AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Committee Of The Whole 05-18-22

[Nicole Morell]: 21-057 committee of the whole meeting Wednesday, May 18th, 2022 at 6 p.m. is called to order. Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Present. Councilor Caraviello said he was gonna be late because he has a steering committee meeting. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. I believe he is gonna be late as well. Councilor Tseng. is also gonna be late. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: President, for present three absent, the meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, May 18th, 2022 at 6 p.m. via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to review and propose draft language to establish an ordinance around leaf blower use within the city in the interest of public health and safety for Medford residents, paper 21-057. DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon and KP Law Attorney Janelle Austin have been invited to attend. For further information aids and accommodations contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. So we met the subcommittee for climate sustainability and transportation met on this paper, about a month ago. We have the draft ordinance from KP law that we reviewed. I can share that on my screen. We did not have any formal motions. We and the subcommittee felt that it was in a position that we wanted to move forward that draft ordinance to get feedback from the full council and any motions to adjust it there. And we did have building commissioner Moki join us last time to just give us some insight as far as enforcement around this. And he does believe it is something that they have the, with people power to enforce at this time. So I left him off this meeting, but I'm always happy to circle him in for more, any feedback or have him come to a future meeting, but I figured since we already got that information from him, we didn't have to take another night away from him. And now we do have KP Law Attorney Janelle Austin, as well as DPW Commissioner Tim McGivern with us. Councilor Scarpelli raised last time a number of questions that he felt that DPW Commissioner McGivern may be able to answer for us around battery usage and just kind of commonplace usage within the city departments as far as leaf blowers. So unless other councilors would like to start with discussion or questions, I'm happy to share my screen and kind of go through The ordinance language and just highlight the salient points as we've had this in our inbox. I think since last month and was sent around again today.

[Unidentified]: And I will share my screen then.

[Nicole Morell]: So before we have the draft ordinance, There was some questions at the subcommittee just in this definitions portion, I think, particularly as far as the commercial leaf blower operator as there are some solo. There are some kind of one man band operations that may be subject to these regulations, if we wanted to adjust that from a two person two person plus organization to. anyone running a commercial operation. Leaf blowers does reference, include both battery and electric powered, I'm sorry, gas, battery and electric powered leaf blowers as far as the language of this ordinance goes. And the main limitations around use reference are noise ordinance that already exists, as well as limitations that leaf blowers, use of leaf blowers is prohibited except for between March 15th and May 31st and October 1st and December 15th in any year. It also exempts city parks and a number of city properties from these regulations. It further prohibits the use of leaf blowers except between the hours of nine to five Monday through Saturday. And it also prohibits the use on holidays. Again, the city properties are exempt from this. Then section three requests that those who are either owners of large parcels, which is a small number for Medford, or have the commercial operation to register with the city and provide a plan. And then also just some general language around use as far as leaf blower operations shall not cause leaves, dirt, dust, rodent, dog or cat feces, debris, glass clippings, cuttings or trimmings from trees or shrubs or any other type to litter or debris. to be blown or deposited on any adjacent property or any other parcel of land. So just mitigating that, you know, the actual blowing of things on other properties that may be detrimental. And then also going into referencing the decibels once again, as well as number six on parcels of 10,000 square feet or less, only one leaf blower at a time may be used. And then on parcels larger than 10,000 square feet, only one leaf blower may be used within each 10,000 square foot area. And then also the limitation set forth in the to be numbered subsections shall not apply to de minimis use of a leaf blower by an individual on the property in which they reside, provided that such use is in compliance with the noise ordinance. For the subsection de minimis shall mean not more than an aggregate of five minutes per day. It references the enforcement authorities. As I said, Commissioner Mokey was fine with the code enforcement building department being the enforcement authority and did recommend seeing if the health department would work in concert as well. So we could also loop them in at a future date. And so those are the general overview of the health department. what this ordinance entails. Again, we didn't make any motions at the subcommittee. Again, we did have some questions just regarding the definitions. And there was some discussion among residents as far as the duration for which leaf lowers would be permitted to be used. So I'm happy to open it up to questions from Councilors at this point. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell for that overview. I do have some more substantial motions that I'd like to discuss later in the meeting, but for now, I just had a couple of clarifying questions about this draft. Going back to that section, I think it's section seven on de minimis use. I just wanted to make sure I understood what this section was referring to. Does that mean if a leaf blower is used on a property very minimally, so for less than five minutes per day, then it's not subject to the same noise regulations and seasonal regulations?

