--------- The city council committee on ordinance legislation will be called to order. It is April 28th, 50:01 p.m. Madam clerk, call the role, please. >> Council, >> here. >> Council >> here. >> Vice President Dia >> here.
>> Here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or other perceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one this evening is citizens
input. There is no citizens input. >> Motion to lift uh uh yeah motion to take number three out of order. >> Second. >> Motion made to take item three out of order made by vice president Dion. Second by councelor Kadim. Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I I opposed. The eyes have it. Item
number three this evening is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance that would grant permission to the city council to hire outside legal representation, obtain third-party legal opinions, and properly allocate appropriate budgeted capital and specific fund for the cost of these services adopted 414
2026. I will recognize my colleague councelor Kadim who is the author of the resolution. >> Would you like to invite corporation? >> Yes. uh cooperation council Ramsey if you can come down as well. I'll let you introduce yourself and then I'll recognize council Kadim.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I think the uh resolution actually uh spoke for itself just I mean as my colleagues are aware we we've had a number of issues not just uh this year but in the past where um we've had disagreements or different differing opinions in terms of uh where
we stood and and sometimes a second uh legal opinion is is also uh valuable um and can and can potentially validate some of uh our concerns or go the other way uh with regards to that. So, I just want to be able to change the ordinance that allows the city council uh to be
able to hire its own attorney for obviously for second legal opinions. I clearly understand that the only uh opinion that can um bind this the city would be corporation council's opinion. Uh but it just solely for the the purpose of either having a second
opinion just um bouncing things off of uh of council just to be be sure that we are comfortable with what we we receive. With that, I thank you. Uh, corporation council, you introduce yourself first, please, for the record. >> Yeah. Alan Ramsey, Corporation Council. >> Thank you, Vice President Dion.
>> Yeah. Um, and I feel like there is some precedent. Um, there was a mayor once taken to court by the city council in the past. Um, since I've been on the council, there was a line item for outside legal in our budget. Um, I
believe it was a dollar amount of $40,000. uh we had KP law, they were on retainer and um so I think based on both of those uh incidents um that it should be
something that we can have in a line item and we should be able to utilize moving forward. With that I yield. >> Thank you. >> Corporation Council Ramsey. >> All right. So I've looked at the uh proposal. I believe it's drafted by councelor Canuel. I mean could dropped
it. I'm sorry. >> For for the record, it was councelor Ponty who did submit a proposed >> Yeah. So I I'll just clarify here. So a a um >> a draft resolution is has been sent to the committee um which was written by councelor Ponty um which is not
particular on this agenda right now but um we are the committee I should say is looking to draft that ordinance. um the committee would have to review that proposed um submission that was made. >> Well, in a nutshell, I mean, the legal services are they're supposed
to come through the office of the corporation council. And I understand the argument that sometimes you want to have separate opinion, things of that nature. But the reality is it's set up to have a unified voice that comes to the office of the corporation council. So, the reality is you can't draft an
ordinance that changes mass general law or the charter. So, you know what has happened in the past and I was a part of it when that I don't know if it was 20 or 40,000 but I do remember when that was put in the budget. It was done the proper way which would had the um the mayor put in the budget and it was with
the approval of my office. Uh I can tell you in practice I mean I don't want to get into too many details. I think it showed the problem with that. Um it's without having everything come through my office. Um there's no kind of unified voice. It kind of opens up the city
litigation, too, when you have lawyers given separate opinions. Um, and I think I'm not saying I'm in favor, but I think if this council really wanted to have somebody here every meeting, every day, it could be somebody that, first of all, it has to be appropriated in the
mayor's budget, appropriated by this council, but I think it would be somebody that would be employed through my office. I think that makes it cleaner, makes it easier. Um it it was a difficult situation trying to work with the other law firm. I say >> finish.
>> Yeah. No, I'm good. >> Vice President Dian. >> So um I find that interesting in the respect that the school committee has an attorney that is at every meeting and I and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that person operates through
your office. So why would we be different? I guess is my question. Haven't looked into that specifically. I I mean the schools I've always you know in your mind you always think of them as separately. It's like the city side and the school side. I know the budgets things there are many things different the school side the city side but I mean
there's there's case law out there the case law I cited to this you know to it's the city council of Boston versus the mayor of Boston. You know, in that situation, the the city council Boston tried to retain their own council and the courts basically said exactly what I'm saying, which is that the office of
the corporation council is the chief legal authority for the city and you can't do anything without that approval. So would it also be true that in certain circumstances, let's say we wanted to take some form of legal action within
the city, um potentially instead of representing us, you could you your office would represent the other party, whoever they that may be like in the case of taking the mayor to court. So this council had KP law and
corporation council represented the mayor. So under what circumstances would cor would would your office represent us in a similar situation or wouldn't wouldn't your office do that? >> I mean it's always difficult to think of hypotheticals on the spot but I know
there are occasions when there's conflicts. Um I think if I recall correctly there was one involving Mayor Koreah Jel Koreah. Um the question was whether or not he was capable of
remaining mayor with the situation he was in. And in that case I believe um corporation council Macy found that he needed to retain outside counsel to represent the city council and the mayor because of that conflict reason. And
yeah of course there are situations where that would be the appropriate way to handle it. Um but that wouldn't be the case on everything. With that, I yield. >> Councelor Ken. >> Thank you. I I think Councelor Dion made the point I was going to make, which is
the school department has an attorney that's not employed by through your office at every meeting, and I think we're looking uh for the same here. Um so the school department is they're all employees of the city ultimately. Um and
I feel if they're able to have one, we certainly should be able to as well. And with that, I yield. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and just to note too, I think it's important that the school department is a department of the city. They're not a separate entity, per se. Would you agree, attorney? >> Correct. >> I believe attorney Assad is an employee of the city. I've worked very well with
him in the six years I've been here. Um, you know, I can tell you from past experience, I mean, and well, let's let's take it out of what's happened here. You know, everybody likes to say that you get 10 lawyers, you get 10 different opinions.
And I actually think that's inaccurate. I think that when lawyers such as myself were hired to, you know, interpret the charter, to advise the city council, the mayor, the school committee when I'm needed on certain occasions, um you if
there were 10 lawyers like me, we we would have similar opinions on all these things. When you have 10 different opinions is when you have 10 different clients. And that's the difference because when you hire a private outside council that's not employed by the city, they will advocate for whatever the
client wants them to advocate for. And that's when you have difference of opinions. That's when you see them in court. You know, their their job isn't to figure out what is best for Massachusetts law. It's not best for the city. It's to advocate on behalf of their client. And that's that's the problem with having an outside council
that only represents the city council. >> Understood. Council Daniel. Uh, councelor Kadeim, >> thank you. Uh, so the case law, can you share the case law with us? The Boston City Council and then you I guess you reference Massachusetts general law. I
would assume that the case law would would give us the general law that you're referring to. >> Yeah, the site I have is 58 Massap 542. It's a 2003 case. >> I'm sorry. 58 what? Mass? >> 58 Massapp 542.
>> Okay. Um because again I don't think any of us is questioning whether or not even if we we did retain our own or had the ordinance that said that the city council would have an attorney that that would circumvent any opinions that you put forth. But um I guess what I would say
is is that I just take the current situations that we're dealing with now. I mean we've we've got two um charter articles that we wholeheartedly disagree with, right? So you and the administration are taking one stance, but the city council has a different
stance on that. Who represents us if we want to go to court? >> I understand your opinion, but I I think let's got to characterize it correctly. I have an opinion. It's not it's not the administration's opinion. The administration's following my opinion. That's the difference. >> It's I mean it's it's the same opinion
for the city council, administration, the school department. It's always going to be the same opinion. Mhm. So I guess so what would be the process for the city council since we we do disagree that if we want to challenge the charter in court who is representing us and what's the process for that?
>> Well I mean your legal counsel will be telling I mean for example the hire an outside legal counsel >> but we're two separate government bodies right there's the executive branch and there's the administrative branch. the administrative branch right now is is in disagreement with the executive branch
in terms of how the charter is is being read and interpreted. So, the only way to truly get any closure on that would be to take it to court and have a judge rule on it. So, I understand what your statement is, but if the city council wants to challenge this, how do we we I
mean, at at this point, the only way for us to do it would be for us to appoint somebody to go walk across the street and file something in court, right? We we don't have an attorney. So, if we had somebody on retainer, we'd be able to say, "This is what we want to do. We want to move forward. Go file it in court for us." And
>> I understand, but I I need to keep correcting. You do have a lawyer. I'm right here. >> I am the chief legal officer for the city of Fall River. I'm your lawyer as much as I'm the mayor's lawyer. >> I I app I appreciate that. So, if if we file a resolution that we want to go to court, you're going to represent us and
and make the argument that we're making or you going to take the argument that you have given us because there we we've got two separate arguments. Do you see what I'm saying? >> I do. But it's it's one of those things where we all have our our jobs. We all have the things that we are authorized to do and not do. And if we disagree
with a certain department head, we can't then run the department for them. I mean, it's I believe I'm giving you sound legal advice. I think I'm giving you accurate legal advice. You know, what happens when you disagree with me? I mean, I I haven't even se it's
these aren't even issues where I feel like there's even been any legal challenge. I mean, I know you you just want to disagree, but there's not a case law. There's not something there's not a gray area. There's not even something where I could understand, okay, I could see this could go either way. I mean, we're we're talking about a possibility that's not even before us right now.
>> No. Well, I Well, I I think it's there's two issues. There's the contracts that are before us that hasn't been resolved and then there's also the uh fact that we can we can do investigations. That's that's the two that I think right now should be challenged whether whether we want to proceed with any of that like we
as as a council I I think a majority uh truly feel that that's what the how the charter reads and there's a there's a clear discrepancy between how you view the charter versus how we view. So we're we're at a stalemate. We've had this conversation. So, if we're not going to
create an ornice that gives us the ability to have counsel to be able to represent us for either second legal opinions or when we disagree on charter issues, there's got to be a mechanism for the legislative body to be able to take action on things that we disagree with, right? And and disagreement is
fine, but and we may lose when we go to court, but at least it would be clarified and everybody is on the same page in terms of uh what the ultimate interpretation was. I mean, we we hear members from, you know, the charter committee who coming in and giving us the their opinion, citizen input. There's there's a number of people
saying different things. I'm just I'm just curious how how do we if if we're not going to create an ordinance that gives us the authority to have representation? How do we go about moving forward? >> I I I don't know at this point. I mean,
I I know when looking at this case, it was the city council of Boston that sued the mayor of Boston. So, they found a way. But, you know, I think the >> I only I only play an attorney on TV. I don't want to
>> I know. But the thing is, it's like, >> you know, >> I'm the chief legal counsel for the city. I think it would be a waste of tax dollars to pursue this. I'm giving you what I believe is perfectly accurate, sound legal advice, and you're asking me to tell how do I tell myself I'm wrong?
Um, I don't know. I mean, sir, City Council of Boston figured it out. I guess it's possible. I don't know whether they had to get their own private funds. I don't know how they had any money to I mean maybe somebody did a prosay for them. Proono, sorry. >> Um and that's my guess. They probably found a lawyer to do a proono for them.
But um you know, authorizing a lawsuit. It's supposed to be nobody is allowed to sue on behalf of the city of Fall River without the authorization of my office. >> Yeah. Listen, and I'm not I'm not suggesting with this ordinance that we have a similar situation to what the
school committee has. I don't know that we need an attorney at our at our meetings every every single meeting. I think that's and I don't disagree. That's what you're here for in your office, right? That's what we should be expecting in terms of legal representation, discussion. I think it comes into play when you know just like
this if there's a second legal opinion and we get a second set of eyes on it and if whoever we have for um our own council comes back and says no we agree with corporation council then it's like all right we we've got we've got uh and listen and I'm not trying to say that an
unbiased opinion right because I understand that you work for the for the city um but just even just a perceived unbiased opinion as to whether or not the you know the charter is written the way it's written. And that's just one example. I mean, there's a number of things that could could come forward that would just generate that a second
legal opinion may be beneficial to either um agree with what you're saying and and give us a little bit more uh reassurance that okay, then you know, there's not really a lot for us to stand on with this issue. But I just think these two issues that we've been dealing with for the last couple of months are
pretty significant to suggest that there is a need for at least to have outside counsel for for the city council representing us to to give us second legal opinions and or represent us if we need to challenge the charter. I understand and but I do want to
clarify um I do know that at least one member of this council has contacted another lawyer who gave exactly the same opinion that I have. So I mean I think it's >> Do we know who that is? I'd like to
>> I think council can talk to it if he wants to. >> I have not contacted any lawyers. >> You haven't spoken with Matt Thomas at length? uh the city attorney. Yes, I did speak with him, but I don't know that we agreed on everything.
>> No, I I understand you didn't agree, but my understanding is that he gave a verbal opinion that was entirely consistent with mine. Now, once again, not that he's not the he doesn't work in my office. He doesn't work for the city, >> but I mean, I think >> no, he works for the city. >> So, he does in the treasures department. it doesn't work in my office. But so I
mean I I I do know that people often seek other opinions u behind the scenes and um I still haven't heard a contrary opinion to mine from those sources. >> Yeah, I think just to the conversation
come back. It just pertain to the other issue for the reappoint of department heads whether or not they have to come down to the city council. Council, can you have the floor? >> No, I I I'm not trying to belabble the point. I just I've I think I've
articulated why we should have at least a budget and the opportunity to be able to have uh outside legal counsel for that. Again, being very very clear, I recognize that any opinion that comes before like comes from that outside legal counsel does not bind the city in
any manner. That the only thing that binds the city is is the opinion of corporation council. But I think it just gives us an ability to be able to make some judgments when we have different differences of opinion or disagreements or even just questioning whether or not there is any validity or any other areas
that need to be looked at. That's all. >> Do you? >> I yield. I'm sorry. >> Anything else from the committee? >> Okay. It's the will of the committee how we'd like to move forward. Um, at this point, like I said, we have a uh ordinance that was written and submitted
to us. If you would like to take that up, we would have to introduce that to the committee um and have further discussions on that particular um resolution that was sent to us. >> I'd like to um >> So, I'm always getting this confused. Is
it table and refer refer and table? >> Uh it can only go to one place. >> Yeah. So, I was going to refer to cooperation council even though he's in disagreement to form, right? Just to form and then make sure that you know the form of the ordinance is
>> just for the record, it has to be sent to him through the city code anyway. >> Oh, okay. >> Through the city clerk. >> All right. Motion to adopt approve. >> What do you I'm waiting to see what you want to do. If you want to refer, that's fine. >> It wasn't already referred. Just I
thought it was already referred. I wasn't reviewed it. Is is is there any concerns from a legal form? >> Yes, there is >> many. I I think it would be inconsistent with our charter and with Mass General law. >> No, no. Bes that's noted. I I guess anything else in
terms of besides the Massachusetts general law and and case law, how it's written, is there any concerns to that? Just the form. That's it. >> I guess that's what I'm looking for. >> I I know. But I think, you know, when
when I often review things for form and manner of execution, you know, the the numerous contracts I read on a daily basis, it's I mean, this is exactly what I I say when it's it's I believe it would be an it would be against other orders. I want to say illegal that makes it sound like much worse than it is, but
you know, it it can't be approved the way it is at all because it's inconsistent. I mean, I think that is the crux of the issue. >> Point of clarification, if I may. Um, Attorney Ramsey, you received a copy of the written ordinance that councelor Ponty produced.
>> I did. I I I thought that was one of the things the purpose of today. Um, >> I'm just clarifying that you did receive >> I have I I received it. I reviewed it. >> Okay. >> Um, I tried to see if there's a way to work with it to make it so that I I could approve it and I just can't.
There's just >> can't approve it. All right. So, I'm going to just make a uh a motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance to full counsel with an amendment uh as written. So, under item C one, the city
council may through the annual budget process or by separate appropriation orders establish a dedicated budgetary line. Um I'd like may to read as shall Well, I got an extra if you need one. >> Thank you, sir.
>> C1. So, instead of may shall >> Yes. Okay. So the motion to amend uh it's 2-33 section C number one and changing may to shall >> yes >> form of a motion.
