Welcome. We I will call this meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. >> This meeting is being recorded shut down >> by the appointments and ordinances committee. If any other person present is recording, please let me know.
>> Thank you. And oh, >> she's I think she's just >> Great. Are you letting me know, Madison, that you're recording? You can come up here and let me know. Yes, I'm gonna record. I'm going to be switching back and forth between your
committee and school committee, so recording makes it a little easier for notes. >> Great. Great. That is okay. Okay, great. So, I will do a roll call of members and if if possible, it really does help to see your faces. So, if it's not possible, I
understand that, but if it is possible, um I appreciate being able to to see your to see your faces as part of a meeting. Um and to committee members. Um, okay. I will take a roll call now. Um,
Councelor Webb >> here. >> Councelor Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Patty Williams >> here. >> Councelor Fold >> here.
>> Councelor Gol, I'm here too. Okay. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes from April 8th, 2026? So moved. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Okay. So we will do a roll call vote to
accept the minutes. Councelor Web, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. Councelor Golib is yes. Okay. Now is the time for public comment. Um,
anyone wanting to give public comment, please write your name or there's no one here. So, you will need to write your name, but is anyone there wanting only the only person Nancy, if you're wanting to give public comment, if anyone's wanting to give public comment, um, you
can come off come on come off mute. Let me know. Okay. At this time there are no public hearings and I would like to take these um motions I would like to take the items out of
order because I appreciate you coming here um uh Stephen to come and talk about the uh proposed ordinance and I want to talk about that first so you can answer questions from the committee on that so you don't have to stay through the
meeting. Um, >> do we open and close the public hearing? >> No, there is no public hearing. Okay. >> So, thank you for asking that though. >> Sorry. >> No, no need to be. Sorry. Thank you for doing that. Um, okay. So,
what we are discussing first is a proposed new ordinance um for the authorization of the uh Yeah. Is that the for the authorization of the treasur? That's page 42.
And we had we're just bear with me one second. So we're going to discuss an item that is currently under discussion. proposed new ordinance for
authorization of treasurer to enter into payment agreements for taxes pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 60 section 62A which is on page 42 of our agenda and
um I wasn't here at the last meeting and I know that counselors had questions um >> for about this and so I asked Um, I asked Mandy or Stephen to come. So, thank you for coming. Um,
>> and councelor Gordon, do you are you able to I know that you had email them with these questions. I have the email in front of me, but are you able to share the questions from the last meeting or would you prefer someone else do that?
>> If you have the email in front of you, that would be great because I don't have it pulled up right now. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, also just uh point of order. Um, I think that Madison is unmuted which might be like I can hear >> possibly school committee. So, thank you.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for muting. >> Okay. So, I want you to read this just because I think this is a good recap of what you all talked about last time and there may be other questions too, but this is the email that we had sent and so then Stephen you can address address
us. Um, you probably heard um well this was initially to Mandy. You probably heard from director number about our discussion at ANO on May 13th, but I realized I should follow up with you about the specific suggestions and requests that we had for the payment
plan ordinance. Um, and we said we could make the amendments, but since this proposal proposal originally came from the city, I think it makes more sense for you to make the changes to make sure they fit the city's needs. Um, the main there's main there's two main issues.
One is um some form of criteria means testing to make sure that people who do have the means to pay don't automatically qualify for a payment payment plan. And the other issue is the interest rate. Um there was an agreement amongst the committee that we would like it reduced for those who are currently
at 16% because of previous payment terms. And councelor Williams shared a concern that even 8% is too high. I'm curious what you think about reducing the rates particularly for people currently at 16% and what the reason is for going with 8% as opposed to say 5%.
>> So those are the questions we're hoping you can help us address director network. >> No, no problem. Can you hear me? >> Can you uh we can hear you barely. >> Okay, let me uh let me see if I can fix >> up your volume somehow.
>> Yeah. Uh, is that better? >> Talk again. >> Is that better? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Good. Um, so Mandy's Mandy will be out
for a while. She's having surgery. Uh, so she'll be probably three or four weeks out. So, um, and I I think last time we had a good discussion on, you know, we don't want people to take advantage of this if if we're, uh, going
to move in that direction. So that's the means testing and um and we don't want to make Mandy the sole arbiter of who is more needy than somebody else because that's a that
puts her in a very difficult position uh moving forward. Um, as far as the interest rate goes, um, you know, we can do whatever we need to do, but the reason why that the statute exists is to
create a to create an incentive for people to pay their taxes on time. Um, and you know, the whole city runs on people paying their taxes on time, the cash flow, everything else. So, we want to create an incentive for that to
happen. Uh also um we you we lose use of the money. Um so when we don't collect enough in taxes, we have to go out and borrow. We have to go out and do other things. Uh so you
know 16% is high. There's no question about that. That's why they lowered it to 8%. Uh but if we do lower it, I want to be cognizant that it this creates an in one, it's an incentive for people to pay on time. Uh because we don't want
folks to say, well, if we knock it down to 3%, then I can get 5% somebody somewhere else or invest in a business to get five or 6% then I basically get a free uh a loan for the for the difference in in the uh interest rates.
Um and then the second uh piece of that is that we we want to have the interest rate set high enough where it creates an incentive to pay and
it doesn't create a disincentive for the people who pay on time. Uh because you know if it's it's like you know getting a parking ticket. Well, I'll just park here because it's only a couple bucks and it's no big deal. Uh so
that's really it. But you know, if uh 16% is high, no question. Uh 8%'s I think about right. Uh as far as this goes, uh and you know, it'll be up to the board and the and the uh city
council to decide where they want to go. Uh, but all I ask is that you um keep those things in mind, number one. And then number two, not have Mandy, the collector treasure, be the arbiter of who's more needy than somebody else because that that's tough.
