Special Committee on Special Permits and Licensing — March 19, 2026

You got hiccups, Gus?

Sorry?

You got hiccups?

Yes.

All right, we're going to get started.

Okay, so here we go.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 6:34 PM on Thursday, March 19th, 2026.

I'd like to call to order this special committee meeting on special permits and licensing here in the New Bedford City Council Chambers.

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 am joined in the council chambers by my committee members.

On this committee, we have Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton, and we have Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette.

And I am Ian Abreu, Councilor at Large and the chairman of this committee.

I will ask the clerk, are there any letters to be read into the record at this time?

Chairman Abreu, yes, we have 2.

The first one is, um, I'm writing to inform you that I will be unable to attend tonight's Committee on Special Permits and Licensing due to a personal matter.

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

Sincerely, Naomi R. Carney, Councilor at Large.

The other one is from Councilor Lopes.

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

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

Sincerely, Joseph P. Lopes.

I need a motion to receive these 2 letters on file.

Receive on file the letters made by Councilor Kempson.

By Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 1 that's before us, a public hearing.

Item 1, public hearing on an application.

Moses Kimball, doing business as K&D Auto Rentals LLC, for a special permit for motor vehicle sales and rentals at 297 Belleville Ave, New Bedford, Mass.

02747.

The application received on February 19th, 2026, and it was advertised in the Standard Times on Thursday, March 5th, and Thursday, March 12th.

I need a motion to receive and place this item on file.

Made by Councilor Choquette.

Seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I also need a motion to open the public hearing at this time.

Made by Councillor Chauquette.

Seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of opening the public hearing?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Kasembo, would you mind taking the podium?

Good evening, sir.

Thank you for joining us this evening.

Would you mind telling us a little bit about your project, and then I'll, I'll open it for questions from the body at that point.

Good evening, all.

My name is Moses Kisembo, the owner of K&D Auto Rentals.

I'm applying for a motor vehicle special permit and a business certificate to start a car rental company.

I've been working with Turo Car Rental— Pick up the microphone, sir, a little bit.

Thank you.

Can I start over?

You can start wherever point you'd like, sir.

Yes, please.

All right.

I'm applying for motor vehicle special permit and business certificate to start a car rental company.

I've been working with Turo Rental Company for close to 5 years, and I would like to start my own now.

I leased a small property for 9 vehicles at 297 Boulevard Avenue.

To start my business there upon my application approval.

I'll be very happy if my application is approved so I can start serving New Bedford.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

I'll open it up at this time.

Any questions for the applicant?

The chair will recognize the Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton, for which this would be in your ward.

So, Mr. Pemberton, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, thank you for being here.

Uh, I just wanted— how many vehicles do you plan on having on the lot to be able to rent?

I'm going to start with 9 and see how things progress from there.

Then I'll see what to do, or increase, or lease a new place.

I'm just starting out.

Okay.

And your hours of operation that you're looking at?

The hours of operation that you want to— 8 to 5.

8 to 5?

Yes.

Okay.

Actually, I have a question for the commissioner.

All right, we'll call him up once we've exhausted questions from Mr. Casembo.

Do you have anything else for Mr. Casembo at this time?

No, while he's here, you'll yield.

Okay, Councilor Choquette, the chair recognizes you.

Good evening, Mr. Casembo.

Thank you for coming in.

Um, quick question, is this your first time running a business, or have you ever owned businesses in the past?

Or— I've run a business online, but now I would like to like to open up like a location, a physical business.

Sure.

Okay, great.

Um, so it's pretty obvious nature of the business, and Councillor, um, Councillor Pemberton asked some questions about, you know, logistics and everything.

Are you going to be a solo owner, or are you in partnership, or how's the business structure?

I have my brother that I would like to start with.

So we can do 2 shifts or do a few days half and a few days for him.

But we've been both back in Boston before we came here.

We've been renting cars on Turo platform.

We're really familiar with the business, close to 5 years now.

Okay.

Yeah, just pretty basic.

You know, just trying to get to know the nature of everything.

So I thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, sir.

I yield.

Thank you.

Um, we do have 2 of our colleagues here who aren't members of this committee.

They cannot vote on items, but they can ask questions.

So we do have Councilor Oliver and Councilor Gomes here.

Councilor Gomes, Councilor Oliver, do either one of you have questions for this petitioner before I send him to his seat?

No, not at this time.

Councilor Gomes, you have a question?

No?

Okay.

Mr. Casembo, if you wouldn't mind just stepping to the side, we'll call up Commissioner Romanowicz.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Danny.

Hi.

So if you want to give us the rundown, is this all on the up and up?

We're looking good here.

What's your report?

Yeah, the, um, it's one of the better, uh, car lots on, on Belleville Avenue.

It's always kept nice and neat.

I assume he's going to do the same thing.

Um, he can only fit 9 cars.

There will not be an increase because it's landlocked.

Yeah, that's what his application says, right?

Yeah, so that's what it has to be, 9 cars.

Thank you, sir.

Any questions for the commissioner while we have him?

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Yeah, well, he just basically answered, you know, my question.

Uh, I just want to make sure he was all ready to go, uh, and if he was allowed to have any more than 9, but just 9 is the limit and that's it.

No.

Okay, very good.

All right, okay, thank you.

All set, Councilor?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilor Choquette, anything?

I was just going to say, if Commissioner Romanowicz is good with it, then yeah, well, I'm good.

All right, thank you.

Now that the 2 committee members have asked questions, do either of the other councilors who went on the committee have questions while you're here?

Okay.

All right, Danny, you're all set.

Any other questions for Danny or Mr. Casembo?

No?

Okay.

Remember, this is a public hearing, so at this time I am going to ask if there are any folks here from the general public who are here looking to speak in favor of this petition.

Speak in favor of this petition.

Be recorded in favor.

Be recorded in favor.

Is there anyone here looking to speak in opposition?

Speak in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Okay, seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing at this time.

I'd like to make a motion to close.

Made by Councilor Pemberton, second by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor, it's your pleasure.

It would be a motion to refer out for a positive recommendation.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to refer positive For approval.

For approval to the full city council.

Made by Councilor Pemberton, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Any— for approval?

Yes.

So second made by Councilor Pemberton, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, Mr. Casembo, you have received a positive recommendation from the Special Committee on Permits and Licensing So now what will happen, this will now go to a final vote on Thursday, March 26th, right here at 7 PM.

So next Thursday here in the New Bedford City Council chamber, it'll be our full city council, all 11 of us.

We will take a final vote for approval.

But usually if you get a positive recommendation from the committee, the council will follow suit.

So, but I would be here anyway just in case.

All right, you can come back next Thursday right here in this room.

3/26, March 26th at 7 PM.

Okay, you're all set.

Thank you.

Congratulations and best of luck.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 2 at this time.

Item 2 is written motion.

Councilors Abreu and Oliver requesting that the city council engage the appropriate city department heads to explore the feasibility of permitting a host community agreement for on-site cannabis consumption establishments, commonly referred to as cannabis consumption lounges or social consumption establishments in accordance with the Massachusetts Laws and Cannabis Control Commission regulations adopted in 2025, and further requesting that said departments report back to the City Council with findings, recommendations, and any necessary local actions required to lawfully implement such establishments within the city of New Bedford.

