Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2021-11-29

Attendance

Christopher Cinella present · President, ex oficio; Jack Eccles excused, 8:38 PM · Vice Chair; Mark Garipay present; Jen Grigoraitis present; Maya Jamaleddine late, 9:03 PM; Shawn M. MacMaster present; Jeff McNaught remote · Chair; Leila Migliorelli present; Robb Stewart present; Cory Thomas present; John N. Tramontozzi present

Agenda

1. Call to Order (21:28)
2. Public Comment (23:40)
3. Orders (27:40)
4. ORDER-2022-48 : An appropriation from the Rideshare Special Revenue Fund (#2921) in the amount of $9,049.20. (3:09:50)
5. ORDER-2022-49 : Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for December 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM and subsequently determine the Classification of Property. (28:10)
6. ORDER-2022-34 : Revised Rules of Order of the Melrose City Council (1:16:35)
7. Adjournment (3:12:07)

Minutes

CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALENDAR● NOVEMBER 29, 2021 Web-based remote meeting Committee Meeting 7:31 PM , Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose City Council may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the City Council consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Jeff McNaught Chair Remote Jack Eccles Vice Chair Excused 8:38 PM John N. Tramontozzi Present Shawn M. MacMaster Present Mark Garipay Present Jen Grigoraitis Present Leila Migliorelli Present Robb Stewart Present Cory Thomas Present Maya Jamaleddine Late 9:03 PM Christopher Cinella President, ex oficio Present

ORDER-2022-48 Appropriation An appropriation from the Rideshare Special Revenue Fund (#2921) in the amount of $9,049.20. Held in Committee

ORDER-2022-49 Classification of Property Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for December 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM and subsequently determine the Classification of Property. Recommend Passage City Council

ORDER-2022-34 Rules of Order of the City Revised Rules of Order of the Melrose City Council Recommend as Amended City Council City of Melrose Page 1 12/2/2021 4:52 PM

Transcript

▶ 22:48 Jeff McNaught: This provides a notice of quorum for the record. Pursuant to the suspension of certain provisions of the open meeting law, this meeting of the Appropriations Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. We will post a comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Melrose website and on the MMTV website. The public can find online access instructions to view this meeting at the City of Melrose website, which is at cityofmelrose.org backslash remote hyphen meetings. If there is an objection at this time, I'll move by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Mr. Clark, I see we do have a few people in the room. I don't- If anyone's here for public comment,

▶ 23:46 kindly raise your digital hand. Mr. McSweeney, can you hear us? yes can you hear me yes great thank you everyone for the opportunity finn mcsweeney 160 west wyoming avenue um i just speak briefly on 2022 34 rules to speak in favor of a couple of the amendments that councillor Grigoraitis uh proposed um the first is the elimination of the language which would only and these are on 29a sorry the first specifically is the elimination of the language which only allows residents or property owners to speak at public comment um i have a lot of problems with that language um i don't understand why someone who is an employee of a melrose business or patron of a melrose business or someone who comes here

▶ 24:39 to participate in cultural events mr mcsweeney did we lose you can you hear me hello can you hear me we can hear you okay we lost you for about probably a solid minute there though sorry about that. So I'm speaking in favor of the amendment to Rule 29A, which Councillor Grigoraitis proposed. The first is the elimination of the language which would restrict public comment to residents or property owners. I have a problem with that language. I don't know why we would be restricting an employee of a Melrose business or a patron of a Melrose business or someone who comes here to participate in an arts event or cultural event or to access our open space. I don't know why we wouldn't allow those people to speak. To be clear, I don't think any members of this council

▶ 25:47 would really prohibit those people from speaking, but future councils, I don't think we should have that language in the rules. I find it to be a little bit in poor taste, and I'm frankly not even sure what problem it would be targeting. So Councilor Grigoraitis just struck it and I really wanted to speak strongly in favor of that. The second one is the language around remote participation. I think it's awesome that there's a proposal to include that language in the council rules. I would in fact just remove the whatever practicable language. The city is installing a generator there feels like anytime the council can meet in person they can probably have internet access computer access um so i just want to speak in strong support of that as i can this council

▶ 26:42 Jeff McNaught: has really been the leaders in the city on facilitating remote access i'm proving that it can work and it can work well um you've set the bar really high and i want i just want to make sure that the rules enshrine that high bar and that future councils um are encouraged to live up to the standard you've all set um so thank you i appreciate the opportunity those are my comments happy holidays thank you same to you mr mcsweeney thank you is there anyone else here for public comment i'm seeing no hands being raised um at this time i'll move by unanimous consent um i'll move by unanimous consent to close public comment seeing no objection public comment is now closed um and if there is no objection uh at this time i'll move by unanimous consent to suspend the

▶ 27:51 Jeff McNaught: rules as we'll be hearing from folks from the administration this evening seeing no objection the rules are now suspended um and i do note that our first order of business is um would be spoken to by uh our dpw director uh elena prowakis ellis um and i know that she's in another meeting right now um and i know that vice chair eccles is also in that same meeting um in that vein i will entertain a motion to take the second you know take an order out of order so that we can do that cleanly does that make sense council mcmaster thank you mr chairman could you just cite the i'm happy to make that motion could you cite the uh order number for the second matter on our agenda sure um the The second order of business is order 2022-49,

▶ 29:01 Jeff McNaught: a request to set a public hearing on classification of property for December 6th, 2021 at 8 p.m. and subsequently determine the classification of property. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that in mind, I would make a motion to take order number 2022-49 out of order. 2nd, motion to take 2022 dash 49 out of order by Council McMaster seconded by Council Grigoraitis. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the role? Yes, Councillor, uh, yes. Yes, yes. Yes, yes. Counselor. Yeah, counselor Stuart. Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes, presence. Yes. The motion passes that I interrupted you were going to say. 10 yes or 9 yes. The motion passes. So, in that vein, we can bring in the folks from the assessor's office. Our city assessor is Sarah McClellan and

▶ 30:28 Jeff McNaught: anyone else who may be coming in with her. And again, I'll read the order that's before us. again it's order 2022-49 request to set a public hearing on classification of property for December 6 2021 at 8 p.m. and subsequently determine the classification of property miss McCollum thank you for being here with us this evening I'm just gonna share my screen here sure be able to see the Presentation. Yes. Okay. Can everybody see it? Good. Nobody's yelling. No. So I think we're good. Okay. Good evening everyone. So it's that time of year for the property tax classification presentation in public hearing. Um, this year is a bit different from the past several years because fiscal 22 is a revaluation year for Melrose.

▶ 31:41 Every 5 years for each community in Massachusetts, the Department of Revenue conducts a certification review. In this review, the state looks at our data quality. They do an audit of our evaluation practices. They conduct statistical analyses of our property values in the city. They review our public disclosure program and finally. Certification and classification review. So Melrose has received this final certification of our values from the Department of Revenue earlier this month on November 10th. As a note, the revaluation does not raise individual taxes per se. It simply ensures that assessments in Melrose reflect full and fair market value as of January 1st, 2021. Also, in terms of the law, nothing has changed throughout the pandemic in the process of determining property tax.

▶ 32:29 We still have the same requirements and responsibilities that existed before. I want to recognize our assessing office staff, our clerk, Janet, and our new assistant assessor, Tristan. Our manager, Jane, and our volunteers, Bob, Kathy and Bonnie, who have continuously provided a high level of service to the public and internally during this period that we've been undergoing the recent application with the state. And, of course, I would say, thanks to my fellow board members for their work and support during this process. I also wanted to provide an update on the senior circuit breaker taxes exemption that was passed at the local level in Melrose earlier this year. Um, we've heard from our representative Kate that the bills are still in the committee on revenue at the state level. Um, the chairs have not yet decided when they will vote on them, but it's expected to be in the near future.

▶ 33:19 Once we do hear back anything back on that exemption, we'll be sure to provide another update to Melrose residents with that. It will start the classification presentation. Um, this presentation is posted with the agenda packet this evening and it's also accessible on the city of Melrose website. On the assessors page underneath the heading. 2022 classification hearing, so the purpose of the classification hearing is to adopt the city's tax policy. By allocating the tax levy amongst the 5 property types. This is residential and open space and commercial, industrial and personal property. After the public hearing, the council must vote on the following 4 items, the selection of residential factor, whether to adopt a small commercial exemption.

▶ 34:08 Whether to grant an open space, just discount and whether to adopt a residential exemption. So, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of these have not been historically adopted in Melrose. But as a vote is still required for them, I will review them after we look at the residential factor in more detail. So, the city council with the mayor's approval determines the percentage of the tax levy to be paid by each class of property. They do this by choosing a residential factor. This factor governs the amount of the tax living to be paid by the residential class. And the difference is then paid by the commercial, industrial and personal property classes. Um, and the Department of revenue determines the minimum residential factor for each community, or the maximum shift allowed for the tax year.

▶ 34:57 So, um, uh, the total amount that can be raised in taxes stays the same. But there's a single or split tax rate, a split tax rate does not raise more revenue. It simply shifts the tax burden amongst the tax payers. So, adopting the residential factor of 1 results in taxation of all property at the same rate. For fiscal 22, adopting that factor of 1 would yield a single tax rate of 1094 per 1000 of value. Adopting a factor of less than 1 to as low as that minimum residential factor results in an increasingly greater tax burden shift from the residential classes to the commercial, industrial, and personal property classes. The minimum residential factor for the City of Melrose for Fiscal 22 is 0.961408, or a CIP shift of 1.75, which is again determined by the Mass Department of Revenue.

▶ 35:52 So, this slide here is showing the percentage of the levy by class before any shift. You can see that over 95% of the property value in Melrose is residential. And you'll also see here a breakdown of the number of parcels by property type. And this slide shows how we arrive at the single tax rate for the community for this fiscal year. On the left is a form that comes out of Gateway, which is the Department of Revenue's website that tracks our values and data. This has all of the valuations by property type. And you will note a total taxable valuation of about 6.5Billion at the bottom. You'll also see at the bottom the number and value of exempt parcels, which are excluded from the taxable valuation.

▶ 36:47 On the right at the top, we start with the 2021 levy limit. we add the two and a half percent allowed through massachusetts law prop two and a half we add new growth which has been certified by the department of revenue for this year and we add our fiscal year 22 debt service and arrive at the max allowable levy of 71 million 196 thousand 790. so then we take that number and we divide it by the fiscal 22 total taxable value in the city to arrive at the single tax rate of 1094 for thousand dollars of assessed value this next slide is showing the historical levy percentage paid by class after the shift has been chosen and you can see here that it has remained relatively the same for the last decade so i have

▶ 37:44 included this next slide so that you may compare melrose in relation to some of its surrounding communities it shows the fiscal 21 average single family values the tax bills and residential tax rates from some of the cities and towns around Melrose. And today, while the DLS does not have sufficient data, they can't calculate the average single family tax bill because they do have the residential exemption. I did find out today that the Mauldin single family average is about $503,739. um this slide is showing the residential to cip percent of total value in melrose versus our surrounding communities okay and here we see the historical shift that has been chosen for the past 10 years the average single family tax bill for those years and the average impact year over

▶ 38:57 year so last year a shift of 1.65 was chosen and the average single family tax bill is about $7,195. This is an increase of 2.57% and $180 over the prior year. It's not listed here, but at that shift, the average commercial bill increased $386 or about 2.59% year over year From 20 to 21. um. Okay, so the average single family value for fiscal year 2022. Is now 703,389 dollars. The average, if we compare this to fiscal 21. Average single family value of 657,000 dollars. You can see that increase in property values in Melrose year over year. So, this slide also demonstrates the effects of the shift with no shift. At all the single tax rate, the residential bill would increase by about 500 dollars and the commercial bill.

