City Property Committee — August 11, 2026

Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the Committee on City Property.

The date is August 11th, 2026.

The time is 7:03 PM.

We are in the City Council Chambers, Room 214.

And oh, thank you.

Uh, please note this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

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

I am joined by my colleagues in government: Councilor-at-Large Anne Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor-at-Large Brian K. Gomes, Councilor-at-Large James Roy, Councilor-at-Large Naomi R. A. Carney, Councilor-at-Large and Second Vice President Shane Burgum— First Vice President, sorry, Shane Burgum.

Not yet.

Uh, and myself, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver.

Uh, I asked the clerk if there's anything to be read into the record.

Yes, I have 2 letters and a communication to read into the record.

Uh, this one's from Councilor Lopes.

Um, I am writing to inform you that I am unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a previously scheduled commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

This one's from Councilor Pereira.

I am writing to inform you that I will be on— I will be absent from tonight's committee meeting on city property due to a previously scheduled commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

And I received a text communication from Councilor Baptiste who is not in attendance this evening because he is ill.

Okay, motion to receive the communications on file.

So moved.

So moved by Councilor Burgo.

Second by Councilor Choquette.

All in favor?

Aye.

The ayes— all opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh, colleagues, uh, before we start, um, obviously this item is back before us.

The number one is the report that was sent out Um, I suggest that we, um, start with, uh, reading 1B, C, 2, and 3 into the record to open the meeting.

So moved by Councilor Abreu.

Second by Councilor Pemberton.

All in favor?

Okay, so opposed?

Okay, yeah.

Proposal submitted.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, just a point of order.

If you want to announce that the meeting's being live streamed so people know.

I did.

I didn't even hear you say that.

Yeah, I did.

Oh, you said I did.

No, he did.

Thank you.

Well, we'll say it again.

It's being live streamed and recorded.

And recorded.

Okay, so 1A is an order that the City Property Committee recommend, uh, the approval of the sale of 834 Kempton Street, the former fire station number 3, and 754 Brock Avenue, former fire station number 11, pursuant to the proposal selected by the committee in here.

2 attached, and further that the City Council authorize the mayor— the city solicitor to execute the sale pursuant to the attached proposals.

Was referred here on July 16, 2026.

1B is a proposal submitted by South Coast Investments Incorporated for the development of Fire Station Number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.

It was received by the Committee on City Property on May 11, 2026, and was referred on July 16.

2026.

1C is a proposal submitted by, uh, Gavush Development for the development of Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue, received by the Committee on City Property May 11, 2026, referred here on July 16, 2026.

2B— excuse me, number 2 is a proposal submitted by Divine Contractors and Freedom Realty Group for the redevelopment of Fire Station number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street, received on May 11, 2026.

And number 3 is a proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Incorporated, Freedom Realty Group, for the development of Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue, received here on May 11th, 2026.

So 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, and 3 are now before you.

Uh, motion by Councilor Abreu, second by Councilor Carney.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Colleagues, would you— how would you like to start?

Would you like to start by having one of the presenters come up and speak, or— all right, well, uh, we'll call, uh, uh, Gavush.

1B?

1— yeah, 1A.

Yeah.

This is on 834 Kempton Street.

No, Gavush Development is for— okay, so you're doing 1C first?

Oh, I thought that was the 1C first.

All right, since he's up there.

Yeah, so yours is for 754 Brock Avenue, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All righty.

Um, thank you, Council Chair and members of the council.

My name is Christian Gavush Silvera with Gavush Development LLC.

I'm here tonight with my proposal in my hand, nothing else.

No theatrics, no extra material, no— and not an expanded proposal.

I'm here tonight to answer questions and stay within my proposal for the RFP the way it should be done.

To talk shortly about myself and the companies involved in this project, I have my Massachusetts construction supervisor license as well as my real estate license and Rhode Island contractors registration.

Our company, our family construction company, has been established for over 20 years in the region, not just a couple years.

And our company's worked on projects of all scales, ranging, ranging from apartment outfits, residential construction, commercial construction, industrial construction, and more.