Motion received and placed this item on file.

Made by Councilor Choquette.

Second.

Second by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, it was my motion with Councilor Oliver.

I know he's not on the committee, but I know he is here to ask questions.

Before I ask any questions from the chair, I'll defer to the committee members.

Either one of you have a question for any of our guests before we get started here?

Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

No, not at this time.

All right, I guess we'll kick this off with Health Director Sloan.

Good evening.

Good evening.

How are you?

Good.

How are you?

Good.

So obviously, you know the motion.

I'm sure you've done some homework.

I know you brought some help from your office and some staff here.

What are your thoughts?

Where are we at?

And we'll have a conversation and we'll go from there.

Sure.

So we have been like like you said, doing our homework.

There have been some— we've been reaching out to some public health professionals to see, you know, what other communities are thinking about passing this, as well as how the regulations are being interpreted.

As of right now, I feel like it's still very early days and we don't have all the information In terms of how the CCC is actually going to regulate this, what the training is going to look like.

From a health perspective, definitely have some concerns.

The chief will probably go into this, but there's no field sobriety test for intoxication.

So I find it difficult for the CCC to tell staff that they need to be able to, be able to check for impairment when there actually is no field sobriety test.

Also have concerns around the normalization.

It's one thing for something to be legal and for us to allow people to buy and consume cannabis.

It's another thing for us to provide the infrastructure in our city for these types of gatherings to occur.

I also think just when you get right there, the 3 types of licenses you can get, the supplemental, the hospitality, and the event organizer, I think some might be more cut and dry in terms of regulation than others.

Um, the hospitality, I feel like, potential— has the potential to get messy in terms of keeping track of everything and compliance.

Um, I'll pause there.

Thank you.

I mean, if, if my colleagues will allow, is that okay with you?

There's a couple of questions.

Um, you know, and I'm not gonna speak for Councilor Oliver, my co-sponsor on this.

I know he's here to ask some questions.

I'll recognize him Um, when appropriate.

Um, I just don't want to see happen— and I hear everything you're saying, and, you know, as you know, I have a young one, you know, just like you do.

You know what, we have children.

So public health, safety, and wellness trumps all, and I'm on the record for that.

And I said on the council floor a few weeks ago when I filed this motion, I just— from an economic standpoint, from a tourism standpoint, from a job creation workforce standpoint I just don't want us to— I don't want to see— I just don't want to have happen here what happened a few years ago with the cannabis dispensary industry when it really hit the fan and it really exploded.

By the time we We passed our ordinance and did our thing, and I know it very well.

I was the chairman of the cannabis committee here for the city at that time on the city council.

We got the ordinance done, we got some host agreements done, but we were a little late to the game.

And I just don't want to see that happen again.

You know what I'm saying?

That's my opinion.

And that's just my view.

You don't have to answer that if you don't want to.

I don't think you have to.

But I just, I don't want to see us behind the 8-ball again on that economic driver because these other cities are going to be way more progressive than us, and we're going to be falling back again.

That's just my view.

I know you have to look at it from a different scope, and I respect that.

Um, my question, and then I'll defer it to Councilor Oliver, but I mean, when we talk about intoxication— and this could be a question for the chief too, but I'll ask it in general— I mean, How is this any different than the bars and pubs we have all over New Bedford where people can drive drunk and we run that risk every day, don't we?

How is it any different?

I mean, Chief can talk about this more from a police standpoint, right, with there actually being field sobriety tests for alcohol to make, you know, that enforcement once people leave a little bit easier.

I think, you know, when it comes to alcohol and drunk driving, that infrastructure, you know, bars exist.

I don't know that we need to create another venue for a different type of intoxication if we can prevent it.

Right.

There's a lot of— I think right now a lot of risks, public health risks and safety risks around adopting this at this point.

And I just— I don't think they outweigh what we're gonna get, what the city is gonna get in economic benefit.

All right, thank you, Stephanie.

I have other questions, but I'll hold for now.

Now, first, the members of the committee, do you have any questions for Ms. Sloan while she's up here?

I've got to go to the committee members first.

No?

Councillor Oliver, I know you have some questions, so fire away.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to the members of this committee for allowing me to, to attend and speak.

Um, Stephanie, thank you, um, uh, for, for being here.

We had a brief discussion about this, uh, a while back, and, uh, I had alluded that probably something was going to be coming, and, uh, here it is.

But I think we at least have to have the conversation because, uh, folks are going to start asking as this is, you know, starts to come to fruition throughout the Commonwealth.

And I too share the sentiments from my colleague who just spoke about, you know, kind of missing the opportunity here or being late to the, to the game.

The fact of the matter is, is that this is going to happen and it's probably going to happen all around us.

And if we don't do something, even if it's by limiting how many of these places, if we were to have them, I think we're going to be absolutely missing out.

So I don't share in the same view that you have with that, that the benefit, the economic benefit, is— it doesn't outweigh— I understand you're looking at it as a— from a different scope.

But as these things come to fruition, is there a— is there— so basically what we're hearing is there's no appetite, at least from the Board of Health standpoint, to have something like this in the city of New Bedford.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Do you know if there's any appetite from the administration about having something like this?

Have you spoken to any members of the administration aside from folks in your Um, that you oversee?

I have not.

Okay.

Um, we— how many, uh, cannabis dispensaries do we have in the city of New Bedford right now?

It's 3, right, Megan?

3.

3.

Um, and one grow facility.

One grow.

And one— yeah, yeah.

Um, and one in the pipeline, hopefully.

Um, so we're already providing the product, correct?

And the vessels are here already because people are consuming it in the privacy of their home already and however they're consuming it.

Because if they're buying it, they're consuming it.

Sure.

So the problem therein lies, I don't see the— just because there's one or two places where it's socially acceptable to smoke or to partake in this, that it's going to change dramatically because people are still buying the product and they're still consuming the product.

So I don't, I don't see how that connection is because there's a storefront now where you can do it is going to have this absorbent effect or ripple effect throughout the city of people driving intoxicated.

Those folks are most likely doing that right now as we are in this room because they are— those items are available for purchase in the city of New Bedford.

What are the major concerns from the Board of Health standpoint as to why the Board of Health is not on board with this type of establishment?

So like I mentioned earlier, there is that public safety risk of, you know, an establishment lets out at a certain time, we have a bunch of people who are leaving establishment.

The CCC requires rideshare, some sort of protocol, but there's no way that the store or the establishment can make sure that people are actually taking a rideshare.

So I could say I'm walking out and getting an Uber.

I could get in my car and drive away.

So from a public health perspective, right, we want to reduce injury.

And so that public safety piece is one concern.

My other large concern is the normalization.

So the more something is normalized, the higher frequency people will utilize it and the perception of less risk.

So, you know, like I said, just because something's legal doesn't mean that we need to provide the infrastructure for that activity to occur.

Okay.

