Ordinance Committee — June 24, 2026

Good evening.

It is June 24th, 2026 at 7 PM, and this is our Committee on Ordinances.

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

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

I'm joined in the chamber tonight by Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton, Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette, Ward 5 Councilor Joseph Lopes, Ward 6 Councilor and Council President Ryan Pereira, Councilor at Large James Roy, and Councilor at Large Second Vice President Naomi Carney.

And I am Chairman of Ordinance Shane Burgo.

I'll ask the clerk if there are any letters to read into the record.

I have one letter to read into the record.

This is from Councilor Baptiste.

I'm writing to inform you that I will be unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a family commitment.

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

Motion received and placed on file, made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of receiving place on file the letter from Councilor Baptiste?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I also received a text communication from Councilor Abril explaining that he, uh, he would not be here this evening due to a work commitment.

Item number 2.

Is it— is that what I asked?

Yes.

Okay, Clerk Lawrence would like to take up item number 2 without objection.

All right, I'll ask Clerk Lawrence to read item 2.

Item number 2 is a communication.

Dennis W. Faria, City Clerk, Clerk of the City Council.

To Ryan J. Pereira, City Council President, requesting an increase for 3 administrative and recording fees, vital record amendments, junk collector dealer fees, and business certificates, doing business licenses, DBA licenses.

It was referred to us on May 28th, 2026.

Number 2 is now before you.

Motion received and placed on file, made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Clerk Farias, how are you today?

I'm good.

I'm well, Mr. Chairman.

How are you?

I'm just so blessed.

Thank you for being here today with us.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for inviting me tonight and also for taking me out of order.

I'll be very, very brief.

Councilors, if you've had a chance to read the letter that I submitted to all of you a few weeks ago, what we're looking to do here is just fairly simple.

There's 3 fees that we're looking to increase.

The first one is our amending vital records.

That fee, we're looking to increase that from $40 to $50, which is the state average.

Which we're currently below right now.

What that is, is there's a lot of work that goes into amending vital records.

90% of it comes from when— is really from birth records, when people don't sign properly or don't check the birth records at the hospital.

They go in, you know, they're either excited about having a birth or whatever it is, or they just don't pay attention for whatever reason.

Sometimes one of the parents aren't there to sign, and then they want to amend the record later.

This is happening more and more and more now.

And the work is getting more and more involved.

You know, names are a little complicated and things.

So, you know, the hospital staff does their best, but afterwards they got to come in and do the amendment.

There's quite a bit of work there.

So we want to just come up to the state average in that regard.

And then just jumping down to the DBAs and the business certificates, we also want to bring that up a little bit.

Those licenses, as you may know, they're good for 4 years.

And what that really is is a business certificate, but it's a DBA.

And the state average is actually above $50.

We're looking to increase that from $40 to $50.

That license is good for 4 years.

That won't change.

Cities like Fall River, for example, charge $60, and they actually also charge $15 to end their business when they go out of business, which we actually think is foolish, which didn't make sense.

We kind of ended that one about 12 years ago when I came on board with your help.

We got rid of that.

So those 2 things we can— the council can do just by giving us permission.

The other thing with the junk dealer fees, we actually have to change that by ordinance, unfortunately.

So I'll ask you to do that as well.

And that is we have about 25 junk dealers and then another 10 or so in the city that also deal in gold and silver and precious metals.

So we're looking to double each of those fees from $50 to $100 and then $100 to $200, which again is comparable to other municipalities in the state.

Any questions from the floor?

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy on this first.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Dennis, how are you?

I'm well.

How much revenue are you estimating, um, uh, what will increase with the revenue with these changes?

Uh, in total, Councilor, um, it'll probably be around another— I wrote that down here— 7 We're looking probably about maybe another $10,000 into our office, which is— it doesn't sound like a lot, but for our office it's significant.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair, can I ask Councillor Pereira on this first?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dennis, so in regards to the junk collector dealer fees, you said that has to be done via ordinance, correct?

Is that something you would like us to have drafted now and, and move along, or move along this so we can enact those fees, and then you'll submit an ordinance later on?

Thank you for asking that question, Councilman.

What I'd actually like you to do for the, for the, for the other 2 is to, to move on those tonight because you can do those tonight.