>> Hand up, counselor. >> Um, thank you, Stephen. A couple questions I have. Um, how do these uh numbers compare to towns around us that do this? Um, and then
also what would be like the minimum needed to cover the cost of the extra admin work in terms of percent wise? >> Most towns that I know of stick to the statutory rates um because again they
don't want to put people in that position to decide. Um and then uh you know if we're just say we have a million dollars worth of unpaid uh so we have to go out and borrow or cut services or things like that. So borrowing is the
easiest to measure. Uh so so if we're going to borrow at 4% uh which our bonds right now are at like 4.1 around there. Uh so we're losing out on at least a four uh we're paying 4%
for money that we don't collect. Yeah. So, um, part of me thinks that, uh, folks who don't pay their taxes on, I would say the vast majority of people who don't pay on time can't,
um, they don't simply do not have the money. So I I'm more concerned about not punishing people for being poor in this situation. I understand what you're saying about incentive
etc. However, I think that the fear of losing one's house is pretty strong incentive to pay taxes. Um certainly is for me. Uh so I think
that what could be considered I understand what you're saying about uh the city needing to borrow etc. If in fact, and I was talking about a 5%
um but if in fact you feel as the fiscal officer that 8% is necessary, I would advocate that we have a longer payment period. I know we were talking about five, but maybe 10 makes sense simply
because folks who don't have money function uh in a very tenuous way monthto month >> and if I can pay less per month and but pay for a longer time, it's easier for
me to survive monthto month. I've been in this movie myself, so I think that's something to consider about this. So I think there has to be a balance around who what what's going on with our neighbors and wanting them to keep stay
in their home versus understanding the fiscal needs of the city. So that's what I want to say. >> I I agree with you. I the last thing we want to do is put people out of their homes. Number one. And number two, uh we
I believe we need a mechanism to work with people who really can't pay. You know, >> if if you can prove that you can't pay, which isn't that hard to do, you know, we we can go out 10, 15, 20 years, you
know, I I that doesn't bother me as much as um I and I know it's it's the few bad apples that that ruin the bunch in this. I I don't want to see someone who clearly has the wherewithal to pay to take advantage of something like this.
>> And and but if if you're truly needy, um I think we should have the ability to work with you any way that we possibly can. >> Rachel has her hand up. >> Yeah. Council Jordan, >> thank you. Um, yeah. I mean, I guess,
uh, Director Number, I'm I'm curious what kind of, you know, real, not necessarily data, but like it it sounds like the city has had experience with folks maybe, you know, trying to do a runaround and, you know, when they could
pay, but sorry, my brain is not working super well tonight, but like, um, you know, gaming the system, but I don't I'm curious how often that really happens. like is that how how much of an issue is that um you know that we would need to
necessarily think about having higher interest rates for that reason. Um so that's one question and then my other question is I think I'm a little confused about where we're we're landing in terms of means testing because I certainly agree with you that Mandy shouldn't have to make the decision kind of on her own. Um and I want to feel
clear on whose responsibility it is to to decide how that's done. like is that something that we need to be figuring out or is that something that is determined within the the treasurer's office? >> So, let me speak to um councelor Williams will respond and then we'll
pass it to director number. >> So, I was going to I think it's absolutely correct that you need to have very clear criteria around who becomes part of that program, the payback program. Um and I would
suggest similar to the elderly and disabled tax fund, we have done a huge amount of work around criteria and proof of income and proof of assets etc and so on and which I think is essential to
making sure that the folks who who are really struggling are the ones getting the benefit. Um, so I would I would strongly suggest that there would be criteria, you know, in place. So it would it's not up to Mandy. There's an
objective measuring uh system to determine who becomes part of this program. >> So director number and then councelor. >> Yeah. Um, so it it's
strangely enough it's it's a little more prevalent than I thought. Um, so when I went and spoke with the uh the assessor on this and and this really stems from an assessing point of view and then the assessing leads into the payment uh
piece. Uh, so we we do the large businesses in town, which there's not that many of them, but they work very hard to uh bring their assessment down and pay
in ways where they don't have a penalty, but they pay at the last possible moment. Um, so for example, there's a business in town that's uh we valued at around $5 million.
Um, and they claim that their assessment should only be about $1 million. Uh, so we're talking fairly significant differences here. And so what that what happens there is that uh when we dispute
things like that then uh we're we're missing out on the uh revenue uh for that because it takes a while to um work its way through the system. And in the past um there are many many businesses that
are undervalued in town uh which are getting a break. So that has kind of put a um rough uh edge on our ability to generate revenue and collect revenues. So uh so
from the assessment point of view um to the because the interest rates are high enough that it's a penalty for these folks not to gain the system for the future. So my fear is that if we drop it low enough or drop it low enough uh
where folks can take advantage of it, they they will they will especially the large businesses. >> Ask a quick followup to that. >> Sorry. Um >> I'm curious that like what we're talking
about is more residential though. So >> that's what I thought we were talking about. >> I don't know. Yeah. if you have experience on that side. >> I have questions around that. >> Yeah. Like I guess what I'm hearing is you're concerned
about millions of dollars whereas like someone who has a $10,000 tax bill and can't pay it. Like that's not going to break the city. So I guess I'm wondering like we don't have a split tax rate. Can we do a split repayment plan of sorts? like businesses
have a different criteria they have to meet. And then second, I know we also talked about like a graduated repayment plan last time. Um I don't know. I think in conjunction with what Patty was saying where there needs to be very clear criteria like if you make this much of the poverty line, like you know,
very DTA style, I feel like um yeah, those are my thoughts. >> No, I I I agree with you. I I'm worried about millions and and you're you're very correct about that. Um, if someone owes $3,700
for a delinquent tax bill, um, I don't see a reason to ever take that person's home over $3,700. And that's just my personal philosophy. And I know Mandy has that personal philosophy as well. Um, and you know, if
it's less than 10, if it's less than 15 or less than 25, um, if there was a way that we could work with those folks, that would be great. Um, I don't know. We'd have to ask our attorney to weigh
in whether or not you can treat people um, differently based upon the how much they owe and things like that. So, we'd have to go through that. But, you know, if you were to uh
go down that road, I think that's a a fairly decent, you know, single property homeowners, uh, owner occupied homeowners, um, who need a break basically. >> Exactly.
