City of New Bedford Meetings
Search and subscribe to city meeting topics that impact you
Newsletters
Subscribe
← Back to video
City Property Committee — August 11, 2026
−
Fit
+
IN
0:00
OUT
0:00
Length
0:00
▶ Play selection
Export clip
Keyboard:
I
set in,
O
set out,
←
/
→
nudge playhead 5s.
0:56
Good evening, everybody.
In
Out
0:57
Welcome to the Committee on City Property.
In
Out
0:59
The date is August 11th, 2026.
In
Out
1:02
The time is 7:03 PM.
In
Out
1:05
We are in the City Council Chambers, Room 214.
In
Out
1:10
And oh, thank you.
In
Out
1:11
Uh, please note this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.
In
Out
1:14
City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.
In
Out
1:22
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.
In
Out
1:49
Not yet.
In
Out
1:50
Uh, and myself, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver.
In
Out
1:55
Uh, I asked the clerk if there's anything to be read into the record.
In
Out
1:58
Yes, I have 2 letters and a communication to read into the record.
In
Out
2:03
Uh, this one's from Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
2:05
Um, I am writing to inform you that I am unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a previously scheduled commitment.
In
Out
2:11
Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.
In
Out
2:16
This one's from Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
2:17
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.
In
Out
2:26
Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.
In
Out
2:31
And I received a text communication from Councilor Baptiste who is not in attendance this evening because he is ill.
In
Out
2:37
Okay, motion to receive the communications on file.
In
Out
2:40
So moved.
In
Out
2:40
So moved by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
2:42
Second by Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
2:44
All in favor?
In
Out
2:45
Aye.
In
Out
2:46
The ayes— all opposed?
In
Out
2:47
The ayes have it.
In
Out
2:50
Uh, colleagues, uh, before we start, um, obviously this item is back before us.
In
Out
2:58
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.
In
Out
3:13
So moved by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
3:15
Second by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
3:16
All in favor?
In
Out
3:18
Okay, so opposed?
In
Out
3:22
Okay, yeah.
In
Out
3:25
Proposal submitted.
In
Out
3:26
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, just a point of order.
In
Out
3:27
If you want to announce that the meeting's being live streamed so people know.
In
Out
3:30
I did.
In
Out
3:30
I didn't even hear you say that.
In
Out
3:31
Yeah, I did.
In
Out
3:31
Oh, you said I did.
In
Out
3:34
No, he did.
In
Out
3:35
Thank you.
In
Out
3:36
Well, we'll say it again.
In
Out
3:37
It's being live streamed and recorded.
In
Out
3:39
And recorded.
In
Out
3:40
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.
In
Out
4:00
2 attached, and further that the City Council authorize the mayor— the city solicitor to execute the sale pursuant to the attached proposals.
In
Out
4:08
Was referred here on July 16, 2026.
In
Out
4:11
1B is a proposal submitted by South Coast Investments Incorporated for the development of Fire Station Number 3 located at 834 Kempton Street.
In
Out
4:20
It was received by the Committee on City Property on May 11, 2026, and was referred on July 16.
In
Out
4:27
2026.
In
Out
4:28
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.
In
Out
4:43
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.
In
Out
4:56
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.
In
Out
5:09
So 1A, 1B, 1C, 2, and 3 are now before you.
In
Out
5:21
Uh, motion by Councilor Abreu, second by Councilor Carney.
In
Out
5:24
All in favor?
In
Out
5:26
Opposed?
In
Out
5:27
The ayes have it.
In
Out
5:30
Colleagues, would you— how would you like to start?
In
Out
5:33
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.
In
Out
5:43
1B?
In
Out
5:43
1— yeah, 1A.
In
Out
5:45
Yeah.
In
Out
5:53
This is on 834 Kempton Street.
In
Out
5:57
No, Gavush Development is for— okay, so you're doing 1C first?
In
Out
6:01
Oh, I thought that was the 1C first.
In
Out
6:03
All right, since he's up there.
In
Out
6:05
Yeah, so yours is for 754 Brock Avenue, correct?
In
Out
6:09
Yes, sir.
In
Out
6:10
Okay.
In
Out
6:13
All righty.
In
Out
6:13
Um, thank you, Council Chair and members of the council.
In
Out
6:16
My name is Christian Gavush Silvera with Gavush Development LLC.
In
Out
6:20
I'm here tonight with my proposal in my hand, nothing else.
In
Out
6:24
No theatrics, no extra material, no— and not an expanded proposal.
In
Out
6:29
I'm here tonight to answer questions and stay within my proposal for the RFP the way it should be done.
In
Out
6:35
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.
In
Out
6:49
Our company, our family construction company, has been established for over 20 years in the region, not just a couple years.
In
Out
6:56
And our company's worked on projects of all scales, ranging, ranging from apartment outfits, residential construction, commercial construction, industrial construction, and more.
In
Out
7:07
Most notably though, to our abilities, we're DCAM certified, which is a certification that you need to complete state bonded work.
