City Council — February 12, 2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is Thursday, February 12th, 2026, 7:01 PM, the City Council chamber.

Opening of the City Council session is by myself, City Council President Ryan Pereira.

We are led in prayer this evening by Samuel Buongiorno, Associate Pastor, the Christian Fellowship Center.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you guys for having me.

It's a privilege to be with you.

Let's pray.

Thank you, Heavenly Father, that we come to you as children and not as strangers.

We come before you recognizing your greatness, your power, your knowledge, your immutability, your self-sustaining existence, but also your, your goodness, your kindness, your faithfulness, your justice.

We ask for your blessing on our city, the great city of New Bedford.

May we be a city where justice is carried out, where the laws are upheld, Let it also be a city of mercy where forgiveness is freely given and past wrongs do not define our futures.

May we be a city whose essence is not found in the order of our statutes, but in the character of individuals, of citizens, of neighbors who are bound to one another for the common good.

I thank you, Jesus, that this great hope for our city is a hope that originates in you and has been planted in every person's heart.

I thank you, Jesus, that you were the perfect citizen.

You upheld justice and you gave mercy.

You committed no wrong, yet you were punished as a criminal so that us criminals could be treated as citizens of heaven.

Lord, help us forgive others as you've forgiven us.

Help us to be good citizens because you undeservingly treat us as such.

Lord, bless these council members.

Give them wisdom and pure intentions as they seek the good of our community.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Amen.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

We are led in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight by Ward 1 City Councilor Leo Shokat.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I am joined in the chamber this evening by my colleagues, Councillor-at-Large Ian Abreu, Councillor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councillor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councillor of Ward 5 Joseph Lopes, Councillor-at-Large Brian Gomes, Councillor-at-Large James Roy, Councillor-at-Large Naomi Carney, Councillor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver, Councillor-at-Large Shane Burgo, and Councillor of Ward 4 Derek Baptiste.

I'd like to note that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and committee meetings can be viewed under the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

I will ask the clerk if there are any letters to be read into the record.

Council President Pereira, without a— oh, sorry, sorry, there are no letters to be read into the record.

Councilor Lopes, without objections, can we take items M3 through M10A and M13 and M14A out of order?

Adopt as presented and have the clerk read the— on the amount in the department that it's going from into.

And can you please repeat those?

M3 through M10A.

M3 through M10A?

Yes, sir, through M10A.

And then M13 and M14A.

So that's police, fire, OPEB stabilization, employment benefits, and EMS.

Okay, that motion has been made to adopt items M3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

It's been seconded.

I'll ask the clerk to just read the departments and the amounts, um, so that we have those transfers from free cash.

So I'll ask the clerk to read those out of order now.

Uh, M3 is $1,080,331 free cash to police personal services.

4 is $100,000 free cash to police capital outlay.

M5 is $25,625 from free cash to police salary purchase services.

M6 is $616,225 from free cash to pensions contributions.

M7 is $565,964 from free cash to open trust fund.

M8 is $410,817 from free cash to stabilization.

M9 is $350,000 from free cash to employees' benefits purchase of services.

M10 is $250,000 from free cash to public infrastructure purchase of services.

M13 and 14.

I can read those.

Okay.

M13 is $146,997 from free cash to EMS capital outlay, and M14 is $91,749 from free cash to EMS capital outlay.

Okay, thank you.

So the motion before us that has been made and seconded, as was read in, was to adopt all of these transfers as presented.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abram?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Chakab?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

So items M3 through 10A, 13 and 14A have passed 11 to 0.

I'll ask the clerk to read item M1, please.

M1, communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, submitting the attached updated City's Fund Policy Management— City's Fund Balance Management Policy.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

Either referral to committee or adoption of the policy.

Move to adopt.

Second.

Move to adopt the new policy made by Councilor Carney, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Any discussion on adoption of the policy?

Motion to refer to the Committee on Finance.

Second.

Motion to refer the new policy to the Committee on Finance.

It's been made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Any discussion on referral takes precedent as it is a referral to committee.

Okay, seeing no discussion, all those in favor of referring to Committee on Finance say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The item has been referred.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 2.

M2.

M2, communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, submitting an order for the transfer of $5,033,000 $7,282 from free cash to, um, capital— oh, Cable Access Stabilization Fund.

