My over my hey. Hey pain. Hey, pain. Committee on Ordinances and Legislation come to order if the clerk call the role. >> Councelor Kadim
>> here. >> Councelor Hart. Councelor Reposo. Council of Tith >> here. >> Chair Pereira >> 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 unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one on the agenda,
uh, citizen input. No one signed up. Item number two, the minutes of the December 9th, 2025 meeting. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. A second. All in favor? >> I. >> Item number three, if we could get a
motion to lift from the table. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Item number three is a proposed traffic ordinance. It was a one-way Pine Street east from Seabberry Street to Roberson Street. And then there were concerns
that it should be Robersonson to Seabberry, but the chief of the fire department felt that Seabberry to Roberson was better for traffic. However, at this point, I don't think that they're uh requesting that any longer. I think it was mainly for >> Pine Street. Correct.
>> Stephanie MacArtha traffic. >> Stephanie MacArthur, director of traffic and parking. >> So, the original applicant is moving. Um, so Sergeant Ferris and myself did have this discussion. If the ordinance committee does want to deny this at this
point and if for any reason they want to be revisited, we can. >> Motion grants to leave to withdraw. >> There a second. Motion leave to withdraw >> and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Item number four, proposed ordinance. This is handicap parking Balo Street
east 28 ft north of Horton Street. Dwelli Street north 181 ft west of Kilburn Street eastern avenue west 51 ft north of Maynard Street. Franklin Street north 39 ft west of North 7th Street.
Garfield Street east 258 ft south of Globe Street. June Street East, 137 feet south of Lincoln Avenue and Rodman Street, East 186 feet south of Omen Street. >> Motion for emergency preamble. >> Motion for an emergency preamble.
There's a second. Roll call. >> Roll call. Uh, councelor Kadeim. >> Yes. >> Councelor Hart. >> Councelor Robzo. Council Tith. >> Yes. >> Vice President Ferrer. >> Yes. recommend uh pass
>> adoption through all readings. >> Motion to adopt all through read through all readings. Is there a second? All in favor? >> Uh proposed item number five, proposed ordinances on miscellaneous traffic. These are handicap parking removals.
Um Eastern Avenue East, 70 ft north county street. Maple Street south 257 ft east of Lynen Street. Monttop Street West, 119 feet south of Globe Street. President Avenue South, 126 feet east of
Charlotte Street, South Oxford Street, the west, 395 ft south of Brighton Avenue. >> Motion adopt first reading. >> Motion to adopt first reading. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I
>> I >> Thank you. >> She was waiting for me. She kicked me over the table. >> Okay. Item number six needs to be lifted from the table. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Item number six, convene with the Chief of Police, Director of Operations, Corporation Council to discuss current enforcement methods to prevent and penalize the active illegal dumping and littering of potential amendments to
existing fines. Um, Council Ramsey, Attorney Ramsey is here. I don't know if all of these ordinances have already been put in. If you want to come down, >> just both of you, just your name and >> Alan Ramsey, Corporation Counsel,
>> JT Hore, Deputy Chief of Police. >> No, I mean, we've had lengthy discussions on this on multiple dates. I mean, essentially what we've tried to um educate people is that for any kind of real dumping um we're charging them criminally, which at this point provides
fines of up to $5,500 for first offense, if I'm recalling is that correct? >> Correct. I think it's like $15,000 for subsequent offenses. So, we figured that is really the the best way to enforce this. Um, you know, we still have the ability if we wanted to, um, to do the
noncriminal, uh, disposition of $300. And I guess, you know, the police can use their discretion if they find that it's something that would warrant something smaller. But essentially, we're doing we're criminally charged of these people. And we've developed a process. We worked with the police department to
develop a process to make sure that um not only would the person get the criminal charges, but um there's a restitution form that as I'm sure you're aware um that it makes it difficult for a DA to dismiss of a case um if the restitution is not paid. So what we're
trying to do is in every single it was an application for a criminal complaint. I guess that's what it's called. We're going to have a restitution charge so that the city gets reimbursed for uh the expenses to not only uh we're we're going to try to recoup all the expenses that the city's incurred when this happens.