[Nicole Morell]: That was my understanding. Attorney Austin, if you're able to speak to that.

[Austin]: Thank you, Council President Morelle. That is correct. It would basically exempt individualized use for a very narrow specific timeframe. And certainly that can be adjusted if the council feels as a matter of policy, it wishes to make the adjustment. This is consistent with other communities and how they have regulated the use you know, across the state to allow individuals to use it on the property themselves for non-commercial use, Councilor Collins. Thank you.

[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you so much for that confirmation. And then one other clarifying question, if I may. Jumping up to, I want to say, section B3, I was just hoping for a little bit more clarification on the permitting process and what that what that would create. Does that mean that if a commercial operator or the owner of a large property submits and gets approved this mitigation plan, in that case, they are allowed to go outside the seasonal windows? Is that what this section outlines?

[Nicole Morell]: Attorney Austin, if you're able to speak to that.

[Austin]: Sure. In my opinion, that subsection three provision would exempt exempt if there is a permit or permission given, it would not, the prohibition would then not apply given that the entity has gone through the permitting process with the approval of the city. So yes, it would exempt. As long as there was a valid operations landline record with the city that was approved by the building commissioner or designee.

[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you again for confirming.

[Austin]: Thank you, Councilor Collins.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other questions from Councilors? If I actually just could, I just have a follow-up question to that, Attorney Austin. So would it then be that the idea is that these plans would be submitted and that would cover an entire season of use? It wouldn't be a single one-off use under Section B3?

[Austin]: It could be done on a, I think that that provision contemplates that regulations will be adopted and certainly it could be a seasonal or yearly basis. I would suspect, but certainly defer to the council in terms of policy, that it may be done on an annualized basis in light of the fact that things may change and equipment may change versus a season. A season might be, you know, fairly onerous in terms of the time and commitment required by city employees and officials to review the operations plan. But certainly that could be addressed or clarified if the council would like through regulations.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Attorney Austin.

[Unidentified]: Any Councilor Tseng?

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I had a question for Commissioner McGivern. One of the policy questions that we have to look at as a council is looking at the dates, whether you want to shorten them. And I thought you might be able to give us an idea as to when the city does leaf cleanups. Are there certain weeks approximately that you would say are much more intense or much more focused on leaf cleanups?

[Tim McGivern]: Hello, thank you, can you hear me? Excellent, hello. Hello, councilors, hello, President Morell. So what do you have there for a range in the ordinance as written?

[Nicole Morell]: Right now, let me scroll up. It is March 15th through May 31st and October 1st through December 15th.

[Tim McGivern]: those dates pretty much nail it. So for example, you know, we just got finished with our big spring cleanup. So just last week. So that fits in that first timeframe. And then in the fall, I don't know off the top of my head, but I believe November, early November is our big sweep. So we'll try to clean up the, the leaves there, but the timeframe of October to December 13th, yeah, that would be Primo leaf cleanup time. So I don't think, unless you want to narrow these down, I think these ranges are appropriate. From our operations standpoint, I can get you detailed information, but I can tell you, we just finished a big spring cleanup.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I would be curious as to, I mean, if this is reasonable, fully happy to accept it. I know there is some desire for us to maybe shorten it a little bit. If you could provide us with a more specific picture of what that would look like, that'd be great for us. But if you have an idea of what shortening it might look like and still not be too disruptive, that might be helpful. But yeah.

[Tim McGivern]: And the application is for a commercial leaf blower use basically throughout the city, right? I believe so. Okay, yeah, I'll provide the council through the president sort of what DPW's prime date ranges for leaf cleanup is, and that'll help maybe confirm this target.

[Unidentified]: Thank you, that would be super helpful. Absolutely. What's that, Councilor Tseng?

