001Good evening. I'm calling to order this special city council meeting. Today is September the 3 and it is 6:32 p.m. Um, just a reminder because we haven't done a all virtual in a while. You muted counselor I want to ask you, you're muted right now. >> President Wandelowski, you're muted. >> Um, first off, this meeting is being recorded by the city council, MGCTV9. If any other persons present are doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. >> You might want to ask them if they're recording to unmute themselves and make it make a statement. >> And if you are recording and um you can unmute yourself. There we go. If you are recording, you can unmute yourself. >> I am recording, please. Is my mic working? Okay, we're going to do a
002roll call of members. Um, clerk Scott. >> Yep. >> Councelor Golib >> here. >> Councelor Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Master Tataro >> here. >> Councelor Bottomley >> here. >> Councelor Bullock >> here. >> Councelor Williams >> here. Councelor Perry >> here. >> Councelor Healey informed us that he was unable to attend tonight. Councelor Brown >> here. >> Vice President Garrett >> present. >> Councelor Minhos >> here. >> Councelor Torono. >> Yep. Here. >> President Wandowski >> here. >> You have a quorum. >> Thank you. I just wanted the >> We lost you again. Audio. >> Lost her again. >> You're muted. >> I think we're getting the audio through Kathy. Are you guys in the same room? >> Is unmuted. I'm not sure why Laura can't hear us, though. Okay. Neither both. >> Did
003it mut? >> Start it again. >> Try that. So, I just wanted to lay out that the purpose of this special meeting is to iron out the legal issues that have come up regarding the initiative. Um, we simply just didn't have time at the a between the August meeting and when the petition was submitted to get all of the legal guidance that we needed to make sure that the question is clear to the voters. So, that is what we're doing tonight. We have our city attorney um Quinn here with us as well as John Marrian um who is the Oh my >> I hope you got to hear me. Some for some reason mine keeps uh muting and unmuting so I apologize. >> So I will take a motion um to suspend the rules. >>
004Clerk Scott, if you're unmuted when Laura is also unmuted. There's a really bad echo. So, if you could please mute as long as we can hear her, that would be very helpful. Thank you. >> Can you hear her now? >> I'm going to try again. Can you hear? >> Yes. But can you start from the top because we missed everything. >> Fantastic. I'll be really good at it now. Um just wanted to state that the purpose of this special meeting is to iron out the legal issues that have come up regarding the citizens petition. Um we simply just didn't have enough time between when the petition came in and our August meeting to get all of the legal guidance that we needed. So, this meeting is to make sure that we've got the guidance and
005to make sure that the question is clear for the voters. Um, so we've got our attorney here, attorney Quinn, uh, the city attorney, as well as John Marrian, who is our petitioner who submitted the ballot initiative. Uh, so that is what's before us. There will be five minutes for Mr. Marrian to share with the council. Um, why this initiative and any of the background um counselors can ask some questions and then we'll have time for attorney Quinn to brief us as well and then we have two motions before us. >> Laura, can I ask a question? So, we seem to be having a little bit of trouble with audio. So, if I could have um councelor Garrett, Vice President Garrett, can you let me know when you hear Laura talking and if she stops because
006I'm having trouble. We're getting feedback. We're all in the same Laura and I are in the same room and and I want to test some things. Would that be possible? >> Sure. I I don't know if you heard Councelor Gordon a minute ago, but it seems to be when your uh audio is on, Clerk Scott, and Laura is speaking, that's when there's like this echo that happens. And so I don't know which microphone you folks are using to uh pick up. Is it just one microphone for both of you? Is that what's happening? >> No. Um so I'm not sure. So I'm I'm going to test a few things, but I'm going to keep talking. So, just let me know if you can't hear me. >> Okay. >> And then we're gonna do the same
007with President Wandowski. So, I'm talking now. Does it happen to cut out? Can you still hear me talking or did I cut out? >> You did not cut out. I could hear you. >> Okay. So, I'm going to test one other thing on my end. I'm going to do the same thing. I'm going to cut out. >> Cannot hear you. >> Okay. So, Laura, can you do the same thing because I'm I'm having trouble over here. >> So, if Laura, you could just kind of sing us a little tune. >> Oh, gladly. Uh, what do you guys want to hear? Um, >> we can hear the people sing >> Buffalo Girls. >> Freeird. >> Did you hear that? >> Sing Freeird. >> Did Did President Wandowski cut out? >> No. Okay. Try uh try it
008again, President Wandelowski. >> Okay. So, I will take a motion um from page three. >> Okay. Um I will make the motion because my microphone is on. Uh the that the city council move that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council wave the rails of procedure. Uh, number eight, order and disposition of business to allow the agenda items to be taken out of order. Majority vote required. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Was that councelor Toronto? >> That was one of them. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. We have to do a roll call. >> Right. I'm totally on here on the motion to wave the rules. Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Thank you. Council Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock,
009>> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, [Music] >> yes. Vice President Garrett? >> Yes. >> Councelor Minhos, >> yes. >> Councelor Torono, >> yeah. >> And does the president wish to vote? Yes. And yes, the motion passes unanimously. The rules or procedure are waved. >> Thank you so much. So, um, thank you, uh, John, for being here, um, as the chair of the referendum petition, um, to share your concerns regarding the ballot language. Um, and anything else you want to share with the council. Um, we've got, you've got five minutes on the floor. Wonder >> Thank you. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Thank you. Um, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this body. Um, I think, you know, I want
010to first say that, you know, this is something I wasn't looking forward to, but, you know, as a a lifelong resident of this community and a history of standing up for this community, uh, back in my early years as a selectman, we had fought to say Greenfield has done its fair share. Uh there was a development we're now solar villages when I was a selectman and we as selectman blocked a developer uh request to put in uh units up there that were were different than solar village I might say. uh we blocked them by by uh not allowing them to connect to our water and sewer systems and you know they were going to sue us but under 40b we were 40b community we're 15% almost of our our housing stock and they had no