Yeah.

This one, I'd actually like you to table that because I just became aware of, uh, some new state regulations that have changed, okay, which affect our dog citations, which also have to be changed by ordinance.

Okay.

So it might make sense to just kind of do that all at one time and save some money on that On the advertising of the ordinance.

So go ahead and maybe pass this, uh, those 2.

Yeah, the, uh, the vital records and the DBAs would be great tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Anyone else?

Anyone on the second?

All right, seeing none.

So, Mr. Chairman, because this is a communication, um, in which Uh, it's all together.

Do you want me to just refer out the communication and then make a related motion to keep in committee?

What would be the best?

I would think you just make— I guess I refer to the council, David, but I would assume you just make the motion to increase the fee at this time and then we would leave.

But the council needs to do that, doesn't it?

No.

Yeah, if you could come to the microphone.

Oh.

I guess not.

Okay, so Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to refer to the council recommendation to increase the fees for vital record amendments and business certificates, DBA licenses.

Motion made by Councilperson— by $10 each.

No, it's No, it's $30 to $50.

That's $20, right?

$40 to $50.

$40 to $50.

Oh, $40 to $50, and I thought you said $30 to $50.

Each one, each one.

Okay.

By $10.

So it's $30 to $40.

I made a mistake.

You can say it as written.

Yeah.

Items number 1 and 2.

1 and 3.

1 and 3.

$50.

Well, that's what it is currently, right?

No, it's $40 currently.

Item number 1 from $40 to $50.

Yeah, $40 to $50.

And then item number 3, $40 to $50.

$40 to $50.

Oh, that's going to remain.

So that would be the vital record amendments and business certificates, DBA licenses.

Okay, that's been referred by you and seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All right, seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Make a motion to table item number 2 at this time.

Motion to table made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Clerk Farias.

Thank you, councilors.

Appreciate it.

We are now back at item, uh, 1, a public hearing.

Item number 1 is a public hearing continued on a communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance.

Amending Chapter 9, Zoning, Establishing Form-Based Code Districts, referred on April 9th, 2026, duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, May 13th, 2026, on Monday, May— and on Monday, May 20th, 2026.

On May 27th, 2026, it was heard and the public hearing was continued until June 24th, 2026.

1A is an ordinance.

It was referred here on April 9th, 2026, duly advertised in the Standard Times.

On Monday, May 13, 2026, and Monday, May 20, 2026.

On May 27, 2026, the public hearing was heard, and then it was continued until June 24, 2026.

1B is a communication.

Jennifer Carloni, Director, Planning Department, Councilor Shane A. Burgo, Chairman, Committee on Ordinances, advising that the planning board held a public hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, to discuss a request made by the city council for the planning board to review and make a recommendation relative to adding a new Section 6000 establishing form-based code districts, further amending Section 2230, Table of Principal Use Regulations, inserting new Appendix D, and amending Chapter 1200 and definitions with regulating maps of new zoning districts.

The planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment with the recommendation that the city council further review and consider height limitations in the downtown area FBC district, especially in the areas moving west along Kempton Street.

It was received on May 27th, 2026.

May 27th, 2026, there was a public hearing which was continued until June 24th, 2026.

1, 1A, and 1B are before you.

The hearing to be continued.

So it's already opened, it's already continued, no motions are needed.

Um, I assume Assistant City Planner Lauro is here to present, or the continuation of the discussion.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, would you like us to receive and place on file the email communications from Assistant Director Ann Lauro?

Yes.

I would like to make a motion to receive and place on file.

Motion received and placed on file made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, good evening, councilors.

Um, again, this is a continuation from, um, the last time we were here.

We did a full presentation.

We had the consultant with us.

I'm happy to review that again if there are any specific questions about anything within the form-based code.

However, I do want to mention or note that when at that meeting in May, you did direct the planning department to do 2 items.

One was to meet with developers and design professionals relative to the administration of form-based code.

Which we did, and I will speak about that in a moment.

And the second item was relative to building story heights in the downtown subdistrict, which is what you have some— you have maps printed out, and I do have it out on the smartboard as well.

And there was a direction for us to meet with the neighborhood that was— would would have been impacted by, um, 14-story height, particularly in the Kempton and County Street corridor.