[Kit Collins]: Great, Councilor Collins. Thank you, President Morell. And thank you, Commissioner McGovern for speaking to that. Those are some questions that I had as well. So yeah, I wanted to move on from some of my clarifying questions on the ordinance to sort of considering it a bit more broadly, a bit more sort of the opportunity this ordinance presents. I love the regulations that this ordinance lays out regarding seasonal effective dates, noise regulation. I think that these are issues that I personally have heard from a lot of constituents about. I also think that this is an opportunity to consider phasing out the use of gas-powered leaf blowers entirely. So something that I've heard from several constituents about while this was working its way through the subcommittee, the environmental impacts of gas-powered leaf blowers are extensively documented, local air pollution, creation of ozone, all these factors that exacerbate climate change. I was reading something that said that sort of pound for pound, these gas powered leaf blowers are more polluting than cars even. So I think that this poses a chance for us to be a real, a leader on mitigating the causes of climate change. And so I'd love for us to discuss if this could be an opportunity to phase out their use entirely, you know, considering the polystyrene ban ordinance that this council recently discussed, you know, similar to that, I think that there's a way that we could do this in a way that gives property owners commercial operators ample time to prepare for phasing out, you know, perhaps even an opportunity to defer effective date again like we did with the polystyrene ban. You know, with the ongoing supply chain issues which I'm sure is affecting the lawn care supplies industry as it is almost every other industry. I think that this is something that for environmental and public health reasons, I'd love for this council to consider to make this ordinance even stronger, even more protective of public health. And at the same time, balance that with not forcing property owners and commercial operators to turn on a dime and have their business impacted. So for that reason, I'd like to make the motion to have our council provide draft language on a phased in prohibition on gas-powered leaf blowers to add to this ordinance.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Do I have a second on that motion?

[Zac Bears]: I would second it if the Councilor would be amenable to amending it, that the phase-in would occur over two years.

[Nicole Morell]: That was exactly what I had in mind.

[Zac Bears]: Great, then I second it.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Point of notice would be that the City of Medford's Parks Department is responsible for over 118 acres of land. This doesn't include the school department's lands. Let's put our money where our mouth is. Why are we going to hold the commercial establishments to a higher standard than that we're going to hold ourselves to? Number one. Number two, what are we going to ban next? I think that we're really going a little ban-crazy lately. Regulate, maybe, but not ban would be a better way to do this, in my opinion. So those are a couple of thoughts that I have about this. But ultimately, I was just hoping you could read the intent of the ordinance back. That's usually the preamble. I don't mean to say the intended purpose of the ordinance, just to read that back. I mean, we have

[Nicole Morell]: The leaf blower is regulated. We have the definitions, limitations on use, and enforcement regulation, severability, and effective date. So I think we could use language on intent.

[Adam Knight]: I think that that would be appropriate, Madam President. Also, I'd like to offer the motion that anybody that has a registered business that provides landscaping services be invited to a meeting, because most people that I talk to that are landscapers in this community have no idea about this proposal. And most of the time, especially this time of year, they're not sitting in the TV in the living room, they're out working. So with the good weather upon us and this season upon us, it might make sense for us to invite some of these individuals that are actually going to be impacted and affected monetarily by this. proposal, number one, and number two, also maybe hear from some of our friends from the Chamber of Commerce as to what they think. Ultimately, we know what's going to happen, right? The cost is just going to get passed on to the consumer. So it might be interesting to hear what impact this is going to have on the consumer from the business owners as this proposal is anticipated through the vetting process.

[Nicole Morell]: And do you want the first as far as adding, making sure the intent is included.

[Adam Knight]: Do you want that in a motion or just a recommendation to put that in the motion in the form of motion or as a recommendation committee report. However, you guys said, I don't think it's going to be something that's too contentious.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So I didn't get all the language about the, about the recommendation.

[Nicole Morell]: The recommendation is just to, to add the intent portion for the ordinance.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Got it. Got it. Got that.

[Nicole Morell]: And do I have a second on Councilor Knight's motion to invite all those registered landscaping companies within the city as well as the Chamber of Commerce. Second by Councilor Collins. Thank you. We can take all motions at the end. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Was Councilor Knight finished?