011position against us so you know the people that want to say it's a nimi issue for me it's not a nimby issue it's a community issue um and I would just like to let people know why we're here we're here because of a vote on August 20th of this body that took a referendum provision and and altered it to to create a yes position. Yes. To allow the mayor to sell the property on Hope Street when in fact the yes provision should be to resend your vote of the city council. Plain and simple. And it was debated for a long time. Many members had questions. Many members wanted legal counsel on it. But it continued to move forward with a handful of people. And it's very troubling that we're undermining our our democracy, our charter,
012and you know, the the back and forth between Attorney Quinn, the clerk's office, and myself was unnecessary. And and it's plain and simple. This goes before the voters. You upper vote, you resend it or not. uh you you uh don't have after that point, you don't have the ability to manipulate the language. And that's what happened. And it's and it's really kind of a sad day in in Greenfield's history that we're doing this. And you know, there's a lot of issues that have come out of this besides just being about a parking lot. Many people I've never known have called me and and requested to be friends through Facebook or through other friends that have asked for my number. And the amount of information I have gathered and learned is staggering. And you know, one
013such issue is is the capacity of the sewer treatment facility. That facility has has had discharges in excess of two and a half million or just shy of two and a half million gallons of untreated sewage in the past 3 years. And it's not just one mayor's fault. It's the fault of many mayors. And and the fact that we continue to just plow ahead and and tax our infrastructure without planning, without understanding our infrastructure is not right. And I have a 37page report from the through a public records request from the Department of Environmental Protection that has outlined the the staggering issues at the facility on Deerfield Street. And it's just, you know, it's the kind of issue I've been trying to raise. I've been trying to talk to people, but nobody wants to talk
014to me at city hall. Uh so I before I submitted the petition, I asked for some meetings, but they weren't accepted. they were shunned away and and here we are. So, but thank you again for the time to address this body. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Margan. Appreciate that. Um counselors, uh any folks have questions. Um, and I I just want to open by saying the the language that we voted on last month was based on precedents of two former referendums um that came to us from clerk Scott. So, it wasn't the council rewriting the yes versus no. So, I just wanted to set that record straight. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> Council. Councelor Gol. >> Yeah. And just for community members who are following along, just to make that very clear, to
015make sure the facts are clear, if anyone has doubt about what happened at the last city council meeting, I would invite you to go back and look at the agenda and to look at the um the recording because we were voting on what came out of the clerk's office um and what was approved by the attorney. We didn't there was no change of yes or no. We didn't even know that that was a possibility when it came to us, when it came to the floor. The only change that was made was to strike through language that would that we were concerned may uh make it so that in perpetuity the city wouldn't be allowed to sell that land. So for anyone that the accusation of manipula manipulation is just categorically incorrect and for anyone who
016has that doubt I would invite you to go back and look at last month's meeting. >> We have looked at last month's meeting very carefully and clearly you were the architect of the amendment the further amendment which should have never been >> allowed to speak because he's had his time. >> Um thank you thank you Mr. American. Um, we're not going to unfortunately be able to do a debate. Um, but >> well, no, that can happen later. >> Sure. >> I I welcome it and I just invite community members to decide that for themselves. I think it's pretty clear. >> Councelor Garrett, >> uh, I mean, the offer of the debate, I if you if there's interest in having a public forum where folks can talk about questions, I absolutely would love to see that
017happen. And so if you know you have our contact information obviously as public officials but I um I would love to have further conversations where the public can hear different voices. Um you mentioned the so the charter language I I spent some time this looking at the language in the charter and I don't think I fully agree with you that it's absolutely clear. Um and so you know regardless the first the main point I just want to make is the goal of the council as far as this process is concerned is making sure that people have a chance to have their voices heard and you put a and folks working with you on this referendum put in a tremendous amount of work to uh get the signatures. It was impressive. you know, you guys obviously,
018you know, there's lots of folks who you spoke to and you know, this is a we're a democracy and so there is absolutely nothing that we are trying to do that is in the face of that. Um, I do have a question about some of the language you've used to describe our decision last month. And so there was an email that was sent to attorney Quinn on August 24th, 2025 where you said that our decision-making process was arbitrary and capricious. And that's for folks that aren't aware that is legal language that has specific definitions. In particular, capriccious and I had to look this up. I'm looking at the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute definition that arbit arbitrary and capriccious contact is willful and unreasoning action without consideration regard for the facts and circumstances. >>
019And so you've heard from a couple of counselors that we had 48 hours to read the legal advice and the answers of questions that have been asked to attorney Quinn which very aly answered. And so to accuse us of being arbitrary and capriccious to me that reads like the foundation setting of a lawsuit, you know, and so I I'm a little disturbed by that and I just would like to, you know, I I frankly I'm here to listen. Like if you believe our actions are up and precious, I'd like to hear what threshold we hit and what actions we took, especially in light of the context you were given about us not choosing yes or no. Like we were handed this language by the attorney. It followed the precedent of library vote. Like it literally
020was the same as a library vote, which is a referendum. And that petitioner's committee did not have an objection. It doesn't mean that you're not right, you know, and I'm I'm looking forward to hearing what our attorney says because I am not a lawyer. That, you know, is 100% true and I know you are, but if you could enlighten us as far as what hits that threshold, I would be interested to know. I I am not a lawyer. I I'm fortunate to be, you know, family a family of lawyers that advised me on different issues over my lifetime. Um but you know, it was clear to many of us that this further amendment was offered by councelor Golub and many counselors had concerns about it. They had concerns that it hadn't been seen by legal
