Recording in progress. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to the July Greenfield City Council meeting. I know we're 5 minutes late. We're on summertime, I guess. So, thank you all for being here tonight.
We have uh several counselors who are on vacation and at least one who will be joining us remotely. So, we will have to do everything by roll call votes tonight. So, just wanted to put that out there.
This meeting is being recorded by the city council and the Greenfield Community Television 9. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. We have the Greenfield recorder here. Thank you so much for being here. >> Clerk Scott, can we have a roll call of
the members, please? Councelor Golib >> here. >> Councelor Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Domas >> here. >> Councelor Bottomley notified us that he would not be attending. Councelor Bullock
is not here physically or online yet. Councelor Williams >> here. >> Councelor Bullduck >> here. >> Councelor Webb >> here. >> Councelor Brown >> here. >> Vice President Garrett >> here. Councelor Minhos,
>> yes. >> Councelor Cipes, Alves, >> here. >> And President Wandelowski, >> yes, here. >> President, you do have a quorum. >> Thank you. Uh, next is the pledge of allegiance, which is voluntary.
I pledge allegiance 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. >> Now, we're at the approval of minutes,
and we don't have minutes right now. Um the superintendent uh who is brand new as well as the school committee chair are un able to be here tonight and we don't have a written um update from them
to go over tonight. So we look forward to uh meeting the new superintendent next month. So next I'd like to have uh the mayor come up and anyone else she wanted to bring with
Good evening everybody. Um I'm going to start with an update on poet seat tower. In May, one of our building inspectors in um identified structural issues with significant
enough to require closing the tower. Unfortunately, the structure is in worse condition than we initially realized. Tonight, you're considering appropriations of $200,000 for repair. However, this likely will not be enough.
We estimate that the total cost of the repairs will be closer to $400,000. To help offset this, we are working to get the tower listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which may open up some new funding opportunities.
To begin, scaffolding must be installed on both the interior and the exterior of the tower. This will stabilize the structure so that an engineer can perform a thorough and safe inspection. We will then proceed with repairs based
on those findings. Unfortunately, we expect the tower to remain closed until at least the next fiscal year. We have received questions about why the tree and the lights are on the tower. Uh why they have not yet been removed and we
cannot remove them at this time simply because it's not safe to stand to send the staff up there inside the building. I love the tower as a destination, a landmark and a beloved icon of Greenfield. We are fully committed to getting it safely repaired. Just going
to take a little bit of time. Do and finance. Um I want to update update you on the reconciliation. We are in contact with Clifton Larson um and Allen um whom ways and means is going to vote
for um to hopefully we'll vote to hire for this reconciliation. There's a $75,000 appropriation on your agenda tonight um to allow us to move forward with contracting their services. I think it's just a first reading for tonight
though. Additionally, the 24 audit is nearly complete. Um, during the process, we discovered that our actuarial numbers of employees from FY21 to 23 included about 80 additional employees.
Um, this means that the OPED actuarial cost was inflated for those years and the error caused a delay in finishing the 24 audit. Due to that error in 21 and 23, the the auditor won't release a qualified opinion in this area till
that's rectified, I think. Is that correct? Okay. Downtown cleanup effort. We are stepping up um our efforts on cleaning and keeping clean the downtown. As a reminder, it is the responsibility of the property owners and their occupants
to keep their adjacent sidewalks and street frontage clean and free of and litter-free. Many of our local businesses are already doing a fantastic job on that and I want to thank them. I also want to express my gratitude to the
many community volunteers who have generously given their time to help cleaning up the downtown. The city is also going to work harder on our areas that we're in charge of. You may soon soon see the mayor's a office staff and me out picking up litter in front of
city hall. We're working on keeping everything that we own in the sidewalks out in front of, you know, like the library, the substation, the police office, the pocket park, and the the common. Um,
so to encourage this, um, we plan on giving an award, an a golden broom awards, the cleanest downtown property. Additionally, our DPW will be installing new trash barrels downtown over the coming weeks. That said, there are some
properties that are consistently neglected. We will begin enforcing our local ordinance and finding those who remain in violation. Fines would range from $50 for a first offense up to $400 for a fifth. I really hope that we don't
have to issue any fines at all. However, we want to have a clean and welcoming downtown. Um, and we must be willing to use both carrots and sticks to achieve this goal. Finally, we had a wonderful reading of the Declaration of Independence last uh
Wednesday on the common. About 25 people attended and most took turns reading a section of the document. For those who didn't catch the news coverage, the Museum of Printing and Haveril produced um beautiful reproductions using 18th
century printing techniques. Um state representatives delivered these to towns across the Commonwealth. I want to thank Representative Whips who delivered um ours to the clerk's office last week. Um, she actually did one of her
deliveries on horseback, but she did all of our communities and I think there was a representative who did all the deliveries on horseback. Um, thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions. Councilors, councelor Goo,
>> as we were looking at, as I was looking through the agenda, a question came up uh from you, which is, do we have an update on Green River School? And I know that we were uh we had borrowed about a million dollars from the city or or something like that.
and uh where we're wondering whether or not we were going to have to give it back. Have we received notice about whether we'll need to give that money back? Do we know yet? >> So, that's a great question. That was a MSBA. You're correct. It's an MSBA loan
that was on that for I think it was like 990,000. Just about a million. >> Yeah. >> So, that's been the question since we took it. Um, and we're working with we've been we've been working with our
delegation on that because we're not the only city that's in this position. Everybody has declining enrollment, which means there's a lot of schools that are no longer in use that have MSBA money
out on them. As a matter of fact, I thought we were going to sail through this because we were asking about that, but then somebody else got wind of that we were asking that for us not to have to repay for the city of Greenfield not to have to repay its loan and then some other got wind of that and
they're asking the same thing. So, the MSBA has not answered us. We have met with them a few times and at first their answers were if you let us know what you're going to use it for and then
we'll tell you which is a very hard position for us to be in because we took that over from the schools because the schools did not they no longer needed it. But to be saddled with that would be
it would be very difficult for us. So we're working with our delegation with a couple of different ideas. They're talking to MSBA. We just sent a letter out to um I think it was just went out to MSBA um asking for a little
bit more guidance on that. But we've been meeting with them right along and I would say not having an answer from them and being in limbo like that with that if that's politically correct to say I don't know that um
is probably what's held that up because you owe a million dollars on it. what you know if there's a reuse for it that actually very much goes into whoever's considering using it. >> Okay. So, you haven't heard yet? >> We don't.
>> Okay. And the other very loud um my other question is the updates. I appreciate you giving the update about the audit. Would it be possible to It's hard for me to track information auditorially and just hear it rather than seeing what you shared with us.
Would you be able to include that in the when you give an update in the packets because it's a lot of numbers and it's a new context so that the only time that we're hearing it isn't just hearing it when you say it, but we can actually read it before you present that information.
>> You would like that so I sent you both things that we had I sent to you both things that we had both emails that we had sent to them. But yes, I will put that part. I'll just send it to you all of you. >> Okay. And it could if it could be
included in the packet that it's where I absolutely and read it all weekend. >> No problem. No problem. Thank you. >> And I I don't like hearing numbers. I don't like hearing them the first time either. I need to look at them and think
about it. So, well said, >> Gordon. Hi, thank you mayor for being here. Um, I also love poet seat tower and it's a beloved symbol of Greenfield. I think we all can agree we want to see it repaired and this is a lot of money in a time
when we've recently had to rescend a number of financial orders uh that we didn't have the funds to cover for systems I think are you know actually really important to keep the city running. So, I'm curious um to hear a little more about what the structural
problems are and why repairing the tower uh is more or least starting to repair the tower is more urgent and important than the other things we could be spending these funds on right now. So, um so if you want to know what the
problems are, at first I thought it was going to cost $100,000 to fix. There's three problems. Um, one of them is the masonry that's kind of a mess. And at the top, I
don't know that much about masonry, but it's shaky and wobbly. I guess I would say >> then there's the stairs and they're not attached right anymore. I guess I would say that they're like not welded together. So when you're on this
step, if you were walking up the step, you'd be hoping that the person that was on the step ahead of you didn't weigh too much because that step is not like attached, right? It's it's coming like unglued, but it's metal. So welded. It
needs to be welded better. And then the third problem is the electricity that's going to it. Um so those are the problems with it. Now, is it more important than something
else? That's a good question as well. I always look at the things and think, what's more important than something else? This is important. It's like an iconic thing that's a part of Greenfield and an iconic symbol, I guess, of the city. And
there's been a lot of talk that, you know, this should be done sooner rather than later so that it doesn't like there was a question of whether or not it was really going to make it through the winter without doing something immediately. And I thought, well, we're not going to have we're not going to
have that to start. We had two things two things. the historical for the historical folks to look at it. Margot Jones gets somebody and that person needs $9,000 to like put it on the historical register. I don't
know exactly what that is, but taking a good look at it. And then that structural engineer part of it was another, you know, 10,000 for the engineering. So, you know, could that be held in light of something else? I'm actually
going down now trying to find out of all of the things that we still have there how we can pay for that. And I've been talking like we need defibrillators. I already talked to the chief about that. I said that's a priority. We have to get those. Um and we'll we're putting things
in order of um priority. So is it I don't know. Is it more one thing more important than the other? You do kind of have to weigh all of those things. So, you know, you can decide with your votes one way or another how you feel about it.
>> Thank you. Um, just a quick followup to that. Do you What can you tell us about the risks of waiting to do this? Um, not maybe not enough because I don't have I'm not I'm not the best person to be talking about
masonry and welding. Could you tell? But um we were I was just encouraged to get working on it sooner rather than later. But um again, that's a choice that you can make.
Councelor Menhouse, >> thank you for being here, Jenny. Um, I would just I understand the money crunch that we're kind of in right now and a lot of cities and towns are in, but I would just like to say as somebody who's
been in Greenfield for my whole life and everyone around like the tower is such a central part to everyone's experience, like when someone from outside of town comes in, that's kind of one of the only things we can show them. We're like, "Oh, there's this little hill." And then
you can kind of see the town. But I think apart from that, it's also if we don't fix it and it kind of just crumbles, what kind of message does that send about how we treat our, you know, historic places, how we treat our
monuments? Um, I mean, it's isn't it kind of like our logo? So, if the whole thing comes crumbling down, is that really a good look? I don't I don't think so. So, I'd just like to share that. And um I think rather than waiting
for and pushing the can down the road, I mean, what if it ends up needing a lot more work and what's a $400,000 expenditure turns into, oh, we have to tear the whole thing down and build it up again.
Can we even do that? So, I like that you guys are reaching out to the state and potentially other agencies to see if this can qualify for some grants and funds. And we appreciate that. But this is like a huge part of Greenfield. And I
know it's not like, you know, the Eiffel Tower, but it is pretty cool. It's I mean, that's where the fireworks happen. That's everyone goes up there when you're a teenager. You screw around there. That's that's that's kind of one of the defining places of Greenfield.
So, thank you for putting in your effort to try to rehabilitate it, but I can totally understand the crunch that we're in. >> So, I just want to say on that, we have gotten a few letters from people who were very interested because they they
know it's a a big part of our heritage and the history of the city. And initially when we put this order forward, I thought the total cost of fixing it was going to be closer to $100,000. Um, and now that number is higher. So,
we're leaving both of those orders in for now. And I do want to just say that although those numbers are in front of you, I just want to make clear that I now know, which I did not know when we put this order into the clerk, that the
figure is going to be higher. So this is not the last that you will be hearing on that. And you know it's a decision. All of the things where we spend our money are all things that you all we all have to decide together. Is that worth it? You know, do you feel
like that's worth that or not? So thank you, >> Councelor Webb. >> Um thanks for all the updates. I wasn't at the Ways and Means, so I think this got a positive wreck, but not for me. I
Yeah, it feels hard to say yes to this much money when we're in this crunch. I also am wondering now with the updated price and it sounds like to get it on the historical registry, we need like 10,000 and then another 10,000 for the
structural engineering. Can we do a smaller order for like 50,000 just to keep it safe while we and then wait until we get CPA funding next year hopefully? Like are there compromises we can make here? >> Absolutely. Councelor Web. So you have
well within your rights to make any reduction to that and I'm fine with that. You know, you go ahead as you're deliberating. If you want to put a lesser amount forward till we get more information, that's perfectly fine with me. I mean,
it would be anyways cuz you'll you'll you know, I live in America, so I I go with whatever you all vote on, that's what I would say. That's perfect. That's what we're going to do. So when I was putting this forward, I wanted to get a something in there
because I thought we could do it, you know, for, you know, our first guesses and they would, you know, just guesses from department heads with what it would be. So um, but you may amend any order downward.
I don't I don't think people can amend orders upwards, though. They can't you can't amend them upwards, but you could amend either one of those downwards to whatever till more information was found and we could wait till all of the things were in. I'm perfectly fine with that. I
wanted to get a number in there in time to get in a packet and I am I I would agree with whatever you all decide. >> Councelor Garrett, >> thank you. My question was answered by a couple of
people before me, so I'm happy to move on. >> Councelor Brown. >> Oh, sorry. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. Um, so the question I have is a understanding that it's going to cost $400,000. That estimate comes from who?
That came from one of the last engineers that took a cursory, you know, took a a look at it. not the official engineering thing, but um Joe Pugs brought somebody out that was an engineer and that person said
400,000. But that's, you know, not all not an official um estimate because they'll have to, you know, take a good look at it and give us a line by line of what it was. But I heard 400 400,000.