Most notably though, to our abilities, we're DCAM certified, which is a certification that you need to complete state bonded work.

And to get that certification, you need years of proven experience and execution.

Now let me talk about my proposal.

What I'm proposing here is simple.

My intention is to create 6 new apartments.

And within that building, I also want to have a tenant common garden, laundry area, as well as donated space to the South Coast Business Alliance for storage.

The SCBA, if you're not familiar, is a local nonprofit all of the funds raised go right back to the city's most vulnerable population, in my opinion at least, which is the at-risk youth throughout the city.

Now, my proposal includes contingencies, as in my opinion it should, to protect ourselves and you, the city.

There's no more clawback in this, as you know, and so the last piece of protection that exists for the city in this process is is to have contingencies that follow this project throughout the permitting process.

The first contingency being that we're requiring a building permit to be received first.

Because in the case that we go to permit this project, just like projects all across the city, if the city were to reject the amount of units or the use or whatever may be being proposed, you, the city council, would have the control to say, wait, this isn't what we voted on.

We approved 6 apartments.

Now only 4 can go there.

We need to pause this, we need to re-RFP this, or we need to decide what we're going to do with this building.

The second one is a financing contingency.

And the point for this one is that we've never been denied for financing on a project.

But we're in a current economical environment where banking environment itself is a little hairy at times.

And so God forbid financing were to fall through for whatever reason, again, the city's protected and the city can say, wait a minute, We don't want you to be able to turn around and sell this building for a profit.

We granted this to you for this use.

We followed you throughout the whole process getting these approvals.

We're taking the building back in the case that the financing or the building permit can't be received.

So the proposal in front of you tonight, the last thing I want to mention is that this was our first draft.

We did not revise this after the first time we submitted this or the second time that we submitted this.

Every single effort and illustration and picture in this proposal was from our efforts the first time we put together this RFP, which to note was our first time putting together an RFP.

We took the time to educate ourselves, prepare ourselves, and put our best foot forward.

We've invested in plans which were part of our RFP illustrating that only 6 apartments can fit in this building.

We invested in 21E inspections and other important steps to speed up the permitting process to prepare for this night.

The last thing I want— the last 2 things I want to mention is that every property we own, they're long-term holds.

They're for our family's legacy at the end of the day and our family's portfolio.

We don't flip properties to make a quick buck.

Every single thing that we do is for a lasting legacy.

So I hope tonight you all do what's right and you focus on the effort and words that were put into this RFP, not anything extra that might have been said after the fact or anything extra that might get set up here tonight.

And the last thing that I want to clarify is that myself and Although I might be related to David, who's the other proposed proposer in this scenario, our finances are separate, our development companies are separate.

So please look at us as 2 separate individuals and not as a father and son versus one other proposer in this case.

With that said, the floor is open for questions if anyone has any.

Chair recognizes Councilmember Bergl.

Thank you.

This is your first time presenting this to us?

No, I was saying this was— we presented this to you the first round around.

Okay.

Because the way you made it sound is that we haven't seen this before.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah, no, sorry.

I was saying that.

That's okay.

I just wanted to clarify that.

And then I also want to clarify, you mentioned in this proposal there's 12 parking spaces, but there's no clarification in the proposal of where those 12 spaces will fit.

And you're confident that that will actually be able to happen?

Yeah, so with this property, on the left-hand side there's a huge parcel of, of grass essentially all along the left side of this building where a parking lot could fit.

Since the proposals were all submitted in, I think at this point October of last year, obviously city changed its parking requirements.

So now, based off the new parking requirements, it may not even be required to have that large of a parking lot.

But even if it did, I'm 100% confident that that could fit there.

Okay.

And you're also confident that you would be able to secure financing?

Yes.

We've never had an issue across all of our projects.

And the timeline— obviously, you're not sure with it in terms of financing, do you have a rough estimate of how long this project would take to complete?

Construction and permitting, or just construction?

All of it?

Like, meaning people can start to move in?

Yeah.

