City of New Bedford Meetings
Search and subscribe to city meeting topics that impact you
Newsletters
Subscribe
← Back to video
Ordinance Committee — May 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.
1:55
It is 7:02 PM on Monday, May 11th.
In
Out
2:01
I want to note that this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.
In
Out
2:05
City Council and committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.
In
Out
2:12
I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to read into the record.
In
Out
2:16
All right, I'm joined in the council chamber tonight with my colleagues in government: Councilor at Large James Roy, Councilor at Large and Second Vice President Naomi Carney, Councilor at Large Ian Abreu, Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton, Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette, Ward 5 Councilor Joseph Lopes, Councilor at Large Brian Gomes, and Ward 6 Councilor, Council President Ryan Pereira.
In
Out
2:42
I will ask the clerk to read item 1, 1A, and 1B.
In
Out
2:47
Item number 1 is a public hearing on a communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Section 4100, relative to municipal facility conversion, referred here on March 12th, 2026.
In
Out
2:59
It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, April 27, 2026, and Monday, May 4, 2026.
In
Out
3:06
1A is an ordinance relative to amending Chapter 9, Section 4100A, relative to municipal facility conversion.
In
Out
3:15
It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, April 27, 2026, and Monday, May 4, 2026.
In
Out
3:22
It was referred here on March 12, 2026.
In
Out
3:25
1B is a communication.
In
Out
3:27
Jennifer Carloni, Director of Planning Department, to Councilor Shane Burgo, Chairman, Committee on Ordinances, advising that the planning board held a public hearing on Wednesday, April 8th, 2026, regarding the request by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make recommendations relative to adding a new Section 4100A Municipal Facility Conversion for conversion of existing vacant municipal facilities that no longer serve a public purpose, with purpose criteria in addition to the special permit requirements of Section 5300.
In
Out
3:59
Uh, the planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for this ordinance amendment with the recommendation that Section 4113A be amended to read it was used for not less than 20 years for public purposes, and that was referred here on April 17, 2026.
In
Out
4:20
1 and 1 are now before you.
In
Out
4:24
Motion to receive and place on file item 1, 1A, and 1B.
In
Out
4:29
Motion to receive and place on file and open the public hearing made by Councilor Lope, seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
4:35
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
4:37
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
4:39
Any opposed?
In
Out
4:40
The ayes have it.
In
Out
4:41
Is it Assistant Director Laurel?
In
Out
4:43
I think I see her hiding.
In
Out
4:44
Okay, there you are.
In
Out
4:45
Oh, you're hiding on us.
In
Out
4:47
Sorry, I didn't mean— just meant I didn't see you at first, and then I saw your head poke out behind the chair there.
In
Out
4:54
Good evening, uh, Council Chair and members.
In
Out
5:00
Ian Lauro, Assistant City Planner.
In
Out
5:03
I'm here to answer any questions relative to this ordinance.
In
Out
5:07
Um, I will briefly tell you that the reason why we've put it forth is that quite simply, we do have quite a bit of city facilities that often come before this body for procurement purposes and disposition.
In
Out
5:26
And changing the zoning ordinance to allow for expedited review and allowances of uses would be helpful in that disposition.
In
Out
5:42
Disposition.
In
Out
5:43
A lot of the public buildings that the city has, such as schools and police and fire stations, are often not zoned in the manner in which we probably want to be able to dispose of them, particularly for multi-housing.
In
Out
6:04
So that's the purpose of why we're making this change.
In
Out
6:10
Any questions from the body?
In
Out
6:13
Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes on this first.
In
Out
6:15
Thank you, Chairman.
In
Out
6:16
And I think this is a great idea.
In
Out
6:18
Did we calculate how much time we think we'll free up in the process to go from conception to potentially an RFP going out and then a developer moving forward?
In
Out
6:28
Well, that, that process still remains the same, but there's a couple of things that happen.
In
Out
6:33
It makes the RFP a little bit more likable for a developer because there's no unforeseen circumstances like having to go before a zoning board for some type of zoning change or ask for a zoning change, which often can end up being spot zoning.
In
Out
6:51
So it makes the RFP a little bit, you know, palatable.
In
Out
6:58
The timeframe won't change.
In
Out
6:59
Except for the fact that the disposition for development will be quicker because they won't have to— they'll still have most likely have to go through some site plan review, but they wouldn't have to seek some type of nonconformity or zoning change.
In
Out
7:16
Okay.
In
Out
7:16
And then my last question, you hit on it.
In
Out
7:18
So none of this would be spot zoning?
In
Out
7:21
No.
In
Out
7:21
So that's what this is— this is eliminating the spot zoning.
In
Out
7:24
Perfect.
In
Out
7:25
That— those are my 2 questions.
In
Out
7:26
Thank you for answering them both.
In
Out
7:27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
7:28
Thank you.
In
Out
7:30
The chair recognizes Councilor Abram as first.
In
Out
7:32
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
7:33
Good evening, Anne.
In
Out
7:34
Good evening.
In
Out
7:35
Good to see you.
In
Out
7:36
Um, looking at this explanation here in my notes, um, the planning board recommended here, as it says here in your description, changing the language to require a property to have been used for public purposes for at least 20 years Just wondering, what was the rationale behind a 20-year threshold?
In
Out
7:56
Why not 15?
In
Out
7:57
Why not 25?
In
Out
7:58
I'm just curious, how was it settled on 20?
In
Out
8:01
So the change really wasn't for the 20 years.
In
Out
8:03
The change was from municipal to public because I made a mistake.
In
Out
8:09
I'm sorry, it's like poking me in the face.
In
Out
8:14
Okay, so, so I'll go back to the 20 years, but let me, let me explain explain what happened in the change.
In
Out
8:22
When I drafted the ordinance, my intent was for it to be municipal buildings, but when it came to the criteria, that it originally got written as it was a municipal— it was in municipal use for 20 years, and that was supposed to be public use.
In
Out
8:42
And I'm going to give you an example so you all understand what I'm saying.
In
Out
8:45
If the post office and the— well, I can bring a real life, the armory.
In
Out
8:52
The armory was built for municipal use, but then it went to the state, and then before it came back to the city.
In
Out
9:03
So there was like some time changes in there.
In
Out
9:05
But if, for example, the post office decided to close and the city procured that building and then wanted to redevelop it or to put it out for disposition, it was not a municipal building, was never a municipal building, but it might be in our municipal hands.
In
Out
9:26
So that's why I wanted to change it from municipal to a public building.
In
Out
9:34
Thank you.
In
Out
9:36
I have 2 other questions here.
In
Out
9:41
How would neighborhood residents be notified and/or involved, I guess my question would be, in future conversion proposals under this new streamlined planning board review process?
In
Out
9:52
What's your process internally, or externally I should say, for engagement of the neighborhood residents to make sure they're involved in these conversations?
In
Out
10:02
Yeah, and I apologize, I don't have the ordinance right in front of me, um, but I believe we're still doing a special permit, which would be a public hearing.
In
Out
10:14
Yep.
In
Out
10:15
Yeah, a public hearing.
In
Out
10:17
But to that point, you'll do the normal process of engaging the neighborhood, the abutters, and do all that.
In
Out
10:22
So I can tell you what we in the planning office do right now for all development is we cannot force, but we highly encourage developers before they come to any of our boards or commissions to have outreach to their neighborhood and have a neighborhood meeting.
In
Out
10:45
And we're finding some good success with that.
In
Out
10:50
I guess my last question for now, Mr. Chairman, through you to Ms. Lauro.
In
Out
10:55
I'm not gonna hold you to this.
In
Out
10:57
I know we're on the record, but what types of redevelopment projects does the planning board or planning department envision for some of these former municipal facilities?
In
Out
11:06
We're talking housing, commercial, nonprofit, other uses, income-restricted housing, market-rate housing.
In
Out
11:13
What are some of the conversations that have been had in the board, within the board, and in your office?
In
Out
11:19
So we work very closely with the Office of Housing and Community Development on the RFPs.
In
Out
11:26
In the past, you've seen police stations and schools that have gone forth.
In
Out
11:31
Tomorrow you have another slate of municipal buildings, including the armory.
In
Out
11:38
Usually it's the market that is dictating what those uses be.
In
Out
11:43
We within the RFPs do put recommended uses.
In
Out
11:48
Um, also in, in this particular ordinance, there is criteria of uses that are not allowed.
In
Out
11:54
So obviously we don't want to adversely impact the locations in the neighborhoods where these buildings are located.
In
Out
12:02
As we know, the schools and fire stations, the police stations are— were always nestled, um, intermixed within the, the neighborhoods.
In
Out
12:14
So we're, we're not allowing high-impactful adverse uses, but encouraging uses that the market will take advantage of.
In
Out
12:26
All right.
In
Out
12:27
Thank you for answering my questions, Ann.
In
Out
12:28
Mr. Chairman, I'll yield at this time.
In
Out
12:30
Thank you.
In
Out
12:31
Thank you.
In
Out
12:31
I also want to recognize that the ward 4 Councilor Derek Baptiste has joined us.
In
Out
12:35
Anyone else on their first?
In
Out
12:39
Anyone on their second?
In
Out
12:42
All right.
In
Out
12:43
Seeing that this is a public hearing, I'll ask if anyone here wishes to speak in favor.
In
Out
12:48
Speak in favor.
In
Out
12:50
Be recorded in favor.
In
Out
12:52
Be recorded in favor.
In
Out
12:54
Anyone wish to speak in opposition?