021counsel. Um issues that, you know, people had questions about and instead it just kind of kept going forward and and for me that was problematic and and you know whether it it's you know a matter of debate whether it's arbitrary and capriccious but to to me it felt underhanded. I I really felt that way whether it's you can take it to that level of arbitrary precedence. It was a a long memo I sent to attorney Quinn, you know, stating our opinion and we felt it was illegal. It was wrong and it was not what the charter called for. >> Well, thank you. I appreciate it. No, it's it was that was helpful and clarifying. >> Thank you. >> Um I have further questions, but I don't want to be the only one asking them, so
022I'm happy to wait until other folks have stuff to say. >> Great. um councelor Bullock and then we can come back to councelor Gol or sorry >> yeah um I have two main questions one is um I'm wondering the language for this the way that it was presented um from our legal counsel and from the clerk was on the agenda within our 5-day window and so Mr. Mr. Margan, I'm wondering why you didn't come to that meeting to speak to the language on August 20th. Um, and why was the why was the issue only brought up after as um I think it was councelor Golib that just brought up, we didn't flip the language in the meeting. That's not what happened. Um, >> can I just finish my sentence? We um what we did was
023what we have authority to do under the charter, which is review and approve the ballot language. Um and the language was put on the agenda in the order of yes and no, which is what you're actually taking issue with if I understand correctly. And so I'm wondering why you didn't raise this issue at the August 20th meeting. And then I I also have a follow-up question. >> I'll tell you why. because I didn't expect you to to take a further amendment and try to change the language. Under 77, when a question is submitted to the to to the council for action to the voters, you can manipulate the language. Under 78, you cannot. So, >> so if we had accepted the language as in as was on the August 20th agenda, even even though the
024yes and no was flipped, not to your liking, you wouldn't have challenged that language. >> No, because thereafter it becomes an issue for the petitioners committee and the city attorney to figure out, to come to a terms in agreement with. You don't have a role after you vote. Honestly, read the charter. >> I did. I Oh, I read the charter. Um I have one more question though. So um >> you have I've brought I' I've heard from you when I spoke with you directly and others that there is a potential for um for uh market rate rent to go in in a building just adjacent to this lot that we're talking about. I'm wondering if you have any financial connection to that building. None at all. >> Okay. Thank you. I I've had questions from
025people and so I felt like it was important to ask. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other counselors with questions at this point? Otherwise, I'll go to councelor Garrett. >> Councelor Garrett. >> Sure. And so I um looking at the charter, you know, just speaking of reading the charter, I have read the charter as well and I think everybody on the council has um the first section of the charter se in article one there's a section on distribution of powers and there's section 14 is the powers of the city and I'm just going to read this briefly so forgive me. Subject only to express limitations, the exercise of any power or function by immunistic government in the constitution and general laws of the commonwealth is the intention and purpose of the voters of the
026green field through the adoption of the charter secure for themselves and their government all the powers it is possible to secure as fully as completely as though each such power specifically and individually enumerated herein. So, you've made a claim that the city council has no power in this context. And again, I have no interest in thwarting the will of the voters or the referendum committee or manipulating the votes or playing shadow games just in general. Like that is not what we are interested in doing. None of us, we're all none of us have time for that. But I'm looking at the charter and it is not clear the language here. section 78B. This is the modifi. It modifies instead of being a clear process on its own, it modifies section 77 as I know you're
027aware and I'm just going to read this for members of the public that are listening just to not the whole thing because I don't want to bore people to tears and I have a question. Um, subsection A of section 77 describing the manner petition is filed. Subsection B of subse section 77 providing for referral to an attorney. subsection F of said sub section 77 and then I'm skipping to the bottom. Um, and this is where I'm actually gonna just me well I'll get through this. The words measure or part thereof protested against shall be deemed to replace the word measure in said subsection A, B, F, and G of said section 77 each time it appears. And the word referendum should be deemed to replace the word initiative. And it goes on. And so if
028you take that all together and I actually wrote this out, it comes up with a sentence that doesn't make any sense and there's another provision in section in the petition section form of the question. The ballot used in voting shall be containing question in substantially the following form. And you know, I know that you have your point about the role of the petitioners commission, of which there absolutely is a piece. But the way the charter tells us to write this, if it's a referendum, is shall the following measure or part thereof protested against which was proposed by voters in a referendum petition take effect. That isn't a logical construction. You you're asking us to resend a vote, which is valid. And you know, you have an absolute right and the citizens of the city have
029an absolute right to rescend our votes, >> but we have to change that to actually do what you want, you know, and so the city lawyer has to change that. So to say there's, you know, the charter is clear as day is absolutely not true. And so I I just I guess my question is, do you accept that the city attorney has to make changes to this to even get to the result? Does that make sense to you, Mr. American? Sure. No, it does. And and you know, I'll just say upfront that you know, when we started this process and and trying to even adopt the language or craft the language for the petition, it was confusing. >> I believe it. Yeah. And you know, I think there are a lot of parts of that
030charter that need to be revisited to make it, you know, friendly to our our constituents and to our our citizens. If they want a petition or referendum with the council, then they need to have it in plain terms. >> Yeah. I literally had to have lawyers look at it to help me draft the language for the petition to get it right. >> So, I disagree with you. >> Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And so I just again the the language of arbiter and capriccious and I and I sure we've gone through this already. Um but it's just the the will of the council is not ill will towards the citizens of Greenfield and it is not against the democratic process. We were given you know advice and our job as a council is to fill