Although we were unable to organize a meeting with the neighborhoods, we did have a very collaborative and productive meeting with Planning Board member Camille Kazan, who actually was the person who raised concerns relative to the height in that location.

She is a planning board member.

She grew up in that neighborhood and still resides in that neighborhood.

So talking about the heights, since we're already on that subject, we had initially proposed in the pink areas, and I saw Scott Service do this.

Now I'm going to be like Vanna.

All right.

So, um, the pink portions are what were originally proposed as the 14-story heights.

We did that because in the downtown we did want to be able to provide density, um, of height because we are a land-poor city.

And we did not propose that in any of the other districts, nor would we in any residential areas, even though we do have residences in the downtown.

It's an— it's a different urban type of residential lifestyle.

So recognizing that 14 was too high, based on our conversation with Ms. Kazan, we've lowered it to 8 stories.

And this is the modified map.

So we reduced the area of the pink into 8 stories, and then West across County Street, we brought it even lower.

On actually the east and west side of County Street, we brought it down to 6 stories.

And then on the other side of Kempton Street, closer to Mill Street, it doesn't read that well color-wise, but that's 4 stories.

So it's a gradual height difference between the neighborhoods.

It's a very— what we think is a very good transition height from neighborhood 3, 4, 6, and then the 8 stories.

So 14's gone down to 8.

Are there any questions relative to that portion of it?

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

So, and I just had one understanding that the— and I'm going to look at the picture, I'm sorry, because I don't remember them all— the New Bedford Hotel is 11 and Olympia Towers is 10.

Why didn't we say 10 instead of 8?

Because I brought— that was my initial, and Camille felt— still felt uncomfortable with the 8.

Okay.

And, um, and honestly, we could have done that, and there's another way of doing that, and I'm just going to bring that up because what you're looking at is, is this.

And so we did, we did a context study, and that's— I should have pointed that out.

I apologize.

Of what the heights are of some of the tall buildings and where they're located.

And we could have done, particularly in this area where the Regency is, kept that at 10 stories and then do this portion as 8.

It would have required more modifications within throughout the entire code because everything's connected.

So if somebody did want to come in with a 10-story, they just go through a zoning process just as we would now as an appeal.

And if we— again, zoning can be changed.

And if we find that people are coming in and saying, I really want to do 10-story, then we'll just come back to you, um, and, and, and present that.

I understand completely.

So I appreciate the additional information.

Thank you.

And thank you, Council Chair.

Councilor Peralez first.

So just 2 questions.

First, in discussing the meeting you had with designers and developers, the overall sentiment basically was, was received well, and the idea is something that they want to see brought forward?

Yeah, so as you know, developers particularly do not like to operate in uncertainty.

So knowing ahead of time what the requirements are and what type of relief they may or may not need is really spelled out very clearly through form-based code.

We do have 2 folks here, one a developer, one a design professional, who can also, I'm sure, speak about that meeting.

And then the other questions put forth were based on administration, how the form-based Code will be administered through the permitting systems, and we discussed that.

Okay, very good.

Um, and then if the council— and, and I'd like to hear from my colleagues further— but if the council does want to proceed forward with the change to the story as stated in the bottom of your email here, further, uh, you would need some time to make those changes?

I would probably need one day.

Okay.

To go— maybe, maybe 2 or 3 days to go into the materials and, and make the edits because it's only related to height.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes Councilor Baptiste on his first.

Thank you.

Um, hi, Anne, how you doing today?

Hello, Councilor.

Good.

Um, I'm glad that you made modifications.

You know, we all thought the 14 was way too high.

Which I just want to— that lowest School Street is really— I think at— what do you have it at, 8 now?

I think that's pretty good because of— just because Hobbyview being at 6, you know, you got Olympia at 10, but right across the street you got the Y, you got the Zaitarian.

And the only real lot that you have open area spaces, like where the Crystal Cafe lot used to be.

So that's probably the only spot that you build up over there.

You know, my, you know, my main concern before was the residential neighborhoods in the, in the area, making sure that they was being— they was looked after and not being, you know, bulldozed, having big buildings next to them.

But I think that's a little bit, you know, condensed up in there.

