--------- My over hey pain. Hey, pain. Hey, hey. My back We're coming. The city council committee on ordinances and legislation will be called to order.
Cler call the role please. >> Councelor Kadim >> here. >> Councel >> here. >> Councelor Dion >> here. >> Councel Pereira. >> Chair Roboso >> 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 unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one on our agenda this evening is citizens input in which we have none. Item number two is the minutes for the December 18th, 2025 meeting.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Canuel. Second by vice president Dion. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number three is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance requiring that the total authorized borrowing of the city shall not exceed
70% of the city's applicable statutory debt limit without additional voter approval and that any proposed borrowing authorization which would cause the city's total authorized debt to exceed 70% of that debt limit shall require approval by the voters at a municipal election adopted 113 2026.
Can I have the invited guests down to the table for item number three, please? >> Good evening all. If you can address yourselves and titles please to the public. >> Ian Shaky, treasure collector. >> Alan Rumsey, Corporation Council. Emily
Arpi, uh, director of financial services. >> Excellent. Thank you all. Council Kadim, would you like to speak on your resolution to begin? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is just a carryover from the initial resolution that I have filed, which had passed the uh, city council to eliminate
the um limitations that we have for bond authorization. Uh, so as I mentioned at the last council meeting, I think a more appropriate uh, safeguard would be on the total debt that we would have. So, the debt ceiling put a put a percentage
uh limit on that. That would require um a I guess a a valid question uh if we exceeded that. So, the initial resolution was 70%. I think that's up for discussion as to um you know what that number looks like. I think a 70% is a healthy number in terms of where our
debt capacity is currently. Um I believe we're at like 28% uh for bond authorization. Um, so that would give you a little bit of of the ability and and wiggle room to continue to to go out and do bond authorizations for various purposes, whether it be um, you know,
capital projects, uh, building repairs, new buildings, whatever the case may be. Um, and with this, I think part of that is is as our debt limit increases, uh, based on total evaluation uh, for the city, this number also increases. So we never need to worry about having a
percentage or a safeguard in there that needs to be addressed or adjusted um I don't know every five years, 10 years or whatever the case may be. So with that I'll yield. >> Thank you. Members of the administration want to speak on the proposed resolution.
>> Um at this time we don't necessarily have concerns um with the thought process behind the resolution at hand. we have plenty of room within that to do what we need to do and what we're planning on doing at this time and and see no concerns with that. So, I mean, I I'm happy to to answer any additional
questions you have about where we're at and and how this all works, but in regards to the resolution at hand, we don't necessarily have concerns. >> Okay. >> And just so you know, um, if you so if this if we make an ordinance like this, it becomes a new legal requirement. So,
we don't I mean, in my position, I don't >> Turn the mic. Sorry. Thank you. In my position, I don't like pick the projects and and that get authorized. But if they are authorized, the next step is that I have to go before I actually do the borrowing, go through the legal requirements that bond council will get
this ordinance, they'll incorporate it into the legal requirements letter and then they'll make sure that before we actually issue debt that all these check boxes have been checked. So, this would just be one more checkbox in the legal requirements situation. >> Understood. Attorney Ramsey.
I mean, it makes a lot of sense what you're trying to do. Uh, I'm just make sure that, you know, when we get down to how it's written, it's written properly. So, I'm mostly just here to listen, but I completely understand the concern and probably necessity. Really >> understood, Vice President Dion.
