[Collins]: There will be a meeting of the Planning and Permitting Committee, March 27, 2024. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hess Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Kelly? Present. Councilor Leming?
[Scarpelli]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears?
[Scarpelli]: Present.
[Collins]: Vice President Collins? Present. Five present, none absent. The meeting is commenced. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss two papers. 23-427. This is proposed by President Bears in the previous council term. It is a resolution to amend short-term rental ordinance to include a monthly report from short-term rental platforms. And by that, we're talking about platforms such as Airbnb. The second action item for tonight is paper 24-008, also offered by President Bears. That is a resolution to review the fee schedule I will read out the description of each resolution, then I will pass it over to President Bears to further describe these projects. 23-427, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the former Zoning Planning and Development Subcommittee need to discuss amendments to Section 8.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding short-term rentals to require a monthly report from all short-term rental platforms to ensure that short-term rental units in Medford meet all requirements of this section. And then resolution 24-008, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the fee schedule of the city of Medford, appendix A to the city ordinances be reviewed and updated. I will now pass it off to President Bears as soon as he is ready to further orient us to these two topics.
[Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. One second here. So we can start with the short-term rental platform report. 2022 zoning recodification, we created a section 94-8.4 to specifically regulate short-term rentals in the city. And one of the elements of that regulation is a registration process where the actual operators of short-term rental units register with the city. certifying that the operator has permission of the owner, that they pay a $200 annual registration fee, that they re-register the unit upon transfer of ownership or operator, and a number of other items. This is really designed to This entire ordinance is really section of the zoning ordinance designed to regulate short term rentals, which have become in some cases, a nuisance issue in certain neighborhoods, a supply issue across the city. And it's not to say that we don't want short term rental options. I know there's a lot of people who do take advantage of them for a number of. incredibly valid reasons, but to make sure that the city has a clear understanding of how much of the housing stock is being taken up by short-term rentals, what the conditions of those short-term rentals are, and that the operators are treating neighbors with respect when it comes to trash, noise, et cetera. So that was the intent of the ordinance. It has been in place now for a little over, a little less than two years. There've been certainly some improvements, but from conversations that we've had in this chamber with members of the public, with folks from the building department, in terms of enforceability, one of the biggest issues is there's really not enough staffing at the city level to make sure that every unit in the city is actually registered. And there's no way to know if units are being, no systemic way for the city to know in an effective way if units are being, rented through these platforms without permission, essentially, unregistered units. So one of the solutions that other communities have had when they've run into these situations is actually going to the profit centers here in the short-term rental industry. So going to your major short-term rental platforms like Airbnb, HomeAway, Vrbo, etc. and requiring that those platforms issue reports to the city of all of the units that are being rented on those platforms. And then the city has a clear piece of data. It's not just like you have the building inspector, the code enforcement officer in their spare time going to airbnb.com and trying to figure out what's a valid rental and what isn't, which is basically the best that we can do right now. But actually having an official monthly report from the short-term rental platforms themselves that says, here's all the addresses at which short-term rental units were rented in your city. As I noted, some other communities have done this. Boston has done this. And I think it's worth consideration of a zoning amendment to put this into our short-term rental ordinance and beef up the ability of the city to have an accurate registry of the short-term rental units in the city as we work through comprehensive policy to try to address the housing crisis here in the community.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears, I appreciate that overview, and I, as one Councilor, certainly I've been at meetings where the nuisance issue that occasionally comes up with short-term rentals has been discussed, and others in which, you know, the effect of taking rentals off of the housing market to turn them into, you know, for example, Airbnb units, or HomeAway units, or Burbo units, We feel that effect in the availability of rentals citywide. So I think that this makes sense as part of our overall efforts to keep tabs on activity of the short-term rental platforms in Medford and making sure that at least we have an accurate picture of what's going on. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: Thank you. I'm just curious if that monthly report comes in, who goes over the report and then what happens after that?
