Ordinance Committee — May 11, 2026

It is 7:02 PM on Monday, May 11th.

I want to note that this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

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

I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to read into the record.

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.

I will ask the clerk to read item 1, 1A, and 1B.

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.

It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, April 27, 2026, and Monday, May 4, 2026.

1A is an ordinance relative to amending Chapter 9, Section 4100A, relative to municipal facility conversion.

It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, April 27, 2026, and Monday, May 4, 2026.

It was referred here on March 12, 2026.

1B is a communication.

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.

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.

1 and 1 are now before you.

Motion to receive and place on file item 1, 1A, and 1B.

Motion to receive and place on file and open the public hearing made by Councilor Lope, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Is it Assistant Director Laurel?

I think I see her hiding.

Okay, there you are.

Oh, you're hiding on us.

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.

Good evening, uh, Council Chair and members.

Ian Lauro, Assistant City Planner.

I'm here to answer any questions relative to this ordinance.

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.

And changing the zoning ordinance to allow for expedited review and allowances of uses would be helpful in that disposition.

Disposition.

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.

So that's the purpose of why we're making this change.

Any questions from the body?

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes on this first.

Thank you, Chairman.

And I think this is a great idea.

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?

Well, that, that process still remains the same, but there's a couple of things that happen.

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.

So it makes the RFP a little bit, you know, palatable.

The timeframe won't change.

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.

Okay.

And then my last question, you hit on it.

So none of this would be spot zoning?

No.

So that's what this is— this is eliminating the spot zoning.

Perfect.

That— those are my 2 questions.

Thank you for answering them both.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Councilor Abram as first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Anne.

Good evening.

Good to see you.

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?

Why not 15?

Why not 25?

I'm just curious, how was it settled on 20?

So the change really wasn't for the 20 years.

The change was from municipal to public because I made a mistake.

I'm sorry, it's like poking me in the face.

Okay, so, so I'll go back to the 20 years, but let me, let me explain explain what happened in the change.

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.

And I'm going to give you an example so you all understand what I'm saying.

If the post office and the— well, I can bring a real life, the armory.

The armory was built for municipal use, but then it went to the state, and then before it came back to the city.

So there was like some time changes in there.

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.

So that's why I wanted to change it from municipal to a public building.

Thank you.

I have 2 other questions here.

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?

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?

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.

Yep.

Yeah, a public hearing.

But to that point, you'll do the normal process of engaging the neighborhood, the abutters, and do all that.

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.

And we're finding some good success with that.

I guess my last question for now, Mr. Chairman, through you to Ms. Lauro.

I'm not gonna hold you to this.

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?

We're talking housing, commercial, nonprofit, other uses, income-restricted housing, market-rate housing.

What are some of the conversations that have been had in the board, within the board, and in your office?

So we work very closely with the Office of Housing and Community Development on the RFPs.

In the past, you've seen police stations and schools that have gone forth.

Tomorrow you have another slate of municipal buildings, including the armory.

Usually it's the market that is dictating what those uses be.

We within the RFPs do put recommended uses.

Um, also in, in this particular ordinance, there is criteria of uses that are not allowed.

So obviously we don't want to adversely impact the locations in the neighborhoods where these buildings are located.

As we know, the schools and fire stations, the police stations are— were always nestled, um, intermixed within the, the neighborhoods.

So we're, we're not allowing high-impactful adverse uses, but encouraging uses that the market will take advantage of.

All right.

Thank you for answering my questions, Ann.

Mr. Chairman, I'll yield at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I also want to recognize that the ward 4 Councilor Derek Baptiste has joined us.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

All right.

Seeing that this is a public hearing, I'll ask if anyone here wishes to speak in favor.

Speak in favor.

Be recorded in favor.

Be recorded in favor.

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

Speak in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Motion to close the public hearing made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Your pleasure.

Motion to refer out to the full City Council with a positive recommendation made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 2.

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.

Furthermore, that this law would be strictly enforced in the city, giving some relief to the neighbors— neighborhoods.

It was referred here on June 25th, 2020.

It's now before you.

Motion received and placed in front Motion received and placed on file, made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes, um, Councilor Gomes on his first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, um, to the clerk, from through you to the clerk, you're reading that correctly?