>> So then this structural engineer theoretically would actually give a real estimate. Mhm. >> once they come on board >> and the structural engineer would cost about 10,000. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Brown. And then I've got
councelor Cen. >> Um hypothetically, if we were to reduce the financial order, what would be the minimum to keep it rolling and keep making progress? Like you mentioned 10,000 and for the engineer and what was
it? 9,000 for the um historic historical registry. So, so you could reduce it to like 25,000 if you wanted. Then we could do both of those things and take a a better and longer look. Then if we did need to do anything
through the winter, I'd be a little, you know, I'd be a little leery, but that, you know, I'm not exactly sure. Councelor Civels. >> Um it's my understanding that we did not
fund or that there was orders that were rescended um because of the free cash that were some important infrastructural things. What's the status of how or the one then there are some that need to be done this year. Mhm.
>> Um, how are we going to decide which ones need to get done and what to prioritize? >> So, um, I'm already t started talking with the department heads and you'll probably see more next month. I talked to Paul Newell of the things that he put
forward. I think he picked four or five that we absolutely needed to do. Um, and so we'll do those as a borrowing. I talked with the chief about both chiefs
about um defibrillators just this week and I'm trying to work out a little something of how we're going to pay for those. But for the orders that came forward, they were all DPW ones and I've addressed them with Paul. One of them,
one of them you have before you for the I and I that actually was just a misprint when it came out. The first order that you got said that you received said 600,000 from borrowing to be paid for out of returned earning out
of to be paid for out of ret retained earnings which was just actually a misprint. It was supposed to be from borrowing. So that was always planned to come from borrowing the 600,000 and then he had four or five others. Um and we probably
will borrow for those. And then of the other I have some other ones from other departments that I had not put forward yet. So I'm looking at them and seeing exactly how we can do them. And uh many of them may be from borrowing.
>> And will we be voting on all of those? >> Oh yes. And um is there a general is there a total for the amount yet or >> um I think what was needed from DPW I'm just saying this is an estimate maybe around $600,000
and the others I don't have that number for you tonight but it was from several other departments and there were a couple of them that we tried for in different ways. So, I was hedging my bets on
things. We'd asked for some ear marks for things. So, I was waiting. Um I was getting, you know, better estimates from Carol Collins about some of the vehicles because, you know, we had one that somebody put in for for 40,000. She
thought she'd be able to get a used something for $18,000 for a department. So, I'll have those numbers for you for August. And you'll probably see first readings on them. If they were needed, they're needed. And this is how I look at it.
If the department heads, they run their department. They have a lot of expertise in that. I'm not going to overall them on that. If they said they feel like they needed them and it was, you know, tied to safety in any way, I'll be putting them forward and we will find a
way to pay for them. Mayor, I have a few questions. Um, so thank you for all of the updates and all that you're doing. Um, on the reconciliation process, can you just remind us uh how long you guys are estimating it's going to take to get
everything in order um to then get us to what they need. How long it will take? >> Yep. I don't know how long it will take. >> Okay. >> Um, so once CLA gets in here, I think I'll
have a better idea. They might have an estimate of how long it will take. I'm actually not sure. We had two people in here looking at it and they didn't get to the answer yet. Do you have an idea of how long it would take? >> Um, yeah. I'm I want to push them for early
fall uh to get this taken care of. uh because the couple things that we want to have them do is uh the reconciliation also get the workpapers together for the 2526 audit and then we'll be able to move forward very
quickly into December the next budget year. >> Thank you. Um my follow-up question, um have you all started to project out if if there actually is the $3 million
deficit? Um and how that's how you will deal with that, how the city's going to deal with that if we if we end up with the worst case scenario. Yeah, I I I would want to my feeling is that it's an accounting issue and and it's not a
structural issue uh that way. Um so once CLA gets in here, uh I'd like to get their uh look at it once they delve into it a little bit deeper and um if it turns out to be a cash issue, then we'll have to come up with some better ideas.
Uh however, I I do believe that it's an accounting issue, a booking issue. Okay. I just want to urge you to to look at if it's not accounting, what that's going to mean for the city so that we're
ready in advance and not having stuck on our heels spending money on big projects and then go whoops. >> Um and then my last thing which is related to the audit. So that's exciting that
that's almost done. What's the process for that being shared? Um, how is the public brought into that? How is the ways and means as well as the city council so that we're kind of all on the same page with understanding what the
auditors are telling us. >> So, as soon as as we get a copy of that audit, that would be shared with Ways and Means. I have been through that process before. you'll actually get a copy of it and then I think you can you know if you have any we had had a night
in the past when um we actually had the auditor come if you had any questions if you want to do that we'd be happy to do that >> please. >> Okay. I know for a lot of companies and nonprofits that's pretty standard practice. So
>> I've lost track on who's who. So councelor Golov and then >> sorry councelor Golov and then councelor Gordon. >> A couple more questions. >> I have a couple more questions. Um, one is actually related to the
transfers. Will you be here when we discuss those? Uh, okay. I'll save my question to then. Um, two, did you just say that the $600,000 for influent infiltration is supposed to be on this month's agenda?
>> Because I may just not be seeing it, but I'm not I'm not seeing it. >> Is it under first reading? first reading. >> It's under It's under as a first reading. So, >> I didn't scroll far enough. Okay. >> Oh, few.
>> Okay. It's there. Sorry. Sorry to Okay. Um, when you were on council, you were a you you were a a expert on capitaliz the like the amounts of money and capitalization impacting our bond
ratings and I am quite concerned about the amount that we have in capital stabilization and how it might impact our bond rating and I'm wondering do you know if there's a threshold amount under which it drops that it that it affects it or what you're thinking thinking is
both of you what you're thinking is about us take drawing down from capitalist stabilization and how it's affecting our bond rating especially given the fact that we're wanting to borrow so much now. So um the capital stabilization
it money generally goes into that to pay for capital to to pay for capital expenditures. That's the place for that for it to go in and out and to go up and down. Our stabilization account is the one
that I look at that I would not want to touch. We actually did touch that last year to balance the budget. We put in I think 825,000 from that. Um before we even before we did any of that, we had heard from bond
council that we along with many other communities may have a drop in our bond rating. So I think there's a very good chance um that that and I think I I know that I told you that at a meeting last year that there was a good chance that
our bond rating could go down. I think that's a very definite possibility. I don't know um that there's an exact number for that. It is better if you don't touch it at all. But we like many
many communities have reached into that this year. We are in a different situation because of where we are, but many communities did go into their stabilizations to balance their accounts because of
health insurance costs. Um, so we're not alone in that and it it's predicted that many communities bond rating may go down, but I don't have an exact to answer your question. I don't know what that number is. It would be better if you never touched it, your savings
account. That would be the best case scenario and they would be looking at that favorably and we weren't in a position to do that. >> One more question. Um, I want to echo what I think councelor Susan Elves was
asking for um, in terms of a plan of priorities. I will share my thoughts about poet seat in a bit, but I will say I am not a yes vote tonight and I'll share more about why later. But in order
for me to I want poet seat to exist. I don't want it to crumble. In order for me to believe that I'm making a responsible decision in putting any money toward that, I would need to see a a comprehensive plan of where to make
sure that the all the requests that are coming from our departments are tended to >> um in a responsible way and when we're borrowing so much, it's really impacting tax taxpayers. Um so I'm requesting
please to as comprehensively as possible to share with us how the priorities all the different priorities are being met together instead of just having the different peace meal um requests like this just coming in and of itself
without that is not something I can in good um prudently vote yes on tonight. So I would I want to though and so you said it's our decision it's your decision too. I'm I'm saying it would help us greatly in all of our coming financial decisions to have a
comprehensive plan to see the priorities that are coming forward from the city. So I think those are very valid points and I would just say if you didn't want to vote for that tonight, I would vote for enough money to do both of the
um engineers. I mean the I would vote for the historical this is me >> just saying what I do if I were in your position I would at least vote for the engineer like I would vote for $25,000 so you could get started on and
councelor Golib to have that whole thing of what was going to be done I think we'd have to pay for the engineer to to do that would be 10,000 the other part about the historical piece that's hopefully save us money
>> um as we go forward. I am thinking about CPA as well and I've looked at that and um I wouldn't imagine that more than on the outside 30 to
$50,000 from CPA would be a you know an an outside amount that I would be hoping from. So by all means, you know, I would, you know, toss that around. As I said, I put something in to get started on that because, you know,
we were hearing from many different people about the importance of poet seat for this city and it it is very hard to weigh things. I totally agree with you. It's >> Yep. >> You said it's 9,000 for the historic
commission or historic and 10,000 for the engineer. >> Mhm. Okay, I will consider that. Thank you. Thank you for all these questions. Thank you. >> And councelor Gordon and then councelor Balden. >> Yeah, my question was also related to the transfers. So if we're holding those questions for later, then I'm also happy
to hold my questions on that. But um I will echo councelor Golib's comment that it would be really helpful to get as much information as possible about the rationale behind any financial order that we're being asked to vote on. Um I didn't see rationale for any of these in the packet tonight and I know that
everyone's time is limited and you're getting us you know the information that we need at least as a baseline but um you know if if we don't have the rationale then we're stuck trying to figure out what are the right questions to ask in the limited times that we have in this meeting um or having to vote on
things that we really don't have enough information on. So, uh, as much information as we can get in the packet will be very helpful and and help will help us help you. >> That's great. >> Councelor Baldick, >> not necessarily a question as much as a
comment. Um, having worked with the CPC, I can say that we don't have to be on the historic register to receive CPA funding if the historical commission determines that PO tower is of significance to the city. um which I
have no question that we would do. Um the reason for pursuing the state register of historic places is so that we can then apply for additional grants that would reduce the cost by and large for the city. And there are a few of us in the room who are probably asking, I
thought Poy Tower was on the historic registry. Um and it actually received renovations um and recently just recently within the last 10 years or so became eligible for that status to apply uh as a historic
strike uh site. It has to be at least 50 years old. And the site that exists legally is not considered of that age or it wasn't until the last 10 years or so. And in between then and now I think the assumption had been that it was already on the registry because it has existed
as the structure that we know for many decades. Um, and so I I I think quite literally that this was something that nobody thought about because a lot of this research, a lot of those cataloged information that we have, um, they were
done in 1982, between 1982 and 1986 and that was the last time anybody had really taken a good look at the historic register. Um, and so that would be why we're having to go back now and enter this information into the historic registry.
Thank you. Thanks for speaking up on that one. Councelor Baldock's been very helpful with this and with the stage coach. So, thank you. I I look forward to the day that you're hya,
counselor web. >> Um, exciting news. I have two more follow-up questions on this. um if it So that's good insight of how much you think we could get from the CPA funds. I'm wondering then if we like cuz
it also sounds like we could use CPA funding to pursue the historical registration. So, if we just did the structural uh piece of it tonight and not the 9,000 and we waited for that, like does that
do we really do we need to do that right away? Is that an issue? And then um can't remember my other point. So, thanks. Oh, oh, my other point. Um, has have we ever approached like the
state like uh DCR taking over Rocky Mountain Park and Poet Sey kind of like they do at Sugarloaf? I don't know if we've ever done that. I do not know. Councelor Web, I do not know that. Um, and I'm going to
Councelor Baldick, I saw you nodding your head. Do you know more about that? Um, and is that permissible with the chair if we ask? I think councelor Baldick has a little expertise. >> I'm happy to pass it over. And the thing
that was in my head was, "Oh, here's a broken tower. Do you want our >> Yeah. So the thing about the historical registry um and especially particularly regarding CPA funds is that CPA funds can't be used to create historic designations or historic places or his
you can't create history. >> Um it has to already be historic to qualify for that kind of funding. So unfortunately it doesn't quite work that way. So, and further to answer counselor Webb, um you know, when any of these things come up, we immediately reach out
to all sources to see who can help us. Like I let our delegation know that we're having a problem here in case somebody can do an ear mark for something. Um, when we had Shelurn Road collapse, I we
reached right out to Mass DOT to see if they'd like to take over that road for us. And in many instances, people don't want to take something over if there's a problem with it. And um, but we do reach
out to everyone that we can think of. We let Furkog know. We let our delegation know. I call up Amy Cahelane and see if there's any if she can think of any ideas for funding. So, we try not to leave any stones unturned. I didn't, you
know, haven't reached out to any agency to see if they'd like to take over the whole of that park. I think they that might meet with some resistance from, you know, some folks here if you have somebody else taking over. that.
>> Thank you, mayor. I have two final questions. >> Um, so one is just the $825,000 that came out of stabilization to balance last year's budget. How were we communicated about that? And was that
part of the um budget plan originally or was there some expenses that were unanticipated? So, um, they were, you received financial orders. That's how that was communicated to me. You all voted on those. I forget what month, but
it was all voted in financial order. So, it was in front of you in some capacity. And what happened? Um, generally speaking, at the end of the year between May 15th and August 30th,
you can move money around. Is that correct? May 15th and August 30th. >> Yeah. Okay. No. Uh >> oh. Or September something. >> No. Um July 30th. >> Is it July 30th? >> Yeah. It's you have a month to do it.