>> Council Kadim, >> no. So I I I thought the last time we we had this discussion, I thought we had agreed that we were going to allow the criminal process to take place. Um and you you folks just had a an arrest, right, a couple weeks ago with >> Yeah. So that's kind of our first uh test of the system that we had a meeting with the DA's office. They're on board
with it. So, uh, essentially we've come up with some boilerplate language that enters into reports so that the DA's office knows that we're seeking restitution for the fees that would be incurred for getting rid of the, uh, the waste items. So, essentially that case that you saw, uh, a supplemental
narrative gets put in once we get an invoice typically from Joe and DCM and then that is the overhead. Uh, more importantly, it becomes part of that person's criminal record. Uh in this particular case, uh we did not seize the person's vehicle, but that is an option under the statute, which is something
that we're going to be looking to do because then essentially we can seize a vehicle that's associated with the crime and hold that until restitution is paid and the fees for storing that vehicle. >> Interesting. Um yeah. So, so I I I support the recommendation before us. So
I'd make a motion grantly to withdraw, but I won't make that now in case there's any other discussion that needs to be had. The only question that I have is when we had talked about this before, I agree with it being criminal, but I think that we looked at what would the fines be for someone, for example,
dumping in the watershed area with construction debris, somebody dumping with tires, like they there was different criteria, not somebody that, you know, puts a bureau on a a street corner or something. Do you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah, we looked at that. We actually
think the city's pretty much maxed out on the ordinance level. Um there is some language we would arguably tweak that could just be a little more clear um such as using the word littering dumping um in the definitions that we're talking about really minor changes that are not going to impact anything we're doing
right now. But since we did the looking into it um you know I would suggest that my office might be recommending that we do some small changes to the language just to be more clear. But it's nothing substantive frankly. So, do you prefer that we table this versus a grant leaves to withdraw? So,
you can come down with it or >> um whatever recommendation is fine. I mean, I think we're pretty close. Um but at the same time, we can just petition to, you know, put it on the next agenda if you want. It's whatever you think is easier for you. >> I think the case that we had where the gentleman dumped those items near the watershed area is a good test case. So,
if you want to table it, I can come back with the results of that case because I would assume the judge is going to probably impose stiffer penalty. >> Okay. And and I agree that if you seize someone's vehicle, the chances of them coming and paying sooner than later,
they would because they're going to need their Do you know what I mean? >> I think the only issue we ran into with the the noncriminal is basically what's the teeth in it. You could make it a million dollar fine, but if we're not going to put any type of lean on that individual's uh taxes or things like that. So, it puts the labor on the city
side where now the DA's office has a system in place with with uh disposing of cases. So if they're looking for restitution, I think it's a much more efficient and stronger way of uh enforcing those type of actions. >> Well, and I think it's good to hear for this committee to hear how you make out
with >> you know that test case that you've had. Is there a motion to >> motion table? >> Motion to table. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Item number seven is a resolution um
regarding corporation council regarding the abutters lot program. Um attorney Thomas attorney for that. >> Yeah. I'm going to let attorney Thomas talk about the lost for a while.
>> Thank you. that we got this. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. If you could just state your name and >> Matthew J. Thomas. Um, I'm an attorney with an office in New Bedford at Four Park Police Suite 101 and I serve as the
tax title attorney for the city. >> Kenneth Fet, assistant corporation counsel. >> Welcome, gentlemen. >> Thanks. >> So, Madam Chair, if I can. >> Absolutely. Floor is yours. Thank you. So, when we last met, well, we've talked about this some time and uh there was an
ordinance in place uh 42-14 um and the following sections that talks about this. But uh before I get into some of the challenges that we now have because of changes in the law, I just want to give some context. So, right now the past since 2011, we've collected
over $27 million in uh tax title on pay pass through tax title. We've collected about 8.5 million in treasures interest. We've only foreclosed on 35 parcels. So we don't have a lot of parcels that would be subject to this under the tax title side. Of those 35 parcels, eight
of them were actually a condominium. It was the Pleasant Place condo. Right now there's about 5.6 million in tax title balance. Uh for frame of reference, New Bedford has about 14 million in tax title balance. We have about 513,000 in tax possessions.