▶ 40:17 Would decrease by almost 40% by 5,778 dollars. With the Max shift of 1.75, the average residential bill increases 205 dollars roughly. And the average commercial bill increases, um, 1,335 dollars or roughly 8.74%. So, this brings us to the shift options. Um, I've included a complete list of the shift options from 1 to 1.75. Um, on the next slide, but here I've listed only the range that the council has has considered and chosen from in the past several years. So, on the left and green, you'll see the residential rate, the corresponding average single family tax bill. the dollar increase and the percent increase from last year on the right in blue is the corresponding cip rate the average commercial bill at that rate the average dollar increase and the percent

▶ 41:21 increase as a reminder the fiscal 21 residential rate was 10.95 per thousand and the commercial rate was 1869. um so as a note um while we speak of the shift in discussion when voting the council must choose the residential factor that corresponds to the chosen shift um and it's important to note that because of rounding the final tax rates may change slightly when we submit to the department of revenue um all of the options okay for the small commercial exemption um melrose has not historically adopted this exemption um however the council has the option to adopt a small commercial exemption of up to 10 percent of assessed value which can be applied to commercial parcels that are one occupied as of january 1st by a business with an average annual employment of no more than

▶ 42:30 ten during the previous calendar year and two have a valuation of less than one million dollars this exemption further shifts the tax burden within the commercial class increases the tax rate for the cip class and it was adopted by 14 communities in massachusetts in fiscal 21 out of the 351 the office of labor and workforce development provides the assessors with a list of businesses in Melrose and the number of employees that they have for the year. Because of the nature of the qualification for the exemption and the changing statuses of the businesses, we do not at this time have any businesses identified that would qualify. The consideration is that the adoption of the commercial exemption is that it works

▶ 43:17 as a further shift in tax burden to be borne by the majority of the CIP segment. So, the open space discount is a required vote for the council, but Melrose does not currently have any property that meets the state definition for the classification as open space. So I've included that definition here, just for reference. And finally, the residential exemption, the council has the option to adopt a residential exemption of up to 35% of the average assessed value of all of the residential parcels. Which is applied only to residential parcels that are the principal residents of the taxpayer. This exemption shifts the tax burden within the residential class only it increases the tax rate for the entire residential class.

▶ 44:13 And it was adopted by 15 communities in Massachusetts in fiscal 21. I do have included at the bottom of this slide some of the communities that that have adopted it. Melrose has a high percentage of owner occupied residential parcels. And for this on the last slide, I have included definitions of some of the terms that we use during the property tax classification presentation for reference. And, um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you miss. Um. Would you mind taking the presentation down so that I can see everybody and. Absolutely, and they raise their hands and get. And share the screen, thank you very much for that presentation. It was very helpful. Okay.

▶ 45:36 Robb Stewart: There we are, um, all counselors, you want to raise your hands? I have counselor Stewart. And councilor Grigoraitis, councilor Migliorelli. Okay, councilor Stewart, we'll start off with you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. McLuhan for a very comprehensive presentation. That's very helpful. The only question I have is, you cut out for a period, at least on my end, when you were talking about the residential exemption. You mentioned that Melrose has a high percentage of residential parcels. And it sounded like you're going to say something important after that. But I didn't get to hear it, so I was wondering if you would mind. Restating what you said? Sure. Melrose has the high percentage of residential.

▶ 46:36 Jen Grigoraitis: So, owner occupied residential parcels. And at this time for this fiscal year, the administration is not recommending the adoption of the residential exemption. Okay. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilor Grigoraitis? Thank you, Chair McNall. And thank you, Ms. McClellan. I just wanted to, I know you very graciously thanked your staff and your board, but I also just wanted to thank you. I know you're about six months into this goal and this is a lot of information. It's very dense, it's very complicated, and this was incredibly easy to understand. And I also just want to say how much I appreciate your reaching out to the Council proactively and offering your time to

▶ 47:21 Jen Grigoraitis: to walk us through that. So thank you for that. And the only question I had that might be a little off basis, it seems like we had a pretty significant jump in our assessed home values for the community. Is that something that you see trending for, I mean, that you see continuing forward given the real estate market? I mean, I think our values, our average value went up almost $100,000. Yeah, so the, um. Because of the sale, so 1st of all, it was because of the reval, um, you know, we use the statistical analysis, um, very carefully and closely and the state is is looking at those numbers with us as well. Um, but we are basing it on the numbers this year are based on 2020 sales. So, um, as I said, that number was 740,000 was the.

▶ 48:16 Leila Migliorelli: Average sale price for calendar year 2020. So it had jumped up significantly from the previous year. Um, so. Um, that was part of it and then part of it was just the corruption that happens. During the, um, the reval, um. I think that's, um, does that answer the question? Yes, thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor McAleer-Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. McClellan for this presentation. I'll just echo what Councillor Grigoraitis said. This is a lot of information and I really appreciate the detail and thorough nature of your presentation. Given that, I just wanted to kind of walk through again um the the tax shift variance is so i think it's the slides um 11 and 12. um just to kind of go

▶ 49:14 through again just just repeat again the the impact of the shift um no shift versus a max shift and kind of just going through that again a little bit absolutely thank you um Um, okay, sure. So, um, so with no shift, the, um, the residential rate, uh, increasing by, um, you know, the residential rate. So, as the values in Melrose increase, the, uh, tax rate tends to go down because we only have a certain levy that we, that we, um, Collect so, um, that's normally what happens. So here, um, the. Tax rate, um, of 1094 increases the, um. The residential rate 500 dollars, um, which was. The 6.95% with no shift. The residential values were increasing in this past year at a, at a higher and faster rate.

▶ 50:30 than the commercial values so there was also a lot of growth in the residential classes so that also increases the values and as those values increase at a faster rate it will make it so that their change is is greater at the at the not having a shift at the single tax rate. Then they have for no shift as well, the CIP classes are going to have a decrease, you know, a significant decrease. And then for the max shift, so basically the max shift would be the minimum change for the single family tax bill would be that point eight four percent um and the increase of 204 uh 65 and if you remember back to the previous slides um it was about 180 dollars last year but that's going to the you know that that

▶ 51:36 was at the 1.65 so this is at the 1.75 um so in you know so it's just a little bit more of a significant um workout this year based on the changes in values in the different classes sorry you just cut out again briefly so it's just a little bit more of a significant and then you kind of cut out um oh it's more of a significant change um this year based on the the change in in values and the different classes okay thank you um no further questions at this moment okay thank you any other counselors have questions Councilor Garipay. Councilor Garipay. Yeah, I'm sorry. I got two moses here. Thank you, Ms. McClellan, for being here. I have just a couple questions. One is regarding the – I think it's slide five.

▶ 52:44 Mark Garipay: You know, we've had some commercial property get turned over to residential. For example, the 99 Washington Street. So, I'm assuming that we're going to see a fluctuation of, you know. 9 to 9 to 1012Million dollars in that is that. Calculated in these numbers where we see that at next year. Meaning the commercial value be less. And residential, yeah, so that change in use, um. Took place the previous fiscal year that was. For that particular property, that would have been a larger, um, change that took place in fiscal 2021. so you would have seen the numbers, um, reflected there. Instead of in this year, so is it is it safe to assume that as we have commercial properties potentially get redeveloped into either mixed use of residential?

▶ 53:43 Mark Garipay: We're going to see a larger and we're going to see a larger value residential lesson commercial. So, won't the discrepancy over the next number of years, we're going to see that percentage as we try to be fair on both. On both on the tax rate between both. Commercial and residential isn't that we didn't take to assume that that's going to get that percentage is going to get get bigger. It's going to be tougher to get. Closer together right for for parcels like that that add a lot of more residential because eventually that specific parcel is going to be a residential. It's going to be mostly residential value. It will. You know, add to as they change over like that, it will add to the residential values.

▶ 54:32 Mark Garipay: Versus the commercial think you're on mute. Sorry, um, and, you know, this is what the 2nd year where a lot of us have done this and it's, it's a lot of information and it's tough to get our hands around it. So, when we're looking at the commercial assess value, and it's a mixed use property. How does the percentages usually work? So we have a. Let's say the average commercial value properties, 867, 380. How does that usually average out? Like, is it, you know. If it's 2 floors of a, of residents and a floor of commercial, is it a 1 3rd commercial? So, in theory, if there was no shift. And I'm not saying we do, I'm sorry if there was a, uh, we did the, uh, back shift. And it was a mixed use the increase wouldn't be 1334 would be a lot less based on what.

▶ 55:40 That that property was, uh, how we, um, how we did the percentage between the residential and commercial. Correct? Right. Yeah. With with properties that have primarily, um. You know, if their apartment buildings that also have, um, commercial. In them, um, they like retail space in them. Um, they usually have it's primarily, um. Residential, so they would be, uh, taxed. Primarily at the residential rate, and then a little bit more at the end. So you'll see if you, if you did look back at that, um, slide, um, number 6, I think. um where you see the 012 to 043 that that's basically the mixed use properties and you can see how the breakdown um comes out it's it's primarily residential for those mixed-use

▶ 56:37 Mark Garipay: properties so they're primarily paying the residential um tax rate sorry i can't hear you again sorry that's about 5 million on 174 74 million is that how i'm looking at it we got a we got a commercial value of 174 million and we have or is that 5 million into the residential value i'm sorry i'm i'm it broke up a little bit when you were saying that 5Million, the 101 and 102. Those are single family and condos. So, it's 012 to 043. Okay, like, halfway down, that's the mixed use 012 to 043 and you'll see the, the various breakdown of industrial residential and commercial for those. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have right now I'm just trying to get a better understanding if we look at the commercial side you know I think we got

▶ 57:58 John N. Tramontozzi: a is there any way to that we can forget that question all on I have another question thanks for your time this afternoon I appreciate it okay okay so Council Chairman Tozzi. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Ms. McClellan for the presentation, which is a very good, excellent presentation and easy to understand. I note that our focus this evening is primarily on real estate. I just wanted to address briefly the personal property Because it's not insignificant since it's even more than the industrial base. But is it fair to say, though, that whatever the tax rate on the single family home is set at, that's going to be the tax rate for personal property. The rate will be the tax rate for personal property. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Great.

▶ 59:03 John N. Tramontozzi: So, so the shipping, the effect on the personal property is really. It's not factored into the shift rate. Um, well, it is only in the sense that, um, it's, um, going to be the rate that the single family home rate is assessed at. Right, so so traditionally, um, we look at the at the primary class, um, you know, which is the single family. For, um, residential, and then the primary class. The personal property class does have a significant, um. A significant value here, and they're not factored in. It's. There's no average rate for them. It's not, they're not factored into that average commercial rate. That's just the simple average commercial rate. Is that is that by state law or is that why is it or is a traditional that way? We do it. Why is we don't shift the personal property over to the commercial rate? That's presumably benefiting the.

▶ 1:00:10 Jeff McNaught: a single single prop single family home property rate a little bit it wouldn't be much but so the way that we have um just on that first slide the way that we break down um commercial um sorry residential and open space and then commercial industrial and personal property that is um by law we have to we have to break them down into those two separate um shifts one to the other um but yeah yeah okay no that that explains it thank you i appreciate that it's a very good presentation thank you mr chairman okay so there's four votes that we have to um ask this evening um three of them as we heard from miss mcclellan um don't really apply they're not things that we need to take action on so i'm going to go in order of those three and

▶ 1:01:07 Jeff McNaught: entertain motions that i'll describe for instance i'll entertain a motion to not approve a granting of a small commercial exemption and the reason i say i'll entertain that is there's no there's no um commercial property in morrow's that would meet the specifications for that so these are things we've done for many years i'm just trying to um remind the council my fellow counselors and and um keep us moving so i'll entertain a motion to not accept a grant of granting of a small commercial exemption motion to not accept the granting of a small commercial exemption second second motion to accept uh to not accept a granting of a small commercial exemption exemption made by counselor Grigoraitis seconded by president sinella seeing no discussion mr clerk will you please call the role

▶ 1:02:10 chair mcnaught yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart Yes, Chancellor Thomas. Yes, and President Sonella. Yes, 9 yes, motion passes. Um, the next motion is that I'll entertain is a, um. Motion not to accept a selection of an open space discount. Motion to not accept an open space discount. A motion to not accept a selection of an open space discount made by Councillor Grigoraitis, seconded by President Sinella. Seeing no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Chair McNaught? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes.

▶ 1:03:34 Jeff McNaught: Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes. Nine yes here too. Motion passes. The third motion of the same kind is a motion to not accept a granting of a residential exemption. I'll entertain a motion to not accept a granting of a residential exemption. Motion to not accept the granting of a residential exemption. We have a motion to not accept the granting of a residential exemption made by Councilor Grigoraitis, seconded by President Cinella. Seeing no discussion, I will just note that the administration did not make a recommendation to do so, but seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Chair McMott? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi?