Refer to the Committee on Finance.

Refer to the Committee on Finance, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item M11, please.

Communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, submitting an order for the transfer of $60, $386 from free cash to public infrastructure purchase of services.

Same course of action.

Motion to refer the item to the— to Finance, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item M12, please.

M12, communication.

Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $175,000 from free cash to waste collection and disposal purchase of services.

Refer to Committee on Finance.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Finance made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Any discussion on referral?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Council President Perot, without objection, can we take items M15 through M18A and refer to the Committee on Finance?

Second.

Sure.

Items M15 through Without objection, items M15 through M18A refer to the Committee on Finance, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

I will ask the clerk just to read those amounts in the transfers too at this time, please.

M15 is $84,700 from free cash to tourism purchase of services.

M16 is $70,000 from free cash to recreation and parks purchase of services.

M17 is $63,662 from free cash to MIS purchase of services, and M18 is $17,610 from free cash to auditor's purchase of services.

So items M15 through M18A have been made to refer to the Committee on Finance, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

They've been read into the record.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item M19, please.

19.

M19, communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, submitting an order amending the order adopted by the City Council on June 26th, 2025, and signed by the mayor on July 9th, 2025, which in accordance with Mass General Laws Chapter 44, Section 53A½, the revolving fund other than the control of Park Recreation and Beaches Department known as a Supportive Recreation Revolving Fund, whose amount limited at $120,000 is hereby authorized at $135,000 for fiscal year 2026.

M19A is the order.

Second.

Motion adopt— move to adopt the order made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Any discussion on adoption?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item M20.

Without objection, we'll take items M20 and M21 together.

So moved.

Okay, without objection, I'll ask the clerk to read those 2 together, please.

M20, communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting the reappointment of Marcus Cowherd to the Human Rights Commission.

This term will expire December 28th, 2028.

M21 is communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting the reappointment of Yasmeen Gulati to the Zoning Board of Appeals as an alternate member This term will expire December 2030.

Motion to receive and place on file items M20 and M21, waive Rule 38 and waive Rule 40, and grant the reappointments.

Second.

So, well, motion has been made on items M20 and M21 to waive Rules 38 and 40 and confirm the reappointment made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Any discussion on these 2?

Without seeing no discussion, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

Councilor Ebro?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Burgill?

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Chiquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Item passes 11 to 0.

All right, we are moving on to new business.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 1, please.

Number 1 is an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the City Code relative to city council committees.

It was passed to a second reading on January 22nd, 2026.

Motion to be ordained.

Second.

Motion to ordain made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Roll call vote.

Oh, uh, we can take a roll.

Roll call, please.

No, roll call has been requested anyways.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Chiquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

Item passes 10 to 1.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 2, please.

Number 2, an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to accessory dwelling units passed to a second reading January 8th, 2026.

Same course of action.

Move to be ordained made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion?

Now this needs a roll call vote.

Councilor Avro?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste?

No.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

No.

No.

Councilor Chiquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes?

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Perer?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

It fails.

Item fails 7 to 4.

I'm going to ask Attorney Garatowski just inform us of something, if he could just speak to this, please.

Yeah, I don't have the law in front of me, but generally zoning laws take 8 votes.

There was a change in the law that only requires— for this type of zoning, um, only requires 6 votes to pass this, um, pertaining to accessory dwelling units.

That's, that's correct.

Okay, so, um, there's a, there's a series of different types that only— but I— what I'll do is I will check that to make sure.

Um, I think it's a passed vote with 6.

I'll check to make sure.

And we can then address it at— would your recommendation to the chair to announce it as a passed vote?

Yeah, I would, I would pass it now, and then before the meeting's over, I'll look up the law.

Oh, perfect.

Okay, okay.

Item passes 7 to 4.

Okay, I will ask the clerk to read item 3.

Number 3, an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to parking requirements, Appendix C. C, table of parking and loading requirements.

This one was passed to a second reading on January 8th, 2026.

Moved to be ordained by Councilor Burgow, seconded by Councilor Abram.

On the question, I see Councilor Choquette, please.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'm just going to rise quickly to explain why I will not be voting yes on this this evening.