Has— is there expected to be more guidance from the CCC when it comes to this, or is it just they've put this out and it's for the individual municipalities to figure out?

I believe there's more guidance coming out.

We had a call with Cheryl Sabara, who's one of the legal TAs for MHAB.

And she is on a number of working groups.

So she's on the working group for the vendor training.

That hasn't been sorted out yet.

They don't know exactly what that looks like or what the requirements are going to be around that.

So some of this stuff hasn't been totally worked out yet.

Okay.

And you had alluded to— excuse me.

You had alluded to that you were doing a little bit of networking to see if other— what the appetite was in other communities or what other communities are thinking of doing or at least what the conversations are.

In some communities that are similar to New Bedford.

Could you share some of the oversight— I mean, the overview of what you've gathered from that?

Yeah.

So we— I actually have a call later in the week where we come together as the large cities and discuss topics just like this.

I had brought it up at our last meeting.

And a lot of communities weren't— they wanted to sort of see how things unveiled themselves before sort of jumping into making a decision.

The only community that has started to really think about it and started to put in, you know, some language, I think, is Somerville.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Somerville.

That's interesting.

Um, Stephanie, when you have that meeting and you got— and you have your powwow with your fellow colleagues, would you mind providing our office with kind of a synopsis of what the discussion was and seeing where that's headed?

You can email the council office and they'll disseminate.

Is that okay?

Perfect.

Yeah, we'd appreciate that.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Sorry, but while it was fresh in my head, I wanted to get to that.

Um, okay, so at least those conversations are, are happening.

Is the— is the Is the biggest hesitation in the conversations that you have had is just— is mainly surrounded with the vagueness from the CCC, or— Yeah, I think, and just how is it going to be enforced?

It's not super clear how that's going to happen.

Yeah, okay.

Because it doesn't— it falls on the CCC.

It doesn't necessarily fall on the health department.

There are things that, you know, locally we can do that we could enforce, but what the regulations say the CCC is supposed to enforce.

Okay.

Well, I do— how— not that I look to Somerville for much with some of the initiatives that come out of there, but how far along would you say Somerville is in this process?

Do you know?

Do you know off the top of your head?

Would you mind going to the microphone, please, if you're going to speak, just for the record?

Thank you.

For the people at home, um, Somerville has passed— um, it looks like they've moved to, uh, to opt-in, um, and they've set some parameters.

So, um, like for the event organizer, um, section of being a social consumption site, um, the state permits up to a certain number of days per year they've set their number.

So as far as we've heard from the CCC, there's no available licenses yet.

They're not that far along, but they've already begun their— and the— that vendor portion, is that like, like the festivals and stuff like that?

Is that what— okay, okay.

Temporary events.

Yeah.

So that's like a one-day special permit or something like that.

They're gonna— there's an event, they set up the tents or whatever it is, and then they, they leave.

Okay.

Is there like, with those, are they available to have like concerts and things like that along with those types of?

So the description that was put forth to us was that having a booth and a consumption space at a festival, hosting a social consumption event at, you know, we're imagining It would be feasts, festivals, right?

Things like that.

Okay.

All right.

So Somerville has opted in.

Do you have any of that language?

Does— as your— your— it's on their city's website.

Okay.

All right.

We'll see if we can get a copy of that.

Maybe even our office can help us with that too.

Um, I'm going to yield for now, see if any of my colleagues have any other questions.

And I, I'd like to speak with— we have several invited guests, so we'll get each of them up when appropriate.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on this committee have any questions for our health department professionals while they're up?

All right, ladies, I think you're off the hot seat for now, but if there's a question, we'll call you back up.

All right, Chief Thody, you're up.

Good evening, Chief.

Good evening.

Good to see you again.

Thanks for coming.

So I'll kick it off.

So the question I had asked our health department director, and rightfully so, she kind of deferred that to you.

On-site cannabis consumption, if done responsibly, which we would hope folks do, like when they consume a drink at a bar or a pub or a restaurant responsibly, how is that any different than having a beer at the bar, or if you want to consume an edible, or have a, you know, a little smoke at a facility that is legal and authorized for cannabis.

So, I mean, maybe you can educate us, or maybe it's no different or a little different.

And if so, um, or not, I mean, how would you enforce any type of intoxication of cannabis, or do you even see that that could be an issue?

Yeah, I mean, so the first thing is that you You know, you kind of hit the nail on the head.

Responsible, you know, responsible establishment.

I mean, even with alcohol, you know, we have bars in this city like we do in other cities that don't operate in a responsible way.

And it's a public safety risk.

Right.

And once you kind of— once you give somebody the licenses and the permits to dispense alcohol and to be a bar, it's difficult to take that back, even if they're not being responsible.

So the same, the same could be here.

So in that way, you know, the risks I think are similar.

Where they differ is in our ability, you know, at this point it's legal to consume.

Most people buy it, consume it in their houses or somewhere that's not a large gathering.

When you have it in a remote place, people tend to drive there and consume cannabis or alcohol, and then, and then they have to get in their car and they have to drive home.

Now, is a valiant effort here to, to have the facilities work with us on, on a, on a transportation plan.

It doesn't really indicate what that means or how much involvement that we as law enforcement or public safety would have in that.

But we don't currently have a way to detect it roadside like you do a breathalyzer.

You have DRE training, drug recognition training.

But, but it is much more difficult for us to enforce operating under the influence when it comes to cannabis than it is with alcohol.

There's just technology out there that allows it to happen with alcohol.

There's not when, when you're dealing with cannabis.

Often we don't know about it unless there's a really bad accident or a fatal accident, and there's blood tests and things like that that happen after, but the damage is done at that point.

So I think that's probably the key— the key difference really is in the technology and the ability for us to enforce abuse.

I know for the cannabis dispensaries, and I know you weren't here for those host agreement negotiations at that time, but we had in the host agreement language that all of these dispensaries had to have a full-time dedicated security team there to look for any potential issues.

Any type of crime-related concerns.

I mean, I would assume if we were to go forward, you wouldn't want that same type of language in this host agreement for these types of facilities.

I would assume so, correct?

You would want some type of— I don't want to say the term bouncer, but someone there to keep an eye out for those who may be intoxicated and to see who is coming in, who's going, making sure that IDs are checked appropriately, making sure that no one's getting served underage, all of that, correct?

Yeah, I mean, I, I think again, in the, in the world of valiant efforts, um, you know, the CCC has put some language in here, you know, that there's some kind of training for the, for the folks that are dispensing this on these facilities.

It reminds me of kind of the tips training that bartenders have to go through, and I think we all know how effective that is.

It's not effective.

Bouncers at, at bars Are they effective if you have the right management?

So again, it just comes down to predicting whether the folks that run these facilities are going to do so in a tight, responsible manner.

And that's hard to do.

Well, once you give the permits, it's very difficult to get them back.

I think at some point, though, in government, what we do, we have to take a leap of faith and say someone has presented a professional plan to us.

They've shown us they have the financing, they have the infrastructure in place.

We're going to take them at their word until they burn us.

You know what I mean?