[Bears]: Yeah, I think that's a discussion we need to have with the building department. Right now they're tasked with enforcing the zoning ordinance and enforcing this element of it. So I believe it would be staff in the building department who would be taking this report and entering it into the database that's currently required by the registration section of the ordinance. But I think that's part of kind of the next steps is we'd want to talk about that with them. And I do have some suggestions to go forward from here about sending some draft language to the building department, getting input from the building commissioner. Also, I think it'd be good to hear from planning a little bit, just if they have suggestions, but I'll hold that until we have more discussion. And if there's thoughts, I do have some language here that I'm happy to read at any time from the Boston ordinance, if anyone just let me know.
[Collins]: Any further comments or questions from Councilors? I think in that case, we can proceed along to if you have any next steps in mind or care to share that sample language from the city of Boston. President Bears, whenever you're ready, I think it makes sense to look at the language that other communities have used to mandate that platforms are reporting to the city on how many units they have in operation.
[Bears]: Sure. Give me one second.
[Collins]: Certainly. And if I'm happy to screen share if you want to send me a link or if you'd like to do so, whatever is easier. I will share with you.
[Hurtubise]: It's a Google Doc. I just shared it with you.
[Bears]: But yeah, I mean, it's a pretty short sentence. It really would just be amending section 94-8.4.13 to include some section around what they, in the Boston ordinance, they call data sharing. And the section is 90, this is in Boston, 9-14.11 data sharing. A booking agent shall provide to the city on a monthly basis an electronic report in a format determined by the city. in consultation with their inspectional services, information technology, and neighborhood development departments. Of the listings maintained, authorized, facilitated, or advertised by the booking agent within the city of Boston for the applicable reporting period, the report shall include a breakdown of where the listings are located, whether the listing is for a room or a whole unit, and shall include the number of nights each unit was reported as occupied during the reporting period. And I did just start trying to work out, I think, what would be essentially a similar structure would be in place of their acronyms, just that the booking agent would provide it in a format determined by the city in consultation with the building department, IT department, and the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bearson. Just to sort of paraphrase that back to you, the fellow Councilors and residents, this is essentially mandating a report from the short-term booking platform. that tells the city, you know, we have listings, we have rooms and buildings available within the city of Medford, this is where they are, this is if it's a room or a whole building or a whole unit, and this is the number of nights that each of the units was reported by the renter as being rented to somebody during the month to help us get a picture. I see this as helping us reconcile We're hearing from some of the people that rent rooms on the short-term booking platforms. Yes, this unit is a rental and I rented it for this number of nights. Reports such as this would capture from the platform side, this is the overall number of units that we know on the back end was rented in the city during this month. We could see if there's a discrepancy. Any other comments from councilors at this time, having looked at this draft language? This would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Hearing none, President Perez, I want to kick it back to you for next steps, if you had any before I share my thoughts.
[Bears]: I would just move that we request that the clerk refer this amended language to the building commissioner, the IT director, and the PDS director for review within 60 days and comments before we begin to incorporate this into, I think we could make it part of our zoning update. Yes, I will set that too.
[Collins]: Great. Thank you, President Bears. Actually, let me... Are there any further comments or questions from councilors or members of the public before we take a vote on the motion?
[Caraviello]: Hearing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan?
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Fleming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Pierce? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none against. The motion passes. So this draft language will be referred to the building commissioner, IT director, and PDS director, and we'll get their expert feedback on it before we make any moves to fold this into our comprehensive zoning update so that this can also be updated while we're doing potentially other zoning changes. Is there any other discussion on this topic before we move on to our second paper for the night, either from councilors or from members of the public? All right. Hearing none, let's proceed along to paper 24-008. This is the resolution that the city council review the fee schedule. of the city of Medford and look for areas to modernize and update. My understanding is that the intention of this resolution is to look across many departments, like any departments for whom it's relevant. Many departments charge fees for various things that they do in the city, such as issuing a marriage license or registering your car, getting residential parking permit. And in many departments, it's been a long time since those fees were updated and changed. And it's my understanding that in many departments, the fees that we charge are perhaps lower than they should be to correlate with the administrative cost of doing those functions. And they might also be very out of step with what similar municipalities are charging for the same functions. I don't think the intent here is to make any astronomical changes, but just to do a standard review since one has not been done in, I think, many years, to see where are those glaring spots where things really need to be updated. And I think one of the questions before us at this early stage is to say where all of the fee schedules for all of the departments are on the table, what departments do we want to look at specifically, and who are we requesting feedback and context from at this time? But for further table setting, President Bears, do you have anything else you want to and as the paper sponsor at this time?