>> See, you can go next. >> So, I never considered this at all for business. >> Yeah. I only consider this as a way to stop people from becoming unhoused. Um, so yes, I kind of see that's the to
me that's kind of like the framework of this is keeping our neighbors in their homes. >> Mhm. >> Another good program to keep our neighbors in our homes. So a payback program that has specific criteria.
That's how I saw this as not not at all associated with business community. And if somebody, frankly speaking, if somebody is assessed at a mil 5 million and they're claiming a million, then I think somebody ought to get in there and put the screws to them myself. And I
hope that's on record. >> We are. Yes. >> Yeah. And and and I want to be very specific that this is for owner occupied single single family residences or or you know owner occupied residences.
>> Exactly. Wait, I'm going to ask I'm going to ask a clarifying question because I'm still confused and then councelor Baldock and then councelor Gordon. So I'm having a hard time tracking. We councelor Gordon had asked how often
this type of thing is needed. You talked about businesses and then you said it's only single family owner occupied. So this does this doesn't apply to businesses. Correct. I just I might be wrong. I >> I thought the interest rate was
businesses as well all delinquent taxes. >> Okay. >> I could be wrong on that. >> We need clarity because I think part of this part of the situation here is that this this is a proposal coming from the city and so there's certain things that we need clarity from the city >> from. um understanding why this is being
proposed, what exactly is being proposed and we could read it again right now, but I think that would be really helpful to get from the city. Is the intent for this to apply to businesses or just single family homes or multif family homes? What is the
getting very clear on that I think is necessary. >> Yes. >> Okay. And um and I'm going to ask another question because I put myself on stack and off stack, but um I'm hearing
I'm I'm wondering the question earlier was like what criteria would you propose? And I think that I'm I think that what I'm hearing is don't have Mandy do it, but I think that what this the committee needs before we would pass something is clear criteria from the city. Well, this is not the not for us
to create the criteria, but for you all to create the criteria and come back to us with what that is so that it doesn't land on one individual to create that. Do you have that criteria or are you working on creating that? Could you
bring that back to us in writing before the next committee meeting or or where where is your criteria at? Yeah, I I don't have any criteria and um and I'm not sure what Mandy has been working on before she uh she left. That's
>> fair. Yeah. And so uh but you know, just thinking off the top of my head, I think the template for the um senior tax um system would be a good starting point. Could you could you or Mandy or whomever
before the next time we discuss this take write that write it so that rewrite the ordinance or or reference that or in some way come back to us with language that includes that clearly because I >> I can meet with Steve
>> you can meet together >> I can meet Stephen we can have coffee and go right >> that sounds excellent >> I would like I would like that before the committee We still have discussion, but I would like that before the committee goes into much more depth about it. Um, okay. I'm just making a
note about that. Okay. So, councelor Bulldock and then councelor D. So, forgive me if this is a little bit of a an elephant in the room, kind of an oddball question, but and this is addressed broadly to the room. >> Yeah. When I was reading the budget book, I noticed that we don't have a split tax rate, and what I'm hearing is
that the city is basically in a huge deficit for incoming funds. Would it would it not would it burn the candle at both ends to have a split tax rate? >> So we we every November the council decides whether or not we'll have a
split tax rate. So that would be that and that no no one has pushed for that yet, but that would be the time to vote. >> I'd be curious to hear the history of the decision because that seems >> Yeah. I just I just have questions. That's all. I'm just curious. >> I know. It's good. It's a really It's an
important question and we revisit it every year. So that's it's important to ask. >> Yeah. Because I've been curious for a little while about why that is. But anyway, >> yeah. Yeah. Councelor Gordon, >> thanks. Um, yeah, I will lower my hand.
Sarah, the short version is to my understanding that we don't have enough of a commercial base to that it would >> be enough of a help to make it worth the disincentivizing of more commercial
property. That would probably happen. >> That's reasonable. >> And that the assessors have gone after businesses. >> That's a new thing for the city. See, like I like the lore and the backstory. like I'm very interested in the system. >> No, it's it's really important. Yeah,
>> knowing the context and the history is super important. So, I appreciate you asking. Also, um I think I was going to say is just to to go back a little bit um just fodder for the conversation that councelor Williams and director number are going to have at the coffee shop. um is personally I would much rather go
with a higher interest rate and um shorter payment periods um than the alternative because I was compelled by uh what Mandy said previously that that I I think I told everybody about last month that you know
the longer the payment period goes a you know the more people end up paying overall but also um the higher the rate of people not actually ultimately repaying. Um, and I was compelled by that logic to
maybe make the time period a little shorter. So, if it's a choice between those two, that's what that would be my preference. And you meant just to be clear because I think I might have misheard you. I thought you said higher interest rate and shorter time, but I think you meant
lower interest. I think I misunder rate, shorter time is what you meant. Is that true? No, >> sorry. No, I'm responding to what councelor Williams said, um, if I heard correctly about >> saying, "Oh, well, if we do go with a
higher interest rate, I would want >> longer payment periods." And I'm saying if we go with a higher interest rate, >> I was talking. >> Yeah. >> Percent. >> Percent. Okay. Not years. Okay. No. No.
>> Right. I hope that made sense. If not, we can just follow. >> That does make sense. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. Thanks. >> Um Stephen, are you able to check with the city attorney about how like the
criteria that we can use and if we can treat differences amongst people. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I'll check I'll check with the city attorney on that. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. >> Yeah. Thank you for circling back around. So, are there more questions?