Like, we're going to respect the fact that they're coming to us.

You know, they're, they're, they're meeting all of our parameters, our zoning parameters, our health department parameters, law enforcement parameters, and they're going to do right by us.

And if they don't, we'll call them back in and we'll revoke their license.

We do what we have to do.

But I think at some point, we have to take people at their word.

I know exactly what you're saying, Chief.

I agree with you.

But I think at some point we have to— we can't assume that people would be a bad act— anyone that would come before us have— could have the potential to be a bad actor.

Of course they could.

But I would think that we're hoping that they're going to be legitimate, right?

That's, that's the hope.

I mean, we talked about responsible, correct?

That's the key.

Yeah, I, I think it's different when you're talking about something that when you're talking about operating under the influence, that I think everyone can agree is a significant public safety risk to pedestrian traffic, other vehicles on the road.

I mean, that is a major problem across the country.

And now we are putting in play a potential to be under the influence where we can't enforce it and we can't detect it.

And I think that's the difference if we get to a place where, where technology catches up.

And that's really the only problem I had with legalization in the first place.

Well, just one more question and then I'll yield.

Um, speaking of which, do we have— I mean, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but do you know, do we have any data on OUI arrests or apprehensions based off cannabis?

That's— do we know offhand, like right now, given what Councilor Oliver said, you can buy a joint, go smoke it in your car right now or at your home, drive high, and I don't know what— do we have any of that going on right now that we know of other than possession or, uh, But as far as arresting someone for OUI based on our ability to legally know that they're over a limit, I don't know of any.

I can check on that, but I don't know of that being enforced in that way.

Okay.

Now, I was curious.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but I just wanted to know if you had any of that information.

Thank you, Chief.

I'll yield at this time from the chair.

Thank you to my colleagues for allowing me and indulging me.

I'll recognize the committee members first.

Councilors Pemberton or Choquette, any questions for the chief while he's here?

No.

Councillor Oliver, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Chief Thodey.

Um, how many— um, I know that there's no way, there's no, uh, real measure to, to, to tell because there's no way to detect.

The only way to do so is by a blood sample, is what you're saying, right?

Is that, that's the main— there's no roadside, there's no roadside ways to detect it.

I mean, there's, there's, there's definitely other ways.

Is that something in the wide world of science that's happening though in real time?

There are companies out there that are diligently and actively trying to figure that out, because there's obviously money to be made across the country if you can figure out a way to do that.

And you can still give standardized field sobriety tests.

They're just not— and that's where you get into a DRE-certified officer, drug recognition certified officer.

It's just more difficult to do.

So if you, you or your— any of the rank and file were to pull somebody over for suspicion of intoxication and you do your regular field sobriety test and they pass that, is there a time where you would have one of those other officers that are trained in the recognition to Could— would you call for one of them if you knew that that person wasn't under the influence of alcohol because there were no telltale signs that you— is that what— is that the process now?

Or you can, yes, if— as long as there's one working.

And, you know, we've, we've even called from other towns if you have a DRE-certified officer.

That's not as common as, you know, everyone's certified to do breathalyzer and to do OUI after the academy.

Not everyone is a DRE officer.

Is that something that's going to— going forward, maybe not through the industry, but through your department, that you're looking to onboard more of those officers or get more?

When training comes up, we do get people— we do get people trained in DRE.

It's just— it's a more extensive training.

It's— you have to keep up with it.

How many— how many officers do we have right now that are trained?

I'm not sure how many we have that are DRE certified.

In my agency that I left not too long ago was 475 people, and I think we had 4.

Okay, would you say that we're kind of somewhere in the same ballpark with only a handful?

I would say the number is probably low, but I can get back to you on that.

Okay, if you couldn't, just provide that information to the chair.

What does the— what does the DRE— what are they— what is it that they're looking for that's different than a field sobriety test, than a normal field sobriety test?

I have not done the DRE training.

That's fine.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

I just didn't know.

All right.

Again, I think I had mentioned it with the speakers before you.

These items are available for consumption right now throughout the Commonwealth, throughout our city.

They're being bought.

They're being consumed.

In your opinion, Do you honestly feel that a location like this would exacerbate the issue, or are these things going to happen on a daily basis anyways?

I think, like I said, I think the exacerbation of the issue really is that inviting people out and having a way to get— I mean, the simple answer to even going to a bar would be to get an Uber to the bar, get an Uber home.

Right.

We solve a lot of problems.

But folks just aren't doing that.

So I think, you know, the difference or the risk is that, you know, we're inviting them out of their house and into a place where this consumption takes place without really— I mean, it's common knowledge.

We're not secret here.

It's common knowledge that we don't really have a way to test for that.

So I think that kind of emboldens people to say this is an intoxication that the police can't test for.

So I'm more willing to take a risk on driving under the influence with that That's my opinion.

You know, I think as the industry catches up and there's more ways to look into this, for us to enforce it, I think it becomes really not much different than a bar.

The— but it's, it's still— are we not inviting them out with selling the product?

Well, they're going to know that they're going to consume it in one way or another.

They have to drive to the facility to consume it.

So we're also to purchase it.

So we're also entrusting those people that they're going to go home and consume it there responsibly.

And if you drive around the city at any point in time, you know that that's not happening in real time.

You can be in traffic or at a red light and you can smell what's going on in the car in front of you.

So these, these things are still happening on a daily basis, and it's not a slight on your department at all.

It's almost— you can't be on every corner at every red light at every, you know, so it's just that it's still happening.

I think in a— I know that the concern is what happens when they leave, and I think that the bigger part of that is probably figuring out a better business model on how they're going to get home responsibly, because the fact of the matter is that It's happening every day in the Commonwealth.

I think we're just going to— if we're hesitant and not going to give it a shot, we're going to be left being last to the starting blocks again.

I just don't want to do that.

I'm hearing all the cautionary tales.

Fair Haven opens one up tomorrow, or, you know, whatever, they speedline one, and they're gonna, you know, have an influx coming in, and that's gonna affect us as well here in the city of New Bedford because those people are gonna drive through our roads as well.

So I think that just me personally, and this is me on my soapbox, I think we're gonna miss an opportunity here if we don't act.

And but I appreciate you coming in and telling us a little bit about this the situation.

One more question that I would have for you is you had alluded to we don't know till after the fact or it's too late.

How many accidents a year that would you say, or could you get that information, that upon testing that we found out that they were under the influence of something other than alcohol?

I can get that that information.

I don't have that statistic.

All right, if you can get that for the— if you can get that for the, the chair as well, that would be great.

Thank you.

And, and Chief, if we get to a point where we're going to start working on a zoning ordinance for these, we want you at that table.

I mean, your predecessor was at the table when we did it for the dispensaries, so we would want you there because, you know, you would be an integral part to making sure we do it correctly.

So just so you know, um, you'd be a part of that process as long as you'd want, or designee, your deputy or whatever, but Would love you to be a part of that as well.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Anyone else for the chief?

Anyone else?

All right, chief, you're all set.

Thank you.

Mr. Casembo, if you want to go home, you can.