In
Out
7:14
And to get that certification, you need years of proven experience and execution.
In
Out
7:20
Now let me talk about my proposal.
In
Out
7:22
What I'm proposing here is simple.
In
Out
7:26
My intention is to create 6 new apartments.
In
Out
7:28
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.
In
Out
7:37
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.
In
Out
7:51
Now, my proposal includes contingencies, as in my opinion it should, to protect ourselves and you, the city.
In
Out
8:00
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.
In
Out
8:11
The first contingency being that we're requiring a building permit to be received first.
In
Out
8:16
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.
In
Out
8:29
We approved 6 apartments.
In
Out
8:30
Now only 4 can go there.
In
Out
8:32
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.
In
Out
8:36
The second one is a financing contingency.
In
Out
8:39
And the point for this one is that we've never been denied for financing on a project.
In
Out
8:44
But we're in a current economical environment where banking environment itself is a little hairy at times.
In
Out
8:51
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.
In
Out
9:01
We granted this to you for this use.
In
Out
9:02
We followed you throughout the whole process getting these approvals.
In
Out
9:05
We're taking the building back in the case that the financing or the building permit can't be received.
In
Out
9:11
So the proposal in front of you tonight, the last thing I want to mention is that this was our first draft.
In
Out
9:16
We did not revise this after the first time we submitted this or the second time that we submitted this.
In
Out
9:21
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.
In
Out
9:31
We took the time to educate ourselves, prepare ourselves, and put our best foot forward.
In
Out
9:36
We've invested in plans which were part of our RFP illustrating that only 6 apartments can fit in this building.
In
Out
9:42
We invested in 21E inspections and other important steps to speed up the permitting process to prepare for this night.
In
Out
9:49
The last thing I want— the last 2 things I want to mention is that every property we own, they're long-term holds.
In
Out
9:55
They're for our family's legacy at the end of the day and our family's portfolio.
In
Out
9:59
We don't flip properties to make a quick buck.
In
Out
10:01
Every single thing that we do is for a lasting legacy.
In
Out
10:04
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.
In
Out
10:14
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.
In
Out
10:25
So please look at us as 2 separate individuals and not as a father and son versus one other proposer in this case.
In
Out
10:31
With that said, the floor is open for questions if anyone has any.
In
Out
10:42
Chair recognizes Councilmember Bergl.
In
Out
10:44
Thank you.
In
Out
10:47
This is your first time presenting this to us?
In
Out
10:49
No, I was saying this was— we presented this to you the first round around.
In
Out
10:55
Okay.
In
Out
10:55
Because the way you made it sound is that we haven't seen this before.
In
Out
10:58
I just wanted to clarify that.
In
Out
10:59
Yeah, no, sorry.
In
Out
10:59
I was saying that.
In
Out
11:00
That's okay.
In
Out
11:01
I just wanted to clarify that.
In
Out
11:02
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.
In
Out
11:15
And you're confident that that will actually be able to happen?
In
Out
11:20
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.
In
Out
11:30
Since the proposals were all submitted in, I think at this point October of last year, obviously city changed its parking requirements.
In
Out
11:36
So now, based off the new parking requirements, it may not even be required to have that large of a parking lot.
In
Out
11:42
But even if it did, I'm 100% confident that that could fit there.
In
Out
11:46
Okay.
In
Out
11:49
And you're also confident that you would be able to secure financing?
In
Out
11:54
Yes.
In
Out
11:54
We've never had an issue across all of our projects.
In
Out
11:57
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?
In
Out
12:06
Construction and permitting, or just construction?
In
Out
12:09
All of it?
In
Out
12:09
Like, meaning people can start to move in?
In
Out
12:12
Yeah.
In
Out
12:13
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.
In
Out
12:33
So you think you could do this within a year?
In
Out
12:35
A year and a half.
In
Out
12:36
People can move in in under a year and a half.
In
Out
12:45
Okay, that's all I needed.
In
Out
12:47
Thank you.
In
Out
12:47
Thank you, Councillor.
In
Out
12:49
Colleagues, anyone else?
In
Out
12:52
Okay, thank you.
In
Out
12:54
Thank you.
In
Out
12:55
Yep.
In
Out
12:56
Well, uh, the chair will now call up, um, Divine Contractors to speak on the same, uh, property.
In
Out
13:11
Yeah, thank you, Mr.
In
Out
13:12
Chair.
In
Out
13:13
Thank you, committee members.
In
Out
13:14
My name is Gary Gagne.
In
Out
13:16
I am the principal of Freedom Realty Group.
In
Out
13:19
I was born and raised in New Bedford.
In
Out
13:20
My office is on Cushionin Avenue next door to my wife's beauty salon.
In
Out
13:24
You guys probably have drove by it.
In
Out
13:26
It's across from St. Anthony's Church.
In
Out
13:28
She was also born and raised here, and we have been building in New Bedford for years.
In
Out
13:33
I'm here tonight because we submitted the strongest offer on this fire station.