>> Yeah, I agree with um the process. Um, it does make more sense to have the um flexibility. Um, and as council Kadeim said, as our uh as it rises, our uh borrowing power
rises, as debt gets paid off, that also increases the borrowing power. I think for me, um, I would be more comfortable with 60% versus 70%. Um, but that's obviously up to the committee and um, how they feel. With
that, I yield. >> Thank you, Council Canuel. >> Thank you. Uh I'm in agreement with uh councelor Dion um and that I think we need to set a lower threshold than the 70% that's been proposed. Kind of tried to break this down um in a way that I
could understand it that the equalized valuation for the city of Florida as of fiscal 24 was $7.2 billion which gives us a statutory debt limit 5% of about 360 million approximately. Um, if we're
looking at the 70% that's proposed, that probably doubles what we're where we're at today. In terms of our borrowing, uh, at 60% uh, that council Dion proposed, I think the dollar amount is about 216 million. I'd be more comfortable with
something around 50% um, which would be 180 million. Um and I think that gives us um about 56 million uh additional uh from where we are today in terms of borrowing abilities without going to the voters. Um I think you know given what
we had in place before which was a very conservative um you know type of plan you know the 20 million on an annualized or more than 5 million in a single transaction. Um I think you know I'd like to see us be more conservative with this. I understand that this will
continue to rise as well as you as the valuations do go up. Uh that number will continue to go up as well. Um I just think 70 is too high. 60 is a little better, but I still from my perspective and the numbers I'm looking at, um I think 50% will be a more comfortable
place that I could support. Yield >> council, uh just through you, I' I've just got a question to my colleague. I guess I'm a little concerned on why we're putting I I understand the safety nets. Um I don't support 50%. I I would be in agreement with 60%. But essentially what we're what we're saying
is we're creating safety nets because we don't trust ourselves, right? That that's essentially what we're saying. So my colleague is saying that we should go even lower. So why is it that we don't trust the people here to do the right thing? I mean, at the end of the day, we're elected. Um there is no other
municipality and I and I challenge folks to go look at we have 351 municipalities and the city of Fall River is the only one that has put this safety net in place. Um so I'm not sure why we we do it. I mean we we've got a twothirds requirement as it currently exists to do
anytime any type of debt authorization. Um so there there's already a process in place for that and we can have the the conversation. I'm just trying to figure out why we continue to go lower and lower and limit our ability uh to leverage the money that we have to provide the services that we need to
provide to the to the community. >> Do you yield? Council G was through you, but sure. I still want the floor. >> Okay. Uh council can you want to respond to that, please? >> Sure. Uh I think you're you're right that we are were the only municipality with these restrictions. Um, but it was
the voters who I would interpret didn't trust the council and the administration to um spend the money wisely. That's why on a ballot question November 7th, 1977, they approved it with almost 80% of the vote. >> So, can I just throw you can I do you
know why that ballot question took place? I mean, it's nice to say 1977. >> It was before I was born. So, >> okay. So, let me give you a little bit of history. That would be 1977. That's when uh the Dery School was was built. A lot of people went to jail for that uh because obviously there were you know bids behind uh closed doors things that
were taking place. 1997 uh just mun Massachusetts general law in 1997 versus uh 2026 completely different. There are significant requirements. I would tell you chapter 30b process has significantly evolved because of that. So there's a lot of safety nets already in place. So we can't go back to the
70s. There's a there's a lot of things that we we could do in the 70s that we can't do now. I mean, we can smoke in restaurants in the 70s, right? We can't smoke anymore in the restaurants. So, I there's a there's a time and a place for moving forward. I would just say that I'm not opposed to providing a safety net because at the end of the day, this
is this is essentially a line of credit, right? This is what we're looking at. And so, I don't disagree that while we got a 100% line of credit, we shouldn't go up to the 100% of the line of credit. And we should put a limit as to what that that looks like. And and what I'm saying, 70% 60% that's fine. I think 50%
all we're doing is hamstringing the administration to be um to be able to have the ability and the flexibility to leverage the bonding to provide the necessary resources when it comes to infrastructure comes to buildings, it comes to uh equipment that's needed. And
that's that's what we what we're here for, right? At the end of the day, we've got to review every single project that becomes comes down before us. It's not a simple majority, it's a twothirds majority, right? So, as elected representatives of the city of Fall River, we all get elected. We're at
lodge counselors. So, we are responsible to the voters of of the city of Fall River and the taxpayers. So, if we don't do a good job, I mean, there's public input. It needs to be advertised. Again, city council meetings are public. Twothirds vote. Then I would suggest
that we get elected when we're not elected to the to the position. If you're suggesting that um you know the oversight needs to be had with the you know the voters then change the form of government. Let's go to town meeting. Then at that point if we have an open town meeting then every registered voter has the opportunity to vote on the
budget has the opportunity to vote on on uh on any type of bond authorization. The form of government we have as a legislative body is a city council. So let us do our job. That's our responsibility to do that. I think putting a li limitations on the administration. Just because in 1977
um you had individuals who were running for elected office that were corrupt doesn't mean that we're corrupt here. We've got nine counselors. To suggest that you have nine corrupt counselors at any given point to to vote on a twothirds vote on on a debt authorization. I don't I don't think makes any any sense to me. So I I don't
I don't want to go on, but I I I would support a 60% if that's what uh folks want to do. But I think at some point, just having a safety net on this, we're already going above and beyond what 350 other communities in Massachusetts are currently doing.