You're— your item— you're welcome to stay, but your item is all done.

So you want to stay?

I love it.

That's great.

All right, uh, next invited guest, we have, uh, Planner Carloni.

Jen, you're up.

I don't want you to waste your time, Jen.

I mean, you came all the way down here, so— Good evening, council members.

Good to see you.

Good to see you.

So if we were to have that conversation in the next couple of months about, all right, the administration is interested, there's an appetite, we see what the rollout is from colleagues throughout the state, and we're having those conversations, I just— and again, we're at 30,000 feet here, and You know, don't hold me to this, but do you foresee at first glance the zoning for these kind of being like what we did for dispensaries, maybe in certain like industrial zones, maybe some mixed-use zones and buffers in place obviously from schools and daycares, things like that?

Would it be somewhat analogous to that?

You would think, right?

So I'm not an expert on the regulations yet, and I think there's still more to be found.

Would you mind just pulling the microphone?

Sure.

I think, I think they're— I'm not an expert on the regulations.

Understood.

Again, 30,000 feet, right?

That's where we're at.

From what I've read so far, I think I have concerns relative to are they going to require us to put new zoning or allow us to put new zoning in place?

Because how you read it now is they're allowing these, these facilities to go into the existing ones that we've already permitted.

They're allowing, um, on-site consumption via these event— these 3 different categories, as Stephanie and everybody talked about, this hospitality and these event ones.

And so it's not clear to me whether they're going to be regulated by zoning, and that's a concern because, right, we've, we've looked at this in a certain way, and those zoning that we had put in place for the retail was very thoughtful and it was meant for those type of facilities.

And you were, you were involved in that back then.

It was Tabitha Harkin, you were on her team at that point, right?

It was on the first round of the HCAs.

We worked all together on the— yes, yes.

So I've sat through all of that.

And so I think for me, I would be concerned as a planning perspective, putting your planning hat on.

Now you've got a different use.

You've gone from having a retail use to now event use.

So what does the traffic look like?

What does the the parking look like?

And as we know from the first round of the marijuana rollout, parking was a major issue, traffic was a major issue at the places that had it first, and then it petered out, right?

But I don't know what this is going to look like because it's new.

We don't really know how that looks in terms of is that an appropriate use, you know, next to industrial sites now?

Do we want people to be gathering there?

Is that, is that going to be a concern for businesses?

Is that going to be concern for some areas where we did try to keep it away from residential, but there are still ones that are close, close to residential.

So indoor, outdoor, and then these event ones.

Again, I don't know if they're allowing us to regulate them by zoning or if they're allowing— if they're just allowed to go by the special permit process.

So now you're going to have them in different locations.

So I think for me, location-specific and location-based concerns are apparent at this time that are not answered for me.

Similar to what Ms. Sloan said, are you having conversations with your colleagues throughout the state?

Are you about to have those conversations kind of to wrap your head around this with all of your colleagues throughout the Commonwealth?

I would say I haven't been as in-depth as the Health Department, I think because it's, it's, you know, it's been relatively new.

It just came out in January and there's still a lot of questions out there.

So I haven't, I haven't dived into it too in-depth.

We have been doing a lot of our zoning initiatives.

I've been focused on those, but we will absolutely look into it further.

Similar to what we asked Ms. Sloan, when you do get those reports, would you mind just summarizing what what your colleagues are doing so we have an idea.

And we're obviously going to table this item.

We're going to bring this back every month or every other month to see kind of what the progress is, or maybe no progress.

But I think we have to keep this conversation going because I agree with Councilor Oliver, we don't want to be, in my opinion, stuck, stuck behind the 8-ball here.

Because you hit the nail on the head, sir.

If Fall River and Fairhaven beats us to the punch in Dartmouth, they're going to consume that anyway and come through New Bedford.

The odds are they probably live in New Bedford anyway.

We are the hub of the South Coast, so there's a good chance they live here anyway.

Thank you, Jen.

Any questions for Miss Carloni?

Any of the colleagues on this committee?

Councilors?

No.

Councilor Oliver?

Nothing.

Jen, you got off easy.

Thank you.

The only other guest that's— the administration's not here, so We do have Solicitor Jakes.

Does anyone want to speak to Eric?

All right.

I'll acknowledge the committee members first.

No?

Neither one of you?

All right, Eric, you're up.

Thank you.

If standing is trouble for you, you can sit in one of the councilors' seats and you can— you okay?

Okay, standing is fine.

Thank you, Councilor.

No problem, sir.

All right, the chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you, uh, Attorney Jakes, uh, for being here.

Quick, simple question.

Um, have— has any communication from the administration happened to say, hey, this might be something that's coming down the pipe, we should probably start working on some language, or anything like that?

At this point, my office and the administration are waiting to see what on earth is going to happen.

Okay.

The licenses have not yet been drafted.

We don't know what that process looks like.

The implementation hasn't been implemented in any way, shape, or form.

There's all kinds of questions about how do you train.

The chief has addressed this.

Other people have addressed this.

There's concerns about when the HCAs were originally granted, those people in the neighborhood where they were going to occur thought people would drive up and walk out the door with their package and go somewhere else.

Now there are going to be, depending upon the size of the dispensaries, a large number, significant number of persons at a dispensary imbibing and then leaving.

There's no guarantee that they're going to get an Uber to leave.

There's a provision which I find amusing for a cool-down section.

How on earth are these people going to be able to judge whether or not someone needs to cool down?

How long do they need to cool down?

There's no real test.

Uh, we have field sobriety tests that trained police officers do, police academy stuff, not a little publication of 2 or 3 pages from the CCC that says, oh, this is what you should look for.

How do you know how long they should be?

And if they don't want to cool down, there's no provision to keep them there.

So there's a whole host of questions that haven't been answered.

And I'm not affirmatively stating that the administration is opposed to this.

I'm just saying there are so, so many unanswered questions and so many concerns that need to be addressed.

I mean, I looked at the regulations today.

You can't find them unless you look for the draft from last August.

I found the draft from last August.

I believe this is what they ultimately passed on December 11th and implemented on January 2nd, but we know nothing about the training.

We know nothing about where they're going to go.

These MEOs make me nervous.

Up to 30 a year in the city.

Where are they going to go?

How big are they going to be?

Is it going to be at a festival?

You can't have alcohol where you have these things.

So are they going to drink in their car and then walk into the fort or into a park and then imbibe further, go back to their car?

I don't know.

The hospitality ones, they're complicated.

Just, we'll call it the Acme Hotel.

They've got a conference center where they do weddings and whatever.

Well, there can be no alcohol there.

It's got to be a separate spot.

Well, where is it going to be?

And are these people going to drive away or are they staying in rooms?

The odds are in a hotel they're probably going to stay, but who knows?

So there's just a whole heck of a lot of potential pitfalls.

And as a lawyer, my major concern is the safety of the public.

I would hate to see New Bedford say, hey, we're missing out on 3% excise tax from this place, and someone stays there, overindulges in marijuana, gets involved in an accident and kills someone, and we as a city have to explain to a parent, oh yeah, we wanted the 3% excise tax— is it worth it?

