AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Public Health and Community Safety Subcommittee 03-28-23

[Kit Collins]: Meeting will take place in the Memorial Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. There will be a meeting of Medford City Council Subcommittee on Public Health and Community Safety in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss protecting reproductive rights, paper 22-453. The subcommittee has invited Police Chief Jack Buckley, Public Health Director Marianne O'Connor, and representatives of Atrius Health and Tufts Medicine to attend this meeting. For further information, aids, and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Kit Collins, subcommittee chair. Mr. Kirk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Present. Councilor Tseng? Present. Chair Collins?

[Kit Collins]: Present. Thank you. So the purpose of this meeting is to discuss a proposed ordinance that was brought forth by Councilor Tseng. This ordinance, and of course I don't have it in front of me, is an ordinance to secure gender affirming care. Oh, thank you so much. Can I just summarize the ordinance real quick? Okay, thank you. This is an ordinance to protect gender affirming care and reproductive health care in Medford. So I'm going to before I open it up to all subcommittee members, I think I was planning to just let lead sponsor Councilor Tseng give a brief summary, but just in short, this is an ordinance for municipal policies on the city level to make sure that individuals within Medford that might be seeking gender affirming care, reproductive health care are protected, especially from interventions from outside of our state and municipal jurisdiction to infringe upon those health care rights. So, Councilor Caraviello, I can go straight to you or we can go to Councilor Tseng.

[Richard Caraviello]: I have a question. So, the city currently has an ordinance that does this. So, are we running, we're running, we're doing an ordinance or an ordinance that we already have in place.

[Kit Collins]: Why don't I, Councilor Tseng, why don't we go to you and you can summarize the distinctions between this and what's currently on the books.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think the current non-cooperation policy is more immigration based. And so it's about not dealing with federal agencies, whereas this one's about not dealing with out of state, so other states and other cities, especially outside of Massachusetts. So that's the main difference with this. I don't believe there is an ordinance. I've read through the ordinance book. for something similar and I haven't seen anything in terms of gender affirming care or reproductive health care in particular.

[Richard Caraviello]: I would think this would this everything would fall under that with the ordinance I mean I signed that ordinance when I was a Councilor under Mayor Burke that that sits on on the wall of the mayor's office. You might have to remind me which ordinance. I think we're kind of, we're doing an ordinance on an ordinance. Can I ask who wrote this? This one?

[Justin Tseng]: So I'll, I can, I guess I'll explain it if you give me a chance to explain the whole thing.

[Kit Collins]: Yeah, the councilor's saying, why don't we, I know that you prepared a preliminary draft based on some other community's versions of this ordinance. Why don't you just go ahead and sort of kick off the conversation with an overall, the why and what and why now of this ordinance, and then we can get into the weeds.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes, that sounds good to me.

[Kit Collins]: Who wrote this ordinance?

[Justin Tseng]: So this ordinance was written, this is really just taking text that's used by a bunch of different cities, especially I think the one that uses, the text that's closest to this one is in Somerville, but I did go through it and then change all the references to Somerville laws and our different city laws and different cities to Medford and to refer to Medford ordinances that are present already. And I changed the parts of the, structures that kind of refer to different police departments and they're how you know different police departments are structured differently in different communities. I made it Medford specific so to correlate to correspond with the Medford structures. So that's how this ordinance has come about. I guess I'll tackle the why. And so we've heard from a lot of constituents about worries that if someone from out of state comes to receive reproductive health care or gender affirming care, um if they're housed here if they're treated here that um they might um this our city might receive a an arrest request or some a cooperation request with an out-of-state authority um about uh to to punish them for for seeking that care um a lot of residents are worried that um There are not only those seeking care, but those providing care will be at stake of prosecution. And this is to shield them from that. This is also to address a separate concern about sovereignty and which laws come first here. I believe that there are state authorities that are looking at versions of this, but nothing's been passed yet and nothing's passed through committees yet at the state level. But really, that the state aspect of this the state lens is to establish state sovereignty over over our laws and to make sure that Massachusetts law and Medford law comes first. So yeah, I mentioned that we've been getting emails and calls about what we can do here in Medford, and a lot of residents are looking at neighborhoods, communities around us, like Somerville, looking at what they've been doing. And even though our state has more protections about reproductive health care and gender affirming care than most other states, many still do worry about what the interstate cooperation looks like, and this is to address those concerns. And the draft text in front of us, which I don't have right now, but the draft text in front of us is, again, using language that is familiar to different other municipalities as well that have passed through city councils and legal review there, and basically adapted to Medford, as I mentioned before. Yeah, that's what, that's the introductory notes that I have right now.