With that, I yield. >> Council Daniel. >> Uh, first I I I'm not suggesting anybody on the the council is corrupt, but I do want to say that um from where we were before that the voters and I understand, you know, the times are different. I again, as I kind of stated at the last
council meeting, I felt that, you know, if the voters put it in, the voters should take it out. The council made their decision. I'm not debating that point at this point. I'm just trying to find the right threshold for us. Um, and before when you think about we had a 20 million cap in a single year. Uh, what
I'm suggesting at 50% is about 56 million more per year, which to the point it's a percentage, which would continue to go up. at the 60% I have that at about $92 million additional um as well. So that's a pretty significant
you know bump up from there as well. I think you know we're going just from 20 million in a year to 56 million and then as debt obligations come off that again all that ground. I I think it's a good starting point. I is are there projects that are out there that we want to do? I
the things that I'm not aware of that, you know, we, you know, putting out potentially $56 million in credit wouldn't accommodate at this point. Do we really need to be at $92 million, which is the 60% threshold that's being suggested versus my 50?
>> Do you council? >> I do. >> Council the most fun I've had in a long time for an artist meeting. Uh so I I through you uh to my colleague again So from the standpoint that we're dealing
with the bond authorization, it's all within the operating budget. So there is no impact to the taxpayer because we haven't gone above the 2 and a.5% tax levy. Is that is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. So whether it's at 50% or 60%, what is it in your mind counselor, that
if we go from 70% to 60% down to 50%, what what does that provide to the taxpayer? There's no difference from a tax impact to the voters if it's being funded in the operating budget. >> I think people of the city are looking
for a break for old debts to be paid off and to see some relief in their tax bills. >> But but you're not going to get that that like I'm saying we haven't gone year over year. You're going to get two and a half%. whether that's going to the debt service or that's going to the police fire side. That's all tax revenue
that's being funded funding the the general fund operating budget. Right? So when you take a portion of that to the debt, you're not saving the taxpayers any money. There's zero impact to the to the to the rateayer. They're not seeing that because you're going to the two and a half% year-over-year.
>> So you what you're doing, you're not saving any money to the tax to the to the taxpayer. I I find sorry you >> no through you you may respond. >> I think when I think about if I put something right now let's just say we
have uh whatever the number is $125 million out there on a credit line right now. If I pay that off tomorrow my what I have to pay every year recurring will go down. So, I think the assumption here is that as bills come
down, we're just going to keep recharging that back up, right? If if I paid something off that's 20 million, I'm going to put 20 million back on. There is no impact from that perspective. But I think when I think about if we're if we have 125 million on our credit card today and we want to go
up to, you know, $215 million, let's say, or 216, there is an impact um because that's money we are not able to spend in other areas, >> right? But that but that's your that's the problem, right? It's not a credit card bill, right? So there's good bad there's good debt and there's bad debt. You can you're just focused in on credit
card. That's bad debt. I I would agree with you if it was a credit card. I would absolutely agree with you. This is good debt. We're leveraging what we have, right? So if you've got I don't know, let's let's talk about police and fire. Let's just say we needed to borrow $20 million for police vehicles and fire
vehicles, right? Over 20 years, right? So, we get to leverage that and buy 20 years worth of vehicles in the first year. If not, if we're taking your premise, we're buying one police vehicle and maybe maybe one fire vehicle, right?