July 5th to the 3rd?

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, I was— it just threw me off.

I thought it was backwards.

I'm sorry.

And probably the way I wrote worded it.

Um, if I just may have the floor for a minute.

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.

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.

So at this point, if no one else wants the floor, I would ask that we table this item till the next ordinance meeting.

Okay, motion to table made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

All those in favor say aye.

The ayes— sorry, any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 3 into the record.

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.

It was referred here on March 14, 2024.

July 17, 2024, it was tabled.

October 9th, 2024 remained on the table.

November 19th, 2024 remained in committee.

On May 28th, 2025, it was heard and tabled.

3A is the order.

It was referred here on March 14th, 2024.

June 17th— July 17th, 2024 was tabled.

October 9th, 2024 remained on the table.

November 19th, 2024 remained in committee.

On May 28th, 2025, it was heard.

And then tables.

3B is the act referred here on March 14th, 2024.

July 17th, 2024, it was tabled.

October 9th, 2024, it remained on the table.

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.

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.

And it remained in committee.

On May 28th, 2025, it was again heard but tabled.

So 3, 3A, and 3B are now before you, and they are on the table.

Motion to remove from the table made by Council Prayer, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion made by Councilor Prayer to refer to the full City Council for adoption, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

I'm on the question.

Chair recognizes Councilor Ryan on this first.

Folks, I think there's work to be done Mr.

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.

Um, I'm hoping my colleagues will indulge me, Mr.

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.

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.

Chair recognizes Councilor Avrill on his first Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.

I'm just curious, and, um, I'd be, be more than willing to listen, but I'm just curious.

Thank you.

I'll yield.

Is a motion to amend in order?

At point of, point of order, is a motion to amend in order?

Yes, Councilor Roy, if you'd like to make a motion, you can.

I would, I would.

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.

Motion made by Councilor Roy to strike the language in 3A to replace 1,800 with 600 and 300 with 100.

Did I get that right?

You did.

3A.

Oh, sorry, 3A and 3B.

Is there a second?

Seeing none, uh, that motion fails, uh, for lack of a second.

Uh, the motion still before us is a motion made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to amend make a motion to amend again.

Okay.

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%.

So in— sorry, 15% to 10% in the first section, in the first paragraph, and in the second to 10%.

So that was a motion made by Councilor Roy.

Is there a second?

Seeing none, that motion fails as well.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to amend the act, move to amend the act again.

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%.

So in Section 3D, 15 to 10%, and the final paragraph of 3G— 3D, sorry, 15% to 10%.

Motion made by Councilor Roy, seconded by— due to a lack of a second, that motion fails.

The motion before us is on— motion to table.

A motion to table has been made.

Is there a second?

A lack of a second.

Motion fails.

Motion to amend, Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Is your mic on?

Oh, it's doing that thing again.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, take the podium.

I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, to amend the order to insert the phrase herein attached.

Attorney Garetowski, herein attached, act attached.

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.

Oh, sorry.

Well, that's the motion.

The motion is to amend the order to, after the title of the act, insert the phrase herein attached.

An act herein attached.

Correct.

Motion made by Councilor Pereira.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Oliver.

On the question, Mr.

Chair, I can ask Councilor Pereira on the question.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All right, anyone else on the question of this amendment which will in place put herein attached?

Anyone?

Councilor Carney, are you looking for the floor?

No.

All right, anyone on their question?

If not, I'm going to ask the clerk to call a roll call on amendment to add in again after enact herein attached.

The clerk will call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 11 to 0.

Passes 11 to 0.

Refer as amended.

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.

Motion by Councilor Choquette.

Motion to amend has been made by Councilor Roy.

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.

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.

Is there a second?

Seeing none, that motion fails as well.

If there's no— no one did.

Oh, which one?

For the hearing at Oliver.

Again, the motion before us is on referral out to the full city council for adoption.

If there's no one on the question, seeing none, I'll ask all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 4.

Item number 4 is a written motion.

Councilors Burgal, Pereira, Abril, Carney, Oliver, Lima, Baptiste, Gomes, Moret, and Giesta.

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.