[Kit Collins]: So councilor Tseng, if I may, just to sort of make sure that my understanding of this ordinance is correct, based on what you've prepared so far, and I know that you've been hearing from constituents about this, it seems like the overall thrust of this ordinance and the reason that it's in, the reason that you suggested it be referred to the public health and community safety subcommittee, this doesn't sort of create any new, modes or norms or policies for medical professionals or public safety officials in Medford but rather it affirms that Medford and Massachusetts laws when it comes to what health care may be received are the law of the land and it reaffirms non-cooperation in the same way that we have an existing non-cooperation agreement between local officials and ICE on the immigration side of things and I know you know in terms of my understanding I know we're at a national moment where Those who would seek to hinder individuals access to gender affirming health care and reproductive health care are seeking to bring this fight to interstate lines. And so it seems to me, you know, to the question of why this, why now, because there are others in other parts of the country that are seeking to make individual municipalities a battleground for where people can safely obtain this care.

[Justin Tseng]: Right. Yes. Yeah, I think that's a great way of filling in some of the details that I missed. And I also did miss that, even though the gender-affirming care part of it was introduced by me, the reproductive health care was introduced by you and President Nicole as well, and President Morell as well. I just did a quick search through MUNI code, through the code and ordinances, and there's nothing about gender-affirming care or reproductive health care. in particular. We could see after this meeting if we can find the ordinance that you're referring to.

[Richard Caraviello]: First of all, I think we're fear mongering right now. This is Massachusetts. We're not Texas or any of these states with these. I mean, I'm not hearing of these type of things happening in this state. Maybe I'm missing them.

[Justin Tseng]: Um, so in the conversation that prosecuted and the conversation that I just had with Chief Buckley, he did say that if he were to receive a warrant from out of state about these issues, he would have to, he would have to carry it out. And so he would have to, uh, currently cooperate with different states and to, you know, extra individuals who are seeking care here and, um, arrest them. And so he's saying, he told me right now that, Um, there's nothing on the books for him not to to stop him from doing that and that legally he has a duty to do that even though, even if he is opposed to it. Um, so that's what that's what we just said right now in the corner, and to note for the people at home for watching on chief Buckley did make it to the meeting, he was here.

[Richard Caraviello]: The bulk of this ordinance deals with the police departments and we don't have the police department here to talk about it. That's, I mean, you know, that's, that's, I think the big problem tonight.

[Justin Tseng]: So I think a part, a big part of the, a big part of it is just make sure that we here on the council or on the subcommittee are okay with what's in the text tonight. And we have sent it to the police department before and we've sent it, I guess we've invited them to the meeting and I've sent the text to different healthcare providers as well and got some very basic comments back. But this, I think the purpose of this meeting is to get a draft that we can recirculate to different department heads and to try to to get them to be okay with it. And then we'll meet back here in subcommittee as well.

[Richard Caraviello]: But- I'm not getting these complaints. I'm not hearing any of these complaints.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, well, we do have 60,000 residents.

[Richard Caraviello]: I'm not hearing of these complaints. And I asked the chief earlier today if he's hearing of complaints and he's not getting any either.