[Bears]: Yes, thank you, Councilor Collins. I did a quick run through of appendix A of the city ordinances, and I think there's a few things to note. One, in terms of fees set by ordinance, in my four plus years on the council, I believe we've only amended one or created one fee, and that was the planned development district fee. And I don't believe we've ever amended another fee. I may be wrong. I'd have to go double check, but I can't remember a vote on updating a fee. So certainly these fees have not been reviewed or updated in five years. I know anecdotally speaking with many department heads where fees are set by ordinance, they have said that some of these fees may well be 25, 30, 40 years old. certainly at least 10 plus years old and just are not reflective of the cost that it takes to process paperwork, not reflective of peer neighboring communities and the fees that they charge. I think I heard the clerk give telling the anecdote that he's told me before that there are people who come to get married in Medford because it's so much cheaper than getting married everywhere else. And, um, you know, there's some romance in that, I guess, uh, but, um, I just think that it's... As we've worked through many ordinances and just looked through the bulk of the work of the city, it's very clear that there's things that have just not been looked at in a very long time. And this one, some of these are ripe. We're talking about building permit fees for large developments. We're talking about a number of things that could be really significant in terms of the questions that we have around revenue and the underfunding of city government, underfunding of all of our basic infrastructure, underfunding of staffing levels, schools, capital needs, etc. You know, we're having those hard, difficult conversations around funding in a lot of different ways. And this is one of the kind of low-hanging fruit ways, along with what we talked about, I would say, with linkage earlier yesterday and last week, where we can knock some things off and try to see what we can bring in through these things. I don't think dog licenses are ever going to be the solution to building a new high school. I don't think anyone thinks that to be true. But it can maybe help a little bit. And I think that's an important thing for us to factor in. So I did go through, again, Appendix A. And it looks like of the about 10 or 11 or so fee categories, Many of them are within the building department, some of them in the DPW, some of them in the clerk's office, but we have animals and rodents, much of that in the health department, but also some in the clerk's office, some in the building department around dogs for the clerk's office. A number of building fees in the building department, electrical fees sitting with the electrical department, plumbing fees with the building department. The business licenses and other fees are split between the clerk's office, DPW, and the building department. Cemetery fees with DPW. Fire prevention and protection with fire. Streets, sidewalks, and public places tended to be DPW or engineering. Utilities also tended to be DPW, engineering, water, sewer. Vehicles for hire I couldn't quite place. I could see that maybe being in DPW engineering, We have the Traffic and Transportation Director there, but I also don't know that it's an entirely applicable fee schedule there anymore. I'm trying to go back to see exactly what it is, but I don't know how many taxis are operating out of Medford these days, and it is just related to taxi cabs. And then zoning, again, goes back to building and planning development sustainability as well. So those are just some of the departments that I've identified having some relationship to the Appendix A fees, many of which are noted or set by ordinance. So I think it will be worth And I can kind of type this up in the form of a motion asking each department to take a look within the next 90 days at the fee schedules that their departments pertain to and reply with a recommended adjustment that we can then initiate the process to adjust. That should give them time to take a look at neighboring communities and what their fees are. contact any sort of professional associations or networks of city and municipal staff that they may be a part of and kind of just see what's the going rate these days and Medford getting caught up with the times.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate that. I think the timeline sounds right. You know, I imagine, you know, trying to put myself in the position of a Department head looking at this, I'm sure that there are some of those fees where what it is and what it should be will jump out as obvious, and others where it will take a little bit of calculation. What is the administrative cost incurred? What would a more appropriate number be to do that research into what neighboring communities are charging to make sure that it's consistent with our regional neighbors? I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, and then I see Planner Evans' hand raised on Zoom. Councilor Callahan?