I mean, an engine is now a million dollars, right? It used to be $400,000. A ladder truck is close to $2 million, right? So, again, this is good that we're leveraging it. We're having the ability to say, "Okay, we need 10 vehicles. We're going to go out in bonds." What what you're missing is is
that we've got a total budget, right? Two and a half% of the taxes is coming in, which is roughly what 40% 30% of our revenue. >> Oh, yeah. Around that. >> Okay. Coming into this bucket. So, if you're limiting debt services, that
doesn't mean that we're not using 2 and a half% year-over-year. So just because you're you're reducing going from 70% to the 60% or the 50% on that debt service, you're not stopping the 2 and a half% increase. It's just being funded to
other other areas in the budget. That's all it is. >> I could add to that. So it it also would mean that whatever we're not buying through this debt authorization that we would have to fund with cash and the operating budget, which to his point
would cost a lot more. So you're talking about adding a million dollars in for one firetruck for one year rather than adding in $20,000 of a debt payment so that we can add in a lot more. So no matter what, to his point, our budget is going to be what it's going to be. And how we're able to leverage what's in
that is what this kind of allows for. It doesn't change unfortunately the 2 and a half% tax increase each year. And that's we're not at a place in the foreseeable future that that's going to change. It would be ideal if we could get off of that two and a half percent, you know, need for
increase one day, but we're so far from that because we've been limited for so long and we didn't always take the two and a half percent. We're so far behind where we should be that that's not going to go away anytime soon. So, there won't be a relief. It's only going to cost taxpayers more by letting us use this
when we do an a debt exclusion, which will always have to go to the voters. That's a state requirement as well. So it's not it's not going to change anything with whatever the limit is that you set whether it's 50 the 60 the 70 even letting us go to the 100% we still have
to fit it within our operating debt or our operating budget each year the payments so it won't have an impact >> and I would I would also state that any good financial policy would have a baseline on what your debt limit should see be year-over-year so and it really
is an arbitrary number based on affordability, right? So, we had talked in the past that we want to see debt and interest every given year at $10 million. So, as debt retires, right? And so, if it frees up $2 million, $2 million is essentially $20 million in
bond authorization for a given year, right? So that's a significant ability to leverage the bonding to to provide whatever we need to do in terms of equipment and again capital items that we I mean capital items going to come down before us and I I would guarantee
you that you're going to have at least almost half a billion dollars worth of requests that get ignored year over year over year and you're trying to put a cap on our ability to leverage money to be able to provide the departments with the capital items that we need. So from my
standpoint, whether it's 10 million, 15 or $20 million, I think the administration needs to come down to to the council and that's a conversation that we need to have, right? Because that's that's another safety net and control that we as a legislative body has on top of this 70 or 60% is to say
that we want to see 10, 15, 20 million year over year in debt and interest and we will not exceed that amount in the operating budget. But that gives them the ability to plan from a financial standpoint as debt rolls off. They have the ability to be able to go out and
borrow additional monies to provide the resources that are that are being requested by the departments. I mean, we've got a number of buildings that need to be repaired, whether it's um just renovations, windows, roofs, uh HVAC's. I mean, the you know, the amount
of um you know, look just let's just talk about Banks Street Armory, right? at the banks aromry. I bet you there's zero zero money being spent in that in that building. We should be maintaining that building, right? That and that comes into where do you get the funding and I I think by reducing it this down to
below 60% is just um in my my own personal opinion is is not good financial uh management uh and not allowing the you know the administration to do what they need to do. And just just think about what it would take once
we meet 50%. You're going to have to schedule an election. You're going to have to get people to go out there. And as we already see it that nobody is interested in going out to the election. So at the end of the day, we're going to have 10,000 people making a determination for how many parcels do we have for uh residential
>> res all told it's like 22,000 commercial and residential. So 20 22,000 taxpayers and and you know you're getting 10 thou half of them coming out to talk about whether or not they want to you know increase and it's not even an increase but allow authorize us to go out for a
borrowing because it's not going to be an increase to their taxes. So I mean if it was an increase then obviously we we got uh the debt exclusion that requires us to go to a ballot. So I don't I don't know why I mean we're putting a limit. I think it's it's a feel-good limit. I think the you know the the city council
should be responsible to maintain with the administration on the on the expense limit. So um I would support 60%. Anything below 60% I think we're just we're fooling ourselves and we're putting in all these false safety nets that are just creating more leg work and not allowing uh the administration to be
able to navigate and fin properly financially plan for for the future and the departments. without a yield. >> Ramsey, >> I just want to remind the committee that, you know, no number is even necessary here. Um, you know, if we're talking about 70 60, you could just have
no number and then as the mayor submits something, the budget comes down to city council, you can vote your conscience whether you, you know, reject it or want it to go to the voters, but you could just delete the existing ordinance and not have any percentage at all.