[Nicole Morell]: I apologize. I thought, did you have anything more Councilor Knight? Thank you.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you. I said, I said, thank you very much, Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: Sorry. Thank you.

[Adam Knight]: That was a short one. That was a short one for me. I know.

[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I had kind of five items relevant to this relative to this draft, maybe a sixth after further reading during this meeting. One was, I think there should be a prompt and permanent phase out of gas powered leaf blowers. and I think we now have a motion and a second to get some draft language around that. And I do know that we were already holding the city to that standard and I think we should hold everyone else to that same standard. Restrictions on the time of day, I think that makes sense as well, nine to five, which is currently written here. In terms of the times of year, I'm okay with the ones that are in here, although I do think that December 1st to December 15th is generally a little bit late in the season for leaf removal, at least where we are in North Medford. But I'd be open to a discussion around that, especially maybe a little bit of a shortening of the fall end of it. One thing that I saw, you know, I think we got it pretty close to right on restricting how many leaf blowers can be running at the same time on a single property, but I didn't see addressed was how long they can be constantly making noise on a single property. I'd like to make a motion that we have language to limit them from consistently being on for more than one hour per day. Now, so if, someone uses it for 15 minutes here, 10 minutes there, five minutes there, that would be different. But I think one of the issues is just when it's the constant droning and noise for an hour or an hour and a half, that that's very disruptive. So the motion would be to limit constant use to one hour per day per property. Okay.

[Adam Knight]: Point of information, Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: Point of information, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Don't we have a noise ordinance already that would address the constant droning and nuisance ordinance?

[Nicole Morell]: I will check on that.

[Zac Bears]: From my reading of the committee report, I didn't capture that Commissioner Moki felt that that would be something they could enforce, but yeah. but that's just my reading of it. If it is, then I don't think it would need to be included in this ordinance.

[Adam Knight]: I just referenced it, you know? Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Do I have a second for Councilor, Vice-President Bear's motion?

[Zac Bears]: And before I, given Councilor Knight's point, I'll amend the motion to say either draft language pending request to the building commissioner as to whether the noise ordinance would already cover that.

[Adam Knight]: We got a lawyer here we're paying $65,000 so we can have them research it.

[Zac Bears]: Oh yeah, yeah, sure. That makes that makes sense. I'm fine with that. We'll ask KP a lot of just see if this already is covered in the noise ordinance and if not, then to draft language to include it in this ordinance.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, do I have a second on a vices and bears motion. Second, because they're saying, and you had more vices and bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have some serious problems about section B three. At the very least, I think we should update the definition of commercially floor to include those single operators as was previously mentioned. And I think at the end of the day, most of the issues that folks have around this are with commercial operators. I don't see residents out every week for multiple hours a day with multiple leaf blowers, creating lots of noise and pollution in our neighborhoods. But I do think that's what the commercial operators are doing. So I don't have a motion on this right now but I'm personally reticent to create a separate set of standards for people who are doing this for profit and have an incentive to minimize the time that they spend cleaning a property and maximize the revenue that they're gaining from it. I think that sets them apart from a resident maintaining their own property. I think that sets them apart from our DPW maintaining public property. So I'm just putting that out there for further discussion. You know, I think we'll be coming back and discussing this again. And I may make a motion at a later time, but maybe that's something to discuss after we have some commercial operators invited. But I just want to put that out into a discussion. So that's all I have. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I would agree with you there because it does seem like In my opinion, we're putting this effort into these regulations and that number three, B3 kind of invalidates all of them if you submit a plan. And I think that's great. I think these plans, I think the requirements of the plan are important, but that's not what residents are asking us. Residents are asking us for relief from the constant noise, the constant emissions, the constant dust and debris flying into their yards and their windows. So I would agree with you there. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just wanted to add my voice in a sense, you know, I think with regulations like these I do think it's important to provide for opportunities for exceptions, exemptions, where they're appropriate. You know, I think it's a great idea to invite the Chamber of Commerce and commercial leaf blower operators to a next meeting on this because I think it would be helpful if we could maybe amend this section to be a little more targeted for what those potential exceptions and exemptions could be. I think that you stated it well. I think this is kind of what I was thinking about in the question earlier is if we devise stricter regulations and then there's a permit that waives all of them, that's a pretty big wave. So I think that I too would be interested in discussing which which regulations could be important to have more wiggle room on and where maybe we could tighten this to just keep it in the spirit of the ordinance. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Any further discussion from Councilors? I do have a few questions, Commissioner McGivern. Is there intent or plans or has there been just kind of fact finding around what it would cost and if the work could be accomplished if the city were to transition to battery or electric leaf blowers, which don't have the emissions and they tend to have much less noise as well.