>> Yep. >> Made by council Kim second by vice president. Any discussion on the amendment? >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to recommend approval as amended. >> Correct. Okay. So the motion is to pass
through first reading as amended made by council kadim. >> Second >> second by vice president dion discussion on the amendment uh passing first ring as amended council can >> so I I think the case law that attorney
corporation council runs provided I haven't had a full chance to review it. I mean the city council in Boston did get turned away I think on that. Um I don't know that though that they have the same charter type. Do they have the same charter type? Do you know off hand? >> Well, I believe there are plan A.
There's always some dissimilarities. I mean Fall River charter is unique. So it may be similar to others, but it's going to be unique. >> I guess my question is how many attorneys are upstairs in your office? So like cuz I I forgot about the
conversation with Thomas on the other one, but I'm just curious if we were if it's the just your opinion or the consensus of the the four I guess so to speak and with with I guess when we think of a second set of eyes before we
pass this to first reading, you know, could we have somebody else look at it? I guess just I know this kind of came in recently so I don't know. >> No, I mean our office routinely discusses things. I mean that's we kind of enjoy the intellectual debate on certain things. I mean I can't say
specific every little thing has gone before them but I haven't heard any disagreement on any of this. Um you know but to answer your question attorney howak is there attorney for debt. Um we have attorney Burke and um we also
have uh for another four days Jen is also a member of the bar as well. >> Okay. The other question I would have is if this were to move through the council hypothetically get adopted, what are the next steps then? Because you fundamentally disagree with this
adoption. If it gets adopted, >> the veto, right? >> Well, I I wouldn't approve it and the mayor would veto it is my guess. >> And then if it moved forward and the council overrode it, then what? Then it's on the books. I guess I'm trying to think ahead like where does this go if
this makes it to the finish line. I define the finish line as it's passed all readings. >> I know. I mean, but you're you're asking me to kind of piece together a narrative where I'm helping you do what I think is against the charter. So, you're putting me in a difficult situation.
>> You're my counsel. >> I I I know. But I can help you with things to help you with your legislative ideas, not to go against the charter. Look, as I said along, I mean, first and foremost, I'll say this. If there was
any legal counsel for any purpose, you would need money. You don't have that, >> right? So, you're going to you're going to need to have a conversation with the person who prepares the budget. >> I
vice president Dion. So, I guess on that note, that brings us back to we have precedent where we did have a line item in the budget specifically for legal and I'm pretty confident it was $40,000 at the time. So, if we have precedent and we had it before,
is there any reason why we should not be able to have a line item um with an attorney or a firm on retainer? Well, I can tell you that my personal opinion, I naively thought it would be a good idea because at the time I was the only uh
full-time employee in the law department and Gary Halak was the only part-time attorney. Uh we were very short-handed. I thought that would be a great thing and I in retrospect thought it was an awful thing. So I would not be in favor of again. I I would potentially be in
favor of somebody from my office who would be here on a regular basis um for the city council, but an outside independent lawyer that has no allegiance to the charter and has no allegiance to anything other than the nine city council members. No, I would not be in favor of
>> you. >> Let me ask a a question. I guess you know I think in other situations there's some sort of mediator that can take place. I don't know. Is there when municipalities have have issues with charter interpretations, is there any outlet at the state level for um
mediation in terms of language? I I don't know. I don't know if there's any other precedent anywhere else that's that's taken place. I guess it's more of a curious curious question. >> Not aware of any. >> Okay. >> All right. We have a motion first reading as amended, made and seconded. Any other discussion?
>> All those in favor? I. >> Any opposed? >> You guys have it. And uh, Attorney Ramsey, just for clarification, you then fill out or complete some sort of response to this after first reading. Is there is what's
your next step for the council's edification? >> I think it just goes to the full council, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. But there's nothing from your office when it comes to proposed ordinance that you you do. >> It's usually sent up for review. >> Okay. >> Which I'll just give the same answer. >> Okay.
>> Fair enough. >> Not going to change. >> No. Thank you, Attorney Rimsey. >> All right, we'll move on. Thank you. We'll move on to our next item, which is item number two on our agenda, is the proposed ordinance to salary amendments for the director of health and human services. It was tabled 42126.
>> Motion to lift from the table. >> Motion to lift from the table made by Vice President Dion, second by councelor Canuel. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> We'll invite the director of human resources down, please. Mr. Molini, good afternoon. If you can
introduce yourself for the committee. >> Good afternoon, Nick Molini, director of human resources. >> Thank you very much, Councelor Canuel. >> Thank you. Uh so I've had time to contemplate the discussion at the last
meeting uh that we had and I think the biggest thing that I took away from it was that the current incumbent in the position is currently exceeding in the amount what it the ordinance allows. And I have a fundamental problem with that
um which I believe needs to be corrected before I can move forward with this particular item. Um, I'll be making two motions. Uh, first uh I'll start with the uh simple one. I do appreciate the
uh breakdown of the comps uh for salary that you provided to us uh excluding out of borrow and Swansea. The average was 110,000. Uh so firstly based on that I'd like to make a motion to uh ch lower the
not to exceed amount from 115,000 to 110,000. >> So for clarification you're looking to amend the proposed resolution >> correct >> for to not to exceed 110,000 instead of 150 >> and that's based on the data that was
provided by Mr. Molini in terms of the average comps. >> Understood. Second >> motion made to amend to 110,000 not to exceed made by councelor Canuel. Second by vice president Dion. Discussion on the amendment. Councelor Kadim. >> Thank you. Um I guess while I appreciate
that and I appreciate the work that Mr. Malini has done, you know, some some of these are not truly comps, right? And I I think if you start removing some of these, your average is going to go up, not down, right? So, um, you know, when you're looking at Swansea, four people,
um, you know, even Westport, I I mean, they they've got 14 people, but just that community in terms of size, organization, I would say is not a comp. I would I would tell you that Attabborough, Brockton, um, New Befford,
probably Plymouth, Taon would would be your comps, right? So, and I think if you take Adelboroough, I mean, it's only six. And I I'm not sure what the health director is doing if it's still in terms of just uh
responsibility and and job description really ties into what we're doing, but I I would think that you're probably going to be at the closer to the 115, if not at the 110. Um, but a little bit higher than that. I I don't know if somebody wants to do the math on that. I just I'm
just trying to figure out why. I know the recommendation was 115 or 120 was the original. >> We started at 120 then we reduced it to 115. >> Right. So I'm just trying to figure out why we're going down to the like the justification from the 115 down to the to the 110.
>> So because just looking at New Befford, right, there's 19 employees. Forever has 27. Uh the city of New Bever is just rounding up $123,000. >> Right. Plymouth 11 employees. uh director of public health, that's
$122,000. And again, without seeing job descriptions, and it's it's hard to really kind of figure out exactly uh if they're truly comps in terms of the position itself, but I I just I I think and I don't disagree, but when we start talking about being competitive with some of these positions, and I don't
know that you were suggesting that we go to the >> to that level, it's just to be able to to have conversations, negotiations, and cost of living adjustments so that we're not exceeding it. again to your your concern about you know department heads exceeding what's an ordinance. So >> I mean I think there's multiple parts to
this. So when you're looking at the external comps that's not really telling the whole story. I think when you look at just the amount of employees that have been added >> internally um you're you're showing that the scope of that position has changed. So the responsibilities have changed. We've added that much staffing. So I
think internally if you look at it that way that's probably more telling than the external comps to me. So that that's just that's where I stand. I think I think we should be higher, not lower. Um I'm I'm comfortable supporting uh what the
administration I put down at at 120. Um, if we're not at 120, I would I would say the the 115 is probably the lowest I would I would personally go. Uh, just because when you stop looking at it, I mean, CCONK alone, I mean, this Secon's almost $100,000 and it's literally three
employees. And granted, we're we're doing um, you know, this Title 5, the septic uh, inspections, things of that nature. So it's a little bit different compared to what's over here, but just in terms of sheer volume, the the workload associated with it, the the managerial component of it, I I would
say that all day you should be at the 115 120. >> I think broader. >> Yeah, you councelor can >> I think broader work needs to be done across the department and the titles and the ranks and how that we we pay people and I think as I understand it from Mr. Molini, that work is underway and
hopefully will be completed in in the several months ahead. I think um so I think this is a kind of a stop gap uh adjustment here until that broader work is completed. That's how I view it because we're at 101 right now. This allows some flexibility um but not a lot
because I do want to see that other work completed. So that would be my response to that particular change. I don't disagree with you that this probably long-term needs to be positioned higher, but for where um if we're making an overnight adjustment, that's probably
only potentially in effect for I would give it I don't know a year, Mr. Molini less. >> Yeah, less than a year. >> I think this positions us until that work is completed with that yield. Vice President Dion,
>> maybe it's just me, but it shows 27 employees that are being supervised by this individual. Can you show me which of these are the 27? We have more than 27 people on this org chart.
>> You do. And you have positions there that are like senior aids, part-time that are uh funded by CFC. So, I didn't include them in my numbers. Those are provided by citizens for citizens. >> Anything anything in the yellow is not >> I would not include them >> including the different shade of yellow.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So we'll take >> Did you say including that like yellow orange? Is that correct? >> Okay. >> Just the bottom. >> So we take all >> So the three on the left, the two on the >> middle and the one on the right. >> That would be one, two, three, four,
five. The same. >> One, two, three, four, five, six. >> Okay. But that's not this. Here >> I just took out the CFC ones. >> Oh, CFC. Okay. >> So, not the orange color. >> So, not the state formula grant funded.
>> Right. That's the clarification. >> Yeah, I took those. I removed those. Start over. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 20 56 18 19 20. >> You need it. 146 78 29 37 30 There's still 32. So,
who else comes off of this for the 27? >> I would have to look at this. I ran the numbers right from Ununice. >> Okay. So, >> and point of clarification from from the budget, the amount of FTEES from the budget.
>> Well, no, because only the light blue uh city budget funded, which makes even less sense, and then you have grant funded, CDA funded, and then grant funded again. >> I pulled it directly from Munice. So, they they wouldn't pull in those CFC
employees. I mean, I could give you an actual breakdown if you wanted a breakdown. >> Yeah. I you know I think I I I think I can't even move forward with this at this point in time because we have if you look at your color chart which is
this light blue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 it only indicates 13 people but yet Munis produced 27 that doesn't make sense to me. >> Are there any vacancies? There are
>> that might not be included >> at least. >> I'm I'm talking about from ununice because he pulled >> three that I'm aware of. >> So that get you to 30 to 20. >> Wait, he said 27 >> down to 24. If there's three vacancies. >> No, no, that he didn't count for that. Munis isn't showing.
>> It wouldn't show it in Munice. >> I can do a full break. >> So Munis showed 27 >> because that is people in payroll as of whenever I read. >> That's what I'm saying. So then he's got three vacancies. So, you got to add that to the 27. That gets you to the 30. Right. You said you counted how many? 32.
>> But if you look at your color chart and you look at city budget funded and you count the squares that match that color, it's not 27. >> No. So, what what was the number that you got? >> It's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13.
>> But you like sanitary inspector, too. So, you got to count twice for that. I I I know there's not food inspector. >> Okay. 14 15. >> So I'm not sure that they included. >> So then that brings us up to 15. >> Yeah. >> So somewhere there's something not quite right. Something's not lining up. And I
think we need to get to the bottom of that to be able to determine truly how many people this person is supervising. A um >> I can give you a full census. Yeah, that would be good because I mean that that
kind of changes for me changes everything. I mean if it ends up as 15 people and not 27, we're talking a whole different ballgame. >> So um with that I'll yield. >> So councel Kadim, thank you. Thank you. >> It's a little tough. Two C's, right? We
got to separate >> both on the same side of the table. >> I know. Uh so but even I guess even that right. So 27 that you're probably higher than or potentially higher. I mean, if we're counting, even if you get down to the 15, you're more in line with Brockton, you're in line with New Beford
at 19. So, you still get you still get close to what you're seeing for comps in terms of salary. So, I don't know that it changes in terms of what you're looking for. And and >> it doesn't, but if it makes you feel better to have or you know, if it gives
you a better, more informed decision by having that full census, I I don't mind >> because we're significantly higher. We're 27. You know, we've got supervisors 6, supervisors 14, supervisors 3, 19, 11, 3, 3, 4, 9, 14. So, we're not even in range. So, I mean,
even if you cut off 10 out of that, >> you're still higher, >> right? >> Or in line with New Bever, which is paying 122, Plymouth, that's paying 121, >> Westport that's paying 122. I mean,
So, with that, I yield. All >> right. So, we have a motion on the floor to amend the proposed ordinance to not to exceed 110,000. It was made and seconded. Any other discussion? >> Roll call. >> On the motion, Council Gadim.
>> Uh, no. >> Council Daniel, >> yes. >> Vice President Dion, >> yes. >> Councelor Ferrer. Chair Repos, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Council Daniel, you still have the floor. >> Thank you. Uh so circling back to my
primary issue, uh right now the position is currently at 103,525.88, which is exactly 2.5% over the ordinance. So my understanding, I think from the discussion last time, is this was a result of a coal merit uh increase. Um, but the city council
adopted on June 17th of last year the appropriation of 1012 $200.80 which is reflective of the maximum the ordinance allows plus $200 for longevity. And I did go back to the prior fiscal year to see
what the situation was because while in this year it looks like we've awarded 2 and a2% in FY25 um the incumbent was making $100,160 and was giving given a 0.84%
increase which took took them right up to the maximum of the ordinance. So, we did comply with the ordinance in FY25. And so, um I agree uh this position pay needs updating, but first I think fundamentally I'm looking for two
things. One, that we fix this um and get this in compliance with the ordinance first. And second, that we conduct a review of any other positions that have a amount dictate maximum amount dictated by ordinance to make sure we don't have any others in this situation. And then
if uh all of those are corrected, I'm uh would like to proceed at that time. Uh but for now, I'm going to make a motion to table this matter until um the this current salary is brought in compliance with the ordinance. With that,
>> is that a motion council? >> There's a motion. >> Motion to table made by councelor Canuel. >> So this puts me in a predicament. I want to comment, but I can't if I second it. If I second it, >> we can second it for discussion >> on the table. >> Okay, I'll second for
>> second made by Vice President Dion. Discussion. Vice President Dion. >> So, um I agree with with councelor Canuel. Um in the time I've been on this council, we have encountered this so many times. It's not to exceed, not to exceed. And we forever have positions
that have exceeded um we've had we've had positions that have exceeded by far more than $2,000. Um, and it's always been that it comes to the council and the council just fixes it and raises the limit. So now we're within ordinance again. Um, and I
don't think in the past the appetite was there to draw the line and say, listen, you know, when you're approaching the threshold, you know, you're approaching the threshold. So put the request in before you exceed the threshold. Um so moving forward I would like to take that
position that that's what we do that um we address it in advance. We don't fix it after ordinance has been um there's been infraction of the ordinance. So with that I yield. >> Thank you councelor Kadim. So can I just
for you Mr. Chairman just asked the question. So I guess we're going to table this. We're going to go back. I mean the the individual it's no fault of the individual that's getting paid. So that individual is going to have a salary reduction, but it really is just for show cuz we're going to reduce the
salary. We're going to table it. We're going to come back. We're going to increase the salary and then in a week she's going to get her her pay raise and not really like so I I don't understand. I I don't disagree. I agree that we we've said this before that the ordinances need to be followed. I just don't know that tableabling this, having
the administration go back, reduce somebody's pay only for us to come back in a week or two weeks to increase the pay doesn't I'm not sure what message that really sends. And and I would I I do have a question to myself and then that this is not the first time this is a situation that's
happened. back when in 2022 when some of the adjustments were made this kind of similar question came up and you know I guess my position too would be what mechanism is in place to avoid this going forward because I I mean and and and kind of looking ahead too and and
you and I have had discussions about what you're working on you know coming shortly I think some of that gets resolved by that system but at least between now and then you know and I think I echo what council Ken was saying in reviewing the current ordinances and we're working on the FY27 budget so we
don't run into any issues going. So to you uh uh Mr. Molini, how do we avoid how do we avoid this and clean this up? >> Yeah, so just for context, as far back as I can remember, this has kind of been an issue. I mean, I've been here for 16 years um not in this position that long,
but I I do remember this coming up every couple years and I think 22 when we did this big comprehensive one. This was something that we had discussed. Is it do you put an escalator in? you do something that so that you're not coming down here every you know one two years to make this change. Um we're kind of
looking now at how we do something um comprehensive where there is a clear start point for a position and an end point for a position and that there is some type of escalator so that every year it's getting just adjusted. It may be limited in what it's adjusted. It may be I don't want to throw anything out
yet because it's not complete but that that is I think a way that will correct this going forward. Um, I would hate to see the the fix be to cut someone's salary at this point. Uh, I don't think that's the fix. Um, I could have sworn
there was a legal opinion on a on a cola. I went through my office today. I could not find it. I thought this was something that was addressed prior that we couldn't come down if there was a cap and and request an increase of 5 10,000 whatever it is. But if it was a cola that was naturally lifting it up, that that was okay. we just, you know, could
not do um bigger increases. But I I do think I mean I would like to see this position adjusted. I'd like to see that reflected in in their salary. It's something that's been discussed for a while. Um but we can do a comprehensive salary restructure. Do it the right way
where it's not leading to spikes in salaries or it's not leading to, you know, reductions in salaries that everyone's on a level playing field. It'll help us with recruitment. It'll help us with uh retention. it'll help us with those conversations when people come looking for more money that there is a clear path from start to finish. I
think that will address it. I'm just we're not ready to bring it down yet. >> Understood. Vice President Dion. >> Yeah. Um I don't disagree with Council Kadim in terms of punishing the individual. Um it's not the individual,
it's not the employees fault. It's the fault of the administration for exceeding um ordinance. So, I don't disagree with that. I just think that somehow we have to do something
moving forward to stop um stop it from happening. And so, whatever it looks like, whatever that may be, um that's what I'm looking for. So, you know,
and it's true. So, you know, 16 years and it's happened over and over and over and over. Well, it's time for it to stop. Um and the budget has to reflect um the salaries and
not increase the salaries above ordinance and um and not ask for transfers to increase salaries after the budget is put together. So somehow we we um I just hope everybody can get on the same page
and just say okay enough is enough and let's do it right from now on. And with that, I yield. >> Thank you, Vice President Dion. Councelor Canel. >> Thank you. I think you know in this situation before you know this raise goes through this would still have to go back to the full council. So I think
procedurally right now we have something that we've identified that is not consistent with the charter. I think we have to fix that because if the will of the council, I don't know what the rest of the council is going to do. They they may they may decide not to push this through. And we still have a situation
where the city council has only appropriated a certain amount of money uh $11,200.80 and we are the administration has gone above that. And I just believe fundamentally to councelor Dion's point this needs to stop. We need to we need
to say no you can't just go it's $2500 today could be 25,000 tomorrow. Where do where does it end? For me the dollar amount is doesn't matter if it's a dollar over it's too much. we appropriate what we appropriate and that's what we should be giving to people. So, um I think we have to go back and fix that first. That's my
position on this and uh obviously we'll see where the will of the committee goes. Um and uh we'll go from there. With that, you >> Thank you, Council Kim. So, again, I I don't disagree with the premise. You know, I I would I would say in a perfect world, the budget process is where we
would have that check and balance, right? But when you have the ability to be able to transfer All right. So you're you're talking about 101. I'm not I'm not even sure. I don't have it in front of me. What what the salaries listed in the budget is that >> the 101 is what was >> this is what was appropriated by the council. >> So and
>> this is the max in order. So it's $200 difference which is the >> right. So >> so there's a $200 increase, but you could tomorrow go make a or even tonight go make a transfer within is this um city administration or
>> whatever human services that that block. But the the only other thing that I would point out is I'm not saying right or wrong, just that more money was appropriated to account for cost of living adjustments in the budget that weren't included in those line items. So that was included in the budget. >> No, no, I I recognize something.