>> Vice President Dion. Yeah, I think um so in the last five years we've had no capital improvement plan. We I don't believe we haven't done any bonding. How much do you know how much debt has fallen off in the last five years? >> I don't have that exact number with me, but yeah,
>> I don't have it here, but we can tell you how. Yeah, we we have had a significant amount drop off, but we've also had dery come on over the last couple of years because the timing of debt being authorized versus the timing of us issuing it don't necessarily line
up. So, >> it hasn't quite >> well, yeah, but Dery's being paid with a debt override, although although it has been absorbed in the budget to a certain extent, but we have diamond now. But I guess my point is people are always saying how we don't maintain anything, we don't take care of buildings, we don't do this, we don't do that. True,
we haven't. But I think we're in a situation where uh we have counselors that now saying, "Okay, enough is enough. We need to change what we do." You know, we have parking garages that
need s a significant investment. We get those to where they should be, they become a revenue source. I mean they are a revenue source now but the revenue will significantly increase which is going to help the city. We have the Bank Street Armory. We have the
central fire station. You can go on and on and these are things that really immediately need to be taken care of. So which is why I support this. Um wherever wherever it falls it falls. Um,
but I think we need to really seriously think about what we what we want to see for this city and how we want to move forward. And with that, I yield. >> Council Ken, >> uh, just to uh, speak back to what
Attorney Ramsey said, I do believe we should put a cap. Uh, we, you know, the council at the last meeting did remove the limit completely. I don't think we should write a new ordinance that doesn't put a cap. So, I do think we should settle on some type of number. I think for me it just comes down to, you
know, I think Council Padim said, you know, the 70% is a feel-good number. That's about $252 million limit. Um, which, you know, >> which you control. You have a vote on. >> That's correct. But that's also double where we are today. >> But you have but you have you're a city
council now. You have a vote on that, >> right? You want to bring it back to the voters then. And I'm telling you, if you want to bring it back to the voters, change the form of government because this isn't the form of government >> I don't think you want to put that question to the residents of whether or not >> No, I do. I do. If if that's what you support, I I'll make a motion. I'll I'll sign on to your resolution. If that's
the form of government you want, then move forward with it. That there are communities that have open and representative town meetings that allow registered voters to actually vote on this stuff. If you don't want to vote on that stuff, that's on you. So then I would suggest instead of com coming over here trying to take away our authority
as as a legislative body, make the motion to change our form of government to an open town meeting or representative town meeting. That's my that would be my take. >> Council K, you have the floor. >> So I I think just again I come back to where we were just two weeks ago, right?