>> Okay. Well, there's some deadlines in there. Okay. Um between May 15th and July 30th or between May 15th and whatever I go with what Stephen says. You can move. So you make a budget and
everybody's nobody's but it it nobody's budget is exactly stays exactly the way it is at the beginning of the year. You may have um budgeted for for a department and they have positions that they don't fill
or you may have budgeted so many positions in central maintenance and then we have things like um say central maintenance and you have buildings that offer you lots of problems and their budget ends up being over. Um, you know, this year we I can
think of the budgets that were over. Some of them were over quite a bit with overtime. Um, and some of them with huge payouts to people that, you know, he worked for the city for a long time. So, but within certain parameters at the
end of the year, you can move things around. And last year um last year those transfers did not happen because we were not nowhere as near close to moving out the book. So we had
to it was past July 30th, whatever the due date was for when you could move funds from one to another. We had several accounts that were underbudget that we normally would have moved the money from an underbudget account to an
overbudget account so that you wouldn't have it that we would not have had to take it from stabilization. Um and that is what happened last year that we had to take it from the stabilization because the department of revenue we were past the deadline by the
department of revenue when you could move that and that was the reason for that. It was not that the budget was over by that amount of money at all. it was that some departments were um and there were many departments that
were under budget is you know the whole thing had it come out in the wash it would have been that we would have been in the plus. >> Okay. Thank you. Because that that's my recollection of it at the time. So I just want to make sure that we weren't we aren't adding to our debt or borrowing through that work. Um thank
you. And I know clerk Scott just notice noticed that today is the deadline for making those movements as per our charter. >> And if you do have any questions about those, I'm happy to answer them while I'm up here. If you have any questions on the transfers
>> both here, I'm more than happy to answer those. We're both sitting here if you have some. >> I think I'll bring it back when we come back if that's okay everybody just so that way everybody can have their thoughts all at the same time. So, my last thing, thank you for doing the cleanup of Main Street. I think that's really important. I'm really excited for
people to get awards for keeping their areas clean. I know there's some new businesses coming in. So, that's and and seeing uh which cover of the paper with the back end of Wilson's coming off of is >> kind of bittersweet. Um thinking about
coming back through and there's >> Yeah. Um, so I know I've mentioned this to you before, but I would love to see if we can get the um construction folks to do scaffolding so once things are safe that
people can actually not have to walk in the street and get hit by cars when they're trying to go to businesses. >> So, I think you're going to have Amy up here in a couple Amy's going to speak to you in a couple minutes. she was on the uh a meeting today with them and we
certainly have brought that up and I believe that that's going to be ending within a couple of weeks and the sidewalk will be open. But I'm going to let you ask Amy that when she comes up she gave me a little synopsis of that meeting that I wasn't on at 3:00 today.
But that certainly was brought up because I think we all agree that having to walk out in the street there isn't the best thing. >> Yeah. So, I'm just going to put pressure to if if they're saying, well, you know, we can fully open this because it cost
them more to put the scaffolding if we can push them to do scaffolding um sooner. If that's >> very good. >> Thank you. Anybody else have any final question? One final question. >> Not necessarily a question, but for what it's worth, um, as far as the Wilson's demolition, um, the historical
commission, Margot Jones did manage to save one of the W's off of the Wilsons. Um, and so we're the DPW is storing it kind of like they're storing the stage coach and a bunch of other stuff. Like that's kind of what they do. Um, but that is an artifact that we thought was
crucial to Greenfield. And so in the future, the historical commission will probably be open to conversations about what we should be doing with that. Um, and we had considered asking um, the companies going in to that new building um, to do something with it. But again, um I just thought I would take the
opportunity and put it out there that we have one of the W's. Um and we would love to see some public thought about things that could happen to that. Um because again, Wilson's was an iconic piece of Greenfield history and this is a great opportunity to bring that up.
So, thank you. You can't believe how many emails, etc. that we get. There were a lot of people that were interested in those W's. >> They wanted the W's and I kept thinking, you know what? I really we can't give anything away that we don't own. I don't own Wilson's or the W's, but people kept
writing to me and asking if they could have those. And so there's quite an interest in the W's that were on the outside of that. Wasn't something that I would have felt that I needed, but many people did and um I we had a recent walk
through there and I I thought they said they were that they were going to use one of those W's on the inside. So, but more to follow. Council Baldwick, thank you. It It feels like a fundraising opportunity. Auction off of W.
>> Who knew? >> At least I that's what I would do, >> right? >> Thank you, mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right, you're up. Thank you. Hello. Um, thanks for having me. I am excited
to give an update on the Hope Street RFP. I've gotten a couple of questions, so I'm glad to have a chance to talk to all of you collectively. Um, as you'll recall, back in the spring, we did some extensive public engagement around drafting the RFP.
um shortly on the heels of that public engagement. There were a couple of zoning um issues that cropped up and so we put the brakes on finalizing the RFP while the zoning code was just cleaned up to make sure that when we issue the
RFP there aren't any inconsistencies in the code. This was specifically with respect to the height cap in the central commercial district which includes the Hope Street property. Um, now that those uh changes have passed, I have finished
the RFP. The mayor has reviewed it and um signed off on at least the draft and it is now with relevant department heads including DPW, building, fire, and planning just to make sure that they are fact-checking all of the information I have about the property and having a
chance to weigh in in case there's any information they think should be included in there or if they have additional plans or information that would be helpful to developers. Comments are due back to me by July 24th. I'll have the RFP ready by August 1st.
Um, which has then raised the question for me if August is um vacation and I don't want the issuance of the RFP to get lost in a lot of out of office on vacation emails. And so um I am my current preference would be to issue it
the day after the Labor Day weekend just because I think the month of August it might sit and not get the attention that it deserves. Um, but I I need an opportunity to talk through with the mayor just the pros and cons of that. Um, I don't think there's much harm in
waiting until after Labor Day. Um, but I will have it ready to go at the start of August. And as I committed to, I will be doing a public meeting to also share the RFP with the community and show them where the feedback was incorporated and talk about the feedback that we received
that we didn't incorporate as well. So happy to answer any and all questions you have. >> Council Williams. >> Yes. I would just like to thank you for the intense level of work you have put into this all the public hearings and
you know public meetings you had with folks to make sure that folks really had input into this process. So just thank you very much for your level of work on this. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> I echo that. And I know nothing about
developer process. So, um I'm going on a limb here, but given that like maybe August is going to be not um able to send it out, I don't know if you ever proactively talk to any developers who
you think would be a good fit and could use August to be like, "Hey, I got this thing might be interested." >> Um, no. Absolutely. I would not preliminarily share an RFP. Um but I think I think the developers This will
be coming in September. I >> the document will be released when it's released collectively publicly at one time. Um but certainly in advance of releasing it, I could um there's no harm in me talking to developers and I think the developers who are interested um
have been aware of the process throughout the public engagement piece and are I'm sure um already working on their due diligence. In any case, >> thank you. I would not want anything unourred to happen. So, I'm not >> Absolutely not.
>> Would you like to ask me a question about scaffolding? >> I would. Do you store it in your basement or will you be putting it up yourself? >> Um, if you'd permit me to talk on a topic off of Hope Street, I could give
you an update on the scaffolding. >> I'd love to hear about scaffolding. >> Great. Um, you will be delighted to know that um, TCB and the team at Wilson's are not going to be putting up the roof with the scaffolding that you walk under, but instead they are going to be
boxing in all of the construction. So, the scaffolding is not needed at all for the majority of the construction. They're building that box now and they expect to have it done next week. um at which point scaffolding will come down, box will go up and the sidewalk will
return to regular usage. The only exception to that will be there is a a point probably not for a year or so when they'll be doing some repointing of brick on the front facade of Wilson's and they'll have to put up scaffolding at that point in time and that will
impede the sidewalk for a bit. Um but but we should have the sidewalk back. I'm going to say in a couple of weeks and hope that I um will overestimate. >> Thank you. And I appreciate your pushing this for us. Um
>> Sure. And to be totally honest, it required no pushing. They were um very happy and willing to do it. So just to be fair to them. >> Councelor Garrett, >> since we've jumped away from the Hope Street RFP, I want to talk about another
RFP, which is the First National Bank one. I know that that is in the hopper is my understanding. Do you have any updates about what's going on with that? >> I do. >> I would love to know. >> Um that RFP response period closed. The
GR has met. It received a qualified and responsive bid from a qualified developer and we have uh the GR has accepted the bid. I will say, >> could we have applause? >> Caution, caution, temper. You can
absolutely applause because we are delighted. Um, it is an incredibly complicated building and an incredibly complicated development site and there will be what will feel like an incredibly long period of due diligence to find out that to let this developer,
now that they know that we are committed to work with them, um, figure out if this is actually feasible. So, I am trying to not get too excited. Um, but we have somebody to work with and that's the most exciting thing I've heard in a long time. >> I will get excited and sad and say
you've spun strong to gold. So, hooray. That's very, very exciting. >> Councelor Minhos. >> On that note, could you potentially tell us like what they might want to do with it? >> I could as long as you will temper your
excitement. Temper your excitement, friends. Um it they are looking to have a shared commercial kitchen, food hub, community event space. >> That sounds horrible.
>> Not exciting at all. >> Could there be a ferris wheel and ponies with a big W right in the middle for Wendelowski? We're um we're very we are very excited
about it and really looking forward to to um digging into the work, but just know that it will take some time because it's a very complicated site with historic complications and access complications and all of the rest. >> Well, I just on behalf of the council, I
just want to thank you for all the work that you're doing to bring folks into Greenfield. it's it's noticed and um it's starting to happen even while we're tempering our enthusiasm. >> Thank you,
>> Conerable. >> Um on that note, I had actually been asked by uh one of my constituents about what was going on with the Main Street redesign project, whether or not there was a timeline for that. Um I'm not sure if you could speak on that. >> I am delighted to tell you I cannot. Um
that is I I do not I am not the point person for that. So I do not have a good sense other than the general um 2029 is my understanding of the of the construction start date, but I don't have an update on the status. >> That's more than enough. Well, thank you
very much. Um and if they do want a big W, just let me know. >> Thank you, director. Thank you so much. All right. So, I'm going to move into our public comment period. Uh, it is 7:35.
And just as a reminder, um, when you're called, uh, come up your your name and where you live, and you'll have three minutes to talk into the mic. If you push the button, it'll turn green. So, appreciate everybody showing up tonight
on a hazy uh July evening. So, Mark Gom, thank you. My French is terrible. Uh Mark Gom, 83 Monu City Road. I'm here to talk about the rental registry
ordinance, which I know just came out of committee. Um I don't know if you folks are looking at that soon or not. Um, but when you have a chance to look at the rental registry ordinance, uh, my understanding of the goal of the ordinance is to hold bad landlords,
those who harass their tenants, who when they complain to the health department, and who also don't keep up their properties, uh, it's to try to hold them to account. I'm a landlord. I try to be a good landlord. Um, but I do not support this ordinance. Uh, I do want to
see bad landlords held to account, though, and I think there is a good process for that. And I do not think a new ordinance is what's needed to hold bad landlords to account. So what's needed is for the city to provide legal
counsel to tenants when they have a bad landlord and also for the city to take action through the legal system when there is a bad landlord. Uh the health department already knows who these bad landlords are. The health department has a list of number of buildings that
either they've condemned or they'd like to condemn, but the health department does not have the legal funds to go after these landlords. Uh the health department currently has a is proposed budget of $10,000 for legal fees and
legal $10,000 is not enough to go after bad landlords or to deal with harassment when bad landlords harass their tenants. It should be a much higher number than that. Um this current ordinance as proposed uh just creates in my sense
unnecessary burdens for the good landlords. Uh in summary uh the section that really is uncomfortable to me is there's a a permit I need would need to pay $30 per unit per year to basically be listed on the list of the landlords.
But the city already knows who all the landlords are. So, in fact, it would be a charge of $570 for me for the year. And as a business, not a charity, um this is just driving up the cost of rents in Greenfield, but not solving the
problem of bad landlords. Now, once a bad landlord is identified, um complaints from the tenants, referrals by the health department, there's something called the receiverhip program, which I was part of for a while, uh but never got any calls from the city. Basically, the receiverhip
program, the city identifies property, problem property, even with tenants in there that just need repairs done. The receiverhip program simply needs the city through legal counsel to get the ball rolling. But again, there is no money for the city to get the ball rolling and get these properties and and
bad landlords in front of a judge who can then work with a contractor and get the properties repaired. So, I'm just urging you folks to um turn down the uh rental registry ordinance because it does not solve the problem. The problem
is there is no money for legal counsel. Um and I know you're talking about poet seat. Uh that money could easily fix all the properties in town. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Nancy Adam Mora Mora.