[Kit Collins]: If I may, sorry, just to just just to reframe the conversation briefly. I think that and just for the benefit of the audience at home, I also do want to do want to note in terms of the invitees to this meeting, this Councilor Tseng just noted Chief Buckley was invited. Director O'Connor was invited. She's on the call today. Thank you very much, Director O'Connor. And in terms of also like this preliminary pool of feedback that we're pulling from, and I hope that we'll get more commentary on as this project moves forward. We also asked representatives from Atrius Health and Tufts Medicine. But the bulk of this ordinance... I could finish my sentence, thank you. We did ask those professionals for comment, invited them to this meeting. Atrius Health didn't have any specific comment at this time. Tufts Medicine didn't have specific feedback... I can't hear. Tufts Medicine didn't have specific feedback on the ordinance at this point, but they did send along a message that it was an important initiative. So in terms of... I hear you, Councilor, that Chief Buckley isn't in the room. today and I think it's, you know, of course, incredibly important to get his perspective on a public safety matter. I think that perhaps a good use of our time tonight would be to walk through just this draft of the ordinance in broad steps. I know Councilor Tseng has taken some initial work to make it more tailored to Medford. Maybe we can talk about what more we could do with this draft to make it more tailored for Medford and then think of some specific questions we need to run down, specific people. that we want to ask for further comments, whether they've already reviewed it, or whether they're going to review more specific questions, and then think through, you know, what we want our next meeting on this to look like, what questions we want answered, and what other perspectives we want in the room. Now, Councilor, thank you for pardoning the interruption. What were you saying, or was it just that I couldn't be heard? All right. Councilor Tseng, do you wanna give us a basic walkthrough of the structure of the ordinance, or do you feel that that was kind of covered in your summary of the purpose and intentions?

[Justin Tseng]: I'd be happy to walk through it. I think the purpose and intentions and the preamble part we've basically covered. I guess we could go to the definitions part. We could, if I log on Zoom, we could put on the screen. Oh yeah, if you have it on your laptop, that'd be great actually. So, just tell me when you want me to scroll. Could we go to definitions? So on the definitions part of this, There are, we have definitions for gender affirming healthcare, gender expression, gender identity, transgender and reproductive healthcare. That basically covers the main concepts in this code that we don't have defined elsewhere in the code or ordinances so far that we need to find in our city law. These are all very standard definitions of these concepts. Moving on to section D, which is about equal treatment. This basically reaffirms the city policy as stated in section 50 dash 61 of our code of ordinances. that we should treat and serve all individuals equally, regardless of gender identity, uphold the human rights of all persons in the city, and remove or overcome consequences of discrimination based on gender identity. It basically very, this is just almost verbatim the same language that we find it elsewhere in the code of ordinances. So there is no conflict here with the other parts of our ordinance. or ordinances. And yeah, I guess section E Sorry. Section E is about the police department. And the reason why the police department's the one that's mentioned here is when it comes to out-of-state authorities seeking legal action against those providing reproductive or gender-affirming health care or those seeking gender-affirming or reproductive health care, The police department is the branch of the city government that's going to cooperate or that is expected to cooperate. And essentially this is basically to say that our city police department, the MPD is not going to initiate investigations or take law enforcement actions based on just an individual seeking or providing gender affirming or reproductive health care. and that we will not provide information or assistance to a federal law enforcement agency or other states law enforcement agency or private citizens or posi law enforcement agents if they are prosecuting for seeking such care. The second part is really I think the meat of this ordinance and a really important I think it's the core of the ordinance really. We have a similar, we have similar language for non-cooperation with ICE. And so this is something that our police department is rather used to in terms of carrying it out. Section F is about requests for information, basically just saying that no police officer or employee of the city government is going to comply with any requests for information pertaining to civil or criminal action that's targeting the individuals that we're seeking to protect. And there is a sentence in there just to make sure that if Massachusetts or federal law kind of goes against that, then that takes precedent, which is important to put in there. Section G talks about complaints. Basically, if this ordinance is violated, and this is essentially the enforcement mechanism of it, the police department's internal affairs division is going to investigate the complaint and take appropriate disciplinary action. And there is a reporting requirement as well, just for us to get reports about whether out-of-state authorities are seeking to prosecute individuals here. Section I is about enforcement and enforcement of this ordinance. And so section one says a violation of this ordinance constitutes an injury and a rebuttable presumption of harm to individual. The individual meaning referring to the people that we're protecting. any individual harmed by this violation of this ordinance may bring civil action in court and that any action instituted under this paragraph may be brought against the city of Medford. And that's really just to make sure that there is meat to this ordinance, that there is enforcement and that our city takes it very seriously. which I'm sure our city will, but this is going in the code of ordinances, and so we need to make sure that we're writing this language for generations in the future as well. And the last part, or the last two parts, part J and K, are very straightforward, basically just saying applicability, saying that the provisions of the ordinance are effective immediately, but we're going to give But we're going to give the city some time to implement this ordinances when it comes to reviewing practices, procedures, directives, and training. And that there is a city council aspect to this too, just to make sure that we can provide some oversight as well, which is one of the jobs of our legislative body, to make sure that those materials come to us as well so we can review that. And then the last part is very standard part severability, just to make sure that if any part of this is found invalid in a court of law, that the remaining parts of the ordinance still stand.