Because I I'll can recap what I think we've said so far. Okay. So, it sounds like the next steps are we're not accepting public comment currently. The public comment time has closed and you can feel free to email
the committee. Okay. Can you lower that hand? I don't know if I can. Yes, you just did. >> Thank you. Oh, she did. >> Okay. So, the next steps that I'm hearing are for councelor Williams and director
number will meet it for coffee to discuss criteria and integrate that into an updated proposal. Director number, you will speak with the attorney about the legality of different tiers of
different tiers. Um, and you also get some clarity about which properties this applies to. Um, and then it sounds like there's still some discernment amongst members about what specific numbers and
we might not all agree and we might put forward something that the majority of us agree with. We don't know yet, but after we have that information, discern about interest rates and payment length. Is that am I? >> Yep. >> Yeah, >> I think you got it.
>> Okay, great. Is there anything else you would like us to know, Director Number, while you're while you're here about this before we change topics and me say good night? >> No, >> no, I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay, great. Any other discussion on this topic?
>> No, thank you for coming. Yeah, thank you for coming. >> Okay, I will I will see you later. >> Okay. >> All right. Bye. >> Bye. All right. So, I'm going to go back up and take the rest of the agenda in order. And first, I'm going to have a sip of
water. Um, didn't make them tiny on purpose. Water. >> Yeah, a little water. Okay. Would somebody here like to read the order that is on chap chapter page nine
>> the motion? >> Yep. Order number FY26-147. City council ordered uh moved to be ordered that the city of Greenfield or that the city council rather pursuant to the charter section 2-10 affirms the following appointments and reappointments by the mayor. All terms
to expire December 31st, 2029 unless otherwise posted. Board of Health, Dr. Darius Greenbacher. Board of License Commissioners, Ruth Ellen Henry and Phil Corant. Both terms to expire June 30th, 2029. Cemetery Commission, Ian
Hodgegden. Community Preservation Committee, Gar Shannyfeld. Mayoral Appointment. Historical Commission, Tim Black and Marggo Jones. Planning and Construction, Derek Healey and Gene Wall. Public Library Board of Trustees, Sarah Ahern, Bellare, William Benson,
and Jonathan Cohen Gorsiza. My apologies if I butchered that. Public Safety Commission, Maria Burge, four-year term to expire December 31st, 2020 or 2030 rather. Recreation Commission, Donna Ducel and Daniel Pekki, alternate.
Trustees of the Soldiers Memorial, David Lewis and William Phelps. Majority vote required. I'll second that. Um discussion about the appointments. >> I cannot vote because I am on the
historic commission. >> Okay. When it comes to the council, we might you might request for that to be taken. You could just abstain. Actually, >> I could just abstain. I mean, >> it's not going to be a contentious vote. That works. Any other discussion?
Okay. All right. We'll take a roll call vote with gratitude for all of these people for their time and energy and attention to our city. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon,
>> yes. >> Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulldog, you will have stage. >> And councelor Bulock, yes. Right. So, >> next page we have is page 19 in the
packet. >> Okay. Order number FY26-151. The city council moved that it be ordered that the city of Greenfield adopt Massachusetts general law chapter 200A section 9A which provides an alternative procedure for the city's
disposal of abandoned funds such as e excess equity that has not been claimed after a sale or appraisal of property taken by the city through a tax title foreclosure. And further that unclaimed excess equity recovered by the city after such sale or appraisal of property by appropriated and allocated by
appropriated and allocated for the following public purpose. Half of the unclaimed excess equity amount to be deposited into the elderly and disabled tax fund with the remaining half deposited into a fund for maintaining properties taken by the city under tax title before their sale. Majority vote
required. >> So moved. second. >> Thank you. There might be just note to Tammy that line. We don't have to rewrite it, but there's there's a that like last half of
that. I think there might be some words that need to be slightly edited for on the buy appropriated and allocated if that could >> I was reading and I'm like did I have a >> did I just so Tammy if you could edit that before it comes to the council that
would be great um and also can can someone just I don't know if she's going to get this before it actually this isn't going to come these The appointments will come to the full
council meeting uh this month, but given that it's a budget month, the rest of the ordinance changes won't come until July. So, um Tammy, you'll see this before then. So, please edit that.
>> I can just give this copy to her included here. Which section did we want to >> I don't know. I think I I don't know that we need to I think just that unclaimed excess equity recovered by the city after such sale or appraisal of property appropriate I think by just >> can we tighten the language I'll just
yeah >> yeah just tighten language I don't think we need to do that together um right now but discussion on this we've been through this a hundred times so I'll talk about it some more if you want me to but I don't think I need to I think everyone on the committee
understands what this is. >> Yep. >> Okay. Members of the public can look listen to many past ANO meetings to understand this. >> Yes. >> My only question was do you know where in and I asked Tammy this by email, but
like where members of the where people from the public or us can see like where the MGL pieces that were adopted live in the online code? Like where I'm just curious where this is found. I feel like this is information we should right like if you
look at the e code like where >> they don't include a hyperlink I don't think >> no >> you have to go you have to go to master laws >> but where does it show the >> I found them >> where does it show which ones we we we adopt as a city that's what I'm
wondering oh that's a good question no idea >> yeah so anyway >> Kathy's got a question >> okay I'm I'm waiting I asked Tammy and Kathy and Quinn about that when I get the answer. I hope I will remember. I will do my best to ask them to send it to you all so we all know where that
lives. Do you have an answer to that question? What's >> I think I could be wrong about this, but in the e-code um there's like the charter and the code and then there's something called disposition list or and disposition of legislation. It's like the bottom of a dropown list on the
e-code website. And I believe that that's where it shows what we've adopted and when we've adopted it. I don't know that it includes specific elements of MGL, but it does it is like when we've adopted other things. So
>> these are mostly >> a place to start. >> They're mostly amendment local things. Well, okay. So interesting. I will if I she responds and I remember I will send this to everyone so we know those things
we should. But any other discussion on this item? No. So just in looking in in terms of editing, what do you what are you writing? >> Oh, I asked her to tighten the language
of the motion so that it's >> because sale or appraisal of property if you just take out buy, it's property appropriated. >> Yeah, I think get rid of the word buy. >> Yeah, >> makes sense. I'll uh here and I don't think it matters that we're adopting the
language that matters is the language that's I would be all over it if I thought that it was the final law. This is because it's not the ordinance >> that takes care of it. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> All right. So, given that there's no
discussion, we're going to vote on whether to recommend this to the full council. Councelor Web. >> Yes. Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams, yes. Councelor Bulldog, >> yes.