There's not a lot in there either. Um this past year, um the treasur's office, Ian does a great job in collecting as much as possible before it goes to tax title. So last year's commitment was about $135 million.
We collected 96.5% of that off the tax bills. Another 2.65 was collected off the demand bills. And then another 1% was collected after the tax uh taking ads. So before we put tax title on these
parcels, we collected about 98.99% of the taxes. What went over to tax title between the subsequent certifications, which is what we do for older ones. If you're already in tax title and you don't pay, it's like a coat hook. We put it on there, and the
new takings, we added about 1.01% or 1,372,000. The taking of new parcels that were going past due was only $243,000. It's an amazing number considering.
So we have this ordinance and the purpose of the ordinance was to take non-buildable parcels as you know and allow a buddies. They couldn't build on them. They couldn't seek anything else but they would add them to their properties. It
was uh a way of taking what would not otherwise sell and allowing the abutters to take it, enhance their properties, put a garage on it, put a garden on it, and it would be better for the neighborhood. The program has been around for years. Boston was the first place that had it. Um when I was in New
Bedford, I wrote one for New Bedford based on Boston's. Um attorney Torres was the set became the uh uh city solicitor in Taton. He borrowed us and then when we came to Fall River, we brought it here to Fall River. It's a good program. Unfortunately,
there was a case at the Supreme Court called Tyler versus Henipin County that you heard about in the news. It was this whole thing about excess equity and municipalities stealing excess equity. And it was all about a provision in the law that came about in around 1960s that
allowed municipalities to keep the excess revenue that came in when they sold the tax title or tax possession for more than what was the tax possession balance. The tax possession balance is typically outstanding taxes, interest, and
penalties and maintenance costs. And so that excess amount municipalities kept for years. Here in Far River, we didn't really want to keep it, but there was no way to get it back to the taxpayer because DOI did not have a process that allowed that and
the law didn't allow that. What ended up happening was there was a lawsuit that was filed and it went to the Supreme Court and Henipin County was I think in Minnesota or somewhere out there and they found that municipalities only had the ability
to collect the taxes and then sell the property to collect the taxes. Now, to some degree, I feel somewhat justified by that because for the past 11 years, I've heard, well, we have to foreclose on more property so that we can for this purpose and that purpose. And I've
pretty been been pretty consistent that the purpose of tax title foreclosure is tax collection. We have the receiverhip program for other properties. We used to have building blocks that to get rid of those properties, but that tax titles and tax collection was not intended to be property acquisition. However, at the
end of the day, you might get some properties out of it. So, we wanted to make sure we were selling them. We have a custodian of tax possessions. We auction off properties. When it's a strategic property, we go out through 30B and if it's this non-buildable, we would use this. So we created this
ordinance here that basically said that within 15 days of apostle becoming a tax possession, there would be a notification from the custodian of tax possessions to the council through the mayor's office that we had it. And this was a notification to all the
departments as well. A department had 30 days to notify the mayor's office from the date it appeared on the council agenda that they needed the parcel for a municipal purpose. If they needed it for the municipal purpose, what then would happen is they
would make the request, we would come down here, the transfer would happen and the department would in essence have to pay the city back for the tax possession. So we transferred some properties like this that we had had for years over to the water department. The city we had an appraisal done the
enterprise fund paid the city what the appraisal said. Those became wershed protection and the city got the revenue. So that's 15 days from the day we get it, 30 days to make an a determination. If the determination is made that they don't need it, it would go through this
above lots program, which in essence would be an RFP. And there's guidelines um that um if you the the major goal was to get two butters to buy it together and then subdivide it between the two of them
at their cost. However, if they weren't willing to do that, there was a waiting system um where if you didn't have parking on your property, you'd get a point. If you had if you needed a a driveway or you needed a yard, if you were taking clear care of it, those
types of things. We created one program for tax title and then we also created a section for uh disposal of non-buildable municipal property and that's in uh chapter 42 section 148
and it's a similar process. So, this was to uh the goal of this park was to deal with all those little pieces of municipal property that the city no longer needs and the city could go right out to bid. While the Abutters Lots program on tax possessions was run through the custodian of tax
possessions, the Abutters Lots program on municipal property would be run through this committee. the law changed and now there's a section under chapter 60 known as 64B which quite honestly is a very ownorous section and what it did is it mandated
certain things happen at certain times. So for example not more than 30 days now after you get the tax title after it becomes a tax possession you have to make that determination as to whether it's going to stay municipal property or if it's
going to go out for sale. We recently got one from 43 Lowel. Um it was a deed and lure foreclosure, the former Rosa property >> and um that didn't get put on the agenda yet, but it did go to the departments to find out if anybody wanted it.