▶ 1:04:37 Jeff McNaught: Yes, Councillor McMaster. Yes, Councillor Garipay. Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis. Yes. Councillor Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Stewart. Yes. Councillor Thomas. Yes. And President Sinella. Yes. 9 yes. Okay, the motion passes and that brings us to The 1 item that we do have to vote on, which is the shift, which we will not call it to shift when, when we do make the vote or suggest the number, because we know that we can't do that. By law, we need to, we need to refer to it as the, um. What is it? The, the, the minimum residential factor and we need to need to use that tricky number with the, uh, 0. Bunch of numbers that we haven't seen since middle school. So, um, Mr. chairman. Yes, sir. Are we not taking a vote for recommendation? I mean, we still have to hold a public hearing.

▶ 1:05:45 John N. Tramontozzi: Do we not so a public hearing is is to be scheduled on December 6th. At which time then at the full board meeting at the full board, we vote on the acceptance of the shift. Likewise, we're floating at the full board, the acceptance of the 3 recommendations that we adopted here at the committee. So, again, I think we can make a recommendation to adopt the shift, but the final vote has to occur. After the public hearing, that's absolutely correct. That's what we're doing. Just just want to make sure that the public understands that the final vote ultimately is going to be after the public hearing because the vote that we took in the 3 was really not a vote for passage, but a vote to. Recommend that we not adopt those 3 items.

▶ 1:06:43 Jen Grigoraitis: That's correct. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody want to kick off the discussion on on what they think might be a good. Minimum residential factor council Grigoraitis. Thank you. I won't make a motion so that others have to weigh in, but based on the chart, I was going to suggest a shift of 1.66, which is the minimum residential factor of 0.9660, which I think is where we landed last year. Just in terms of a percentage increase, it seems to be the one number that gives us the most parity between the two different classifications, it would raise residential 3.33 percent and commercial 3.17. That to me seems to be the sweet spot in the middle. I would offer that as a suggestion. Thank you.

▶ 1:07:42 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Councilor Grigoraitis. Councilor Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Councilor Grigoraitis point, I think it's appropriate to find a parity between the two. But when I look closely at the chart and I look at 1.65, I see that the increase in dollar amounts stays the same for residential, yet the amount drops almost $100 for commercial interests. And I would prefer to favor that as I think that would be a benefit to our local businesses by lowering the tax rate by $100. So, if I'm reading this correctly, the increase remains the same for residential, but it does have a significant impact. So, I think I would prefer to lean toward the 1.65 as opposed to the 1.66. And please, if anybody sees it differently than I am, please

▶ 1:08:43 Jeff McNaught: speak up because I'm hoping for feedback. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if I can mention to Councilor Stewart’s point, if you were to go with the rate I believe you're referring to, Councilor Stewart, is 1.65. Is that correct? That is correct, Mr. Chair. So that would essentially raise single-family homes by $60 a year for this year, and it would keep commercial properties almost to the exact dollar that they were at last year. So, and if we want to do a little bit more history, 2019, which was right after the override, there were very, very large spikes. And last year resulted in a $500 savings. I don't want to call it savings, but call it reduction from the year before with the override. There's a $500 reduction for single family and $700 for businesses because of these significant increases, which were in 2019 would have been $723 per single family household and $1,616 for businesses.

▶ 1:09:57 Jeff McNaught: So, um, we certainly, um, and I don't think we are don't want to be a prohibitive prohibitive environment for businesses. Um, so I think both Council Grigoraitis and Councilor Stewart, um. We're angling towards saying, saying that in in the rates that they were going for, but, uh, any further discussion suggestions. I might suggest also taking a look at, um. And this is if, you know, this again, this is all just for discussion, but a 1.64 would raise our, uh, single family an additional 7 dollars while bringing a commercial from 389 down to 294. So, again, um, that would raise us 67 dollars and it would save them about 100 dollars from last year. us being single family homes and businesses commercial being dropped quite a bit.

▶ 1:11:06 Jen Grigoraitis: So I think all three are fair. Just open a discussion or a motion if anyone feels strongly about any one number. Councilor Grigoraitis. Thank you, Chairman. I very much appreciate both of your and Councilor Stewart’s insights. I don't understand how mathematically 1.65 can not change the residential but change the commercial but i'll go with it because that's not my area of expertise um so i'm fine with any of those rates the only thing i did want to point out is that the commercial property tax is not necessarily being borne by our businesses it's being i mean it may be being passed down to them and for those that rent i just want to clarify that that's not a direct um correlation to our businesses just like for those that rent

▶ 1:12:01 Jen Grigoraitis: um their homes they may or may not see that increase in their rent i'm sure they likely do i just i feel like we were making a correlation that may or may not exist so i just wanted to make that point but i would be completely comfortable with any of those rates that were suggested so i will stay out of me i feel like i've motioned a lot tonight so i will stay out of it that was very helpful councilman really um could i ask another question of uh miss mcclellan and kind of explain that how the 165 and 166 is no difference for residential but there is a significant difference on the commercial side so it really stems from the fact that there's so much more value on the residential side like that we have 95 of the

▶ 1:12:45 value just so that it just rolls up into the numbers don't make that much of a change when you shift when you go from one to another because these if you see these residential factors if you look at that number it's just changing a tiny tiny bit so it doesn't like it doesn't even change a cent for the rate you know what i mean because the value that you're applying it to um is so much and so great versus the commercial which is even though you know they have larger values they um it's still just a much much smaller percentage relatively thank you um for that reason i mean just to put my own i'm not necessarily making motion yet but one six five seems like a good option that would maybe you know address some of that if those if the commercial tax

▶ 1:13:47 Jeff McNaught: rates are you know passed along to those who are the business owners who are operating in those rented spaces um that would be ideal and it would make no difference to the personal um tax rate so that's just my observation would you like to make a motion for that councilman really i see council chairman does he has a question yeah i don't have a question i and i like those uh that those three areas but uh i will make a motion then at this time to to recommend the shift of 1.65 second so um can we just correct the language to um a motion to adopt the minimum residential factor and then that long number on the left that i was talking about um so it's a motion uh you said 1.65 correct so it would be a motion to adopt a minimum residential factor of uh 0.9660 right what you

▶ 1:15:02 Jeff McNaught: said good all right one moment we have uh we have counter stimulation point of clarification i think I think 1.65 is 0.9666, not 9666. Correct. Did I read that right? It's 0.9666. So, for clarification, Council Tramontozzi is making a motion to adopt the minimum residential factor of 0.9666. Do we have a second for his motion? Second. On discussion, seeing none. Mr. Clark, will you please call the roll? Chair McNaught? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. and President Cinella yes we have nine yes okay the motion passes and as Councilor Tramontozzi said that will be recommended to the full council for passage at the next

▶ 1:16:30 Jeff McNaught: meeting and after the public hearing on December 6th which is at eight o'clock so Mr. McClellan did I miss anything I think that's it awesome great job everybody thank you for being with us tonight we'll we'll let you go and uh and move on to other business so do we have to make another motion to take the third item out of order we do okay um counselor Migliorelli since you were nodding yes it's order 2022-34 Thank you. Motion to move 2022-34 out of order to now. Second. We have a motion by Councillor Migliorelli to move order 2022-34 out of order, seconded by Councillor McMaster. Seeing no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Chair McNaught? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? yes counselor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor migliorelli

▶ 1:18:02 Jen Grigoraitis: yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes and president sanello yes that's nine yes motion passes so we now have before us order 2022-34 revised rules of order of the melrose city council and first i'm going to go to um counselor Grigoraitis thank you chair mcnaught i just wanted to take a moment um of personal privilege as the person who created this special committee to thank counselors mcmaster yourself counselor Garipay stewart and eccles for your work on this i know it was a tremendous amount of time that you put into this process and i i think what we have before us is a really robust update to our rules and reflect some of the changes that we've put in place as the first council to ever operate remotely so i just wanted to personally

▶ 1:19:01 Christopher Cinella: thank you all i know that that was time that you took away from pretty much anything else that you could have been doing in order to bring this before us so thank you for that thank you council Grigoraitis um president sanella do you have something uh thank you uh chair McNaught i just i want to echo council Grigoraitis's remarks i think it's important to note that um although we don't have special committees all that often um it is an added duty in addition to regular council committees and full council additional time away from your families but it was important work. I thank you all for stepping up. Thank you, President Cinella. And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Council McMaster, who chaired the Special Rules Committee, did a wonderful job,

▶ 1:19:51 Shawn M. MacMaster: might I add. Council McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you again, and a special thank you to Councilor Grigoraitis for her foresight and leadership and creating the special committee on the rules of order during her time as president her decision to appoint the committee to look globally and critically at the rules was an affirmative step toward improving the flow of council business into creating a more transparent legislative process i'd also like to thank president sanella for uh extending the work of the special committee after president Grigoraitis term had ended so thank you to both of you for your leadership i'd also like to thank the members of the special committee

▶ 1:20:42 Shawn M. MacMaster: all of whom were active participants in crafting the proposal before the body this evening and who devoted several nights to working through some very dense material vice chair eccles council the garipay council mcnaught and council stuart thank you all for your time and your hard work in terms of the scope of our work the special committee met on five occasions between november 11 2020 and september 8 2021 each meeting focused on a set of rules which we reviewed individually and worked through one by one the average time of our meetings was approximately an hour and a half important to note is that these were working meetings where the committee's entire time was spent reviewing interpreting revising discussing and debating the current rules

▶ 1:21:32 Shawn M. MacMaster: we also spent time proposing revising discussing and debating a handful of new rules outside of these meetings as chair i spent numerous hours incorporating the suggestions and edits of committee members this process of writing and revising cannot be captured in hours If you recall, prior to the first meeting of the committee, then President Grigoraitis emailed the entire council, inviting councils to propose changes to the rules and to participating in the meetings should they desire. In addition to the members of the special committee, Councilor Grigoraitis and President Sinella both offered proposals, which the committee adopted and which are reflected in this proposal. While the proposal before you passed the special committee unanimously, it's important to note that the committee was involved in some lively debate, and that not every rule was initially agreed upon.

▶ 1:22:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: I'm proud of the committee for the work that we did to reach a compromise on several of these rules. We didn't let stubbornness or perfection prevent us from reaching what we believe is a very strong set of rules for this body. we were very deliberative in our work mindful that our charge would affect future councils not just this one so we approached every revision with the long-term benefit of the city council in mind one of the things that i know we have all struggled with is trying to interpret rules that were written many many years ago and for which there is no written or recorded record of intent with this in mind we did our best to interpret and modernize the rules In doing so, we simplified the language of existing rules, addressing ambiguity, ensuring consistency in the use of terms, and offering recommendations for a series of revised and new rules.

▶ 1:23:22 Shawn M. MacMaster: We also created a commentary section, which is meant to memorialize the intent behind the rules that, in accordance with our mandate, have either been substantially amended or newly created. Finally, I do realize and I appreciate that we have eight amendments to the proposed rules before us this evening. 2 of those amendments I have proposed independently from my role as chair of the committee. The ones that I have proposed a relatively benign, and I believe upon further reflection, strengthen the intent of the rules as intended by the special committee. I'd like to thank the makers of the 6 other amendments for their ideas and suggestions. And I look forward to hearing more about their proposed amendments and discussing them with everyone tonight.

▶ 1:24:04 Jeff McNaught: After doing so, I'm very hopeful that we'll move this order favorably out of committee this evening with any and all accepted amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Council McMaster. And again, you brought back some good memories. It was a lot of good fun hours. And I also just wanted to mention that clerk foot was with us for the ride as well. God bless her. Must have been a blast listening to us all those evenings. But really, really shepherded us through great Council McMaster and handled it professionally all the way to the end as you always do. So, thank you. What I wanted to do this evening was Council McMaster mentioned that we had a little bit more than a handful of rules or proposed amendments, I should say. And what I want to do is take those in numerical order as they come.