You know, as the ward councillor, I don't get the luxury of looking at the forest for the forest.

I have to look at the individual trees.

That's what happens when you're the ward councillor of the largest ward in the city, and people think, or, you know, want to be heard.

And we had some folks in here a couple months back, and actually probably a couple weeks back.

Um, now I got nothing against development.

I am pro-economic development, and I don't care what anybody says about me based on this vote.

But I have some questions that still weren't answered.

Okay, you know, we got some serious tight side streets, and you see what a little snow does.

Okay, now yes, allowing developers to require half the lots in order to, you know, to, uh, get this through zoning will help develop the tax base.

I completely agree, and I do want to see the tax base developed, but it's also going to have the adverse effect of putting more cars out on the street because Nobody can guarantee that when you lease a unit to somebody, they're only going to have one car.

OK?

And I just want to use a little case study that is happening in my ward.

And I'm glad Chief Doty's here tonight, and he can attest to this, although I'm not going to call him up.

But we have a building called the Casey Miller Apartments on Phillips Road in my ward.

Wonderful folks live there.

It's senior housing.

Now, there are 48 units there.

With only 42 parking spots.

So this is a perfect example of what happens when there's a residential building with only a one-car-per-unit, you know, allowance.

We have all kinds of people parking out on the street, and we had to actually start enforcing the bike lanes that are out there on Phillips Road.

And we've had people ticketed and towed And, you know, when these buildings were built, they should have thought that, you know, you're going to have more people than just one person per unit show up.

There's primary care, personal care attendants that come who have to be allowed a place to park because they take care of the residents there.

That wasn't taken into account.

So I feel like, yes, we're rushing to judgment on this change in the law and And people like myself who do the constituent service are going to be left to clean up the mess when the parking is not enforced by the developers.

Just like whoever developed that Casey Miller apartment, their lawn gone in Costa Rica or someplace because the place was built 25 years ago.

And I'm the one that gets the calls.

So this is what's going to happen.

And as long as my colleagues are okay with this and they're willing to put in the work, then, you know, I, I understand why they'll be voting yes.

But I'm really worried about public safety in this city.

We've had 4 pedestrian deaths in 37 days by automobile, and we're going to stick more cars out there now?

Come on.

So we got to learn how to balance this stuff.

Maybe we should have went with 1.5 like Councilor Lopes and I had talked about, but That was shot down.

I think that this should have been a more gradual acclimation, a change.

Yes, changes have to happen because we have to build the tax base.

Yes, we want to make this developer-friendly and commercial business-friendly, but at what cost and at what speed?

So these are all questions that still have to be answered.

I'll get off my rotunda here and that's the end of my speech.

Thank you.

I yield, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor Choquette.

Anyone else on the question?

Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Um, I'm going to be brief.

There's just nowhere to park right now with, with everybody on the streets right now.

Multi-family houses that have multiple cars in on multiple floors, and you go down the street and we're, we're packed with them, and there's nowhere to park for people and families that don't have off-street parking.

So that's where we have the logjam up.

So it's a logjam with parking, it's a logjam for safety, it's a logjam for trash pickups.

Look at the snow, what happened this, you know, this show that happened last week.

You know, it's crazy.

And I think that Ward 4 is developing at a rapid rate and we're building a lot of apartment buildings up over here and we're not having adequate parking for the buildings that we're trying to put up over here.

And that's going to cause a disruption in the neighborhood because there's already a problem now with parking.

So now you're going to put these big buildings in these little spaces and then make— you know, you think that one person is going to have a car and a house.

You got to be— you got to be crazy.

How many cars are in your house?

You understand what I'm saying?

Ask everybody here how many cars are in their house.

How many people— how many of your kids got cars?

How many of their spouses got cars?

How many of their kids got cars?

And you're going to put extra cars and extra houses on the street?

I don't know.

Make it make sense.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else on the question?

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I also won't be voting for this tonight due to the fact that It's been said already in this room this evening, I support development.

I support a tax base in the city.

But at what cost?

At what cost to the quality of life within neighborhoods?

We are going to change the dynamics of this city passing this tonight.

And this only supports those that are developing.

That's who this supports.

Those that are developing these projects.

They're going to get away without the parking that should be there, and the parking is going to fall out into these neighborhoods, as it's been said.