>> If you if you've got if you've got vacancies currently, you've got enough money that's already being accounted for. And at the end of the day, the city council does not approve line item. It's it's salaries bottom line. So that's the only thing that we're approving. I said so we I think we need to figure out what
the mechanism is to make sure that the ordinances is not being um ignored. And I'm not saying it's ignored but um just exceeded >> uh because I I don't disagree. We we had the conversation about and I don't know that we went anywhere with it when we first had these conversations that we
needed to have something in there that we understood that as long as there were reasonable cost of living adjustments that were similar to what other unions have had that that you would be able to to exceed. It's to your point, not the 5,000 or the $10,000 or $20,000 increase that would require council approval. But
um so I don't disagree uh with what you're trying to do. My I guess I just can't support it because all we're simply doing is correcting it for a week coming back because we know we're going to increase this, right? I don't think there's anybody at this table who's saying we're not going to increase it
from $100,000, right? So why would we then table it just to go back tell somebody we're going to reduce their paycheck say it's corrected and then increase it the very next meeting. I I just I don't know that that's the the actual fix. I think I think we're all clear that we need to make sure that the ordinances are being followed and not circumvented.
>> If I can I mean I I know that the last time we did this it was a comprehensive salary restructure. It wasn't talking about one you know position in general but it was April I believe that was submitted and it it was approved in October. So I think anything we do is going we you know we want your support
when we do this. We want to collaborate. It's going to take some time to get right. >> And and I and I will say and I think maybe Mr. Malini may recall this when we first did this whole kind of upgrade and and just re
revisited this whole ordinance was probably in like 2012 or something like that. And when when you start looking at all the the salaries, nobody was referring to the ordinance for for salaries. it was 22 and there were 30 that were out of compliance. >> And I remember calling uh the clerk at the time saying, "Where are you getting
this these salaries from? They're not consistent with what's in the the budget." And she said, "Well, you the administration has to send it down." And I was like, "Well, I don't think anybody knew that." So then we we went through the entire process, updated everything. So, you know, even going prior prior to that, it was probably I want to say
early 90s before that was even addressed. So, >> it's it's not it's not a one-off here. It's it's happened before, but I I think we just need to correct it, but I don't know that this is the process. So, with that, I yield. Council Cano, >> I yield. I'm ready to vote. >> Okay. So, the motion on the floor.
>> That That was my next sentence. Yes. Uh the motion on the floor right now is a motion to table. We had it made and seconded. Roll call. >> It's just just to table. >> Just to table. That was that was the >> motion to look on the table anyways for more information. Is that correct? Do
you require more information? Um, >> that's fine. >> Okay, forget it. Yeah, I just want to take >> No, no, that's fine. So, >> um, >> I guess can I >> You may counsel. >> I'm only clarifying because if if it's to table to reduce somebody's salaries, I'm a no. If you're looking for more
information, that would have to be referred to the full council. Correct. The committee can't make that decision. Be a recommendation to the council to lower that salary. >> Okay. >> The committee can't do that. Well, so I'm not >> Do you vice president?
>> So I'm not in favor of lowering their salary of of of penalizing the employee for something that wasn't their fault. I am on board with more information or sending it to full counsel to take action so this doesn't happen again.
>> So however that plays out. >> Understood. Do you yield council? >> Yes. I'm sorry. So again, the motion right now on the floor is a motion to table made and seconded. Roll call. >> Motion to table. Councelor Kadin, >> yes. >> Councelor Canuel,
>> yes. >> Vice President Dion, >> yes. >> Councelor Pereira. >> Chair Reposo. >> Yes. >> Could I just quickly >> Councelor Kadim, >> could I just request that you get the information to the committee as quickly as possible? >> Yes. All right. >> Yes. And and I would echo that and as soon as we have that information, we'll
return this to the agenda again to discuss. >> Thank you all. There is no other business from this committee. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjourn. Vice President Dion, second by councelor Canuel. All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have the city council committee on ordinance legislation now adjourned. Part: 2
This Farrer City Council Committee on Finance meeting will now be called to order Madam Clerk. Councils Kadeem? Here. Kamara? Here. Canual? Here. Dion? Here. Hart? Peckham? Here. Pereira? Raposo? Here. President Ponty. Here pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda
this evening on a committee on finance is citizens input. A number of individuals did sign up to speak. First person to sign up to speak is James Smith, 451-4255. I think that says Rock Street regarding CPA funds. Three minutes. You come right to the chair, have a seat. Turn around that way actually, this way and face them. I'm not important. Good evening to you, thank you. Three minutes. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. my name is James Smith and as a member of the board of directors of the Florida Historical Society actively involved in the ongoing restoration projects
underway at the museum I am here representing the curator Michael Martin who unfortunately had another commitment tonight to ask the City Council to please approve the appropriation for the community preservation committee grants Fall River Historical Society is the city's oldest non-profit cultural institution that preserves the history of the multicultural people of Fall River. The material housed in the museum on Rock Street is the largest and most significant collection extent
of artifacts pertaining to the history of the city. It is vital that these artifacts and the building housing them be preserved to present in future generations. for future generations. Over the past two years, the Fort Worth Historical Society has successfully raised over $3 million for specific infrastructure, restoration, and exhibit design projects from foundations and private donors nationwide. In fact, the organization is undergoing a renaissance and is creating
a facility on par with larger and far better funded institutions. CPC funding has proved essential to this success because it demonstrates to the donors outside of Fall River and the Historical Society has strong local support from the community. This is an important factor when donors make their funding decisions. The CPC is also vital with projects for which the Historical Society has not received outside funding, such as the present exterior roof restoration project
which has been put on hold funding a vote on this from this council in fact last week it was necessary to postpone the scheduled installation of staging around the entire museum building in preparation for roof replacement and major exterior res restoration that will be made possible by the CPC grant this project is expected to take several months to complete contractors representing different trades are already are ready to begin work all have been placed on hold pending a CPC
funding the floor of historical society is concerned that contractors will commence other projects causing a domino effect of delays understandably they will start other jobs the CPC has facilitated transformation projects kind of variety of levels that 17 seconds impact in our community as a recipient of CPC funding Historical Society knows this to be a fact. Since 1921, for 105 years, the Historical Society has enjoyed an excellent working relationship with every city administration,
every city council. Try to wrap it up, Mr. Smith, please. Okay. Motion to leave the rules and then finish. Motion to leave the rules has been made by Councillor Kamara. Second. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. All those in favor? Opposed? Yeah, I have two sentences left. Mr. Smith, you can finish. Historical Society has enjoyed an excellent working relationship with every city administration, and every City Council. In that spirit of camaraderie, I'm asking the former City Council to please consider voting on the CPC appropriation so that we may proceed with this project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Next person to sign up to speak is Dan Robillard, 142 Old Second Street regarding the Charter. Mr. Robillard, three minutes. President Ponci, members of the council, Dan Robillard, 145 Old Second Street. I come before you tonight as a private citizen and not on behalf of any board or commission that I've served on or serve on presently. I speak solely for myself. Regarding the Charter, been a lot of discussion in the last month, more than there's been since the passage of the Charter. But let's make no
mistake. Section 2-7 small a, page 28 of the current charter allows the city council the authority to conduct investigations into any city department. That's unequivocally, that's what that says. Some people might not like it, but it's there. Now, regarding appointments of contracts, and reappointments. I've been on and off
the Disability Commission since 2006. I'm serving on it presently with the passage of the charter. All Board and Commission members have to be confirmed and guess what? We get reappointed, okay? I was just reappointed in February of 2026 unanimously by this council. as was Chairman Dennis Pasewe and the mayor's representative to the commission, Acting City Administrator, Chief of Staff,
and O'Neal Souza. Now, I also remember, and both since the charter and even before the charter passage, contracts coming down to this council for both appointment and reappointment. I can remember former Police Chief Francis J. McDonald OK, I remember Jack Sousa. I remember there was a spirited debate. Forget about whose contract it was. But there was some opposition to a reconfirmation of
a policeman's contract in the past. And whether it's a department head or a board member, You guys fund the contracts for all department heads. If the term of that contract is three years, five years, whatever it is, once that contract is over, it's over. It has to come back to you for more funding. So you should have every right, in my opinion, to reconfirm
that person. And if you reject it, You're not firing that person. That's not the intent of that. The intent is for the city council to give advice and consent, and you have every right to do it. And it should be done. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Rubilar. Next person assigned up to speak, Richard Branco. No known address listed as homeless regarding a grievance with the Veterans Service Department. I think it's right, was not
running for the Charter Committee because you would have got a lot more seconded. To the agenda please, that you have regarding the Veterans Service Department. Thank you, Mr. Branco. Yes, Mr. President, Mrs. Vice President, members of the board, I'm here today to talk about, and well to let all of you now know that there's a serious issue going on in the Veterans Department and it deals with the application process for Chapter 115. I just want to start with saying these services were started in 1861 because soldiers from
Massachusetts fought against the British while everybody else turned their back. But yet, once the Civil War started, people from Massachusetts went to the front lines. So that right there being a Massachusetts veteran is something to be proud of, that that's the heritage we come from. The chapter 115, this program received a massive upgrade in 2024 to cover more expenses, car insurance, automobile repairs, things that I am applying for. They've also opened up the door now to help out homeless veterans. That's
what I'm trying to do with my application. You see, so this isn't just about me. This is about opening up the door for a lot of other veterans throughout the state of Massachusetts that need this benefit to receive this benefit. As a veteran, I am entitled to a Veterans Bill of Rights. I'm not smart like you guys, but it's 108 CMR 4.02, parentheses one. Rights to benefits and assistance, there's five basic things that this allows. It allows rights to benefits and assistance, Prefaired
treatment and privacy, employment. I don't know, I'm supposed to get prepared treatment. I've applied for a couple of positions here, never heard anything. But we know how the other people ended up. And legal and specialty procedures. I'm actually entitled to Veterans Treatment Court. If I was ever to get arrested before I get arraigned because of the BRAVE Act, which was in 2018, It opened up the door for a completely different kind of court system for veterans because we've
gone to a lot. I mean, these are benefits that I earned in the 90s before I met and he is. These are basically benefits that my grandfather gave his life for because, you know, I come from a big family of veterans. So one day I would be able to get these. I understand that because I come here and I do this, People see the way I talk to you guys and they really don't want to employ me. 15 seconds. In conclusion, just please remember by opening this door for me, you're opening up the door for
other veterans. Now, in violation of the Veterans Bill of Rights, there technically is no judicial punishment, but the SOP, the standard operating procedure, would be that the VSO is removed from his position. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Brinko. Next person assigned to speak is Grace Gerling, 45 Rock Street regarding CPC and CPA funds. Good evening, counselors. My name is Grace Gerling, the executive director of Three to Fall River Recreation. I am here today to respectfully ask that you reconsider
passing the CPC recommendations for CPA funds. Recreation is very proud to be a recipient of the CPA funds, which we applied for replacement windows. Our building located at 45 Rock Street is collectively over 100 years old, which makes it very challenging to maintain a consistent temperature and a comfortable temperature for our children and families that we serve. Adding to this challenge, heating costs have
significantly increased due to heat loss during the winter. Over the years, we have had numerous improvements to our facility, for example, a new sprinkler system, a new boiler, new roofs, HVAC system and much more. So we've invested quite a bit. Therefore, replacing the windows will greatly enhance the building's energy efficiency. The CPA grant represents not only an opportunity to repair our building, but also to
preserve a vital community resource that serve the public. I cannot emphasize how imperative it is to pass the CPC's recommendations. I thank you for your consideration and your support will make a meaningful difference in the quality of our programs and services to the community. Thank you. Councilman C1, 2 Councilor Cuara. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify one thing. You said you want us to reconsider our vote. We didn't get a chance to vote on this last time. It was just objected to. So no one voted against it or
in favor for it. Oh, okay. Am I mis- No, no, no. I just want to make sure. I don't want people in the public to think that we have to reconsider the vote. No, no, okay. So I apologize. So today we'll get a chance to vote on it, and so I'm sure it'll be fine. Okay. Thank you so much. No problem. Thank you for coming down. Appreciate it. Have a good evening. You too. Thank you. Mike. Thank you, Ms. Garling. Michael O. for Fire Department. She's your address for the record. 1198 New Hall, thank you. Mr. O'Regan? Hello, councilors. I'm back. It's good to see you all once again. I might need more than
three minutes. I just want to thank you, every one of you guys, for your advocacy and support over the last year and a half of my presidency. We've all been through a pretty hard time. I come to you on the eve of budget season. And I came here to ask you guys to reject any cuts that may come down from the fire department. As you're all aware, we still have manpower shortages and we have other major concerns that we have. But I'd like to open up thanking Senator Roderick's work in getting the $1 million
for the asbestos radiation at the center station. And I ask that this council ensures that the current administration does not take that money and use it to replace the money that they would have allocated for the repairs to the station. Our stations are making us sick. And currently, according to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network, 68% of firefighters will be diagnosed with some form of cancer. And 86% of the 68% will succumb to it. Being a fire service cancer survivor myself, I first hand experience with this. I was
the third member of my ladder company that was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2016. When I started this job in 1999, I was put into slot one at Stanley Street. And out of the cruiser guys that I went to work with, to my knowledge, only one did not have cancer. And most died from it. For clarity, I started with seven members in my slot. And I now close ladder five. Cancer is now the leading cause of firefighter deaths in the country. And there
are many studies to pinpoint the surge in these numbers, and I encourage you all to take the time to research it. Cause number one, and these are things that I've talked to you guys about before. Exposure to asbestos and diesel exhaust. We park our vehicles in the stations which we work and live. The hazard-in systems that we have in the stations are severely outdated, and finding replacement parts for them is nearly impossible because they no longer make those models, from my understanding. This leads to increased exposure from my members as they're gearing up and go on the calls in front of the exhaust tailpipe, because that's where we get dressed, and also when we're backing
in and returning the quarters. The solution to this would be the rehabilitation or replacement of either the stations or the has-been systems to systems that are currently available and reliable. Cause number two is PFAS and the fire foam and gear. Although no notable amounts of fire foam are located in our... 15 seconds. Motion to waive the rules. Motion to waive the rules has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Mr. O'Reilly. Thank you. Although there's no notable amounts of foam left in our stations, we got rid of it all as hazardous waste. The residue left on the
floors and the walls with these forever chemicals is present. But our gear is the real problem. During one presentation I attended, We learned that our gear that we put on contains PFAS levels of some one to two thousand times what's legally federally considered safe. And just for record, I'm one of the first firefighters to sue nationally from Massachusetts in the country, the gear and the phone companies because of the PFAS and the cancer. But we also have solutions.