So truthfully, I think the permitting process with the city— we already have the plans developed, which is going to save a lot of time, but I think that we'll be permitting with the city for 4, upwards of 6 months, depending on planning board meeting dates and if it gets kicked back multiple times, and then from there, construction to be completed within 12 months of receiving a building permit.

So you think you could do this within a year?

A year and a half.

People can move in in under a year and a half.

Okay, that's all I needed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Colleagues, anyone else?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Well, uh, the chair will now call up, um, Divine Contractors to speak on the same, uh, property.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, committee members.

My name is Gary Gagne.

I am the principal of Freedom Realty Group.

I was born and raised in New Bedford.

My office is on Cushionin Avenue next door to my wife's beauty salon.

You guys probably have drove by it.

It's across from St. Anthony's Church.

She was also born and raised here, and we have been building in New Bedford for years.

I'm here tonight because we submitted the strongest offer on this fire station.

We had the highest purchase price with no mortgage contingency and no permit contingency.

Let me say that again.

The highest purchase price with no purchase— no financing contingency and no permitting contingency.

The city assumes no risk if we are awarded these properties.

There's no chance of planning board kicking it back and saying you can only get 4 units, and then the city has to come back to where we are today.

That means if the planning board says 4 units, we're building 4 units.

If they say 2 units, we're building 2 units.

No matter what, the city assumes no risk.

There's no way we're going to be back in this room here today, like you guys are really sick of already being here.

Our financing is committed.

Our team is in place.

2 of the 3 city reviewers rated our financial capacity highly advantageous.

2 rated our timeline highly advantageous.

We are not a startup.

Since 2024, we have completed 18 residential and mixed-use real estate projects in the city of New Bedford alone.

That's not outside any other towns, just in New Bedford, including projects larger than this.

We currently have 6 more projects permitted, underway.

You drive by our projects every day.

Every one of you councilors have seen projects in every one of your wards.

I'll name a few.

88 Ruth Street, 1370 and 1653 Cushion Avenue, 37 Maxine Street, 858 Kempton Street, 192 Sawyer Street, 296 Hemlock Street, 43 Jovette Street, and many, many more.

Some of these property— properties were problematic for the city for years.

This property is more personal to me because I grew up playing SCYA baseball.

I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with the organization, but we used to march down Brock Ave every summer on opening day.

I rode bicycles outside of the Brock Ave fire station.

I am passionate about this project because I love the city, and I'm committed to making the city a better place.

We offered the most money on the properties with no conditions.

We are actively building in the city right now.

We are ready to close on them immediately.

The other proposal has contingencies that could potentially delay the closing for 1 to 3 years, with no guarantee it will ever close.

I hope the committee doesn't just look at the $25,000 more or the 50% higher purchase price, but that this could cost the city over $200,000 in funds.

My proposal gets the most money with ultimately no risk.

I ask this committee to recognize we have the strongest proposals recommend this property to me as an award.

I am also joined by the co-founder of Taylor Ridge, Nicholas Schneider.

So he's the lending— he's doing the financing.

My cold consultant, Bill Horrocks, and my attorney, Scott Parr.

We are all eager to answer your questions.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions for the presenter?

Chair recognizes Councilmember Virgo.

Thank you.

So that handles my first question.

So you have private financing already settled, so that's not a hindrance that we'll have to worry about securing bank financing.

Um, you are proposing 8 apartments rather than 6 here.

That is something you think is feasible?

Yes, sir.

I have the site plans.

I— it was actually, uh, oversight that I didn't submit to the RFP, and that's why I've not spoke on them, because I want to stay in the criteria of the RFP.

Yeah, we'll leave it at that.

But I just wanted to— just like I asked the last person about the parking space, I just wanted to clarify.

You're saying you can do 8 apartments.

I want to make sure that that is something that you can actually live up to.

And as you pointed out too, you're offering us $75,000, which is $25,000 more.

That's correct?

Correct?

Yes, sir.

And you can complete this in how much time?

Meaning people can move into this apartment in how— So the permitting, I'm not sure if you guys saw the article in the Standard Times, but I just got 308 purchase approved with the planning board, and that took a year.