How do you think that this zoning right here is going to trickle more?

Because a lot of this is in Ward 4 and it's going to trickle more down that Purchase Street corridor.

And how is that going to— how is that going to intertwine with what you have going on?

So in that area too.

So these are 3 pilot areas that we've put forth to kind of test the waters of how this works.

It's a new form of zoning, both for external folks to use and internal staff to administer.

So as we move into other areas, as I stated before, it's about retaining character.

So when we start getting into neighborhoods, you're not going— you're not going to see heights.

If we start going, as you mentioned, further south onto Purchase and Pleasant Street, going, um, you know, south towards, towards like maybe Wing Street and those neighborhoods, you're, you're going to be looking at the retention of that neighborhood character.

The tallest buildings are probably 2.5 or 3-story buildings in those neighborhoods.

So it's very similar to what we did down at the Goulet Square, which I don't have a map, it's not on this map, But Goulet Square is a bigger area.

And when we got— when we got into the neighborhoods, or actually, I can talk about it here, that gold color in the downtown, those are the residential blocks in the downtown.

That's 2.5, 3 stories.

So— and that's what we was worried about, just keeping that low.

Yeah.

And as we make sure that— yes.

And if we advance this into neighborhoods, that's going to be the same approach.

So, so why is the area up around McDonald's— is that Middle Street?

Yeah, up around McDonald's blacked out and the area around— oh, that's the one you changed right there, right?

Yeah.

All right.

So, so does it end at where McDonald's is or does it start where that development is right after McDonald's where that fence starts?

The McDonald's right now is 6 stories.

All right.

It's 6 stories.

McDonald's?

Yes.

All right.

Yeah.

It's not 8.

McDonald's is not 8 stories.

When you get to County Street, whatever is facing County Street.

But that plot right there is 6 stories.

McDonald's ain't going to go 6 stories.

But next door to it, is that still 6 stories as well where the apartment building is, or does that start where— what, across the street?

The King's— you know how McDonald's is on the corner?

Oh, oh, no, no, no.

And then that fence and then that building right there.

Yeah.

The one on Elm and Middle Street.

Yeah, that's 8 stories.

That's 8 stories.

We just want to make sure, like, you know, that area is— you know, there ain't much over there either.

Are they planning on building a big courthouse in that area?

Have you heard anything about— I have not.

No, I'm not.

I know in the state they're having a lot of problems.

I know the courthouse is having a lot of issues with mold and a lot of people getting sick and them having that old building.

So I've been hearing a lot of noise about about them trying to build a— So I know the courthouse, it's amazing.

As a preservation planner, I want to point out that old buildings are the best buildings because they will last for hundreds of years.

You have a courthouse, I don't know the exact year that courthouse was built, but it's probably no less than 30 years ago, and it needs to be demolished because it's so bad.

So I know that the administration has lobbied our legislature in the state if there's a new— for a new courthouse, obviously, to be located in the downtown.

I know a response that we received a few years ago was like, yeah, it's in the planning.

Yeah, because I know everywhere else in, you know, this area, especially in Bristol County, have gotten new courthouses in the past.

Yeah, it's something that I think the city has advocated for, but it's The state has not committed to it.

Thank you for answering my question.

If I have any more, I know how to get in touch with you.

So thank you.

Hi, you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

No?

Okay.

Uh, anything else from the planning side?

All right, this is a public hearing.

Uh, anyone here from the general public wish to speak in favor?

Speak— wish to speak in favor?

Mr. Pereira.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, Armando Pereira, Comprehensive Design Build Services, with an office on 227 Union Street.

As I look at this, and I was part of the, the online meeting that we had.

This makes all the sense in the world.

And I can tell you right now, just real quick, I have a lot that I'm working with that's an MUB, but the width of lot, if we take and we follow the zoning regulations that— the ones that just passed when we got 8 and 8, my building was a sliver.

So when we start looking at what form base can do as far as allowing the, the maximum allowable space per district.

Obviously, if you're an MU-4 or an MU-3, and if you work with it, it does make a lot of sense.

We have lots throughout the city that— this particular lot that I'm working on, my client that bought the building next to it was looking at it and he was thinking he could do a parking area.