In
Out
12:57
Speak in opposition.
In
Out
13:00
Be recorded in opposition.
In
Out
13:02
Be recorded in opposition.
In
Out
13:06
Motion to close the public hearing made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
13:11
Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?
In
Out
13:14
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
13:17
Any opposed?
In
Out
13:17
The ayes have it.
In
Out
13:19
Your pleasure.
In
Out
13:24
Motion to refer out to the full City Council with a positive recommendation made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
13:31
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
13:33
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
13:36
Any opposed?
In
Out
13:37
The ayes have it.
In
Out
13:39
I'll ask the clerk to read item 2.
In
Out
13:42
Number 2 is a written motion, Councilor Gomes, requesting that the Committee on Ordinances look into establishing an ordinance that would ban fireworks being shot off throughout the city after the hours of 10 PM, with the exception, even though illegal after the 10 PM curfew on July 4th, and further that the ordinance establish a $300 fine for those caught illegally firing off fireworks between July 5th through July— between July 3rd through July 5th— I'm sorry, it's backwards— um, of the following year within city neighborhoods, beaches, waterfront, and open spaces.
In
Out
14:18
Furthermore, that this law would be strictly enforced in the city, giving some relief to the neighbors— neighborhoods.
In
Out
14:24
It was referred here on June 25th, 2020.
In
Out
14:26
It's now before you.
In
Out
14:27
Motion received and placed in front Motion received and placed on file, made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
14:33
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
14:35
Chair recognizes, um, Councilor Gomes on his first.
In
Out
14:39
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
14:40
Mr. Chairman, um, to the clerk, from through you to the clerk, you're reading that correctly?
In
Out
14:45
July 5th to the 3rd?
In
Out
14:47
Oh, okay.
In
Out
14:50
I'm sorry, I was— it just threw me off.
In
Out
14:52
I thought it was backwards.
In
Out
14:53
I'm sorry.
In
Out
14:54
And probably the way I wrote worded it.
In
Out
14:56
Um, if I just may have the floor for a minute.
In
Out
14:59
Um, as you, uh, know, we— I wanted to go over this this evening, and you had invited guests like the police chief and the fire chief.
In
Out
15:06
After having conversations with both chiefs, uh, earlier today, I asked that we, um, tonight table this item due to the fact that there is some import from the fire chief and the police chief on how we can do this collectively together and can be a real— let me just say, a real good deal for the city of New Bedford as far as fireworks is concerned, with the implementation of a fine and some action by both parties.
In
Out
15:36
So at this point, if no one else wants the floor, I would ask that we table this item till the next ordinance meeting.
In
Out
15:44
Okay, motion to table made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
15:50
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
15:53
The ayes— sorry, any opposed?
In
Out
15:55
The ayes have it.
In
Out
15:57
I'll ask the clerk to read item 3 into the record.
In
Out
16:00
Item number 3 is a communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council, to, uh, submitting an order and an act providing for the recall of elected officers in the city of New Bedford.
In
Out
16:11
It was referred here on March 14, 2024.
In
Out
16:13
July 17, 2024, it was tabled.
In
Out
16:15
October 9th, 2024 remained on the table.
In
Out
16:20
November 19th, 2024 remained in committee.
In
Out
16:22
On May 28th, 2025, it was heard and tabled.
In
Out
16:24
3A is the order.
In
Out
16:26
It was referred here on March 14th, 2024.
In
Out
16:29
June 17th— July 17th, 2024 was tabled.
In
Out
16:33
October 9th, 2024 remained on the table.
In
Out
16:36
November 19th, 2024 remained in committee.
In
Out
16:39
On May 28th, 2025, it was heard.
In
Out
16:42
And then tables.
In
Out
16:44
3B is the act referred here on March 14th, 2024.
In
Out
16:48
July 17th, 2024, it was tabled.
In
Out
16:50
October 9th, 2024, it remained on the table.
In
Out
16:53
On November 19th, 2024, there was a vote to amend the act by striking the language 600 in Section 3A and replacing it with 1,800, and by striking the language 100 in Section 3A and 3B and replacing it with 300.
In
Out
17:08
Vote to amend the act by striking the language 3 months in Section 2 and replacing it with 4 months, and by striking the language 6 months in Section 2 and replacing it with 8 months.
In
Out
17:20
And it remained in committee.
In
Out
17:21
On May 28th, 2025, it was again heard but tabled.
In
Out
17:26
So 3, 3A, and 3B are now before you, and they are on the table.
In
Out
17:32
Motion to remove from the table made by Council Prayer, seconded by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
17:37
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
17:38
Aye.
In
Out
17:39
Any opposed?
In
Out
17:40
The ayes have it.
In
Out
17:44
Motion made by Councilor Prayer to refer to the full City Council for adoption, seconded by Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
17:52
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
17:55
I'm on the question.
In
Out
17:56
Chair recognizes Councilor Ryan on this first.
In
Out
18:00
Folks, I think there's work to be done Mr.
In
Out
18:02
Chair, I think there's work to be done on this motion, and I think we should take the time to get it done in committee right now.
In
Out
18:07
Um, I'm hoping my colleagues will indulge me, Mr.
In
Out
18:11
Chair, and, and take the time to do the work right now, um, before we send this, uh, to the full City Council for adoption.
In
Out
18:18
So I'm gonna vote no on this, and hopefully my colleagues will follow suit and we can do the work that's needed to be done.
In
Out
18:26
Chair recognizes Councilor Avrill on his first Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
18:29
Uh, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Honorable At-Large Councilor, our friend and colleague, I'm just curious, um, if he wouldn't mind, if you would indulge him, Mr. Chairman, just so we could further expand on the work maybe that he's referring to that we haven't done or need to do.
In
Out
18:43
I'm just curious, and, um, I'd be, be more than willing to listen, but I'm just curious.
In
Out
18:48
Thank you.
In
Out
18:48
I'll yield.
In
Out
18:50
Is a motion to amend in order?
In
Out
18:52
At point of, point of order, is a motion to amend in order?
In
Out
18:54
Yes, Councilor Roy, if you'd like to make a motion, you can.
In
Out
18:57
I would, I would.
In
Out
18:58
I'd like to make a motion to amend the act by striking the language 1,800 in Section 3A and replacing it with 600, and by striking the language 300 in Sections 3A and 3B and replacing it with 100.
In
Out
19:15
Motion made by Councilor Roy to strike the language in 3A to replace 1,800 with 600 and 300 with 100.
In
Out
19:29
Did I get that right?
In
Out
19:30
You did.
In
Out
19:32
3A.
In
Out
19:32
Oh, sorry, 3A and 3B.
In
Out
19:34
Is there a second?
In
Out
19:38
Seeing none, uh, that motion fails, uh, for lack of a second.
In
Out
19:44
Uh, the motion still before us is a motion made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
19:49
Mr.
In
Out
19:49
Chair, I'd like to amend make a motion to amend again.
In
Out
19:53
Okay.
In
Out
19:54
I'd like to make a motion to amend the act by striking the language 15% in the first paragraph of Section 6 and replacing it with 10%, and by striking the language 15% in the final paragraph of Section 6 and replacing it with 10%.
In
Out
20:16
So in— sorry, 15% to 10% in the first section, in the first paragraph, and in the second to 10%.
In
Out
20:27
So that was a motion made by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
20:31
Is there a second?
In
Out
20:35
Seeing none, that motion fails as well.
In
Out
20:37
Mr.
In
Out
20:38
Chair, I'd like to amend the act, move to amend the act again.
In
Out
20:40
I'd like to move the amended act by striking the language 15% in the first paragraph of Section 3D and replacing it with 10%, and by striking the language 15% in the final paragraph of Section 3D and replacing it with 10%.
In
Out
20:59
So in Section 3D, 15 to 10%, and the final paragraph of 3G— 3D, sorry, 15% to 10%.
In
Out
21:09
Motion made by Councilor Roy, seconded by— due to a lack of a second, that motion fails.
In
Out
21:19
The motion before us is on— motion to table.
In
Out
21:26
A motion to table has been made.
In
Out
21:27
Is there a second?
In
Out
21:31
A lack of a second.
In
Out
21:32
Motion fails.
In
Out
21:34
Motion to amend, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
21:37
Okay.
In
Out
21:39
Is your mic on?
In
Out
21:41
Oh, it's doing that thing again.
In
Out
21:42
Okay.
In
Out
21:46
All right.
In
Out
21:47
Yeah, take the podium.
In
Out
21:51
I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to amend the order to insert the phrase herein attached.
In
Out
21:59
Attorney Garetowski, herein attached, act attached.
In
Out
22:09
So after, in the order, after the title of the act, comma, herein attached, which I'll wait for a second before I speak on it.
In
Out
22:21
Oh, sorry.
In
Out
22:22
Well, that's the motion.
In
Out
22:23
The motion is to amend the order to, after the title of the act, insert the phrase herein attached.
In
Out
22:31
An act herein attached.
In
Out
22:32
Correct.
In
Out
22:33
Motion made by Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
22:36
Second.
In
Out
22:36
Seconded by Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
22:38
On the question, Mr.
In
Out
22:39
Chair, I can ask Councilor Pereira on the question.
In
Out
22:41
Um, colleagues, Attorney Garatowski had pointed out that the order allows the mayor to, uh, file the act with the state legislature but does not explicitly attach the act of which we were voting on currently.
In
Out
22:54
So by inserting this clause, herein attached, the act that will be attached to the order is what has to be submitted to the General Court.