Good evening. Um, in the past I've sat on this side and I've sat on the other side. >> Can I ask your name and addresses? Sorry. >> My name is Nancy Adama. I live at 241 Chapman Street in Greenfield, Mass. Um, I'm a fourth generation uh family member. My son living here now is the
fifth generation who lived in the same places in the same house. Um, like I said, I've sat on this side and I've also sat on the other side. I was a counselor. I was a town meeting member. I've been here 75 years. Uh, I'm also a landlord. I think Mr. G did a great job
in presenting a lot of the things. As a small landlord, uh, I work very hard at maintaining my properties, and maintaining my rent as low as I can. I actually don't make any money on my properties. I make enough to
simply pay my taxes, pay the insurance, pay repairs that are needed, and that's it. I'm not in it to make money. I kind of like to know who my neighbors are, and that's why I do it. But I think that the idea of a registry again is something we already have a lot of laws
in place, and to layer more is just is a burden to the small person trying to do this. I would ask you not to vote tonight. I would ask you to think about it and put it back out. And uh that's about what it is. Like I said, I
mean, I lived in this town, you know, fourth generation. My greatgrandfather was in the same house. All four generations have lived in that same house. Thank you. >> Thank you,
Pamela Goodwin. Good evening, Pamela Goodwin, 54 High Street. Um, I'm going to start um just to let the citizens of Greenfield know that there um is a press conference tomorrow in front of the hospital and
encourage people to go. Um, I'm going to be writing a a letter, an opinion letter about what's going on over there. I've been following very closely um that hospital because I've been there as a patient. I've also retired sa I'm working with Suzanne Love if some of you
know who she is. Um, so please show up. And 700 signatures out of a city this size is not very big. We all know what a resolution means. It doesn't really mean anything. Um but they are really struggling over there and I hope that we
can continue to support them. I'm so thrilled there's an actual press conference now. Um also um I was told by Suzanne Love to have citizens call and speak called the main switchboard over there and asked to go into the voicemail
for Jodie Stack. That's the president. She's not given out her phone number directly, but if you call the switchboard, they've laid that person off and you're going to probably get Bay State Springfield, somebody's been there for 30ome years, is now history. So, a
whole lot going on over there that I view as retaliation. Um, secondly, I would like to say I've been involved with the rental registry through Housing Greenfield and although I understand these people's concerns, we had a whole lot of apartments and we
didn't know who the landlord was and the apartments were not listed, the assessors got involved in this stuff and we've spent a lot of time doing research about what the benefits would be for the rental registry. So, I am in favor of that.
Um, I am opposing the city ordinance about assemblies and it's because in the past I live in a town with some very not friendly police people. I highly
respect our current police department and its leadership. And if you're going to tide their hands and say you can't use tear gas and you can't do this and you can't do that, I think it's endangering our safety professionals and it's also endangering the citizens cuz
things can get out of control. So I'm not happy about that and I didn't read the entire thing. I didn't make it to those meetings. I will say that since we're 250 years celebrating our country
as a United States of America, I would like to think that we could fly the American flag all the time and not be changing it out for a pride flag or changing it out for child abuse. And it isn't because I'm opposed to any of
that. I think we need a second fly flag pole that can go under. Nobody's changing out the flags that are other places. And I'm not happy about the flag that's above the um parking garage either. So, thank you for your time. You
do your hard work. Thank you. Uh I'm going to online and I've got former counselor Master Truro. >> Hello, Michael. Master, can you hear me? We can loud and clear.
>> Well, that's me. Um, Cypress Street, Greenfield. I have mixed feelings on the proposed rental registry. I know that uh we've discovered in the
past uh apartments within the buildings but you know we're carrying apartments here not the structures correct so I know there's been in the past landlords
with apartments that have been intentionally not uh known So, I'm all for the reg I think I'm all for the registry. However, I don't know if I if I'm good with $30 per apartment
annually. Um, that's kind of sounds, you know, we already have employees on the payroll getting paid to do their jobs. So to collect money for city employees to do
their work to I I don't know if that's the right thing to do. However, if you are going to do that, the the the csos and the service nets of
the world need to be on board with this. I know they're tax exempt as far as uh property tax is concerned but they rent rooms and uh I think uh RDI should be included
in that as well. So, if we're going to charge we're going to charge uh landlords per apartment, I think that the CSOS and the uh
and their like organization should uh should be charged as well. They rent rooms and I know that Cso takes a a substantial amount amount of money from their tenants up to 85% of their monthly
income. So, um there's that. Um, as far as the whole what I call the riot ordinance, um, when I was a kid, I got mixed up in that
unintentionally in Hempstead. I watched Hempstead High School burned to the ground. Things can turn sideways very quickly when bad things happen. And to restrict the police from doing their job is
it is silly at best. I don't know if you've guys watched the news, Newport Beach on uh um on Independence Day on July 4th, just
last week, there was a a flash mob that turned crazy. Over 400 people were arrested. Police were getting beat up by teenage kids. So, you cannot tie the hands of law
enforcement. >> My last thing is uh >> Thank you, Michael. >> All right. Okay. Thank you. >> It's always awkward when you're online, so you can always hear it. I understand.
So, thank you. And thank you everybody for your comments. Really appreciate it. Yes. >> Name and address. >> Hi, Donovan Lee from Petty Plane Road. And I just want to say um for the crowd control ordinance. I totally support it.
These are deadly weapons uh and they just don't need to be brought bear to our commu in our community. You know, they these things tend to just escalate situations where the most violent actors on both sides, both the police and whatever crowd has gathered, tend to
just use as excuses to get more and more violent. So, we just don't need things like tur gas or other quote unquote crowd control measures, uh, which are literally deadly weapons brought to be in our community. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. So, we're going to go to
public hearing and second reading. So, um I'm calling open our public hearing at 7:50 and I'm going to turn over to Councelor Williams to read the orders and the public hearing.
from here. City Council second reading July 15, 2026 from the very top. Okay. In accordance with home rule chatter, the Greenville City Council will hold a public hearing
on Wednesday, July 15th, 2026 at 6:30 at Johnz on Community Center, 35 Pleasant Street in Zoom. meeting ID 971-57410469 to receive public input on the following. Appropriate $100,000 from
borrowing for repairs to Poet Sey Tower. Appropriate $100,000 from capital stabilization for repairs to Poet Street Tower. appropriate 322,000
for fiscal year 2027 community preservation committee budget. The city council may consider the same on Wednesday, July 15th, 2026 at 6:30 at Johns on Community Center, 35 Pleasant
Street and Zoom. Meeting ID 971-57-410469. Materials can be obtained from the city clerk's office, 14 Court from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday or phone 4137721555
extension 6163. Laura Wendelowski, City Greenfield City Council President. Second reading. >> Does anybody want to speak to >> Okay, then we can go to second reading.
City council second reading July 15, 2026. Appropriate $100,000 from borrowing for repairs to Poet Sey Tower. Appropriate $100,000 from capital stabilization for repairs to Poet Seed Tower. appropriate
322,000 for fiscal year 2027 community preservation committee budget. I'm closing the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Thank you. We are next moving on to mo motions,
orders, and resolutions. The first is approving the election warrant. Would anybody feel like they want to read that? That's on page seven. >> Order needs to be read. >> I can continue reading. >> So, we need to read both the order and
then the warrant that comes after it. You want me to proceed? >> Sure. You've got the great reading voice tonight. Order number FY27-011. City Council order. City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council moved
that it be ordered that it be ordered. The Greenfield City Council hereby approves the attached state preliminary election warrant for September 1st, 2026 and further authorizes the city council president to sign said warrant on behalf
of the city council. Majority vote required. >> Second. Do I have a motion? A second. >> Thank you. Any discussion?
And now we need to read the warrant. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Warrant for 2026 state primary. To the constables of the city of Greenfield, greetings. In the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby
required to notify and mourn the inhabitants of said city who are qualified to vote in primaries to vote at Greenfield High School Gymnasium, 21 Bar Avenue, precincts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9. on Tuesday, the first day of
September, 2026, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 pm for the following purpose. To cast their votes in the state primaries for the candidates of political parties for the following offices. Senator in Congress
for this commonwealth, governor for this commonwealth. Lieutenant Governor for this commonwealth. Attorney General for this commonwealth. Secretary of State for this commonwealth. Treasurer for this commonwealth, auditor for this commonwealth,
representative in Congress, 2nd district, counselor, 8th district, senator in general court, Hampshire Franklin and Worcester district, representative in general court, precincts 1, 2 district. Oh, in general
court, precincts 1 through 4 and nine. Representative in general court precincts 5 through8 first Franklin District District Attorney Northwestern District Register of Probate Franklin County Sheriff Franklin County hereof
fail not and make return of this warrant with your doings thereon at the time and place of said voting given under our hands this 15th day of July 2026 and it should be signed by City Council
President Laura Wendelowski is authorized by a vote of the Greenfield City Council by Constable posting and also to be signed by the constable date of posting. >> Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Any discussion of whether or not this
needs to go on horseback? >> Vice President Garrett, >> something really minor. They didn't write ETH. It's eights under counselor. So if we can fix that under counselor instead of saying
>> eights this would be another age right? Am I misreading this? >> Never mind. Forget about it. >> Never mind. All right. >> Am I just forgetting how the word eighs is spelled? Eighth. >> H. >> Oh, it is missing an H. Okay. I'm not crazy. >> Few.
>> Perfect. Clerk Scott, can we do a roll call on this, please? >> Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmath, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulick
is not here. Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos,
>> yes. >> Councelor Cizen Alves, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. Next order is petition to the state
legislature to create new annual alcohol liquor license. Did that go to um Ways and Means or EDC? >> Uh, Council Garrett, could you read that for me, please? >> Absolutely. Uh, order number FY27-010.
The city council on recommendation of Mayor Disorger move that it be ordered that the city council moves to petition the state legislature to create a new annual on premise all alcohol liquor license beyond Greenfield's quota for the Bears Den owned by Gleon Ventures LLC located at Five Bank Row,
Greenfield, Massachusetts. 01301 majority vote required. >> Do I have a second, please? >> Second and tell me what happened in committee, please. >> So, it came out of committee with a positive unanimous recommendation. Um, chief of staff Anne Halt was there to
kind of explain what had happened with this uh liquor license. So, the context here there, this location is the former Seymour Bar uh downtown which had a liquor license that has been surrendered to the city. Um, Unfortunately, that
liquor license can't just simply go to the new owners. It because the city of Greenfield is now currently out of the quota set by the state for all alcohol liquor licenses, we have to petition the legislature to ask for another one. And so this letter that, you know, we're
being asked to vote on is basically to ask the legislature, which has to literally pass an act, to give us another liquor license, to do so. So, it's essentially us giving a letter of support for this business to be able to operate in a place that was a bar and
we're hoping will be a bar again. Um, one other detail that uh Chief of Staff Anne Halt mentioned was this liquor license, unlike most because it's above quota, can't be sold. So, it can only be used for this particular
business in this particular place. So, it's not like if we petition for this, they could go off and be like, "Haha, this bar won't open. We're going to sell it for $10,000 because they really are that expensive." It's kind of amazing. Um, so that was kind of the long and the short. >> Hundreds of thousands. >> Hundreds of thousands. Jesus. Okay. See
my Yeah. >> Any questions or comments? Um, I just had one question and I think I think I got it answered, but this is just for this because I think the wording made it sound like it opens up the door
that we're going to have unlimited life. >> Darth Vader is not happy with it. This is just for this one location. Thank you. Yeah. All right, I think we can uh take a roll call on this. >> Councelor Goolan,
>> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown,
>> yes. Uh, Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cibson, >> yes. >> And does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.
I would like to move without objection several of these upcoming ones to go to our August agenda and go back to A and O in between. So the first one is the um
order number three adopting general law disposition of unclaimed property. Um next one is amending the city of greenfield code by adding chapter 351 on excess equity.
And then the last one is the um amending for assembly public assemblies. >> I don't know who that >> um because of that >> because of uh talking to there's a little more more tweaks with these from
getting legal counsel. I'd like them to go to August. Um so can I a second on that? >> We don't have there's no objection. >> Okay. So, we'll just >> go ahead and >> What order numbers are they again, please?
>> Sure. They're orders number three. Oh, I'm so bad. I'm >> seven. Is that all of them? Yep. I'm >> She's working on it.
I removed him. >> Okay. So, that was three, four, and seven. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Are we all set? I
think so. Okay. So, um, we're going to go to number five, which is amending the code for the zero emission first vehicle ordinance. Okay, I can read this order number
fiscal year 26144. 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 as attached here to
and further amends the table of contents and index of 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. >> This received a positive. You >> dude's participants in the right corner dots if I remember correctly. Maybe you could show her. >> Yeah,
>> I have ejected the two people that were having discussions. >> This is the kind of ridiculous >> just to let you know. just wanted to frame this. Um, we as a city council voted last year to declare a climate emergency. Um, and so this
kind of follows in that framing. Greenfield was the first green community in Massachusetts. And when we became a green community, we adopted um vehicle standards that were for the time putting
preference to purchasing vehicles that were um lower MPG, miles per gallon at the and hybrids. So, this updates us to current and putting preference on
electric vehicles, which I know we've been talking about and doing within the police force and other places within the within the city. So, um this also is part of becoming a climate leader, which is a program that comes after the green
communities. Um, this would give Greenfield an opportunity to show our leadership and receive up to a million dollars in grants for for the work that we're doing. We're on a timeline because the the the state's only going to accept
I think it's 50 um towns to get those grants and there's about 35ish in the hopper. So, if we're able to finish this off the checklist, then we have one more thing that we'll need to do and then we'll have those grants
available. So, this is a really great win-win for the city because it's going to save us money on our vehicles in the long run, both maintenance and cost to operate them, and bring us some grant funds. So, I hope you all will support
it. question. >> Uh, councelor Webb. >> Oh, and now that we've muted everybody to unmute. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, I just want to speak to the
Z the zero emissions vehicle piece of this. Uh I had reservations around it just with like can we afford to adopt this? And um in speaking with our energy director uh Collins, she said because of
the second cycle market for uh zero emissions vehicles and um that they are now a lot more affordable and cheaper. So I just wanted to add that in in case that was on anyone's mind. She also
shared that concern and she now feels that we are in a better position to accept this ordinance. >> Thank you for that update. Councelor Subives, >> uh what kinds of things will the grant money be for?