>> Councelor Golib is yes. Okay. So, that was adopting MGL and this is creating a new ordinance in our city >> on the same topic. >> Would you like to read it?
>> It is on page 20 24. Okay. Oh, I can't see the number. City Council order number 26-142, city council order, city of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield
City Council amends the code of the city of Greenfield by adding chapter 351 retain unclaimed equity from sales on properties taken by tax title as attached there to and further amends the table of contents and index of contents 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. Second.
>> Any discussion? >> Um, the cat gets to vote, right? >> Thank you for your work on this. >> Oh, sure. >> All right. Let us vote to recommending.
Councelor Web, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. Councelor Bullock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gol. >> Yes. >> All right. Can somebody please read the order on page 27?
>> Order number FY26-144. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council amends the code of the city of Greenfield by adding chapter 460. City of Greenfield zero emission first vehicle ordinance is attached here too and further amends the table of contents
and index of the contents of the code and further that non-substantive 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 second
and there were non-substantive there's a couple nonsubstantive changes is made to this that people can see by looking at the packet. Um, we've had a hearing on this and I double checked with the clerk's office about the hearing applied to
this. They said yes. And um, we're any discussion this? >> When are you planning to put this for the full council meeting? I believe July unless there was a special urgent reason because part of it
is qualifying for grants and so if President Wandelowski chose to put this on the June agenda it would be for that reason. So I would say that's up to her discretion um within the next two days
before the collapse. >> Cool. Um, the deadline is in December and I'm meeting with Director Collins tomorrow to get all of our loose ends about the climate leaders. >> Thank you. >> Designation,
but yeah, I just I know I think that's why NY's here, so I wanted to ask the question. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think within the next two days or whatever the deadline is president is president. So you might if you wanted to
reach out to her then you could do that. Yeah. Any other discussion on this. Okay. Seeing none. Councelor Webb >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldog. >> Yes. >> Councelor Goliv is yes. Great. and also with with gratitude to council for presidenti for all her work. >> Yes.
Okay. Someone want to read the order on page 32. >> Order number FY26-145. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council amends the code of the city of Greenfield as written in the striketh through attached here to chapter 394 tag
sales and further amend the index of the code and further that non-substantive 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 bigfield. Majority vote required. Second
>> second. We've also discussed this one quite a bit. Is there any discussion on this? Any discussion? Councelor Williams, you feel ready to vote on this one? >> Yes. Councelor Web?
>> Yes. Sir Gordon? >> Yes. Councelor Williams? >> Yes. Councelor Bulock? >> Yes. Councelor Gol. Yes. Okay. All right. So, we are now shifting from motions. Those are the motions. The
next discussion, the item on page 35 is the updates to the public assemblies ordinance.
and half proposed amendments came from you but half came from councelor Brown. >> Yeah. So discussion on this one. Yeah.
So um I've had individual discussions with people regarding this uh including Sarah and I my feeling is that um the language
meant to guarantee civil rights. I have a I have this feeling it's not a that it's going to harm it. And here's why. I think that the the
less we talk we say the police can the police can't the police is a can sometimes create a situation where you know that allows them to be abusive in other words I don't expect them to be abusive
frankly but it allows them to be in a situation where you say they can use this weapon or they can't they can use that that concerns me. My preference and or my approach to language regarding the
assemblies is to leave it in a situation where it's just dealing with scheduling. And I think I've said this before, but and in a situation where there is abuse, you sue them, you know, so tear gas, no tear gas, etc.
and so on. I I'm iffy on it. So, I'm actually going to abstain from this. I wish I was more articulate about it, but I'm not. Sorry. >> That's okay. I have follow questions, but I'd like to hear from the people before
I ask questions. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yeah, I I hear that, Council Williams, and and I appreciate that concern. Um, and I think, you know, as as we we've talked about this uh proposal a lot already and we're going to keep talking
about it more because we're not voting on it tonight, but I think, you know, it's particularly the tear gas thing that that is a hangup for me that I do want us to ban. Um, I'm somewhat less concerned about the other ones. And I think it also still leaves plenty of tools in the toolkit in terms of crowd
control for the for the police. Um, but in terms of even being able to take legal action against an abuse, there has to be something in the law that prohibits the thing that, you know, someone would take legal action about. So,
you know, it's there's no perfect way to do this. The language always is going to there there's always going to be a lot of gray areas, but um, you know, I would I would honestly love to ban more of these things. Like there are plenty of countries in the world where uh there is there are a lot of you know there's good
crowd control um generally speaking without a lot of the tools that we seem to think are absolutely necessary in the US. Uh which raises questions about why we think they're so necessary. But you know tear gas is is really the the bright line for me that I don't think there's a reason particularly given all
the other things provided for here that we should ever need it. And so I'm I am comfortable banning it. Web. >> Yeah, I I don't know. I still have mixed feelings about all of this. I think to
Councelor Williams's point, like what I hear from Chief Dodge is, well, if we don't have this, then our def line of defense is guns. And so I want to make sure we have many things in between
words and guns uh as a deescalation tactic. The other thing I think that is kind of underlying all of this is like fear on everybody's part. Like the police fear that they're not going to be able to do their job correctly and keep people safe. And there's people that
fear the police and that what police can do with the tools that they have. There's people who fear public unrest. Um, I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud, but those are the things that are coming to mind for me when we're talking
about all of this. And I don't remember if I said this last time, but it would be helpful to understand like a method of procedures or something from the police or the sheriff's office
about like how non-lethal force is chosen to be used and how crowd control measures are chosen to be used. And um I don't think it's I also, you know, like we're a community and the police are here to serve the community. I think
it's okay to ask the community like how do you want your police to uh be keeping you safe and like what are your expectations of the police and stuff like that. I don't know. I think there needs to be a lot more conversation. I also think I think home rule prevents
us from actually interfering with state law enforcement and uh or county level law enforcement. So the language on page four, including but not limited to the Franklin County Regional Special Response Team. I don't think we have the legal authority
to stop that from happening. Okay. I'm I'm wondering back to what you were saying, Council Lens. I there's there's kind of two categories in the use of force part of this. One is
the timing, the pacing with which other weapons could be used. And the other is just outright banning tear gas. If if the I'm trying to understand the concern more
if if they if they don't have tear gas and they couldn't use tear gas. So how would it allow them to be more abusive to not have access to tear gas? They couldn't use it if they didn't have it.