031in the gaps you know where there isn't clear language. And so that's really what I'm trying to you know assert here. Um, so thank you for your response. I appreciate it. And you know, honestly, I couldn't agree more about the charter language needing clarifying. >> Thank you. >> Great. >> Thank you so much for um joining us. I really appreciate getting your perspective. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> I don't see any other questions. So, um I'd like to turn to a Oh, wait. Uh councelor Gull. >> Yeah. I I just I'm curious to hear a little bit more about why this is an opport I've never met you before. This is an opportunity to hear more from you. >> Why this project is so upsetting to you? I know I I heard you
032say you've lived here your whole life and >> um have worked hard for people here and what what are the issues that are really concerning to you about this project? You know what's what's concerning to me is our downtown. Um I have talked to business owners who have moved out of town. Um and you know I and I'll tell you from the opioid task force standpoint uh created programs 12 years ago. We had no beds. We had no outpatient programs. And BHN on Federal Street I'll take credit for. and and many people, you know, point fingers at me because of what they feel frustration is, but there's been just this kind of overkill of of services in and in in terms of taking and putting housing in our downtown like we're planning to do is
033just destructive. And it and it, you know, planning involves a balance. It involves a balance of office and retail and commercial and housing and open space and it just we're not doing that and and I'm a little bit upset that the you know Franklin Regional Council or Franklin Regional Housing Authority with their development arm now um is in Greenfield. Greenfield has a a housing authority with a development arm. They were established in the early 70s to take on regional housing on a regional basis. Paul Douglas, a former director when I was on the HUD committee in the legislature, would come to me and he say, "John, hey, we're working on this in Gil, which we put a great project in Gil. Um, I'm working on this in in Irving, but they weren't in Greenfield because
034there were opportunities, you know, with developers and LLC's that I don't know who are behind them all, but believe me, we're we're doing our homework to figure out who the players are on Main Street. And it's it's that's what's bothering me. Yeah. >> Uh, Councelor Garrett, thank you. >> Hi. I just have just a general question. You know, one of the phrases that I use commonly, you know, is that there's a housing crisis. I, you know, I'm a high school teacher. I have students who are constantly worried. You know, one of the things they ask is like, you know, will I ever be able to afford a house, you know, amongst other teenage worries, right? So, I'm curious to know, do you think we have a housing crisis? And if not, why not? And if
035yes, what does that mean to you? because I you know just as far you know this is as councelor Golden said I I have not had the chance to meet you up until this point and you know I look forward to you know in someday >> in person but I I would want to know what is your your kind of frame of reference here. So, you know, I know there's an affordability issue. I know we need affordable housing, but you know, with access to the state bond bill, which was just passed in 2024, the housing bond bill, you know, everything comes with strings attached and and it's not, you know, always the most beneficial. Any developer that develops at Hope Street lot is going to need state subsidy. So, people want to say, "Oh, we're
036going to do market rate housing there." You know, I lived through the courthouse and thankfully, you know, was able to secure the courthouse in terms of its uh construction, $70 million invested into our community that otherwise would have gone to Boston or east east of us. You know, the the the complications with that lot are tremendous. The the you know, the retaining wall that runs all along Hope Street, take a walk up it. every 15 or 20 ft there's a drain pipe coming out of that retaining wall from down under that parking lot and the feasibility study that was suggested by your consultant 15 months ago suggested looking at that and site and doing a feasibility study but instead we go right to an RP that's what bothers me about that process if if something
037went there I'd be okay with it I I just think that you know we have done a Uh and and to say that, you know, it doesn't matter that 140 or so employees at the courthouse don't need parking or the 300 plus uh court users that come in that building every day on a busy day. On an average day, 150 to 200 people come in that building every day. And and as been pointed out, the the DMH building on the top of the lot, they don't need parking. So, you know, it's housing is a break even proposition at best with taxes with whatever sort of formulas you want to use. A parking lot of that sort probably would bring in $200,000 a year. That's a positive, you know, step forward for the community who needs
038money. >> Um, I have Councelor Bullock. I I know that, um, Attorney Quinn, you had your hand up. I is it gerine to this because we'll get back to you and >> well I was just going to say that I mean I think this is interesting discussion it is kind of going a little bit of field from the agenda items for today for the special meeting so I just wanted to to kind of make that point. >> I appreciate that. Thank you um Councelor Bullock and then uh I think we'll move to Attorney Quinn. Yeah, my questions also veer as coun as um the attorney was was saying. So I don't do you want me to stay on task because then skip me. >> Okay, let's Yeah, let's let's stay on task because I think
039we'll have an opportunity to uh debate this issue in in a different forum. >> Thank you for being here. We really appreciate it. Um and uh attorney Quinn would love your guidance um on the the two questions that were really brought by John. So thank you. >> Sure. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Great. Thank you. Um so yeah, I had a a very good conversation with Mr. Mary, a couple of conversations with him. I'm glad I finally see him. I'm able to recognize him now and recognize his voice, place his voice with his face there. Um, and also had a number of email exchanges. So, um, you know, I I knew u what the issues were uh which prompted me to request this special meeting. Uh, I I will say that contrary to a
040discussion I had um with Mr. Marrian some somewhat sometime earlier. I I do think that the council uh is empowered by the city charter uh to participate in the formulation of the ballot question. I he and I talked about this. I I disagreed with his position that he took that the city council shouldn't get involved. I think it it it should get involved because of the language in 78A of the charter which basically states that if the measure is not rescended, the city council shall provide for the submission of the question for determination by the voters. And I know that consistent with the practice with a number of past citizens referendum petitions, I believe um that's what the council the council has played that role. So I believe the council is uh does have uh