Well, To do a parking area, you need at least, uh, 44 feet plus clearances plus, you know, I mean, your setbacks.

So you'd be looking at a 50-foot lot.

This lot's not even 50 feet.

So what you end up doing is you end up creating— you can't create pocket parks, which obviously pocket parks, we end up creating an issue where now you can have to police because people can go in there, they can, you know, just hang out and could create problems.

Um, one of the, the area that I'm working on happens to be in the pilot area.

It's on Acushnet Avenue.

And when we start looking at with what the city's put out, it makes sense.

It gives us a menu that we can work with.

If you follow what's there, I feel that, you know, getting permits will be expedited.

And this is what we need.

We need— we listen what we've gone down with the dimensional, uh, zoning changes that make sense.

It helps out with the lots.

But when you take it and you, you get into areas like this and you look at it, and how can we take lots that would not be able to be buildable and how do you bring them back in?

It's a win-win.

You clean out the city by not creating these pocket parks where people can hang out and cause trouble when you're allowed to build in these areas.

We can definitely, because of the, the use, you can definitely create, you know, residential in there, which is something that we're looking at.

And then the third part, which is a very big one, and I speak with this because I own property in the city of New Bedford, and that's your tax base.

I mean, we've got to do what we got to do so we can keep the tax base where it's at and not go up, which it's inevitable you're going to have to no matter what.

But I applaud the planning department for this, and I think it's just something that moving forward, uh, after we get beyond this, uh, pilot stage— and matter of fact, I'm working in another area that I think the form-based code will be good, but it's on an overlay district as well, and it's just another avenue to really help improve the city.

Listen, I've been in the city since 1970, and I've seen it go where it was nice and steady.

And I really feel that this is a right direction.

So I think it's— it makes sense for the, uh, ordinance committee to approve it, move it forward, and let's get it done.

And let's keep the city moving forward.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak in favor?

Gary Gagne, Divine Contractors.

I agree with Mr. Pereira.

I was also on the meeting with the planning department, and they put in a ton of work, as I'm sure you guys have seen since it's already been presented.

And it's really thoughtful what they've put together, and specifically in the areas as Ms. Laurel was just explaining of staying out of the residential areas.

And I know the lot that Mr.

Brewer is talking about.

It's actually across the street from my office.

And we see all these 3 families or 4 families that have burnt down or suffered loss.

And I drive by there every day and there's drug addicts hanging out in there every single day, right?

It just gives them a spot to hide.

You know, and the, the day or the next tax year, right, you get the land reassessed and the land's worth $100,000.

It was a $700,000 building.

This has been handcuffing developers in the city.

I mean, even the last case, guys in here talking about $10 for a DBA license.

I mean, how, how, how are we not focused on hundreds of thousands of dollars in assessed value you know, which could lead to millions with the height restrictions.

Right.

Mainly, I'm speaking about the— what the lack of setbacks required, the lack of side setbacks required.

It's going to change the city.

It's going to revitalize it, bring housing down.

This is a supply and demand issue that we've been fighting, or we say we've been fighting, but the planning board is actually fighting.

This is what we need, because if we don't continue to add supply and the demand keeps coming, the prices keep going up.

So the only way we can combat it is by getting creative, trying to add housing, trying to make lots that were established with the original infrastructure of the city of New Bedford— were these what we call undersized lots now?

But, you know, Mr. Pereira owns property.

I know A few of you guys own property.

I own property.

It's all on the same, same size lots.

Now we can actually rebuild it instead of— I mean, I'm sure you guys drive around your city and you see vacant lot, vacant lot, vacant lot.

That shouldn't be the case.

This is a great pilot to really combat the housing crisis.

And you guys have already been doing a great job with the the reduction of parking.

And, you know, you guys are making the great effort to move forward.

And I think this is the next step to really tie in the zoning changes all together to be able to make it all make sense for everybody involved, mainly, obviously, the constituents who— I mean, I have an apartment for rent right now.

I had 17 applications.

I can only pick one.

That means there's 16 people looking for housing.

If this passes and let's say somebody puts up an 8-unit building, I'm not getting 17 applications, which could inadvertently hurt me as a landlord, but it's going to really help the city and lower the cost.