In
Out
13:38
We had the highest purchase price with no mortgage contingency and no permit contingency.
In
Out
13:44
Let me say that again.
In
Out
13:46
The highest purchase price with no purchase— no financing contingency and no permitting contingency.
In
Out
13:54
The city assumes no risk if we are awarded these properties.
In
Out
13:58
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.
In
Out
14:06
That means if the planning board says 4 units, we're building 4 units.
In
Out
14:09
If they say 2 units, we're building 2 units.
In
Out
14:12
No matter what, the city assumes no risk.
In
Out
14:15
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.
In
Out
14:21
Our financing is committed.
In
Out
14:23
Our team is in place.
In
Out
14:24
2 of the 3 city reviewers rated our financial capacity highly advantageous.
In
Out
14:30
2 rated our timeline highly advantageous.
In
Out
14:34
We are not a startup.
In
Out
14:35
Since 2024, we have completed 18 residential and mixed-use real estate projects in the city of New Bedford alone.
In
Out
14:43
That's not outside any other towns, just in New Bedford, including projects larger than this.
In
Out
14:50
We currently have 6 more projects permitted, underway.
In
Out
14:54
You drive by our projects every day.
In
Out
14:56
Every one of you councilors have seen projects in every one of your wards.
In
Out
15:00
I'll name a few.
In
Out
15:01
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.
In
Out
15:17
Some of these property— properties were problematic for the city for years.
In
Out
15:23
This property is more personal to me because I grew up playing SCYA baseball.
In
Out
15:28
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.
In
Out
15:35
I rode bicycles outside of the Brock Ave fire station.
In
Out
15:38
I am passionate about this project because I love the city, and I'm committed to making the city a better place.
In
Out
15:45
We offered the most money on the properties with no conditions.
In
Out
15:48
We are actively building in the city right now.
In
Out
15:51
We are ready to close on them immediately.
In
Out
15:54
The other proposal has contingencies that could potentially delay the closing for 1 to 3 years, with no guarantee it will ever close.
In
Out
16:03
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.
In
Out
16:13
My proposal gets the most money with ultimately no risk.
In
Out
16:18
I ask this committee to recognize we have the strongest proposals recommend this property to me as an award.
In
Out
16:25
I am also joined by the co-founder of Taylor Ridge, Nicholas Schneider.
In
Out
16:30
So he's the lending— he's doing the financing.
In
Out
16:34
My cold consultant, Bill Horrocks, and my attorney, Scott Parr.
In
Out
16:38
We are all eager to answer your questions.
In
Out
16:41
Thank you, guys.
In
Out
16:45
Thank you.
In
Out
16:46
Colleagues, any questions for the presenter?
In
Out
16:51
Chair recognizes Councilmember Virgo.
In
Out
16:52
Thank you.
In
Out
16:53
So that handles my first question.
In
Out
16:55
So you have private financing already settled, so that's not a hindrance that we'll have to worry about securing bank financing.
In
Out
17:04
Um, you are proposing 8 apartments rather than 6 here.
In
Out
17:08
That is something you think is feasible?
In
Out
17:11
Yes, sir.
In
Out
17:11
I have the site plans.
In
Out
17:13
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.
In
Out
17:22
Yeah, we'll leave it at that.
In
Out
17:23
But I just wanted to— just like I asked the last person about the parking space, I just wanted to clarify.
In
Out
17:28
You're saying you can do 8 apartments.
In
Out
17:29
I want to make sure that that is something that you can actually live up to.
In
Out
17:36
And as you pointed out too, you're offering us $75,000, which is $25,000 more.
In
Out
17:41
That's correct?
In
Out
17:41
Correct?
In
Out
17:42
Yes, sir.
In
Out
17:43
And you can complete this in how much time?
In
Out
17:46
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.
In
Out
18:01
There's no way this is getting permitted within 6 months.
In
Out
18:04
The planning board, zoning board, and the building department, because you need to submit a building permit.
In
Out
18:09
You can't just go, and they have 30 days to deny you, and things get hung up.
In
Out
18:14
So the permitting alone will take a year, and I can, I'd say, finish this in 7 to 8 months.
In
Out
18:20
And my lender who joined me has the facts on my experience for many years and timelines on my completion.
In
Out
18:31
So when will this be completed by, you would say?
In
Out
18:33
I'd say 18 months.
In
Out
18:35
Okay, so less than 2 years.
In
Out
18:38
All right, thank you.
In
Out
18:40
Thank you.
In
Out
18:41
Is that all, Councillor?
In
Out
18:43
Yes, thank you.
In
Out
18:44
Colleagues, anyone else for the presenter or any other of the gentlemen that, uh, are here?
In
Out
18:52
Okay, thank you.
In
Out
18:55
Thank you, Sean.
In
Out
18:57
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.
In
Out
19:07
We'll have South Coast Associates speak first.
In
Out
19:18
All right.
In
Out
19:19
Good evening, President and members of the City Council.
In
Out
19:23
Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this proposal this evening.