041the responsibility and the task under the charter to u uh you know conduct this inquiry and to really formulate try to formulate the uh um the actual ballot question. Um the secondary issue though is the it's really a technical drafting one and that is what should the wording of the of the uh ballot question be? Um, I did approve the original wording that was approved by uh the city council back in August. Um, it was consistent with prior bowed questions that the city council had approved, for example, relating to the library, funding for the library. Um, I will say that the language, and I think everybody agrees, the language of the charter, um, especially section 78 is a bit fuzzy. It's unclear. Um I I will say uh without repeating everything that uh councelor Garrett
042had mentioned, I think he made some great points about the charter language. I I will say that there's really two formulations. There's the formulation the city council uh approved back in August which is uh basically you know shall the following measure that was approved by the city council which is prop proposed to be rescended take effect. That's the that was the language that the city council approved. The alternative language which I believe Mr. Marrian also approved in discussions with me was the uh language that is basically that's on on the agenda tonight and that is shall a citizens referendum petition that proposes to resend the following city council measure take effect. They both are equally clear. I think they say the same thing. I will say that that latter formulation about shall the citizens referendum
043petition take uh take uh take effect um is more in line with the u albeit imperfect language in the charter because as councelor Garrett pointed out if you if you apply the literal language in the charter to the bowed question that should be posed it is shall the following measure or part the protest against which was proposed by voters in a referendum petition take effect a little bit unclear but there's an argument a kernel of an argument that the ballot for under the charter uh for a referendum issue should be whether you're judging the referendum should the referendum take effect the referendum that proposes to resin the following city council measure so it's it's it's again equally clear optional language formul ations of the bowed question. I do think that the latter language I just
044described is an argument could be made. It's more in line with what the charter the the imperfect language of the charter directs. Um that's I would recommend that the city council uh use that language. um even though they're both equally clear uh formulations, when voters go and read both both ballot questions, they'll understand what they're voting yes and no to. Um so, um that's my basic uh observation. Um again, the language as everybody's point out is unclear. I'm just trying to make some kind of reason out of language that's imperfect and to try to guide the uh guide the city council uh uh accordingly. Um and um I'm happy to take any questions about that. Again, it's this issue has never been brought up before because in past referendum petitions, it's never been an issue,
045right? The city council has formulated the ballot question along the lines that it did back in August for this particular issue. It's never been an issue. But when you take a look at the charter language and trying to kind of make sense of it, uh, imperfect language, I think that, um, the question, shall a citizen referendum petition that proposes to resend the following city council measures should be really, um, is probably there's a better argument that that should be the introductory language to the ballot question. >> Councilors, any questions for attorney Quinn? Uh, I have Councelor Torono. >> Um, I think it's pretty clear, um, especially with Attorney Quinn's, uh, followup there that we can move forward to the two motions that are in front of us today. And um you I mean flip-flopping the
046the language so it it more meets our uh quasi broken charter language seems I don't know obvious uh to me. Um, and I think we could just move on to the the motions at uh at hand. And if we have to rescend one to pass the other, um, we've done formalities like this in the past where we've had like, you know, a bill for like $1,400. Um, it's it's going to do the same thing no matter what. So, I don't I don't really know how much more to um how much more we can really go over it. It it's it's it's going to be the same either way. And and this just seems like the easiest path to to their >> uh councelor Williams. And I just want to caution counselors that since we don't
047have a motion, um, this really should be questions for attorney Quinn and not the discussion of the motions yet. >> My bad. So, um, to attorney Quinn, so you're saying that the language that you're proposing, uh, now, uh, is meets the standard of the charter best. And therefore, my assumption would be, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that if we go with this language that is closest to the charter language, that that would be the most solid way of going forward because I I want to make sure damn sure that this referendum question once it's done that there isn't a re that there's no need to have a redoing or to face any problems with it after the vote has been taken. So, is that what is that what you're recommending that we use
048this new language to avoid any future problem? >> Yeah, I mean I think the language is clear. It it it has the backing if I if I do say so. I think I can talk for Mr. Marrian. I think Mr. Marrian and I chatted about it. Uh he has a role to play as chair of the petitioners committee and in the in the discussion of this issue. So it approve it's approved by it he approves it. Um I think it's it's it's relatively clear especially if there's a description of the summary what a yes vote means and a no vote means uh it should be very clear to voters e as equally clear as the other uh language that um the bout uh language bout question language that was accepted back in August by the
049council. >> Thank you councelor Brown. My question is how long is this ballot question binding for? >> Well, that's a good question. I know that was an issue that was brought up, I think, in the earlier meeting of the council. Um this what this does is this um this vote um you know if if hypothetically speaking the voters vote you adopt this ballot question then the voters vote and they vote to resend right let's say the ultimate the ultimate decision is that the measures rescended um that vote is directed at that specific measure that was passed by the council okay so it's it's a binding referendum uh uh referendum uh uh uh decision. However, that doesn't bar the council in the future from considering a specific other measure. Okay. Then it becomes at that point,