And we're working on these now. We're getting 100 sets of gear, if you guys approve it, that's supposed to be PFAS-free. But we do have to send it out for testing because the companies have been caught adding PFAS. But there's also other chemicals that are in it, like benzene and stuff that is just as bad. It's so bad that our gear, when we throw it out, has to be considered environmental waste. And we wear this every day. And this is one of the reasons why our manpower levels should be increased. And some people will laugh, you just want more members. No. Because the less time we spend in
these gear at fires and at calls, the better we are. The higher power, the higher numbers, manpower numbers also allows us to shower within the hour if we actually had showers that worked in the stations, by the way. Cause number three is the exposure to carcinogens and fires. This is the reality of the job and the risks that we take every day. but our gear is stored inside the stations and they off gas and they release contaminants into our living quarters and on every surface we touch. We have washing machines to clean our gear after fires, but that prevents some
of this. But some of our members, we don't have a second set of gear, myself included. With the manpower truck shortages after the closing of three apparatus for budgetary concerns, many of our members respond to multiple calls and multiple fires without even having a chance to shower or change the gear. expose them to even higher levels. Solutions currently being addressed are the second sets of gear. So we did order 100 sets of gear as long as we get the money. Another is a separate ventilation system for us, for these rooms, as it's recommended by NFPA 1851
standards. But there's a few stats for you. Firefighters have an increased percentage of cancers due to occupation, 156% higher for testicular cancer because of PFAS. 138% increase in melanoma because of PCBs. 56% increase in mesothelioma by asbestos. 43% in prostate caused by arsenic and cadmium. And they go on and on and on and on. These are just a few numbers. And the numbers increase every single year. And the last study was done about
10 years ago. So I'm assuming that the 68% number is going to go a little bit higher. Although this administration has taken the most proactive steps in my career to rectify the mistakes of the past, more needs to be done. In my opinion, the outside appearance of a station is less important to me than the hazardous conditions contained within. With budgetary constraints when it comes to the lives and health of my firefighters, it says that the city is more willing to sacrifice their first responders than the auditor to prioritize their well-being. With the average cost of the cancer treatment and
hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including the overtime to fill the spots of the sick members, the city investing in safe, clean working environments should be a cost effective no-brainer. Yearly mandatory cancer screenings should be given by the city and it should be a priority. As of right now, my members pay out of their pockets, and they do, and it saves lives. Also, an increase in our staffing levels as previously negotiated after the Gabriel House fire, Our manpower levels will help
alleviate the health and safety concerns I laid out to you, not to mention the increase in our staffings to a minimum safety standard alone should be a top priority. But oftentimes the money aspect comes into play in which I ask, what price do you put on a human life? The entire world saw the devastating effects of below minimum standards with the Gabriel House disaster. Yet we're still running below minimum on four firefighters and 10 apparatus We also need district chief aides, which is an integral part of the 1710 standard. Our citizens
deserve better than, less than minimum standards, and our firefighters do as well. Gone should be the days of, if you get a contract, we can't offer you a raise because the increase is in the minimum manpower levels. Gone should be the days, if you want minimum manpower on trucks, we'll just close a few of your apparatus of your choosing, a statement which was made to be by an official. We should usher in an era where we take care of our first responders and give them the tools to effectively do their job as our citizens and our firefighters deserve no less. I thank you guys for your continued advocacy and support. Councilor in
seat four, Council Vice President Dion. So I'm in support obviously of buying, of appropriating the money for the turnout here. It speaks directly to your health, directly to your safety. My question is in listening to you, When you receive it, it's going to have to go out and be tested to make sure that it's safe. What happens if we make the purchase and it's not safe? Well, that's what you have a law department for. Quincy
recently had an issue where they ordered PFAS-free gear. They sent the gear out to be tested, and they found out that it was not. So there's a legal issue in the town of Quincy right now with that. We've been assured and I'm sure I can get the information from you that the the company Says that it's P fast free, but you know trust by verify so they're gonna sell it to you with a reimbursement promise Oh, that would be something that's good with the chief. I wish we had done that with our apparatus Really, but we should do it with
our gear It's a hundred sets and for a hundred ninety one people we need two sets mm-hmm for each My set is ten years old and I don't have a backup. Yeah, and that's pretty much the life of turnout gear is 10 years, I believe. Okay, with that, I yield. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Constance C1, Councilor Likadeen. Thank you. You might not have this answer to the question, but so we're looking to purchase 100 sets of turnout gear for a total of 237,500. So is that replacing gear, or is that to get you a second set of
gear? I believe it's to transition the PFAS gear out. So the intent is not to keep the current gear as your second backup? I'm not 100% sure what the chief is going to do, but I know that the trend is to go to all PFAS-free gear. 100 sets is a step into half the department, and then we're going to have to get second sets of gear after that. I know that there's some things going on at the state level to help fund that. Okay. My concern is that... We've got
roughly 100, I think in the budget was 187 firefighters, FTEs. I think you just mentioned 190. Yeah, 190. Something like that. So we're buying 100. So if we're replacing, that's not even enough to cover the entire amount of new gear, right? So I'm sure some of the gear, some of the newer gear for the newer firefighters probably could be used for a second set of gear. But if we're looking to truly transition this out, I would assume that we would be buying... brand new sets for everybody and then working out you know you later years out in the capital improvement
just trying to get at least second second set of gear for everybody else I think the initial purchase should be to outfit everybody so that this this no concern so that's just. Now we appreciate that that just as as one constant I know this this grants out there but all those grants are competitive and I know we're typically pretty good with receiving some of these grants but it just it's a challenge is it's going to. throughout not just the commonwealth, throughout the country in terms of the turnout gear. So yeah, I would support a full set of gear for all our firefighters and then start working on a second set of gear moving forward. So
that's just me as one counselor, I appreciate the comments that you made today. And I think every counselor here sympathizes with the hazard that goes to the day-to-day operation of being a firefighter. And we fully support it. support fixing up the stations and giving you folks the apparatus and the turnout gear and the equipment that you need to number one service the city but also do it in a safe manner. So with that I yield. Thank you. Anything further? Council on seat six. Council on second. I also agree I think we should outfit everybody. Just a
quick question. The firefighters in the academy now. Is that a new gear that we're looking to purchase or did they buy the old gear? I would assume that they still have the old gear. All right, with that I'll thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Oregon. Next person is having to speak, Pat Todd. I think that says Arizona Street, Fall River? Anawan. Anawan Street. Is there a number? 104. 104 Anawan. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, counselors. So my name's Patricia Todd
and I own the property at 104 Anawan Street which is right next to the Battleship, right next to the Narrows, right next to some other difficult buildings. Over the years my family moved to Fall River in 1936 to open sewing factories. Needless to say we all know the Fall River history. So over the years we've evolved the mills And now this particular mill is kind of an artist, craftsman, small manufacturing factory. Over the
years, I was able to get grants from Mass Development to develop the adjoining carriage house. So they replaced, it was a barn door, it was a barn. So Mass Development gave me the money to develop the carriage house on the outside. Now I've replaced the roof at the main mill. And, hi Sandy and Dave. The mill is right in the middle of the Fall River Waterfront Cultural District, right in the center. And we're trying to make it
so that not only is it energy efficient, but it's also safer. And what I want to do, and I've made it through the CPC, to replace the first floor windows. That's 70 windows. And that requires remediation because it's lead and asbestos and also buying the windows and doing the masonry. And we have the quotes that we've submitted to you all. And we're ready to pull the trigger as soon as the grant gets approved. And it will help
efficiency, but it will also help the walking area around Anawan, Pond Street, the Narrows, so you can see in. And so as my colleague David reminded me, people look at this mill as if it's an abandoned mill. It's not. We have over 100 businesses in there, mostly young people trying to run new businesses that need better heat, better conditions to keep their businesses going. I guess that's
all I really have to say. So I am asking for first floor windows for energy protection, remediation on the asbestos and the lead paint and the work that we need to do to get this project done which can improve the waterfront district. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk, there is a, for the community, There's a written communication that was given to the City Council Clerk's Office. There was
agreement for a, with the City that we allow this individual to submit their written citizens input. Madam Park. City Council President and members of this Honorable Council. My name is CJ Ferry and I reside at 300 Buffington Street. I am writing to express several concerns that need to be addressed by this Council. I want to first thank City Council Kadim for his objections at the previous City Council meeting and for exercising his authority that the City Council has. I would hope and pray
that the City Council act accordingly by denying many of the transfers that have been requested by the administration. Transfers throughout the year are unacceptable. It is evidence of poor budgeting and financial planning. Fall River is a small percentage of communities that transfer money throughout the year. Proper budgeting would have all of these items planned for and transfers should be for emergency situations only. If it wasn't included in the budget, then it does not happen. Look at other communities that do responsible budgeting. They make sure that
all capital projects are included in the annual budget. The way that Fall River handles transfers results in expanding an already approved budget outside of the regular budgetary process. Results are that departments get what they want after the fact by making their budgets look responsible and bare bones. The city council needs to stop this planned budget shortfall such as are in the healthcare account. I cannot believe that the city council cannot see this apparent fact. The budget is not a living breathing device. It is a
hard and fast rule approved by the city council as proposed by the mayor. At the last city council meeting, a person who gave citizens input did so only to complain about other people and their actions in the city. This is not what citizens input is for and the City Council should have called the point of order to stop a gripe session on the City Council time. It was obvious that a City Council wanted to engage this behavior and encourage it. This was and is unacceptable. Everyone has a right to speak on city issues and even on the actions or lack
thereof of their elected officials. But when it focuses on individuals or groups, it needs to be called into question. Please stop personal attacks from the floor by citizens and elected officials against individuals who are not present to defend themselves or present their side of the story. Fairness is necessary. It is no secret that I have been a strong proponent of repealing the CPA. Historically, the CPA has been used by politically connected individuals, the city for its pet projects and for the purchase of open
lands by the Water Department that are not accessible by the general public. This was not the reason or rationale behind CPA program, nor was it what was presented to the city's voters. If the city council is unwilling to place a question on the ballot to repeal the CPA, it may be necessary for the people to start an initiative petition to place a question on the ballot for its repeal. 15 seconds. Please consider the wishes of the majority and not that of the few who benefit from this money, including the city. Repeal the CPA. The city council sent up to the
administration a request for a home rule petition for a new form of government for the city of Fall River. To date, the administration has done nothing to allow the people to be heard on this matter. It has been said that the Secretary- 15 seconds is up. Motion to waive the rules. Motion to waive the rules has been made by Council LePec. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Council Vice President. Dionne, is there a discussion? Not much more. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. It has been said that the Secretary of State will not allow a home roll petition on this year's ballot due to the number of
questions that are appearing on the ballot does not preclude the city from doing a special election for this matter, as it is of great importance to many of the Fall River citizens. And yes, Councilor Kadeem, the people do want to say in how the money is spent as they have lost faith in their government and elected officials. Fall River needs a city manager and ward counselors. It is time that people are represented, and not the few of the North End. Finally, we have seen from year to year the absence of elected officials at meetings and in their positions. Accountability needs to start at the top. An absence of a city council meeting
because you want to go to Florida or for unknown reasons is unacceptable. You ran for this office and you knew the schedule of the meetings prior to being sworn. Making requests to change meeting dates is inconvenient to the general public, the people who put you in those chairs. I can understand illness or family emergencies, but a vacation or your kid's game is unacceptable. I would like to propose an unfriendly resolution in that if any elected official fails to attend a scheduled meeting, they should lose equivalent pay from their regular pay. In the private sector, people get PTO, vacation and or
sick time. Our city's elected officials do not get PTO, vacation or sick time. It is a part-time job. The historical abuse of these unaccounted absences need to stop and those people guilty of it need to be reprimanded accordingly. Tough love is sometimes necessary. Respectfully, C.J. Ferry. Madam Clerk, thank you. First item on our agenda on the Committee on Finance is a resolution to convene with the Director of Engineering and Planning and the Administration to develop a comprehensive funding strategy to match or supplement the City's annual Chapter 90 allocation. to increase investment in roadway improvements. Motion to lift from the table.