There's no way this is getting permitted within 6 months.

The planning board, zoning board, and the building department, because you need to submit a building permit.

You can't just go, and they have 30 days to deny you, and things get hung up.

So the permitting alone will take a year, and I can, I'd say, finish this in 7 to 8 months.

And my lender who joined me has the facts on my experience for many years and timelines on my completion.

So when will this be completed by, you would say?

I'd say 18 months.

Okay, so less than 2 years.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Is that all, Councillor?

Yes, thank you.

Colleagues, anyone else for the presenter or any other of the gentlemen that, uh, are here?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Sean.

Okay, so now we're going to talk about So now we'll— yeah, we'll talk about the Kempton Street project and we'll start the same way.

We'll have South Coast Associates speak first.

All right.

Good evening, President and members of the City Council.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this proposal this evening.

So tonight I don't want to spend time discussing the specifics of our redevelopment proposal.

That proposal has already been thoroughly vetted and has already been evaluated, debated, and ultimately selected not once but twice.

The first time, after careful review by the Property Committee and this council, Our proposal was awarded despite competing against a developer with a larger portfolio and greater experience.

That decision reflected the belief that our vision, our execution plan, and our funding strategy offered the strongest overall benefit to the city of New Bedford.

The second time this project returned, our proposal remained unchanged because we believed it was already the right proposal.

Once again, the Property Committee conducted its review, evaluated the submissions before it, and unanimously recommended awarding the project to South Coast Investments for a second time.

It's also important to recognize what occurred during that second solicitation.

The RFP was reissued, creating an opportunity for an entirely new applicant to compete.

Every proposal previously submitted had become a matter of public record.

That meant that any new applicant had the benefit of reviewing not only our proposal but other proposals that entered, you know, previously.

If ever there was an opportunity to submit a truly exceptional proposal, that was it.

Yet the property committee determined that those submissions did not surpass what had already been presented by us.

They determined that our proposal remained the strongest and once again recommended that this project be awarded to our team.

Tonight marks the 3rd time we have appeared before you.

If that does not demonstrate a commitment, I don't know what is.

Over the past 2 years, we have continued moving this project forward.

We've invested our own time and resources without any guarantee that we would ever be standing here again.

We documented the existing historic building through comprehensive architectural field measurements.

We commissioned and developed complete site plans.

We completed a Phase 1 environmental hazardous material investigation, which is— fees associated with that.

So a lot of what we did architecturally, engineering-wise, and hazardous material-wise requires to invest actual resources into that.

We prepared detailed construction budgets and realistic permitting schedules.

We created architectural renderings to clearly communicate the vision of the property.

Collectively, we have invested well in excess of $15,000 in pre-development costs alone, not because we were required to, but because we believe this project deserved the level of commitment.

More importantly, we invested because we believe in New Bedford.

Our portfolio demonstrates who we are through South Coast and Associates.

We have spent more than 2 decades designing, building, and managing complex residential and commercial projects throughout our region.

Our experience is not based on a promise.

It's based on projects successfully completed and the relationships we've built over many years.

Over the course of this process, we have also worked collaboratively with Josh Amaral, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the mayor's office to ensure the proposal reflected the city's vision, creating much-needed housing while preserving an important historic structure.

This project has never been just another development opportunity to us.

It has become a shared commitment.

I would respectfully ask the council to consider not only the proposal before you, but also the 2 years of work, the financial investment, the countless hours the committee meetings, the collaboration, and the perseverance that brought us back here tonight.

Very few developers would continue investing under these circumstances.

We did because we believe in this project and we believe it's worth fighting for.

At some point, this process has to move from planning to progress.

I also hope that regardless of tonight's outcome, that we take this opportunity to reflect on the process itself.

There has been lessons— there's lessons to be learned here.

About how redevelopment opportunities move through the system.

And I believe those lessons can help make future projects more effective, more predictable, and ultimately more successful for both the city and the development community.

So members of the City Council, this project has already earned confidence of the Property Committee twice.