We were at a point where anything more than 5 million in a year, sorry, 5 million in a single item or 20 million in a year had to go to voters. Um, I'm not looking to run to voters for every, you know, to fix the parking garages, particularly revenue generating things. Not looking to them if we, you know,
want to do something with the Bank Street Armory. Um, but where I'm at is, you know, at 50% from where we are today. That's about 56 million higher than we are right right now. >> But you wanted to limit it to to $10 million on a bond authorization just two
weeks ago. So, how's that any different than what we're doing? And I would tell you that then if this is the case, it's disingenuous because now we're taking one small portion in an operating budget which is deb debt exclusion. So why are we not having a budget that is over $400 million go to out to a ballot to say do
you support this budget? It doesn't make any sense to me because there are other line items in there besides debt exclusion and it's all within the in the tax levy. All of it is within the tax levy. It's coming from the same revenue. So for for you to sit here and say that the debt exclusion should go out because we've got a bond
authorization because as a city councelor I don't want to do my job and I don't want to vet it and I don't want to take a vote and I don't want to talk to the taxpayers when they come and question me why did you go out to a bond authorization and half half the taxpayers don't even recognize what we go out for for bond authorization
because they're looking at the larger picture right you've got police fire you got the treasurers you got the law office you got the city administrator's office you've got health insurance you've School department. >> School department. You're talking about a $10 million budget right now, right? What what is that service? >> 13 14
>> $14 million, right? So, we're wasting all this time on a $14 million to really just micromanage it and not allow the administration to do what they need to do and the legislative body to to do to fulfill its authority. That that's that's where my frustration comes. It's
it's to me it's just it is so so asinine for us to sit here and talk about limiting the borrowing amount when we're talking about it's all falling in a $450 million operating budget. But we will not question any other line item or
category and say that it is okay because it is the exact same impact. Every other department has the exact same impact, but for whatever reason, we want to target our borrowing, which to me has the we have the most
potential to benefit this community, >> council Daniel, you still have the floor. You have anything else to add? >> I think it's just coming up with the right number. Um, you this is your ordinance proposal to put a limit, right? >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll make a motion that we lower the 70% down to the 60%. A
second. >> Before we take that motion, do you yield the floor? Councel. >> Okay. Yes. Okay. So, a motion has been made by council Kadim, seconded by council Dion to
correct me if wrong to 60%. >> 60%. >> 60% on that call. Roll call, please. >> Roll call. Um, councelor Kadim, >> yes. >> Council Canuel, >> yes. >> Council Dion, >> yes.
>> Councelor Pereira. >> Chair Robo, >> yes. >> Like to make a motion to amend that number to 50%. Please. >> Motion made by councel to modify that to 50%. Is there a second?
>> With no second. Does not pass. >> What was what was the prior vote? >> What was the result?ous. unanimous%. >> Unanimous. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to make sure. Okay. >> I was just trying to take the the reduction where I could.
>> Uh, Attorney Rumsey, anything else you will need from the committee in regards to propo uh putting together this ordinance? >> No, I don't think so. I'll I'll get something together and if I need to, I'll maybe speak to uh since it's council's proposal, have take a look at it. We can talk if you need me.
We would like to run it by bond council, too. It goes back before you guys, >> right? Yeah. I' I'd recommend bond council take a look at it. Okay. >> So, we make a motion to table to keep it in committee. >> Correct. >> Motion to table.
>> Made second. >> Okay. Motion made to table. Seconded by councelor Canuel. All in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> We'll move on to item number four this evening. resolution to discuss potential amendments to the emergency parking ban
ordinance adopted 211 2025. The resolution reads as follows. It was filed by myself. Whereas the current ordinance to implement a parking ban during a weather related event is currently at the discretion of the administration. And whereas this can cause confusion among residents as to whether or not a parking ban is in place
during a weather event. Whereas certain conditions should warrant automatic parking ban based on various anticipated weather events and public school closures. Therefore be resolved the committee on ordinances legislation convene with the city administrator, director of traffic and parking, the director of community maintenance and a representative from the for police
department to discuss potential amendments to the existing ordinance related to emergency parking prohibitions due to weather conditions. Um I'll just speak real quick on this as I was the author of the resolution. One of the things and again we just lived a snowstorm so it's all fresh in our heads
right now talking about the confusion that is a parking ban. Um and is there one, is there not one? when is it triggered? What is the threshold? It seems to be a very confusing process. Um, I also have some thoughts on how it's communicated, but I'm going to go to the committee first and then to our
uh guests here. Uh, Deputy Chief if you want to introduce yourself, you could. >> Sure. Deputy Chief JT for Police Department. >> Miss McGatha. >> Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking. >> Thank you. Vice President Dion. Um I'm not quite sure why there is so
much confusion. Um it is put on the city website. It is put on the police department website. Uh the the I believe that the information is pretty easily accessible. Um it's just a matter of
people looking for it. Um, I think when you start talking storms of 4 in or more, I automatically assume there will be a parking ban. Um, sometimes I'll park my car on the other side of the street just in case. Um, I don't know.