[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Tseng for that very thorough overview. Before we move on to next steps, I want to make sure that we get all councilor comments out on the table at this point. If there's any specific points to flag questions at this point, I want to make sure that we hear from director O'Connor, if she has any comment to share and also any members of the public that would like to speak about the ordinance. Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Not that I'm opposed to anything. I've been upfront in this community as far as women's rights and reproductive rights the day I was elected, and I fought for more services in the city, and I still think we still need more. Again, like I said, we live in Massachusetts, probably one of the most liberal states in the country, and I don't see our governor ever letting anything like this ever happen in our state. That's where my, I say, I'm not hearing of this happening anywhere in the state right now, And I mean, unless it's happening somewhere that I haven't heard about in the news or something. So I think our state governments has protected us pretty well on this front, unlike other states who haven't. So that's where I think we're maybe duplicating laws that are already in effect. And not that I'm opposing anything on there. I understand everything that's on there, and I agree with everything on there. I just think because of the state we live in and the governors and our governments, I don't ever see any of these violations ever happening in our state.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor. I appreciate that. I know that you're a strong advocate for all the values that this ordinance seeks to express, and that's definitely seen and appreciated in the community and in these chambers. And I think that you know, from my perspective as one Councilor, maybe an ideal path forward for this ordinance is a way to craft a policy that affirms what the city is already doing and is very clear about what it runs parallel to in our state policies, that it's not confusing, it's not complicating, perhaps a way to affirm these commitments that our state has, that local leaders already have. And just to make more clear on those kind of gray areas that Councilor Tseng was describing where there's not yet a local policy for what to do if, you know, some official from the state of Texas goes to, you know, the chief of police and says we have reason to believe that somebody travels here for gender affirming care, you know, we want to be very, I think, as a council we want to be clear about what we would have our municipal leaders do in that circumstance. God forbid it ever happens, but I think also as a way to say to folks living in the community now, this is a council that is already thinking about your rights and how to proactively protect them. And I hear you that this isn't something that we're necessarily having our doors beaten down about right now, but if there's a way to do that proactively, that's clear and not complicating, if that makes sense.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, no, I think I really appreciate that perspective and I think that's a really good way of putting it is, this is more about making people feel safe at home. even though our state government is very good on these issues, there is no state law in place that says that we can't cooperate with out-of-state authorities, which means it's really up to the local jurisdictions right now to see it out. The governor might be pretty good on the issues, but because it's up to local jurisdictions, and there is no state law in place right now or state executive order in place right now, There are a lot of parents and children who are particularly worried right now. And this is to signal to them that we're standing with you and we're being productive proactive as well. And, and, as Chief Buckley did mention. He has a duty to uphold the law. And right now the law is that, as he reads it is to cooperate with all investigations that's asked of Medford, even if he doesn't like it, it's part of the job. this would give him a way to say no and to not cooperate. And he was telling me before the meeting that right now there is no way to say no, and he's not opposed to saying no, but we just have to give him the tools to do that.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I want to now Director O'Connor, I'm not sure if you have anything you'd like to share at this point, but I just want to thank you for being here and pass the mic over to you if there's any comment that you have preliminarily.