We respectfully ask that you once again place your confidence in the team that has consistently demonstrated its commitment, not only through words but through action.

Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued service to the city.

And just one additional point: the city is not being asked to take a chance on an idea.

The city is being asked to continue with a project that has already survived 3 years of scrutiny, 2 competitive selection processes, and extensive due diligence.

That significantly reduces uncertainty and increases the likelihood of successful completion.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Questions for the presenter?

Chair recognizes Councilor Burgos.

Thank you.

I wasn't sure if you wanted to present anything on the actual proposal before I asked any questions.

No, I'm going to rely on the property committee's recommendation.

Okay, so my question is, I guess we do know a lot about this because when you originally came before us, you did get to present to us, is that correct?

Yes.

And we did get to ask questions, and you did give us a lot more information than what happened at the last property committee meeting, is that correct?

Well, there was an opportunity last time around Correct.

So that's why I wanted just to clarify.

Yeah, that typically that is what happens, is that those who bid typically get to come.

We get to ask clarifying questions.

Yeah, sure.

I do apologize that I wasn't at that meeting.

I typically do attend, like I was at the one when you originally bid.

And I just— I wanted to clarify that because I, I sense the animosity and anger and frustration.

Which I understand because this is upsetting because you have to come back and do this again.

But I just want you to also imagine the frustration for another person who also is doing the same kind of work and feels as though they didn't get the same opportunity that maybe you had to come before us and share.

So I just want you to take that into consideration.

You do have a great proposal here.

Looking at it, you have 8 residential apartments.

And I— again, it looks like you have a similar situation where you're going to require securing bank financing.

Is that correct?

Right.

Okay.

This one, it looks like the parking is a little more realistic.

One parking space per unit, and you're offering 2 visitor parking spaces for a total of 10 spaces.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And that's something that you believe is doable, even though in the proposal, it doesn't detail exactly what the spaces will be.

Is it— is this— I believe this is the one where one space would be a garaged space.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

I believe that is all the questions I had.

But again, I apologize for my absence at that last city property meeting.

I appreciate you coming back again.

And I just wanted to make that clarification.

Yeah, there's a lot— there's a lot to explain here.

It's a very detailed proposal, so I wouldn't take the floor with all that tonight.

I would just encourage you to rely on the Property Committee and their recommendation.

This is the Property Committee, and— well, I'm sorry, the committee before that offered the recommendations prior.

Maybe I'm misnaming what that committee is, but— no, it was the Property Committee.

It just wasn't the full Property Committee.

Gotcha.

Like this one isn't the full Property Committee.

It's just not everyone was there and There's people missing at this one.

And just that's why we referred it back, just to have this opportunity to ask some clarifying questions that we had about it.

That's all.

And again, it's not a mark against you.

I think you and your son and everyone that's a part of this process do amazing work.

And I appreciate the work that you all do for the city building apartments.

We need apartments.

And I don't want to have this type of animosity amongst people where everyone's fighting.

I don't want that.

And I hope that whatever result comes from this, no matter who gets selected, we can move forward from here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Colleagues, any other questions for the presenter?

Okay, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh, Chair, we'll have, uh, Freedom Realty Group up to speak on the same property.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, City Council members.

Pretty much the same thing on both of them.

We're still not using financing.

We're still not doing a building permit.

I don't believe the city is looking for another partnership or any more risk.

I want to thank the Silveras.

I think they've done a great job in their commitment.

But the risk is there, right?

We're back here again for a reason.

My RFP is specifically geared towards no risk for the city.

There is no chance that we're going to be back here at this meeting.

And I really want to make a point that we are in a financial crisis.

Right?

This is— I've been to meetings.

Councilor Golmes, you know, last meeting was talking about the police at the Wheeling City Festival.

I grew up in the West End.

This property is also dear to me.

I used to walk to Salonica's Pizza, Grand Walk, go by the fire station.

We were allowed to eat out twice a month, and that's where we would go.

And with the extra funds, Councilor Golmes, we can allocate towards the police presence at Wheeling City Festival.

We absolutely should not be, as a city, talking about canceling a festival that changed my life.