Motion to lift. The item from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Arpke, you want to join us at the table, please? And for the record, I'd like to just acknowledge that our colleague, Councillor Hart, has informed me that he is sick and under the weather and not going to be joining us this evening. Consular Pereira has also indicated that she had a planned engagement as well. So, Mr. Aguirre, welcome. Thank you for having me. Would you like to begin? For the record, my name is Dan Aguiar. I'm the Director of
Engineering and Planning for the City of Fall River. Emily Arpke, Director of Financial Services. Ian O'Neill-Souza, Interim City Administrator. So about a year ago, the Council began the process of filing a resolution to increase our funding for roadway reconstruction. At that initial conversation, we had provided an analysis of what the state provides in Chapter 90 apportionment, followed up by a fair share apportionment, which resulted in us receiving $3.3 million for fiscal 2026. Anticipated for 2027
in this governor's budget, which has not yet been approved, is an appropriation similar in nature of the $2.6 million for Chapter 90 funding. When she had done that apportionment back in 25, it was a five-year plan. So I think we should all be of the mindset that we will be level funded at 2.6 million for that five-year period coming into year two now. The fair share portion of that, which comes out of the millionaire's tax, is a little bit fluctuating with what that number may be. And that number won't be appropriated for a few months yet once the budget
gets passed. And they look at total budgetary numbers. 682,000 is what we received for fiscal 26 from fair share for a total of 3.3. In our initial discussions, everybody understood the need for funding to increase the ability to fix streets, fix roads, and fix sidewalks. And we had a discussion about what would be that appropriate funding amount that the council could pass a resolution to ask the administration to provide or include in capital and the improvement plans and budgetary
paperwork moving forward. We've had those internal discussions as well. I do know there was a question that went back to the original resolution and discussion about what that number should be. When we left here that night, it was the understanding that the engineering department could utilize a total of $5 million comfortably without a need for additional staff. So if we want to give us $10 million, we can spend $10 million, but we'll need additional staff as well. But $5 million a year total for
street reconstruction through the engineering department is a comfortable number for us to be able to work with. And that is beyond what DCM would be appropriated for the repair of streets. What people sometimes don't understand is that DCM fixes potholes, small pavement repairs, 20 feet, 30 feet in length, some sidewalk repairs. Currently, what we are encumbered in the engineering department is the reconstruction of streets. And through the Chapter 90 program, that dictates an extremely high level of reconstruction. That's
resetting granite curb, pouring new concrete sidewalks where some are questionable and some could remain, and either milling and overlaying a street or total reconstruction and full depth reconstruction. It doesn't give us the ability to take a look at a street like Copacut Road, and I applaud Councilor Canual for reaching out to me a week or two ago about this. If we look at Copacut Road that has a number of two or three hundred foot sections of roadway that need repair, we don't have the ability to spend chapter ninety dollars on that. If we were to be able to get
additional funding that are considered municipal funds, that would give us greater flexibility to be able to go out and make larger roadway repairs that DCM is incapable of taking on. They just don't have the staff, they don't have the equipment to do that level of repair. Councilor Dion had asked over the last year or two to deal with the section of asphalt on Bay Street at the bottom of, or at the top of Globe Mills Avenue at the bottom of Chase. That project fell in a location and a price point that DCM couldn't do. So we had to go through
the process of an actual bid for a $28,000 project. That takes time, that takes effort, that takes money. Luckily we have some money in an account that Liberty Utilities provides us for roadway repair that we could pull on some of those funds to make that kind of repair. This additional funding will give us the ability to do some roadway repair, also total reconstruction in some areas that need it, but it would give us some flexibility to be able to respond
to the citizens in a little bit more expeditious manner. So I ask you to entertain pushing that resolution through. When that funding becomes available through the city side, we've had those discussions. We have projects ready to be slated and bid. We have a $2.5 million project ready to go out for bid within the next month. That's utilizing our chapter 90 money. But we would also like to include a bid going out this summer for anticipated construction in the spring. that would
allow us to make some improvements on a Copacut Road. Right now from where Copacut Road begins in Dartmouth to the end at Quanapog, I think it's about 6,000 feet. I think we had that discussion. Chapter 90 would almost dictate that we have to rebuild the whole thing, where we probably only need to rebuild about 1,000 feet and make substantive repairs, not patching of potholes. This is cutting out two or 300 foot sections of road milling them and painting them completely to make real change and real improvement. So with that I ask you to give us that flexibility to be
able to respond to the citizens of the city. Thank you Mr. Aguirre. And before I acknowledge our colleague in seat one who was a co-sponsor of the resolution, just as a point of information, have you discussed with the finance team for your budget going into next fiscal year to achieve that $5 million number that you're looking for to get this moving? Yes, we have had that discussion. And has there been any kind of commitment given to you and your department for that? There has been, yep. Great. Council on seat one, Council on the team. Those are essentially my questions. So we at least have 2.4. It might be a little bit less, depending on... 2.6. You'll be providing or... Yeah, 2.4 we would be providing. Worst case scenario, we would
be funding 2.4. So it could be a little bit less. It could be. So if we get another fair share of 600,000 and we're at 3.3, it could be 1.7. But this at least gives us the ability to count on a total of five every year moving forward. And so we do have that and is that coming through stabilization? How are we funding that? No, so, sorry. We will be funding it. early so it'll be next year's funding like he said we want to bid it out kind of the summer so in July or August we'll send down a financial order at that point it won't be part of the general operating budget you don't
just throw two million in there like that so we'll probably be doing it through debt at this point just because we plan to do this kind of every year so it'll be a nominal amount that we kind of to include in that way. So the commitment right now, I know in our capital plan, we were trying to ease up to that five million, so we have it at 4.5. If this number really is coming in this high, we will try and make it that full five million this year. We just, with the way the capital plan was structured, weren't sure if we could jump right to that, but if this is where chapter 90's actually gonna stay at, we'll be able to do that and we'll give you the five million number. So probably I would say before September at least we'll have something down
to vote on to make up that number so that he can do construction in the spring. And then Mr. Aguiar, I know the differences between what DPW does and what you do, but given this harsh winter that we've had and the roads being in the conditions that they are, the number of potholes that we have, Do you feel that there's additional money that is needed? And I know you said you can only take on $5 million without any additional work, but is there a way or is there a need for us, I guess I would ask, for additional? What I would offer is, and I can't speak for DCM,
there are municipalities that have greater ability within a DCM department to do greater asphalt and concrete work. That's an entirely different discussion because then you're talking bodies, you're talking So yes, monies could be provided either to the engineering department or through DCM to help increase roadway construction. Have we done an analysis to see with some of these potholes, are they going to a point where DCM can't fix it, that it probably makes more sense to go out and get a vendor to go throughout the city? So what will happen
is we've had discussions about do we just hire a contractor to come out immediately in the spring? and just hit potholes that we've gotten through the winter. That was a proposal that I had rather than burdening our staff with just filling potholes for the first two months of the year, which they're never going to get to all of them. And then it gets to a point where you can't just fill potholes anymore. At that point, that comes to my attention for total reconstruction. And that's the, that's when we make that decision, it falls on my responsibility.
So I guess that's my line of questioning is have we done that analysis to identify if this has gone beyond what DPW can do and it hasn't gone into your purview where we probably need a little bit more money to be thrown into. It seems like there's some immediate needs that we didn't really anticipate with this obviously the snowstorm, the frost and all this other stuff. So I guess I'm just trying to identify. I appreciate the 2.4. I'm just trying to figure out. as a one-time stopgap and given the winter that we had is there additional money that can be thrown in to make sure that we can either hire an outside vendor or
through you to go start repairing a little bit more roads? So we haven't had this in the past and we've had this discussion actually as recently as yesterday right that we would like not if we get this pool of additional funds we will be able to hire an on-call a paving company every year, $500,000 that we have in a pool, we have a vendor procured that, hey, we need 100 feet of roadway done, here's the list of streets or when these things pop up so that we can be flexible but have a contract every year, a unit
cost for pavement and that's combining two departments working together. That's DCM and engineering figuring out, okay, this is beyond our ability So not having to go out and get an entire street bid just for a singular street, this contractor will be on call to make these kinds of repairs. So any additional funding, we'll be able to spend it, especially if we're dealing with two different departments to handle it. Yeah, I guess I'm not, I'm just not trying to throw money just to throw money at you. I just want to make sure that if there is an absolute
need, you know, I for one would support. Well, there is a need. There's no doubt about it. I mean, we've had the discussion that you could give me $100 million and all the people in the world, it's still not going to fix all of our streets to the standard that we need it to be. The $5 million is something that we discussed that my department can oversee the construction of that. If we bring DCM in to deal with some of these monies and oversee some of these projects, then that's manpower that we can use the same way. So of course, There is a need to spend more money on streets, but we don't have the
personnel to deal with it right now. I can say we haven't had a budgetary request from them at this point that they don't have enough money to handle what they've got. We do talk all the time, and if that changes, you know, I'll remind them to let me know and that there are options available, but they haven't told us otherwise at this point that they can't handle what they need to do right now, but we will check back in. Okay. And then just in terms of, I know there was some projects that we've had, out there that haven't been done, they're separate from the funding and I know we've got the quarterly review here. I
just haven't gotten through that list. Is there any money that can be freed up in that, some of the projects that haven't been completed? Engineering projects that haven't been completed? He's already going to tap into it. No, I've spent every penny that's been given to me. Okay. You do have that one million that you have that, yeah. Well, there is. So there is still a fair share number that, I'm sorry, a streetscapes number that had been I've been told that I can spend it in July when the new fiscal year kicks in. So all that? So he's preparing to spend it in July. Okay, so all that unallocated money is going to be spent, I
guess? On his end. That's my understanding, yes. His projects that are labeled on the engineering, yes. The rest of them, we're still working through some of the other ones, but that was one of the inactive projects that I actually moved over. Yeah, what's the dollar amount? It's $1,060,000. Yeah, $1,060,000. It was like a combination of? Bedford Street, streetscapes, Columbia Street, streetscapes. But you'll see it as one line in there right now. So you potentially have close to $6 million of, I guess, with that freed up money. Well, I have 3.3, the freed up $1 million with your money if we get it. Six, correct? But that million isn't reoccurring.
No, I know that. But I think he's spending that this construction season, not next. Because the money that we're asking for now will not get spent until... after January yeah this million will spend immediately as soon as it becomes available that's part of why we didn't increase to that 5 million this year because he already had all of those other project monies with that 3.3 that was close enough to five okay all right thank you councilman see two council of the camera yeah just a quick question Eastern Avenue yes some sections have sidewalks some known yeah we're looking to put
any side we are so so currently and I had mentioned this one I gave the year-end review. We currently have funded a half a million dollar design project for dealing with Eastern Avenue for the first phase of it with the anticipation of it becoming a transportation improvement project with MassDOT. That's called a TIP project where they will fund the construction entirely estimated at 32 million right now. That's just from Martine to Bedford. that's to
they wanted to do that section first because there were four signals MassDOT will not approve a project that has greater than four signals but right now we haven't designed that section of roadway complete reconstruction complete road diet change lane widths parking shared use paths the whole nine yards second phase of that project would be adding additional sidewalks to the north end bringing us to the rotary when will that take place the second phase will start as soon as this one gets awarded and approved I had asked them to take the whole project, but it would have been a $60 million project. And they said they wouldn't be able to get that on
the tip and programmed. But as soon as this one gets programmed and it has a year for construction, then we'll immediately apply for the second half. So basically two years. It won't get built in two years. It'll be approved. Once the state takes on a project and they program it under the tip, the Transportation Improvement Project, it gets programmed within a three or four year period of time depending upon and what's available for funds. So I currently sit on three different Serp Ed Commission meetings where we approve all of these projects. Sean's on one for Seconc as a matter of fact. So we sit and stare at the same meetings on Wednesday nights.
So the state and Serp Ed have been falling over themselves to provide funding to the city of Fall River because we've never tapped into that. And the reason why we really haven't is because it's difficult to say I'm going to spend $500,000 on Chapter 90 funding for design. rather than go fix someone's street. It's a difficult decision to make. But when you make it with the understanding that we're going to get a $32 million project for that $500,000, then you can understand the value of it. But that's time. So you said $32 million project and then the sidewalks are
going to be an additional $30 million instead of $60 million project for the north side of the city. No, no, no. So from Martine to Bedford. Yeah. roadway, sidewalks, all of it, that's 32. Right. To do the sidewalks on the north end of Eastern Avenue. Well, that's just sidewalks. So if all we want to do is add sidewalks, well, that's something different. If we're looking at an entire road diet change like we're doing on the southerly end from Bedford to Martine, it is almost equidistant, and it would be approximately the same amount of money, especially when you factor in. I would just try to factor in just the sidewalks for now because people
are walking in the wintertime when it's snowing around. We can look at sections of... adding additional sidewalk outside of these programs. A lot of sections on Eastern Avenue have sidewalks now and then there's some parcels that don't have. Correct. So I think we're just going to tie all those in together so that when kids are walking home from school and they're going that way, they're not walking in the breakdown. So one of the projects in the new two and a half million dollar proposal is off of Eastern Avenue. So it's Bedford Street from Eastern Avenue to Stonehaven. where currently there are intermittent sidewalks. So we are in the process of providing continuous sidewalk along that
section of Bedford. That's a wide road. Nowering up that roadway a little bit and providing those sidewalks. So there are locations there where we can add sidewalks. I would hate to go in and spend money adding sidewalks somewhere. I don't want to do that either, but I just don't want to prolong this, go three years deep, and there's still enough sidewalks there. Yeah. We could make a short-term fix of connecting the dots on the north side. I'd appreciate you just looking into it and see what the dollar amount would be to get that done. Certainly. Thank you. Appreciate it. Without a deal, Mr. President. Thank you, Councillor. Council on seat four, Council Vice President Deon.
Yeah, I just have one question. So in terms of the money and it not being in the fiscal 27 budget, moving forward, I get it. Because we're starting from square one. It's a new initiative. But moving forward, will it be in the budget? The debt payments will be, but we would never just add a $2 million line item into the budget for this project in general. So when I say it won't be in the 27 budget, to be clear, if there are debt payments that are going to be associated with that, they would. But I know that we issue debt in the spring, and we don't
make our first payment until that fall, which would be the next fiscal year. So that's why it technically wouldn't be in 27. But it'll always be factored in on the budget. the debt side, so you'll never see a $2 million line item in the budget. You'll see like a 300,000, 500, you know, the first year is probably gonna be like $200,000 payment each year. So. Thank you. That I yield. Thank you, Councilor in seat eight, Councilor Raposo. Mr. Agar, just out of curiosity, on Northeast Avenue, has any surveying been done yet on road sidewalks? Oh yeah, that's what the $500,000
goes towards, so the existing conditions plans. I surveyed land for 28 years, you know, in private practice. We had so many calls about modern technology and survey and what are people doing on Eastern Avenue because now it's entirely robotic. It's with drones. They actually, the company that we had hired, they do these bigger projects for MassDOT. They actually have shoulder-mounted harnesses with scanners up over their heads. I mean, it looks like you're going to go scuba diving. And they just
walk down the street. and it scans and surveys everything that's on the ground. So they utilize that type of technology in the survey that they've done. The existing conditions plans are completed. We needed to get that far to even get on the first schedule. The MassDOT program is very specific to date and deadlines. We've met all the deadlines so far. The next one is that they accept it and program it for timing. And in that planning, does it include additional crosswalks and actual buttons? It does. All the roadway intersections, all the signalization, all gets replaced. Okay. The geometry will change
because right now the pavement's so wide. There will be dramatic change, crosswalks, handicap ramps. Replaced and added possibly if needed? There is one, actually believe it, there's at McGowan and so on the other side of the bridge. Yep. So we've had the discussion, I brought up that that bridge area onto Martine Street at the end really won't be fixed until they replace that bridge. I said, I don't understand why there's a 10 foot gap between these two bridges, because if you close that gap, you could create an additional lane like a left turn. So we're having those discussions
as well. That bridge replacement will probably be a separate project. City won't be paying for it, but that is also being reviewed and designed as part of this. So alleviate some of that parking, some of that traffic. They did contemplate a light at East Warren and McGowan at Eastern Avenue. So they will add them if they need to. Got it, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councilman C2, Councillor Kamara. Thank you very much. I just wanted, I forgot to mention one thing. The bottom of Robeson Street, great job with that intersection. Thank you. It makes a big difference. It does, and it's not, it looks like a big deal, but when you just
sketch things out on paper and you see them implemented, you can make dramatic changes. But at the end of the day, that was a $1.8 million project, so it cost a lot of money. You know, signals are expensive. Right now, construction begins on Globe Four Corners within the next 30 days. And you're gonna see that same amount of dramatic improvement to that intersection. It'll be like, it'll be basically a new location in the city that none of us have ever driven through before. Are there four corners there or are there five corners? There are actually five streets, but I think four corners. Super confusing. Yes. That's what the debate is, four or
five corners on the intersection. I think there's five. But no, listen, good job on the bottom of the street. That was a big deal. Big help. I think people like that transition. Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Aguirre, I know you're due to us a updated payment email. I think we talked about quarterly maybe. Maybe there about so in the next month or so if you could just get that to the council and maybe we can have another discussion. Certainly I can. I actually I brought one printed version of the next list of streets that that's the two and a half million that we'll be going out with but I can get that out with an email form tomorrow. Thank you and I just wanted to say that I appreciate all the
work that you've done in your department as our colleague in seat two indicated and our colleague in seat one who sponsored this resolution with Council Latif back in 2015, 2025, that we're being less reliant on Chapter 90 money in doing this. And I appreciate your efforts on behalf of, I guess, anybody, everybody. Thank you. Before I leave, I would like to at least employ you to approve all proposed CPA funding, as I have two projects in that. One would be Father Kelly Park, and then also the Columbia Street Parklet that we're trying to get resolved as well. I ask for
your support on those items as well. Thank you, Mr. Aguirre. But all of the spending as a whole. There's a lot of good time spent by a lot of good people to get these projects approved. Thank you, Mr. Aguirre. Appreciate you. Thank you. Anything further on this item? Is there a motion to table? Is there a motion to do anything? Motion so made. Motion to table has been made by Councilor Peckham. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilor Kadeem. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The next item on our agenda is a resolution by our colleague in seat one, Councillor Kadeem,
whereas the Community Preservation Act provides a dedicated funding source to support community housing, open space, historic preservation and recreation projects, The City Council and the Community Preservation Committee, CPC, each play important and complementary roles in the review, prioritization, and appropriation of CPA-funded projects, whereas coordination between CPC and the City Council is beneficial to ensure shared understanding of funding priorities, projects, readiness, and long-term fiscal planning. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Committee on Finance and the
Community Preservation Committee meet with the administration to discuss upcoming priorities for Community Preservation Act funding categories and for potential projects. If you can come on down, please. Mr. President, just... I'll recognize you. Councilman C1 who sponsored the resolution, Councilor Kadeem. Yes, so while the folks are coming down to the table, I just want to take the opportunity. I know the resolution kind of speaks for itself, but we just did have a letter for assistant input that was talking about CPA funding and potentially repealing
CPA. So there's been some conversation with regards to that. So I think this would be a good opportunity, number one, to show the positive impacts that CPA has in the community and also address some of the concerns or that some folks have where it's either pet projects or going just solely to private organizations which again the City Council is the one that ultimately has a say on what the projects that get approved right so we have the opportunity to vet that but
I think there should be some conversation in terms of what the goal is what that looks like because I for one support CPA I don't want to see anybody trying to repeal the CPA I think there is truly a benefit for the the funding that comes in for preserving historic properties, open space, housing, things of that nature. I think it's truly a benefit. And I've often said, and I'm glad to see that the city is actually doing more of their due diligence to apply for some of the grants moving forward for more public purposes. And I think some
of these projects that are coming before us will have a significant impact on just what the public gets to utilize. So that's the reason I've had that conversation so hopefully we have some good dialogue and I understand everybody has the right to their opinion and I just think hopefully this would help to try to clarify some of the concerns that might be out there and if we can't alleviate them at least we've had some discussion and there is a little bit of back and forth with that so I'll turn it over to the committee. So if you may Mr. Brandt start with your name and address for the record. Sure my name is John Brandt,
Chairman of the CPA in Fall River and also a board member of the state Ann O'Neill Sousa, Interim City Administrator. Ms. Arpke? Emily Arpke, Director of Financial Services. Kristin Cantara Olivera, Robeson Street, Fall River, Vice Chair of Community Preservation Committee. Rick Mancini, CPC member and Chairperson of the Historical Commission. Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street, City Council, point D to the Community Preservation Committee. Is there a quick overview, presentation? Would you like to begin, Mr.