▶ 1:24:59 Jeff McNaught: And we've received proposed amendments from Councilor Migliorelli, Councilor Grigoraitis, and Councilor McMaster. So, what I'll do is I will call by rule and the Councilor who proposed that amendment and turn it over to you to start discussion. And 1st up we have, Andrew, if you could pull this up, by the way, Councilor Migliorelli red line. um red line version that she handed in um councilman early we're going to move first to rule 13. thank you mr chairman and thank you um to the members of the committee who worked on this i know it's incredibly hard to edit a document alone never mind all together as a group and so i appreciate going through this um and seeing some of the changes you made to help clarify language

▶ 1:25:54 Leila Migliorelli: and um had offered these amendments as a way to primarily to tight language and for clarity's sake um also with some substantive suggestions so for rule 13 um i had suggested um for the first first part of my amendment to rule 13 um was to lower the amount of time i just think that you know we should be um as you know members who are trying to communicate to the public be as concise as possible and to me 15 minutes felt like a very long time for any one person to be talking to introduce um introduce a topic um additionally especially given that in the prior rules we had only allowed for i think five minutes total so it when looking at all the different minute increases it just seems like you know if you could stick to 10 minutes to do an opening

▶ 1:26:51 Leila Migliorelli: remark that should be sufficient um on the second part of the second paragraph i don't know what everyone can see here but i'm just gonna look on my own screen um at the edits um i just tried to combine um two of in paragraph two and paragraph three two of the pieces to just sort of generally say on general matters of discussion or when a matter is under debate so just can making that concise into one sentence um members so the council should occupy no more than five minutes i'm speaking on a particular subject for each point under debate um and just tighten that that was just tightening up two separate paragraphs into one um and then for the sort of the third part of um the changes i'm suggesting uh was to i think the nine points under consideration

▶ 1:27:45 Leila Migliorelli: for the president while helpful it just seems out of step with the rest of the document in which we don't usually we don't seem to in other places in the rules go into you know what one should consider while they're trying to um you know offer a an amendment or offer um or as they're presiding over um a meeting so to me it just seemed like a little bit just too many subjective points for a presiding officer to consider and perhaps something that might be hard to do on the fly so i think for me uh and you know being on the council for the last two years the point that i think about when granting time more time to a counselor to speak when i'm chairing a meeting um is you know whether the person they're dialogue dialoguing with has

▶ 1:28:30 Leila Migliorelli: occupied more time than the than the counselor asking questions so that was the one point i thought um important to retain and felt like the rest of the h or or some things that are just sort of you know common sense kind of things that should be considered but um just didn't know if it needed to be spelled out so explicitly in this document um so i'd like to offer a motion to offer um my amendments to rule 13 um on discussion for for the committee mr chairman i'll second it for the discussion you're muted chairman mr chairman thank you thank you for pulling that down um mr clerk welcome vice chair eccles coming from another long meeting we know um so we have um a motion to amend rule 13 uh counselor Migliorelli's motion seconded

▶ 1:29:43 Shawn M. MacMaster: by councillor mcmaster on discussion council mcmaster thank you mr chairman and thank you Councilman Migliorelli. I had seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion. I think Councilman Migliorelli does raise some good points. I'd just like to speak to the amendments so that other members who did not sit on the special committee have at least an idea of why the language and the proposal is what it is. With respect to the 10 minutes, those members of the special committee may remember that we had we had started at 20 minutes for introducing an order and i think upon further discussion and reflection we felt that 20 minutes was too much we had then discussed doing 10 minutes and the compromise that we reached was 15 minutes

▶ 1:30:36 Shawn M. MacMaster: understanding that you may have an order that has two sponsors and what that would do is should each sponsor uh want to speak to the maximum amount of time if they split their time in half that would be seven and a half minutes which would be less than 10 minutes for one counselor um i i don't feel strongly about the the 10-minute rule i don't want to suggest that that other members feel the same way um so the the 10 minutes is something i i could support uh the the other amendments I would like to speak to because I feel more strongly about those as proposed by the special committee. What I would say with respect to the nine points is that what it does is it allows the presiding officer to be able to essentially make findings when somebody is

▶ 1:31:32 Shawn M. MacMaster: seeking additional time. And the presiding officer can point to any one or more of those nine points to cite as reason for why a counselor shall be afforded additional time or shouldn't be given additional time. Some of those reasons, as you can see in the proposed rule, might be time that is occupied by answers that are provided by individuals who appear before the council in the hour of the of the day or of the evening public interest in a particular matter that may have garnered significant public attention so i do think those those nine points are important because otherwise a decision by presiding officer could be seen as arbitrary without pointing to particular reasons for making a determination as to whether or not

▶ 1:32:31 Shawn M. MacMaster: a consular should be given additional time or should stop at the maximum time allowed. And my apologies, did I miss a third point, Councillor Migliorelli? Was there a third? I'm no longer up, so I can't see the amendment. through the chair um the third point was just combining i think in paragraph two taking some parts out of paragraph three and just combining it into paragraph two so i think the points that you had said you that were split up with one and one paragraph it said in general matters of discussion and then the other paragraph it said matters under debate and i just condensed that to one sentence so i'd be happy to hear what others say um my apologies mr chair But through you, I'd be happy to hear what other consulates say.

▶ 1:33:25 John N. Tramontozzi: I could certainly see myself being okay with changing from 15 minutes to 10 minutes when introducing an order. I think I'd be inclined to stick with the rest of the order as is. If this amendment doesn't pass, I'd be willing to make a subsequent friendly amendment to add or to further amend from 15 to 10 minutes for introducing an order. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on the matter? Council chairman Tunzey. Thank you, Mr. chair. I agree with Councilor McMaster regarding the You don't want the chairman of the committee or the president to arbitrarily meaning arbitrarily and capriciously rule on the matter of the timing and the reasons for stopping discussion, and then have it be debated as to whether or not the guidelines

▶ 1:34:40 John N. Tramontozzi: were followed in allowing discussion. So I think those principles, those nine ideas are relevant, and it's something to, if anything, going to assist the chairman in his rulings on what's being discussed. So, I think those should stay in place. Ten minutes, I think ten minutes is appropriate. I mean, how much time do you need to introduce it? I get there may be co-sponsors, but not always all co-sponsors want to speak on it, and usually there's, in past experience, there's one sponsor that takes the lead and um and does the discussions on it so 10 minutes is appropriate i would go um with the amendment to 10 minutes but leave the rest of that order in place or is that as recommended by the committee thank you council chairman tozy any other councils wishing to speak

▶ 1:35:42 Jen Grigoraitis: council Grigoraitis council garepe and i've got you next thank you mr chair um i agree with reducing from 15 to 10 i think um until we've and someone's actually talked non-stop for 15 minutes i'm not sure any of us really can think about how long of that amount of time that is um and that i certainly know we want to keep meetings moving along um i i agree with counselor Migliorelli about the nine points of order feeling just kind of unnecessarily um drilled down given the other things and i i do think there are other places in this document i know one of which i've offered amendment on where we do talk about the discretion of the care so i want to be mindful that if we're being really um clear about what it like you've got to be consistent throughout so if we're

▶ 1:36:32 Jen Grigoraitis: subscribing nine sub points to something i think we've got to then look through where else are we doing that um i and i think that's part of the challenge of being a person is that you there is a level of discretion and that there is always the ability of the body to motion to appeal the ruling of a chair, whether that's regarding somebody asking for more time or not. So I would be inclined to support Councillor McEwelly's amendment just because I think it makes the rest of the document more consistent, and I'm also in support of shortening the time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Curtis. Councillor Garipay? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. What keeps coming to my mind with this rule is during the library

▶ 1:37:15 Mark Garipay: discussion which was probably one of the largest votes that the council has had to take in in a number of years and and i i did seek a lot of time and i you know at the discretion of the uh as a chair so you know i i do get uh worried on upon on a subject that is a large um large financial impact to the community and as you represent a number of number of constituents and i think as a counselor we should be able to have as much as much time as possible to to answer the questions and get the answers that are that our constituents need and you know the way it is now i believe that you know public participation you can talk longer than we can When we're asking questions, and, uh, so, you know, I'm, I'm happy with what came out of, uh, came out of the committee, uh, and I'll, and I'll vote to, uh, support, um.

▶ 1:38:15 Jack Eccles: Support the document as it came out of committee regarding this rule. Thank you Councilor Garipay, Vice Chair Eccles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I believe I recall when we discussed this in the special committee, I was, I was 1 of the, the 10 minute people that Councilor McMaster mentioned. So I. Um, I'm inclined to support that. I, I also don't see a huge difference in outcomes. Based on how broad the 9 points are as to whether or not it's at the complete discretion of the chair, or you need to point to a specific reason. So. I'll probably I will vote in favor of this amendment and if this fails, I'll vote in favor of. Revising it, um, back to 10 minutes as well. Thank you. Vice chair Eccles.

▶ 1:39:05 Uh, any further discussion. Okay. Seeing none, Mr clerk, um. Can you please call the role? I may have missed something. Is there a specific motion that we're voting on as a motion to accept the committee's recommendation? Is that what it is? Oh, it's a motion to accept council. Amendments to rule 13, seconded by a counselor, McMaster. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Chairman not yes, vice chair. Yes, no. Counselor. Counselor. Yes. Counselor. yes councillor stewart no councillor thomas no president sanella yes mr chairman mr chairman i was i was skipped i'm sorry i'm sorry my apologies uh councillor mcmaster no that's three yes i don't know i don't think that count is right uh mr clerk mr council mcmaster

▶ 1:41:10 Shawn M. MacMaster: Yes, Mr. chairman at this time, in light of that, not having passed, uh, to counselor, or at least 1st. Uh, uh, amendment. Or 1st, part of her amendment that she had previously filed, I would make a friendly amendment to. I'm sorry. 1 moment, I, I'm not sure what the vote was Council McMaster. We have 5 yes, and we have. I know, so it's split in the middle. That's right. We're missing council. Jamala Dean. Yes, so council McMaster. Okay. Sorry. So, that, because it didn't pass that the motion would would fail. So, if that, if it's. Proceed Mr. chairman, what I would do is to constantly make the rallies. uh point that she raised with respect to the time i would be happy to make a friendly amendment to

▶ 1:42:23 Shawn M. MacMaster: the rule before uh the body right now rule 13 as proposed by the special committee on the rules of order to change uh from 15 minutes to 10 minutes uh within that first sentence a counselor or any combination of consulates who file an order ordinance petition resolution or remonstrance shall be given up to 10 minutes in total to introduce the matter so i'd be willing to amend that from 15 to 10. is that a motion or was that just discussion it's it's a motion uh mr chairman thank you you but second that motion so we have a counselor McMaster's motion to amend the committee's special committees rule 13 from 15 minutes to 10 minutes seconded by councillor tram and tozi no other changes to said rule no other proposed

▶ 1:43:33 Shawn M. MacMaster: changes yes mr. chairman just to be clear it relates only to the 15 minutes Reducing the 50 minutes to 10 in the 1st sentence, I'm not moving to reduce it in the 3rd sentence, because I do think 15 minutes is appropriate when you are asking questions and you have a non member who is occupying significant time during the questioning. So, I just want to clarify that Mr. chairman. Any further discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify through the chair that I was always in favor of the 15 minutes because I don't believe there should be a time limit to something that may come up that is fairly important. And while rare, I don't want us to be seen as being limited. So, I cannot support this.

▶ 1:44:33 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Council Stewart. Council McGeary-Reilly? Just a point of clarification is that I think the only part that Councilor McMaster is amending is the opening remarks at 15 minutes, changing it to 10. So any subsequent conversation is as how it was presented to the council by the committee. So only change to the opening remarks, no change to dialogue thank you thank you council mcgill really uh counselor stewart um does that if you'd like to speak to whether that satisfies your concern or i think mr that's helpful any other councils what i would say is i think we're at a point of compromise we had a five to five vote a moment ago um interestingly we we don't have our 11th um counselor um by numbers tonight

▶ 1:45:37 Jeff McNaught: um but uh we also have a friendly amendment to to make compromise i think in this in this proposed uh change so um that being said i think the nine points for a chair to to go by um can be used as is as guidelines i don't think that they have to be cited or um the only nine used at all times or at all so um i was on the fence before of whether how much they mattered or not but i i guess what i'm saying is i'm i'm okay with them being in the document or not uh i don't think that they'll cause any harm um mr clark will you please call the roll chair mcnaught Yes, vice chair. Yes, yes. Counselor McMaster. Yes, counselor. Thank you muted counseling. Yes. Counselor. Yes. Counselor. Yes, counselor Stewart.