And this proposal, specifically in the West End of New Bedford, gives the City Council the chance to allocate funds however they see fit.

So it's not just a risk.

It's not, you guys don't ever have to show up here again.

But there is real money at stake.

And for a constituent like myself, I would appreciate if you guys took more money and for a less riskier offer.

And I'm sure the rest of the constituents in the city that are watching this would agree.

There's a reason we're back here, and that was because of risk, right?

There was, there was a clawback, and that's why we're here.

If that clawback was here, I have again Nicholas Schneider in, in the audience in attendance.

If you guys would like to speak with him, he will assure you that he would have funded that project and we would have moved forward that day.

We are also— I know Councilor Lopes mentioned adding it to a purchase and sales agreement.

We are in agreement with that.

We are confident in our ability.

That is why we don't have any risk.

I am not asking for the city to take risk on my behalf.

I think we are getting this for— my $75,000 proposal, I think, is a very fair price.

And as owner of a real estate brokerage, I would recommend my clients, the sellers, to not take a risky and low offer.

It's one or the other.

My proposal— I also have site plans that obviously I'm not a site engineer.

I had to pay for these site plans, and the parking that we have there has been confirmed.

I have experience with getting permits on projects that don't have sufficient parking, right?

This is a very important fact.

In a situation like this.

This is already a pre-existing non-conforming, but you need to conform to parking, right?

We already crossed our T's and dotted our I's with that.

I am a construction supervisor, also a broker of a real estate company.

I'm not worried about the inside of the building.

I'm worried about the site plan and to make sure we can get our parking, because if we go in front of planning board and they say not enough parking— I just had to get a parking agreement in New Bedford.

Thank God I grew up in the city and I have relationships.

I knew the girl on the corner and she rented me space on her lot to satisfy the planning board.

I think Mr. Choquette was at that meeting, actually.

I appreciate your attendance to the planning board meetings as well.

That's very important.

Um, I, I don't want to keep harping on the fact that we have no contingencies and we're offering the most money.

I, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here, but I'm happy to answer any questions and You know, please utilize my colleagues that have, you know, come out of their way to support us.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

The chair asks, is there any questions from the body for the presenter?

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to clarify, even though you, you talk about $75,000 and going to the festival, and that's, that's That's great, but that's not how it works around here, and there's no guarantee that that money would go anywhere near the festival.

I just want you to know that.

And you said the festival was very dear to you and what it did for you, and I appreciate the kind words of the appropriation if it was to be or whatever, but there's no guarantee that that's where the money would go.

I understand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Colleagues, anyone else?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Colleagues, we still have item number 1 before us.

Uh, we've had the discussion about the properties.

Item number 1 was the report out from this committee prior.

Um, we're gonna, uh, I'm gonna have, uh, the, uh assistant city solicitor, uh, come up and speak how we would handle that, um, since there was a recommendation from this body, um, and how we would proceed.

So just, uh, if, uh, Mr. Paveo could come up.

Good evening, councilors.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

As stated, we— this is before this body again.

We had the proposals in front of us, we spoke on them, but because this body reported something out, we just wanted to make sure that we— that gets reported out correctly, or what the next course of action would be in your opinion.

Yes, my understanding this matter was previously before this body and there a vote and a report as a result of the vote.

That matter was placed on the agenda for this meeting.

The agenda was properly posted under the Open Meeting Law.

And so I think it would be fairly appropriate for the committee to recognize and adopt the report onto the record.

And then it's— as it's an agenda item, if there's further discussion on it or amendment, I think that that would be something that would be appropriate for the committee.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions for— Chair recognizes Councilmember Burgo.

I guess my question is, if I, for example, wanted to change the report and the order to the alternate proposal, what would be the appropriate motion to do?

Would it just be, um, would we just move that the City Property Committee select set proposal for this and refer out to full City Council, or would it require us to amend that report and order?

Because it's before us in this current condition where the report is reading as though the committee selected, in this case, uh, South Coast Investments, um, for Fire Station 3 and Goetz Development for Fire Station 11.