You also have 120 days to have an appraisal done of the property. You have to have an appraisal done. We actually are having appraisals done as we're coming to the end of the foreclosure process. So, the appraisal on 43 Lowel has already been done. We've
also had one done on uh Mr. Repose's property on the corner of Colombia >> and South Maine because he has until January 15th to pay us. And after that, if he doesn't or doesn't produce a buyer acceptable to the city, um we're going to go back in and we'll have the
foreclosure on it. So, we've already had these appraisals done. These appraisals set the market value that we have to get. That's what we we shoot for when we're selling these. Now, so if the city is transferring it to itself, now it has to pay that amount.
What would then happen is you subtract from that amount whatever the taxes, interest, penalties, um auctioneers charges, maintenance charges, whatever were. Whatever is left is called excess equity. You then have to do an accounting to the
taxpayer, the former owner, stating, "These are all the expenses we had. This is what the market value was. The city got this from the department. We're keeping it. This is the excess equity. You and anybody else who has a lean on the property are entitled to this." And
then we have to then act to make sure that it goes out to where it's supposed to. It's a ridiculous law in all honesty because it it causes an ext an extensive expense on a municipality that is really
not set up to do this. Okay. If you sell the property, you have to go through the same process. Okay. If you're going to sell it, you have to list it with a real estate broker for one year. Now, with all due respect to council leont, I think that's silly.
listing it with a real estate broker for a year because I don't think it's going to sell any faster. If it doesn't sell within the year, then the city can auction it. But if the city auctions it, it can't accept a bid less than 2/3 of the fair market value of the
property. Here in Fall River, we don't finish a foreclosure unless we have tried everything we can to work with the taxpayer. It's how we collect that much money. We don't want the properties, we want the money. Properties aren't going to pay for essential municipal services.
When we get these properties, there's not a great market value to them. But we have to follow through this process. We recently sold the tax possession at 243 Lynwood that we had for a long period of time. We had an appraisal done
on it. The appraisal came in about 130,000. It ended up selling for 140,000 and there was negative 78 cents of excess equity in the property. So, we didn't have to pay anything out to
anybody. And that's because that property was an old garage with a um mobile home on it. So now for our purposes within this context, how would an work Butters program work for
municipal property? It doesn't change. The law does not need the ordinance does not to be need to be changed for municipal property. It works the same exact way. The problem we have and this is why we haven't done anything yet. And I was very glad to see that you invited us down is because we need some input on
this. If we're going to sell as a tax possession, we can't sell it for a year and a half at least. We have to market it with a broker for a year. We then have to try to sell it at an
auction. Only after a year and a half when that none of that works would we be able to offer it through an abs lots program. That's a year and a half of carrying it, a year and a half of maintaining it. So, first off, that overrules the
sections in here about the timing of how this would work. The other option that we would have is that if it was in a butter's lot, the city could take it in as municipal property,
pay the amount to to the uh fund based on the fair market value and then run it through the Abutters lots program as municipal property in which case there's no such restrictions. So the choice here is a year and a half delay or an
expenditure from the general fund. Those are the two things we're weighing that right now are in the way of any municipalities about a lots program on tax title property. >> Well, I think that one of the um issues that councelor Dion had talked about and
I hope that I'm saying this right. If I'm not, I'm sure she she'll correct me. But if there's a discontinued street and you have people on both sides that want to purchase to the center of the street, I know that they can use it to the center of the street, >> right?