▶ 1:47:05 Leila Migliorelli: Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes, and president. Yes, that's 10. yes. The motion passes for rule 13. All right, so next we have, um. Again, if we could pull up councilor, um. Proposed amendments were on to rule 22. Thank you, Mr chairman and, um. Upon reading my amendments again, and further thought, um. If if it's, uh, allowable, I'd like to, um. Change my amendments, um, and offer, um. In other words, I'm just waiting for this to pop up here. So, right here, yeah, for rule 22. I'd like to change the 1st spot, so the, as it stood before it said, the chairperson of each standing committee shall ensure the sponsor of any legislative item have proper notice for all related hearings. Um. My intention was changing to clerk of committees was that as, you know, as I'm a new chair of a committee that it's often the clerk who's coordinating.

▶ 1:48:37 Leila Migliorelli: The meetings, but I think that perhaps we should be. A compromising way would be to have it the chairperson of each standing committee. Comma in conjunction with the clerk of committees, comma. Shall ensure that the counselor counselors in France. Who sponsor any legislative item will have proper notice and to remove the 72 hours because 1, that's grammatically incorrect what I had written and 2, it's proper notice of hearings. Not proper. Not 72 hours in advance of the meeting. So, I was trying to make it related related to an earlier rule, which says that we're changing it to 72 hours in advance for all agendas and upon reading this again and careful thought it's that's not what this is. So, hopefully, I didn't just confuse everyone a little bit more, but.

▶ 1:49:26 Leila Migliorelli: Narrowing it down the chairperson of each standing committee in conjunction with the clerk of committees, and then ensuring that counselors who sponsor any legislative item will have proper notice. So, that would be my amendment. I'm happy to repeat it again if that's unclear. To any counselors, would any counselors like that read again? Seeing no hands going up, Mr. Clark. Oh, sorry. Councilor Tramontozzi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you could just give me that again. Councilor Migliorelli, please. Sure. So, the revised, so I'll do it 2 ways. The things I'm, I'm adding in after chairperson of each standing committee in conjunction with the clerk of committees. And that adding in that, it's instead of just the sponsor of any legislative item, it's counselors, counselor or counselors.

▶ 1:50:31 Leila Migliorelli: Who sponsor any legislative item? So, if the intention is to make sure that the counselors who sponsored the item have notice of related hearings. That's the intention so hopefully that's clear. It's just adding in conjunction of the clerk with the clerk of committees and ensuring that counselors. Counselor counselors who sponsor any legislative items will have proper notice. Of all related hearings, thank you. That helps. you and I'm gonna ask the obvious question of can we step Andrew I know you don't have time to scribe these as we go and you're probably not going to go back and watch the whole meeting where that one was somewhat short do you mind just typing that up and emailing it to the clerk ultimately really all right

▶ 1:51:26 Jeff McNaught: Wow. Awesome. Did you do the last 1, too? Okay. All right. Good times. So, um, counselor is making a motion. To amend rule 22 as proposed by the special rules committee. As she just read to all of us and counselor Stewart is sending to the clerk. Um, do we have a 2nd. 2nd, the motion is seconded by council McMaster and on discussion we have culture Stewart. Yes, Mr chair, just, uh. In the chair point of clarification on this, are we removing, uh, the 72 hours and just preferring. To, um, a proper. Um, notice proper notice as opposed to this specifically the 72 hours. Or are we putting the 72 hours now? We were removing the 72 hours. That's the way I understood it. Right. Yeah. Point of clarification. So it's meeting it as is. So I had added 72 hours.

▶ 1:52:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, I'm taking that off the table and as the committee proposed proper notice, leaving that as is. Great. Council Chairman Tozzi? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, what is the definition of proper notice? Is that defined somewhere within the committee rules? You have to be an attorney. I kid, I kid. I think we're leaving it open purposely, if I'm not mistaken. That's my memory. To be reasonable more than reasonable, but council McMaster can speak more to that. Thank you Mr. chairman. I'm happy to speak to that. And 1st, I'd like to thank council for the amendment. I think it makes complete sense and I'm going to support it through you. Mr. chairman to. Uh, consulate trim and toesy, we did keep open the word proper open purposely and really the intent here is to ensure that a meeting is not scheduled by a chair.

▶ 1:54:07 Shawn M. MacMaster: Without the sponsor or sponsors being available for that meeting and then with respect to the proper notice that would relate to. Essentially having proper notice, which would be. in adequate notice another word uh that um there's going to be um uh that it's potentially going to be disposed that you can't dispose of something uh at the committee level unless those parties are present thank you council mcmaster thank you uh counselors and mr chairman and welcome counselor jamala dean we're having a very uh spirited uh i won't say night of debate but But we're having some fun tonight. Um, um, okay. So, um. Corey comes to Tom, so I keep thinking you have your hand up because of that jacket on your door, but it's not your hand. You'd have a very tired on right now if it was. Um, so, um.

▶ 1:55:14 Trying to frame this, so we have council proposed amendment to rule 22. um. As typed by councilor Stewart and sent to clerk, Gabriel, seconded by council McMaster. I believe all discussion is over. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the roll. Sure, chair with not yes. Vice chair, yes. Counselor yes. Counselor McMaster. Yes, yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? President Sinella? Yes. We have 11 yes. The motion passes. Next, if we could pull up, Mr. Clerk, Council Grigoraitis' proposed amendment to rule 29. Chair McNaught, is it okay if I speak to this? Yeah, I can't see everybody. So this is an amendment to 29A, which is the portion of the rules regarding public comment, which I think everyone here

▶ 1:57:15 Jen Grigoraitis: knows is not actually a requirement that this body hold public comment, but I think we have a long history of doing so, which I'm very appreciative of so my amendment would return the amount of time allotted per person to 10 minutes which is what we're currently have we currently have um and then would remove some language regarding who can speak at public comment and i i believe the intent not to speak for the committee but was to be aware of some of the reason some folks who may want to come to public comment to you know maybe not move our city forward and that that's not something we would want to allow but i think it also raises some very real first amendment concerns so i think um who would remove that language um and therefore also remove the discretion of the chair um

▶ 1:58:02 Jen Grigoraitis: around who gets to speak at public comment and then would add in language stating that we will provide an option for remote participation and public comment whenever practicable and i appreciate that there was some mention of that during public comment tonight um but i do think we need that caveat in because as we have seen many times tonight technology fails all the time and so i would want to make sure that we can still continue particularly when we're back in an in-person meeting to have public comments so that's what is proposed before you and i would make a motion for recommendation for purposes of discussion second we have a motion um by council Grigoraitis to amend rule 29a as just described and in her red line edit sent to clark gobriel

▶ 1:58:59 Shawn M. MacMaster: seconded by um councillor Migliorelli on discussion i don't believe i'm seeing any hands go up i'm sorry council mcmaster thank you mr chairman and thank you to councillor Grigoraitis for the proposed uh amendment to this rule um i'd also add that i did um after the amendment was was filed i did seek the opinion of the city solicitor on this and essentially what she said is it's a rule that that we could certainly move forward on she said brookline is having a similar rule however she did caution us that that rule would have to be applied uniformly for across every committee and there is a risk a first amendment risk if that rule is not uniformly applied which to me does raise some flags even though we can do this council of

▶ 1:59:59 Shawn M. MacMaster: Grigoraitis is absolutely correct and that the intent of of the committee um here uh was to prevent people who don't live in melrose who want to use our council meeting or committee meeting to try to make some sort of a political statement uh and um something that really has nothing to do with the a matter before uh the council so that was the intent however that being said i do think that um first amendment concerns outweighs um the the the concern about individuals coming into uh a meeting from outside uh melrose that have a certain political uh or extremist agenda um i do think uh this is this is reasonable i don't want to speak for the committee but i know the committee is not aware of the city solicitor the special committee uh weighing in on this um what i would

▶ 2:00:52 Shawn M. MacMaster: also say is that should that scenario happen we could always somebody could always make an immediate motion to recess we could uh the the if the body decides to recess then we can come out of recess and in the presiding officer just could call the next person uh in you know for public comment so i'm fine with the amendment um i think it's a thoughtful amendment and uh again i don't want to speak on behalf of the special committee but i would be willing to support it as as written any further discussion 29a seeing none mr clerk will you please call the role chair mcnaught yes vice chair Eccles yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes

▶ 2:01:58 Leila Migliorelli: Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes. We have 11 yes. The motion passes. Next, we have a proposed amendment to Rule 31A, and that would be Councillor Migliorelli proposed amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had added this to include instead of, I think, this new rule had said explicitly a resume and cover letter just from candidates who are willing, who are nominated for positions on committees and boards. And I had, And I feel it is important that we should allow people who may not have resumes that are up to date, whether they've been out of the workforce for a while or new to the workforce or what have you. I think we should be more inclusive to have a written statement of interest and or a resume

▶ 2:03:16 Leila Migliorelli: if you choose. I think, you know, in some situations we've had nothing. Um, I think it's important to have something when we're considering a nomination. Um, but what that, what form that takes, um, I don't know that we have to be explicit to say that it has to include both. So, um, my changes were to amend rule 31, a, the suggested, um, proposed rule 31, a, to state all appointments made by the mayor and subject to the confirmation of the council. Shall include a written statement, and I'd like to add in a written statement of interest. Um, and or resume from the candidate. And just leaving it like that, so that's my motion to amend. Councilor, you're on mute. Thank you. Council. Mr clerk if we can keep this document up where this is a short, short 1 that we're going to be discussing. I know that we're going to be going to, um.

▶ 2:04:16 Jeff McNaught: the proposed amendment right below it right after so um i just want to make the recommendation i know counselor stewart sent one of your amendments to uh the clerk um but i think that all makers of the proposed amendments should um email those on their own to the clerk and i think that would be very helpful because nobody's going to know your own amendment like yourself so that being said um are you making a motion uh did you make a motion for um passage of this proposed amendment yeah motion to recommend um the amendment and just as written here just adding written statement of interest after the word statement other than that okay yes and do we have a second second all right a motion to amend rule 31a

▶ 2:05:16 Shawn M. MacMaster: as proposed by council mcglarelli seconded by president sanella on discussion i'm just going to scroll here counselor mcmaster thank you mr chairman again i appreciate this uh suggested amendment i think these are examples of amendments that improve the work of the special committee uh so thank you council I think, I think that makes sense as a number of candidates for commissions and boards or volunteers, and some perhaps haven't been in the workforce for a period of time that it's not. It's not, it may not be reasonable to expect both a statement of interest and a resume as long as there's 1, I think that satisfies the purpose of the proposed rule. So, I'd be fine with this. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clark, will you please call the roll?

▶ 2:06:20 Jeff McNaught: Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes. 11 yes. That motion passes. I'll give you a moment to catch up Mr. Clark. I know we've been moving quickly from... Let me know when you're ready. Okay, um, okay, so next we have is, as I stated before, um, rule 32, um, and we have proposed amendments by counselor and council McMaster we'll start with you. Council really as your document is still up. Thank you Mr. chairman. Um. I had, I'm proposing to add to rule 32.