>> In a lot of towns, they're using it as as demonstration projects. So, it could be that we decide that we want to put a solar canopy on the parking lot here in the John, which would give some more shade to people as well as generate electricity. So, that's one op option. I
know Ashefield is doing a solar project with their um wastewater um treatment plant. So, there's a a lot of options there. Um I think we would have to decide as a
community Where would this best be used um to move the needle in the work that we're doing to get to lower carbon emissions as well as um do something that's really positive for the public? Council has
>> uh councelor webb >> um also I guess to add to that we're talking a lot about this in the sustainable green field implementation committee when we meet next Thursday uh at 4:30 um or at 4 p.m. I mean, so that's also
an excellent time to learn more about the uh climate leaders and the next steps that we need to take and how we're deciding as a city and city departments to move forward with that. >> Thank you, Councelor Garrett.
>> I uh just want to thank you for the leadership you've shown on this. This is something that has not come out of nowhere. It's been at least a year and a half. I know that you've been working on this. I've been present when you've talked to people and founded information, you know, to make this, you know, more possible. So, I just want to
acknowledge and honor the amount of work that you've put into this and just say thank you. >> Thank you. If there aren't any other um discussions or questions, uh, Clerk Scott, can we have a roll call? >> Certainly. Councelor Goolan,
>> yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, hold on. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes.
>> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> Councelor Cippen Alves, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes, >> motion passes unanimously.
>> All right, so we're skipping the number four. We already Sorry, I'm getting confused on here. Okay, so we're going to tag sales. Okay, order number fiscal year 26145. 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 amends the code and further that non-substantive changes be
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. This received a positive unanimous recommendation and I can just share the background of this. This um
was one of the ordinances that we looked at through the ordinance review last year. Um and how the tag sale ordinance is currently written is that people need to register for a tag sale. Um otherwise
um various authorities could could show up. Um, and I think a lot of people are not aware of this and um, I initially talked to Chief Dodge and he was like, I don't this is a licensing issue. I don't want to be I I'd rather not um, you
could speak for yourself, but that I initially checked in with Chief Dodge. Then licensing. and I uh worked with um the mayor's chief of staff on this who was at that time tending to the licensing and we agreed that it was
reasonable and then with the committee agreed that it was reasonable that no person shall conduct a tag sale for more than two consecutive days or three weekends per year without registering because the concern that both of them raised was that otherwise it it becomes
like a a a standing business. Um, I also shared with the mayor's chief of staff um um that that ultimately at some point it could be interesting and this was from Chief Dodge. There are several different ordinances um you know the pawn broker the pawn brokers and the tag
sale and um junky gars. We have many ordinances that could be woven together. We chose not to do that. We this was the key piece just wanting to make sure people are able to have some tag sale without having to uh go to the board of
license commissioners. So that's and it received a positive unanimous recommendation. >> Councelor Minhos. >> So if I'm understanding this correctly, this right now is a status quo is you have to have a license or a permit to have a tag
sale. But with this, you can have one without a permit if it's less than two days in a row or three weekends in one year. >> So, this makes things easier. If you if you like tag sales, this is easier.
>> We can have more tag sales. >> That's that's that's correct. >> It's not adding >> as long as you're not creating a new business, a standing business within reason. Yes, that is correct. Councelor Cibson. >> And what about the signage? Is that
change? Anything about I I saw something about the that you're not supposed to have signs on on trees or or or um like on on property that's not your own, like on the street.
>> This doesn't change signage. It could be that signage is another >> the ordinance review was such a it feels I'm surprised to say that this is from the ordinance review because that was over a half a year ago. So, it's possible that the signage ordinance also
interacts with this, which is part of why I've been advocating for counselors when they bring new ordinances forward to do it in one uh with the with the advice from the people I've I've spoken with who've said, "Look, this can be a mess when there's many ordinances that
um are not integrated with each other." Um, and I've really taken that to heart. So maybe it this does not change that and that signage ordinance could apply, but I don't think it's um there's a penalty. I I think otherwise I probably would
have noticed that at the time of the review. >> Thank you. I just had one question and I appreciate the background because I I just saw some stuff online and we haven't we're not creating a new thing to regulate tag
sales. We're making it easier. So, I appreciate that. Um I understand why we removed the police chief from um why the fire would still be on here. >> It's a good question. I didn't I
honestly did not I did not ask the fire chief. Um and that's a good question. I would be open to an amendment if that's what you wanted to do, but actually I I think if you wanted to amend that, I would want to bring it back to committee because I would want
to give that some more thought. That that wasn't a question that we addressed. Councelor Gordon, >> this is a semi-educated guess, but I think it's because uh sometimes if people have tag sales that involve, you know, actual structural parts of their
property, the we want the fire chief to be able to enter if it somehow creates a fire hazard. And so since like that's very unlikely to happen, I think I have no idea how much it's actually happened, but I don't see a reason to take that, you know, uh,
power away from the fire chief. So I I would vote for this as written. Thank you. I'm looking at Chief Dodge. I'm like, have we ever sent the fire folks over to a tag sale? Okay.
>> Okay. Uh, council men, >> I will also say like most tax hills are like on the weekends and stuff. So, is the chief like out and about or the building inspector?
Okay. So, they like will they even be active during those days? Well, it says fire department chief of the fire department or inspector of buildings or persons authorized by them. So, I think it's just basically like anyone from an building inspection or fire but has the
right to enter if they feel they need to. It seems to be a reasonable precaution to take. There's no reason not to give them that, right? Yeah, I think that's fine. I don't want to belabor it. Maybe at the next goound
um we can make this because it took a year and a half to make these edits. So every So anybody want to discuss it any further? >> All right. So I will go to roll call.
>> Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Delmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Buldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, hold on. Councelor Webb,
>> yes. >> Council Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Council Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cibbis, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. >> So, we're going to the rental registry. >> Yes. Okay. Order number fiscal year 26141. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council
amends the code of the city of Greenfield by adding chapter 4 349 rental registry with inspections as attached here too and further amends the table of contents and index of 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. >> So, this received a positive unanimous
recommendation with an amendment uh to really taking into taking into um taking seriously the advocacy for making sure that there are funds dedicated to
enforcement um and dedicated to uh the legal fees for the health department. For example, um we put forward an amendment saying that along with this a restricted fund would be created so that the funds that are being
gathered for this are held in a specific place and would be used only for this purpose instead of them being going going to the general fund which could be used for anything. And I asked for the attorney to give an opinion to make sure that it would be possible to create that
restricted fund. And the attorney responded saying they didn't have enough time to give a thorough response, but that it is legally tricky. I could read it. I have it here, but it's legally tricky to set up that restricted fund. We know that it's possible. We have
enterprise funds and revolving funds and restricted funds, but we're not clear yet how to do that. And so, um, and so with that, I uh, and so that was a response. Um, I personally am advocating
for this to go back to the committee so that when we vote on it as a full council, it includes that fund so we can be sure that the funds are dedicated to this purpose. I I will likely make a motion to table, but I'm not making that motion yet in order for the council to be able to
discuss this. >> Thank you. and that will also be my recommendation. >> Councelor Garrett, >> so I've been working on this for more than a year and maybe probably the frankly the longest that something has
been cooking as far as stuff on our agenda. Um I'm comfortable with tableabling it to make sure we get this right, you know. So I just want to say that right off the bat. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions about the actual contents of the ordinance, but I also just want to take a moment just to
emphasize the role of legal counsel in the decision-m process about when these ordinances are able to come before the council. It took two months for the uh city's attorney to basically give us the feedback that we needed to get this submitted for this month. And now
unfortunately we have to wait longer, you know, and again it's worth it to do something correctly, but the idea of having a city attorney that is employed by the city is something that I've talked to a number of folks about, you know, before. And I just think it's worth considering if that would make
this process smoother if we had somebody who we weren't paying an hourly rate to answer these kind of questions. So that's really the only kind of additional thing I want to add. Again, if folks have questions about the registry, I'm not going to belabor it now because it's going to be coming back. Um, but that's kind of where I'm at.
>> Thank you, councilors. Any questions? Um, I know this is going to come back around. Councelor Menhaus, >> um, I'm not on the committee, but, uh, I generally like this idea. Uh, the only thing that really kind of concerns me
are the exemptions. And so I'd just say when it goes back into committee, if that's something that you guys can consider, one of my first uh works as city councelor was looking at the living conditions in some of our uh housing
provided by our nonprofit agencies and it was absolutely abysmal and nothing could be really done about it. Um and I don't like that they're just completely given carpage to do whatever and this doesn't include them. I mean, if we care
about the living conditions of folks, I think the living conditions of the most vulnerable should matter to us as just as equally. >> Councelor Garrett, >> so um there's limited legal authority in some of these instances. So the list of
exemptions, most including, you know, nonprofits, we can't go in and inspect something run by the state. You know, that's not something we have the ability to do. So, this ordinance originally, and this is getting into details I was going to kind of skip, originally had a mandatory inspection process. And so, we
literally, there are certain kinds of housing units that we cannot go into. And that's kind of where the exemption list came from. I think it's a good idea to, you know, again, go, you know, we have another chance to look at it closely. Happy to. Um, but that's really where that's coming from more than anything else. But the, uh, the
mandatory inspections piece also, there was some feedback from the attorney that needs to be addressed. So that's why that's not currently in here in case folks are wondering. It does it's titled with inspections. Right now those inspections are not in there, but they the plan is to bring them back.
>> Councelor Gordon, >> this is just a comment on the exemptions list. Also, um I I know that so much work has has gone into this draft and it's greatly appreciated. And I think actually somewhat recently in the process, um, someone came from my
precinct from the the mobile home park in Greenfield that I think is pretty hidden and a lot of people don't even know that it's there, but it's in precinct 2. Um, and he came with concerns about the way that the the previous draft would impact um, the folks in his mobile home community. So,
I just want to appreciate that that you were open to that feedback and changes were made swiftly, and I know he appreciates it and and the folks in that park appreciate it as well. I also appreciate the the comments from our good landlords that are working to
make sure that they have clean and more than livable conditions. Um, and I know that from those of us who knocked doors for some of the housing stuff and who worked on some of the registry have also seen some
conditions um that are just appalling that people are living in. Um, and I think it it will behoove us to look at some of the comments about legal processes and and those funds and, you
know, where our priorities are and maybe um, putting something to make sure that people do have the resources to both make the complaints, but also for landlords then to be able to make the changes that need to happen.
and that we as a city can follow through on those complaints that happened. So, I think that's been heard. Councelor Golden. >> Yeah, I just want to I want to echo that because I hadn't it hadn't occurred to me to create the separate fund until
hearing your comments comments from the from the community and then something you said and it it I I hadn't considered that. I'm I'm grateful for the comments and I'm and uh I I likely will support this, but because of the comments, it'll
be a we may not I may not be on the vote the same way that all community members would like, but um but it'll become a better ordinance because of uh comments from the community. And thank you for your uh patience and willingness to keep
working on this and all the work you've put into this. it it hadn't occurred to me right until that in the discussion. So, I'm I'm grateful for both of that. >> Thank you. Uh so, if there's a motion to table, I will take that motion from
someone. Uh, I I saw Councelor Williams because she wanted to be first on that one and then I think Councelor Garrett seconded it if I saw that correctly. All right, we'll do a roll call.
>> Councelor Goolum. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmath. >> Yes. Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb,
>> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Civan Elves, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes.
>> The motion is tabled. Thank you. >> Uh staying with A and O, uh we'll go to appointments and reappoints. Okay, scroll down. Order number, sorry. Order number fiscal
year 27008. The city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council pursuant to charter section 210 affirms the following appointments and reappointments by the mayor. Agricultural Commission Mave Dylan termed to expire December 31st, 2027 to
fill remainder of term of Elizabeth Net who resigned February 5th, 2026. Conservation Commission, Emily Bulldock, term to expire December 31st, 2029. Zoning Board of Appeals, Eric Green,
term to expire December 31st, 2027. And Charles Roberts, term to expire December 31st, 2028. Both are moving from alternate to full-time members. Majority vote required. >> Second. And this received a positive
unanimous recommendation with gratitude as always. >> Roll call, please. >> Good. >> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams,
>> yes. >> Councelor Bulldock, >> yes. Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos has left the rail. Councelor Ciban, >> yes.
>> And Councelor Wandowski, >> yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Thanks. I can see um our energy is waning. So, let's take a break for 10 minutes, y'all.
I think we can get this done. And I'm not going to say a number cuz then it will go till 11. So, >> okay. So, we are on >> So, it is n 8:43 and we're back on
order. Um, and we're now on page 48, which is uh the poet's seat tower. And I have counselor Williams who's subbing in for Ways and Means this evening. So, thank you.
Okay, point of information. So, in terms of proceeding with this, we will have to read the order before we do anything else. >> Thank you so much. Order number FY27-00001,
City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Dorger move that it be ordered. the sum of $100,000 be appropriated for the repairs of Poety Tower. And to meet said appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is hereby
authorized to borrow said sum of $100,000 pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 44 section 8 or any other enabling statute. And the mayor is thereby authorized to apply for, contract for, accept, and expend any
federal and/or state grant available for this project to be used to reduce the within appropriation. And further, the mayor is authorized to take any action necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this project. Majority vote
required. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. That was took a while. We were like, I don't know if we're going to do this one. All right. So, how how did the uh ways and means talk about this?