In
Out
23:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
23:04
All right, anyone else on the question of this amendment which will in place put herein attached?
In
Out
23:12
Anyone?
In
Out
23:12
Councilor Carney, are you looking for the floor?
In
Out
23:14
No.
In
Out
23:15
All right, anyone on their question?
In
Out
23:16
If not, I'm going to ask the clerk to call a roll call on amendment to add in again after enact herein attached.
In
Out
23:24
The clerk will call the roll.
In
Out
23:26
Councilor Abreu?
In
Out
23:27
Yes.
In
Out
23:27
Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
23:28
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
23:30
Yes.
In
Out
23:30
Councilor Baptiste.
In
Out
23:31
Councilor Burgo?
In
Out
23:32
Yes.
In
Out
23:33
Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
23:33
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
23:34
Yes.
In
Out
23:35
Councilor Carney.
In
Out
23:36
Councilor Choquette?
In
Out
23:37
Yes.
In
Out
23:38
Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
23:39
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
23:40
Yes.
In
Out
23:41
Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
23:41
Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
23:43
Yes, Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
23:44
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
23:45
Yes.
In
Out
23:46
Yes, Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
23:47
Councilor Pemberton?
In
Out
23:48
Yes.
In
Out
23:49
Yes, Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
23:50
Councilor Pereira?
In
Out
23:51
Yes.
In
Out
23:52
Yes, Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
23:53
Councilor Roy?
In
Out
23:54
Yes.
In
Out
23:55
Yes, that passes 11 to 0.
In
Out
23:57
Passes 11 to 0.
In
Out
23:59
Refer as amended.
In
Out
24:00
So yes, uh, again, the motion now before us is referral made by Councilor Pereira, uh, seconded by Councilor Chauquette, to refer out as amended to the full City Council for approval, for adoption.
In
Out
24:13
Motion by Councilor Choquette.
In
Out
24:17
Motion to amend has been made by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
24:19
I'd like to move to amend the act by striking the language 4 months in Section 2 and replacing it with 3 months, and by striking the language 8 months in Section 2 and replacing it with 6 months.
In
Out
24:31
Motion made by Councilor Roy to strike the language, uh, In Section 2, from 4 months to 3 months, and again in Section 2, from 8 months to 6 months.
In
Out
24:44
Is there a second?
In
Out
24:47
Seeing none, that motion fails as well.
In
Out
24:52
If there's no— no one did.
In
Out
24:57
Oh, which one?
In
Out
24:58
For the hearing at Oliver.
In
Out
25:02
Again, the motion before us is on referral out to the full city council for adoption.
In
Out
25:07
If there's no one on the question, seeing none, I'll ask all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
25:14
Any opposed?
In
Out
25:14
The ayes have it.
In
Out
25:16
I'll ask the clerk to read item 4.
In
Out
25:26
Item number 4 is a written motion.
In
Out
25:27
Councilors Burgal, Pereira, Abril, Carney, Oliver, Lima, Baptiste, Gomes, Moret, and Giesta.
In
Out
25:32
Requesting that the Committee on Ordinances explore the enactment of an ordinance or city policy to establish parental paid leave to provide compensation for a period of time for city employees in the event of an addition of a child to the employee's immediate family to allow for the proper care and bonding with the child.
In
Out
25:49
It was referred here on August 17, 2023.
In
Out
25:51
On November 20, 2023, Judy Keating will secure the monies and numbers on instituting the program.
In
Out
25:57
It was tabled.
In
Out
25:58
On March 25th, 2024, remained on the table.
In
Out
26:01
On April 22nd, 2025, it was heard and then tabled.
In
Out
26:05
On September 29th, 2025, there was a vote that the Legislative Council draft the parental leave ordinance that would grant the employees parental leave up to 6 weeks at full pay and an additional 6 weeks at 75% pay to be used in the first year of a child's birth or adoption, and it remained in committee.
In
Out
26:23
Number 4 is before you and it's tabled.
In
Out
26:30
Motion to remove from the table made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by, by Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
26:37
Thank you.
In
Out
26:38
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
26:40
Any opposed?
In
Out
26:41
The ayes have it.
In
Out
26:42
Mr. Chairman, if I may.
In
Out
26:44
Sure.
In
Out
26:52
So, colleagues, just to refresh the body's memory and the general public, councillors that were listed herein, starting with councillors— Mr. Chairman and the at-large councillor from the South End on Rickerson Street, and a whole slew of other councillors joined on to this motion.
In
Out
27:16
As well as councilors who are not here, along with a personnel director that is no longer here.
In
Out
27:20
That's how long we've been talking about this item.
In
Out
27:23
Uh, I am— at the last meeting, we moved forward and asked Attorney Garatowski to draft an ordinance with what we as a committee felt comfortable presenting or, or voting upon at that time, which was 6 weeks of paid parental leave at full pay and another 6 at 75% of the person's pay.
In
Out
27:43
I have an ordinance drafted by Attorney Gerotowski that I would, uh, uh, after I'm done with my speech, will like to receive and place this on file.
In
Out
27:50
I will disseminate copies, but, uh, I will ask Attorney Gerotowski in a minute to come up and give an overview of what this ordinance that he drafted does exactly.
In
Out
27:59
We've been talking about this for a while.
In
Out
28:00
This is a no-brainer for me.
In
Out
28:02
Um, I've, I've spoken with, uh, various members of the city.
In
Out
28:07
This won't cost the city anything up front.
In
Out
28:11
Other people might have to pick up the slack as these people are away, but we budget for their salaries for the whole year.
In
Out
28:15
We fund their salaries for the whole year.
In
Out
28:18
And we've got to really look, in my opinion, at what we're trying to do as a city and as a community and build and encourage people to start families and be— have families and be able to spend time with their children when they're first born.
In
Out
28:32
And I think this is a very good piece of legislation that really makes us stand out as a good place to want to work, because we are a good place to want to come work at and build your family here in the city.
In
Out
28:45
So, Mr. Chairman, at this time I'll ask a few questions to Attorney Garatowski, please.
In
Out
28:53
You guys going to both stand up there at the same time?
In
Out
28:56
Do you want to receive it now?
In
Out
28:57
Sure.
In
Out
28:57
Can we get a motion to receive and place that on file?
In
Out
28:59
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
29:03
Anyone on the question of receiving in place on file?
In
Out
29:06
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
29:08
Any opposed?
In
Out
29:09
The ayes have it.
In
Out
29:11
Attorney Gieratowski.
In
Out
29:14
We're playing musical chairs, sorry.
In
Out
29:17
So, uh, Attorney Gieratowski, can you just give us a brief overview of the ordinance?
In
Out
29:22
Basically, I, I think I spoke to it a little bit, but if you could just kind of go through it a little bit.
In
Out
29:26
Yeah, so, um, I've had some conversations with the chairman, um, about some of the policies that were put in here and what some of the intentions were.
In
Out
29:34
I didn't just make them up and pull them out of the, out of the air.
In
Out
29:38
Um, so I tried to write an ordinance that was as simple as possible.
In
Out
29:42
Um, that was, that was as simple as possible, um, but achieves what, um, what I think most of you are trying to get at So the first question that the ordinance answers is, who's eligible for paid family leave?
In
Out
30:02
And the way the ordinance is written, it's every employee of the city that occupies a position that is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement.
In
Out
30:14
And the reason why it's— you cannot be covered by a collective bargaining agreement is because Those are contractual issues that need to be determined between the union, its membership, and the administration as part of their contract.
In
Out
30:30
So the council can't get in the middle of benefits and things that are negotiated by the union and the administration.
In
Out
30:38
So it excludes people under collective bargaining agreements, any position that is in a collective bargaining agreement.
In
Out
30:46
Them.
In
Out
30:46
It's only for positions in the city that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
In
Out
30:53
Second part of the eligibility is you have to have held your employment with the city for at least 12 consecutive months, continuous months, and you regularly must be working at least 20 hours per week.
In
Out
31:05
Okay?
In
Out
31:08
So those are the— you're eligible as an employee for this if you meet that criteria: not under a collective bargaining agreement, worked for the city for 12 continuous months, and you work at least 20 hours per week on a regular basis.
In
Out
31:24
Now, you become eligible to take the 12 weeks of paid parental leave upon the occurrence of one of two things.
In
Out
31:33
One, you become a new parent by natural birth by any method.
In
Out
31:40
Or the second part is the adoption of a child under the age of 2 years old.
In
Out
31:47
And the reason why we— I discussed this with the chairman— the reason why we went with 2 years old is because part of the policy here is to allow parents the time to bond and adapt to their child.
In
Out
31:59
And usually if it's a child that's older, they've already spent some time If you adopt a child that's older, they've usually already spent some time with that adoptive family, and so the policy isn't quite necessary for those who have already bonded with a child that's a little bit older.
In
Out
32:18
And sometimes the child goes to school, and there's, you know, there's not the need to be home with the child as much as a younger child.
In
Out
32:26
So that's why we put in childbirth, adoption of a child under the age of 2 years old.
In
Out
32:34
And the 12 weeks of the paid parental leave is only available within the 12 months of that occurrence happening.
In
Out
32:43
So if there's the birth or the adoption, you can take your 12 weeks now within that 12-month period after the occurrence of that— of the occurrence.
In
Out
32:55
So that's how you become eligible to take the leave.
In
Out
32:59
Now, what are the benefits of the leave?
In
Out
33:01
The benefits, as we write in the ordinance, again, that I went through with the chairman, you're not required— one is you're not required to take all 12 weeks.
In
Out
33:13
You can take a portion of them, but you don't have to take all 12.