It was referred here on August 17, 2023.

On November 20, 2023, Judy Keating will secure the monies and numbers on instituting the program.

It was tabled.

On March 25th, 2024, remained on the table.

On April 22nd, 2025, it was heard and then tabled.

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.

Number 4 is before you and it's tabled.

Motion to remove from the table made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by, by Councilor Oliver.

Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Sure.

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.

As well as councilors who are not here, along with a personnel director that is no longer here.

That's how long we've been talking about this item.

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.

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.

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.

We've been talking about this for a while.

This is a no-brainer for me.

Um, I've, I've spoken with, uh, various members of the city.

This won't cost the city anything up front.

Other people might have to pick up the slack as these people are away, but we budget for their salaries for the whole year.

We fund their salaries for the whole year.

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.

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.

So, Mr. Chairman, at this time I'll ask a few questions to Attorney Garatowski, please.

You guys going to both stand up there at the same time?

Do you want to receive it now?

Sure.

Can we get a motion to receive and place that on file?

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Anyone on the question of receiving in place on file?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Attorney Gieratowski.

We're playing musical chairs, sorry.

So, uh, Attorney Gieratowski, can you just give us a brief overview of the ordinance?

Basically, I, I think I spoke to it a little bit, but if you could just kind of go through it a little bit.

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.

I didn't just make them up and pull them out of the, out of the air.

Um, so I tried to write an ordinance that was as simple as possible.

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?

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.

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.

So the council can't get in the middle of benefits and things that are negotiated by the union and the administration.

So it excludes people under collective bargaining agreements, any position that is in a collective bargaining agreement.

Them.

It's only for positions in the city that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

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.

Okay?

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.

Now, you become eligible to take the 12 weeks of paid parental leave upon the occurrence of one of two things.

One, you become a new parent by natural birth by any method.

Or the second part is the adoption of a child under the age of 2 years old.

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.

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.

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.

So that's why we put in childbirth, adoption of a child under the age of 2 years old.

And the 12 weeks of the paid parental leave is only available within the 12 months of that occurrence happening.

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.

So that's how you become eligible to take the leave.

Now, what are the benefits of the leave?

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.

You can take a portion of them, but you don't have to take all 12.

You can take 2 of them, 10 of them, or all 12.

But the employee shall be required to take the parental leave in weekly increments.

So you can't take a day here, a day there, a day there.

You have to take a weekly increment each time you take the parental leave.

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.

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.

Now you can change any of this stuff, but this is what it reads right now.

The first 6 weeks, 100% of the, of the employee's regular pay.

The second 6 weeks that you take, um, you— the employee is paid 75% of its regular pay, okay, for the second 6 weeks.

And during that time that you take this leave, the employee continues to accrue any service credit, sick leave, vacation leave, personal time.

All of that continues to get— it's as if you were working.

So it's— you continue to accrue any of that time that you get as if you were working during that 12 weeks.

So that's the benefits that you get.

Now, how does this happen?

Well, the employee who's seeking to take the family leave must provide notice to the head of their department.

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.

So you try to give the city at least 30 days.

Each employee notifies the department head.

If it's a department head taking, they notify the mayor.

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.

We don't want the department head to wait until last minute and then spring it on the personnel department.

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.

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.

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.

Now, they can't be inconsistent with this.

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.

So that's pretty much how it works.

That's the mechanics.

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.

Okay, thank you, Attorney Gerotowski.

I apologize too for make— running off and making some copies in between there, but I appreciate that.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Councilor Olivares first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, David, for drafting this.

I think it was well thought out.

My, my only question is, I understand the 12 consecutive months.

I'm hired for the City of New Bedford for 11 months.

My wife has a child, we have a child together.

After a month, can I apply?

The child's born, I've only worked for the city for 11 months.

Oh, so a month later, I wait a month, I now have been employed for 12 consecutive months.

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.

So, so for example, the occurrence happens today, you don't have— you can't take any leave until you hit 12.

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?

Right.

You don't have to— your year will be— will go back to the date of the occurrence.

Okay.

But the way it's written, you, you don't need the 12 continuous months at the time of the occurrence.

You need the 12 months to take— to become eligible to take the leave.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

That's all, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Thanks.