>> I don't understand that. >> So what you said is you you're concerned about harm. you're concerned that that that make passing these pieces around not about around using these weapons um creates a cons a situation in which it
allows them to be more abusive um and and you're concerned about that and I'm saying when it comes to the tear gas piece if they can't access the weapon of tear gas how does that what would what what is the situation that
you're seeing play out. >> No, I think the the tear gas I have no problem with them. I have no problem with with with banning the tear gas. >> Okay. >> My understanding is international law. Somebody said that >> it's international law
>> bans tear gas. >> Right. Except >> so I don't have a problem with that. >> Okay. >> But um I guess I'm trying I'm sorry I I'm trying to articulate this the best I can. I guess,
you know, I was perfectly comfortable with the original language because all it dealt with was you have a first amendment right to be here. >> Uh, we would like you to schedule
accordingly. >> Yeah. >> And it's going to cost you money if you use the sound system at, you know, energy park kind of thing. it it was more logistical stuff around people assembling because people assemble all
the time in this town. We like our demonstrations. We do this. >> And I was perfectly comfortable with that. And my concern is when we start building something else that that's
going to disrupt that that situation because from my experience has been that that but this isn't to say I mean I understand language isn't for just today it's for tomorrow. But my experience has
been nothing but cooperation in terms of city hall and the police in terms of large demonstrations and crowd control etc. And they've gone out of their way when no kings was supposed to be 300 and wound up being 3,000.
>> They handled it so well. >> Yeah. >> And the folks that were the organizers of it talked about it being something like they've never experienced before. >> Yeah. So, I guess I don't know. I I I don't visual I don't
visualize a situation of needing any kind of forcible crowd control happening. >> Yeah. >> Here. I maybe, you know, I'm naive, but that's kind of how I'm seeing it. I mean, the biggest political organization
that does demonstrations here is FCCPR, and I think I'm the average age for God's sakes. we can barely get out of the chair, never mind run a muck, >> right? >> You know, so I guess that's part of it. And when there was a huge Black Lives Matter demonstration where we went down
and knelt in front of the police station, the police just stood there and observed. So I was I guess I don't know. >> I guess I'm trying and I'm from Boston and I've been tear gas and I've been clubbed and I've been through all of that stuff throughout the years.
>> Yeah. So, it's kind of like here we are in Happy Valley and things seem to be okay. What the hell? Leave it alone. It's >> Yeah, >> maybe denial on my part, but that's how I kind of see. >> Yeah. Well, I'm just I'm I appreciate you naming your concern. I'm just trying
to understand how >> how codifying the current situation, >> but it's not the current situation because they do have access to tear gas like how that would how that would change things. But maybe
maybe councelor web wants to chime in. Yeah. About this. I guess the more we talk about it, um, like I'm hearing Patty say that this was originally just for licensing and getting things set up. Um, and it sounds
like we're debating more like policy of policing. And so I don't know if these two things maybe just need to be separated in that regard. And then second, um, what I know,
I think the the tear gas agreement is like countywide and so it would have to it would be like a cascading effect to change all of that throughout the county. >> My preference is not to if if my
preference is not to vote on them separately. I mean, I would like one update to the I don't want to vote on two different updates to the public assemblies. I think we need to decide comprehensively what we're what or vote on what
there's a proposal to vote on what's like I don't want I don't want two updates to the public assembly's ordinance to come to city council. Although you're right, these are distinct questions. One is the process of scheduling and one is the use of
force. Um I just am not but understanding how yeah or what we're talking about is police policy and assemblies two different two different things.