>> We approved this. We didn't talk too much about it. We approved it. >> Okay. Discussion. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. Um, so I would like to make a motion to I don't know if the term is modify or
change this appropriation. I would like to lessen this appropriation to $25,000 with the understanding that in order to for us to have a clearcut handle on what is required. Okay. So, do I have a
second to the amendment to amend this to 25,000? Second from Council Minhos. Discussion on the amendment. >> Um, I see Gordon, Garrett, and then Golub. We're going with the G's. Um, I I
appreciate this amendment. Um, I would be in support of um amending the next motion uh to do that, but I don't think that we should be borrowing anything unless we absolutely have to. Um, so, oh, >> that would be my preference in terms of
amending either of these. Fine. >> Uh, councelor Garrett, >> that was actually what I was about to say. So, >> are you a ditto? >> I am a ditto. My question is, um, if we if we vote no on this, could it could it
come back if we heard from constituents that they wanted this to come back if the mayor decided to bring it back or does it need to be tabled in order to reconsider it within a certain amount of time? >> You just answered your question. So, um,
it can't come back if it's substantially the same. Um, so it's better to table it. Okay, then I will motion to table this. >> But we have we have a motion on the floor, so we have to do the amendment and then >> Got it. >> So, any other comments on the amendment?
>> Okay, let's have a roll call on the amendment, please. >> Okay. >> So, no. No. No. >> Can I withdraw the amendment? Is it possible to withdraw the amendment? because I stand corrected by
my colleagues here. It should be on the next one. May I withdraw the amendment? >> You may. >> Then I shall. >> And council man also has to agree. >> Do you agree? >> He agrees. >> Okay. So now we're back to the main
motion which is $100,000 from borrowing. Is there any discussion about that? Is there a motion that is related to it? If there's no more discussion, then there is a motion to table this order. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, let's take a roll call, please. >> Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> On the motion, excuse me, on the motion to table. Councelor Golib, >> yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Domas,
>> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Councelor, Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos,
>> yes. >> Councelor Cisan, >> yes. >> President Wandelowski, >> yes. And yes, >> the motion is tabled. >> Okay, so now we go to the next one, councelor Williams.
>> Okay, so I have to read it as it stands and then proceed. Okay, it's only going to take me four years to get this clear. >> Order number FY27002, City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of
Mayor Disorder moved that it be ordered the sum of $100,000 be appropriated for the repairs of poet street to poet seat towel and to meet said appropriation transfer set amount of $100,000 from the capital stabilization fund. Majority
vote required. >> Second. >> Okay. Is there an amendment to this motion? >> Yes. >> And what will it say? >> That it would be the sum of $25,000,
not $100,000. >> Is there a second on the amendment? >> Councelor Minhos again. All right. I will open it up to discussion. Councelor Brown. >> On the amendment. >> On the amendment. That is >> Yeah. I guess I'm wondering in the
borrowing that order it says that the mayor is allowed to apply for accept grant funding and then this um order it doesn't say that. So I'm wondering like why that is possibly answer
>> and it seems like it might not be an issue anyway because we're waiting but it seems like clerk Scott might have an answer to that. So the appropriation and Stephen please correct
me if I'm wrong. The appropriation from capital stabilization we already have those funds. You are simply taking them from a fund we have to use them for said project. The borrowing, the language that is in the order um
directs you to financial parts of Mass General law that you have to follow to borrow funds because we don't have them. So, it's just the language is different to borrow
than it is to appropriate from a current fund. There you go. So, we're still on the amendment. >> So, we're still on. Councelor Gordon. Yeah. I just want to say that I am in support of this amendment. I think that
we had a lot of good questions and and consideration of this earlier this evening when we were speaking with the mayor. Um it seems like we're all on the same page in in terms of uh our desire to keep the tower up and in good shape and wanting the city to be able to do
that. Um but also doing it within reason and consideration of the many other demands on our city budget right now. So, I hope that this is a a good kind of happy medium where we can expend the funds that we need to right now in order to move this project forward and and hopefully limit, you know, any price
increases of uh you know, future repairs. But, um yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't be comfortable spending 100,000 on this right now, but I'm I'm comfortable appropriating 25. So, thank you for offering the amendment.
I I too really appreciate the amendment because I I coming into this meeting, I was thinking I was just going to table or vote against it. Um with a really heavy heart when I I remember when I moved to the valley in
the fall of 20 thou yeah it was the fall of 2000 not knowing this area. We went up on top of the poet seat and looked it was a beautiful October day. It was some of the best leaves I've ever seen. And so I love the poetsy tower. It is iconic for
for Greenfield. And I didn't know that at the time and ended up then moving to Greenfield. So, but when we don't know what our situation is, it it just felt really hard to borrow money um when we have so
many competing interests. So, you know, I want to make sure that our sewage is cleaned. Um, maybe before I worry about the tower, unfortunately. So, I don't see any other comments. Um, so we can do a roll call on the
amendment. Uh, councelor Golo, >> I may even pass because I'm I'm still I'm still trying to figure this one out. It sounds like it'll pass. And I um yeah I I am of the mind that I would
like to see a comprehensive plan from the city of the different priorities um before making any capital expenditures because I'm seeing the things that were delayed and I don't think that this is
necessarily of greater more significant priority than the things that we are currently not um I don't yet know how we're spending. We're paying for. I hear that we'll be borrowing. I'm concerned about that. Um tax payments are one of
my constituents biggest concern, one of all of our constituents biggest concerns. So, I am not even yet sure how I will vote on this, but I'm not making a motion to table because it doesn't seem like that's the spirit of the council right now. Um,
but I don't know how in good faith I can vote to make a capital expenditure when the other when other capital needs are not when I'm not clear how those will be also met. >> Councelor Webb, >> I feel the same way as councelor Golib.
I love poety but feels so irresponsible. But at the same time, I also know that like the longer we kick it down the road, the more expensive it gets. And if it gets more damaged, I would I yeah, I think I would be in
favor of seeing a comprehensive layout of our finances and our capital plans and what's actually going on before saying yes to this. >> Councelor Williams. Yeah, I I actually would like to argue against that position in terms of
what we're talking about is getting a general assessment done of what what are we looking at? This is not, you know, a we I moved to do this based upon wanting to see something concrete in terms of a
plan to have an actual real estimate from a structural engineer to actually move towards getting it on the historical register which will you know save us money down the road. Uh I think
that this we I have gotten a number of emails regarding this and people wanted me to vote for the original uh cost because they see this as something very important to the town. So, I understand,
you know, when things are tight, it's extremely hard to make decisions around this. But I think we've gone from looking at a $200,000 possibility tonight to a $25,000 possibility to basically get a a
grounded assessment going forward of what this is going to cost. And based on that, that's when we can decide what we're going to do. I mean, if if we're looking at more if we're looking at $600,000, what are we looking at? you know, we don't know what we're looking at really. We're basically doing
guesstimates at this point. We need the structural engineer to take a look, do an assessment, and give us a formal estimate of what it's going to be. So, I I think we should move forward with this. Thank you. >> Uh, Councelor Damoth.
>> Yeah. Um, I I just like to um agree with Councelor Williams. It seems like this is a and also councelor Gordon. Um and also acknowledge council Golib's reservations. Um this seems like a reasonable immediate step so that um as
you say we're able to fully understand what is needed going forward and then also to start that process of getting the historical designation so that it puts us in a position to better know what our options are for finding the funding in future. So, um, not a easy
decision, but this does seem like a a reasonable compromise to to do the minimum that's necessary, um, to avoid kicking this down the road where things could get a lot worse and also just so that we have a better handle, like you said, um, of what we're dealing with.
Councelor Brown. >> Um just ditto agreeing with the amendment and your comments and um just from my perspective, it's a safety concern and it's blight and um it'll be a sunk cost regardless. Like we're we
can't just like walk away and not spend money. So we're going to spend this and we might as well spend this and do this, you know, get it moving sooner so that way then we're more informed with all the decisions that are to come. Councelor Golib,
>> I'm curious what the seasonality of the situation is like. Uh if if we were to does the assessment have to happen within specific months given the cold.
Uh does like if it we got the assessment by a certain time, would then improvements be able to happen by a certain time? Like when do we need to get this assessment or could we table it a month to uh to get a comprehensive
plan from the city or two months to get a comprehensive plan from the city and have that like how long does it take to contract engineers? What's the timing? What does anyone have a sense of the timing? Does this question m make sense? I I don't know the timing of engineering
assessments or historical applications. >> Uh councelor Garrett and then councelor Menhus. >> I do not have an answer to the engineering question, but I as you're describing that I'm just imagining poet seats sliding down the mountain and like
and genuinely and it's like I just want to know that that's not going to happen. So for me, this is almost like an insurance policy to keep that eventuality. You know, it's again, that's an offside chance, but the arguments about having more information are persuasive to me, you
know, so that's ultimately where I come down to it. Councilman Hus. >> Yeah. I I don't have like a specific timeline, but like looking at it consecutively, if we if we delay the engineering,
uh we're essentially delaying any type of preliminary or initial construction on it, which means that then you go through another winter cycle, which leads to more cracks, which leads to more issues, and then you have the thawing again in the spring.
You might not even like council Garrett just said, you you might end up having to deal with something that's way worse. I just I think knowing sooner what the issues are will help us when we're also looking at the comprehensive plan of all
the other things that are going on in the city. Um, and I appreciate your point about winter damage. I don't think it's the same as like putting a tarp over it over the winter, but there may be things if we know information that
they can do to help it make it through the winter in better condition than getting worse and councelor web. Yeah, I feel convinced to vote yes on
the 25,000. So, >> any other discussion? Okay, we can do a roll call. And this is on the amendment. >> Councelor Goolan, >> pass.
>> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullduck, >> yes. Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes.
>> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Menhaus, >> yes. >> Councelor Ciban, >> yes. >> Councelor Gool, >> no. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes.
>> The motion passes by majority. Now we have to vote the main motion as amended. >> So now we're coming back to the main motion as amended. >> Councelor Gol. >> No. I have to unmute.
>> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmath. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes.
>> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cibels, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes by majority as amended. >> Thank you.
All right, we're coming to um item 12, which is the community preservation committee. And um that is still with councelor Williams on page 50. >> Okay. Order number FY27-003,
City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorder move that it be ordered the sum of 322,000 be appropriated for the fiscal year 2027 operations of the community preservation
committee. Majority vote required. How did this come out of in favor? Thank you. Any discussion or questions? I just want to kind of clarify the background that this is the money that we anticipate coming in and so this is
us being able to release those funds to the committee. Correct? >> We already have. >> Okay. Thank you. So, it's not a new appropriation. Great. All right, we are ready for a roll call.
>> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Oops. Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes.
>> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cisan, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously.
This is ways and means. More ways and means. So, does Would anybody like to give counselor Williams a break? >> No, they don't want to give me a break. It's a tough crowd
beanies. Okay. Order number FY27004, City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorder move that it be ordered pursuant to master journal law C150E 7. The city council approves the
memorandum of agreement MOA between the city hall clerical and library employees United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America UEE a fine union and as a affiliate local 274 of the United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America and the city of Greenfield. Majority vote required. >> Point of information. The union has ratified this already. >> Thank you. And I assume this got a positive recommendation.
>> Yes, ratified means yes. >> Oh, yes. We thought it was a good idea. >> Okay. We know the union thought it was a good idea. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> Any discussion? All right, we're going to vote now.
>> Councelor Goolum. >> Yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Balduk, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> sorry, I have to unmute you.
>> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Ciban, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes,
>> the motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. And now we're at the MOA with the DPW. >> Y uh order number FY27007, City of Greenfield, Massachusetts, the city council upon recommendation of
Mayor Dorier move that be order pursuant to Mass General Law C15E. Number seven, the city council approves the memorandum of agreement, MOA, between the Department of Public Works and its affiliate local 424 unit
MADIV 1116 of the United Public Service Employees Union and the City of Greenfield. Majority vote required. This memorandum of agreement was also uh ratified by the union.
>> And that was done in the correct order. So ways and means recommendation. >> Yeah. >> Did she give it? >> She did. >> I didn't hear that. >> Sorry. What? >> I didn't know if she had given the ways and means recommendation. I didn't hear that.
>> Yes, that it was fully recommended. >> Any discussion? Great. We will vote. >> Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes.
>> Councelor Dilmath, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Bulldock, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> Councelor Cisan,
>> yes. >> Councelor, President Wandelowski, do you would you like to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> All right. Now, we're moving to the year end transfers. And I know we talked about this. >> No, we have another member.
>> Oh, sorry. I missed one. >> Yep. All right. And this is a ways and means order number FY27024 city of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Deser pursuant to Mass General Law
C150E number 7. The city council approves the memorandum of agreement MOA between the United Public Service Employees Union Local 424M Central Maintenance and the city of Greenfield. Majority vote required.
This got positive recommendation from Ways and Means. And this has also been ratified. >> Second. >> We'll go for a vote. >> Councelor Goolum, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes.
>> Councelor Dolmouth, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cisell,
>> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Okay, now we're at the year end transfers and that is Ways and Means. again. I'm sorry.