In
Out
19:29
So tonight I don't want to spend time discussing the specifics of our redevelopment proposal.
In
Out
19:35
That proposal has already been thoroughly vetted and has already been evaluated, debated, and ultimately selected not once but twice.
In
Out
19:46
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.
In
Out
20:01
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.
In
Out
20:11
The second time this project returned, our proposal remained unchanged because we believed it was already the right proposal.
In
Out
20:19
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.
In
Out
20:31
It's also important to recognize what occurred during that second solicitation.
In
Out
20:36
The RFP was reissued, creating an opportunity for an entirely new applicant to compete.
In
Out
20:43
Every proposal previously submitted had become a matter of public record.
In
Out
20:47
That meant that any new applicant had the benefit of reviewing not only our proposal but other proposals that entered, you know, previously.
In
Out
20:59
If ever there was an opportunity to submit a truly exceptional proposal, that was it.
In
Out
21:04
Yet the property committee determined that those submissions did not surpass what had already been presented by us.
In
Out
21:12
They determined that our proposal remained the strongest and once again recommended that this project be awarded to our team.
In
Out
21:19
Tonight marks the 3rd time we have appeared before you.
In
Out
21:23
If that does not demonstrate a commitment, I don't know what is.
In
Out
21:28
Over the past 2 years, we have continued moving this project forward.
In
Out
21:32
We've invested our own time and resources without any guarantee that we would ever be standing here again.
In
Out
21:38
We documented the existing historic building through comprehensive architectural field measurements.
In
Out
21:44
We commissioned and developed complete site plans.
In
Out
21:49
We completed a Phase 1 environmental hazardous material investigation, which is— fees associated with that.
In
Out
21:58
So a lot of what we did architecturally, engineering-wise, and hazardous material-wise requires to invest actual resources into that.
In
Out
22:07
We prepared detailed construction budgets and realistic permitting schedules.
In
Out
22:11
We created architectural renderings to clearly communicate the vision of the property.
In
Out
22:16
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.
In
Out
22:30
More importantly, we invested because we believe in New Bedford.
In
Out
22:33
Our portfolio demonstrates who we are through South Coast and Associates.
In
Out
22:37
We have spent more than 2 decades designing, building, and managing complex residential and commercial projects throughout our region.
In
Out
22:45
Our experience is not based on a promise.
In
Out
22:47
It's based on projects successfully completed and the relationships we've built over many years.
In
Out
22:54
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.
In
Out
23:09
This project has never been just another development opportunity to us.
In
Out
23:12
It has become a shared commitment.
In
Out
23:15
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.
In
Out
23:29
Very few developers would continue investing under these circumstances.
In
Out
23:33
We did because we believe in this project and we believe it's worth fighting for.
In
Out
23:38
At some point, this process has to move from planning to progress.
In
Out
23:43
I also hope that regardless of tonight's outcome, that we take this opportunity to reflect on the process itself.
In
Out
23:50
There has been lessons— there's lessons to be learned here.
In
Out
23:52
About how redevelopment opportunities move through the system.
In
Out
23:57
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.
In
Out
24:08
So members of the City Council, this project has already earned confidence of the Property Committee twice.
In
Out
24:17
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.
In
Out
24:29
Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued service to the city.
In
Out
24:34
And just one additional point: the city is not being asked to take a chance on an idea.
In
Out
24:40
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.
In
Out
24:51
That significantly reduces uncertainty and increases the likelihood of successful completion.
In
Out
24:58
Thank you.
In
Out
25:00
Thank you, colleagues.
In
Out
25:01
Questions for the presenter?
In
Out
25:02
Chair recognizes Councilor Burgos.
In
Out
25:04
Thank you.
In
Out
25:06
I wasn't sure if you wanted to present anything on the actual proposal before I asked any questions.
In
Out
25:12
No, I'm going to rely on the property committee's recommendation.
In
Out
25:16
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?
In
Out
25:25
Yes.
In
Out
25:25
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?
In
Out
25:35
Well, there was an opportunity last time around Correct.
In
Out
25:38
So that's why I wanted just to clarify.
In
Out
25:41
Yeah, that typically that is what happens, is that those who bid typically get to come.
In
Out
25:46
We get to ask clarifying questions.
In
Out
25:48
Yeah, sure.
In
Out
25:49
I do apologize that I wasn't at that meeting.
In
Out
25:52
I typically do attend, like I was at the one when you originally bid.
In
Out
25:57
And I just— I wanted to clarify that because I, I sense the animosity and anger and frustration.
In
Out
26:03
Which I understand because this is upsetting because you have to come back and do this again.
In
Out
26:09
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.
In
Out
26:20
So I just want you to take that into consideration.
In
Out
26:24
You do have a great proposal here.
In
Out
26:26
Looking at it, you have 8 residential apartments.
In
Out
26:31
And I— again, it looks like you have a similar situation where you're going to require securing bank financing.
In
Out
26:37
Is that correct?
In
Out
26:38
Right.