>> That's what I thought we were I thought that's what Max was saying. I that's what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. So are we are we looking at are we looking at a community police board kind of idea
or I mean >> when we talk about community control of police are we talk is that what we're talking about versus this is what happens at assemblies is it is it a is it a bigger >> is it a bigger question and is this just
a piece of it oh I'm Sorry. >> Sorry. >> I think that >> though, >> well, I don't actually know that I think we have a decision in front of us. >> Okay. >> And I don't think that we need to delegate it to someone else. I think we have a responsibility to vote on a
proposal that's before us. >> Yeah. >> And I don't think it needs that long of a I think it deserves a discussion we're giving it now, but I do not think that we need to uh outsource the decision-m. This is under our jurisdiction. We do have
jurisdiction to decide whether or not tear gas is allowed and whether other use of force is still allowed. Um and personally while I'm not putting I didn't author the part that about the
use of force I would vote yes and particularly the tear gas ban. I just don't see why we shouldn't cify tear gas is not used in our town. My concern with that
okay don't want to cut anybody. My my concern with that has always been, you know, because we don't have authority to control things, you know, higher higher than our own local authority, what's to stop some other organization from coming
in using tear gas? We can't supersede those laws. And so it could cause logistical problems that really destroy the safety that's, you know, of any kind of situation because they all happen so fast. In other words, I'm basically saying like if we have to wait for some
specialized team to come in, what could get out of hand? And you know, >> when would we need to use chemical weapons that are banned in international law against Greenfield residents? >> I think there was only ever the one case that I've that I heard of and it was to
flush somebody out of a house in a hostage situation. Mhm. >> And that sounds like a long That doesn't sound like a That's not public assembly. >> No. No. But and that's the thing. If we ban tear gas, is this banning tear gas period or is
this banning tear gas for public assemblies? Because those are two different questions. >> My understanding is that this is banning tear gas. I mean, we should clarify this, but that this is banning tear gas specifically for public assemblies, which is why I think it makes sense to
that it's all in this proposal, even though, you know, it's it's true that we're putting different updates, you know, we're updating different pieces of it all together, but um that's certainly what I would hope that we're doing like in a very extreme scenario like flushing
someone out of a house in a host situation like yes, let's have all the, you know, tools available That seems to me the way to minimize loss of life. >> Yeah. And and I do think that if we're I don't know. I'm just still not feeling
that compelled by the idea that be if other agencies still could use it that that means we shouldn't ban it because it'll cause like logistical challenges. Um I' I'm be much more willing to deal with
those. I mean, it's easy for me to say because I'm not the person who has to, you know, deal with them in a hands-on way, but I would I would rather we have to confront the logistical challenges than allow tear gas because it would somehow make our lives
easier. Um, I would say I think I just feel like if we're trying to outright ban tear gas like across the board, blink it this like I don't think we're it's going to pass and I don't think the mayor's going
to let it pass either. like but I think going for just public assemblies I think that could be an option like specifying that like no tear gas at public assemblies. >> I think if we had the language that
specified that it was specifically relating to public assemblies I think that would be helpful. I guess I'm approaching it from a different direction because I don't understand how it would apply to anything else since it is in the public assembly's ordinance. >> It's under crowd control. The language
the I do think if that there could be an amendment there could be someone could make an amendment and it's 2179A. It currently says the use of tear gas by the Greenfield Police Department or the
law enforcement officer shall be prohibited. So it could read in the case of public assemblies. >> I thought it was an outright behance that's currently being proposed 2179 217A
and anything is amendable with a vote. >> So that sounds like something we need to clarify. and and then the other ones. I mean this is pretty um 2179 C
3 second paragraph. I mean, such warnings when possible, if possible, like it feels it feels pretty lenient. I'm just like I really want I don't want there to be harm against protesters and I don't but I just don't see how this
creates more harm that would like there's the tear gas and then looking at the other language. How The measures used are necessary to prevent mand seems pretty open. I mean, this language
seems like a a basic codification of what exists and pretty open-ended, >> right? And my understanding is that councelor Brown has gone back and forth a lot and and really tried to update the language to incorporate the concerns that the police had about their hands
being tied. Um I mean someone else who knows more can correct me if I'm wrong but that you know she's been working on this for a long time and I agree that it's to the extent that it's you know the vast majority of this is a cotification of the good practice that
is already in place that makes a lot of sense to me and I would love for us to clarify the the specific question about banning tear gas you know in general versus specifically to public assemblies and and tweak the
language to make sure that that's clear, but otherwise I'm I'm totally comfortable with moving this forward. I'm wondering if it's the sentiment of the committee because it sounds like it is, but I'm not sure if I'm reading that
right that the that people would basically be comfortable like again where there's two different things. for the use of other force and the banning of tear gas. That 2179A, if it was amended to say the use of tear gas by the Greenfield Police
Department or other law enforcement officers shall be prohibited in the case of public assemblies. Like I I I could imagine councelor Brown would have an argument about it in general, but I'm think I'm hearing people feeling okay with that being in the case of public assemblies.
I'm wondering if if the sense of the committee is that that would be an amendment people would want or >> I think so. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. What? Because a moment ago you said that we're separating out the tear gas and I'm not that doesn't mean that you'll vote on this favorably or not but you said tear gas that makes sense and if we were to amendment amend that to say in
the case of public assemblies would that feel probably doesn't actually address the overall concern about >> I would not object to that particular language. >> Okay. Okay. My only other concern obviously would be the included but not limited to Franklin
County regional special response team because I'm I'm not sure that we have that authority. >> It'll need to go That's a great question and this will need to go to attorney Glenn and so um to maybe maybe write a
note to Tammy in the attorney review to check that piece in particular. Would someone like to make that amendment? Did the chair fast, please? >> Can you state what the amendment is?
>> Yeah. To add the words in the case of public assemblies to the end of line 2179. >> So moved. >> Second. But if we're can we a if we're just discussing this right now, can we
actually vote to amend it? Right now we >> we we are not voting. >> We ultimately we can amend the language and decide what language comes to the full council and anything can be amended on the full council floor as well. Like
it can be amended back. Um, >> it just seems to me that if this is only a discussion, there's no actual amendment vote to be taken because we would just need to update the language before us again, right? >> Robert's rules. We're overdoing it here.
>> But we're also Yeah. And like it's a it's a significant change those in the case of public assemblies six words, but it's a significant change to what it how it currently reads. So >> totally. I just think procedurally it's not a act. >> It's not necessarily procedurally. I'm
just making it formal. >> Yeah. Great. >> Like I'm like I don't want to I want to hear that this is coming from the committee and so therefore requesting it. >> If it comes from the committee because I don't So you made an amendment councelor
Brown I mean I'm sorry councelor web I have I have councelor Brown in my brain. Councelor web you made that you made you proposed that amendment. Okay. >> Yeah, I support that as well. And it sounds like broadly we have agreement.