[Tim McGivern]: Not that I'm aware of, but I can find out if something has been done in the past. We also have contractors that would use leaf blowers. I believe industry sort of preference is still gas, you know, fuel powered. But yeah, I can find out if any work has been done and not that I am aware of and not since I've been at the helm.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. And then also, at what regularity are our crews using leaf blowers on these parcels? Is it weekly? Is it monthly? I mean, I know, you know, I walk in the cemetery a lot and go to the parks and they look pretty well clean. So I know they're working when I'm not seeing them, but I'm just curious how often.

[Tim McGivern]: Well, I'm pretty sure it's as needed. So we're definitely not out there every day. So you would probably notice in the fall, you know, probably weekly during, you know, the, the, the high fully or the high falling, you know, time period. But, you know, we're not, we're not going to be using leaf blowers if there's nothing to clean up. So, but I do know it's, it's common practice during those high intensity use time periods that, you know, we're pretty much nailed down there in the, in the language there, but.

[Nicole Morell]: Great, thank you. And then this gets pun intended a little into the weeds, but I know some of the frustration residents have is the leaf blowers are used. They're using them to blow around lawn clippings or a little bit of dust in a driveway. Does the city, you know, truly use leaf blowers for blowing leaves and those cleanup times? Or are they used for, you know, mowing projects or other things?

[Tim McGivern]: They are good tools for general cleanup of anything like grass clippings on the ground that you can blow. They're used for cleanup of anything like that, I would imagine. I don't know for sure, but I can just imagine just from my own experience and seeing crews out there. But primarily leaves and grass clippings, things like that.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, great. Thank you. And last question for me, and I know you're new into this role, but to your knowledge, does DPW get complaints about the use of leaf blowers in these larger, you know, in the parks and these larger parcels? I know this stuff tends to come from just dense neighborhoods.

[Tim McGivern]: Right, I don't know the answer. I haven't experienced any complaints about leaf blowers directly to me or even really through the office, but I would imagine every now and then we get a complaint about something like that. It seems to me like one of those things that we would get complaints on at the DPW. I can kind of follow up and see, you know, take the temperature there on what kind of complaint level we see.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, and I think yeah to count some nights points I think you know, holding the city to to a similar high standard I've absolutely like just, you know, looking into that and I think, like I said, I think most of us get complaints just from the neighborhood aspect, or I haven't gotten complaints regarding larger parcel parcels but it would be really helpful to have that information as we move forward.

[Tim McGivern]: Do you mind if I make a comment or two. So I just noticed while you're passing through the ordinances that you had a bunch of parks listed there. And I would say, if we're going the direction of, you know, keeping this commercial in excluding city properties make sure we're including city buildings and the grounds around city buildings, as well as schools, which would be included to build this. They're just bigger pieces of property. Maybe you already did that. I just didn't see them in the list. And then I think if you were to go to the other direction and hold the city to this standard too, I would definitely want to take a closer look, be a little bit more involved, and definitely give the folks that are doing this sort of work on the ground an opportunity to comment and weigh in on this. So the lead of our park division, for example, Mike Nestor, he would be an excellent resource to help you guys out, for example. So I just want to put that on your radar if it does go in that direction, because we would need to, we would want to inform you and then we would want to react and plan appropriately.

[Nicole Morell]: Great. Thank you, Commissioner McIver. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I would first happily motion that we amend the language that currently lists a number of city properties, just to say all city properties and grounds or whatever phrasing the DPW commissioner thinks would best include all city properties.

[Nicole Morell]: Do I have a second on vice-president Bear's motion? Councilor Collins on the second.