Councilor Abreu on his first Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My, my question is actually for Director Gouveia, so I'll yield right now.

If others have questions for our attorney, then you can come back to me if you'd like.

Thank you.

Okay, anyone else on the first?

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes on this first for Attorney Gieratowski.

Thank you, Chairman.

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.

So technically, they could, if the supervisor then approves the tacking on of the vacation time after.

But my understanding, and I don't know for sure, but I think each supervisor has to approve your vacation time.

So you can't just say, I'm, I'm not coming back because I got vacation time.

You have— correct.

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.

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.

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.

They could count it probably as part of the initial 12 weeks.

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.

Thank you for the additional information.

Thank you, Chairman.

Anyone else for Attorney Grotowski?

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.

The only way it would cost a little bit is if you have to bring in another employee while they're out.

In smaller departments, that could become an issue.

But in most departments that can handle people being out, it does create some administrative issues.

There's no question about that.

If somebody's out for 12 weeks on paid family leave and then other employees want vacations, now you have some people out.

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.

So from a budgetary standpoint, it doesn't add an additional expense by the city on its face.

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.

Thank you.

Uh, Director Gouveia, uh, ask you to come to the podium, and the chair recognizes Councilor Abramowicz first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Director Gouveia.

Good to see you.

Likewise.

Good evening.

Thank you.

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.

Obviously, fiscally, morally, ethically, this makes sense.

But now let's address the operational question.

So the human relations side of it, it's a no-brainer.

We all support it for new parents.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room, the operations side of it.

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.

What are we telling our department heads?

I mean, I think it'd be all the more reason to encourage cross-training.

And as the council president, I think, mentioned earlier, we have to just make sure we plug the gaps, right?

We have to be prepared because life happens and we have to fill it in.

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.

Do you agree with that sentiment?

I do.

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.

If I may, since I was invited to come to the podium, there's a couple of things.

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.

However, if the employee does not have accrued sick time, then that needs to be compensated with additional cost of that.

That's a fact.

So if you don't have sick time, that's a fact.

Of course, there are advantages to that.

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.

All that makes sense.

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.

Because— and I have drafted a couple of things.

If you're really going to do this in a way that it works, then it needs to be fair and consistent for everybody.

Let me just give you a quick example.

I promise I will not take too much of your time.

But I'm going to use a little bit of older terms.

You hear a lot of parental leave.

Parental leave is a combination of a few things.

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.

And what the city has been doing is, of course, under federal FMLA law, we do allow them to be out for 12 weeks.

But in addition to that, under the parental leave, we allow them to stay an additional 8 weeks for the mother.

For the father, it's a total of 8 weeks under the parental portion of that.

Under the FMLA guidelines, That also means we also have couples here that we have both father and mother in the city.

Under the federal law, that's what I mean about some guidelines in here and some deeper structure on this.

Technically, they are supposed to share their family time.

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?

Because it's not matching what federal law is.

Is.

So that's one thing to take a look at.

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.

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.

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?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Covey, what was that gender?

I, I didn't— I couldn't understand.

What I'm saying is We also have parents that may be under the same gender.

Oh, okay.

And they have the same right to have a child, to adopt a child.

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.

That's one thing.

In terms of the 20 hours, and you are correct, Counselor, it is 12 months consecutive months have been with us.

With the city, or a combination of that with 1,250 hours.

Someone working 12 hours— 20 hours a week will not come up to that eligibility.

So we've got to be mindful about that.

So it has been on the table for quite some time.

I have been here a couple times.

I have provided some data to you in the past.

I have looked at what, what this looks like, but it does need some structure.

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.

Counselor Abramowicz?

No, I hear your points, Director.

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?

Do you have any?

I think we can— I have a, I have a very rough draft of some scenarios and some of the elements.

I think it's important.

I can send that to you this week.

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.

And the chairman can distribute that to us.

Yes, yes, I can do that.

All right, I'll yield for now.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, Chair recognized Councilor Oliver on his first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, uh, for being here.

My question is, as this is written, obviously you have some concerns with it.

As this is written, is this above and beyond what other people are doing?

What is— where is it with the industry standard?