>> But if they wanted to purchase it, >> okay, so that would be >> what would happen there and that wouldn't be called a butter. What would happen? >> Okay, so that's municipal property and that depends on who owns the street, >> the city. >> Not always. And if it's a paper street,
>> okay, if it's a paper street, it's a subdivision street that was never accepted by the city. Let's say it's a leftover piece in a subdivision. >> Okay, >> then both owners, both of either side own to the center line of that under the derelch fee statute, subject to the
right of everybody to pass and repass. So how that works is if that's the situation, the city has nothing to do with it. What happens is the two abutters on either side go into court. They file something in the court extinguishing the easement on either
side and then at that point that will get rid of the street. However, if that roadway is in a subdivision that let's say has 20 lots in it. There is something known as an easement by a stoppple which allows if you're in a subdivision, you have the right to pass
over every street that's in that subdivision. So, what you would need to do is notify those 20 people as well. I've had to do this. The worst I ever had to do is behind the Dartmouth Mall, we had to notify 350 people. And what we did is we had the people that were trying to do it go to people's houses
Easter weekend and have people sign releases. So, that type of situation has actually nothing to do with this ordinance. Has nothing to do with the city. Now, if it is a city street, there are certain city streets that
years ago were accepted as city streets but have never been maintained as city streets. Okay? There's not a lot of them, but there are some. If that's the case, then the city would discontinue the street and the street would then go to whoever the owner is. Now, if the
city took only an easement in the street when they took the street, then it's the underlying owners could be people on either side. If the city took the fee interest in the street when they did it, then it's the city that would sell it as municipal property, you got to really
look to see how the taking was done. Years ago, they would do fee takings, but for the last 20 years, we've only done easement takings because of this very reason. If it gets discontinued, you don't want these little pieces of municipal property all over the city.
So in that particular situation that councelor Dion had as a as an example there is a solution to it that's kind of based on the specifics of the case of the of the situation but it doesn't really apply to this. It could apply I suppose as a municipal property of
butters lot but it wouldn't apply to the tax title ones. So you could do that without anything because that law doesn't have to >> then I'm sure she'll be in contact with you over the the issue that she has had with, you know, her constituents asking her about a specific area. >> Yeah. And on that, you know, we we we
will give as much information as we can, but they should typically get an attorney to do it. >> Okay. >> So go ahead. I'm sorry, council. >> No. Uh so out of all the parcels that we currently have, how many of them would be I guess >> Yeah. Thank you. qualify for the abund
title side, tax possession side. Right now, most of what we own by way of land that would qualify for this is off of Valentine Street up behind >> Dery. >> And it's mostly wet. So, there's not a lot there. So, I I would I would offer
that right now we don't have a parcel that qualifies. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. We don't at this point. U most of what we have is out there. we had um we don't really have a lot in that inventory. Um there's some stuff's in
there, but it's nothing huge. Now, on the other side, there are quite a few pieces of municipal property, publicly owned property that would qualify to go out. Um and we've asked a couple of times for
lists, and we have lists. It's they're very confusing list because you're trying to figure out how it came into the city and who's using it under which department we have control. We've been going back and forth over this for about four years now and there is a pretty decent list and that would be something
that the the property committee could come through you know ask for the corporation council's office assistance and they could and we could put some information to you for that and you could go out on something like that. They're little pieces all over the
place. So, are you looking to amend the ordinance or are you going to give us recommendations on what the administration wants to see in terms of >> Right. But I was kind of looking for your input as to which you thought made more sense, wait the time or pay the fees or pay the money. It's a choice. If
you do it where we buy it from ourselves immediately, if it's an undersized parcel, the appraisals are going to be relatively low on that. And there would have to be it would come out of the general fund. So, from has to come from somewhere. Yeah, I guess that would that really going to come from the administration in terms of whether or
not you're budgeting for >> that's the thing we would have to do. There is no budget now available for this now. Luckily, we don't have anything. >> Yeah. >> So, and we've just started this conversation because it really has finally taken up until now to shake out. Um, that's why even during the taking
process, there was a whole new step involved. We had to actually post all of the residential properties. We did that with a deputy sheriff over the a constable over the course of two days where we had to actually post the taking notice on the properties
>> which was a nightmare in the beginning but it actually turned out pretty well because we collected a lot off of it >> at a relatively low cost. It didn't add that much to the tax uh taxes. So, I would tend to think that within the first couple of months of next year, there'll be a recommendation coming
down, but it's probably not going to be able to take effect until the following year, till the following fiscal year, unless there's money in the budget. We don't have any parcels that qualify. I don't see any coming down. I think the parcels that we're probably going to get right now through tax possessions, if
Reposa doesn't pay, um, that'll be the first one. And given the strategic nature of that property, I don't think that's going to go by auction. I think unfortunately we're going to have to list that with the broker for the year and go through that nightmare. If we're using an auction, our position is we
don't have to list a broker because the way the law is written, chapter 60, section 77b says notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. We still have to give the accounting at the end. So a long answer to your short question, yeah, we'll probably be coming down with something. >> So we table it.