In
Out
33:17
You can take 2 of them, 10 of them, or all 12.
In
Out
33:21
But the employee shall be required to take the parental leave in weekly increments.
In
Out
33:27
So you can't take a day here, a day there, a day there.
In
Out
33:30
You have to take a weekly increment each time you take the parental leave.
In
Out
33:34
You don't have to take all 12 weeks consecutively, however, but you must take them in weekly increments in that 12-month period, all the 12 weeks within that 12-month period.
In
Out
33:47
During the first 6 weeks that you take, the paid parental leave taken by the employee shall be paid 100% of the employee's regular pay according to the, to the ordinance as it's written right now.
In
Out
34:00
Now you can change any of this stuff, but this is what it reads right now.
In
Out
34:04
The first 6 weeks, 100% of the, of the employee's regular pay.
In
Out
34:09
The second 6 weeks that you take, um, you— the employee is paid 75% of its regular pay, okay, for the second 6 weeks.
In
Out
34:21
And during that time that you take this leave, the employee continues to accrue any service credit, sick leave, vacation leave, personal time.
In
Out
34:32
All of that continues to get— it's as if you were working.
In
Out
34:35
So it's— you continue to accrue any of that time that you get as if you were working during that 12 weeks.
In
Out
34:44
So that's the benefits that you get.
In
Out
34:48
Now, how does this happen?
In
Out
34:49
Well, the employee who's seeking to take the family leave must provide notice to the head of their department.
In
Out
35:00
In the case of a department head, the department head gives notice to the the mayor, at least 30 days prior to the date the employee anticipates taking the leave.
In
Out
35:10
So you try to give the city at least 30 days.
In
Out
35:13
Each employee notifies the department head.
In
Out
35:16
If it's a department head taking, they notify the mayor.
In
Out
35:19
And upon receiving the notice, the department head or mayor, as the case may be, shall notify the director of personnel within 5 days of getting that, so that the personnel department can begin preparing for that right away.
In
Out
35:33
We don't want the department head to wait until last minute and then spring it on the personnel department.
In
Out
35:38
So they, within 5 days of getting that notice from the employee, if there's any questions, they have 5 days to get those questions answered from the employee and then notify the director of personnel.
In
Out
35:50
And lastly, it says that the mayor and the director of personnel may implement policies not inconsistent with this section to effectively carry out the provisions of this section.
In
Out
36:00
So if there are forms, if there are things that personnel needs or that the administration requires to implement this and they can carry out their administrative duties, they are allowed to implement policies without seeking, um, seeking your change to the ordinance to implement policies to effectuate what you're asking to do.
In
Out
36:21
Now, they can't be inconsistent with this.
In
Out
36:23
They can't put a policy that changes the pay or anything like that, but they can implement policies by which they, they assist the administration in effectuating the, um, what's in the ordinance.
In
Out
36:36
So that's pretty much how it works.
In
Out
36:38
That's the mechanics.
In
Out
36:40
Any of that can be changed if you disagree with any of it, um, but that's where, where the sort of the launching out of where we are here with this.
In
Out
36:48
Okay, thank you, Attorney Gerotowski.
In
Out
36:50
I apologize too for make— running off and making some copies in between there, but I appreciate that.
In
Out
36:55
Um, I think some of my colleagues have a couple questions, so I'll yield at this time for them, and if I have any other questions, I will also ask them.
In
Out
37:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
37:02
Thank you.
In
Out
37:03
The chair recognizes Councilor Olivares first.
In
Out
37:04
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
37:05
Chair.
In
Out
37:05
Thank you, David, for drafting this.
In
Out
37:07
I think it was well thought out.
In
Out
37:09
My, my only question is, I understand the 12 consecutive months.
In
Out
37:16
I'm hired for the City of New Bedford for 11 months.
In
Out
37:19
My wife has a child, we have a child together.
In
Out
37:25
After a month, can I apply?
In
Out
37:31
The child's born, I've only worked for the city for 11 months.
In
Out
37:35
Oh, so a month later, I wait a month, I now have been employed for 12 consecutive months.
In
Out
37:40
The way this is written, you can— once you've served those 12 continuous months in your position, you can then become eligible if the occurrence is within 12 months.
In
Out
37:53
So, so for example, the occurrence happens today, you don't have— you can't take any leave until you hit 12.
In
Out
38:01
If you don't hit 12 until August, you can start taking it in August, but you, you don't get as long to take it, right?
In
Out
38:09
Right.
In
Out
38:09
You don't have to— your year will be— will go back to the date of the occurrence.
In
Out
38:14
Okay.
In
Out
38:15
But the way it's written, you, you don't need the 12 continuous months at the time of the occurrence.
In
Out
38:20
You need the 12 months to take— to become eligible to take the leave.
In
Out
38:24
Okay.
In
Out
38:25
All right, thank you.
In
Out
38:26
That's all, uh, Mr.
In
Out
38:27
Chair.
In
Out
38:28
Thanks.
In
Out
38:29
Councilor Abreu on his first Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
38:32
My, my question is actually for Director Gouveia, so I'll yield right now.
In
Out
38:36
If others have questions for our attorney, then you can come back to me if you'd like.
In
Out
38:39
Thank you.
In
Out
38:40
Okay, anyone else on the first?
In
Out
38:42
Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes on this first for Attorney Gieratowski.
In
Out
38:45
Thank you, Chairman.
In
Out
38:46
So Attorney Gieratowski, they would be able to take 12 consecutive weeks if they wanted, and let's say that individual had 3 weeks vacation time, so they could take 15 weeks consecutively if they wanted to, based on how this is written, because they're collecting— vacation time has to be approved by your supervisor, is my understanding.
In
Out
39:06
So technically, they could, if the supervisor then approves the tacking on of the vacation time after.
In
Out
39:14
But my understanding, and I don't know for sure, but I think each supervisor has to approve your vacation time.
In
Out
39:21
So you can't just say, I'm, I'm not coming back because I got vacation time.
In
Out
39:25
You have— correct.
In
Out
39:26
So, but there'll be some intertwining maybe with FMLA where they may be able to say, well, I've taken so many weeks, but I think FMLA may be 12 weeks anyway.
In
Out
39:37
So, um, they may not be able to do it if— but there may be some intertwining with that where they could take FMLA, but I'm not sure how that would work because I think FMLA is only 12 weeks anyway.
In
Out
39:49
So we could— the city could count that as FMLA time as well, so that they can't then after the 12 weeks take an additional 12 weeks off with FMLA.
In
Out
40:01
They could count it probably as part of the initial 12 weeks.
In
Out
40:05
I think it's possible, but I'm not— I don't know for sure how— I don't have— not well versed in FMLA, but I think the city could say if you're taking the time, we're going to count that as FMLA, so you can't tack it on at the end of the 12 weeks paid leave.
In
Out
40:21
Thank you for the additional information.
In
Out
40:23
Thank you, Chairman.
In
Out
40:26
Anyone else for Attorney Grotowski?
In
Out
40:30
All right, seeing none— and I just will say, because we've talked about this, Mr. Chairman, that this really doesn't cost the city anything more Like I was saying, it's paid leave, but there's not an additional cost to it because whether they're— we're budgeted whether they're working or whether they're taking the paid leave.
In
Out
40:49
The only way it would cost a little bit is if you have to bring in another employee while they're out.
In
Out
40:53
In smaller departments, that could become an issue.
In
Out
40:57
But in most departments that can handle people being out, it does create some administrative issues.
In
Out
41:05
There's no question about that.
In
Out
41:06
If somebody's out for 12 weeks on paid family leave and then other employees want vacations, now you have some people out.
In
Out
41:14
But as far as cost, it really doesn't cost on its face anything more because the employee is getting paid whether they're taking their family— paid family leave or whether they're at work.
In
Out
41:25
So from a budgetary standpoint, it doesn't add an additional expense by the city on its face.
In
Out
41:33
So just so that people don't think this is an additional amount of money that we're going to have to come up with to pay these people, it's not.
In
Out
41:42
Thank you.
In
Out
41:43
Uh, Director Gouveia, uh, ask you to come to the podium, and the chair recognizes Councilor Abramowicz first.
In
Out
41:49
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
41:53
Good evening, Director Gouveia.
In
Out
41:55
Good to see you.
In
Out
41:56
Likewise.
In
Out
41:56
Good evening.
In
Out
41:57
Thank you.
In
Out
41:58
So as the council president mentioned, myself, he, and the chairman and many others were the original co-sponsors of this for a while, and I'm glad we're finally nearing getting this into the end zone.
In
Out
42:12
Obviously, fiscally, morally, ethically, this makes sense.
In
Out
42:19
But now let's address the operational question.
In
Out
42:24
So the human relations side of it, it's a no-brainer.
In
Out
42:27
We all support it for new parents.
In
Out
42:30
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, the operations side of it.
In
Out
42:34
There's going to be times where this policy could create some gaps or folks having to leave critical departments for an extended period of time.
In
Out
42:45
What are we telling our department heads?
In
Out
42:47
I mean, I think it'd be all the more reason to encourage cross-training.
In
Out
42:52
And as the council president, I think, mentioned earlier, we have to just make sure we plug the gaps, right?
In
Out
42:59
We have to be prepared because life happens and we have to fill it in.
In
Out
43:02
So I don't know what your thoughts are, what you're telling your department heads, but I think it's going to have to be a promotion from us within City Hall that when these family and life events occur and happen, it has to be business as usual here in City Hall.