Would it require a motion to amend rather than a motion to select?

It's a unique issue.

I think either would be appropriate.

I did speak to David Garatowski, our legislative counsel, prior.

I know he's not here.

He did explain to me it's not a motion to reconsider before us and that we should be able just to make a motion to select.

But then when you came up, I wasn't sure if there was a conflicting scenario.

But that's what our legislative counsel told me, is that we can just make a motion just similar to what we did at the last meeting because it's before us again.

It's as though— but this item wasn't before us, the favorable recommendation from the committee.

So that's why I had the question.

But the way the legislative counsel explained it to me was that essentially because it's back before us again, it's as though nothing happened.

So it's when we're referring it back out again, whatever motion we make.

So in this case, if I were to say move that the City Property Committee select the proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Freedom Realty Group for the development of Fire Station 3 located at 834 Kempton Street, someone seconded it, then that would then automatically take the place of the— on the report in the order if that were to pass, for example, because that's what the report and order reads, right?

The order reads that they were the approval of those proposals from those people.

So we sent that back because that's what was referred out.

So that's why I wanted to get at least some sort of clarification from the attorney that is here and what he thought.

The— I, you know, I believe you in your conversation with Attorney Garatowski.

How do you— without him, without him being here air.

Um, so I, uh, I, I guess what we're saying is I believe either you can either— either it would— either option is available.

It's, it's, it's proper, it's appropriately noticed, and so discussion can be had on it.

Motion to amend, or there can be a new motion because the issue is before the committee.

So, uh, in my opinion, either, uh, mechanism is available to, to the committee.

What would you say is the safest option?

That's a dangerous question.

If there's— I guess that's a dangerous question.

I guess it would be whether the new recommendation is going to be to follow the— would it be appropriate to say motion to amend the report in order to select proposal blah blah blah if I wanted to change it to the other proposal?

Would that be an appropriate motion to say?

Motion to amend the report out of Committee of City Property to select proposal from blah blah blah, which then would amend the report in order from 1 and 1A to then— would that make sense?

If it's going to be— if it's going to be a change, I think it would probably be cleaner to keep the record of the current report and to create a new, a new report.

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Councilor, if you— sure.

Would it— would we be able to perhaps even take no further action on this, report it out, and make a whole new motion?

Well, I think that's what he's saying, basically, right?

Basically, our new motion would just be motion to report out of the full City Council selecting proposal.

In my case, I want to make the motion to select the proposal submitted by Divine Contractors, blah blah blah.

Second, if it has the votes, I don't know, then it gets referred out, and then that would be the new report and new order.

Okay, okay, I think we got it now.

That was my understanding, is that correct?

Yeah.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Thank you, uh, city solicitor, assistant city solicitor.

Oh, that's a tongue twister.

Okay, so, uh, colleagues, your pleasure.

Motion to— I move that the City Property Committee report out the proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Incorporated/Freedom Realty Group for the development of Fire Station Number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.

To be adopted for the city to effectuate the sale.

Okay, so a motion to select, uh, Divine, uh, Contractors and Freedom Realty Group for the property known as Fire Station Number 3, located at 834 Kempton Street.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, motion made by Councilor Bergler.

Second.

Second by Councillor Roy.

Roll call on the question.

On the question, Councillor Burgo.

Thank you so much.

I just— again, I think that both bidders are great.

I don't want this to be a situation where pitting people against each other.

It just comes down to the numbers here.

I think in the current financial situation we're in as a city, we could do with an extra $25,000 on this particular proposal.

I'll speak on the next proposal, but I'll just say preemptively, this would be an additional $50,000 more than what we're being offered for the current proposal.

And I also feel as though the timeline, because they have private financing, would go through a lot quicker.

I just— that's why I would like to make this change, and I hope my colleagues would support that.

And also, again, because the timeline's quicker, we'd get to those apartments quicker and also get this, uh, city property back on the tax rolls quicker.

Thank you, Councilor.

Colleagues, anyone else on their first?

Okay, seeing none, roll call is requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abreu.

No, Councillor Ebru.