In
Out
26:39
Okay.
In
Out
26:40
This one, it looks like the parking is a little more realistic.
In
Out
26:44
One parking space per unit, and you're offering 2 visitor parking spaces for a total of 10 spaces.
In
Out
26:50
Is that correct?
In
Out
26:51
Correct.
In
Out
26:52
And that's something that you believe is doable, even though in the proposal, it doesn't detail exactly what the spaces will be.
In
Out
27:01
Is it— is this— I believe this is the one where one space would be a garaged space.
In
Out
27:05
Is that correct?
In
Out
27:06
Correct.
In
Out
27:06
Yeah.
In
Out
27:06
Okay.
In
Out
27:08
All right.
In
Out
27:09
I believe that is all the questions I had.
In
Out
27:12
But again, I apologize for my absence at that last city property meeting.
In
Out
27:15
I appreciate you coming back again.
In
Out
27:17
And I just wanted to make that clarification.
In
Out
27:19
Yeah, there's a lot— there's a lot to explain here.
In
Out
27:21
It's a very detailed proposal, so I wouldn't take the floor with all that tonight.
In
Out
27:25
I would just encourage you to rely on the Property Committee and their recommendation.
In
Out
27:31
This is the Property Committee, and— well, I'm sorry, the committee before that offered the recommendations prior.
In
Out
27:37
Maybe I'm misnaming what that committee is, but— no, it was the Property Committee.
In
Out
27:40
It just wasn't the full Property Committee.
In
Out
27:42
Gotcha.
In
Out
27:43
Like this one isn't the full Property Committee.
In
Out
27:44
It's just not everyone was there and There's people missing at this one.
In
Out
27:48
And just that's why we referred it back, just to have this opportunity to ask some clarifying questions that we had about it.
In
Out
27:53
That's all.
In
Out
27:54
And again, it's not a mark against you.
In
Out
27:56
I think you and your son and everyone that's a part of this process do amazing work.
In
Out
28:01
And I appreciate the work that you all do for the city building apartments.
In
Out
28:04
We need apartments.
In
Out
28:06
And I don't want to have this type of animosity amongst people where everyone's fighting.
In
Out
28:11
I don't want that.
In
Out
28:12
And I hope that whatever result comes from this, no matter who gets selected, we can move forward from here.
In
Out
28:20
Thank you.
In
Out
28:21
Thank you.
In
Out
28:22
Thank you, Councilor.
In
Out
28:23
Colleagues, any other questions for the presenter?
In
Out
28:27
Okay, thank you, sir.
In
Out
28:30
Thank you.
In
Out
28:31
Uh, Chair, we'll have, uh, Freedom Realty Group up to speak on the same property.
In
Out
28:44
Thank you, Chair.
In
Out
28:45
Thank you, City Council members.
In
Out
28:49
Pretty much the same thing on both of them.
In
Out
28:54
We're still not using financing.
In
Out
28:56
We're still not doing a building permit.
In
Out
28:58
I don't believe the city is looking for another partnership or any more risk.
In
Out
29:05
I want to thank the Silveras.
In
Out
29:06
I think they've done a great job in their commitment.
In
Out
29:12
But the risk is there, right?
In
Out
29:13
We're back here again for a reason.
In
Out
29:16
My RFP is specifically geared towards no risk for the city.
In
Out
29:21
There is no chance that we're going to be back here at this meeting.
In
Out
29:25
And I really want to make a point that we are in a financial crisis.
In
Out
29:29
Right?
In
Out
29:30
This is— I've been to meetings.
In
Out
29:32
Councilor Golmes, you know, last meeting was talking about the police at the Wheeling City Festival.
In
Out
29:37
I grew up in the West End.
In
Out
29:39
This property is also dear to me.
In
Out
29:41
I used to walk to Salonica's Pizza, Grand Walk, go by the fire station.
In
Out
29:45
We were allowed to eat out twice a month, and that's where we would go.
In
Out
29:49
And with the extra funds, Councilor Golmes, we can allocate towards the police presence at Wheeling City Festival.
In
Out
29:55
We absolutely should not be, as a city, talking about canceling a festival that changed my life.
In
Out
30:02
And this proposal, specifically in the West End of New Bedford, gives the City Council the chance to allocate funds however they see fit.
In
Out
30:11
So it's not just a risk.
In
Out
30:12
It's not, you guys don't ever have to show up here again.
In
Out
30:15
But there is real money at stake.
In
Out
30:17
And for a constituent like myself, I would appreciate if you guys took more money and for a less riskier offer.
In
Out
30:25
And I'm sure the rest of the constituents in the city that are watching this would agree.
In
Out
30:30
There's a reason we're back here, and that was because of risk, right?
In
Out
30:34
There was, there was a clawback, and that's why we're here.
In
Out
30:37
If that clawback was here, I have again Nicholas Schneider in, in the audience in attendance.
In
Out
30:43
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.
In
Out
30:49
We are also— I know Councilor Lopes mentioned adding it to a purchase and sales agreement.