It is, it is above, but sometimes it is above in some areas that there are some that may even give more.

There are some that may even give less.

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.

But then it depends on what way you look at it, to answer your question.

Again, some do more, some do less.

With some elements of the economy, some companies, major companies, are taking it back a little bit.

Others are still exploring this opportunity.

So depending on the revenue piece.

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.

So that piece is up to the entity, the organization, to design it any way we want.

We are giving more, we're not taking anything out of it, right?

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.

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.

That's under the parental leave extension.

I'm not talking payment.

The father is allowed to stay out for 8 weeks.

Now, the parents, both parents may be with the city or one of the parents is, regardless of what it is.

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.

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?

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.

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.

When it comes to benefits and items like this, let me give you an example of Scenario A. I work for the city.

My wife may or may not work for the city.

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?

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.

They have the same right to adopt, they have the same right to raise a child, right?

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.

So it would have to be between both of them.

The same thing would be applicable on the other side.

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.

Only one of them would follow that.

This way we are fair for all scenarios A, B, and C. Does that make sense?

Sense.

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?

Yes.

Well, under the eligibility, right, under the eligibility, what all that would be end up in that.

It's not for us to identify and decide.

It will be between the couple.

Yeah, but all that will be between the couple to decide, but for, for our purposes, we would need to know.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

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.

I just want to clarify for the general public that might be watching and listening to what you're saying up there.

This here is gender-neutral.

It is— says it says parental, it says parent, 12 weeks.

So you might be speaking on what we are currently doing right now, the current policy, but this is to amend the current policy.

So I just wanted to clarify that, Councilor Oliver.

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.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

With that, are you all set, Council Oliver?

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So thank you, um, Jose, for being here with us.

So I, I hear your, your thoughts regarding the federal law.

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.

And I, I think this is the direction that we should be going in.

I think this is the direction we are going in.

This is a gender-neutral ordinance.

There is no— doesn't talk about the father or the mother.

It's any parent.

And if my spouse, male or female, works for the city, we can take it concurrently or separate or however.

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.

So this is the structure, uh, I, I think the new structure we're looking to implement.

And then you are allowed to create policy and procedure to help bridge the policy with the intention of 12 weeks to both parents.

I think is the most important thing, at least from this councilor's perspective.

But none of that is in question here.

Okay.

And I don't want what I'm saying to be misconstrued either.

What I'm saying is what we are offering in this ordinance, it's above and beyond of what, of what law is.

Okay, great.

Right, exactly.

That point is not a concern.

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.

That's all I wanted to say.

Okay, I, I appreciate it.

I appreciate your concerns.

I, I do.

I, I appreciate your concerns.

I at this point disagree with them.

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.

I, I, I would welcome any comment.

We have time if this does get referred out of committee tonight.

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.

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.

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.

So that's just my point of view.

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.

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.

To finalize my, my— sure, it's not a matter of changing anything that's been voted and agreed upon here.

It's just a matter of sending you some, some elements for you.

I think once you read what I have, you would understand nothing is to take away.

Everything will be exactly how you wish to be, but it's just some of the things that procedurally we'll need as guidelines.

I think that will be very helpful.

If you send it to the clerk's office, we'll take a look at it between— yeah, now and the 28th.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes Councillor Carney.

First.

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Gouveia, for coming.

Um, I— Councilor Pereira asked one of the questions.

I was just working on the policy aspect, uh, with this ordinance.

Did you get to read this ordinance already, that what we've got today?

Yeah.

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.

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?

Nothing of this in here needs to be changed.

Okay.

I think procedurally just needs to, to represent this in greater detail of what the intent is.

Right.

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.

The second thing you brought up was the 20 hours.

You said you have to work X amount of hours and the 20 hours doesn't fit that bill.

Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?

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.

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.

So they may— what does that mean?

They probably need to stay with us a little bit longer in order to qualify and meet both criteria.

Okay.

So versus a full-time employee that has that, meets that automatically within 12 months.

So you just— you just— so the criteria is you have to work the 1,000 250 hours.

So you can, you can still be a part-time employee at 20 hours as long as you hit that benchmark.

Once you hit that benchmark, you will now be eligible.