Councillor Burgo?

Yes, Councillor Burgo.

Councillor Carney?

No.

No, Councillor Carney.

Councillor Trickett?

No.

No, Councillor Trickett.

Councillor Gomes?

No.

No, Councillor Gomes.

Councillor Oliver?

No.

No, Councillor Oliver.

Councillor Pemberton?

No.

No, Councillor Pemberton.

Councillor Roy?

Yes.

Excuse me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, it fails.

Uh, 6 to 2.

Motion fails 6 to 2.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

You had to turn your mic on.

I got it.

Approve, uh, motion to, uh, uh, submit for approval of the proposal submitted by South Coast Investments Inc. for Fire Station 3 located at 834 Kempton Street and refer to the full benefit city council.

Motion by Councilor Abreu.

Second.

Second by Councilor Pemberton to approve the proposal from South Coast Investment Inc. for the development of Fire Station Number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.

All in favor?

Aye.

Roll call vote.

Has been requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll for Fire Station 3.

Okay, for on from South Coast proposal, Councillor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Abreu.

Councillor Burgo?

No.

No, Councillor Burgo.

Councillor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Carney.

Councillor Choquette?

Yes.

Councillor Chauquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

That passes.

Motion passes 6 to 2.

Colleagues, your pleasure on the Brock Avenue location.

Move that the City Property Committee select the proposal submitted by Divine Contractors Inc./Freedom Realty Group for the development of Fire Station Number 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue to be referred out to the full City Council to be adopted to effectuate the sale by the city.

Motion made by Councilor Burgos to approve the proposal by Divine Realty— Divine Contractors and Freedom Realty Group for the property known as Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Avenue.

Any seconds?

Second.

Second by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

On the question, Shane Berger here.

Thank you.

Um, for this proposal, um, I felt that this was even more advantageous— I love that word— um, because Freedom Realty is offering 8 apartments versus 6 apartments, which gives even more units.

Based on how the votes are going, you know I'm really good at counting, Mr. Chairman, so this is probably going to fail.

But I just again want it on the record that this is another additional $25,000, which would be nice to have.

And then again, the timeline and private financing, given how terrible this economy is, we don't know if that secured bank financing will go through.

This is a group that we know has the secure financing.

They have their financing here all ready to go, and I think this would be the more highly advantageous proposal.

I hope that my colleagues will go with this, but it sounds like they won't.

But my last pitch— we don't know till we come— we'll see.

Let's find out.

Roll call, baby.

Thank you, Councilor Burgos.

Anyone else on there first?

Seeing none— sorry.

Oh, oh, I also just wanted to add that in the other proposal there's a promise of 12 parking spaces that we don't know for certain because the proposal doesn't showcase how that will take place.

And as we point out the contingencies, if there's some kind of change or an issue, it might come back and that is going to cause a further delay.

I just wanted to point that out.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone on there first?

Seeing none, roll call was requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

This is on the Devine proposal.

Councilor Abreu?

No.

Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

No.

No.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

No.

No.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

No.

No.

Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Roy?

Yes, yes, yes.

That fails.

Motion fails, uh, 6 to 2.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

Motion has been made to approve the proposal selected by Uh, was it the DeVos development for the development of Fire Station 11 located at 754 Brock Ave?

By Councilor Gomes.

Second by Councilor Abreu.

All those in favor?

Anybody on the question?

Roll call.

No one on the question.

Seeing none, roll call vote has been requested.

Proposal, Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Councillor Abreu.

Councillor Burgo?

No.

No, Councillor Burgo.

Councillor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Carney.

Councillor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Choquette.

Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

Councillor Gomes.

Councillor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Oliver.

Councillor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Pemberton.

Councillor Roy?

No.

No.

That passes 6 to 2.

Motion passes 6 to 2.

Yes.

Motion to waive the reading of items 4 and 5, referral to the full City Council for no further action.

Motion made by Councilor Burgo to waive the reading on items 4 and 5 for no further action.

Second by Councilor Gomes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

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

Second.

Second by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Aye.

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:51.

Thank you.