[Zac Bears]: And then I actually have a question for the commissioner. When city employees are contract, well, maybe you don't have as much control over contractors, but at least when city employees are using leaf blowers, do they wear hearing or respiratory protection?

[Tim McGivern]: Yes. So if tools or equipment are, you know, have a risk of causing ear damage, then, you know, ear protection is worn or eye, you know, same with eye protection, same with, you know, wearing safety vests. So PPE, we try to make sure that we're using appropriate PPE.

[Zac Bears]: Okay, I would move that the ordinance require that commercial operators and operators on the large parcels OLP be required to provide effective PPE for hearing. Well, just let's just say effective PPE. And if we need to itemize that we can for their workers.

[Nicole Morell]: Do I have a second on that motion from vice president bears? Second. Second from Councilor Collins. Any further discussion from the council? There any members of the public who wish to speak? Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: I was just gonna motion to keep the paper in committee, but I can hold that for later.

[Nicole Morell]: We just have a number of motions to vote on forehand. So I have, I think, five, so I can go through them.

[Adam Knight]: Motion to consolidate.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to consolidate the five motions we have before us.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Would you like to read them back first before you take any action on the motion to consolidate?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, if you could read them back, please.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I want to make sure that I have them to reflect the work you're doing. Hang on.

[Nicole Morell]: Sorry, Mr. Clerk. I accidentally muted you trying to mute myself. I apologize.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Hang on. So I have a motion from Councilor Collins. to have the council adopt draft language to adopt the phase out of gas powered leaf blowers. Vice President Bears seconded that motion. If the phase out was for a two year phase out and Councilor Collins agreed. So that's why I have the motion written up for that one. I then have a motion from Councilor Knight. He moved to add the intent portion of the ordinance to the committee report and further moved to invite anyone with a registered landscaping or similar business to a meeting with the council. He said he would also like to hear from members of chamber of commerce. I have Councilor Collins second on that. I have Vice President Bears moving to adopt language to limit constant use to one hour per day per property, pending requests to KP law as to whether this information is already covered under the noise ordinance. I have a second on that from Councilor Tseng. I have Vice President Bears moving to amend the language to include all city properties. And I have a second from Councilor Collins. And I have Vice President Bears moving to require the commercial operators and operators on large properties provide PPE for their workers. And I have a second from Councilor Collins on that.

[Nicole Morell]: Correct. That is everything I have. Any councilors? Great. Looks like everyone agrees.

[Zac Bears]: If I may, Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: I would just say on the motion to include all city properties, it would be to replace the current listing of city properties with just a phrase that incorporates all city properties.

[Unidentified]: And then it sounds like council night move to consolidate all motions.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Adam Knight]: Second by seconded by himself.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay.

[Adam Knight]: Thank you.

[Unidentified]: Councilor Tseng second.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Call the roll on consolidation and then We will call the roll on the consolidation, assuming it passes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Vice-president Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't see councilor Caraviello yet. I believe he's still absent. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. I believe councilor Scarpelli is still absent as well. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. 5 in the affirmative, 2 absent. The motion to consolidate passes. And if you could call the roll on the consolidated motions.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Hang on a second. I'm just going to take this up. And am I using Councilor Knight as the moving party to vote in favor of all the consolidated motions as well?

[Adam Knight]: Sure.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[Nicole Morell]: And second by- Second. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: It sounds like Councilor Knight's at the park.

[Nicole Morell]: I am. I'm at the little. They're not using leaf blowers at the moment. No, no, no.

[Adam Knight]: It doesn't look like they use lawn mowers either.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I am ready to call the roll whenever you are, Madam President.

[Nicole Morell]: Please call the roll. Thank you.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent, Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion passes. And then we have a motion from Councilor Collins to keep the paper in committee. So moved. Second. Councilor Collins to keep the paper in committee. Oh, sorry. By Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. By the affirmative to absent the motion passes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion adjourned.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Knight to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Council carabello is absent. Council Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Councilor Tseng, Yes, President morale.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, I've been the infirmary to absent the meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much, Commissioner McGibbon and Attorney Austin for joining us and helping us out tonight. Thanks.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks everybody.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you.