>> I I think you should table it. I think that for my two cents, I don't think waiting a year and a half to sell it through a butter's lots is is productive. >> No. No. So I I guess I what I would suggest is is that come up with some type of I guess policy where
>> you know you you highlight you know right when you're building the budget like maybe April or May that you identify what possible could potentially be coming right and then it's it's included in the the operational budget and even if it's a subsequent or >> coming from the reserve fund or or
something like that >> and if you don't use it it just goes into free cash for the next year. I mean there's no harm, no foul, but this is definitely changing the way this works. >> Um, and it will change the time frames, too. We won't be able to do this in 15 days. Like this says, it's pushing it back
>> with the caveat that the municipal property side does not change. You can still do that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Motion table. >> Motion to table. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Thank you all. Merry Christmas to everybody, too. >> Thank you. I like the tie. Very festive.
>> See you later. Item number eight, a resolution convened to draft a proposal ordinance requiring city council approval for any contract renewal or extension by the mayor for contracted employees, department heads or division managers. U Mr. Fredette,
are you attorney Fredette, are you on this one? Oh, attorney Ramsey, >> I'm not real sure what uh this committee wants. I know, you know, councelor Kadeim and I had a pretty lengthy discussion on this in the full council.
Um it's it's still my opinion that the charter would not allow for this change. So, I I thought you I thought you told us that a resolution was was the way to go if we wanted it. >> If I did, but I think maybe I was a
little unclear. What I meant was you can persuade the mayor uh that you think it's a good idea that we you would like to have them, but I don't think you can force the mayor's hand on this. So, I thought that, you know, by resolution, you would just request it when possible, and it would be up to the mayor to provide it, but I don't think there's
any ordinance that we could write to change this since it's in the charter. So, I'm sorry if I was uh misunderstood with >> So, I guess from a legal standpoint, how the ordinance doesn't circumvent the charter, it just makes it more strict, right? Like, we're not
>> I understand the argument, but I I would say that it would be against the charter. I mean, >> right, >> history matters, too. >> No, no. I I recognize that, but just from a legal standpoint. So, if I'm looking at Massachusetts general law, our ordinance can't circumvent Massachusetts general law, but it can be more restrictive than general law. So,
how would that not apply to city ordinance when it comes to the charter? So, I would I would I would make the argument and it's my understanding that has always been my understanding that your ordinances can be more strict than the charter and your charter can be more strict than the state law and that's
just the way it it works. >> Well, I mean, I think that the analysis here is that the charter is specifically on point. This is something that's not adding to it. You're you're adding an additional requirement that the mayor would have to give. And frankly, it also gets to the executive branch. I mean, I
know in many ways I can understand the benefits of what you're asking, but I think it would be extremely difficult to hire people with the idea that, you know, it's hard enough to get people in here sometimes when you give them a they have to come down, they get the confirmation, fine, so be it. But what
if every two years they'd have to come back down here or every year they get a every one year, two years, three years, whatever, they're going to have to get city council approval or they're out. you find it real difficult. That's that's a that's a separate that's a separate argument, right? Whether or not we should have an ordinance like that is
is a discussion. But whether or not we can implement an ordinance is completely different. I I think we can implement the ordinance because one I think I would make the argument and I've made the argument before that the way the charter is written that a contract expires after three years even if it's a
it's a a successor agreement. You disagree. So that's fine then. And then my argument to that would be then the charter is silent on the successor agreements and then so the ordinance is is now addressing the successor agreements. You know the renewal. That's
just how I feel. I' I'd make a motion that we refer to cooperation council to to get the ordinance drafted. >> Ricky second. >> Second. Roll call. I I'm just going to tell you
on this. I think that what Attorney Ramsey said, I agree with. It's difficult if the city has uh an employee that's a contractor, department head, a division head, whatever, and then they have it for two years, and then they come before the council for approval. I