In
Out
43:18
Do you agree with that sentiment?
In
Out
43:21
I do.
In
Out
43:21
And I think if the purpose is to find solutions, then the funding solutions will be the initial standpoint, not the challenges that could potentially arise.
In
Out
43:32
If I may, since I was invited to come to the podium, there's a couple of things.
In
Out
43:36
It is perceived that it's not additional cost, that it is a soft cost because it is embedded as someone's salary is in 2,080 hours.
In
Out
43:44
However, if the employee does not have accrued sick time, then that needs to be compensated with additional cost of that.
In
Out
43:49
That's a fact.
In
Out
43:51
So if you don't have sick time, that's a fact.
In
Out
43:54
Of course, there are advantages to that.
In
Out
43:55
The employees who have been with the city for less time may not have accrued sufficient vacation time, sick time, and their families need to start at some point.
In
Out
44:03
All that makes sense.
In
Out
44:05
But, um, and I appreciate all the effort that, that you put on this, Council, but this needs to be structured in a way that it works.
In
Out
44:11
Because— and I have drafted a couple of things.
In
Out
44:14
If you're really going to do this in a way that it works, then it needs to be fair and consistent for everybody.
In
Out
44:19
Let me just give you a quick example.
In
Out
44:21
I promise I will not take too much of your time.
In
Out
44:23
But I'm going to use a little bit of older terms.
In
Out
44:25
You hear a lot of parental leave.
In
Out
44:26
Parental leave is a combination of a few things.
In
Out
44:29
But if you go back not long ago to the maternity leave, which was for the mothers delivering or adopting the child, with a mother figure in the relationship, and then the paternity leave that has been recently introduced to the father of the child.
In
Out
44:42
And what the city has been doing is, of course, under federal FMLA law, we do allow them to be out for 12 weeks.
In
Out
44:49
But in addition to that, under the parental leave, we allow them to stay an additional 8 weeks for the mother.
In
Out
44:55
For the father, it's a total of 8 weeks under the parental portion of that.
In
Out
45:01
Under the FMLA guidelines, That also means we also have couples here that we have both father and mother in the city.
In
Out
45:07
Under the federal law, that's what I mean about some guidelines in here and some deeper structure on this.
In
Out
45:14
Technically, they are supposed to share their family time.
In
Out
45:17
If they are supposed to share their family time, are we saying that both parents would have full benefit of 6 weeks and an additional 6 weeks?
In
Out
45:26
Because it's not matching what federal law is.
In
Out
45:28
Is.
In
Out
45:28
So that's one thing to take a look at.
In
Out
45:30
The definitions of maternity leave and paternity leave, and just put it on the parental leave, would also be for us to bring up to date.
In
Out
45:37
It is 2026, and there are couples who may have the same gender, and it shouldn't matter whether they are one gender or another.
In
Out
45:46
But if you go back to out of both parents in the city, which one will be allowed to have the maternity component and the paternity component?
In
Out
45:52
I'm sorry, Mr.
In
Out
45:53
Covey, what was that gender?
In
Out
45:54
I, I didn't— I couldn't understand.
In
Out
45:55
What I'm saying is We also have parents that may be under the same gender.
In
Out
45:59
Oh, okay.
In
Out
45:59
And they have the same right to have a child, to adopt a child.
In
Out
46:02
But if we are following what it is, and then with the same concept that the father and the mother will have to share the time and therefore the benefit, the same thing will be applicable to any other couple regardless of their identification.
In
Out
46:16
That's one thing.
In
Out
46:17
In terms of the 20 hours, and you are correct, Counselor, it is 12 months consecutive months have been with us.
In
Out
46:23
With the city, or a combination of that with 1,250 hours.
In
Out
46:27
Someone working 12 hours— 20 hours a week will not come up to that eligibility.
In
Out
46:32
So we've got to be mindful about that.
In
Out
46:34
So it has been on the table for quite some time.
In
Out
46:37
I have been here a couple times.
In
Out
46:39
I have provided some data to you in the past.
In
Out
46:40
I have looked at what, what this looks like, but it does need some structure.
In
Out
46:45
It definitely needs some structure that we are being consistent and fair with everybody and put those elements in, one, to follow what the intent of this is, but at the same time following the federal law.
In
Out
46:59
Counselor Abramowicz?
In
Out
47:01
No, I hear your points, Director.
In
Out
47:05
Do you have some specifics that you came to the table with today that you could, whether through a handout that we could receive and place on file to look at and consider?
In
Out
47:14
Do you have any?
In
Out
47:15
I think we can— I have a, I have a very rough draft of some scenarios and some of the elements.
In
Out
47:19
I think it's important.
In
Out
47:20
I can send that to you this week.
In
Out
47:22
I'm going to take a look at one more time because I was waiting for this through the clerk's office, if you don't mind.
In
Out
47:26
And the chairman can distribute that to us.
In
Out
47:28
Yes, yes, I can do that.
In
Out
47:29
All right, I'll yield for now.
In
Out
47:30
Thank you, Director.
In
Out
47:31
Thank you, Chair.
In
Out
47:32
Uh, Chair recognized Councilor Oliver on his first.
In
Out
47:35
Thank you.
In
Out
47:36
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
47:36
Chair.
In
Out
47:36
Thank you, uh, for being here.
In
Out
47:40
My question is, as this is written, obviously you have some concerns with it.
In
Out
47:45
As this is written, is this above and beyond what other people are doing?
In
Out
47:48
What is— where is it with the industry standard?
In
Out
47:51
It is, it is above, but sometimes it is above in some areas that there are some that may even give more.
In
Out
47:57
There are some that may even give less.
In
Out
47:59
So I think instead of looking at this as a comparable situation, let's take a look at what, what the intent is from, from New Bedford.
In
Out
48:06
But then it depends on what way you look at it, to answer your question.
In
Out
48:09
Again, some do more, some do less.
In
Out
48:11
With some elements of the economy, some companies, major companies, are taking it back a little bit.
In
Out
48:16
Others are still exploring this opportunity.
In
Out
48:18
So depending on the revenue piece.
In
Out
48:21
And I just want to bring to your attention that some of the concerns that we have, for example, with the intent of providing 6 weeks at 100% and an additional 6 weeks at 75%, 5%, it goes above what it is in terms of federal law.
In
Out
48:35
So that piece is up to the entity, the organization, to design it any way we want.
In
Out
48:40
We are giving more, we're not taking anything out of it, right?
In
Out
48:43
But in terms of the eligibility, in terms of the fairness, in terms of the equity the intent of this brings, it needs to be done in a way that needs to be structured so there's no confusion.
In
Out
48:54
That is important because The way we have today, as far as time, not paid, not the benefit, but as far as time, we are allowing the mother to stay out for 12 weeks and an additional 8.
In
Out
49:06
That's under the parental leave extension.
In
Out
49:08
I'm not talking payment.
In
Out
49:09
The father is allowed to stay out for 8 weeks.
In
Out
49:12
Now, the parents, both parents may be with the city or one of the parents is, regardless of what it is.
In
Out
49:18
And my comment earlier is that we need to be mindful about the paternity piece and the maternity piece, to allow flexibility throughout, and at the same time conscientious about what needs to be done.
In
Out
49:27
So if we don't take that time away and we are giving an additional benefit and we put some structures around it, I think that's the point that we need to take home, right?
In
Out
49:35
I think the decision was already made by this group, but we need to take home just putting some structures around this, then there's no questions of the what-ifs afterwards.
In
Out
49:45
And I understand your mindfulness as to to the 2 genders, wouldn't— if they're both working for the city, couldn't we just iron that out with both of them of who's going to— But that's what it is.
In
Out
49:58
When it comes to benefits and items like this, let me give you an example of Scenario A. I work for the city.
In
Out
50:06
My wife may or may not work for the city.
In
Out
50:09
So on the parental component of this, I'm entitled— being the father, I'm entitled to 8 weeks, and we are what we call a traditional couple, right?
In
Out
50:20
Let's assume that I am married to another parent who happens to be the same gender as me, and if we follow that concept, then that means that automatically we both have to be at 8 weeks, and that's unfair.
In
Out
50:31
They have the same right to adopt, they have the same right to raise a child, right?
In
Out
50:36
So what happens in that case is that if both of them are in the city, They can select one to be paid the same thing, but one followed the 12 weeks and the 8 weeks and one of them the 8 weeks.
In
Out
50:47
So it would have to be between both of them.
In
Out
50:49
The same thing would be applicable on the other side.
In
Out
50:51
If it is a couple of the same gender and 2 of them are females, it does not mean that both will have 12 weeks and both will have 8 weeks.
In
Out
50:59
Only one of them would follow that.
In
Out
51:01
This way we are fair for all scenarios A, B, and C. Does that make sense?
In
Out
51:07
Sense.
In
Out
51:08
So you would be interested in some language with that that would address all those— even if it's some— even if it's something as like through conversation with your department as to what the roles, the assigned roles are going to be?
In
Out
51:26
Yes.
In
Out
51:26
Well, under the eligibility, right, under the eligibility, what all that would be end up in that.
In
Out
51:31
It's not for us to identify and decide.
In
Out
51:33
It will be between the couple.
In
Out
51:36
Yeah, but all that will be between the couple to decide, but for, for our purposes, we would need to know.
In
Out
51:41
Yes.
In
Out
51:42
Yeah.
In
Out
51:42
Okay.
In
Out
51:43
All right.
In
Out
51:43
Thank you.