Chairman? Well, yeah, I would like to say we were here at the last meeting, which I do understand after four and a half hours why it ended the way it did. But my committee, we started in September to pass everything through eligibility. Then come January, February, we're meeting three times a month to come to the best projects that we think move forward for Fall River. Then in March, we make our decision and we bring it down to you. We did speed up our process because all this year's projects are shovel ready
and they're ready to start. So that's why we included our meetings at a much quicker pace to get our appropriation order down to you. they can get out to get construction bids in April, May to get things started. We have four park projects ready to go. Columbia Parklet, Father Kelly Park, Essence Repark. We have land acquisition, public safety with the Christ of Rock Church with their tower.
So we had 27 projects that we looked over this year. and I think we ended up funding 17, which we did have ended up this year with a 4.5 surplus. Thanks to CFO, Emily Parkett, we were able to return money that was interest earned, project money not spent, admin money not used. So this year we did have a windfall of extra funding, so CDREC were able to do 100% of their windows
and so the projects we're presenting I think are good projects for the city. All of our projects are always open to the public. We don't fund anything that the public can't get into and as far as someone saying the CPA is the piggy bank of Fall River, I'm glad to be the piggy bank because you know in our budget We cannot get out to fund nonprofits. It's 250 years. If you look at the Lafayette house, would never be the
way it is without CPA. It's just not in the city budget to fund them. Where would they get the money? From CPA. So as a taxpayer, it's one of the tax bills I don't mind paying because it goes back into my parks. It goes back into my museums. It goes back into preservation, saving things in a city that normal budget can't. And that's CPA and that's why it's needed. And I think every vote we've done, every project we passed, I
think is done Fall River well, you know. And that's pretty much opening. Anybody else have anything to say on the table? Council on the seat for Council Vice President Villar. I'm not against the CPA and continuing to fund that. However, there are, I've spoken with numerous people who aren't happy with CPA. One of the number one reasons I usually get from people are, this wasn't what we thought we were signing up for. We thought it
was gonna be for the open land, for the city, for things that impacted the city, not for private people. And that seems to be what people, the biggest sticking point for private individuals, privately owned properties, and especially when it's somebody who's coming back for a second or a third bite at the apple. I think that's what people have difficulty with. We passed out a list of books. For the 14
years we've spent roughly about $20 million in CPA money and roughly $11 million has been spent on city projects and the rest nonprofits. We have secured a lot of open space. The waterfront this year we've purchased more land so we have set aside more open space than we have before. I think we probably did between 68 and 80 acres of our open space that we have done. I mean, as far as private, private has been the housing, which if you're looking at that, that would be the Derby Tech building that sat for vacant for how
long? They've got 350,000 from CPA. And how much do you invest in that building? Five million. Same with the Nate building. The money that the private side invests in a project, we do, I think, come in. It makes the banks happier seeing that the city supports them. And I think the money is well used because it did set aside X number of units for affordable housing. I know that there is one in particular
on your list tonight, which actually is the Eagle, which is privately owned. And it's not their first time looking for funding. So that's one specific one where people have objection to. So how would you respond to that? Well, it's a historic building. And one thing with historic buildings are they are quite expensive. So when we start, we look at the corner of Durfee Tech. We've given money to the Bank Street Armory. We're
doing a housing project at the corner of Bank and Main Street. I forget the name off the top of my head. So we looked down that street and it was a Chinese restaurant. But the building is, the look, preserving it, I think it's well deserved. And the money they put back into the building too is their investment. So I think it's worth saving, you know, as far as preservation. Now in terms of the
Bank Street Army, that's owned by the city. So to me, I don't put that in that same category. So I guess, and I guess I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent here, because I do want to address what the taxpayer dollars, and I always am all about taxpayer dollars. So if I decided to buy a historic home or a historic building, I don't know, I think I look at it that I'm making, conscious decision to purchase something that I know I'm going to have to maintain, I know I'm going
to have to repair. So why should I have the expectation that the taxpayers are going to pay for things that I theoretically should be responsible for? So one of the things about the EGLE and a lot of the other things that we're funding, we take into consideration what they give back to the community. And a lot of people may not be aware of the things that they do. The EGLE has done a lot of, they've given the building to a lot of groups, private groups, nonprofit groups, so that they can make money for their
project. But I think a lot of people aren't aware of that. And if people were to watch our meetings, when we have our meetings and they come to us for the application process and we talk to them, before we deliver, before we vote. Those are questions we ask. What is the benefit to the community? What do they do? What do you give back to the community? And the EGLE does do things like that. That's part of our process. So we are aware. Maybe people are not watching the meetings. Maybe people are not
listening. But all of that if they were to watch the meetings they would be very aware of why we would vote on something like the Eagle. I just wanted to add one thing that hasn't been stated yet and you can't really overstate the value of this. So all of our projects that get awarded, one of the main things that the public gets is a deed restriction on that, whether it's preservation deed restriction, open space deed restriction, or an affordable housing deed restriction. And when you look at that through the lens of private properties
like the Eagle, so without CPA funding investing in the exterior of the Eagle, the public themselves would have no stake in how it should look from the North Main Street facade. If people in the community wanted it to maintain its historic appeal and its historic look, There's nothing without a CPA grant deed restriction stopping that owner from replacing all the windows with inappropriate vinyl side. There's nothing stopping someone from doing that without a deed restriction. So essentially when a private project receives
CPA funding and they get that deed restriction, preservation deed restrictions are for 30 years, that's a 30 year commitment that that facade is gonna be maintained, restored and preserved in the most historically accurate way up to the National Park Service's standards for historic preservation and rehabilitation. So there is no value, I think, lost in that deed restriction. It's only value gained for the community. Some communities, I think, actually prioritize that to the point where they
make a lot of their decisions on if it will get a deed restriction. If it's a historic house and they don't want it knocked down within the next 30 years, if they get a little bit, any small amount of CPA funding compared to the overall scope of the project, that earns the public a stake in that property for the next 30 years. So I just want that to be clear to the public. So let me ask one more question. again for the sake of argument so let's say somebody purchased I don't know a building whatever for $100,000
they've kept it for X number of years CPA funds have run into it to keep it historically proper etc and then they decide they're going to sell it they sell the property for especially in today's market $500,000 is there any percentage of reimbursement yes we have Up to the 10 years we have reimbursement. Up to five years they have to pay 80% back. After that it starts dropping back up to year 10. So if you were to take CPA funding in year six you wanted to sell, you
would have to reimburse us for the expenses, yes. Very good. Thank you. And there's still the deed restriction that goes with the property. Right, which goes 20 years beyond that. Yes. Just speaking about the money spent on say the Eagles, I'm going to use that as an example because it's been brought up. What we do is we don't fund the entire project in most cases. What it is is there's a rather large expense to put in the Interior or the Secretary of Interior standard windows and that's governed by the National Park Service, okay.
And so what we do is, and there might be a 30, 40 percent at times overrun of money or costs overrun to put in the historically significant say windows and what we do is we're trying just to up some of that cost so that we do get the deed restrictions and we will maintain the historic nature of the building and we're offsetting that additional cost to put those windows in so that's where you see a lot of that and people don't understand what's happening and as Kristen just mentioned if they watched our
programs they would see how well we vet these concerns before we make a decision I don't want to defend the people who don't watch your meetings, but in the city of Fort River, we have so many meetings every month. And maybe you're right, if they're interested in a particular project, they should watch when that project comes up. So that is an interesting point. With that, I yield. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor in seat one, Councillor Kadeem. Thank you, Mr. President. So if you take a step back and could you, I guess,
explain it for those that may not be aware of the process so you can go up to 3% where we currently are, talk a little bit about the state match, where that comes from, the Registry of Deeds, and then obviously there's an exemption. Just so folks understand the funding mechanism associated with that because I think that also gets lost as well. Yeah, that's actually we're probably the only We came up with a handbook last year and out of all the communities, 206 communities have CPC.
We're the only community that has a handbook. We just had Stuart call me to have, we did a few years ago, mapping of where our CPC projects went throughout the city. And he called us to see how we set that up. I'm not the computer person so I had a them to Sandy on that one but we come up with a lot of different things as far as the the local surcharge we fall we were pays 1.5% which the first hundred thousand has taken off the residential property value
that's in the first hundred thousand on commercial industrial to low-income families and low moderate income seniors non-exempt full commercial industrial exemption split tax they don't pay into the fund so if your house is 400,000 you take 100,000 off you're paying the 1.5 on 300,000 so does that answer yeah and then the match so I you know the registry ID filings changes every year because
When we first joined we were the 72nd city to join, one of the first gateway cities. Now we're up to 206. We did have a boom. Most of our money does come from the registry. Every time a house is purchased, X number of dollars goes into CBC. We did have a boom on the housing market so a couple of years ago we did get a bump. Now it's been leveling off with the housing market. But they're always
looking at different ways of getting money into CPA, into housing. So that always fluctuates. Last year, I think we received 20% or was it 18%? It's about 18% of what the tax is, is that we get it from the state match. I mean, I just, and I say that just because I don't think people recognize that there's also a match funding that comes into it that also has a benefit to preserving some of these projects, even procuring open space and things of that nature. So you talked a little bit about, I guess,
evaluating projects. Is there an evaluation criteria that you folks look for? Is there priorities that you place on, I guess, grant applications that are put forth? Can you just kind of elaborate on that a little bit? Yeah, they have to meet our criteria. Alex, you want to? Sure. So there's the three categories, historic preservation, open space recreation, and affordable housing. In terms of criteria every year, I think John has mentioned that there's an eligibility application process where we accept all applications and
kind of weigh them against those categories. And if they are eligible to submit a full application, Then they follow up with the full application, which includes full project scope, quotes, things of that nature. And then during that is when we review the applications, ask any questions that we need to. we take into consideration highly the city's general preferences for that year. Like we always cite what is stated in the city's master
plan, the downtown urban renewal plan. Any of the official plans, we hold that as a metric usually of what is a priority for the city in any given year. And it generally matches up with just that, the buckets of Community Preservation Act funding. Okay. Also, we take into consideration how the project is going to benefit more people in the community. We give a lot of thought to what's going to affect the most people. We
give a lot of thought to people that come in with letters of support from other organizations, from people in the community, things like that. that weighs in, we take into consideration if they're getting funding from other sources. If they're not just using CPC funding, but they're getting funding from other places, how much they're putting into their own money, like how much skin in the game they're putting into it. All of these things we take into consideration when we're considering applications. Geography is another consideration. We always try to spread it out geographically across the city,
although we are limited to the applications that are submitted any given year. And I know Councilor Dion had just mentioned some of the concerns with some of the, I guess, the private grants. So you're saying that when we look at for the grants that are submitted for private property, that they have to have a public component to it. Is that correct? On all those projects? The comment about someone purchasing a piece of property and then coming in for rehab money from us, if it's a private person who purchases a private home
for private rental, that's really low on the priority. Considering it's a historic home, it's still very low on the priority. They have to have a for lack of a better term, skin in the game, number one. And then it has to be available to the general public. Do they offer the building to the general public for its use? Things of that nature. Those are all part of our criteria. You just don't purchase a piece of property and say, oh, I own a historic piece of property. I'm going to go for CPC funding. That doesn't fly well. All
right, I yield. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, seat three, Council of Canyon. Thank you. I think my question comes around to my colleague in seat four's point about the for-profit businesses who are asking for money. When it comes to eligibility for, I don't know, benefits and programs and things like that, income is considered, right? So if I blow a certain threshold or a certain poverty line, I may qualify for programs. When
it comes to the for-profit, businesses asking for money. Do you guys ask for their books? Do we know how much profit they're making? We don't ask for the books, no. Say it's a housing project like Derpy Tech. He did come in with banking, other means of funding that he presented to us before we did our funding. So we do see that, yes. And then we talk about, we put aside the affordable
units on that. So that's how we look at the nonprofits as far as that. We have in the past not taken projects that wanted to do housing, but didn't have any financials to back it up. Our funding coming in, but they had no financials to give us, so we didn't move them on. So if one of these businesses was highly profitable. I don't know if any are or aren't. And they could afford to do this on their own, but they're just seeing if we would pay for this, I guess is my concern.