In
Out
30:56
We are in agreement with that.
In
Out
30:57
We are confident in our ability.
In
Out
30:59
That is why we don't have any risk.
In
Out
31:01
I am not asking for the city to take risk on my behalf.
In
Out
31:04
I think we are getting this for— my $75,000 proposal, I think, is a very fair price.
In
Out
31:12
And as owner of a real estate brokerage, I would recommend my clients, the sellers, to not take a risky and low offer.
In
Out
31:21
It's one or the other.
In
Out
31:23
My proposal— I also have site plans that obviously I'm not a site engineer.
In
Out
31:28
I had to pay for these site plans, and the parking that we have there has been confirmed.
In
Out
31:33
I have experience with getting permits on projects that don't have sufficient parking, right?
In
Out
31:40
This is a very important fact.
In
Out
31:42
In a situation like this.
In
Out
31:43
This is already a pre-existing non-conforming, but you need to conform to parking, right?
In
Out
31:49
We already crossed our T's and dotted our I's with that.
In
Out
31:52
I am a construction supervisor, also a broker of a real estate company.
In
Out
31:56
I'm not worried about the inside of the building.
In
Out
31:58
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.
In
Out
32:09
Thank God I grew up in the city and I have relationships.
In
Out
32:11
I knew the girl on the corner and she rented me space on her lot to satisfy the planning board.
In
Out
32:16
I think Mr. Choquette was at that meeting, actually.
In
Out
32:19
I appreciate your attendance to the planning board meetings as well.
In
Out
32:22
That's very important.
In
Out
32:23
Um, I, I don't want to keep harping on the fact that we have no contingencies and we're offering the most money.
In
Out
32:31
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.
In
Out
32:41
Thank you, guys.
In
Out
32:44
Thank you.
In
Out
32:46
The chair asks, is there any questions from the body for the presenter?
In
Out
32:51
Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
32:53
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
32:54
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.
In
Out
33:07
I just want you to know that.
In
Out
33:09
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.
In
Out
33:25
I understand.
In
Out
33:26
Thank you.
In
Out
33:26
Thank you.
In
Out
33:28
Thank you, Councilor.
In
Out
33:30
Colleagues, anyone else?
In
Out
33:33
Thank you.
In
Out
33:35
Thank you, Councilor.
In
Out
33:38
Colleagues, we still have item number 1 before us.
In
Out
33:41
Uh, we've had the discussion about the properties.
In
Out
33:43
Item number 1 was the report out from this committee prior.
In
Out
33:46
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.
In
Out
34:02
So just, uh, if, uh, Mr. Paveo could come up.
In
Out
34:17
Good evening, councilors.
In
Out
34:18
Thanks.
In
Out
34:18
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
In
Out
34:21
As stated, we— this is before this body again.
In
Out
34:26
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.
In
Out
34:41
Yes, my understanding this matter was previously before this body and there a vote and a report as a result of the vote.
In
Out
34:47
That matter was placed on the agenda for this meeting.
In
Out
34:50
The agenda was properly posted under the Open Meeting Law.
In
Out
34:53
And so I think it would be fairly appropriate for the committee to recognize and adopt the report onto the record.
In
Out
35:01
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.
In
Out
35:09
Thank you.
In
Out
35:10
Colleagues, any questions for— Chair recognizes Councilmember Burgo.
In
Out
35:14
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?
In
Out
35:29
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?
In
Out
35:43
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.
In
Out
35:59
Would it require a motion to amend rather than a motion to select?
In
Out
36:05
It's a unique issue.
In
Out
36:06
I think either would be appropriate.
In
Out
36:10
I did speak to David Garatowski, our legislative counsel, prior.
In
Out
36:14
I know he's not here.
In
Out
36:15
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.
In
Out
36:23
But then when you came up, I wasn't sure if there was a conflicting scenario.
In
Out
36:28
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.
In
Out
36:36
It's as though— but this item wasn't before us, the favorable recommendation from the committee.
In
Out
36:42
So that's why I had the question.
In
Out
36:44
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.
In
Out
36:53
So it's when we're referring it back out again, whatever motion we make.
In
Out
36:57
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?
In
Out
37:21
The order reads that they were the approval of those proposals from those people.
In
Out
37:25
So we sent that back because that's what was referred out.
In
Out
37:28
So that's why I wanted to get at least some sort of clarification from the attorney that is here and what he thought.
In
Out
37:36
The— I, you know, I believe you in your conversation with Attorney Garatowski.
In
Out
37:41
How do you— without him, without him being here air.
In
Out
37:44
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.
In
Out
37:51
It's, it's, it's proper, it's appropriately noticed, and so discussion can be had on it.
In
Out
37:56
Motion to amend, or there can be a new motion because the issue is before the committee.
In
Out
38:02
So, uh, in my opinion, either, uh, mechanism is available to, to the committee.
In
Out
38:09
What would you say is the safest option?
In
Out
38:12
That's a dangerous question.