don't know as a city councelor what that person's job has been for that two-year period or one-year period. Um, some people I might know, some people I may have gotten a complaint, some people I may have gotten really positive things, but I don't know every single department
head and what they do on a day-to-day basis. Um, and I think that that's up to HR if somebody isn't doing what they should be doing that they deal with that with the mayor and that person's contract doesn't get uh renewed. but to
come down. I remember having our former HR person, Maline Koella, was the only one with a contract that had to come down for council approval and she was always very nervous about I'm the only one that has to go down again. And we changed it so that she wouldn't have to
come that they would all be the same. But if you want to refer uh and there's a second roll call >> call to refer to Coun Corporation Council, councelor Kadeim. Yes. >> Council Hart. >> Councelor Repzo. Council Tiff.
>> Yes. >> Chair Pereira. >> No. >> Thank you, Attorney Ramsey. >> And the last uh item on the agenda, item nine, resolution. >> Do you want to make a separate motion to table this? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.
>> No, he made a motion to refer. >> Oh, table in committee. Yes. Make >> a motion to table. >> Second. >> All in favor? I um the last resolution is to convene to discuss striking out section 2131 of the city code regarding
loan order authorizations. Um I think attorney for that. >> Yes, >> you're on this. I am. >> And also uh wanted to weigh in on this was Mr. Pico from the school department. Mr. Pico.
Do you want to talk first to >> Yeah, I I could. Um, so I think the resolution speaks for itself. We we've got an ordinance >> um number one that I think >> was initially put in and I can't speak for the council that actually initiated it back maybe in the 80s or whatever the
case may be. Um was probably more political than anything else. I don't know that there's another community that has these types of restrictions when it comes to borrowing. we we already have limitations in terms of how much we can borrow on any given year. Um we cannot exceed 5% of our equalized valuation and
if we need to go past that 5% we would have to go before the state to get the uh the authorization and even at that uh the Massachusetts Finance Oversight uh Board would only give you 10% of that. And so when we look at and and I don't want to guesstimate on where we are in
terms of our our debt, but I can't imagine we're not nowhere close to our debt limit. Um, in terms of of that, I would say that we're probably in the low um 10% if that maybe the teens. Um, again, maybe it could be higher. I'm not sure exactly what those numbers are. Uh,
but I think it just takes away the um ability for us to leverage um our ability to provide debt and and leverage our our monies moving forward for any type of infrastructure, real estate u projects, or just resources that
departments need. And I think at the end of the at the end of the day, you know, as a legislative body, we have a bite at the apple every single time. Uh we get to vote regardless of the dollar amount or the total bonding for any annual uh you know, authorization. Uh whether or
not we want the project to move forward. So, uh we're elected by the the voters and you know, I think we should be held accountable if if the voters don't agree with votes that we've taken, they have the ability to vote us out. you know, we we review by twothirds of a council vote every bond authorization that comes down
before the council. Um, and anything that would require any type of increase to taxes, so anything above the 2 and a.5%. Uh, so Prop 2 and a half would require a ballot uh, a ballot question that would have to go out and and the voters would have the opportunity to say, uh, yes, we want to approve this
debt and we're going to fund it, uh, with, you know, increasing our taxes above the 2 and a half%. So, uh, a lot of our what we do, uh, we do within the general fund. We I mean, we only have one debt exclusion. Uh, and I think it was the first debt exclusion we've had, uh, in in the city's history. So, we're
not a community that goes out and does a number of debt exclusions on projects. So, I think we do a very good job of, uh, keeping our debt in the general fund to minimize the, uh, taxes there. So, I just know moving forward when we start looking at, you know, financial planning, it just makes more sense to
eliminate this and and just allow the uh legislative body to do what it was elected to do and and manage and provide the oversight and give the flexibility uh to the administration on the projects. Uh and especially when we start looking at uh present value, you know, we we go back to the 80s and and
you start talking about a $5 million number. what you could have done with $5 million back in 1980 versus what you can do uh in 2025 is is completely different. So I I'll yield with that. >> Attorney FET, did you want to add anything?