And I can't support that, and I believe it will take away not only the quality of life, it will decrease the tax value of their properties due to the fact that these things are just being placed here.

You know, we need housing.

Yes, we do.

But tell the truth about the housing.

I'm the only one that's talked right about the housing in here.

Some others have talked, said what they have said, but the truth hasn't been told where all the housing is and why we have a shortage of housing.

But if you follow the statistics on the national level, you realize that housing is coming back somewhat in some places at about 11%.

I haven't really seen that here in the city of New Bedford, even with the housing that's going up, because again, that housing is not going to take care of what really needed to take care.

That's going to take care of those that want to live here, who can afford to live here and be here.

And those cars being on the streets and in these neighborhoods is going to affect the quality of life of those people in these neighborhoods.

And for that fact, I will not be voting for this tonight.

And it's not that I am also against development and getting a tax base, but I'm not going to sell the people of this city who have paid taxes and built their homes and all have their homes and paid their taxes for the luxury of some developers coming along and shortchanging the city as far as the parking is concerned, because we're going to put this in place.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on the question?

Councilor Burgos?

Okay.

Oh, that is a yes.

I'm sorry.

I cautioned to rise whether or not I wanted to say something or not.

It's just I'm frustrated because I feel as though a lot of work has gone into this.

And so my frustration comes from the feeling that we're passing something that the way it sounds as though we just came up with it overnight and now all of a sudden we're just passing it without any forethought.

There's been talk about this snow that has destroyed our city.

This is a snowstorm that we haven't seen in a decade.

It wasn't just a little bit of snow, which was referred to here tonight.

It was a lot of snow that has been met with extreme temperatures, which has not melted, which is why we're in the situation we're in.

So because this snow that has occurred during this month We now have to destroy this parking plan for the rest of the year in the summertime when it won't be there.

There was a remark made about this is something that will only support developers.

Sure, it will support development and developers, but in turn will support people who will be living in that type of housing.

We need development.

That's something we talk about all the time here in New Bedford is we need development.

And I do hear my colleague from Ward 4, parking is a concern.

It is something that we haven't seen in the past where homes have a whole fleet of vehicles.

But at the same time, too, we cannot just cater to these individuals that have a fleet of vehicles and say to those people sleeping on the street, sorry, continue sleeping on the street because I need these people to have a parking space.

So maybe sleep in your car because we'd rather have a parking space than a place to sleep at night.

So that's where my frustration comes from, is that the work that went into this— oh, the other comment I heard was maybe we should do 1.5.

If I'm— maybe I'll be corrected, but the project that they want to stop so badly, which is why they want to vote against this particular parking ordinance, I believe the parking that's being proposed is meeting that 1.5 requirement.

But I could be wrong.

What we've seen with some of these developments, even with the parking ordinance that's in place, they get variances and they ignore the parking requirement that's in place.

And none of my colleagues that are saying all these things about we need to be concerned about parking never show up to speak out against those variances that are offered.

This plan that's in place allows us to no longer allow those variances any further and now allows smaller developers that often don't have the money to come in and pay to get those parking requirements waived the opportunity to build in New Bedford and have a better opportunity that the bigger developers often come and blow through New Bedford to get.

So that's why this is actually an equitable plan.

Plan to help build and develop in New Bedford and to build housing for New Bedford.

But again, as I mentioned in my previous remarks, this isn't just about housing.

It's about commercial development too, about businesses and other issues that we need to fix with parking.

So we're going to throw out the baby with the bathwater over one situation that is being entirely mischaracterized.

So that's why I had to rise today, Mr. President, and that's all I'll share.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Burgos.

Anyone else on their first?

Councilor Baptiste on your second.

I can care— I can care less about the snow.

You understand what I'm saying?

I live out here.

I drive down these streets.

I have to deal with it.

It is going to help the businesses.

They're going to make money off of it.

They're going to make profit of it.

Yeah, we're going to make some money, but at the cost of the people that actually vote you in, and you're going to have to hear their concerns from here on out.

So if developers are coming in and they plan on developing properties, why aren't they planning on putting adequate parking spaces in properties that they're developing?

Why are they coming into properties that they know that don't have no parking and that they're going to have to go for variances and do all that stuff?