In
Out
38:18
If there's— I guess that's a dangerous question.
In
Out
38:20
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?
In
Out
38:34
Would that be an appropriate motion to say?
In
Out
38:37
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?
In
Out
38:53
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.
In
Out
39:07
Yes.
In
Out
39:08
Oh, okay.
In
Out
39:08
Councilor, if you— sure.
In
Out
39:11
Would it— would we be able to perhaps even take no further action on this, report it out, and make a whole new motion?
In
Out
39:20
Well, I think that's what he's saying, basically, right?
In
Out
39:22
Basically, our new motion would just be motion to report out of the full City Council selecting proposal.
In
Out
39:30
In my case, I want to make the motion to select the proposal submitted by Divine Contractors, blah blah blah.
In
Out
39:35
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.
In
Out
39:43
Okay, okay, I think we got it now.
In
Out
39:45
That was my understanding, is that correct?
In
Out
39:47
Yeah.
In
Out
39:47
Okay, okay, thank you.
In
Out
39:49
Thank you, uh, city solicitor, assistant city solicitor.
In
Out
39:53
Oh, that's a tongue twister.
In
Out
39:58
Okay, so, uh, colleagues, your pleasure.
In
Out
40:01
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.
In
Out
40:20
To be adopted for the city to effectuate the sale.
In
Out
40:25
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.
In
Out
40:40
Is that correct?
In
Out
40:41
Yes.
In
Out
40:42
Okay, motion made by Councilor Bergler.
In
Out
40:46
Second.
In
Out
40:46
Second by Councillor Roy.
In
Out
40:49
Roll call on the question.
In
Out
40:51
On the question, Councillor Burgo.
In
Out
40:52
Thank you so much.
In
Out
40:56
I just— again, I think that both bidders are great.
In
Out
41:00
I don't want this to be a situation where pitting people against each other.
In
Out
41:06
It just comes down to the numbers here.
In
Out
41:09
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.
In
Out
41:17
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.
In
Out
41:26
And I also feel as though the timeline, because they have private financing, would go through a lot quicker.
In
Out
41:34
I just— that's why I would like to make this change, and I hope my colleagues would support that.
In
Out
41:39
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.
In
Out
41:50
Thank you, Councilor.
In
Out
41:52
Colleagues, anyone else on their first?
In
Out
41:56
Okay, seeing none, roll call is requested.
In
Out
41:58
I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
In
Out
42:00
Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
42:02
No, Councillor Ebru.
In
Out
42:03
Councillor Burgo?
In
Out
42:05
Yes, Councillor Burgo.
In
Out
42:06
Councillor Carney?
In
Out
42:06
No.
In
Out
42:07
No, Councillor Carney.
In
Out
42:08
Councillor Trickett?
In
Out
42:09
No.
In
Out
42:10
No, Councillor Trickett.
In
Out
42:11
Councillor Gomes?
In
Out
42:12
No.
In
Out
42:12
No, Councillor Gomes.
In
Out
42:14
Councillor Oliver?
In
Out
42:15
No.
In
Out
42:15
No, Councillor Oliver.
In
Out
42:16
Councillor Pemberton?
In
Out
42:17
No.
In
Out
42:18
No, Councillor Pemberton.
In
Out
42:19
Councillor Roy?
In
Out
42:21
Yes.
In
Out
42:22
Excuse me?
In
Out
42:23
Yes.
In
Out
42:24
Thank you.
In
Out
42:24
Yes, it fails.
In
Out
42:28
Uh, 6 to 2.
In
Out
42:29
Motion fails 6 to 2.
In
Out
42:30
Colleagues, your pleasure.
In
Out
42:38
You had to turn your mic on.
In
Out
42:41
I got it.
In
Out
42:41
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.
In
Out
42:58
Motion by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
42:59
Second.
In
Out
43:00
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.
In
Out
43:16
All in favor?
In
Out
43:17
Aye.
In
Out
43:19
Roll call vote.
In
Out
43:20
Has been requested.
In
Out
43:22
I'll ask the clerk to call the roll for Fire Station 3.
In
Out
43:33
Okay, for on from South Coast proposal, Councillor Abreu?
In
Out
43:37
Yes.
In
Out
43:38
Yes, Councillor Abreu.
In
Out
43:38
Councillor Burgo?
In
Out
43:40
No.
In
Out
43:40
No, Councillor Burgo.
In
Out
43:41
Councillor Carney?
In
Out
43:42
Yes.
In
Out
43:43
Yes, Councillor Carney.
In
Out
43:43
Councillor Choquette?
In
Out
43:45
Yes.
In
Out
43:45
Councillor Chauquette.
In
Out
43:46
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
43:47
Yes.
In
Out
43:48
Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
43:48
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
43:50
Yes.
In
Out
43:50
Yes.
In
Out
43:50
Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
43:51
Councilor Pemberton?
In
Out
43:52
Yes.
In
Out
43:52
Yes.
In
Out
43:53
Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
43:55
Councilor Roy?