050it's not barred legally, but at that point, if the voters have weighed in, the council obviously has to take all that in into consideration, right? When they're considering this issue, perhaps maybe if they do in the future sometime. I don't know if that I hope that answers your question. >> Thank you. Councelor Golib. >> So, President Wandleski, let me go let me know if this goes too far a field, but I think that it's gerine. Um, you attorney Quinn, you said that the council is empowered to vote on the referendum language. And for me, that that assumes some type of choice. And when this question came forward, um my thought was I would love this to just pass through like not have to go to council. We may be empowered to, but the language says
051we shall vote on it. And so I read that as we are required to vote on it and we have the responsibility to do our due diligence with the language. And um I know Al Norman and several others of us have worked on worked on referendum and initiative language. Um a couple of years ago we almost got it to a place where we could all agree we didn't put it forward yet. And now I'm realizing how much clearer this language needs to be. Um, and I'm wondering if there are other municipalities in which it would just be for me it would make sense that the the citizens language would go straight to the ballot through the clerk's office and and that this was not a decision that was um yeah, I mean I might have
052been empowered but it felt more like required. We had to vote on it. And so I'm wondering, do you are you familiar with um if that would be a possibility to just if enough signatures are gathered that it could just go straight to the ballot? >> Well, yeah, there's there's a couple of options. The most drastic option would be to amend the charter to to basically take out, you know, where the language talks about when the measure is not rescended by the the city council, it shall provide for the submission. Maybe you think of other language instead of you know the city council providing for the submission of the question. Maybe you know that that's that's one change to the charter language you could consider. The other change is for the council to delegate, you
053know, maybe delegate the responsibility to to prepare the actual ballot question to its attorney working in conjunction with the city with the city clerk, for example, and and in in coordination with the chair of the petitioners committee. So, there's there's ways kind of around that that you're still providing for the submission of the question, but you're you're taking yourself out in that latter instance. you're taking yourself out of the minutia of having to grapple with these issues of the language written on drafting issues. I mean, I'm those are two off-hand um approaches that the council could consider in the future. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councelor Bullock. >> Yeah, I think that I I was thinking about this today and talking with a couple different people about it. I I I think that and it's
054been said a few times in this meeting that the chart you know the charter language is a lot trying to interpret it um as a citizen as a city counselor um we all can sometimes have different interpretations just between like two of us talking I interpret it one way someone interprets it another way so I like the idea of of clarifying I I know a charter change is difficult. Um, but I I think that something along the lines of like if a citizen's petition or referendum is presented that the clerk then works with those petitioners. But my real question is like is there concern that the language is differing from what the 800 people signed? because that's actually what I keep thinking about is like does Mr. Marrian have the authority to change the language
055post signature? Um, is that what we're saying the charter allows allows the attorney and us to do or and I I think maybe I'm going back to his like initial concern. Um, but I think it's like we're back to where the charter language the the charter process isn't super clear. And so I guess my question is in the situation that we're in allowing a change of language at all is allowed because of what the charter says. Well, I think I I I I think you're allowed to reconsider this issue. I think, you know, I mean, I don't think there's an issue about that. There's there were objections made. You're allowed through the special meeting process to consider whether the language that was approved should be changed. So, I don't see necessarily a problem in with
056with respect to that. Um, and you know, as far as um, you know, I I I do think that the chair of a petitioner's committee of a successful referendum petition does have some input, should have some input or it should be invited to have some input in the in the the the wording of the ballot question. Um, at some point though, it becomes it's not really rocket science. It's either, you know, there's a measure that's been asked to be rescended. So, it's really just two really just two possible ways to frame it. And we've kind of covered those options here. And so it becomes a matter of just what what is more in line with the language of the charter. And that's where I think the city council or the city clerk, you know, I'm
057thinking in the future if that you want to rely on the city clerk together with the city attorney with input from the chair of the petitioners committee. They all have a a a role could have a role to play to putting to together a very clear proper or or appropriate wording to a to a to a charter to a ballot question that's arising from a from a citizens referendum petition. I hope that hope that was clear. >> It was I think ideally for me like this should happen on the front end and that's where think things feel boggled is that we're doing it on the back end. >> I I agree. I agree. Should happen the front end. Yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> I just want to mention the fact that at the August 20th
058meeting when we started the conversation, the city clerk said, "Here's the here it is. I wrote this based on previous referendums and I ran to the city clerk and this is the language that we think is appropriate." And so that discussion already happened before all this even started, you know. So, we've been talking about stuff that was already presented as being legal and then we decided, well, we don't like that. We're going to change it. Now, here and now here we are because we decided that we didn't re agree with the clerk and the warrior. We were going to change it. And so, to me, this seems like a waste of time to tell you the truth. Toro. >> Um, Council Master Tutoro and then I think uh I want to move to the motion
059if that's okay because I I think we're veering from just questions from the attorney. >> Well, um, you took the words right out of my mouth. Um, we rely on uh Attorney Quinn as our city's attorney uh to make the best recommendations for the city and we can debate how this charter can get rewritten. It ain't going to happen tonight. Um, I I propose we vote on these two motions and uh get on with it. >> Thank you, councelor. >> Uh, councelor Minhas and and then do you have a question for attorney Quinn? Okay, go ahead. >> Thank you. I so I just want to ask a clarifying question as to like from attorney Quinn. Are you suggesting in your legal opinion because I I just want to make that clear for myself and others.