So that would you put into your— that would be in a policy that you put in there, right?

So we'd fall in line with everything?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

My question's answered.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh, anyone else for Director Gouveia?

Okay, I make a motion to refer the ordinance to the full City Council.

Motion to refer out to the full City Council for adoption, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councilor Pereira on this first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues, I asked for support in referral.

We're going to have a— this will not make tomorrow's meeting.

It's not on Thursday this week, it's tomorrow.

Um, so it will not make tomorrow's agenda.

We have 3 weeks essentially, uh, to hear this item.

If there are changes that need to be made, we can amend them on the floor.

We can refer it back to committee and have the discussion again.

I just think we got to keep the ball rolling.

That gives, I think, uh, Mr. Gouveia enough time to send us some comments.

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.

I think it allows us to keep things moving, and I ask for your support and referral out tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

Oh, Chairman, can I ask Councilor Carneiro first?

Yeah, just quickly, Mr. Gouveia, is that enough time to put that together in person?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

All right, so The motion at hand is on refer— on referral out to the full City Council for adoption.

Uh, I'll ask for a roll call.

Councilor Abril?

Yes, Councilor Abril.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgow?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgow.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Truquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Truquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Council Oliver.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Council Pemberton.

Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Council Pereira.

Council Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 11 to 0.

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.

2023.

All right, so I'll ask the clerk to— thank you, Director Gouveia.

Um, I'll ask the clerk to read item 5.

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.

It was referred here on March 5th, 2026.

5A is the ordinance which was referred here on the same day.

5A now before you.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Abrams, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Treasurer Taxiarcos, do you want to do a presentation for us?

We appreciate your patience tonight.

Thank you.

And I see your hand, Councilor Lopes.

You all right?

The amendment to this ordinance essentially allows us to, um, allow taxpayers to receive their bill by email rather than U.S.

Postal Service, thereby eliminating the cost of printing and mailing.

It would save us approximately $35,000 annually to do that.

But it also brings us up to, you know, the technological age, best practices.

And we're currently sending— we have about 30% of our taxpayers who have an online account and they continue to receive paper bills.

Because we haven't been able to adopt this yet.

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.

Chair, if I can ask Councilor Lopes on this first.

Could you explain the opt-in or opt-out?

Would people be automatically opted into receiving?

So can you go into that?

Yeah, so essentially what they would have to is in their online account, they would have to opt into receiving email delivery only.

So what if somebody is getting a paper bill?

Is there something on the paper bill every quarter that they could opt out of a paper bill or retain the paper bill?

Could you explain that?

Yeah.

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.

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.

But people would have to opt out of the paper bill.

They wouldn't automatically be opted into electronic communications.

Yeah, they're almost doing it simultaneously, opting in for email delivery and out for paper billing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair, can I ask Councilor Gomes on this first?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You said we could save $35,000 a year.

Approximately.

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?

Right, the potential for, uh, the people who have online accounts currently who would potentially opt out of paper billing.

Okay, let me ask you this.

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?

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.

And then they could also review their bill online at any time.

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?

You know, we know that these things come out in the period that they do.

But have precautions been put in for stuff like that?

Sure.

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.

And so we would know if they did or not.

Okay.

Last question.

Nobody will be forced into it, especially our elderly who do not play with computers.

The closest thing they may have is a phone, but they don't do any transitions on there.

Or we know that many people will not want to receive email delivery of their bill.

They, um, like getting the paper bill, and that can continue.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

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.

You came up with that figure of $35,000, something like that, approximately.

And that's just based off of the active online users right now, correct?

So obviously that the benefits could be even more if more people sign up, right?

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?

Has anything like that been discussed to try to get more people on so that we're saving $50,000 or whatever it is?

Yes.

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.

So that was the goal, to increase that number from where we see it currently.

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.

Okay, so no real additional cost to do it.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

Seeing none, motion to refer out to the full City Council for approval would be appropriate.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 6.

Item number 6 is a report.

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.

It was referred here on March 26, 2026.

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.

6 and 6A are before you.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by, uh, Councilor Oliver.

And all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman, Councilor Pereira, I make a motion to amend the ordinance before us by striking Sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety.