In
Out
51:44
So really quickly, just to clarify, that, that might be how we're doing it now, but I just want to point out here in Section 1, this is to amend what our current structure is now.
In
Out
51:53
I just want to clarify for the general public that might be watching and listening to what you're saying up there.
In
Out
51:59
This here is gender-neutral.
In
Out
52:03
It is— says it says parental, it says parent, 12 weeks.
In
Out
52:06
So you might be speaking on what we are currently doing right now, the current policy, but this is to amend the current policy.
In
Out
52:15
So I just wanted to clarify that, Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
52:18
And I know you haven't had a chance to really review this in its entirety, but I just don't want us to have you saying things out and think that it's pertaining to the particular ordinance that we're voting on, and people are assuming that what he's saying is what we're trying to do here.
In
Out
52:34
So I just wanted to clarify that.
In
Out
52:37
With that, are you all set, Council Oliver?
In
Out
52:39
Thank you.
In
Out
52:39
Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
52:41
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
52:42
So thank you, um, Jose, for being here with us.
In
Out
52:47
So I, I hear your, your thoughts regarding the federal law.
In
Out
52:50
But I, I take federal law, but in Massachusetts and in this city, we have laws that go beyond the federal law, federal law being a guideline sometimes, and we can enhance those laws.
In
Out
53:03
And I, I think this is the direction that we should be going in.
In
Out
53:08
I think this is the direction we are going in.
In
Out
53:10
This is a gender-neutral ordinance.
In
Out
53:12
There is no— doesn't talk about the father or the mother.
In
Out
53:14
It's any parent.
In
Out
53:16
Parent, uh, of, of the child, and it offers 12 weeks to either one, which I think is, is what I'm— what I would expect, uh, I think at the end of the day personally.
In
Out
53:29
And if my spouse, male or female, works for the city, we can take it concurrently or separate or however.
In
Out
53:37
And, and if there are some ambiguity like taking it together we allow for this city to set policy— yourself, the mayor— to set policy to further give direction that does not contradict this, this ordinance.
In
Out
53:52
So this is the structure, uh, I, I think the new structure we're looking to implement.
In
Out
53:57
And then you are allowed to create policy and procedure to help bridge the policy with the intention of 12 weeks to both parents.
In
Out
54:06
I think is the most important thing, at least from this councilor's perspective.
In
Out
54:11
But none of that is in question here.
In
Out
54:13
Okay.
In
Out
54:14
And I don't want what I'm saying to be misconstrued either.
In
Out
54:16
What I'm saying is what we are offering in this ordinance, it's above and beyond of what, of what law is.
In
Out
54:21
Okay, great.
In
Out
54:22
Right, exactly.
In
Out
54:23
That point is not a concern.
In
Out
54:24
But sure, this alone in itself, it's not enough to put the structure guidelines so there's no misinterpretation of any kind and everybody that receives this benefit knows has been treated fairly and equitably all the way across.
In
Out
54:36
That's all I wanted to say.
In
Out
54:38
Okay, I, I appreciate it.
In
Out
54:40
I appreciate your concerns.
In
Out
54:41
I, I do.
In
Out
54:43
I, I appreciate your concerns.
In
Out
54:44
I at this point disagree with them.
In
Out
54:47
I, in reviewing this— now granted, I've had a lot of time to review this and have had a lot of conversations, uh, with our attorney, and I do think it's, it's adequate to implement.
In
Out
54:57
I, I, I would welcome any comment.
In
Out
55:00
We have time if this does get referred out of committee tonight.
In
Out
55:04
We have 3 weeks until the next city council meeting for any comment to come, and at that point, if there is a serious, uh, uh, gap, we can refer it back to the, uh, uh, committee and for further amendments.
In
Out
55:15
But I, I, I think, in, in my opinion, and reviewing other cities in Massachusetts who have ordinance, specifically Boston is, is what I looked at, uh, this is, this is almost a mirror image of what they've run.
In
Out
55:28
So, uh, with, with certain changes, I think they're, they're even more lenient with the figures and the weeks, but this is what the committee felt comfortable at, the 12 weeks total, 6 and 6.
In
Out
55:39
So that's just my point of view.
In
Out
55:41
I'll hear my colleagues, but I think there's plenty of time for yourself, the solicitor, the mayor to send any comment or review down to the council if that is something you want to change moving forward.
In
Out
55:51
But I think we've got to just keep this ball moving in this momentum that we have now to get this over the line.
In
Out
55:57
To finalize my, my— sure, it's not a matter of changing anything that's been voted and agreed upon here.
In
Out
56:03
It's just a matter of sending you some, some elements for you.
In
Out
56:06
I think once you read what I have, you would understand nothing is to take away.
In
Out
56:10
Everything will be exactly how you wish to be, but it's just some of the things that procedurally we'll need as guidelines.
In
Out
56:15
I think that will be very helpful.
In
Out
56:16
If you send it to the clerk's office, we'll take a look at it between— yeah, now and the 28th.
In
Out
56:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
56:21
Chair recognizes Councillor Carney.
In
Out
56:23
First.
In
Out
56:24
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Gouveia, for coming.
In
Out
56:27
Um, I— Councilor Pereira asked one of the questions.
In
Out
56:31
I was just working on the policy aspect, uh, with this ordinance.
In
Out
56:36
Did you get to read this ordinance already, that what we've got today?
In
Out
56:41
Yeah.
In
Out
56:42
Okay, so I mean, it's late notice too because I'm just reading it today too, but we've had a lot of discussion on it.
In
Out
56:47
So with this ordinance in front of you Are you able to adopt a policy that will be fitting— that would fit into this ordinance, or do you need to change anything?
In
Out
56:58
Nothing of this in here needs to be changed.
In
Out
57:00
Okay.
In
Out
57:00
I think procedurally just needs to, to represent this in greater detail of what the intent is.
In
Out
57:06
Right.
In
Out
57:06
And I, and I believe the intent of this council is here is the ordinance, and then your department would create the policy that that we put in that we— that would fit this ordinance.
In
Out
57:18
The second thing you brought up was the 20 hours.
In
Out
57:20
You said you have to work X amount of hours and the 20 hours doesn't fit that bill.
In
Out
57:26
Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?
In
Out
57:28
If according to the— the eligibility should be very much mimicking the FMLA to be eligible for that, and I believe Council did mention that as well, but there's a combination of 2 things: the 12 months and 1,250 hours.
In
Out
57:42
If someone is only working about 20 hours a week, and some people may be working 20 hours a week, on that merit alone they may not qualify.
In
Out
57:51
So they may— what does that mean?
In
Out
57:53
They probably need to stay with us a little bit longer in order to qualify and meet both criteria.
In
Out
57:57
Okay.
In
Out
57:58
So versus a full-time employee that has that, meets that automatically within 12 months.
In
Out
58:02
So you just— you just— so the criteria is you have to work the 1,000 250 hours.
In
Out
58:08
So you can, you can still be a part-time employee at 20 hours as long as you hit that benchmark.
In
Out
58:15
Once you hit that benchmark, you will now be eligible.
In
Out
58:19
So that would you put into your— that would be in a policy that you put in there, right?
In
Out
58:24
So we'd fall in line with everything?
In
Out
58:25
Yes.
In
Out
58:26
Okay, thank you.
In
Out
58:27
My question's answered.
In
Out
58:28
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
58:28
Chair.
In
Out
58:29
Thank you.
In
Out
58:32
Uh, anyone else for Director Gouveia?
In
Out
58:41
Okay, I make a motion to refer the ordinance to the full City Council.
In
Out
58:45
Motion to refer out to the full City Council for adoption, seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
58:50
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
58:51
Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira on this first.
In
Out
58:53
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
58:54
Colleagues, I asked for support in referral.
In
Out
58:56
We're going to have a— this will not make tomorrow's meeting.
In
Out
59:00
It's not on Thursday this week, it's tomorrow.
In
Out
59:02
Um, so it will not make tomorrow's agenda.
In
Out
59:04
We have 3 weeks essentially, uh, to hear this item.
In
Out
59:08
If there are changes that need to be made, we can amend them on the floor.
In
Out
59:11
We can refer it back to committee and have the discussion again.
In
Out
59:13
I just think we got to keep the ball rolling.
In
Out
59:15
That gives, I think, uh, Mr. Gouveia enough time to send us some comments.
In
Out
59:20
Uh, solicitor should have enough time to review it, and if there's any discrepancies or issues, he can relay them to Attorney Garetelski and the council.
In
Out
59:27
I think it allows us to keep things moving, and I ask for your support and referral out tonight.
In
Out
59:31
Thank you.
In
Out
59:32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
59:33
Thank you.
In
Out
59:34
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
59:36
Anyone on there second?
In
Out
59:39
Oh, Chairman, can I ask Councilor Carneiro first?
In
Out
59:40
Yeah, just quickly, Mr. Gouveia, is that enough time to put that together in person?
In
Out
59:46
Thank you.
In
Out
59:46
Thank you.
In
Out
59:47
Great.
In
Out
59:48
All right, so The motion at hand is on refer— on referral out to the full City Council for adoption.
In
Out
59:57
Uh, I'll ask for a roll call.
In
Out
59:59
Councilor Abril?
In
Out
1:00:00
Yes, Councilor Abril.
In
Out
1:00:01
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
1:00:02
Yes, Councilor Baptiste.
In
Out
1:00:03
Councilor Burgow?
In
Out
1:00:03
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:04
Yes, Councilor Burgow.
In
Out
1:00:05
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
1:00:05
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:05
Councilor Carney.