060Are you suggesting in your legal opinion that we should move forward with the language in which um the yes vote would resend the city council measure authorizing the sale and a no vote will uphold the city council measure authorizing the sale. Is that what you're saying? You're saying that would be more in line with the city charter charter even though it is a little unclear. I just want to make that. Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying because the the the introductory language would be, you know, shall a citizens referendum petition that proposes to resend the following measure take effect and a yes vote would operate to resend the measure that the city council measure. And you're correct and the no vote would operate to uphold the city council measure. >> Okay. Thank you, >> councelor
061Bulock. And just to be clear, because of what councelor Perry said, that is the opposite of the language that we voted on last month. So, I just want to be clear that the language that was put in front of us last month and no, I know it was like no harm, no foul from from the attorney's office, from the clerk's office, but I just want to be clear that we've now gone through a process that says changing it to go that a yes vote is to rescend and a no vote is to uphold is different than the language that was put in front of us at the August 20th meeting. And so we're not actually changing language in regards to the motion that was made at the August 20th meeting that took out the words
062allow and not allow, which is what there's been a lot of conversation about. What we're doing here is reversing the yes and the no, which was never on the table at August 20th meeting. We were looking at language that had been given to us from the clerk's office and from the attorney that was reversed and had a no vote would not allow the mayor and a yes vote would. And so we're not discussing something that was in front of us and already we're discussing a different thing that was approved uh after the fact. Um, John, I see your hand up. This is a council discussion, so I can't recognize you. I'm sorry. Um, I don't know if, uh, attorney Quinn, if you had any comments. Um, >> uh, no. Um, no. I mean, I think
063everything that's has to be said about this or, you know, should be said about this has been said. Um and um it it's just a matter of trying to come up with clear language that can be argued to be in a better alignment with uh again language in the charter which can be very very confusing. Um and uh so I I yeah I think uh there's nothing wrong with what the council did last last month. It was consistent with prior practice. An issue was brought up by Mr. American and so here we are and um you have my legal you know our legal opinion my legal opinion and um um and my recommendation as well. So uh happy to answer any further questions before you take any further steps. >> Thank you. Um I would
064entertain a motion um which is page four if somebody could read that motion for me. Uh, counselor message Toro, you're muted. >> He's muted, but I'm happy to read it. >> I I I don't think I raised my hand, so >> Oh, sorry. I thought you did. >> I'm happy to read it. I have it here. Thank you, councelor Bulock. >> Uh FY226-035, the city council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council resend the following order voted during their regular meeting held on August 20th, 2025. Order number FY26-034 on August 20th, 2025, the Greenfield City Council on a motion by councelor Healey, seconded by councelor Garrett. It was by roll call nine, yes, zero, no, two abstensions, voted that the Greenfield City Council direct the following question to be placed upon the
065official ballot at the local general city election to be held on November 4th, 2025. Ballot question. Shall the following measure which was proposed to be rescended by voters in a citizen referendum petition take effect that the Greenfield City Council authorizes the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street assessor's map 52 lot 25 pursuant to the city council policy for the sale of city-owned land and authorize the mayor to execute all documents necessary to accomplish the same. Yes. Summary. A yes would uphold the city council vote above. No summary. A no would resend the city council vote above. Majority vote required. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Councelor Williams. >> Any discussion? [Music] Uh, councelor Garrett, >> I just want to take this opportunity to thank attorney Quinn and clerk Scott for all
066the hours and hours of work that have been put into this and, you know, especially considering the difficulties of making sure, you know, we go through and do this properly. And, um, you know, I will be voting to resend and I'll be voting to accept the new language out of, you know, respect for the expertise of our city attorney. And um I and regardless of that, I also just want to take advantage of this as a chance to say I'm incredibly proud of the vote the city council took and I would do it again. I mean, frankly, this is one of the reasons I ran for office and I told anybody who would listen that this is something that I thought should happen. And just one other final note about um I've heard the phrase
067uh what do you call it, a feasibility study come up over and over again. Part of the genius of the mayor's attempt to sell this is that if we get a request for proposals, it's on a private sector entity or a nonprofit or whomever decides to do it to figure out if it's a feasible project or not. If we do a um feasibility study ourselves, that's out of the taxpayers's pocket and then we're subsidizing a you know, whatever entity we end up selling it to. So, that is I think a really Yeah, I think that's an important detail. you know, who's going to spend the money and where is it going to end up benefiting. So, that's my that's my piece and uh again, thank you, Attorney Quinn. Thank you, you know, Mr. Margan again
068for showing up. It really was good to have a conversation in public rather than in the dark recesses of the internet. And so, I look forward to more of that. Councelor Bullock. Yeah, I will also be voting to rescend. Um, to be honest with the with the 40 I I didn't even have the 48 hours. I didn't have an I didn't have the attorney opinion in my inbox until like 400 p.m. the day of the council meeting. And so, um, I think that it's I'm I I am happy to resend this vote and after very careful deliberation, um, go go go in another direction and after reading the charter and reading the initial uh, signatures that were given um, to the clerk's office. So, um, but I I also just want to say that, um,
069I've I actually was able to meet with the economic development team at the city's at with the city and, um, a feasibility study was started um on this and was was paid for by grant funding. Uh, not a completed one, but the but what we would need uh for a developer to be interested. And so we keep saying that, but I just want to be clear that this is something that has been in the works for a while now. Um, and and there's been some some feasibility already done through a community planning grant uh and a complete neighborhoods grant uh around pre-development work. Um, so but regardless, I I want to just say thank you um to the entire council for doing diligence on this over the last few weeks. Um, and also to the