I think that's a question that the council needs to balance and the administration needs to look at.

And that's me as a lawyer speaking.

That's not the administration speaking.

That's me tonight personally interjecting my own thoughts when I shouldn't.

But I don't want to be the person talking to that parent because we wanted to make some extra money.

Yeah, and I, and I, and I get that, and I don't think anybody wants, wants to make that phone call, that's for sure.

The fact is that, you know, these phone calls are, you know, still happening as, as is right now.

People are still consuming that.

So I don't think that one established 1, 2, a couple establishments are going to more really fall on the, the city, uh, to do.

But I do understand the, the, the sky is falling mentality, and I'm glad that the conversations are at least happening with the administration about it as it gets closer to something coming.

The fact of the matter is something's gonna come down, um, somebody's going to benefit from it.

And I understand what you're saying, but at what cost?

Um, and I, I, it was a good concern that you had brought up that when these establishments for retail were first set up, it was come grab your stuff and go home.

You know, I was also under the assumption that by allowing it, I was going to get a whole heck of a lot of revenue coming in, and the state took that money away.

Um, so, um, that's a, a horse of a different color, but I, I couldn't not say that, um, that it was sold to us as a, as a false bill of goods too.

Um, but I am at least glad that the communication is happening with your office and the mayor and that we're looking forward to, uh, see what's happening.

So that's all I wanted to find out was see if those conversations were happening.

Thank you, Councilor.

And that's the key, right, Councilor Oliver?

We're having the conversation, right?

I, I would venture a guess there's going to be tabled at least 3 or 4 times throughout this year, and we're going to continue this conversation throughout this year as this gets fleshed out.

Uh, the chair recognizes Councilor Choquette.

You wanted the floor?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Mr.

Solicitor.

Good evening, Mr. Choquette.

Um, I just happen to be the foremost expert on my opinion, and my opinion on this, and just to be heard on the record, um, yes, we have to be cautious.

We don't want the city to get into any suits that we don't need to be in.

But please just remember that in regards to people abusing products, we have people abusing nitrous oxide, which is currently being sold as we speak on Acushnet Avenue to people under the age of 18.

We still haven't shored that up.

So there are many, many loopholes in the law, in multiple laws.

So So again, we need to be cautious, but we also have to— and I defer to Councilor Oliver's point— there are many people— I mean, you know, and I'm not saying that— I'm not saying this to be derogatory, but I mean, you're kidding yourself and the mayor's kidding himself if he thinks that nobody's driving around smoking weed or is intoxicated by marijuana and driving, you know, an automobile.

With all due respect, Councilor, I don't believe that the mayor is that naive.

My point is, by allowing groups to come together and smoke on premises where they're licensed, they're going to travel home.

That's going to increase the opportunity for an accident that doesn't exist when they're mainly consuming it at home.

We're increasing the risk.

In my personal opinion, isn't necessary.

But again, that's my opinion, and this is the council body's decision to make, not mine.

Okay.

And again, just, just my opinion.

So I just wanted to put that out there on the record, that I think it, you know, it's a possible financial opportunity for the city that, you know, we really don't want to see slip by.

I mean, we have been so desperate to make money that we're willing to put a trash transfer station in Ward 1 for 75 jobs and for some money, $3 million a year.

So we shouldn't be picking and choosing with such stringency, you know, when we could potentially make out financially with this.

But again, I understand where the caution is.

But I also want to say that, you know, we need to be brave about this because if we don't take advantage of this, some other community will.

And these people, like Councilor Oliver and Councilor Raybould said, they're going to drive through our community nonetheless.

I mean, this is New Bedford with the hub of the region.

So these are all things to consider.

And I hope, you know, that everybody who's listening to this will think of those items.

This is not just an A versus B issue.

It's pretty complicated.

And again, thank you, Mr.

Solicitor, for your time.

It's always a pleasure to appear before this body.

Thank you, sir.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else for Solicitor Jakes?

I, I will, just from the chair.

Um, I hear you loud and clear, and you— I know you had said you you, not the administration, but you as an attorney, you as a human being, you have concerns about large groups, you said, or gatherings where cannabis would be consumed.

I can definitely see that point.

And I just wonder, I mean, last month we had a big football game, the Super Bowl.

We had restaurants and bars all over having huge Super Bowl parties.

We just had St. Patrick's Day.

Were you concerned about large groups of people leaving there after indulging in green beer and shots and all that good stuff?

Of course I am, Councilor.

Okay, good.

And I rely upon my police department and the folks in the bars who are supposedly trained to recognize when someone has had too much.

And that line is certainly not as clear with marijuana.

And I think the chief made that point to you.

No, he did.

But I just want to make sure, just, you know, because— and, you know, listen, I'm not— Ian, you can probably find me in a bar in New Bedford on a given evening.

Oh, listen, I don't think you want that on the record.

I'm fine with that.

Okay, so you're on the record then.

But you know what though, Eric, you are an adult making an adult decision, aren't you?

And you're doing so responsibly, right?

I am.

Not all adults are responsible.

And I certainly was nowhere near as responsible when I was younger.

Well, okay, well, we'll leave it at that.

You're a good sport, though.

We appreciate you.

And we'll, uh, as this process evolves or maybe devolves, you know, we'll, uh, obviously you're gonna have— you, like the chief and everyone else here, you're gonna have a seat at that table with the administration.

We're gonna talk.

And I appreciate you, you know that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Good to see you.

Anyone else for Solicitor Jakes while he's here?

We don't want him going up and down.

I know he's— all right, thank you, Eric.

Thank you.

All right, so I think it is appropriate, unless anyone wants to make a little, you know, you know, a little speech before we entertain a motion to table.

I think tabling would be appropriate at this time given what we know, what we don't know, given the CCC guidance or lack thereof, and the fact that we have department heads who are on the record that they're gonna do some homework, speak to their colleagues, and report back.

So at this time, I will detain a motion to table.

Yep.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to table this item.

Councillor Choquette, seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you all.

Some of you are staying for item 3, so don't go, don't go too far.

Item number 3 is before us.

Related motion, Councillor Lopes requesting that the city council engage the appropriate department heads to explore the possibility, the feasibility of permitting on-site tobacco consumption, commonly referred to as cigar lounges.

I need a motion to receive and place this item on file.

Motion to receive and place on file, made by Councillor Choquette, seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Again, this is a, a motion from Councillor Lopes, who is a member of this committee.

He couldn't make it tonight.

He knows that we are going to table this out of respect for him.

So that he can come back next month and ask his questions.

But since we have folks here, we do have committee members, and we do have councilors here who may have questions, I will entertain questions tonight for our invited guests out of respect for them, and then we will bring this back for Councilor Lopes.

So with that being said, um, Councilor Choquette or Pemberton, do you have any druthers as to who we call up first?

Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could we hear from Ms. Stephanie Sloan?

Sure.

Stephanie.

Hello.

Hi.

Thank you, Madam Director.

So I guess my question is, in your opinion, what has been the big hurdle to having a cigar lounge?