>> Yeah, we have agreement on that amendment. >> Okay. So I guess the next piece is are there any other amendments or like it sounds like we don't yet have agreement on the
rest of the the rest of the on the rest of it. But I'm wondering >> we don't have to have consensus something forward. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm going to be the one to >> Yeah. Are there are there any other
changes that folks would want to propose to the rest of it? >> I have a question. I was trying to look at the language real quick. Is there anything about um like body cam procedure during uh uses of force?
>> Not that I see. >> They always have to have the body cam on, don't they? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't know that it's included here. >> I think I don't think it's necessary. >> City policy. Council Gordon, >> I think that that would fall under surveillance technology
policy or ordinance which um I plan to bring forward soon. Um, so it's probably better covered there because I think I would also hesitate to get into specific like get that specific about something particularly if we can get it covered
under a a broader ordinance that covers all surveillance tech because then we really like we're like oh in this situation body cam you know do this with these different pieces of technology. I think that that does get to in the weeds with um police procedure, but
um I'd like to talk to you offline, counselor web. >> Yeah. Okay, that's fine. >> So, we we're not going to vote to recommend this or not recommend this now because it's not a motion and our decision now is whether this is ready
for a hearing, a hearing and a recommendation. And that really depends on whether people want to bring forward amendments or have substantive content questions now. And so I'm wondering, you may not know how you'll
vote on this either in committee or in the full council, but are there any other substantive changes changes that you'd like to propose to this before we bring up for a hearing? I think that that I think that it's
actually a this question though about the countywide thing is significant and so if um if you could ask and Tammy as you're listening I think it would be worth asking this question of the
attorney before it comes to a hearing because that might be considered a significant shift if we cross it out at that point. So um so to Tammy we're ready for a hearing on this as long as that question is addressed and if it's illegal to include them then please
cross them out before bringing them to hearing that sounds good. Okay. We feel complete on this discussion. Yeah. Okay. Great. Moving on from tear gas. Okay. Um,
next we have we already discussed the next item and the final item for discussion is a possible change to our committee's regular monthly meetings and I appreciate I'll say I know you all
discussed this. I have some thoughts to share about this. I appreciate the request because I do think that there's two really there are two really significant meetings these nights that often members of the public want to go to. school committee in this one. As I thought about how to reschedu, I thought there's only one night that I think is
possible and I'm curious if the committee could do that, which is second Thursdays because committee chairs is the first week. It's it's challenging to put together the agenda, have us meet the first Wednesday, for example. Like committee chairs is first
Tuesday. I don't know that's possible for us to meet the like we don't have time to look at the agenda. members of the public don't have time to look at the agenda. If the agenda is formed on Tuesday, then to meet on Wednesday or Thursday, right? It can't be the first week. It also can't be the um the having
it be the third week close to full council me is really hard because we don't we decide partially what goes on the agenda and there needs to be time for that. There's other subcommittee meetings on Tuesday and Mondays and Tuesdays the second week. So if we're
left and I do not want to meet on Friday. So if we're left with the second week, the only other night that we could shift to is Thursday. So the second week >> curious to look at pulled it up. >> So >> and I haven't actually I didn't see anything there but I haven't
>> the zoning board. Yeah, I haven't zoning board. Do they meet here >> in this? I didn't look up where where people meet. Do they meet in this room? >> Yes, they meet in this room. >> Yeah, we can meet maybe at the fire. You can meet at the fire station >> or actually I believe the libraryies uh
conference room has zoom out. >> Okay. I would rather not meet at the fire just the logistics I think like being around a table like this as opposed to is there >> no meeting room in there. >> There is also like >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. That's where the text fun meets
the circle. >> As soon as you walk in the door, it's right on the left. Okay. >> It's a small meeting room. >> As long as it's not like us. No, it's not an auditorium like >> Okay, that was okay. Um, >> let me hold Let me see if the recreation uh So, they meet at the fire station at
6, the recreation commission. >> So, if they meet what room do they use? >> Uh, the meeting room. >> Oh, >> not the training room. But again, um the the library conference room, it's fairly large, but they have a nice central table.
>> Okay. So that could be something that we consider or we could meet um at a different time, but that's you know that's a challenge as well. >> Yeah. The only time shift that I'd be able to make is 6 6 or 6:30 on Thursdays. I mean we can't it really
can't be any other day given the city calendar. So, I guess the question is, if we were able to meet at the library, would 6:00 or 6:30 on Thursday evenings, the second Thursdays work for folks? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So, the next step is can you can you please um see if there's another this type of room in the city library
probably is the one that's available then if so we will meet then but >> July 13th Monday >> this would be starting this would be starting in >> August >> September mber. >> Oh. >> Um, >> yes. This would be
>> What happened to August? >> What happened? >> There's no school meeting. >> No. No. What happened to August? Is there's there's members that I know councelor Gordon won't be able to go. I might not be able to go August driving kid to college in Pennsylvania.
>> So, no meeting in August. Is that what you're saying? >> There will likely be a meeting in August, but it will likely be the second the second Wednesday. The time won't change until September unless something I'm trying to figure out when my kid is going to college.
He doesn't yet know which which week he's going. >> Mhm. I mean, folks could meet without me, but I' I'd like to be there if possible. Um for me members of the public and reminder to the committee, the July meeting has been rescheduled to
Monday 13th. The 13th. Yeah. >> Also at 6:30. And so August is currently scheduled for Wednesday the 12th um of August. >> Okay. There's a slight possibility Mike
could go to school earlier. Yeah. But we're look so these this time changes we're looking at it for September. Okay. Um and Tammy to please email the whole committee if as soon as you know if this
is possible so we can plan for it for September. Um, and yep, I just said number eight, Monday, July 13th. Now it's time to adjourn. Can I have a motion to adjourn this meeting? So
moved. >> Second. Councelor Le. >> Yes. Councelor Bordens, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. Councelor Bulldog, >> yes.
>> Councelor Bulib, yes. Thank you. Hope you feel better. Have a good night. Get some rest. Thanks everybody.