▶ 2:07:36 Leila Migliorelli: Um, a requirement that all filings from the mayor or other city officials must include a written statement or memorandum detailing the intent of the filing and any impacts to the city's finances of applicable. I think we can all agree that it's helpful as we're headed into meetings to have some description, the company in order that describes what we're supposed to be voting on. even if it's something that gets voted on every year annually as is i think there still needs to be a description that's provided to the public um and then particularly if there's impact on the city's finances i know that over the course of time and being on the council um that's often one of the top questions that we we ask of the administration or any other city official is what

▶ 2:08:19 Leila Migliorelli: what the impact is. So I really think that adding this to rule 32 is important. I did, however, I am also proposing to strike this amendment in support of, or that is proposing a minority vote of councillors to prohibit having an order in front of the council without documentation. I am in favour of the concept of it or the spirit of this edit to ensure that we do have documentation, any subsequent documentation that a department head might add it later on so i think um if i'm reading this correctly it's intended that once an order has been filed um when it goes to committee that there should if there's any other documentation that's being added by um any anyone on the city administration side that it is provided to

▶ 2:09:22 Leila Migliorelli: the council um with 48 hours of notice um i agree with that but i don't think i i am not inclined at At this moment to support it with just a minority group of counselors invoking that order. I think we can always. Hold in committee, I think that's always an option if we feel like it should not be done at that time, but I am willing to listen to discussion on this. Um, but feel very strongly about the 1st, part of the amendment, which is adding a written statement to accompany all workers. and so um i know um i know what your proposed amendment is are you making a motion or are we just on discussion um i think i just making a motion to add that sentence it let's let's um vote on adding the sentence into the first paragraph to see and that can be on discussion as

▶ 2:10:29 Jeff McNaught: well of course and then we can tackle the second part later okay parse it out all right so right now we're just voting on the um additional line added to the first paragraph of rule 32 um by councilor Migliorelli which reads all filings from the mayor or other city officials must include a written statement or memorandum dealing with the intent of the filing and any impacts that the city's finances if applicable councilor Migliorelli made a motion um Mr. Chair, for purposes of discussion, I will second the motion. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Any further discussion on that additional line? Councillor McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you to Councillor Migliorelli for this proposal, and I appreciate parsing

▶ 2:11:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: it out. I think that this does make sense because I'm amenable to that sentence and would like at the appropriate time to be heard on the second paragraph as to why I support that. But the reason I like this addition by Councilman Migliorelli is I think ironically it's very much within the spirit of what the special committee is looking to do in that second paragraph. I think it makes sense. I think as a committee we were somewhat short-sighted in that we didn't apply this also to matters that were filed, to matters when they are filed by the administration. So, I think the expectation here is absolutely suited for what we're looking to do with this proposed rule here, which is to ensure that when something is filed by the administration,

▶ 2:12:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: it's just not words on an agenda, that it also includes a summary. And as Consula Migliorelli has here in her suggested uh amendment um that a statement with respect to any impacts on the city's finances so i think that that makes sense i think that strengthens uh the rule uh i would certainly uh support uh that sentence uh as amended is currently on the floor okay council mcmaster looking for other hands vice chair eccles i'm i'm also supportive of this i think just since since we i don't know if we'll come back to it it's worth mentioning just on context of what we did in the special committee um we changed tuesday to wednesday which which i was um sort of i i didn't totally agree with that and i'm not

▶ 2:13:20 Jack Eccles: offering an amendment at this time i'm just kind of offering some context on some of the changes that were made to this but i i do support this because i think it solves kind of the problem that we were trying to solve in the previous about the resume and statement of interest of just in my two years you know we've encountered some stuff where it comes before us with little context um so i'm happy to hopefully codify that requirement a little bit more thank you vice chair heckles so uh seeing no other hands raised um We did have Councillor Stewart seconded this, so Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll just for that first additional line in Rule 32? Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice-Chair Eccles?

▶ 2:14:20 Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor McNaught? Yes. Councillor McNaught? Yes. yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor Stewart yes councillor Thomas yes councillor Jamal adeem yes and president Samela yes that's 11 yes motion passes now we're on to paragraph 2 of rule 32 I I suppose Councilor McLarelli has already spoken to this. Councilor McMaster, you have to a degree as well. How do you want to handle a discussion on this? Councilor McMaster? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just be heard on the second paragraph. This is one part of the rules, probably the part of the rules that I personally feel the most strongly about.

▶ 2:15:38 Shawn M. MacMaster: I do think this is 1 rule that I can speak on behalf of of the committee that we spend a lot of time and thought on debated. And I think this rule passed without any hesitation after a very deliberate process. And to Councilman Migliorelli point about a minority of councillors, what I would argue here is that legislative bodies at all levels of government have rules that protect the interest of a minority group of councillors. So, whether that's at the State House here in Massachusetts, both in the House of Representatives, in the Senate here in the Commonwealth, or in Congress, Both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, we see it particularly in the Senate and it plays out all the time. It's not unusual that there is one or more rules that protect the interest of a minority group of counselors that they are not prejudiced in being

▶ 2:16:40 Shawn M. MacMaster: forced to move forward on a matter that a group of counselors are not ready to move forward on. Um, what I would also suggest is we do have precedent in our old rules, the former rule 35. this is, uh, in the current, um, rules of order. If I could just, uh, Mr chairman, just read that for a moment just to demonstrate that. We do have precedent, um, in our, in our own, uh, rules. For a similar type of, uh, rule that provides. Um, protection, uh, protection, the rights. Of of consulates that may be in the minority and, uh. Can indulge me 1, 2nd, Mr chair while I find this. If I could read this, Mr chair upon the report. Upon the report of a committee recommending the passing of any ordinance order or resolution, it shall be read a 2nd time and shall then be in order for final action. Unless there is objection on the part of not less than 5 Alderman.

▶ 2:17:51 Shawn M. MacMaster: it shall be the duty of the president to ask if there is objection before consideration if not less than five all them and object it shall be placed in the orders of the day for the next meeting appointments and city officials by the mayor are not included in connection with the after set essentially what this rule recognizes is that any counselor could invoke rule 35 the current rule 35 if a counselor has concerns about pulling something out a committee on a particular night and that you would only need five counselors in order to prevent that from happening again that is so not as to deprive a minority group of counselors on a particular issue that may not feel ready to have something go before the full council that same

▶ 2:18:35 Shawn M. MacMaster: night i would say that this is really no different and again it's not it's not unusual for legislative bodies to have uh a rule like this so um i would i would ask that we um keep that language as is what i would be willing to do at the appropriate time uh mr chairman is um i do have um in writing uh suggested language that i provided uh to uh the clerk which is attached to iqm2 and within that first and i'm not make i'm not making a motion at this time i just want to be heard on it uh but just so um my colleagues know any written documents um right now in my uh amendment i would be this is in the second uh paragraph of rule 32 i would be striking out the language in support of a filing or communication from the mayor

▶ 2:19:33 Shawn M. MacMaster: in inserting any written document submitted by the administration to make it clear that what we're talking about here are any subsequent memos documents presentations anything that is provided to the council after that original order has been filed in which they're under the amendment that we just accepted by council of migliorelli in which there's some initial type of documentation so what we're saying is that any additional documentation which is not unusual that we've seen before that has been provided um uh sometimes up to an hour before a meeting uh that if a document uh is submitted one or more and um counselors uh do not feel comfortable moving forward a minority group of counselors that somebody could invoke that rule

▶ 2:20:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: What I would further consider doing is changing, and this is in my amendment, what we had at the committee level was that would then require an affirmative vote of four councilors before the full body or three councils and committee. To raise that standard and in the spirit of compromise based on what Councilor Migliorelli cited, I'd be willing to increase that to five before the full council and three before the committee. I had thought about this, really reflected upon this, and I do think that although it raises the standard in order to have a matter held at the committee level by a minority group of counselors, it still protects the rights of a minority group of counselors. So, and the other thing I'd be willing to do just in fairness to the administration is add language that that makes it clear that this would not apply to the annual budget because we certainly don't want this rule to be used for any other purpose than what it's intended.

▶ 2:21:33 Shawn M. MacMaster: And that is attachments to orders that come before the council general orders, which there is documentation that is submitted late. So I just put that out there. and I would ask for some indulgence by members that perhaps had some initial concerns upon reading that rule for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Councillor McMaster. I asked Mr. Clerk to pull up your Rule 32. Is this the version you're speaking to? I believe it is. Councillor McMaster is going to meet Yes, it is Mr. chairman and I haven't made a motion yet because I would be interested in hearing what council and other councilors have to say, but what I would do, and I would submit this as you've requested of other members.

▶ 2:22:37 Shawn M. MacMaster: Mr. chairs, I would add 1 word before submitted, which is any written document independently submitted by the administration. i would add that and then uh further down in the document at the appropriate time depending on the discussion that that we have um i would uh add in language that uh would just make it clear um that this does not apply to the end this rule does not apply to the annual budget um so i just put that out there for the purpose of the discussion to see if that ameliorates uh any of uh councilman Migliorelli's concerns uh and uh i'll stop at this point on that thank you all all right thank you council mcmaster does anyone have any discussion or questions um on councillor mcmaster's suggestions again we don't have a motion on the floor from

▶ 2:23:31 Jeff McNaught: either councillor Migliorelli or council mcmaster but you've seen both their versions um i think collectively i'll speak for myself i like uh what both of them bring i like what the line that council Migliorelli added um i'm in favor of um the amended language that council mcmaster's provided for the second paragraph and i think together they go very well um because i think it's important that you get that memo at the beginning no matter how short it is that council Migliorelli is asking for um stating what you're getting um i think we can all agree that that would be helpful and then um it you know notwithstanding the budget um if it is another order where there's a lengthy presentation or memorandum um i do think 48 hours is is reasonable

▶ 2:24:27 Christopher Cinella: um president sonella did you have your hand up thank you i i understand the intent uh with this but i just feel like a simple majority should suffice to hold something in committee if counselors are not happy with the timeline in which they received documents. And sometimes we get stuff during the day and I guess, you know, we can think of several examples where this might have come into play and I think can play out on the sides of things and issues that we've had to deal with i think that is something pressing get information within the day and folks you know if you get a simple majority to say one person to make the case to get the simple majority to hold something should suffice thank Thank you, President Sinella. Any other? Vice Chair Eccles?

▶ 2:25:44 Jack Eccles: Yeah, I definitely, if I wasn't noted, the Center had a few issues with this, similar to what Councilor Sinella said. You know, I'm of the opinion that there are times that it would be appropriate to hold something in committee if the hour is late or people feel we need more information, but I'm also familiar, and this is not necessarily with any particular instance we've encountered here, but at every level of government where delay is in minority rule is often used by the people who would not like what is proposed to prevail. I'm generally lean on the not giving the minority of the body a chance to hold something up if the majority is in favor. and and we have a lot of super majority thresholds in our votes built in just statutorily anyway um

▶ 2:26:40 Robb Stewart: so we couldn't move forward with something so i'm i'm in favor of this amendment i i had issues with with this language in the rules committee so i'll be voting in favor in favor of oh good point there's no there's no there's a yeah there's no motion yet proposed i believe counselor stewart was next thank you mr chair so i um i just wanted to uh surmise uh councilman mcmaster's statement so that it's clear um by by reading what i captured so it's any written document independently submitted by the administration including documents prepared by department head or other city employee at the final said matter but not including any documentation submitted for the of the annual budget shall be transmitted electronically

▶ 2:27:39 Robb Stewart: to the council or committee there at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, which the matter is scheduled to be heard on invocation of this rule by any counselor and the subsequent affirmative vote of not less than five counselors, which is the amended suggestion he's made or the affirmative vote of not less than three counselors when a matter is before standing committee and agenda and it may be postponed. So that in the council who vote this role, it should be recorded. So, I, I think this is a fair compromise. I think it is in the spirit of what we were discussing in committee. This was something that, as I recall, we spent a lot of time on. And there's a bit of back and forth, but we did come to agreement that.

▶ 2:28:28 Jeff McNaught: This was was important for the very reasons that console master stated. And, um, I think this is a reasonable. Amendment a compromise to to this. Thank you. Mr. Thank you. Councilor Stewart. I think what I would also say is the rule should never have to be invoked. The rule was created. So that the council could get documents timely. And people could have time to review them. That said, you can also. The rule doesn't have to be invoked. Um, you could receive a document within 24 hours. It's easily digest digestible and. The meeting goes on, so it's really only there to safeguard against receiving again, a very large memorandum or a presentation that comes in really, really late. And, you know.

▶ 2:29:31 Jeff McNaught: If all, but 5 counselors get to see it before a meeting begins and, um. They're uncomfortable moving forward. I don't think it's unfair to say, hey, pump the brakes and I understand the hold and committee argument, but I think this rule is important to. We don't, we don't get memorandums. We don't get documents in advance. That's why this rule is important. I'll just say it plainly. We really don't. Sometimes we don't get any at all. So, I think the spirit of some of the rules that have been revised or rewritten are to help with that. and this is probably the one that's meant to help with that the most. So I'm in favor of Councilor McMaster's revisions. Councilor McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:30:21 Shawn M. MacMaster: Just to one point made by Councilor Eccles, which I do appreciate, but I think the point of generally being supportive of the will of the majority, I think all of us would agree with that until you're in the minority. So this is actually a rule that at some point in time would benefit every councilor if it's ever invoked. And I think that the key word here is if. Again, I will point back to rule 35, a rule protecting the interests of minority members who aren't prepared to go forward exists in the current rules. And I've been on the council since 2018, that has never once been invoked. And I think most of you know that I'm not a fan of pulling something out of committee The same night anyways, generally recently, with respect to the, the firefighters contract, I was for the reasons I stated at that time. But I, I agree.