That's the only way.

This is the only way to lower cost and of apartments and housing for people to be able to afford buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish 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.

All right, seeing none, motion to close the public hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing made by Councilor Perera, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. President— Mr. Chairman, I make a— I know you like that, Mr. Chairman, uh, I make a motion to, uh, instruct the, uh, Planning Department and Anne Lauro to provide the proposed changes as presented here tonight to the— to this body, um, at, at an— at her earliest convenience.

Motion made by Councilor Pereira for the proposed changes, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Um, I don't know why it was like, um, on the question, Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with, uh, legal counsel Attorney Garatowski, and basically the council, this body, is able to end the public hearing.

We discussed the height changes as the recommendation from the planning department, uh, reducing that.

Ian indicated that it would take a few days for her to come up with that.

We can refer this whole package out to the full council.

She can provide the council with those changes, and we can make a substitution amendment at that next meeting in July.

Grant, I imagine she said a few days, so July would be no issue to have that.

Okay, she indicated no.

Okay, so as long as this motion passes, it's basically instructions for her to make those changes and provide it to the council.

David, she could just provide it to the chair.

Okay.

You got that?

Yeah, provide to chair.

Yeah, okay, very good.

Thank you.

All right, so the motion has been made by Councilor Parr, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to refer the item out to the full city council.

Motion to refer to the full city council.

Made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are now at item 3.

Number 3 is communication.

Mayor Mixon to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 19, Personnel, Section 19-7 of the City Code to create the position of the Assistant Superintendent contendant of green space at a pay grade of M11, the position fully paid out by the water enterprise.

It was referred here on May 28, 2026.

3A is the ordinance referred here on May 28, 2026.

Number 3 and 3A are now before you.

Motion to refer out to the full City Council for no further action.

I— well, okay, I do see that Bob Ekstrom is here.

Did you want to speak on this at all or no?

Okay, I just wanted to give that as an option.

I know that Commissioner Ponce did send communication that he was not able to make it.

I just wanted to make note that he did send communication to us that he was unable to make it tonight.

So a motion has been made by Councilor Pereira to refer for no further action, seconded by— I was gonna say Councilor Baptiste, but thank you so much for that clarification.

Um, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are on item 4.

Yes, number 4 is a written motion.

Councilor Lopes.

And Council President Pereira requesting that the city solicitor, in conjunction with the administration, draft a home rule petition for submission to the Massachusetts General Court authorizing the city of New Bedford to establish an early retirement incentive, incentive program for eligible municipal employees.

Said petition shall provide that employees who have attained the age of 50 years or older and who have completed 25 years or more of credible service with the city may be eligible to retire with a retirement allowance calculated at up to 75% of the eligible retirement benefits, subject to approval of the Massachusetts Legislature and the governor.

That was referred here on May 28th, 2026.

And item number 4 is now before you.

Motion to receive in place on file, made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Uh, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor Pereira.

Mr. President, when— when— if you can— Mr. Chairman, I keep saying that.

I'm sorry.

Mr. Chairman, if you recall, Mr. Chairman, at the full city council meeting when this was discussed, I came down from the podium and spoke from this desk, very similar to comments made by Councilor Lopes, but I had requested that the solicitor notify this body if this is something the Mitchell administration would like to entertain.

Now, I have heard through the grapevines that there is no appetite to entertain this, that it actually might not make sense to entertain this, which is fine.

But we did not receive an email communication if that's not something the administration wants to pursue, because it would be a home rule petition, which we can't override a veto.

The mayor needs to sign it.

Why waste this committee's time?

Why waste these department heads' time if there's no appetite to do that?

We received no email communication from the solicitor.

Maybe I'm misspeaking, but I checked with my colleague.

We have received none.

So it is my understanding the Mitchell administration does not want to pursue this.

So Director Cohen, CFO Ekstrom, Solicitor Jakes all wasted their time sitting here for 40 minutes in this meeting.

That we didn't even really need to have on this item because the Mitchell administration doesn't want to do it.

Um, I'll yield if my colleague who co-sponsored this wishes to add anything, but I still want communication if the administration wants to do this.

So I'd make a motion to table at the time, but I'll yield to my colleague from Ward 5.