[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thanks. I'm happy to be here. And I appreciate the walkthrough to the ordinance. That was extremely helpful. I mean, also, while I agree with Councilor Caraviello that regarding state intentions right now, they've been pretty clear on their feelings on this matter. Going forward though you know administrations change, and we're not sure what the future could may hold. I do agree with counsel saying about making people feel safe, particularly now where there is no state. Laura order in place. And certainly if Chief Buckley feels he needs tools to, you know, to be able to protect and serve the way he wants and the way we should, I feel that's, you know, obviously important as well. I mean, when people receive quality reproductive and sexual health care, education and access, they can fulfill happier and healthier lives. And we definitely must recognize structural discrimination, biases, injustices, which can block inclusive and accessible gender affirming health care. and are reproductive and sexual health care. So I support this ordinance. I think it would be something that MedFed should and could have on the books and happy to help going forward.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you very much, Director O'Connor. I think it'll be valuable to have your insight and support for this project. Thank you very much. So in terms of Next steps, I know I have a couple things on my mind in terms of more feedback I'd like to hear, you know, points I'd like reconciled with our existing code of ordinances. Other next steps, especially since I can't make motions as chair, you know, curious to hear from my fellow councilors what next steps or questions, lingering thoughts are on our mind after this sort of very preliminary read through of the ordinance.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes, um, I agree with you that, um, I would like to get more feedback on it as well. This is the first time we're seeing it. Um, and so I would, I would like to motion to recirculate the draft ordinance with relevant department heads to solicit more feedback. Um, so that'll be that motion. Um, and then, um, we could give, we could invite Chief Buckley to give more comprehensive notes. I know the notes that he kind of gave me right now were pretty quick and local, but if he can write some, if we can get written notes back, that'd be great. And I think that would help us look at the details of this draft going into our next subcommittee meeting. I would also like to motion to, explore if a similar ordinance has already been passed by the city council and is sitting in the mayor's office. I think that would also help if we can get that, if we can explore that and get that ordinance back, we can see what this covers and what that doesn't cover and see what we can reconcile at the next meeting.

[Richard Caraviello]: as Councilor Tseng mentioned about checking, if there is an ordinance that is similar, I mean, rather than creating new ones, why can't we just amend, we can amend the ordinance, maybe something that's already in place, which would probably be a lot easier than drafting a home award. And so, it was something that was passed under the Burke administration. You can look, I don't recall what it was, but it hangs in the mayor's office now, and I was one of the people that signed it. back when Merrick proposed it. So maybe you can look at that ordinance and maybe we just amend it to put some of these things in there. And I think, because the bulk of the ordinance of this does involve the chief and I say, when I reached out to him today, he said he didn't have the documents. And I was in the car and I wasn't able to forward it to him.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, we'll recirculate.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. And so I think having him back for another meeting would be a key. But gotta give him a little bit of notice. I don't think he really knew that he was invited.

[Justin Tseng]: I will admit that was my mistake.

[Richard Caraviello]: But the bulk of this does pertain to him and his office. So I think having him here would be a key. and to get his input in back there. But let's say, check the ordinance that we have in the mayor's office already. Maybe we can amend it to put in some of these things in there to make it work rather than reinventing the wheel and writing a whole new ordinance.

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I guess that's the second motion. If we, yeah, if we pass the second motion, we'll see what's in there and then we'll bring that back. We'll bring whatever's there back to the next subcommittee meeting and then we can decide what the best way to do it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it was a while ago and I kind of forget what it actually was. but I don't know that everybody in the council has signed it. Bring it right back in.

[Kit Collins]: Oh, I'm sure. Yeah, thank you, councilors. I think those cover a lot of the ground that I think is important for our next meeting. And I would also entertain a motion to recirculate this current draft to those institutional neighbors, Atrius, Tufts Medical. I think that Tufts already gave a kind of general statement of support. We can add that as an amendment. Perfect. And thank you, Mr. Clark and Councilor to your point I agree I think it's a really good next step to, you know, reconcile this with anything that might be currently on the books and if it's just a matter of adjusting expanding strengthening what we already have them so much better. So, yeah, thank you. I believe it would be Tufts and Atrius, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, that's what you said? Oh, sorry.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Those are the two I have right now. Should we hear any public comment? Yeah.

[Kit Collins]: Great, I'm gonna go to our city chambers first and then to participants on Zoom. Just name and address for the record if you're comfortable.