Why aren't they doing the work instead of just coming in here and saying, hey, listen, give us the property, we'll pay you the taxes, we'll give whoever a donation, and you'll give me a vote, and then we'll go through this like this.

All like this happens over and over again.

Like, you don't have to hear— like, you must hear it.

I don't know about if you hear it or not, because if you live down the South End, you know, if you live in certain parts, there's a lot of— my ward is condensed.

You go down South End, you go up West End, you go down State Street and you go around that area.

All them places that are going to get developed in my area, all up on Pleasant Street, all up on Purchase Street, not Pleasant Street so much, but not Purchase Street so much, but Pleasant Street, where all them homes are, where they're going to put all them big buildings.

Where there's people that having a hard time parking right now.

So now you're going to tell me they're going to put a development in there, have one apartment for that development, and then have everybody park on the street where there's no parking right now?

So that's what we're going to be dealing with.

I understand that it's, it's good that we get the housing in, but the housing that you're talking about, the people that sleeping in cars ain't getting in these cribs, bro.

So don't, don't, don't fool yourself and think that all these people are getting in these apartments that are coming in because they're not all coming in affordable.

And they're not all coming in fair.

So I don't think that this is fair to the people that actually live in these neighborhoods that are going to end up getting the development put in there.

Bad enough they're going to get buildings coming up even higher, but now they're going to lose parking spaces.

So now they're going to lose space around what they're seeing and then they're going to lose parking spaces.

So I don't know.

People vote.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else in there first?

Councillor Gomes on his second.

Thank you very much.

I, I just rise, um, to address some issues here.

I am not voting against this because of one specific project.

I represent this whole city.

There are several projects that are going on in the city that could affect the quality of life and affect the parking within those neighborhoods.

It's not that we don't want housing, and stop playing that up that this housing is for those that need the housing, that are sitting outside all night long, or I find in a tent in front of the art museum at 11 o'clock at night, or in the streets of the city, or in doorways in downtown New Bedford, including BCC and others, vacant buildings, the banks.

You want to come out for a ride at night when you're sitting home nice and warm and your nice blanket on you or whatever?

Come out at night and see what's really going on.

This housing is not for them, and stop playing that.

This housing is for those that can afford it, those that come and live here will have a good job and work here.

This will not take care of the less fortunate that have been driven out by this housing crisis.

We keep BSing that, and I can't stand it, and I won't sit back and listen to that.

That's a— you're mixing apples with oranges here.

Again, I'm not voting against this because I'm against the developers.

I want to see development in the city.

I want to see good development in the city.

I want to see the quality of life remain in the neighborhoods where you're going to develop.

You're not going to change the quality of life or the neighborhood in general.

As I said, I represent the whole city.

People pay taxes in this city, and they should be able to have the quality of life and the convenience of their homes and parking without having everything else going on, because we've got some major development, because we're looking to generate tax revenue.

Tax revenue that's never going to catch up with this damn budget that we're blowing up in this city.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Thank you, Councillor Gomes.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone else on their second?

Okay, so this is on item 3.

It's been made and duly seconded, and, and I will ask the clerk to call the roll, please.

Councilor Abram.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

No.

Councilor Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Chiquette.

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

Not paid for.

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

Item passes 8 to 3.

Please.

So at this time, I'd like Attorney Garetowski to approach the podium, and you're going to clarify in regards to accessory dwelling units.

Yeah, so, so the clerk's original instincts were correct because over the years this has always been zoning has 8-vote change.

But in 2023, the state law changed under 48 Section 5 that said that zoning laws shall be by 2/3 vote except for the following, where it only requires a simple majority.

One of— in the— there's 4 different things they lay out in the, in the law.

In number 1, um, 1B says, um, an amendment to a zoning ordinance for accessory dwelling units, um, whether within the principal dwelling or detached structure on the same lot.

That would be what that, that, um, the ordinance that you were voting on was— had to do with accessory structures, and therefore it would only require a simple majority under the new law as of 2023.

Okay, thank you, um, Attorney Garachowski, for that.

So that item had passed 7 to 4.

Okay, I'll ask the clerk to— Mr. President?

Yes?

Uh, motion to waive the reading of item 4 and take no further action.

Motion to waive the reading on item number 4, take no further action, made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item number 5.