I don't remember doing these. Um, that was page 98. Um, it didn't it went straight. So, it it it doesn't need a first and second reading aren't required. So, you haven't seen this yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, it is new to you and new to all of
us. >> Okay. Order number FY27012, City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Dorgger move that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from
010009120 workers comp insurance expense 1,045 145,000 010009400 liability insurance expense 18,000
07510 debt Interest expense 6,800 010008200 FKOG assessments expense 3,000 total 172,800
into the following accounts 0100083000 state assessments expense 172,5009170 non-contributo atory retirement expense $300 total $172,800
majority vote required. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Discussion and I see that Stephen has come up to answer any questions folks might have. >> Can go. Can you explain what we're doing
here? >> I was told to speak louder. How about that? Um, so at the end of the year, um, there are some accounts that are in the negative and some accounts that are in the positive. and by uh do as well as
city charter by July 15th we have to make the these transfer transfers in order to balance everything. So what's happening here is that uh for workers comp uh insurance expense the one two
three four at the top they all ended the year in positive whereas uh these accounts at the bottom ended the year in negative. So we kind of pick uh things that match up uh fairly well so they
balance themselves out. Um so it's going to the transfer is going to go from those four accounts to these two accounts in order to make them zero uh for the end of the year. Um and at the end of the day all these
transfers offset one another. So all the positives are offset by the negative. And uh for FY26 uh we ended the year with a positive balance of and I can give you that exact number
uh $766,000. So >> say that number again. >> Uh 766,000 positive >> o overall with the entire budget. >> Yes. >> Which would have been free cash if we had been able to certify it. Uh this
free cash was based upon it it's a year in a rears. Uh so when we do this 766 would be part of free cash. Uh but what we've gotten caught up with is the uh
balancing of the actual cash book to the accounting cash book. So like uh last year we ended the year with a positive balance. There's no question. But we can't reconcile that positive cash book to the positive end of the
year balance. >> And what happens if we were not to vote yes on one of these because we believe that one of the accounts that that there's an item here and it's
not this one that needs more money. And like what if we were to vote no on one of these? What happens? >> Um the year's over. Mhm. >> Uh so it's we can't spend any money out of FY26 budget anymore. Um so that's
kind of a non-issue. Um and then if you vote no on any one of these transfers, that department would be out of balance and then we would have to later on take that out of stabilization. >> Okay. So if we were to vote I'm just going to say what you just said again. So,
>> okay, >> if we voted no on one of these, all of the items above the in the following the second in the following accounts, the ones on the top have more money. They're they're they have um money left over.
The ones on the bottom are in the negative. If we um voted no on one of these, the ones in the negative would need to be balanced with capital with capital stabilization. >> I'm sorry. General stabilization. I'm
sorry. I I >> Okay. With general stabilization. Okay. And has that happened? What would happen if one of the count on the bottom was balanced with general stabilization and we voted no on it? We voted no. The
b the bottom one was filled with general stabilization. Would the top one they would that department would keep that money from last year? No. What would happen to that money? >> Uh it would just flow to um so if you're talking the top >> uh it would flow to the bottom line and
that 766 would become greater. >> Can you I'm sorry. The ending balance of 766 would increase >> by whatever was not voted. >> The ending balance the just the general fund it would
general fund. It wouldn't remain in that department. >> No, it certainly would not. FY26 is done. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Just one comment before councelor Gordon. I want to make sure I I think I
you always want to end the year with all of the department budget accounts at zero. >> Mhm. >> So you don't want negative and you don't want positive. And what happens is you might have, you know, you're guessing
and budgeting and so you allocate a certain amount and that department goes a little bit over on buying erasers and another department bought fewer erasers. So you're moving money from account to account to get to
zero. >> Yes. Okay. >> That's exactly it. >> Thank you. All right. Councelor Gordon, >> can you explain why in like some of these financial orders seem duplicative or seem to contain the same transfers to
and from but not they're not entirely duplicative. So like for example um order number uh FY2713 has sums to be transferred from the veterans department and the health department.
>> And then um order number FY17 also contains that that long list contains those two transfers. So, like the long list in 17 contains some but not all of the transfers that are outlined in a
couple of the other orders. And I'm wondering why that is. >> Um, hold on a second. Let me make sure. Uh, so like FY2717, >> sorry, 15. >> Oh, 15. Okay. >> Yeah, long less than 15. >> So, sorry, there are a lot of orders
here. That's probably why I'm confused. >> There are. Uh, so let's see. I think I can answer this because the expense accounts are different than the salary accounts and so some of these are salary accounts >> that yeah we have to separate expense and salary >> just like when we vote as a council we
vote separately for the salary portion of the budget. But now my question stands because like the veterans department and health department expense accounts are the ones listed in 13 and also listed in 15. Oh,
so so what we're doing is taking enough from uh enough of their surplus to balance those accounts and then the rest of the surplus for a different area. >> Can you explain that to me like I'm
five? >> So So let's see here. We have uh an expense of veterans department 12,000 and then we have it duplicated here on 15 for another uh 12,000. So the total
available in that account was 24,000 or more. >> Okay. >> So that's why >> that's what I needed to know. Thank you. And it's it's really the exact same amount. Did you just like take the full amount and split it in half between the two orders? It could have been like 24,311,
but we all needed 12 out of each, >> right? >> Yeah. >> The health department one is just a much more specific number that was the same in both places. So that's why I was confused. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Any other questions? Um,
so the state assessments expense which seems very high and maybe just explain to me how how that ends up with 172,000 in the negative. So when we budget for the state assessment expense um so those
are the everything on the cherry sheet on the assessment side as well as uh you know school choice and that so when those assessments actually come in they could come in a little bit higher and in this case it did. >> Thank you. I just want to make sure I understood what that
>> because assessment can mean a lot of different things. >> All right. If there aren't any other questions, then um we can vote on this. >> Councelor Golib, >> we're voting on 012. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmouth. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown. Yes. >> Vice President Garrett. >> Yes. >> Councelor Minhos.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Councelor Ciban. >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> All right. So, we're going to
next order page 99. >> Order number FY27013. City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of mayor disorder move that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from
one no 010005430 veterans department expense 12,000 05110 health department expense 10,155 total of $22,155 into the following accounts
0 1 0 0610 0 Library expense 22,100 0540 Human Rights Commission expense $55 for a total of $22,155
majority vote required. Uh, councelor Gordon, do you have a question or was that the second? Okay, thank you. Councelor Golib, >> I I will vote yes on all of these because it would be a moot point not to,
but I just want to say that I don't like transferring funds away from the health department. We've had inspectors come here this year talking about how public health inspections are not being funded
to the extent that they could be. Um there were ordinances dealing with uh public health that I didn't choose to update but are not being um or that we as a committee didn't choose to update but are not being enforced because of a
lack of inspectors. Um, that's my that's there's probably more of a nuanced uh more that could be said about that, but I if it would keep money in the health department, I would vote no on this. Um,
yeah, anything I could say about funding the health department and public health inspections? Um, it's just incredibly important and I feel it hurts my heart to have to vote against to vote for this one. Yeah. Do you what would you say to that? Do you something?
>> The money that's left over in health department expenses is actually their legal line. Some of this is a matter of just a matter of practicality. I put extra money in the health department
legal line and then the legal invoices come to the mayor's office. We spent a whole lot of legal this year that had to do with various properties and everything that could have been, you
know, could have been paid out of that 10,000 expenses. But what actually happened was I had to sign off on those and and do all of the invoices. So it ended up coming out of legal in the city. So it just wasn't spent there.
It's not like so I actually watched the budgets as we're going through the year and I thought I knew they hadn't spent any of their legal. I actually decreased that and took it out of inspections because the bills come to me and Diana Lerno
does half of it. She does all the um labor legal which that was a little over this year because you know we were settling so many contracts from the previous year. You spend a lot of time doing it. We went
way over or over in legal and that was because we had a lot of housing issues that I'm actually delighted that we worked on and solved and we just didn't build that to the health department. So you'll see in a different part legal was over. So some of it is kind of a
matter of it's it's important but it is a little bit of housekeeping. That's where they go. There's two bills and and we don't even let anybody see all of the little details on all the legal things. You know, I just send that to to um Patty to
send through as a warrant. These are all the legal expenses for this month without anybody's name on it or without the name of that property on it. So for people's privacy, etc., they're paid through the mayor's office and then we
just send the bill forward. So most of them come that way. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank I'm I'm glad to hear that and I'm glad to hear that cases were cleared up. um that that makes me feel a lot better voting on this and I appreciate your work on that
and the health directors and the health departments uh inspectors work on it and just any opportunity I can take to advocate for funding our funding the inspectors just >> right >> noted thank you thank you for your work on
that >> anything else all right so we'll move forward with a vote Councelor Goolan. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmath. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock.
>> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Vice President Garrett? >> Yes. >> Councelor Minhas? >> Yes. >> Councelor Cibbison? >> Yes. >> And does the president want wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes.
>> Motion passes unanimously. All right. Next order. >> Order number FY27014. City of Greenfield, Massachusetts. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorder move that it be ordered. The following sums be transferred from
0100061000. Library salaries 16,000 01 0009150 employees life insurance 500 for a total of 16,500
into the following accounts recreation department salaries 16,500 majority vote required thank you >> discussion We're ready for roll call. >> Councelor Golem.
>> Yes. >> Council. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Councilor Gentleman. >> Yes. >> Council Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown.
>> Yes. >> Vice President Garrett. >> Yes. Councelor Menhaus. >> Yes. >> Councelor Cisan. >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Point of clarification.
Will uh Councelor Williams have to read every single line on this? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> How about somebody else start reading? >> I'm losing it. >> Uh councelor Menhus. Thank you. Did you say the numbers? >> All of it.
>> No, I just can't. What page are we on? >> Uh, page 101. >> And thank you for taking up the mantle. >> Yes. >> Mhm. Okay. Order number FY27-015, City of Greenfield, Mass. City Council,
upon recommendation of Mayor Disorder, move that it be ordered, the following sums be transferred from uh expense uh department number 010001 1 0 city council amount 9,000. Uh expense 0100 01200 0. Mayor amount
3,000. Uh, expense 01 0 01250 economic development amount 14,600. Expense 010001580 tax expenses expenses amount 25,000. Expense 010001610
city clerk department amount 4,000. Expense 010001620 elections department amount 2,000. Uh expense 010001630 registars department amount 11,000 expense 01001910
central services uh amount 45,000 uh expenses amount uh department 010003990 tech school assignments uh amount 50,000
uh expense 0100411 10 DPW admin and engineering amount 11,000 expense uh department 010004220 DPW highway division uh amount 6,000
uh expense department 01 0004250 uh DPW traffic division 8,000 expense type uh department uh 010004310 DPW Landfill amount 5,000
uh expense department uh 010004 330 DPW waste collection amount 15,000 uh expense department 0104380
DPW parks division amount 30,000 expense department 0104670 street cleaning amount 5,000 Uh, expense department 010004700 0. DPW trash and recycling fees amount
30,000. Expense department uh 01004910. DPW Cemetery uh amount 6,500 uh expense department 01 0005110
health 10,155 amount uh expense department 01 05 430 veterans department 12,000 uh department
01 000710 0 debt says 270,000. Uh 0 1 0 07510 debt interest 100,000. uh 01 0007510
debt interest 65,200 um account where was I okay uh 010007510 debt interest 6,800 uh 010082000
for CO assessments 3 010009120 workers comp insurance 145,000 and 010009400 liability insurance 18,000 for a total
of 910,255. Oh, there's more. >> Next page. >> Oh god. Okay. Uh, department 01 0001350. Accounting department 96,500. Uh, 01001410.
Assessors department 16,500. Uh 010001450 Treasury Department 36,000 01510 legal city 12,800
01520 Human Resources Department 5,500 01550 Management Information 59,000 01710 Conservation Commission 2001 01770
Planning Department $100 $100 01970 Energy Department 257,000 uh department 0 1 0 02 1 0 0 Police Department 60,000
uh department 0 1 0 02120 parking department 1,000 uh department 0 1 02000 Fire Department 54,200 uh 0 1 04210
DPW W cityard amount 3,000 department 010004290 DPW service division 95,000 uh 01004350 DPW transfer station 18,500540 Human Rights Commission $55 061
0 Library 22,100830 State Assessments 1,00 172 2500 and uh department 0109170 non-contributori uh retirement $300 for a total of $910,255
majority vote required. >> Second and bravo. >> I need some water. >> Any discussion? The the only question I had which I on the previous page you've got the debt
interest in for three separate amounts to make councelor Minhos have to read it three times. I'm just wondering why that wasn't totaled together and since it's the same account >> I think when they sorted it
how it came out. Thank you. >> All right, we're ready for a vote. >> Councelor Goolum, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmus, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes.
>> Councelor. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. Councelor Cisan. >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes.
>> Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. Can I have another reader for F for the number 16? Anybody have it pulled up? Page 103. >> Thank you, Councelor Garrett. >> Order number FY27016.
The city council on recommendation of mayor disorganer move that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from salary 010001550 management information $40,500 uh 010001920 central maintenance city hall uh salary
and it's $12,700 salary 0100210 0 police department $66,000 salary 01002410 Building inspections, $7,000
02910. Emergency management department. That's a salary and it's $5,000. Salary 01002920. Animal control department $3,500. Salary 01004220.
Department of Public Works uh DPW Highway Division $98,500. Salary 01 0005110. Health $17,200. Salary 01005430. Veterans Department $9,100.
Salary 0100061000. Library $16,000. Salary 01009150. Employees life insurance $7,000. Salary 01009150. Employee life insurance $500 for a total
of 28 $280,000 $83,000. And it goes on into the following account. Salary 010012000. Mayor $26,000. Salary 0100 0123
uh 0. Executive administration $3,300. Salary 01001610. City clerk department $1,100. Salary 010001770. Planning department $10,100.
Salary 01000 01910. Central services uh $12,700. Salary 01002130. Dispatch department $40,000. 500. Salary 010022000. Fire department $48,000.
Salary 010002490. Animal inspection $2,200. Salary 010004330. DPW waste collection $56,000. 500 salary 010004380
DPW PARs division $42,000 salary 01005410 Council on Aging $24,100. Salary 01 00063000. Recreation department $16,000.
Salary 0100063000. Rec department $500 for a total of $280,000. Majority vote required. $283,000. >> Did I get a second?