[Callahan]: Do we think that it's appropriate given that a lot of this is for new construction, and some of it may be fossil fuel stuff construction in buildings, is this a place where we can request that the departments that we're talking to take into consideration. incentives for our climate goals or our affordable housing goals that are lined out in our various plans, like the CAP, the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, or our Affordable Housing Production Plan. Can we ask that they take those into consideration when they are updating?
[Bears]: I think that's a great idea. with the language of the actual motion.
[Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm working on it.
[Collins]: I'll go now to Planner Evans on Zoom.
[Evans]: Good evening, Daniel Evans, Senior Planner in PDS. Apologies that I'm not downstairs. I have a lot of work that I'm working on at the same time. So we did update our um community development fees in january I noticed when I first um took this role. I noticed that they hadn't been updated since the 90s and We did a cursory review of our peer communities in the boston metro area and um made adjustments, particularly to site plan review. We effectively doubled them, which was necessary to even approach what other communities were charging. We instituted a base fee. There was actually no base fee and the square footage that the fees kicked in was high enough that there were some applications that paid nothing. I don't think Raising Cane's had to pay a cent for their site plan review because it's small and there was no base fee, which is incredible considering the amount of staff time that went into that. So we rectified that, there were special permits that didn't have fees associated with them at all. So we wouldn't be able to even charge for them. And then I learned that abutters mailing notices, we weren't charging for postage. So I've started to at least bill or charge developers or at least the cost of our mailings. So there's little things like that that add up. And the Community Development Board is able to update their fees, not via the ordinance, through their rules and regulations. I'm not sure about the other boards and what their fees are, but the site plan review fees are, are basically targeted due to what's subject to site plan review and the size of them. It's larger developers where you're paying a couple extra thousand dollars is really just a drop in the bucket. They don't even sneeze at it when you tell them the fee. Zoning board fees probably need to be looked at a little bit closer because there could be some small, you know, property owners that are affected by those and we wouldn't want to put too much of a burden if someone wants to say, you know, put a small addition or build a porch or something. But we are already in the process of like reviewing these fees. So I just wanted to provide that update.
[Collins]: Thank you very much, Daniel. I think that's really helpful for President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate that update. Do you know if those fees are... I actually didn't see, and maybe I just missed them. Are they even included in the fee schedule? Because the only site plan review I see is 150 per 1,000 square feet site plan review application at MUZ District. So we might need to... further update all of the different fees even if they're not set by ordinance and maybe also want to indicate what body has the authority to set fees.
[Evans]: Um, I know alicia had asked me to send some fees to her but I I didn't know the origin of the request and perhaps what you're looking at is Fees that your body would be approving and that's why it's not included but I think a full review of all fees Um need to be reviewed. But I put the fees on the website on the Community Development Board page. There's a fee schedule, but I can also send that to you in a Word document as well, happy to.
[Bears]: Yeah, I honestly, as I look at the appendix, I don't know that they're all set by us. Some of them certainly outline let's say what section of the ordinance the fee is set in. But for example, like if I go over the opening of streets and sidewalks, it says the following license or permit shall be issued by director of public works and the fee set forth in appendix A of these revised ordinances, but it doesn't say what the fee is. So I think it's important for us to I think it'd be great if we could update this list to be comprehensive. So I appreciate that you're already working on some of that.
[Evans]: And one thing that might be helpful is to look and see if other cities and towns incorporate fee schedules by reference. So that's not an amendment to an ordinance every single time, because that could get bogged down. I don't know the legalities of what needs to actually be in an ordinance and what can be in rules and regulations incorporated by reference.
[Bears]: Just a thought. It seems to be that that's what this is. So when we set up the PDD fee, we set it up, but that it would be updated. It wouldn't require to go through a three reading ordinance process. It would just be a simple majority vote of the council. So I think there'd be a lot of value in just getting these all in one place. and having a clear list of who sets them and by what authority.