Number 5 is written motion, Councilors Abreu and Oliver, requesting that the New Bedford City Council engage the appropriate city department heads to explore the feasibility of permitting host community agreements for on-site cannabis consumption establishments, commonly referred to as cannabis consumption lounges or social consumption establishments, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws and the Cannabis Control Commission regulations adopted in 2025 and further requesting that said department's report back to the City Council with findings, recommendations, and any necessary local actions required to lawfully implement such establishments within the City of New Bedford, referred to the Special Committee on Special Permits Licensing: Health Department Director Stephanie Sloan, Police Chief Thode, Planning Department Director Carloni, City Solicitor Jakes, and a representative for the mayor's office.

Second.

Motion to follow the recommendation, refer to the Special Committee on Special Permits and Licensing, Health Department, Police Chief, Planning Department Director, City Solicitor, and Mayor's Office, made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

On the question, Councilor Abreu.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Well, it's starting to sort of hit the fan on the Commonwealth, as many of you may have seen.

You may have seen as well, Mr. President, there was a New Bedford Light article that came out, I believe, last week about this.

A lot of cities and towns are starting to have these conversations about on-site cannabis consumption sites.

What do we do with them now that it's legal under Mass General Law and Cannabis Control Commission regulations?

And how can we either implement or not implement such cannabis control consumption facilities here in a city like New Bedford?

The reality is that It's a discussion we need to have, and we need to have it right away.

And if we're going to do this, we're going to do it correctly and succinctly, and we have to work with the appropriate department heads because the reality is that there could be a lot of jobs and revenue and tourism revenue that we could be leaving on the table.

Cannatourism is a real thing, okay?

And again, and I know we've had this discussion in the past about cigar bars.

I'm, I'm on the record for supporting cigar bars.

I think it should be same game, same rules.

And I know the health department has their regulations.

We've testified before the health department in the past.

I have.

I know the Ward 5 councilor has.

The Ward 4 councilor has, in supporting of, of these establishments to be erected in our downtown and other parts of the city.

The reality is that these cannabis on-site consumption facilities, okay, Let's not buy into the propaganda you may see out there about, well, folks aren't going to want them in their neighborhoods.

And, well, of course they're not going to be in residential neighborhoods.

We're going to— if we do this, we do it correctly, we are going to have the appropriate ordinance in place with buffers and zones like we did for dispensaries, like we've done for tattoo parlors, X amount of footage from schools, from daycares, from where kids congregate.

Absolutely.

These aren't going to be in neighborhoods.

They're not going to be next door to someone on a random side street.

These would be done correctly.

These would be done with the integrity of the neighborhood.

If we do them, that is.

They'd be done with the integrity of the neighborhood in mind.

And they'd be done safely.

Again, we'd work with our health department director.

We would work with our board of health.

We'd work with our police chief, our planning office, to make sure that we could try to get a front framework in place that could work where we could generate new revenue, attract new investment into the city, all while not compromising public health, wellness, and safety.

So at the very least, there's a conversation worth having.

You know, a little history lesson: we actually, here in the New Bedford City Council, we had the first-ever subcommittee of an elected government body in the Commonwealth to look into cannabis zoning for dispensaries.

That was a long time ago.

Councilor Lopes was the president that year.

He made me the chairman.

We were the first one to do it.

We even beat Boston.

So we were very progressive in that sense, getting ahead of it, having the conversation.

Let's do the same thing here.

Let's have the conversation.

And if it works, wonderful, let's all come together.

And if it doesn't, it doesn't.

That's okay too.

But I would just hate to see the same old story.

Hey, I go to Fall River, I go to Newport, I go to Providence, I go to Brockton, Why doesn't New Bedford have it?

You know, again, a day late and a dollar short.

So let's have the conversation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor Abruzzese.

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'll be brief, as my colleague who spoke before me, you know, hit on some of the same talking points.

You know, the fact is that this is an adult— an illegal adult product.

And the real conversations need to begin to be had so we can be one of the first municipalities whether to accept it or not accept it.

But those conversations do have had to be had.

And that's why I think that acting now is an appropriate time so we can find out if it's going to be a right fit for the city of New Bedford.

Maybe it's something very niche.

Maybe it's something that can happen.

But those conversations absolutely have to, have to start.