>> So just just a little bit here. Um very well written uh councelor Kadim in regards to your reasons that you set forth in your resolution. The first thing I did was to uh and I think I went into it presuming I knew the answer and it turned out to be there's no
requirement obviously no other significant certainly uh populated municipality has this uh type of requirement on the books that I could find. I'm sure if we went back there was a reason when they enacted it. Don't know if it was purely political. It
would make sense. It was at that time probably to to add more transparency than perhaps the council at that time felt or or persons influencing a council vote on it thought. We we need this in place. But what it does it it really
again councilman Kadim pointed out it creates a hurdle that's unnecessary. It's not a requirement on the state books. If you start talking about Proposition two and a half things that's built in you can't touch that without a ballot. this type
of issue. $5 million doesn't get you a lot these days. Probably did back when this was enacted, even the 20 million, right? >> Um so, uh the next part of my analysis was what does it take to strike it? and and really it's as simple as a as the
council voting on it and and the uh the move to strike not just 2-131 uh but the uh there's also a section directly after that uh council section 2132 is the time limit for implementation. Uh so it wouldn't make
sense to strike simply 131 we got to strike 132. Uh so when that gets done, it's my hope that uh both will be presented for u the striking of the resolutions, simple language presented in uh
>> So I I'll make a a motion to strike uh 2-131 and 2-132. >> There a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> Now, will you be able to do this? I mean, for the
>> will this go to the >> I >> next council meeting? No need because we're striking it out right on the floor. >> Correct. >> So, it's all set. >> So, you're all set. >> All right. >> Thank you. Anybody else have anything to add? >> No. Just >> if I could just um I mean, obviously,
it's great to be the third of three that are going to speak on this because most of it's been said. It's very difficult to plan projects, >> right, >> when you're looking at that all the time and and we've seen it in a few projects that we've tried to do um where we take
a project that could be finished in six months and turns into a threeyear or fouryear project because we're trying to work around uh things and and it it causes us to apply for different waiverss uh whether it be an ADA waiver
or something just to delay that process in order to spend that that amount amount of money. So, um, with MSBA, you know, always willing to help Fall River, um, that's an easy one because it's an 8020 split, but when we're trying to do something on our own, um,
makes it very difficult. So, this will clean that process up and allow us to when we put a capital improvement plan in and it's a it's a large dollar item, we're not looking at it as there's going to be a lot more hurdles to this particular project. So, it doesn't make
sense unless you're putting it in a five-year plan and you're going to start working on it year one or two. So, >> well, thank you all for coming down. Uh, I know >> it's quick between the holidays and James, >> if this is being referred to full counsel for
>> Yes. Do you want to amend your resolution? >> I was going to do a second time, but I did amend it to refer to full counsel as well. >> Okay. So there's an amendment to refer and second >> the second part that two sections are being struck out. Councelor Tith gave it
a second. All in favor? >> I. >> Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I motion to adjurnn. And I should have said earlier, but councelor Hart and councelor reposa both had conflicting schedules. were unable to be here, but
we wanted to get these things through and we couldn't get everybody together on one day or get enough for a quorum. So, that's why we held it today. But enjoy the holiday if we don't see you. >> Thank you. Good night.