So I've talked to the co-maker of the motion on this, and the idea is to look at reasonable solutions to provide the city with an avenue to save money without laying off people.

You know, in the budget, the administration had an amount for unemployment benefits.

But if we're allowing people to retire early, then you don't need to exhaust unemployment benefits.

Now, I appreciate, you know, everyone being here behind me.

And as the good council— as the good council president stated, if we were able to get some direction in regards to the direction the administration would take, we could have saved everybody behind us some time if there is no aptitude— appetite.

But when you listen to the radio and the Mitchell administration says the council doesn't want to work with him, the tables are now justly turned.

We're looking to work with the administration to provide an avenue to allow the city to reduce its workforce.

Not through layoffs, but through attrition, and bring on a younger staff that actually comes in at a lower salary and a higher retirement contribution than some of the people that would have 25 or 27 years of service.

So collectively, we're providing an avenue for the administration to work with all the unions and all the departments, but we're not receiving that same communication back.

So as the council president said, at this time I think it's appropriate that we table this until we're able to get some communication from the administration.

Thank you, Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

I do see the solicitor is here.

I don't know if there's anything that you— Motion to table.

Second.

Well, I just want to give him the opportunity because I know that in the past the administration administration, I believe you have mentioned, the actual council president, Mr. President, that the administration has chastised us before by not giving his staff the opportunity to speak.

So I just want to showcase that we are giving his administration the opportunity to speak, and if they want to.

So I don't want to give the appearance that we're silencing them.

So if there is something that you want to share, Solicitor Jakes, if there's any information that there is to give, this is your opportunity.

If you have nothing to add, you don't have to get up to the microphone.

If you're just going to get up there to say there's nothing at this time, then you don't need to get up.

But I just— I don't want you to feel as though we're silencing you at this moment.

Point of order.

We have a valid motion to table and a second.

I'm sorry.

We have a motion to table pending.

And a second.

And I'm not recognizing— I'm recognizing Solicitor Jakes.

Solicitor Jakes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone.

I made them up.

Yes, and he already has.

Solicitor Jakes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just— before Solicitor Jakes, I don't want to discuss the merit of the item if he has— and we're not— and we're not— what I'm— all I'm asking is if he has information from the administration.

You're saying that we haven't heard anything from the administration.

He is here as the representative from the administration, and I believe you have told me in the past that the administration has criticized us that we have not given him the opportunity.

And so I'm asking right now if he has any information to share regarding this.

That is all.

And he is going to answer now.

We can't say that the administration is not communicating with us if we are right now in this moment effectively saying we don't want to hear from them when they're here.

That is all.

He sat here for 40— how long has it been?

42 minutes.

We can at least give them the respect to have him answer if he does have any information for us.

That's all.

We don't have to do a back and forth.

He can answer whether or not there is any communication from the mayor's office.

That's all.

Solicitor Jakes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I have had a discussion with the administration, and I am informed that the administration has considered a number of ways of reducing the expenses in the city, which include potential ideas such as an early retirement.

At this time, it is the focus of the administration concentrate on health insurance reform and pension reform and not proceed with this proposal at this time.

Okay, so he's not in favor of it and that he will not proceed with it at this time?

That is correct.

Okay, so there's our answer.

So we didn't have to wait for it.

He came down with the answer.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for him?

The, the makers of the motion, do you have any questions of Solicitor Jake since he does have knowledge from the mayor.

Councilor Lopes.

I would say, Solicitor Jake, I made a typographical error when I submitted it.

It wouldn't be 50, it'd be 55.

I don't know if that changes the appetite of the administration, but at 55 it's more in line with what the state has already adopted for early retirees at the state level.

I can understand 50 being extremely young I made an error and I will own that.

It should have been 55, not 50, when I submitted the application, the, uh, the motion.

Do you think it was an age issue or it was other factors?

And I'm not asking you to speak for him, but you did have a conversation.

So my belief is the difference between age 50 and age 55 would not change the administration's position at this time.

And that's all I needed.

Thank you, uh, Solicitor Jake.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councilor Pereira, any questions?

Anyone else?

Thank you, Solicitor Jakes.

Make a motion.

Motion made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Lopes for no further action.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:44 PM.