▶ 2:31:18 Shawn M. MacMaster: I think this is more about changing the culture. It's about making it clear to the administration as does the amendment that we just passed to this particular rule put forth by constantly constantly. What it does is it, it makes it clear the administration does an expectation. The expectation is that if you're going to file an order that information is attached to that order and there's any subsequent information attached at a later point. It should be within 48 hours of the meeting and that, depending on the nature of it. A member who does not feel comfortable moving forward on it could invoke the rule. But it wouldn't, it wouldn't require the vote of 5. Counselors when the matters before the full body, or 3 consoles 3 consoles and committee, those are 2 can set concessions that that I would make to raise the to raise the standard.

▶ 2:32:13 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, again, I guess the only other thing I would say is that if this rule isn't working, or if we feel like it's not being revised, excuse me if it's not being applied. Appropriately, anyone can file amendment to it. And in fact, if we feel like it's being used inappropriately as someone feel strongly about it, I would be happy to co sponsor that with somebody at the time who shares those concerns. Because that's not the intent. The intent is to really to change the culture and hopefully the existence of the rule will prevent late filings. Of course, we'll still get some. I think his counselor or as Jeremy not said, some of it may be easily digestible, but it's when there's, you know, there's a lot of information on the complicated issue and you have a minority group of counselors who want to be able to do their due diligence.

▶ 2:33:06 Shawn M. MacMaster: And not being able to review it. If you're working all day and something submitted while you're at work now, and it may be something, you know, and I think this is important. There have been times that there have been orders. I haven't felt comfortable because of late filings completely going forward on, but I haven't been opposed to them. I haven't been opposed to essentially what is being proposed. However, I would have liked more time to do my due diligence as a, as a counselor and being able to ask the questions up front of the administration and get answers to questions and maybe ask for more information. So, um, this, this is 1 that I think we could always revisit if it's not working and if, uh, constantly would graciously, uh, allow me and I don't want to deprive her of the ability to amend further.

▶ 2:33:55 Maya Jamaleddine: But if she would be gracious enough to allow me to make an amendment, I would then make an amendment based on on the other issues that that I have raised. So I'll stop at this point and see how constantly really feels. I can go to you, Councilor Migliorelli. I have Councilor Jamaleddine next, but if you wanted to respond first. Yeah, I'm fine with others asking questions. I can respond after. Thank you. Councilor Jamaleddine? Thank you, Chair. I wanted to echo my fellow councillors and just say you know we're all um have a full-time job and uh we need that and we have responsibility to uh before we make the decision because we are representing all our um you know constituents matters residents and we're making really um important decisions for this community so we

▶ 2:34:59 Mark Garipay: want to make sure that the decision that we're making uh we have full understanding uh of the impact on our community and residents um so i'm uh in support for of this amendment and i want to thank um uh councillor mcgarley and councillor mcmaster councillor did you have your hand up a minute ago yes i did uh i did mr chair i uh the only thing i just wanted to say is you know we're all we're all on the council um we don't want to uh hold things up um You know, we, we want to move things forward and I think we all, we all agree. We're all, we're all working towards that. But we also have an obligation to have the information in a timely manner and to be able to feel comfortable with the votes in which we're taking.

▶ 2:35:56 Mark Garipay: So, I mean, the, the, the thought that, you know, 4 or 5 council is. Um, or a 3, 3, or whatever the amendment is, I don't think there's not an amendment out there right now because it's very confusing, but you should have the opportunity if you don't feel comfortable making a vote. It's not because we want to hold things up. It's because you want to make the right vote for the community and the constituents and the residents that we represent. So that's that's the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, vice chair Eccles. Yeah, just just something, um, that I remember discussing in the rules committee and I still feel this way. Um. When we hear something in committee, it's generally been placed down the Thursday before a regular meeting of the city council, unless it's being heard on immediate consideration. So.

▶ 2:36:49 Jack Eccles: You know, that doesn't include any appointments or any financial transactions, because those aren't eligible. And so. oftentimes when we're hearing it we've had the order in iqm2 for at least a week oftentimes more um and i know i've done this in the past and i know my colleagues have as well is that if you feel that there's not adequate information presented with the order that you reach out and ask for more um or or any clarifying questions so i think that you know a week before hearing something before the council is is plenty of time to gather more information and then i i feel that if there has been inadequate information provided we could build a consensus around holding in committee and that's what i said in the rules committee and i still feel that way

▶ 2:37:41 Shawn M. MacMaster: counselor mcmaster yes mr chairman i actually completely agree with the point made by counselor uh eccles with the exception of information that doesn't account for information that is filed late independently by the administration that may be a few hours before uh a council meeting so that it may not give us the time to wrap our individual and collective heads around something new that that was filed by the administration so to council echo's point i certainly agree that there is that time from the initial filing to ask questions but if something is submitted um not within 48 hours there may not be that that ability to to really do so am i Am I missing anyone? Oh, councilor McAleer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think I'm actually in favor of all the arguments for getting this information in a timely manner in getting it prior to 48 hours before meeting.

▶ 2:39:00 Leila Migliorelli: I'm just and I'm not actually concerned necessarily about the makeup of this council in terms of, you know. Holding up something, it's just a matter of. President, I know I know counselor McMaster said it another rule in which there was a, you know, there's a minority option. To to hold something, um, I, I just, I'm uncomfortable with that part of it. So it's, it's really, it's not so much that. Um, I disagree with the spirit of the order. I totally completely agree that we shouldn't be looking at something, you know, within a couple hours before a meeting and have to digest that and be prepared to talk about it. Um. i although i am appreciative of um counselor mcmaster's amendments to increase the number from

▶ 2:39:50 Leila Migliorelli: you know four to five and particularly from from two to three as i worry that that could end up being obstructionist not necessarily this council um but counselors you know moving councils moving forward i i think it's hard or i think it's incumbent on us to think about these rules um outside of ourselves or anyone else on the council currently you know i i like to when i'm writing you know policy and such for during my day job that's i you know write it as imagining none of the players are involved um the current players involved and will this still stand and hold up um you know to be honest i so i i guess what i'm interested is hearing from the council is You know, whether the, the increase from 4 to 5 and 2 to 3 is, is a compromise that others can can deal with or if there's some other.

▶ 2:40:48 Leila Migliorelli: You know, compromise worked here that we could just have it be majority rule and then it needs to be 48 hours in advance of the meeting. I don't know that. I'm. i think even if i were in the minority um on a particular issue i think i don't know that i would have a problem with it if i were overruled i i mean i think that's how we're operating is that a majority of the council is what is used to guide decision makings for the city um and i so it's just that piece of it it's it's definitely i i i definitely agree with us getting the information and a timely fashion in order to debate a topic i'm just still a little bit on the fence about the minority vote but i'm happy to to take a vote um and let or let others more on discussion here

▶ 2:41:43 Maya Jamaleddine: councillor Jamaleddine for the chair i'm i'm not sure if i'm understanding councillor miguel early if you can just explain to me what is it that you're not comfortable with um i do understand um the point of um you know like minority not putting it on hold and not um deciding not to move forward and just put it on hold for to take more time to uh revise the order before us um but i'm not understanding um what is exactly that makes you hesitant um For the lack of better word through the chair, if I may respond, I think, because in my mind, when I 1st, read this, my thought was, well, we have, we always have. The option to hold in committee, so if we were to, let's say there's an order before us and.

▶ 2:42:45 Leila Migliorelli: The administration provides a last minute 5. page memo to go along with the order and they do it you know 12 hours before the meeting um when that comes to the meet when it comes to the meeting you have anyone has the option anyone has the option to motion to hold in committee for lack of information or or more time needing more time to review the documentation that was presented to the council and that holds in committee motion passes upon a majority vote of the committee, where this is saying that it does not need the majority of the committee to hold it. It only needs the, it's only a vote of three. So I think it's that piece of it that I just, I'm just confused or it seems unnecessary to me

▶ 2:43:36 Jeff McNaught: to create another order when we do have the ability to hold in committee. I hope that helps answer the question. So I had previously proposed to just strike this entire paragraph, but I am considering. Counselor McMaster's edits here, um, as a possibility. If I may again, I think bringing it up to 4, 5 and 3, I think is a big help. I agree with that as well. Um, and I think the reason I'm okay with 5, as opposed to the simple 6 is. Again, what the purpose of the rule is, it's meant to be a deterrent. I mean, let's just call it what it is. Um. We need information sooner. Um. And again, it's not always going to be invoked and even when it is invoked, it's not necessarily going to pass even requiring 5, but it will be on the minds of folks who.

▶ 2:44:34 Maya Jamaleddine: to get the council information and that's me someone who won't be here in a few weeks thinking about future councils uh knowing how important it is to get information um in advance um i think it's a good compromise council jamal Jamaleddine were you done i know i just started speaking but i'm getting delirious at this point no no worries i appreciate the um you know discussion that's going on i actually i think this is what is proposed it will serve um our residents and constituents uh to and to be more transparent and give them uh the time um the appropriate time uh to be able uh you know like if i don't feel comfortable voting on an order regardless if i am supportive or opposing i need the appropriate time to revise it and i feel

▶ 2:45:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: if i can it is the right call it's fair enough if i would suggest to hold it and i think um the number that is proposed by councilor mcmaster would serve um to emphasize the request and the amendment that is uh before it you know that was just proposed thank you um i have council mcmaster and then councillor stewart thank you mr chairman i'll just make one final uh point here one final argument and i appreciate consular general dean's uh comments and i think what she's alluding to is that if a minority group of counselors um are compelled to move forward by a majority of councillors that the the those in the minority are essentially in a almost an impossible position is you you either have to vote no even though you don't really want to vote no

▶ 2:46:32 Shawn M. MacMaster: you're just looking for more information uh or uh you abstain which you're not completely comfortable doing because you're not again you're not you're not against it or you have to vote yes and as Council of John Muldean said, you're voting yes, but you're not completely comfortable doing so. So I think it puts the minority of councils in an almost impossible position with a late filing. And then the last thing I would say just to Councilman Migliorelli point about the majority is that if we play it out practically speaking, what that would mean is let's say we just for for i know we've used five a five-page memo as an example if we receive a five-page memo whether it's 47 hours in advance of the meeting or 10 minutes before a meeting you have six

▶ 2:47:24 Shawn M. MacMaster: counselors who were able to digest it and wrap their heads around it but you have five counselors who weren't able to do that the idea that six members would then put five members in that impossible position of either having to vote something on something that they don't feel fully prepared to vote on maybe they're not against but they're not fully prepared they haven't done their due diligence or voting no when they're not necessarily against it or abstaining for a similar reason i just don't think that meets the the interests that minority rules serve in any legislative body so that's the last thing i would say um i would be prepared if there is an objection if there's no objection from council and the rally since we don't have another motion

▶ 2:48:06 Shawn M. MacMaster: on the floor to make uh a motion um with respect to my uh further amendment rule 32 um but with the permission of the chair and if there's no objection from council Migliorelli would just like an opportunity just to make it clear what that amendment would be if it if if that is seconded and if it passes um great if it doesn't then i think we could move on to council Migliorelli's further amendment um that might be the i guess the most equitable way of doing it since we since we have competing uh amendments uh does that is that um satisfactory to you mr chairman and would you consent to that council miguel through the chair through the chair i think that's a i think that's a good motion move forward way to move this forward at 10 o'clock at night yes

▶ 2:48:56 Shawn M. MacMaster: DARYL FOX, Okay. So, Council McMaster, you've made your motion for your further amendments, which are before us now for Rule 32. MICHAEL MCMASTER, Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's just-and I think I had referenced this earlier-I would add the word independently in the first sentence before submitted. So it would read any document independently submitted by the administration so you add the word independently i would submit that to the clerk as you constructed other consulates to do and uh one very uh slight oral amendment um the second paragraph the last sentence i would uh add uh Uh, invocation of this rule shall not apply. To the annual budget, so if we could add the word independently before submitted.