[Collins]: Thank you, Planner Everins. President Bears, I appreciate this discussion. It seems like there's plenty of organization that would be helpful to both city staff and potentially developers and other people and entities that trying to do the functions that incur fees to make it more clear what we're working with, where it lives. And on the city side, part of the overall effort is not only to update some fees that are at least a decade, if not several decades out of date. But I think in all of this, we're always trying to look at, is the procedure by which we update this the one that makes sense? And so I'm glad that we're also thinking you know, getting straight on for the different fees, for the different functions. Is it by ordinance? Is it by rule of regulation? Set by a board that doesn't have to go through an ordinance? And I'd be interested, as we're doing this review, just to see what options we have. I think it's always, for myself as one Councilor, for something like fees where we're trying to make sure that it stays up to date, it is sometimes helpful to consider if we have other non-ordinance mechanisms for doing that, so there doesn't have to be a legislation every time to keep something, you know, proceeding with, you know, cost of inflation. Councilor Callahan.
[Callahan]: As I'm scrolling through all these many fees, I do notice taxi cabs on here, and I'm curious if the city has done anything about including the gig worker cab things into, I assume that this only applies to actual taxi cabs and not to like Uber drivers and everything else, So I don't know whether, I mean, that seems to me clearly to be totally outdated, and maybe we need something totally different.
[Bears]: Yeah, there's some stuff in here, if I may, along those lines. Like we do have the Uber Lyft, the TNC's, Transportation Network Company, I think is their non-branded label. Never heard that before. We collect those. It's not listed here. We collect short-term rental fees. It's not listed here. I think that's a, yeah, definitely there's things that are not listed. And none of the community development fees that Danielle just mentioned. So.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. As we're, I think that we're going to be collecting input and feedback on ideas for a lot of departments and boards on this. And it's my hope that as we're going through and updating the fees themselves, we could also be you know, as it's been mentioned, working to get all of the fees in the same place right now, it's really, it's pretty disorganized with a lot of things existing in other appendices on different webpages. I think it'd be helpful to have all the fees in the same appendix. Councilor Kellihan.
[Callahan]: Do we have a way of knowing which of these fees bring in what amount of money? Or which categories of fees bring in what amount of money?
[Bears]: I don't, I mean, sometimes we will get a report during budget time that's like building permits brought in XYZ or anything. You can ask for discrete reports from finance, but it's generally not. I have not seen like a spreadsheet table of here's what all the fees bring in, split out. I mean, I'm sure it's producible, but I haven't seen it.
[Collins]: Any other questions or comments from councilors at this time?
[Bears]: I have two more motions, but I can wait. I'm going to email it to you. OK.
[Caraviello]: Great. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Just going on some of my thoughts from the linkage fee updates. Is it possible to tie, is it possible or legal to tie these to any sort of consumer price index just to make them sort of automatically go up with inflation every year so that future updates aren't quite as necessary? Or does anybody see any problems with potentially implementing it that way?
[Bears]: I mean, I think it would make sense. I don't know what the legal. Maybe we can ask for that.
[Leming]: OK. I don't know the legalese on that either, but I would be interested to know about the opinion of KP Law in doing that. So I'd like to motion to request the legal opinion of KP Law on tying the city's fee schedule in Appendix A to the Consumer Price Index.
[Collins]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I definitely agree with the intent of that. I'd also like to know if it's possible for us to institute an annual percentage increase to a fee by ordinance, regardless of the percentage of that fee. Do I have a second? I'll second. President Bears. So I believe that's two motions currently on the floor, one of which is to ask department heads to take 90 days to review the fees that pertain to their departments, do the necessary question and answer research review to look into what changes they might recommend, send that back to us. Planner Evans has also offered to send to city council leadership the document of community development fees that are not listed in Appendix A, which I think will be helpful context. We have a motion on the floor as well to ask legal counsel if it is possible to connect an annual... was that a CPI increase?
[Leming]: Could be a CPI increase. Also, what you said earlier about just a concrete, about a set percentage increase every year, just their legal opinion on doing that.