Located in the city of New Bedford?

So our Board of Health has put a lot of effort into our tobacco regulations.

And back in 2019, we put a descending cap on our retailers and sort of the impetus between— for doing that is that we had one of the highest smoking rates in Massachusetts.

We also had a much higher number of retailers per capita than the state average.

And so when we looked at all of the data surrounding tobacco and lung cancer and smoking rates for our community, our board said we had to do something.

So we put in the descending cap.

We updated our regulations.

And our number of retailers has come down.

We have smoke-free workplace regulations.

So cigar bars are in complete, you know, conflict with that.

Our board also specifically called out cigar bars, lounges in our regulations as not being allowable.

And so I think from the board's perspective, entertaining a cigar bar would us be taking steps back in all the progress that we've made up until this point.

Okay, so it's your conclusion that if the city were to allow a small amount of cigar lounges, that it would, um, I guess, initiate a return to those smoking levels?

I think our board's charge, right, is to think about the health of our community.

And, you know, secondhand smoke, inhaling smoke through combustion, it's not healthy.

And so I don't, I don't think they want to move backwards.

And, you know, I have no problem saying that on the record that I do agree with you partly.

I mean, I never knew 3 of my 4 grandparents because of tobacco.

So it is something that has bothered me for a long time.

But the difference would be is that they consumed cigarettes on their own accord.

You know what I mean?

They weren't doing it in a workplace.

They were doing it at home or whatever.

And none of them smoked cigars.

And I understand that, yeah, it's still tobacco, right?

It still has those same deleterious effects.

Effects.

You know, I mean, I went to school for science and biology, and I have a master's in microbiology, so I understand all the science, the cancer, you know, the mutagenic effects at the cellular level and the DNA level.

But that being said, you know, I mean, can you really prove that allowing cigar use on a limited basis in a confined area is with the proper equipment, scrubbers, etc., you know, can you really show that that would cause additional underage smoking and, you know, secondhand smoke to the general public?

And I don't know, I mean, I don't think that that's necessarily a cause and effect as far as— yes, the smoke will cause cancer.

It's been proven as Much as, you know, this is going to fall because of gravity, right?

I mean, these are truths.

But having a controlled environment where the general public— thank you, sir, you didn't have to do that— having a controlled environment, right, where the general public doesn't access it, you know, and it's only accessed by individuals who are making that conscious choice to imbibe in a cigar.

Right.

I think that at least one of my colleagues here tonight would agree that, you know, that that's not something that's going to harm the general public.

And again, I'm the master of my own opinion.

That's my opinion.

So I guess I'll yield the floor to other colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Director.

Thank you, Councilor.

I'm not sure if that was a question, but, but I agree with you, a lot of your points.

Uh, do you want to respond to that?

Uh, it was kind of a statement, but if you want to respond, please, if you feel like you want to.

I think the board, um, you know, there's not going to be one, one decision or one regulation that's gonna, you know, prevent people from smoking initiation or from lung cancer or from secondhand smoke exposure.

But the board, you know, it's going to be a lot of things.

It's going to be education.

It's going to be descending retail caps.

It's going to be, you know, other regulations.

And, you know, it's our board's job to protect the health of our community.

And even if people are making decisions, you know, if If you're going to a cigar bar with friends, some people don't smoke, some people are still getting secondhand smoke.

If it is a small number, I mean, there's still— there are still community members that our board cares about and they care about their health.

Did you yield?

Did you still want to?

I yield.

Okay.

I'm going to assume my colleague may have some questions for Director Sloan.

Councillor Pemberton, you're good.

You want— Councillor Oliver?

Um, sure, just to— um, so no, I, I hear what you're saying, I really do.

And you know, I think the world of you.

I just, I, I respectfully disagree.

I just, you know, I, I don't know, Miss Sloan.

I just, um, if you're going to a cigar bar And even if you don't smoke, you're choosing to go there and you know full well you're going to inhale secondhand smoke, right?

You know this.

And you have the free will as an adult of 18+ to not go in there.

Or 21+ if there's a bar element to it.

So you chose not to go in there or not go in there.

So it's not like anyone's forcing those folks against their will to inhale that secondhand smoke.

Do you know what I mean?

I do, but I also think our board has an opportunity to protect those people too.

Okay, uh, Councillor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Um, I think this was the, the reason for our meeting a couple weeks ago.

Yes.

Um, The— we can agree that the cigar smoker and the cigarette smoker are 2 different consumers, correct?

Not necessarily.

I don't know many cigar smokers that smoke on a daily basis and chain-rip cigars.

I can tell you that.

Right, but tobacco— people who smoke tobacco— They're— because it's tobacco and they're utilizing the product, they're the same, but the methods in which they consume it are far different.

Not the actual method, but like the regularity of the utilization of that product.

Sure, but they could also smoke cigarettes as well.

They could, and they can go home and they can smoke marijuana too because it's legal, but sure.

But the cigar smoker, how they consume a cigar in— nobody, not many people are buying 20 at a time unless they're buying it in bulk to put in their humidor or something like that or whatever it may be.

Most people, and especially with some of these type of establishments, they're buying one at a time to consume it and they're done and they've indulged in their off to the races and there's no need for field sobriety tests for this type of product.

But the cigarette smoker and the cigar smoker, in my opinion, are 2 different consumers.

That is not your stance?

I mean, typically from my— from people that have been around me, but I don't know if that's the standard across.

Okay, the community.

Um, I know that you had concerns when we met and you voiced them a little bit about, uh, essentially peer pressure, right?

That's what we're trying to combat here is the— because my friends are going to the cigar bar, I must go to the cigar bar so I'm not called a name or something.

So, but I really don't want to go even though I'm an adult making the decision to go.

The Board of Health is looking out for that person because of the potential for secondhand smoke of being forced to the bar due to peer pressure?

I mean, all the people, right?

The people smoking too are also getting secondhand smoke from themselves, from other people around them, because they physically went to that establishment to consume that and knew that a— not— I don't want to use consequence, but knew that a cause of an effect would be I go to the cigar bar, there's going to be cigar smoke there.

Sure, they're making adult decisions, right?

But that doesn't mean that our board can't also make decisions to also protect their health, even though they're making adult decisions.

And with the, um, decreasing numbers of licenses as they come you know, as they slowly decrease, I guess, through the measures that have been put in place, is it the ultimate goal of the Board of Health and the, and the Health Department to make New Bedford 100% smoke-free?

Is that what these initiatives are intended to do?

I think when the cap originally came into place, the board was going to reevaluate when we were at the state average.

We're not there yet.

The board has also changed.

Members on the board have changed since then.

So I haven't specifically asked them that question.

We haven't talked about, you know, being smoke-free or generation smoke-free generation for New Bedford.

That's not something we've talked about because we're having difficulty even getting our retailers to come into compliance.

Compliance as it is.

So we're really working on trying to get our current retailers into compliance.

How many of those compliance complaints or violations involved cigars?

Not wraps, not any of that, just going to an establishment who sells them.

I wasn't going to— I was going to name somebody, but I won't.

To purchase one cigar and they walked out with that?