▶ 2:49:59 And add on a new sentence at the end of the 2nd paragraph that says invocation of this rule shall not apply to the annual budget. I would make that a motion to amend. rule 32 as proposed by the special committee on the on the rules of order at this time excuse me second okay um we have counselor mcmaster's motion to move forward his edits to rule uh 32 further edits and seconded by council Grigoraitis on discussion seeing no further discussion mr clerk will you please call the roll chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes councillor tremendous yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay council Garipay yes sir councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor bigley rally yes Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes.

▶ 2:51:25 Jen Grigoraitis: Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Cinella? Yes. That's 11 yes. Motion passes. Our next rule, we can pull this one down, Mr. Clerk, and we're going to pull up Councillor Grigoraitis' Rule 41. Three more to go, folks. we can do it thank you mr chair i'll start speaking sorry i have a bit of a cold um so this was just to rule 41 just adding language recognizing that since we've basically been a remote body for almost two years um how we would go about the request to have a motion put in writing when we are not all physically in the same place it seems like that was worth correcting um so i just added in a sentence saying in a remote meeting format written motions shall be emailed to the clerk of committees and or city clerk for distribution to the counselors to be appropriate

▶ 2:52:36 and available electronically i know this is something that has yet to be invoked in our two years together but um just felt like it was an opportunity to um recognize that we now meet in different formats thank you i'm happy to make a motion for um Recommendation of this amendment for discussion. Okay, now we're talking. All right. I don't see any discussion. So, um. We just scroll through the Hollywood squares here. 1 more time. Good to go. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the roll? Chairman thought yes. Vice chair, yes. Counselor yes. Counselor McMaster. Yes, Councillor. Yes, counselor, yes. Council of counselor. Yes, counselor Stewart. Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes. Counselor. Yes, and president.

▶ 2:53:54 Yes, that's 11. Yes. All right the motion passes everybody remember you get to send your own. Amendments to clerk Gabriel next up we have. Council McMaster's rule 48. Thank you. Mr. Chairman if the clerk could pull that up. This is a relatively benign 1. Is it when we get down to the candidate or a current member of that section? Council McMaster you're on mute. Sorry, my apologies. I'm only seeing rule 32 up here. Can is the clerk able to scroll down to rule 48? I can't do it for some reason on my screen. can you see it now no but let me see if i can pull it up it's just a matter of adding two words um can everyone see me scrolling or is that just me seeing me scrolling oh man i thought i was helping you all the whole time i supposed to roll 48 on my screen

▶ 2:55:19 Shawn M. MacMaster: i have rule i have rule 32 but um i should i should be able to pull this up momentarily Through the through the, I, I can see it. I'm not sure if other counselors are able to see that. Well, it's just the 2 words that are in rule 48. Yeah, is that instead of a candidate replaced by a current member? Yeah, that's what I see too. Yeah, for some reason, I don't see it, but essentially, yes. Thank you. Council the general being for for the reminder. There it is. It's simply adding 2 words. To the, the 2nd, I'm sorry the 3rd paragraph, which is 1 sentence striking the word candidate and at and adding in current member. The reason I wanted to do that upon further reflection is what we don't want to do is deprive a new member of the Council from the opportunity to seek the presidency if he or she desires.

▶ 2:56:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: I think an example of that is Councilor Grigoraitis, who both Councilor Fermentozi and I know appreciated her stewardship and how well she did in her general leadership her first year, coming in without any prior experience sitting through a council meeting, and certainly not chairing a committee. So, I think it's fitting here to add a current member, recognizing that any new member is a member just like any one of us, regardless of how long we've been on the council. and also recognizes um that you may have uh individual consulates who are new uh who are able to um you know really steer the the council uh in the right direction as as president uh preside uh in a in a a really strong uh fashion uh as president as as consular gregaritis did so

▶ 2:57:23 at this time what i would uh do mr chairman is make a motion to uh to recommend passage of rule 38 as amended here by adding in current member striking the word candidate a second okay um so we have councillor mcmaster's uh proposed amendment to rule 48 uh striking the word candidate adding in current member am i missing anything else there councillor mcmaster that is all mr chairman thank you and seconded by council chairman tozy on discussion hang in there president um mr clerk will you please call the role chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes Councillor Tramontozzi yes Councillor McMaster yes Councillor Garipay yes Councillor Grigoraitis yes Councillor Migliorelli yes Councillor Stewart yes Councillor Thomas yes Councillor

▶ 2:58:47 Jen Grigoraitis: Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Cinella? Yes. 11 yes. Motion passes. We're down to our last proposed amendment, which is Councilor Grigoraitis' Rule 54. Thank you, Chair McNaught. I am proposing that we add two words to Rule 54, which is in the last sentence, this is regarding what the council will do event of a vacancy for the city clerk or clerk of committees um that to change it to thereafter the nominating committee shall recommend up to three candidates for consideration by the full council just to ensure flexibility should there not be two candidates um if there are two or one or four um that we would then whittle that down so i would that was my um requested amendment was to add in up to and for purposes of discussion i would motion to recommend this amendment second

▶ 2:59:49 have any discussion i see no discussion uh mr clerk uh well first we have a motion by council gregor Grigoraitis to um with her proposed amendment to rule 54 stating that the nominating committee shall recommend up to three candidates for consideration by the full council second date seconded by uh vice chair eccles mr clark will you please call the roll chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes Yes, counselor greatest. Yes. Counselor, yes. Counselor Stewart yes. Counselor Thomas yes. Counselor, yes. And president, yes. Yes, motion passes. Thank you Mr clerk for that. We have, um, I suppose we have to do a, uh, a motion.

▶ 3:01:31 Shawn M. MacMaster: Council McMaster yes, Mr. I was going to make a motion to, um, to, uh, recommend, um, the order as amended. Uh, but 1st, if I could just have a very brief moment of personal privilege, I just want to thank all of the members, uh, of, uh, of the council for, uh, thoughtful insight and, uh, discussion tonight. And I particularly want to thank Councilor Migliorelli and Councilor Grigoraitis for their amendments. I do think the amendments as passed make a stronger order. So, and I think I can speak on behalf of all members of the Special Committee on the Rules of Order that that is really what we were looking to do is not get to perfection, but get to really as close to perfection as we could, understanding that our colleagues would have ideas to really strengthen what it is that will govern

▶ 3:02:24 Shawn M. MacMaster: this council next term in years moving forward. The last thing I would say to that is that I think this is what the public expects of us and this isn't legislation before, it's just the rules, but I think this is a really good demonstration. I think for the members of the public who have watched the two and a half hours of this or maybe just caught a portion of it, I think we've all demonstrated collaboration collegiality compromise with some really thoughtful and strong debate put forth by everyone and I think that's what people expect of us I think what we all agree on whether it's our rules of order or a piece of legislation or anything else that comes before us is you know we are doing this to get the work done right and so I just want to thank everyone because

▶ 3:03:07 Christopher Cinella: I do think that this was a very thoughtful process not just leading up to tonight but but particularly tonight by everyone. And so with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to recommend for passage as amended this evening. Second. Mr. Chair, I'll second that. Okay, so we have a motion to recommend the rules as amended, made by Councilor McMaster, seconded by Councilor Grigoraitis. We have President Cinella. I just had one question on one of the rules, if I may. It's too late for that. I'm kidding. No, it's not. Rule 35A, just some clarity around that. Matter is introduced to the full council with a recommendation for passage from any standing or special committee. Period of discussion shall be in order before a motion for passage is entertained

▶ 3:04:05 Shawn M. MacMaster: by the president or any other presiding or any other member presiding on behalf of the president. What is the point of that? If you're pulling something up out of the committee. The night of it's on discussion through the chair. Council McMaster, do you want to respond? Yes. Mindful that we do have a motion on the floor and deference to the president and certainly in continued spirit of what we're trying to do here tonight. This was filed by or proposed by counselor Stewart to the extent that he wants to certainly let him. speak to the intent of it so maybe i would defer to counselor stewart but what i would say is that from my from my position on this rule is if you vote in committee a certain way

▶ 3:05:04 Shawn M. MacMaster: and if information becomes available when this matter comes before full counts before the full council that may result in somebody having cause or that raises additional questions whether or not they've heard from constituents or there are um you know there's new information that has learned that was unknown or unavailable at the time that a counselor voted or that that this came out of committee it would allow that counselor to um to be heard on it before um uh before the vote um it It doesn't change the fact that if anyone's looking to amend an order, which I think was consulates do its intent. That's a privilege motion that has to happen. Anyways, it would be include any other information.

▶ 3:05:58 Leila Migliorelli: Counselors to it, thank you. Mr. chair. Um, in addition to what, uh, console McMaster said. Uh, it also gives the opportunity for. Uh, somebody to represent and provide any feedback from any constituents that may have had feedback based on. What came out of committee? Thank you. Mr. chair. I was just looking back through my notes on the orders. Um, and I had made a similar note that. Whether 35 a was needed because. In practice and procedurally when, um, an item when the committee chair pulls an item up. Reads the motion the president always says on discussion, and that gives the opportunity to have that discussion there. So it just seems like this was my, my take on it. Looking back. I thought it was unnecessary. Like, or just redundant.

▶ 3:07:01 Christopher Cinella: Thank you. Council really? So. Is there going to be a motion to amend 35? Because if there is, then we have to pull back or hold aside Council McMaster's motion to recommend the amended rules. President Cinella. Yeah, I just wanted clarity around it. Just, it seems. That rule kind of exists in a sense. Even if something's actually on the agenda and. Turn to the chair of a committee and they say this comes from. Such and such with the recommendation of passage, make that motion. Someone seconds. It was now on discussion. Or another counselor would say, you know, I was in favor of that, but actually, since then. New information from constituents and come forward. Here's why. Just go from there. I'm not going to make a motion.

▶ 3:08:13 Take this out or anything, but I just want some clarity. i'm just rereading the world now i'm done are you frozen no i was just rereading it look it's been a long night president sanella um especially for vice chair eccles he's been down on lower main since four o'clock um uh all right so anybody doing anything with 35a no so we're ready to move forward with uh council mcmaster's motion all smiles meeting up at kennedy's after nice mr clerk uh will you please call the roll chair mcmahon yes vice chair eccles yes councilor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor Jamaleddine

▶ 3:09:50 Jeff McNaught: and president snella yes that's 11 yes motion passes um so we did have one order left um that i think we may have to hold it was the original the first order of the evening that we moved orders up above a couple times because the director pro agus ellis wasn't we knew wouldn't be available at the time and um i don't know that it was going to be her representing that order anyway but um not seeing anyone else in the um waiting room so to speak attendee room um does anybody want to make a motion regarding order 2022-48 and appropriation from the ride share special revenue fund um for nine thousand forty nine dollars and twenty cents council mcmaster thank you mr chairman at this time i make a motion to hold in committee order 2022-48

▶ 3:10:57 until the time that the director of department of public works is available to come back before the committee second motion to hold in committee made by councillor mcmaster on 2022-48 seconded by councillor thomas seeing no discussion mr clark may please call the roll chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Sinello? Yes. That's 11 yes. motion passes um and that does conclude our business um for the evening entertaining share on the commotion to adjourn second motion to adjourn by councillor stewart

▶ 3:12:13 seconded by councillor jamala dean mr clark will you please call the role chair mcnaught yes vice chair Eccles yes councillor german tozi yes councillor mcmaster Yes, counselor. Yes, counselor. Yes. Counselor. Yes, counselor Stewart. Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes. Counselor. Counselor. All right, counselor Thomas. And president, yes, that's 11. yes. Motion passes. We are adjourned. Thank you for a very enjoyable evening. You got it. You got about an hour and. 48 minutes, 38 minutes left of cyber Monday. Go get them. Well, thank you.

Original documents

• Minutes (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda (IQM2 PDF)
• Bulletin (IQM2 PDF)
• Minutes packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda packet (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Other (CivicClerk PDF)
• This meeting on the city portal