They probably wouldn't want a deed restriction placed on their property and have affordable units if they are highly profitable and don't need the money. They're not going to put themselves into a restrictive use most of the time. So I don't think that's typically the case that they see because nobody with that much money is going to ask for restrictions to be placed on their property. I could be wrong but from what I've seen with these projects that's not the case. Point of information if I may. Council on seat for your point of information. So that comment is relative to housing? Housing. Okay what if it does not involve housing? It still involves historic preservation.
with restrictions yeah you know I understand it comes with restrictions on the use of the property afterwards so their hands are tied with what they can do with the property and how they can manage it and how it has to be used so it there's just a litany of restrictions that can be placed on it for a lot of things a lot more than what they're paying for the deed restrictions just explain that a little bit more for me there's a 10-year restriction it's usually a 30 year 30 year the repayments 10 the repayments is 10 years but the restrictions always 30. okay that's helpful I yield thank you thank you Councillor Councillor in seat to Councillor Camara
it is a quick question the waterfront study that we're looking to get twenty eight thousand dollars for What is the project for the, what is the cost of the entire project for the study? Is there a cost for the project? We received probably for that project, and I say that because I'm on the cultural, Waterfront Cultural Committee also, the pro bono of approximately $85,000 from Roger Williams University
on part of that evaluation. study on most of the property, on much of the property. And we're looking now to maybe get a best use study done, which the university does not do. And they're going to be back again to do further in-depth pro bono work for us on Form B's and Form A's. But we're looking for a little bit of money to do a best use study to help pull all of this together. How much? a little bit how much well the request was twenty thousand twenty twenty
four thousand dollars twenty eight thousand dollars but that does that project cost ninety eight thousand dollars to complete the entire study no no this is the study would be just that amount of money we would be able to use the complete yeah the pro bono work was to do form a's and form b's which is to evaluate properties there were 18 buildings and for pieces of property, the ironworks, things of that nature were looked at. And history, gone back as far as they could. Again, that particular work is going to be replicated again
next fall by the Roger Williams University. And again, it's pro bono. This particular funding that's being looked for is going to be to do a best use study, you know, what can be best channeled in through all of this area. Thank you, Councilor. In seat four, Council Vice President, the honor. Yeah, I'd just like to follow up on that a little bit. When you say best use, best use of, so correct me if I'm wrong, the properties on the waterfront are either state-owned or privately owned. Would that be correct? They'd be
both. Right, it's both. It's either state-owned or privately owned. There isn't any property on the waterfront that isn't owned by an entity or a person or a company. Is that a safe statement, a fair statement? I guess I don't quite understand what you're asking. The property is all owned by private individuals, either businesses or things that obviously have land there. Right, so the study is best use of what? Of somebody else's property? I'm confused. Well, I guess to assist
in tourism development and things of that nature. identified. What is that? Yeah, I'm sorry. The historic property that was identified in this study by the students from Roger Williams, the best use for those properties. And also tourism development within that cultural district. So we can put restrictions like planning guidelines and stuff like that so when people are putting in for projects or developing buildings or changing buildings that there's a land use plan requirements within that so I think that that's part of what the best
use means and now and now we're speaking historically because I guess my next question would be so we're gonna we have 20 parcels of land that are going to be developed on the waterfront if we now identify them as historic properties or or being on a historical registry doesn't that limit the What can be done with that land and why would we want to do that? I think what this study is going to do too is going to tie in like old Fall River with new Fall
River. So it will kind of give us a guideline of how we can proceed with our waterfront. So you can tie in old Columbia Street adding in the new 79 corridor. So it will give us more ideas how the battleship, everything flows in together, how the city just And it's not 18 properties. It's the total Columbia Street corridor and the entire waterfront. You know, we have not sat with this or a company at this point. So we know what we'd like to see done. We've got
an idea. And it's not 18 properties. No, no, no. I understand. It's the entire. Exactly. They will be part of I'm sure. Correct. But remember in next fall they're going to be doing another 18 pieces of property. They're going to keep researching that whole developed area. So we're not at this point, we haven't sat with a consultant in that area as of yet. So is it vague to a degree? Yes. And
the work he's talking about is done by Roger Williams. That was gratis. That's not part of this. Right. No, I understand that. And it's worth noting that it does include like the public land, including the public ways. Okay. And the privately owned buildings, parcels of land, however you want to refer to it. So let's say this study is done, you identify this one's, you know, potentially historic. If the person who owns that property doesn't choose to have that put on
a historic registry, they don't have to, correct? A lot of it is on the historic register anyway. Most of the properties there are on the Fall River Register, which basically puts a six month demolition delay. But when you're doing a project like this, the scope of information that we get about all of these properties that adds to our historic knowledge, we can use that in turn later to develop programs for tourism, for arts and culture, for things like that. at the waterfront. So
it is a resource that we can use further. But you're not going to do that unless you study these properties first, unless you know the history of these properties, you know how everything is tied in. So if we want to market Fall River, we want to work on the historic aspect of Fall River and being able to teach things, you need these studies to be done first. You need that history to know first and the only way you're going to do that is to fund projects like this. At this particular time we have a
graduate student from Roger Williams University again pro bono working with the DCR and with Sandy and Dave Dennis pulling together a walking tour of that whole area. And it's in the works at this point. But again, that's all part of this one program that's being done. So to give you a specific focus on what that $28,000 is for, we know what we wanna do, we know what we're looking for, we
know how we wanna pull it together, but there are so many working parts. And we're getting so much pro bono work here done to assist in this. And again, this study that's being done now is very active. Thank you. With that, I'll yield. Thank you, Councillor. In seat three, Councillor Canyo. Thank you. First question, there is a notation that there's a required 10% spend per category. Where does that rule come from? State law. State law. Okay. So to that extent, there's a,
I think it's community housing category. that there's $94,325 that's listed as getting to the required 10%, but it looks like, I think, if I'm interpreting it correctly, it's just going to reserves, is that correct? Correct. Oh, do you wanna take that? Go ahead. I'm guessing you're asking why. Yes. So there was no community housing applications this year, so that 10% automatically gets pushed into the bucket for use. in future years, future applications. Any bucket or just community
housing? 10% it has to be split into each bucket. So if none is spent that year, it goes into the community housing bucket. The only housing we had was a Deacon house. Yeah, that one was a double category, historic preservation and community housing. Okay. And then my other questions around what looks like we're starting to bond. I see Florida Fire Museum, Central Fire Station, five-year bond. Are these bonds by Community Preservation Committee or are these? So the city does the bonds. First of all, those are all already bonded. Those are bond payments that you're seeing. They've been bonded
years ago now. So the votes were taken. The city, I'm gonna say, supports in the financial management of actually taking out the bonds and letting CPA know what the payments are each year. But they kind of do it through us and through our bonding process because for them to go out and have a whole firm and do all of that, it's all done as one with us. pay for all of those payments clearly through this directly okay I think that's what I want to verify that CPC is not doing any bonding on their own no no thank you thank you I really did those two bonds that year was because our funding was
a little low that year and those are two good projects we wanted to get started with the central fire station the fire museum we thought it was good to bond and use our money a little wisely with funding other projects thank you anything further And just for the public certification and those in the room, we do have item four on our agenda in full council today, the appropriation for CPC. So it will be on our full council shortly after, very shortly. Hearing no further discussion, is there a motion? Motion to adjourn finance. Motion to adjourn finance has been
made by Councilor Opposed, seconded by Councilor Peckham. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Let's have it. And if anyone, this is all on the website. Madam Clerk. Councilor Skidim. Here. Kamara. Here. Canual. Here. Dion. Here. Hart. Peckham. Here. Pereira. Raposo. Here. President Ponte. Here. If everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer. Mr. President. Councilor Cito. If we could acknowledge the passing of Mr. Liberal Silva. He was instrumental in this community, one of the most outstanding gentlemen in this community. He practically built the gates of the city by himself with his construction company and
I think Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, and a salute to the flag. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Motion to lift item one from the table. Motion to lift item one from the table after the clerk reads it. It has been made by Councillor Robozzo. Seconded by Council. No. Seconded by. We need a second. Motion to lift the item from the table. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor
Kamara. Is there a discussion on lifting the item from the table? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, good evening. Welcome. Thank you. The first item is the communication from the Mayor and in order to accept Mass General Law Chapter 90, Section 17C, which relates to the establishment of 25 miles per hour speed limit. in a thickly settled or business district, the item was subjected to at the last meeting. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Harry, none? Roll call?
Councilor, you want to speak? Councilor Seat 1, Councilor Kadeem. Are you going to speak to the joint? Yeah, thank you. I should have probably. Because if not. Thank you very much. All right. So for the Council's own edification, members of the public. There was an extensive meeting that occurred this morning with the Mayor, Corporation Council, as well as the Chief and Council of Kadeem and myself. With the leadership of our current Acting Chief,
Hoare, we were able to schedule another meeting with the Mayor to discuss this ongoing saga between City Council's position and the Mayor's position with respect to investigating the Forover Police Department by virtue of our resolution. After the conclusion of that meeting, the Mayor and his team worked with me today with the help of our Deputy Chief and our Acting Chief J.T. Hoare to provide a press release to the community. The administration felt that while they did send a communication to post after I submitted a
complaint as a private citizen and it was investigated, sending a full and complete package to post with an internal investigation that was complete. The Mayor and I and my colleagues, my colleague in C1 who was in the meeting with me today, also discussed at length trying to make sure that we move this process forward so that the tone and tenor of this council in moving forward collectively as both branches of government, it was understood, it was accepted, The mayor is looking forward to working with us. We're looking forward to working with him to work past any issues that we may have. I want to say the efforts behind this were a collaborative effort.
There were some very challenging conversations, but I believe on behalf of the council, speaking as one member, that we're all moving forward in a positive manner. The mayor is looking forward to doing the right thing. I don't think there was ever an issue with that going forward, but I think the council spoke loudly. and we're looking forward to seeing the results of this investigation from Post whenever that may be, but there is full cooperation. There's no need at this point for Council Vice President and Councillor Peckham and I to engage any kind of firm to conduct any kind of investigation
because Post is going to be doing that. I have confirmed with speaking with our Council Vice President as well today that the full packet, including my report, is with Post for them to begin deliberate and conduct any kind of necessary investigation they find necessary. Council Vice President. Yeah, I would like to, we have a correspondence that was on our desk when we got here that we couldn't anticipate would be here and I would like to make a motion to send this to public safety to just keep it current and
So, so, Councillor, just so you're, just for the public's own edification and the clerk, there was a, we're speaking of the joint press release by City Council, the Mayor's Office and the floor of a Police Department. That would be correct. That is on everybody's desk. And just so everybody's aware, this was the joint press release that was released today to members of the press and you are making a motion to refer this item to the, as it is not anticipated, I will allow it. To the Committee on Public Safety. To the Committee on Public Safety. There is a motion made by Council Vice President Dion. I'll second that. To refer this item to the Committee
on Public Safety. Has been made and seconded. Is there discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Again, I just want to just, not to be redundant, I think that the effort for all of us to move forward and pass this is pretty evident after the meeting today. And this is just an example of government kind of working collectively. This doesn't mean the council or the mayor are going to take their feet off the gas in terms of doing the right thing, but I feel that it is with the proper authorities at this point, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues in moving this
forward. Any discussion on this? I'll entertain it. Thank you. Just. Counselor C2, Counselor Martin. So whatever agreement or contract that you had is null and void? Correct. And it has been acknowledged. Allegation to the city or anyone else to make payment on any of that? That is correct. Just so you're aware, I reached out to Attorney Reber and Mr. O'Donnell, who was going to do the investigation. I've advised them that at this point we are not moving forward. He acknowledged it. He thanked us and he advised us that if we need him again in the future, that he'd be happy to work with us. Anything further? Thank you. Madam Clerk.
Let's read, actually before we do that, there has been a motion to adopt on item one that has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on that item? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Motion to lift item two from the table. Motion to lift item two from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion on lifting the item from the table? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk. Next item is the communication from the mayor and a gift order to accept a donation of services of a professionally trained comfort and
search and rescue dog for use by the emergency medical services department. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt as it made by council vice president Deion. Second. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and for the community if you'd like to see the dog, the dog is here. Chief? Welcome aboard, Scoop. I don't think the dog is going to shake our hands, but you can all see the dog. You can jump on my lap if you like. No, we're not going to do that. We are in full council, so the community can see the
dog. I just have a question. Who let the dogs out? I have no idea. Anything further? All right. Thank you very much. Item three, Madam Clerk. Motion to lift item three from the table. Motion to lift item three from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo. Is there a second? Seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk. Item three is the communication from the Mayor and the Community Development Agency Year Two Annual Action Plan. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by
Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion on the adoption. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item four from the table. Motion to lift item four from the table has been made by Councillor Robozzo. Second. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody here? Opposed? The ayes have it. Scouts here. Scouts here. Item four is a communication from the mayor in an order appropriating $4,459,575. $1.32 from the Community Preservation Act funds for fiscal year 2027 community projects. Motion to
adopt. Motion to approve has been made by Councillor Raposo. The appropriation. Motion to approve the appropriation has been made by Councillor Raposo. Do I hear a second? Do I hear a second? One last time. Do I hear a second? So let's get clarification. What's your point of clarification? Is this all together or is it? Yes, so the City Council has an appropriation order before us. Per section 2-367 of the City Charter, we have the ability to approve this item or veto this item. Point of information, I think the question is, is it
just on the appropriation or is it all the projects that are before us? Right now what it is introduced to this Council is the full appropriation of the four So it's just the appropriation into the various buckets that's because I think they think it's the approval of the projects. Well, it is the appropriation to approve the projects. That's my understanding. It should be two items, right? It should be an appropriation. It should be one, right, because we can have an appropriation without any projects. So that's the clarification. And then it would be approval of projects as recommended.
Well, each of these items, Counselor, an appropriation and a project attached to it. Correct. Right now that's the way the appropriation order has been presented that's correct. The appropriation order has been presented revenues and reserves, Mass General Fund 44B section 47 in the aggregate amounting to 4,000,000, 459,575,32 appropriated as follows and there was a another ledger of projects and what they're intended to be and they do add up to that same amount. I believe in the past we had the ability to
go to to yeah to vote on them individually so I'm a little bit confused on that and if this is just strictly 100% across the board then what do we do so I have I'm just reading you what the charter says I asked that question today that's what we have the appropriation order has been reintroduced I can read it for you if you'd like City Council may approve or veto an appropriation made pursuant to Mass General Law Section
C-44B. Vetoing the appropriation means it's an up or down vote. A motion to veto would reject the appropriation and show the Council's non-support of the appropriation. The Mayor may have to submit the vetoed appropriation. That's what I'm reading. What did you read? per section 2-367 of the city code. So from my personal experience, we had this conversation, I think the last time we did this, in my mind, it should be an appropriation, two separate votes. The first should be the appropriation into the
categories that have listed, right? Getting the 10% into each category, the unreserved, and then that's done. And then we have always, and I don't disagree, we have always voted on individual projects. Because if not, the other thing is if somebody has an issue with one project, you're going to reject all of them. All right. So I'll be okay by going down each item if you would like. Is that the will of the council? So we can have the clerk introduce each item, the CPA administrative expenses, $45,000. We can make that individual vote and we can do it that way. Is
that what you would like to do? Yes. I have no problem with that. I'm just reading you what the charter says because I anticipated this question. Is that okay? That's what we will do. Mr. President, I will draw my motion. going to what? I'll withdraw my motion to adopt. Fair enough. Great. Madam Clerk, we'll read. Counselor? I guess I'm confused just the way the appropriation order is written, right? So it says, for CPA, let me go for the, I guess, the second one. For CPA open space outdoor recreation projects. In my mind, that is solely the appropriation into that account. It is not the approval of the
projects. That's how I read that. Ms. Arpke? I want to make a motion to waive the rules as made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Raposo. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Ms. Arpke? Councilman, seat one has the floor. I just, the process that we're doing this doesn't make any sense because we have, the only thing that's coming before us from CPC are recommendations. It is this council's responsibility to approve those projects. So if you're lumping them all into one projects and I mean that, I don't understand how that makes any sense. So I can just speak. I look back, this is my first year
sending it down. The last one, I think last year, either Cedric had sent down, I had just started or it was done even before I started. But this, I look back the last almost five years when I was pulling to create this, this is the way it's come down literally the last five years. If there was a separate order. down to approve individual projects. It doesn't come from my office and I'm not aware of that but when I looked at the package that was put in front of you that's the exact same way the appropriation order has been written every year. If there's a separate project approval. So I guess I don't I haven't seen that in there so I don't know where that comes from. I guess what I'm
saying is this document that's before us is only for an appropriation. It's an appropriation. Not on the projects themselves. Correct. Out of curiosity we're going to be getting a supplemental that allows us to vote on the projects? Have we voted on the projects already? No. No. I can do, so like I said, I haven't seen that come from my office before, but I can, right. But you would need something to do. We're going to take a two minute recess. Yeah. Madam Clerk, if you can reintroduce the item for the record. Sure. Item four, full council. Item four is a communication from the mayor in an appropriation order in
the amount of $4,459,575.32 from Community Preservation Act funds for fiscal year 2027 community projects. And just for the councils and the community's own edification, we took a recess to get some further clarification. The administration intends on sending down to us at the next City Council meeting for FY 2027 the projects on a ledger. So it's the will of the Council to vote on each individual project prior to or after an appropriation order. Is there a motion by this Council to action on this item? Motion to table. Motion to table has been made by Councilor Pozo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. All those in favor? Aye.
Opposed? Council in seat three opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item 5A from the table. Motion to lift item 5A from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have. Item 5A is a transfer and appropriation in the amount of $225,000 from FY25 surplus revenue to facilities capital. Is there a motion?