070citizens over the last two weeks who have really, especially in precinct 5 who have really been uh willing to share their opinions and share that uh it's not such a cut and dry issue. And so I do think there's a lot of education uh and conversation that needs to happen about this. >> Uh councelor Menhus. >> So there's a few things I'd just like to say. I think one it is important to follow process and obviously legal opinion that we receive. Um, also I think it's regardless of how on the council we might feel that some of our actions might come across to the public, I do think it's important that we maintain a image of of representing the public and not working against them. And I think that there's like this idea, this sentiment
071in the public that feels like somehow this whole process was some kind of crafty shenanigans and that like you know I I don't think perhaps that's true, but it's like there's this perception that that's potentially happened. So for that reason and also for just to follow the legal opinion just to make it clear to be like hey also what I don't know who this person is in the zoom chat but I don't know if they can um I don't know what's going on with that but um >> I think just uphold the fact that hey >> yeah um just uphold the fact that we are a democratic body and we're not working against the interest of of any members of the public um regardless or not if we agree with them. Uh we're not trying
072to manipulate the process in any sort of way. And to make that clear, um I think let's let's go with the uh with attorney Quinn's position >> and councilor Mr. Tuturo. Can we call the question now, please? >> Since you've said that, we got to do it. So, um, we're going to move to a roll call >> on calling the question. Councelor Golib, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. Council Master Tataro. >> Councelor Master Tataro. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bottomley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bulock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Perry. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Vice President Garrett. >> Yes. >> Council Minhos. Yes. >> Council Toronto. >> Yep. >> Does the president wish to vote? Yes. And yes. >> The motion passes unanimously. The question
073is called. Motion number 2635 is on the floor. And that is what we will be voting on now. Councelor Goolum. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. Yes. >> Councelor Master Taro. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bottomley. >> Yes. >> Councelor Bullock. >> Yes. >> Councelor Williams. >> Yes. >> Councelor Perry. >> No. >> Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Coun. >> Vice President Garrett. >> Yes. >> Councelor Minhouse. >> Ebstein. Council Toronto >> also absent. >> Councelor Wandelowski. >> Yes. >> The motion passes by majority of nine votes in favor of repealing the question. The ballot question voted on August 20th. >> Okay. So now we move to the second motion. Um is someone willing to read that for me? That's on page five. >> I can read it. >> Thank you. >> Order number FY26-036. The city
074council moved that it be ordered that the Greenfield City Council approve for submittal to the voters and directs the following question to be placed upon the official ballot for the local general city election to be held on November 4th, 2025. ballot question. Shall the citizens referendum petition that proposes to resend the following city council measure approved on July 16th, 2025 take effect? That the Greenfield City Council authorized the mayor to sell 53 Hope Street, assessor's map 52, lot 25, pursuant to the city council policy for the sale of city-owned land and authorize the mayor to execute all documents necessary to accomplish the same. Yes. Summary. A yes vote would resend the city council measure authorizing the sale. Summary. A no vote would uphold the city council measure authorizing the sale. Majority vote required. >> Do
075I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. >> That was councelor Williams. And I have uh councelor Torono. I just wanted to point out I abstain from the last one because I was not a part of the vote uh last month but I will be voting on this portion of the measure as it is a new addition. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Councelor Gordon, >> thank you. Um, sorry I've been quiet tonight because of a a bit under the weather. But I just want to say one more time that, you know, what happened last month was we got the language right before the meeting. We were trying to understand things in the meeting that, you know, we would have loved to do beforehand but did not have time to do. Um, and
076what did not happen last month was that we changed the language of the ballot question that was presented to us. And I just want to be very clear about that for members of the public because I fully support the referendum process. they fully support the democratic process, you know, and the right of petitioners to have their question placed on the ballot. And I just want everyone to have the information they need, you know, to vote on that question and and to be clear what they're voting on. So, I'm I'm happy to vote for the language as revised by Attorney Quinn, pardon me, and Mr. Marrian. Um because, you know, if Attorney Quinn believes that that language is just as clear for the public, then great. Um, and you know, that's all we want is to
077make sure that people are clear on what their vote means. Uh, whichever side equals yes or no. So, I'm happy to vote for this. I'm raising my hand. Um, I too am happy to vote for this. Um, it I I was fine with it the other way. My goal is for it to be clear to the voters. Um, you know, I respect the referendum petition um, process. I think it's an important part of our democracy. Um, and I also voted for this originally because I support the mayor's plan. Um, bec because there were public meetings and a thoughtful plan for the property that will benefit Greenfield. Um, I think it's important for tax revenue, um, to bring in market rate housing and also to have something that revitalizes our downtown. But at the end of
078the day, um, I'm fine with this language moving forward. So, thank you. I don't see anybody ra else raising their hands. So, um, let's move forward with a vote. >> Councelor Gol, >> yes. >> Councelor Gordon, >> yes. >> Councelor Master Tataro, >> yes. >> Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullock, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. Councelor Perry, >> no. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhus, >> Council Minhas, >> sir said. Yes. >> Thank you. Council Toronto. >> Yep. Does the president wish to vote? >> Yes and yes. >> And the motion passes by majority. >> Right. Thank you everybody for being here tonight. Um I know this was not originally on your schedules. I also want to thank all the members of the public
079um who showed up for this important issue and to um Attorney Quinn as well as John Marrian for sharing your views with us. Um, I look forward to this fall and a spirited conversation with our community. So, it is uh what time is it? Um, 7:44 and I would take a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> And we have to do a roll call. >> Council Gollum. >> Yes. >> Councelor Gordon. >> Yes. >> Councelor Master Cho. >> Yes. Councelor Bottomley, >> yes. >> Councelor Bullick, >> yes. >> Councelor Williams, >> yes. >> Councelor Perry, >> yes. >> Councelor Brown, >> yes. >> Vice President Garrett, >> yes. >> Councelor Minhas, >> yes. >> Councelor Toonzo, >> absolutely. >> President Wanowski, >> yes. >> The meeting is adjourned. >> Good night, everybody.
080Thanks for being here. >> Good night. [Music]