In
Out
1:00:06
Councilor Truquette?
In
Out
1:00:07
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:08
Yes, Councilor Truquette.
In
Out
1:00:09
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
1:00:10
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:11
Yes, Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
1:00:11
Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
1:00:13
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:13
Yes, Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
1:00:14
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
1:00:14
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:15
Yes, Council Oliver.
In
Out
1:00:16
Council Pemberton?
In
Out
1:00:17
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:17
Yes, Council Pemberton.
In
Out
1:00:18
Council Pereira?
In
Out
1:00:19
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:19
Yes, Council Pereira.
In
Out
1:00:20
Council Roy?
In
Out
1:00:21
Yes.
In
Out
1:00:21
Yes, that passes 11 to 0.
In
Out
1:00:23
Passes 11 to 0, and that will appear on May 28th's council agenda and hopefully pass through second reading to appear on June 11th, just to give people a time frame of how long they'll have to review and potentially give any concerns, especially since we've been working on on this since August of 2023.
In
Out
1:00:45
2023.
In
Out
1:00:46
All right, so I'll ask the clerk to— thank you, Director Gouveia.
In
Out
1:00:50
Um, I'll ask the clerk to read item 5.
In
Out
1:00:52
5 is communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 10 by inserting a new Section 10-86.1, Voluntary Electronic Email Delivery of Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Bills, after Section 10- -86.
In
Out
1:01:08
It was referred here on March 5th, 2026.
In
Out
1:01:10
5A is the ordinance which was referred here on the same day.
In
Out
1:01:14
5A now before you.
In
Out
1:01:16
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Gomes.
In
Out
1:01:21
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
1:01:22
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:01:24
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:01:25
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:01:27
Treasurer Taxiarcos, do you want to do a presentation for us?
In
Out
1:01:33
We appreciate your patience tonight.
In
Out
1:01:40
Thank you.
In
Out
1:01:41
And I see your hand, Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
1:01:43
You all right?
In
Out
1:01:45
The amendment to this ordinance essentially allows us to, um, allow taxpayers to receive their bill by email rather than U.S.
In
Out
1:01:55
Postal Service, thereby eliminating the cost of printing and mailing.
In
Out
1:02:01
It would save us approximately $35,000 annually to do that.
In
Out
1:02:07
But it also brings us up to, you know, the technological age, best practices.
In
Out
1:02:14
And we're currently sending— we have about 30% of our taxpayers who have an online account and they continue to receive paper bills.
In
Out
1:02:23
Because we haven't been able to adopt this yet.
In
Out
1:02:26
So those people that wish to only receive their bill electronically should be able to do so, and that's what we're here to do today.
In
Out
1:02:35
Chair, if I can ask Councilor Lopes on this first.
In
Out
1:02:38
Could you explain the opt-in or opt-out?
In
Out
1:02:42
Would people be automatically opted into receiving?
In
Out
1:02:45
So can you go into that?
In
Out
1:02:46
Yeah, so essentially what they would have to is in their online account, they would have to opt into receiving email delivery only.
In
Out
1:02:56
So what if somebody is getting a paper bill?
In
Out
1:02:59
Is there something on the paper bill every quarter that they could opt out of a paper bill or retain the paper bill?
In
Out
1:03:05
Could you explain that?
In
Out
1:03:07
Yeah.
In
Out
1:03:07
So, I mean, it's almost— I think we're saying the same thing, but if they're getting a paper bill now, they would have to opt in for email delivery and then they would stop getting the paper bill.
In
Out
1:03:19
If they want to continue receiving both, they can, but this at least allows them to say, no, I don't want to get the paper bill anymore, I just want email delivery.
In
Out
1:03:28
But people would have to opt out of the paper bill.
In
Out
1:03:30
They wouldn't automatically be opted into electronic communications.
In
Out
1:03:33
Yeah, they're almost doing it simultaneously, opting in for email delivery and out for paper billing.
In
Out
1:03:39
Thank you.
In
Out
1:03:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:03:42
Chair, can I ask Councilor Gomes on this first?
In
Out
1:03:44
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:03:46
You said we could save $35,000 a year.
In
Out
1:03:49
Approximately.
In
Out
1:03:49
What's your percentage of, um, where'd you come up with that number as far as the percentage of people that would opt into getting it on online?
In
Out
1:03:59
Right, the potential for, uh, the people who have online accounts currently who would potentially opt out of paper billing.
In
Out
1:04:07
Okay, let me ask you this.
In
Out
1:04:10
Um, if I was just looking for penalties or whatever, say the computer system went down, things did not go out on time, would, would same penalty structures that they would build with the, with the constituent as far as penalties or anything like that, or we would eat that immediately?
In
Out
1:04:32
They— well, we hope that it wouldn't be down more than a day, but they should get email delivery as soon as the bills go out.
In
Out
1:04:41
And then they could also review their bill online at any time.
In
Out
1:04:45
So once those are available, have precautions been put in place for the person that calls you and says, I never received my electronic billing?
In
Out
1:04:55
You know, we know that these things come out in the period that they do.
In
Out
1:04:59
But have precautions been put in for stuff like that?
In
Out
1:05:02
Sure.
In
Out
1:05:03
In those situations, we'd also refer to our online provider and request that they send us the report on who got emailed those bills.
In
Out
1:05:12
And so we would know if they did or not.
In
Out
1:05:15
Okay.
In
Out
1:05:15
Last question.
In
Out
1:05:16
Nobody will be forced into it, especially our elderly who do not play with computers.
In
Out
1:05:23
The closest thing they may have is a phone, but they don't do any transitions on there.
In
Out
1:05:29
Or we know that many people will not want to receive email delivery of their bill.
In
Out
1:05:35
They, um, like getting the paper bill, and that can continue.
In
Out
1:05:39
Thank you, sir.
In
Out
1:05:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:05:42
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
1:05:43
Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
1:05:45
Thank you, Mr.
In
Out
1:05:45
Chair.
In
Out
1:05:46
Uh, thank you for, uh, For that, my question is, I know the whole idea is obviously we're going to try to look for ways to save money any way that we can.
In
Out
1:05:56
You came up with that figure of $35,000, something like that, approximately.
In
Out
1:06:02
And that's just based off of the active online users right now, correct?
In
Out
1:06:07
So obviously that the benefits could be even more if more people sign up, right?
In
Out
1:06:12
The whole idea of saving money, is there— was there any discussion maybe of— and I know we need money, and I know that we want to collect the money, but is that— was there anything to try to get more people on, maybe some sort of incentive program to do so within the first year of rollout or anything like that?
In
Out
1:06:31
Has anything like that been discussed to try to get more people on so that we're saving $50,000 or whatever it is?
In
Out
1:06:38
Yes.
In
Out
1:06:38
So the goal is to get a buck slip into the mailings so that they can see that they have the ability to opt out of the paper billing and choose to opt into email delivery if they want to.
In
Out
1:06:52
So that was the goal, to increase that number from where we see it currently.
In
Out
1:06:57
And the rollout of this, is there any additional cost other than just— are we just looking to make an— put another additional piece of paper in with their bill to incentive to tell them to sign up.
In
Out
1:07:09
Okay, so no real additional cost to do it.
In
Out
1:07:14
Okay.
In
Out
1:07:14
All right, thank you.
In
Out
1:07:16
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
1:07:19
Anyone on there second?
In
Out
1:07:21
Seeing none, motion to refer out to the full City Council for approval would be appropriate.
In
Out
1:07:26
So moved.
In
Out
1:07:26
Made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
1:07:30
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
1:07:31
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:07:34
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:07:34
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:07:36
I'll ask the clerk to read item 6.
In
Out
1:07:40
Item number 6 is a report.
In
Out
1:07:42
The Committee on Ordinance is recommending that the city council approval of the ordinance as amended, amending Chapter 9, Appendix A, Table of Principal Uses Regulations.
In
Out
1:07:51
It was referred here on March 26, 2026.
In
Out
1:07:54
6A is an ordinance, Table of Principal Uses Regulations Draft, referred here on October 9th, 2025, referred as amended to allow batch and asphalt and concrete plants and contractors' yards in certain zoning districts on March 26, 2026.
In
Out
1:08:10
6 and 6A are before you.
In
Out
1:08:13
Motion to receive and place on file.
In
Out
1:08:15
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by, uh, Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
1:08:22
And all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:08:24
Aye.
In
Out
1:08:25
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:08:25
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:08:26
Mr. Chairman, Councilor Pereira, I make a motion to amend the ordinance before us by striking Sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety.
In
Out
1:08:38
All right, motion made by Councilor Pereira to strike Sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety, seconded by Councilor Abril.
In
Out
1:08:46
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
1:08:48
Councilor Pereira on the question.
In
Out
1:08:49
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:08:51
So, uh, colleagues, I made this motion tonight to strike this, uh, these items after discussions, um, with, uh, our office staff, Clerk Farias and, uh, Planning Director, uh, Carloni, uh, in our team, and being here representing that department.
In
Out
1:09:10
I have concerns voting for this, this ordinance, and normally I am all in favor of this body standing up for withholding its power when it comes to making voting decisions on impactful items in our city.
In
Out
1:09:29
However, in this case, I feel that we would not be able to have the correct information to make an adequate decision.
In
Out
1:09:39
Our office staff is great.
In
Out
1:09:41
There is no doubt.
In
Out
1:09:42
I get compliments on from constituents all the time, and I know that they work diligently and hard.
In
Out
1:09:47
And this is not a matter of work ethic.