You know, I— do you have it?

Okay.

So in the calendar year 2025, we had 17 sales to minors.

That was 11% of our compliance checks resulted in sales.

Of those 17 sales, 7 were cigars and cigarillos.

7 of them.

7 of the 17.

And that was in 2005?

That was in 2000— yeah, '25 calendar year.

Okay.

And I assume that's, you know, various locations.

Those are 7 different locations that these occurred?

Okay, so the major concern about having this establishment is just overall general health of the people who are most likely consuming this stuff already.

Yeah, and I think we also talked about, you know, smoke migration.

We've had problems with that in the past.

Um, if the— we have a lot of multi-use, you know, zoning, um, and so, you know, it's, it's hard for the smoke not to migrate.

We've had plenty of complaints of people who are trying to do everything right, and, you know, it's still— we're still getting complaints.

Yeah, I— and I, uh, and, and we spoke about this briefly, and I think that that's uh, it plays to, uh, especially because of a city like New Bedford where we're so developed and in some places, you know, there's multi-units above some of these storefronts or they're very close together.

So I understand the, the whole, you know, migration aspect of it.

And that's all things that would, if something like this were to be allowed, would have to be ironed out where the place has to be properly air sealed and they have to do extra precautions when they're building out these places and utilizing maybe an overkill of the scrubbers and things like that.

I even spoke about some like where they— you open the door and the fan comes, blows the air down to keep the, you know, so it doesn't— it's not migrating out.

So there are things that are— that can be put in place to utilize it.

Even I think we spoke about it was maybe it has to be a standalone building, which would even decrease the number or potential for these buildings, these establishments to exist where there isn't anybody that lives upstairs, that we're not, you know, putting those folks at risk with the smoke migration and secondhand smoke, or they have to be X amount of feet away from a neighboring building or things like that.

And I think that— I think we could restrict it enough and still give people the opportunity, because at the end of the day, it's not about Like, yes, we have to give the platform for these businesses to exist, or at least I feel that we should give the platform for these businesses to exist.

But it's up to them to know if it's going to be a viable thing.

If it's like, hey, these are all the restrictions New Bedford has, and I just can't— it won't, you know, make money for me, so I'm not going to do it.

I don't think we can— you know, I know that we spoke about a— you know, you don't want to set them up to fail, but We're not in the process of— we're not in the business of, you know, aiding the business itself.

It's about giving the platform a business to thrive.

And I think that it's up to them to ultimately make that decision.

But in my— I know we're having a discussion about this, but from what I'm hearing with both the motion before us and this one is that there is no appetite from the Board of Health or the members of the, of the Health Department for establishment like this in the city of New Bedford?

We have not brought up with our board the cigar bars this time around.

However, our board was part of the process when we updated our regulations in which cigar bars was specifically called out as not being allowable.

And before that, it wasn't in the language?

It was.

So it was in the language before.

So yeah, but they— but they— we went through the regulations.

I mean, they didn't take it out.

They left it in because they felt like it was important.

Okay.

And how long ago was that, that they met and had that— felt that it was important to put that specific language in there?

Yeah, fall in 2024.

Fall of 2024.

And was that a different board than what we have right now?

No, everyone— yeah, one of our board members was different.

Okay.

So the fall of '24, the language was, I guess, strengthened for around cigar bars.

Um, when's the next time that you would meet with the board?

Um, we are trying to get, um, a time on the books, but it'll likely be, um, the first or second week in April.

Okay.

And at those meetings, is just the your staff and the board, and then any, any members of the public that are being heard.

Okay.

And is that, uh, that's open to the public as well?

It is in a public meeting.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, awesome.

I will look forward to your next meeting.

Thank you.

If you would like to be on the agenda, just— I'll reach out.

Yep.

I, uh, I yield, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else for Ms. Sloan while she's up?

Chair recognizes Councillor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, I just want to just, just make the comment that I, I don't think that if people don't smoke cigars that they're going to go there.

I mean, I don't think it's going to make a difference.

If they smoke, they're going to go there.

If they don't smoke cigars, I don't think they're going to go there.

It's like go to the casino, you can smoke in the casino.

I know that.

So if I want to go ahead and gamble, then I know that I'm going to have to put up with the cigarette smoke.

Although there is another room, I have— I do have an option to go to another room, but I also have that option to stay there with smoke.

I just don't think that it's going to make a difference whether if they smoke or not.

Thank you.

I just, I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else for Miss Sloan while she's here?

All right, Stephanie, you're all set.

Thank you.

All right, we have a few other invited guests as it relates to this.

We have Miss Carloni still here.

The police chief, not sure why you're here for this because, uh, I don't think secondhand smoke a crime.

No, I didn't think so.

You were invited by the maker of the motion, so congratulations.

Welcome to the show.

Um, uh, we do have our planner, which could be appropriate for this.

We also have, um, Solicitor Jakes, who's here.

Anyone else for any of these other department heads?

Chair recognizes Councilor Choquette.

Could I have Chief Thody come up?

Thank you.

Sure.

You heard him though, it's not a crime to smoke a cigar, right?

Or secondhand smoke.

All right, Chief, you're up.

Thanks, Chief.

Um, in your opinion, or even not even in your opinion, but in your experience, how many times have you seen a death occur because somebody was consuming a cigar?

And I don't mean to them, but I mean to another person.

So if a person consumed a cigar, how many deaths did that cause to the general public?

I mean, none that I've ever seen from an immediate smoke.

I mean, I guess the argument could be made that over time, right, you said, you know, cancer and things like that, but that's really from a law enforcement perspective.

I've never seen a cigar kill anybody immediately.

Now let me ask you the next question.

In your opinion, in your experience, not your opinion, how many times have you seen somebody in the general public killed because another person consumed alcohol?

Oh, I mean, I couldn't put a number on that.

That's a lot.

That's a much larger number.

Exactly right.

Currently, is alcohol sold in the city of New Bedford in a bar environment?

Yeah.

And currently in the city of New Bedford, are cigars sold and consumed in an environment in this, you know, in a public environment?

I'm sure they're sold.

I don't, I don't smoke anything, so I wouldn't know.

But I see them on the golf course on occasion, but that's about it.

Absolutely.

Not too many crashes with the golf carts because of a nice Nicaraguan cigar, though, right?

Yeah.

I mean, the bottom line is that I don't— I don't— that there's no under-the-influence law that would— that would include tobacco or cigars or cigarettes.

So, I mean, from a, from a law enforcement perspective, it really doesn't have a lot to do with us.

Okay, that's all I wanted to do.

Thank you, Chief.

Anyone else for the Chief while he's up here so he doesn't go up and down?

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else for any of our invited guests while they're here?

Alrighty, well, you know what, uh, the chair is requesting for a motion on this, so I'll entertain a motion to table at this time.

Motion to table made by Councilor Choquette.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Seeing that there is no other business before us tonight, make a motion to adjourn.

Made by Councillor Pemberton.

I need a second.

Thank you.

Seconded by Councillor Choquette.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7:57 PM.

Have a great evening, everyone.