[Collins]: Great. For a legal opinion on, it's possible to put a annual percentage increase to a fee set by ordinance or CPI. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you. I hate to be a stickler, but if you can, if we can sever that piece with the, uh, KP law, um, anything dealing with KP law, I won't be, um, in favor of, okay. So just, uh, if that could be done, I'd appreciate it. I appreciate everybody's hard work on this. So thanks.
[Collins]: Certainly Councilors are probably, we'll be sure to take those as separate motions.
[Hurtubise]: I think the first one we got, it's the two on this paper we still need to vote on. Yeah, the first one was on the short-term rental.
[Caraviello]: I just sent it to you.
[Bears]: And I included what I thought was in his amendment, too. Well, I wrote it down as an amendment, though. I'm not taking credit.
[Hurtubise]: All right. Vice President Perez moved to request that the below department heads reply to the council within 90 days with a recommendation to update fees in the city fee schedule, appendix A of the city ordinances, based on fee rates in neighboring and peer communities and other assessments deemed relevant. And then And then the amendment from Councilor Calohan is to request that department heads consider incentive structures within fee changes to encourage meeting of climate and housing goals outlined in the city's comprehensive plan, climate action and adaptation plan, housing production plan, and open space plan. And then.
[Bears]: I haven't made these other two ones yet.
[Hurtubise]: Got it.
[Collins]: So let's just take the first one for now. That's on the first motion. I present embarrass with an amendment offered by Councilor Callahan. Are we good to vote on that? Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready. That motion passes. And I want to give a moment to prepare, or sorry, there was a motion from Councilor Leming to ask legal counsel if it is possible to institute an annual percentage increase to a fee that is set by ordinance. Do I have a second on that motion?
[Bears]: I second.
[Collins]: Seconded by President Bears.
[Hurtubise]: Consumer price index or I think Councilor, Vice President Collins also said consumer price index or an annual escalation. Sorry, was that in the text? I think the question is just can we
[Collins]: Can we increase a fee by a percentage?
[Bears]: I think we should be aware that when we ask KP law questions, they get very specific answers. And I think we should add the language, or another inflation measure. Or another inflation measure. That's what I would use, something like that.
[Hurtubise]: I have a second from President Bears on that. All right, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Fleming?
[Leming]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Leming]: No.
[Hurtubise]: President Barras? Yes. Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Yes. Four in favor, one opposed. The motion passes.
[Bears]: I have two more motions. Great. One is a motion to request that all city departments provide a report to the City Council within 90 days on any fees they assess as a department and share a complete list of those fees and the legal authority For example, state law, city ordinance, board and commission rules and regulations that allows them to charge set fees. That's one motion.
[Collins]: Do I have a second on that motion? Second from Councilor Callahan.
[Bears]: And then the last motion, I can give it a minute. Oh, cool. It's a motion to request that all city departments share feedback on any new fees that should be charged, fees created by ordinance that are no longer relevant, and other comments on existing fees, for example, name changes, updates to legal authority, et cetera. Basically just a catch-all if you got a comment on the fees, feel free to send it.
[Collins]: Great. Do I have a second on that motion? Councilor Kelly. Second. And Councilor Scarpel. Great, on the first motion from President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: President Bears?
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed, the motion passes. And on the Second motion from President Bears, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Hotly pursued by Councilor Scarpelli. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Clerk.
[Scarpelli]: Hotly pursued, love it.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Scarpelli]: Yes.
[Collins]: President Bears? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. Do we have any further comments, questions from councilors at this time? Any comments from members of the public in person or on Zoom? Please feel free to raise your hand on Zoom or come up to the podium. Controversial topic. Councilor Callahan. Move to adjourn. I'm sorry?
[Callahan]: Move to adjourn.
[Collins]: Motion to adjourn.
[Callahan]: Second.
[Collins]: Second by Councilor Lemme. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.
[Hurtubise]: Or in favor, one opposed. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody.
|
total time: 14.44 minutes total words: 2052  |
total time: 0.4 minutes total words: 69  |
total time: 16.08 minutes total words: 2449  |
total time: 1.25 minutes total words: 219  |
|
total time: 0.07 minutes total words: 21  |
total time: 1.22 minutes total words: 147  |
||