In
Out
1:09:50
This is more a matter of bandwidth and capabilities when it comes to understanding plans.
In
Out
1:09:56
These projects, if they were to come before us for a special permit in which we would be the granting authority, would be 50, 60, 70, 80 pages of blueprint documents that would have to be properly stamped, formatted, stamped by an engineer, reviewed.
In
Out
1:10:13
90% of this is done electronically with requiring software like Bluebeam or AutoCAD or something like that.
In
Out
1:10:20
Our department does not have that software.
In
Out
1:10:22
We do not have the capabilities of looking at a plan and know if this is a correct plan, if it's stamped right, if it's dated right, if it's the right copy for our office.
In
Out
1:10:32
Further discussions with the planning department revealed that their staff trained in the planning board and in the zoning boards in filtering staff reports do not have the capability at this time to adequately brief the council and keep up with our schedule.
In
Out
1:10:48
You know, the planning board has scheduled meetings throughout the year, so does the zoning board, and those are set dates throughout the year that very rarely shift.
In
Out
1:10:56
And our meetings, as councilors know, get moved, canceled, and rearranged all the time.
In
Out
1:11:01
Have adequate staff here from the planning department, I think is a little bit, uh, unrealistic at this time.
In
Out
1:11:08
I, I would hope my colleagues would understand that when we vote in here, uh, we need to be making, uh, educated decisions.
In
Out
1:11:18
And, and we do 90, uh, 100% of the time.
In
Out
1:11:21
But I think that number would lower to 90% if we were to enact this, because when these items come before us We just might not have the adequate reports before us.
In
Out
1:11:31
And that's no fault to our staff or the planning staff.
In
Out
1:11:33
It's just the reality of where we stand.
In
Out
1:11:35
And I don't feel comfortable making decisions on projects, yes or no, without having adequate information.
In
Out
1:11:42
We need to be wary of our power because just giving ourselves power, unchecked power, is also just as dangerous.
In
Out
1:11:49
And that's setting ourselves up for future failures.
In
Out
1:11:52
Future myself in the future, ourselves in the future, and our colleagues in the future.
In
Out
1:11:56
And I think at this time the best course of action is to remove these items, allow the planning boards and zoning boards to do their job.
In
Out
1:12:04
We can, as the person who normally sits in this seat would say, we— what we make up— what we lack in authority, we make up in, uh, um, in influence.
In
Out
1:12:14
Thank you.
In
Out
1:12:15
He needed to chime in to finish it.
In
Out
1:12:17
But long story short, we I just think that we need to really make sure that we get all the information when making these decisions.
In
Out
1:12:26
And if we enact this, I believe at this time we will not be able to truly receive the appropriate information.
In
Out
1:12:33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:12:36
Tough seat to fill there, huh, Councilor Ferrara?
In
Out
1:12:39
A lot more space though, huh?
In
Out
1:12:45
Councilor Abram, his first.
In
Out
1:12:46
Yeah, there's not much more to add.
In
Out
1:12:47
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:12:48
I agree with the president.
In
Out
1:12:51
What did I say that was so funny?
In
Out
1:12:55
Oh no, there isn't much.
In
Out
1:12:56
No, he's actually correct.
In
Out
1:13:01
I mean, spot-on, hit the nail on the head.
In
Out
1:13:03
It's a bullseye on that one.
In
Out
1:13:05
Yeah, I mean, this is about practicality, and he and I had a discussion earlier today it's about being realistic.
In
Out
1:13:12
It's about not having the appropriate training, expertise, legal knowledge.
In
Out
1:13:18
And it's very complex legal questions.
In
Out
1:13:20
And these people, these developers are, you know, they're dealing with attorneys and engineers.
In
Out
1:13:25
And it's just about the taxpayers of New Bedford, the investors in New Bedford deserve to have the correct people in the correct offices at the correct time.
In
Out
1:13:36
Okay, so that's just what this comes down to.
In
Out
1:13:39
Again, as he had said, and I agree, we all agree, our office staff is tremendous at what they do.
In
Out
1:13:45
They make us look fantastic.
In
Out
1:13:47
But again, this is a whole other dimension that they're just not qualified for.
In
Out
1:13:53
And it's no slight on them.
In
Out
1:13:55
It's just not their trade.
In
Out
1:13:56
I mean, we know what we know and we know what we don't.
In
Out
1:14:00
I mean, we all go to school or have to go to a trade school for something or other.
In
Out
1:14:03
I mean, I mean, I don't know.
In
Out
1:14:05
I mean, I think the Red Sox are playing terrible.
In
Out
1:14:07
Doesn't mean I should be their manager, you know?
In
Out
1:14:09
I mean, like, I mean, I don't know.
In
Out
1:14:12
I can't teach somebody how to hit, like, you know?
In
Out
1:14:14
So it's like, I can have an opinion, but I'm not qualified to go, you know, replace Alex Cora.
In
Out
1:14:19
I mean, let's be honest.
In
Out
1:14:20
So it's like, you know, it's a silly example, but I mean, come on.
In
Out
1:14:24
What are we doing here?
In
Out
1:14:25
So I supported— that's why I very graciously accepted and seconded the, the striking of 8, 9, and 10 of the sections because it's about giving the taxpayers and the investors into this community the right people at the right time in the right office.
In
Out
1:14:45
So that's kind of where I'm at.
In
Out
1:14:46
I'm curious if my colleagues agree, but that's kind of where my thought process was going.
In
Out
1:14:51
I'll yield for now.
In
Out
1:14:52
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:14:53
Thank you.
In
Out
1:14:53
Anyone else on that first?
In
Out
1:14:56
Anyone on their second?
In
Out
1:14:58
All right, again, as a reminder, this is a motion to amend striking sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety.
In
Out
1:15:07
Seeing that there's no one else on the question, uh, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:15:12
Aye.
In
Out
1:15:13
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:15:14
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:15:16
Point of, um, point of information, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:15:21
Me— can I speak with Attorney Gartowski, please?
In
Out
1:15:23
You may not.
In
Out
1:15:24
Just kidding.
In
Out
1:15:25
Attorney Gertowski, you go to the podium.
In
Out
1:15:31
All right, David, uh, just Section 6 of this ordinance doesn't make sense to me, granted that we amended it in the last meeting to allow these uses again.
In
Out
1:15:46
So if the body wants to allow asphalt, when we wanted to originally, when we made it so you couldn't do these asphalt plants in Industrial A and B in, in those uses, uh, Section 6 was to remove the definition altogether.
In
Out
1:16:02
But now that we want them, we have to keep the definition.
In
Out
1:16:05
Am I wrong?
In
Out
1:16:06
Um, it would— I, I think you would probably be correct that I guess 4300, when the original Um, instruction was given to get rid of the permitting for these asphalt plants, that we just struck that whole section entirely, right?
In
Out
1:16:29
4300, I believe.
In
Out
1:16:31
4300 definitions and then asphalt portion.
In
Out
1:16:33
So, so, right.
In
Out
1:16:34
So if you're going to keep them, I'm not sure.
In
Out
1:16:37
I'm trying to look at what that section is.
In
Out
1:16:39
Sure.
In
Out
1:16:40
In my research, and again, I just wanted you to confirm, but in my research— yeah, so if, if it's— if 4300 is detailing what an asphalt plant is, then you want to leave that in the, in the ordinance if you want to continue to allow those through the permits.
In
Out
1:16:55
Sure.
In
Out
1:16:57
So in the last meeting— thank you, um, Attorney Gartowski, I appreciate it.
In
Out
1:17:03
I make a motion to amend by striking Section 6 in its entirety.
In
Out
1:17:10
Motion, uh, motion made by Councilor Perrot to strike Section 6 in its entirety, seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
1:17:17
On the question, uh, Chair recognizes Councilor Perrot on the question.
In
Out
1:17:20
So originally, uh, the, the body had wanted to eliminate these use, uh, these items from use in, in the, in all zones, and at the last ordinance meeting we amended it to allow them back.
In
Out
1:17:33
So in order to make the ordinance before us now make sense with all the amendments that we have made, we need to eliminate Section 6 so that it is coherent and there is an accurate definition.
In
Out
1:17:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:17:44
Anyone else on there first?
In
Out
1:17:48
All right, seeing none, again, this is a motion to amend by striking Section 6 in its entirety.
In
Out
1:17:58
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:18:00
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:18:01
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:18:03
Motion to refer the full City Council for approval— adoption as amended.
In
Out
1:18:08
Motion to refer out to the full City Council as amended for adoption, made by Councilor Peralez, seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
1:18:15
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
1:18:18
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:18:21
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:18:22
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:18:24
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to waive the readings of items 7 and 8, take no further action, report out to the full City Council.
In
Out
1:18:30
Motion made by Councilor Pereira to waive the reading of items 7 and 8, refer out to the full City Council for no further action, seconded by Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
1:18:40
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:18:41
Aye.
In
Out
1:18:42
Any opposed?
In
Out
1:18:43
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:18:45
Motion to adjourn.
In
Out
1:18:45
Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Oliver.
In
Out
1:18:50
Anyone on Question of adjournment.
In
Out
1:18:53
Councilor Gomes on the question.
In
Out
1:18:55
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
1:18:56
I'd just like to relinquish my time to Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
1:19:00
All those in favor say aye.
In
Out
1:19:02
Aye.
In
Out
1:19:03
All those opposed?
In
Out
1:19:04
The ayes have it.
In
Out
1:19:05
We are adjourned at 8:19 post meridian.
In
Out
1:19:09
Thank you and God bless.
In
Out