>> Second. Thank you. >> Discussion. Councelor Brown. Um more just a question that um why didn't this go to ways and means first because I didn't have enough time >> 7 it was finished at 7:40 p.m. on Friday
by the accountant that that's why >> and we didn't close at the fiscal year closed out after June 30th so July 1. So, we had, you know, six or seven working days to get this done.
>> I'm wondering if it would be useful if they could put it on their agenda for next time, even just to dive into why certain things are under and over potentially. >> So, yep, we can break that down at ways and
means if you want, but many times like a salary could be over. I'm looking at one that's in ours and I thought a person left that was there for probably 30 years. So we didn't take that out of compensated absences. It
came out of looks you know mayor salary line that somebody's leaving and they have a a lot of like you know sick time or whatever that can make an overage in the salary line but I do know some of them. So if you have
particular questions, >> yeah, probably just uh for me it's the ones that stand out of the the larger ones. So is it that somebody was hired that was unanticipated or you know if I look at like the DPW waste or fire
department um that's probably overtime they were significantly they had high overtime and you know going into that was one of the budgets that was the most in the negative and we had
several people that left there as well. Besides overtime that was over, there were large buyouts in, you know, or people that left and so they have a lot of seniority and then there's a lot of
like sick time and etc. >> Thank you. Uh, councelor citizen elves. Oh, just to say that we did um we did spend some time in ways and means discussing this before the budget season started in I think January February the
all the overages underg Thank you for the clarification. >> I don't see any other hands so we can vote. >> Councelor Gol, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. Councelor Dil, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Boulder,
>> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cibson Elves, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote?
>> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. >> Page 17. These are a lot you all. Um, councelor Gordon wants to read it. >> Thank you. >> Order number FY27-017.
The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 01000 071000 debt service expense 270,000 07510
debt interest expense 100,000 01910 central services expense 45,000 01580 tax title expenses $25 5,000 1 0 01250
Economic Development Expense 14,600 01630 Registars's Department 11,000 01110 City Council expense 9,000 01610
City clerk expense 4,000 0120 0 Mayor office expense 3,000 1 0 01620 elections department expense 2000 for a total of 483,600
into the following accounts. 010 01970 Energy Department expense 257,000 01350 Accounting Department expense 96,500 01550
Management Information Expense 59,000 01450 Treasury Department expense 36,000 1 0 1 1410 Assessor's Department expense 16,500
01510 legal city expense 12,800 01520 Human Resources Department expense 5,500 01710
Conservation Commission expense 2001770 Planning Department expense 100 for a total of 483,600 majority vote required. >> Second. >> Any comments or discussion?
>> My only comment um I know that you let us know that the big energy department expense. So, this was not something new for the council. Okay, we can vote. Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon,
>> yes. >> Councelor Dilmus, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes.
>> Councelor Cisan, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. The >> motion passes unanimously. >> All right. Page 106. Thank you, Council Gordon. Order number FY27-018.
The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger, moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 010001550111. Information management salary 40,5001920.51111 central maintenance salary 12,700
for a total of 53,200 into the following accounts 01001200.5111 mayor salary 26,000 01910 central services salary 12,700 001001770
Planning Department salary 10,1001230.51111 Executive Administration salary 3,300 01610 city clerk department salary 1,100 for a total of 53,200 majority vote required.
>> Second. Any discussion? Councelor Gulib, >> can you share why the additional or that 26,000 went into the mayor's salary? >> What that was for >> licensing. >> Okay,
>> that was covering that >> licensing buyout and also um that individual was not there for quite a while. So, there was some of that work was picked up by
people in the mayor's office for >> Yep. Yeah, I'm aware of that. That makes sense to me. Thank you. >> All right, we're ready to vote. >> Council, excuse me. >> Wrong button.
Councelor Goolum, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. Councelor Dmouth, >> yes. >> Council Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Balduk, >> yes. >> Council Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes.
>> Councelor Benhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cisan, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. Anyone up for page for the next page 107?
>> I'll keep going. >> Okay, we'll let you keep going. >> It's more interesting than listening. No offense to anybody. Uh, order number FY27-019. City Council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from
010005110 health department salaries 17,200 05430 veteran department salaries 9,100 for a total of 26,300
and to the following accounts 0105410 Council on Aging Salaries 24,1002490 Animal inspection salaries 2,200 for a total of 26,300 majority vote required. >> Second.
>> Councelor Golib. >> Sorry, I'm talking I'm talking a lot tonight, but the this salary line from the health department is different than the legal expenses. Can you share why the salary the heart the health department salary wasn't
used? I don't I don't have that I don't have that in my head right now. So what I would say is if there's a position that's there that is not filled >> or if we hired you know if you if we budgeted that say as of July 1 and then
hired a person um and this happens a lot. there's positions that you put in that we said, "Yep, we're going to budget for that." And then we put out something as soon as it's budgeted and then maybe we hire the person in October. >> Mhm. >> Then there's leftover money in that.
>> Y >> um and that, you know, happens a lot. There may be there's positions that are unfilled. So that's why that salary line would be under you know why there would be left
over if you hadn't filled the position but I don't have that one in the top of my head you know who exactly is there >> that's fair thank you and and are if there is a significant amount like that like say somebody's hired I'm thinking out loud but I'm just
wondering if that money could ever be used for hiring someone in the another person but I guess not if you don't have that line item if you're not anticipating for that line item to be covered ongoingly. Correct. That >> right. But it could be,
you know, I think we were adding to the health department this year. That was one of the departments they actually needed like another inspector. So if everybody's filled in that, they would spend all their money. However, if they have somebody leave that had a lot of
years of seniority, >> they would have things that we had to pay them as they left, which they are very much entitled to. But you don't budget for that. You don't budget for, you know, any buyback in that we just
budget for all of the salaries and many times you don't fill all the positions. Or you could have um you know you could have somebody that was 0.8 one year and then you know go to full-time the next year but that would
have been budgeted for in that fiscal year. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It it never it almost never comes out that we budget a whole budget in a department and that's exactly what they use. So there's these things happen
and and nobody spends every penny but or sometimes they might spend every penny and spend more because there were things that there were more emergency calls than you anticipated.
I'll just comment it also appears there's a lot of ins and outs where you're trying to like match up the numbers. So, it might not be like it was that position because I see some money moving in and out as you're doing I don't know if I want to say Tetris, but
it feels like there's just a lot of moving parts here. So, I appreciate all of the like it makes my head hurt a little bit to think of like to see all these lines and you had to like figure out how to match them from all the different places. So, thank you.
Any other comments, questions? Okay. >> Councelor Goolan, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmus, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb,
>> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> Councelor Civ, >> yes. Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes and yes.
>> The motion passes unanimously. >> Great. We're on the next page. >> Order number FY27-020. City Council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 010007510
debt interest expense 65,2003990 tech school assessments expense 50,000 for a total of 115,200 into the following accounts 021000 police department expense 60,000
022000 fire Department expense 54,200 02120 parking department expense 1 for a total of 115,200 majority vote required.
Second councelor Brown um not sure if you remember off the top of your head but what the police and fire expenses are. >> I know what the overage in the police it was all vehicle mate. It was the vehicle
maintenance. It's way over. Um fire department expense. I can't remember offhand, but we can get that to you at the next ways and means meeting. They were that the their overtime would have been under the salary line, right?
Overtime would have been under salary. I remember there they were way they were over in overtime. I don't remember what was over in expenses in their department, but everybody's if they had vehicles, the vehicle maintenance this year was like 200% more than you'd
expected. It's just the increase in cost. >> I think we're ready to vote. >> Councelor Golden. >> Yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmath, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams,
>> yes. >> Councelor Bulldo, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. Yes. >> Councelor Ciban, >> yes.
>> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. Order number FY27-021. The city council upon recommendation of Mayor Disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 01000210
0. Police department salaries 66,000 02410. Building inspection salaries 7,000 02910 Emergency department depart emergency management department salaries 5,000
02920 animal control department salaries $3,500 9150 employees life insurance 7,000 for a total of $88,500 into the following accounts 0102130
dispatch department salaries 40,500 022000 Fire Department salaries 48,000 total 88,500 majority vote required. >> Second, >> questions. Councelor Goolan.
>> Yes. Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Dilmath, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Baldick, >> yes. >> Councelor Webb, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes.
>> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Cibson, >> yes. >> Councelor President Wandelowski. >> Are we here already? >> We are. >> Yes. And yes. Motion passes unanimously.
Order number FY27-022. The city council upon recommendation of mayor disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 010004380 DPW parks division expense 30,000 04700
DPW trash and recycling fees expense 30,000 04330 DPW waste collection expense 15,000 04110 DPW admin and engineering expense 11,000
0104250 DPW traffic division expense 8,000 04910 DPW Cemetery Expense 6,5004220 DPW Highway Division expense 6,000 04310
DPW Landfill Expense 5,000 04670 DPW street cleaning expense 5,000 for a total of 116,500 into the following accounts. 010004290
DPW service division expense 95,000 04350 DPW transfer station expense 18,500 4210 DPW cityard expense 3000 for a total of 116,500 majority vote required.
>> Second I don't see any discussion questions. Oh, councelor Williams. >> Yes. Uh, the DPW service division. What is the DPW service division? They do all of the um vehicles, the cars
and trucks. They take care of you. It's like a whole little business. They take care of all of the vehicles in the city. Um the maintenance and repairs on everything
>> on school vehicles, buses, on the multitude of vehicles that we have in in the city. >> Thank you. >> We're ready to go, >> Councelor Goolum.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmouth. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Vice President Garrett? >> Yes.
>> Councelor Minhos? >> Yes. >> Councelor Ciban? >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. Order number FY27-023. We're going to bring it home here. The city council upon recommendation of
mayor disorger moved that it be ordered the following sums be transferred from 010004220 DPW highway division salaries 98,500 into the following accounts. 010004330
DPW waste collection salaries 56,5004380 DPW Parks Division salaries 42,000 for a total of 98,500 majority vote required >> second >> questions or comments >> move to a vote
>> councelor Goolan Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmath. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Vice President Garrett?
>> Yes. >> Councelor Menhos? >> Yes. >> Councelor Sibisen? >> Yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. That was a lot. I just have one comment which it seems
like a lot more than I remember in any of my time on council and I don't know if you have a comment on that besides I don't know if it's how things are budgeting a little bit differently or but if you guys just had some commentary
on why there were so many transfers. >> Yeah. Um we're budgeting much tighter. Um so there's a lot of overages and undergages here and there and as you know we're under quite a bit of scrutiny by the do and this is how they want us
to do it. >> It does not help your voices. Yes. Um I in the past we have come to the end of a year and when I was on city council and never voted on a transfer but they happen at the end of the year and actually you can kind of see the timeline.
Um the the fiscal year ends Jul you know June 30th. So to get these to you when the year is just ending on June 30th, many's the time that we I don't
think we even heard of what the transfers were at the end of the year, but they have to move between departments to balance the budget. Somebody's always going to be under and over. I'm I'm just like formulating in my head. Is it that in the past
maybe things were moved mid year more often or or am I just off on a tangent? >> No, they get moved at the end of the year and I think I don't know. I I can't speak for what always has happened in the past, but I could see how it might
have happened that things were moved from one thing to another and didn't have time to get to you by the July meeting because to get this actually to Kathy and Tammy um you know by Friday afternoon so that they could print something is pretty
hard when you really haven't even closed your books for July one. So, we're trying to let you know what the internal transfers were that are happening. >> And if um sorry, and if any transfers are made midyear between any department
or any salary and expense line, it would have to come to you in an order. >> That's what I thought. Uh councelor Golib, >> that that makes sense to me. I mean, I'm remembering like the first year I was on council, we had like $4 million or something like that in free cash. other
years like 2 million and you're saying that our free cash would be something like 766,000 you said. So it makes it I could I could imagine that rather than being transferred between accounts the extra
money was just going to free cash and we didn't have to look at it. Is that accurate or I'm imagining this >> actually? Yes. What? So, essentially what they're saying is that it's going to go to free cash and then they're just going to appropriate for the negative
balances out of free cash. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That just helps me to understand because it it just felt like a lot more than I remember last year or the year before. >> Great. Thank you so much. >> All right, we're in the home stretch.
So going back to my pages, we are at presentation of papers, none. Report of committees, none. Unfinished business, none. Old business, none. And we are back. We are on to new business
and first reading. And of course, there are two financial readings. >> I can do them. City Council first reading July 15, 2026. Approve $600,000 from borrowing for
repairs to inflow and infiltration systems as part of capital budget fiscal year 2027 to correct funding source. >> And second, >> thank you. >> That's it. You just have to read it.
>> She's got one more. appropriate amount not to exceed 75,000 from stabilization fund 8,400 to engage Clifton Larson Allen LLP CLA to perform cash reconciliation for
fiscal year 2025. >> Thank you. And we have a zoning for Vice President Garrett to read. >> Okay. Uh notice of zoning amendment proposal July 15, 2026. The following zoning amendment proposal has been submitted to the Greenfield City Council
for consideration. Amend zoning ordinance article 2 definitions. Article 4 use regulations and appendix table of uses. Article 7 special regulations article 8 administration section 8.4 site plan review and approval submitted
July 8th 2026 by the planning board. >> Thank you. That concludes our first readings. Um we have no motions for reconsideration. So I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> And now we're going to vote on it. >> Discussion. >> Councelor Gol. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Dilmus. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulldock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Webb. >> Yes.
>> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Ciban, >> yes. >> Does the president wish to vote? No. The meeting is adjourned at 10:10 and a
vote by the majority