But I too am frustrated about going other places or talking to people who have visited the city of New Bedford and there's nothing to do here and there's nothing to draw here.

There are whole festivals and events that are around this particular product and things like that are economic drivers, are tourism drivers.

And year after year we hear the different departments that come up in front of us especially the tourism department, that they're looking for different ways to generate, um, you know, traction, whether it be through social media, whether it be through, um, their different avenues that they try to get New Bedford— not that we're not on the map already, obviously everybody knows where New Bedford is— but we need to kind of rewrite what we're looking to be.

Yeah, okay, you can say, and it's been said, not in this room, but it's been said that, oh, well, what are we going to do?

We're going to be the cannabis capital of the South Coast?

No, that's not what we're looking to do here.

What we're looking to do is to facilitate ways that we can drive new business to the city of New Bedford so that way people want to stay here, work here, play here, and grow their family here.

And things like this are draws for people.

It's a fact.

It really is.

And I'll get off my soapbox.

But I, I think the conversations really do have to be had, and I think getting in front of it early is really going to set the tone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes on his first.

Thank you, Council President.

At the appropriate time, I'd like to be recognized for a related motion.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first?

Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette on his first.

Thank you again, Mr. President.

Uh, I sense this progressive air in the council and I want to be a part of it.

Developing businesses, developing the tax base.

When it comes to the cannabis industry, which we were asleep at the switch for several years before we got into, now we're in it.

And I just find it funny that our Board of Health has such draconian measures against cigar lounges in this city, yet a 16-year-old can go to a gas station, buy nitrous oxide, get high, kill a woman, and that's okay.

But I can't have a Liga Privada or a nice Nicaraguan cigar anywhere in public.

Okay, so These are issues that when paired with trying to develop business with cannabis, we have to take this into account.

I think we need to bring in some members of the Board of Health and have them come before us.

And, you know, we need to work on these laws.

They're being selectively enforced.

And, you know, I get it.

15 years ago, everybody wanted to ban tobacco.

And I'm not saying tobacco is a great thing.

Yeah, it kills people.

Obviously.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Chouquette.

I see a common, uh, colloquialism.

Exactly.

Anyone else on that?

First was Councilor Gomes.

Well, let me be the rescue and get the baby out of the water, because the baby don't belong in the water.

Chief, please watch the baby.

Thank you, Councilor Well, the chief's here.

I'm sure he doesn't want to by his actions, but whatever.

I'm glad we're having this conversation, but I remember having this conversation back a few years ago, and when we had a proposal to come to here to the city for a cannabis operation, then these people were way ahead of everybody else because they had talked about these these lounges.

There was no appetite for it then.

They had talked about the boat cruises.

Do you remember— anybody remember here that was sitting here then?

I'm sure you do.

I just want to make sure that as we have this conversation, this won't be beneficial to a certain few.

As when we started this cannabis routine in the city and putting it all together, there was a selected few who got the opportunity, who got the opportunity to have their places immediately.

While others were pushed to the side with no assistance, no help, no nothing.

I just hope that again, I will have the conversation, but you're way behind.

You're way behind.

The conversation was in this room already.

Nobody wanted to have it then.

Nobody wanted any part of it then because it didn't fit their agenda or fit their progressive help to their supporters or whatever.

But let's have the conversation.

Let's do it right if we're going to do it.

But I'm going to make sure that nobody gets a hold of this that is connected to this city council in any way, as the cannabis deal went down in the beginning on several locations.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The game's on.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on that first?

Okay, so the motion before us is to refer it to the Committee on Permits and Licensing and the army of other people and everybody else.

Um, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion— whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, there's a related motion.

A related motion by Councilor Lopes.

Related motion, Councilor Lopes requesting that the New Bedford City Council engage the appropriate city department heads to explore the feasibility of permitting on-site tobacco consumption, commonly referred to as cigar lounges.

I have the language, I will give it to the clerk.

Second.

Thank you, Councilor.

We're all seconding.

We're all seconding.

It was made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by everybody, uh, but seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Uh, any discussion on the related motion?

I think the motion speaks for itself.

Very good.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to take up and adopt consent by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Any discussion on consent?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Seeing no further business, motion to adjourn by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion on adjournment?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:46 PM.

Thank you.