Are we with us guys? Motion to adopt. I need my colleagues to pay attention. We're at full contact. I'm here, I'm reading. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Council Vice President Dion. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Canuel. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item 5B from the table. Second. Motion to lift item 5B from the table has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 5B is a transfer and appropriation order in the amount of $250,000 FY25
surplus revenue to police capital. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Councillor Peckham, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item 5C from the table. Motion to lift item 5C from the table as been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Council in seat one. Thank you. Can I just wave the rules and have the administration come down real quick? Motion to waive the rules and have the three members of the administration come down. Actually just finance director. Just finance director. Ms. Arpke? Motion to waive the rules has
been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. To be clear, the item that's before us right now is just the motion to lift the item from the table. Motion made. Motion to lift the item from the table has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Is there a motion on the floor? Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adopt. Motion to 5C. 5C is correct. to adopt has been made by Councilor Reposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion, Councilor in seat one, Councilor Kadim. So just in terms of the turnout gear, so the 100 units that we're going to get for
turnout gear, is there any way to amend that to do the 200 so that they all have brand new turnout gear and then all subsequent years we start working on getting second set of gear? So we, this kind of split down in the capital plan, the request of the chief to split it up between the two years. Because of the way that we replace the gear, it's a lot of measurements. With the free cash, we couldn't get out all 200 gear. We have to measure every firefighter for it, put it on order, and then receive it. So it's also the
fact that we're in this position because we had such a big class come in and we've done something like this where we replace it, then it all has to be replaced at once and it's a bigger financial burden. So we're splitting it out over now and then the beginning of next fiscal year to kind of it up and make it more manageable in the long term so I can talk to the chief and see if he thinks he could handle at all anymore this year but I don't think that they could get it out the door in time at this point is the understanding yes so I'll support what's before us but if you can just work with the chief to see if this if he can do that then
if we can potentially get some additional funding sauce back down to the council for that we I personally I can't I won't speak for my colleagues but I I'd support if we can I think at least one set of brand new gear for all the firefighters and then at least their, whatever they currently have, could be used as a second set of gear. To be clear, I think that some in the last year or so, maybe even two years, have been bought new as people have come on or as they need to be replaced with the new current gear. So to be honest with you, we don't actually need a full 200. It's really, I don't know an exact number and I'm not going to try and hold it, but
it is... But even if it's another 100, then we've got at least we started to get people to get at least a halfway decent set of second gear. Correct. That's all. I will talk to him and maybe have something before you again. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor NC, 6, Councillor Peckham. No, I'd ask the union president, the last two recruit classes, the one that's in there now, did they get the PFAS free gear or did they? Yeah, my understanding, and again, I'm not the fire chief, but we've talked about this at length, is that last at least year they've been buying anytime they buy a year they buy the
current PFAS free so the current class definitely should but I can't speak to how far before that but I know the current ones are okay I like councilor on seat one said would be a proponent of buying everybody a new set up front because we're buying you know reason for that this is to purchase the PFAS free gear correct so if they if the PFAS free gear is let's say soiled they got to go to their backup gear which has PFAS in it so we're kind of keeping the purpose of keeping them away from it so I like to see
them all get their gear fresh up front and then maybe down the road a couple years by the back you know buying a new set and then they can use that set from this year as a backup set and then we I think the problem is the fact that we get in that 10-year cycle. So if we buy everybody a new set now in 10 years, we're going to have to buy another 200 people, a much higher cost again. And it's just a rather large cost to do in one year ever. And then it's also the management. Like I said, every firefighter has to be measured individually for their gear. And then orders are placed
that way. So I think it's the management of doing a process like that in this time frame is just... So the plan was to do it early 27. It wasn't to wait till this time next year. It was just to kind of break it up a little bit more and give them that time and space that they need. They've been measuring as soon as this order was sent down, they started measuring because it takes that much time. Okay. With that, I yield the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Consumption seat three, Consul LeCannuel. What you just said, I questioned that a little bit. The hundreds, 100 sets, that's one per person, right? Or no?
You said you're splitting it between two years. Yes, so it's 100 this year, 100 next year. Is that half the department or all the department getting one? That will be the whole department. Over the two years. Well, some of them may already have one, some of them will be their second. So it's just kind of the cycle of need. I don't have that full listing breakdown. The chief was here last meeting and nobody had any of these questions last meeting when he was here, but he is out sick now. So I can't answer it to that great of detail. I can speak with him and get answers back to you. I know that he can answer it a lot better than I can. I think I was just going in
the direction that if it's a second set for somebody, they don't need to be remeasured. So for the, it would be, they need measurements every time. I mean, when they got their gear 10 years ago or, most of these people don't have new gear from last year. So they probably need to be remeasured. It's just the way it goes. You don't want to order it and then have it not fit or not be right. So they do measure them for all of their gear. every time the orders are placed. If you want to talk to the fire chief further about this, I can't speak to that. I will, thank you. Thank you. Councilman, seat two, Councilor Kamara. So the
measurements would be small, medium, large, x-large. No, no. Why not? That's not how fire gear, I don't, is there a firefighter in the room? That's not how that works. I don't know what to tell you. Okay. It's not how it works. We know that we're going to hopefully get something down from the chief. It's like a suit, they measure it. Well, Ms. Arpke? Could you please speak to the chief, to our colleagues? I think we're all trying to get the turnout gear to the entire population of firefighters. So can you work with the chief and find out if there's an appropriation that's necessary? There is. To be very clear, there is. He asked for it
for next year. So there is more that he's asking for. I can ask if he can move it up. Great. Thank you. Anything further on this item? There's a motion to adopt. Any further discussion? Motion to adopt has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Motion to lift items 5D to 5F. Motion to lift items 5C, D, E and F has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Kamara. Is there discussion? We just see. All right. D, E and F. Motion
to lift D, E and F from the table has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Kamara. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Opposed on lifting the item from the table? I would like to separate E from the table. We are just lifting the items from the table. We will introduce the items individually. Yep. Thank you. Sure. Has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, read item D, please. If I could just read item C for the public certification. Yes, please. 5C, that was already voted upon, $397,500.
the FY25 surplus revenue to fire and emergency services. The next item to be voted upon is item 5D for $245,000 from the FY25 surplus revenue to community maintenance capital. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Councillor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councillor Canula. Is there a discussion on this item? Councilor in seat eight, Councilor Raposo. I don't know if we're not going to have the answer per se, but on the demolition of or the removal of existing
light poles, I know that study was done back in 2018. Has there been any updates to that or to those poles that need to be removed? I know Saturday I was at Britland and there's one of them with a big X on it. I'm sure it's one of them, but we don't have an exact list of which poles are being removed in which parks. that we can get that information. Would you like to request that prior to making the vote or would you like to send? No, I know there's some that I've seen in myself that need to be removed, but I'm curious if that study is a little old now. If we can get that information after the fact, it's fine. Understood. Madam Clerk, can you please get that
to our colleague and share it with the full council as soon as available? Thank you. Thank you. I actually have that, sorry. Council in seat three, Council of Canual. That information was shared with me today by the director and I can share that with the clerk to share with the rest of the council thank you counselor thank you hearing no further discussion on the motion to adopt that has been made and seconded all those in favor opposed the ayes have it item E item 5E is a transfer and appropriation the amount of 1 million six
hundred thousand dollars from the FY25 surplus revenue to demolition revolving fund Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. And item 5F is for $3 million from FY25 surplus revenue to the Employer Health Trust Fund. Motion to refer the Committee on Finance. Motion to refer the item to the Committee on Finance has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there discussion on the item? On the referral? Council in C4, you good?
If you want to speak, I can see it. Council on seat four, Council Vice President Deion. Yeah, I have to speak on it. Of course. But it's going to come up in finance, so it's almost a mute point. So I was actually going to make motion to reject it, to be honest with you. But the reason being, so in our budget book, FY26, if everybody remembers, the budget was $47,940,000. We only appropriated $41 million. We were $6.8 million short, so it was not balanced. Money was transferred, more money, so the numbers were adjusted. We got a
supplement in our budget that brought it to $45,603. And if I look at this request, this transfer, it states that the original revised appropriation was $43 million. When in the budget it was not, it was 45 million. So that tells me that the budget was short. And if you transfer 3 million now, we're going to be just about, just shy of a half a million dollars over what the original appropriation was supposed to be. So if we really only
have 43 million, this transfer is to cover it being short. Does that make sense? I totally agree with you, yes. And you made that point. You made that point clear during our budget negotiations last year as well. Motion to refer the item to the Committee on Finance has been made and seconded, hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item six from the table. Motion to lift item six from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by? Second. Council Vice President Dion, is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes
have it. Item six, Madam Clerk. Item six is the communication from the mayor to the city council regarding a resolution that was adopted at the regular meeting of the council held on March 24, 2026. Motion to accept place on file. Motion to accept the item and place it on file as it made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by? Second. Council Vice President Dion, is there discussion? Councilor NC Six, did you want to speak on this item? No, I'm all set, thank you. Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item seven is a request from
the Mayor to initiate a City Council action on a proposed expansion and amendment to the City of Fall River Waterfront Downtown Housing Development Zone. Motion to refer to the Planning Board. Motion to refer the item to the Planning Board has been made by Councilor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councilor Canuel. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item eight is a communication from the Mayor in an order authorizing the award of a two-year contract municipal solid waste and single stream recyclable curbside collection and disposal services to the Capital Waste Services Inc.
Motion to refer to Committee on Finance. Motion to refer the item to the Committee on Finance as we made by Councilor Reposer. Do I hear a second? Second. Seconded by Councilor Peckham. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item nine is a communication from the mayor in the fiscal year 2025. order report prepared by Roselli Clark and Associates. Motion to refer to Committee on Finance. Motion to refer the item to the Committee on Finance as it made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canueler. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 10 is the fiscal
year 2026 quarterly budget report. Motion to refer to Committee on Finance. Second. Motion to refer the 2026 quarterly budget report. to the Committee on Finance has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 11, recommendations from the Traffic Commission, changes in the traffic ordinances. Motion referred to the Committee on Ordinances. Motion referred to the item to the Committee on Ordinances and Legislation has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 12 is a letter from the Council President regarding the appointment of Vice President Michelle M. Dion as a designee to serve on the solid waste request for Proposal 26-10 Selection Committee. Motion to accept the item and place it on file as it made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on April 21, 2026, voted
unanimously to recommend the accompanying proposed ordinance accompanied by an emergency preamble be passed through first reading, second reading, passed to be enrolled, and passed to be ordained. With Council Pereira absent and not voting, This is a proposed ordinance for handicap parking. Motion to adopt emergency preamble. Motion to adopt the emergency preamble has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded. Seconded by Councillor Kadeem. Discussion? Roll call. On adopting the emergency preamble, Councillor Kadeem? Yes. Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes.
Dion? Yes. Hart? Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. President Ponzi. Yes. Motion to pass through all readings. Motion to pass through all readings has been made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on April 21, 2026 voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading with Councillor Pereira absent and not voting. is a proposed ordinance for miscellaneous traffic. Motion so made. Motion to pass through first reading has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor
Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 15 is a proposed ordinance for miscellaneous traffic for second reading and enrollment. Motion so made. Motion to pass through second reading and enrollment has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Whereas residents have expressed growing concern regarding litter, illegal dumping, and the condition of
streets, parks, and public spaces, including an active petition effort reflecting broad community interest, and whereas clean and well-maintained public spaces contribute to neighborhood pride, public health, and overall quality of life, and whereas the City Council and administration share a mutual interest in ensuring resources are aligned with community priorities. Now therefore be a result that the City Council requests the administration include as part of the fiscal year 2027 budget presentation, a clear outline of
resources dedicated to cleanliness and maintenance, including staffing assigned to street, park, and neighborhood maintenance, enforcement resources related to littering and illegal dumping, any operational adjustments intended to improve service delivery, and be a further resolve that the Committee on Health and Environmental Affairs convene semi-annually with the administration to discuss updates regarding progress on cleanliness, maintenance, and enforcement efforts throughout the City of Fall River. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the
resolution has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canual. Discussion, the sponsor of the resolution, Thank you. This is in response to the online petition that we were all notified about that gathered over 400 signatures in just four days. I think it's very clear. Residents are expressing a lot of concern with illegal dumping, the litter. We have a lot of neighborhood associations working hard out there trying to clean the city up. There's been a lot of movement
with I think some of the roles we've had environmental police move on to the police department. I think I just want a clear understanding for next year's budget when it comes up. what our resources are to address these particular areas and if they are making any changes from the current fiscal year to the next fiscal year to address that further. And particularly in terms of accountability, we're looking to send this to the committee I chair, the Environmental Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, where we can follow up with the administration every six months to review the progress that's being made in
these areas. With that, I look for my colleagues to support this. Thank you. You yield? I yield. Thank you. Any discussion? the discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Good resolution, Counselor. Thank you. Item 17, citations for Commission on Disability Scholarship recipients. Motion to accept and place on file. Motion to accept and place on file has been made by Counselor Raposo, seconded by Counselor Kadeem. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 18 is the Police Chief's Report on Licenses. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the
police chief's report has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 19, the auto body shop license renewals. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the auto body shop license renewals and we will read them into the record after. Has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk for the record. Thank you, those licenses were for Joseph Silva DBA Joe's Collision Center Inc at 170 Jefferson Street,
William Sanchez DBA Lambert Auto Body and Auto Sales at 103 Chavinson Street, and Eddie Feliciano DBA Eddie and Sons Auto Body and Marine Repair at 115 Maple Street. Mr. President, my apologies, the last license, there was a denial that was received by the police department for the business at 115 Maple Street, it would be my recommendation that that license be referred to the regulations. Is there a motion to reconsider? Motion so made. Motion to reconsider. The item has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded
by Councilor Raposo. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, if we can take these individually, please. Thank you. Is there a motion? Motion to adopt the first two. Motion to adopt Joseph Silva, DBA, Joe's Collision Center, at 170 Jefferson Street and William Sanchez doing business as Lambert Auto Body and Auto Sales on 103 Chaveston Street. Second. Motion to adopt. Yes. Both of those has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President. Dionne, is there discussion? Hearing none,
all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? have it. Motion to refer the third item to the committee on regulations. Motion to refer Eddie Feliciano doing business as Eddie and Sons Auto Body and Marine Repair at 115 Maple Street to refer to the Committee on Regulations has been made by Councillor Raposo. Do I hear a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Kamara. Discussion, Council in seat 2, Councillor Kamara. Just through the Chairman, did they state why they were denied? Point of information. Not in the case of communication, no,
it doesn't. I won't get into it but there was some news last week. I think I know what it is. I just curious if they say that. Thank you. Motion to refer the item to regulations has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Item 20 is an order for auto repair shop license renewals for Rabib Khoury DBA Warren Auto Repair at 857 Warren Street. Joseph
Silva, DBA, Joe's Collision Center, Inc. at 170 Jefferson Street. William Sanchez, DBA, Lambert Auto Body and Auto Sales at 103 Shavinson Street. Joseph Silva, DBA, Supreme Auto at 421 Third Street. And Carlos Jacquez, DBA, Jacquez Auto and Repair, 182 Stafford Road. All approvals have been received. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 21 is the number of claims. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation
Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to Repozo. Seconded by Council of Reposo. Seconded by Council of Peckham. Discussion. Hearing Excavating Inc. MJD Excavating Inc. Proposal Company
Landscape and Construction LLC. Riverside Masonry and Concrete and Sherry Construction Corporation. Motion to approve has been made by Councillor Kamara. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. I accept and place on file. Motion to accept and place on file as we made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to take items 24, 25,
26 and 27 together as we made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion to approve. The ayes have it. Motion to approve after reading items 24 to 27 has been made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clark. Those were City Council minutes for meetings held on April 14, 2026. That was the joint meeting of
the City Council and the School Committee, Public Hearings, Committee on Finance and the regular meeting of the City Council. Thank you. The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on April 28, 2026 voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading as amended with Council Pereira absent and not voting. This is a proposed ordinance authorizing the City Council to hire outside legal counsel. Motion so made. Second. Motion to adopt and approve has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by
Councillor Kadim. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We have a brief recess to sign an ordinance. Two minute recess. We are now back to order Madam Clerk. The last item before you is a proposed ordinance for miscellaneous traffic for final ordination. Motion so made. Motion to pass through final ordination has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canual. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. That's all we have Mr. President. Motion to adjourn. Thank you Madam Clerk. Welcome back.
Even though I want to just say that our Assistant City Clerk absolutely phenomenal job filling your void while you were gone and thank you for everybody in the clerk's office for your continued efforts and making us all look really good. Motion to adjourn has been made by Councillor Raposo seconded by Councillor Kadeem. Discussion? Harry Nunn, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Good night.