In
Out
43:56
No.
In
Out
43:57
No.
In
Out
43:57
That passes.
In
Out
43:58
Motion passes 6 to 2.
In
Out
44:02
Colleagues, your pleasure on the Brock Avenue location.
In
Out
44:05
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.
In
Out
44:24
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.
In
Out
44:37
Any seconds?
In
Out
44:38
Second.
In
Out
44:39
Second by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
44:43
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
44:44
On the question, Shane Berger here.
In
Out
44:47
Thank you.
In
Out
44:47
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.
In
Out
45:03
Based on how the votes are going, you know I'm really good at counting, Mr. Chairman, so this is probably going to fail.
In
Out
45:10
But I just again want it on the record that this is another additional $25,000, which would be nice to have.
In
Out
45:17
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.
In
Out
45:27
This is a group that we know has the secure financing.
In
Out
45:31
They have their financing here all ready to go, and I think this would be the more highly advantageous proposal.
In
Out
45:40
I hope that my colleagues will go with this, but it sounds like they won't.
In
Out
45:44
But my last pitch— we don't know till we come— we'll see.
In
Out
45:47
Let's find out.
In
Out
45:48
Roll call, baby.
In
Out
45:50
Thank you, Councilor Burgos.
In
Out
45:51
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
45:54
Seeing none— sorry.
In
Out
45:55
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.
In
Out
46:08
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.
In
Out
46:15
I just wanted to point that out.
In
Out
46:17
Thank you, Councilor.
In
Out
46:19
Anyone on there first?
In
Out
46:21
Seeing none, roll call was requested.
In
Out
46:23
I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.
In
Out
46:24
This is on the Devine proposal.
In
Out
46:26
Councilor Abreu?
In
Out
46:27
No.
In
Out
46:27
Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
46:28
Councilor Burgo?
In
Out
46:30
Yes.
In
Out
46:30
Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
46:31
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
46:32
No.
In
Out
46:32
No.
In
Out
46:33
Councilor Carney.
In
Out
46:33
Councilor Choquette?
In
Out
46:34
No.
In
Out
46:35
No.
In
Out
46:35
Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
46:36
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
46:37
No.
In
Out
46:38
No.
In
Out
46:38
Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
46:39
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
46:40
No.
In
Out
46:41
No.
In
Out
46:41
Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
46:41
Councilor Pemberton?
In
Out
46:43
No.
In
Out
46:43
No.
In
Out
46:44
Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
46:45
Councilor Roy?
In
Out
46:45
Yes, yes, yes.
In
Out
46:49
That fails.
In
Out
46:50
Motion fails, uh, 6 to 2.
In
Out
46:55
Colleagues, your pleasure.
In
Out
47:06
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?
In
Out
47:20
By Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
47:22
Second by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
47:25
All those in favor?
In
Out
47:27
Anybody on the question?
In
Out
47:29
Roll call.
In
Out
47:30
No one on the question.
In
Out
47:31
Seeing none, roll call vote has been requested.
In
Out
47:34
Proposal, Councilor Abreu?
In
Out
47:36
Yes.
In
Out
47:36
Councilor Councillor Abreu.
In
Out
47:37
Councillor Burgo?
In
Out
47:39
No.
In
Out
47:39
No, Councillor Burgo.
In
Out
47:40
Councillor Carney?
In
Out
47:41
Yes.
In
Out
47:41
Yes, Councillor Carney.
In
Out
47:42
Councillor Choquette?
In
Out
47:44
Yes.
In
Out
47:44
Yes, Councillor Choquette.
In
Out
47:45
Councillor Gomes?
In
Out
47:46
Yes.
In
Out
47:47
Councillor Gomes.
In
Out
47:47
Councillor Oliver?
In
Out
47:49
Yes.
In
Out
47:49
Yes, Councillor Oliver.
In
Out
47:50
Councillor Pemberton?
In
Out
47:51
Yes.
In
Out
47:51
Yes, Councillor Pemberton.
In
Out
47:52
Councillor Roy?
In
Out
47:53
No.
In
Out
47:54
No.
In
Out
47:55
That passes 6 to 2.
In
Out
47:58
Motion passes 6 to 2.
In
Out
48:02
Yes.
In
Out
48:02
Motion to waive the reading of items 4 and 5, referral to the full City Council for no further action.
In
Out
48:07
Motion made by Councilor Burgo to waive the reading on items 4 and 5 for no further action.
In
Out
48:13
Second by Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
48:15
All in favor?
In
Out
48:16
Aye.
In
Out
48:17
Opposed?
In
Out
48:17
The ayes have it.
In
Out
48:18
Motion to adjourn.
In
Out
48:19
Seeing no further business, motion to adjourn by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
48:22
Second.
In
Out
48:23
Second by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
48:25
All in favor?
In
Out
48:26
Aye.
In
Out
48:26
The ayes have it.
In
Out
48:27
We are adjourned at 7:51.
In
Out
48:30
Thank you.
In
Out