All right, motion made by Councilor Pereira to strike Sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety, seconded by Councilor Abril.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Pereira on the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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.

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.

However, in this case, I feel that we would not be able to have the correct information to make an adequate decision.

Our office staff is great.

There is no doubt.

I get compliments on from constituents all the time, and I know that they work diligently and hard.

And this is not a matter of work ethic.

This is more a matter of bandwidth and capabilities when it comes to understanding plans.

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.

90% of this is done electronically with requiring software like Bluebeam or AutoCAD or something like that.

Our department does not have that software.

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.

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.

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.

And our meetings, as councilors know, get moved, canceled, and rearranged all the time.

Have adequate staff here from the planning department, I think is a little bit, uh, unrealistic at this time.

I, I would hope my colleagues would understand that when we vote in here, uh, we need to be making, uh, educated decisions.

And, and we do 90, uh, 100% of the time.

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.

And that's no fault to our staff or the planning staff.

It's just the reality of where we stand.

And I don't feel comfortable making decisions on projects, yes or no, without having adequate information.

We need to be wary of our power because just giving ourselves power, unchecked power, is also just as dangerous.

And that's setting ourselves up for future failures.

Future myself in the future, ourselves in the future, and our colleagues in the future.

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.

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.

Thank you.

He needed to chime in to finish it.

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.

And if we enact this, I believe at this time we will not be able to truly receive the appropriate information.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Tough seat to fill there, huh, Councilor Ferrara?

A lot more space though, huh?

Councilor Abram, his first.

Yeah, there's not much more to add.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the president.

What did I say that was so funny?

Oh no, there isn't much.

No, he's actually correct.

I mean, spot-on, hit the nail on the head.

It's a bullseye on that one.

Yeah, I mean, this is about practicality, and he and I had a discussion earlier today it's about being realistic.

It's about not having the appropriate training, expertise, legal knowledge.

And it's very complex legal questions.

And these people, these developers are, you know, they're dealing with attorneys and engineers.

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.

Okay, so that's just what this comes down to.

Again, as he had said, and I agree, we all agree, our office staff is tremendous at what they do.

They make us look fantastic.

But again, this is a whole other dimension that they're just not qualified for.

And it's no slight on them.

It's just not their trade.

I mean, we know what we know and we know what we don't.

I mean, we all go to school or have to go to a trade school for something or other.

I mean, I mean, I don't know.

I mean, I think the Red Sox are playing terrible.

Doesn't mean I should be their manager, you know?

I mean, like, I mean, I don't know.

I can't teach somebody how to hit, like, you know?

So it's like, I can have an opinion, but I'm not qualified to go, you know, replace Alex Cora.

I mean, let's be honest.

So it's like, you know, it's a silly example, but I mean, come on.

What are we doing here?

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.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

I'm curious if my colleagues agree, but that's kind of where my thought process was going.

I'll yield for now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone on their second?

All right, again, as a reminder, this is a motion to amend striking sections 8, 9, and 10 in their entirety.

Seeing that there's no one else on the question, uh, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Point of, um, point of information, Mr. Chairman.

Me— can I speak with Attorney Gartowski, please?

You may not.

Just kidding.

Attorney Gertowski, you go to the podium.

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.

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.

But now that we want them, we have to keep the definition.

Am I wrong?

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?

4300, I believe.

4300 definitions and then asphalt portion.

So, so, right.

So if you're going to keep them, I'm not sure.

I'm trying to look at what that section is.

Sure.

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.

Sure.

So in the last meeting— thank you, um, Attorney Gartowski, I appreciate it.

I make a motion to amend by striking Section 6 in its entirety.

Motion, uh, motion made by Councilor Perrot to strike Section 6 in its entirety, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

On the question, uh, Chair recognizes Councilor Perrot on the question.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

All right, seeing none, again, this is a motion to amend by striking Section 6 in its entirety.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to refer the full City Council for approval— adoption as amended.

Motion to refer out to the full City Council as amended for adoption, made by Councilor Peralez, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

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.

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.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on Question of adjournment.

Councilor Gomes on the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to relinquish my time to Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 8:19 post meridian.

Thank you and God bless.