[Sharon Hays]: Sure, Sharon Hayes, 69 Ripley Road. I just wanna say as a resident, I'm really excited and proud that the city council is bringing something like this forward. I think that at this time in our history, unfortunately, we know there are repeated indirect attacks on both women's reproductive health rights, and on transgender and gender affirming care. I think that, I would hope that we would put an ordinance on that specifically calls those out as things that we will protect and that we will protect people from other states. We are very fortunate to live in a state that is very on top of these things and is very protective of the rights of our individuals. As Marianne O'Connor pointed out, that could change. We have also in terms of people coming from other states and what we might need to do, we have New Hampshire to the north who is currently, there are some issues they're trying to push through, some bills they're trying to push through that would take some rights away. So, you know, I think that, it's important that we directly and firmly assert our support and protection for our transgender and gender affirming care and reproductive rights. So thank you for putting this forward, both of you and Councilor Morell. I think this is wonderful. Thank you.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Sharon. We'll go now to Bill on Zoom. Name and address for the record.

[Bill Giglio]: Hi, Bill Giglio, Winthrop Street. About how many people would you say roughly have reached out to you guys about this?

[Kit Collins]: I think that was an ask for an estimate of how many constituents have reached out about this.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Well, we've combined the emails that we all get, but I've gotten, I mean, 10 or at least. It's, I mean, it's a very big, particularly big issue with young residents of the city, which is maybe why I've been hearing more about it, but it's still an important part of the city. I'm sure you've been hearing, I mean, you introduced the reproductive health care part of it, so. Certainly.

[Kit Collins]: Go ahead, Bill, do you have another question?

[Bill Giglio]: Yeah, I have just two more very quick questions. So for the most part, how would you say they reach out to you guys? Would it be via email, text message? How do they normally reach out to you?

[Kit Collins]: You may have to repeat that for me. I think that was a question about the communication methods used to get in touch with us about this issue, email or text message or other.

[Justin Tseng]: I use everything. I mean, I've heard more via Instagram DM and texts, of course. That's what kids use more. I mean, young folks use, but I've gotten Facebook messages, emails, phone calls. I mean, I can't remember exactly what method every individual person uses, but I do check everything.

[Bill Giglio]: So for the most part, so this is all, So this is all public record then. So we could do a freedom of information acting and get some of these. Because I just find it very bizarre. You say all these people are reaching out to you, but yet there's only two residents on Zoom here. And me being one of them, I just, if this was such a pressing issue, you would think a little bit more people would be a little more involved or interested. So anyways, my second question to you is, in your ordinance, can you guys hear me okay? I apologize if you can't.

[Kit Collins]: You're doing fine, please go ahead.

[Bill Giglio]: Yeah, so in the ordinance, is there anything about age as far as gender reassignments? If someone from out of state wants to take their 10 year old in here, you're gonna wanna protect that? Do you guys have up to an age where you cannot do gender reassignment?

[Kit Collins]: If you don't mind, I'll field this one Councilor Tseng, Bill, I'm really glad you asked this. And I want to be clear. I think this ordinance as drafted and similar ones in other communities, what it doesn't do is make any medical policies whatsoever. It doesn't weigh in on what doctors can or can't do. It doesn't make any statements or opinions about the industry of health care. What it says is that if somebody from another state is seeking to prosecute who's receiving healthcare or somebody who's administering healthcare that they're legally allowed to do in Massachusetts, then that patient or that provider cannot be prosecuted for seeking healthcare to which they're entitled. So I'm really glad you asked for that clarification. Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead.

[Bill Giglio]: Yeah, no, because I mean, we all know that Children's Hospital has been doing it to, you know, doing vasectomies and mastectomies or whatever to girls as young as 11 years old. Are you fine with that?

[Kit Collins]: Well, actually, Bill, I'm glad that you're sort of probing for these clarifications, because again, this is completely outside this ordinance. What it doesn't do is weigh in on medical procedures whatsoever. What it does is protect the jurisdiction of municipal Medford public safety resources. Thank you so much. Any additional comments from Zoom or in the chambers? Hearing none. So why don't we take the votes on those two motions Mr. Clerk when you're ready. All in favor. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Any additional comments from my fellow committee members or members of the public before we close out?

[Justin Tseng]: Oh, right. Second.

[Kit Collins]: On the motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All in favor?

[Justin Tseng]: Aye.

[Kit Collins]: Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all very much.