathan Weber to replace Matthew Conway for remainder of term term to expire December 31st, 2026. Mayor's task force against
domestic and sexual violence. Jonathan Weber to replace Matthew Conway for remainder of term. Term to expire December 31st, 2027. Parking and traffic commission Michael Mullen. Term to expire December 31st, 2030. Majority
vote required and this didn't go to committee because we didn't meet this month. So, it's coming straight here. >> Seeing no discussion, let's vote. >> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tutaro,
>> yes. >> Did you say yes or abstain? Thank you. >> Councelor, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey, >> yes.
>> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Great. And thank you for all of the folks who are serving and switching in.
All right. Um this was before us but then we pulled it the Native American burial grounds. So councelor go order number fiscal year 26012. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council
amend the code of the city of Greenfield by adding a new paragraph and strike through as written in the attached here to chapter 307 Native American burial grounds section 1 and further amends the index of the code and further that
nonsubstantive 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. Majority vote required. >> So, this also didn't go to committee because we didn't meet and because it's
Yeah. So, it didn't it didn't go to committee. It's coming straight here. It's a pretty simple change. Um, this was part of the ordinance review. It's one of the more simple pieces that so it's been able to come through quicker. Um, I reached out to the Nolan
Beika project to just ask if they wanted any changes to this ordinance and they requested that we replace the Narro against Indian tribes with a tribal historic preservation officer. I am to
be respectful of this I don't know uh does anyone know how to pronounce this? Um so it's a Nipmuk band um and a Nipmunk Indian band and or the Alu Abanaki
um and because they have in the last year since this was passed cultivated relationships with local um indigenous groups that are more representative of this area. And so the request is that they the discussions would happen with them.
>> Thank you. Okay, I think we're ready to vote. >> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Healey,
>> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. Count Vice President Garrett. >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> All right. Or pass the motions. Um presentation of
petitions and similar papers. There weren't any reported committees. Nothing to report. Unfinished business. Nothing at this time. Old business. Nothing on the list. So, we're going to new business and first reading. Um, first is
a financial order for pole worker salary. Uh, councelor Bottomley. >> Um, city council first reading August 20th, 2025. Authorized payment of fiscal year 2024 pole worker salary in the amount of $453.75
from fiscal year 2026 election temporary wages account. Purchase Rockport utility van for central maintenance for 90,000 from unused and available capital funding appropriated for the fire department ladder truck. Approve funding from capital stabilization account not
to exceed 800,000 for replacement and repair of DPW transfer station concrete floor. >> Thank you. Uh next is notice of zoning amendment proposals. Councelor >> Golib.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Zoning. I'm zoning out. >> You want to just read it from here? >> Uh, page 93. >> Yep. So, this is order number FY26-030.
The city council moved that it be ordered that the city council of Greenfield amend the zoning ordinance chapter 200 article 2 definition section 200-3 by adding language in bold and by deleting language in the strike through as follows and attach exhibit A and further amends the table of contents and
index of the code and further that 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. field. >> Thank you. No problem. >> Very well read.
>> Any motions for reconsideration that we didn't do at the beginning of the meeting. >> All right, I'll take a motion. >> When did this go? Did I miss a meeting or something? >> This is just a first reading. It will be on our a joint meeting, I think, with
the planning board. >> You're not voting on it today. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? >> Yes. Second. >> Um, we need to roll call. >> Oh, crap. >> Sorry.
Patty drops off. >> Councelor Gool. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Master Taro. >> Yep. >> Councelor Bottomley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bullock. Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Perry.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Healey. >> Yes. Please. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Vice President K. >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. Yes. The meeting is adjourned at 10:59 p.m.
>> Thank you, Councelor Williams, for joining us from vacation.