I'm not sure what type of of weather circumstances um, you feel would warrant automatic parking bands. Um, you know, it's something
the weather changes day to day. Um, so I mean, you could institute, you could say, well, you know, if if we're predicted to have a 6- in storm, um, automatically two days before we have a parking ban, automatically, but two days before the weather pattern
changes, and how often does that happen? It goes out to sea. Now, we don't need a parking ban. I think personally that can is going to that will um cause more confusion. Um but that's just me. So with that I'll yield for now.
>> Uh Mica like to speak on this. I I think you know we had a conversation regarding it as well. Um and to councelor's point I think when I when I think about weather snow is is the conversation I'm thinking about. But I also think as a person who may not have a place to park, if you know it's forecasted to come,
let's say hypothetically six inches, you know, a parking van's coming automatically. So at that point, you're preparing to park where you need to park as opposed to kind of rolling the dice and hopefully you'll find one. Um I I think it's it's being proactive, I guess, in that sense. Um so this way people know it's coming, you can prepare
where you need to be and then can move on from there. That's kind of my logic to it. >> Miss Macatha, >> good evening. So, I mean to put on a parking ban, Deputy will will tell you it's definitely a team effort. I know the ordinance currently reads it's
the community maintenance director um and the mayor, but it it's an absolute team effort. I mean, we meet prior absolutely my gosh, few times before a storm. Um we do tell everybody three inches or more automatically assume
there's going to be a a parking ban. Um, unfortunately, like councelor Dion said, I mean, it's New England weather. Our last storm, not this one that we had the weekend prior, um, we were in the 1 to 3 in forecast up until the morning of the
storm shifted at that point. We were in the 6 to9 category. So, we had to institute that one unfortunately in an emergency. We do try and do it and advertise it 24 hours prior. Um, and it is it's on the city website. It's channel 6, 10, 12. um all over social
media. I do I agree. I think we do the best that we can prior to instituting it and getting it out there. It's like I said, you just got to look for it. >> Deputy Chief War, I think, uh to the point that the director here had mentioned, we're in constant contact
when there's something that comes up on the radar. Um no pun intended with storms. So, uh, with that said, you know, the communication with the mayor and the DCM director, it's really to the point you're saying is like, you know, just when a storm is about to happen, you get like a winter storm warning. >> We kind of did that with this storm. We
gave a really big notice like, hey, there's a parking ban that's eminent and then we announced it way ahead of ahead of time and then we enforced it very quickly. So, we kind of adopted a different kind of procedure here. So, I think the ordinance is sufficient. I
think procedurally um there's things that were in practice now specifically with this this storm as it relates to announcements uh but also the enforcement factor right so I think the confusion lies in what avenues people can be looking for the information uh so
the only thing I would suggest in the ordinance being updated is I think it's kind of antiquated where it speaks to kind of using uh radio or something like that I would say that you know my suggested language would be like uh announce through any combination of city operated communication systems included
but not limited to public radio, television, official city website, social media platforms, uh emergency notification systems and other media deemed appropriate. So that would kind of if someone is uh looking up the ordinance, they would say, "All right, these are the avenues I look at." I
think we really lean towards social media uh these days because everyone's tuned into it. Uh but I think in the future, we've kind of looked at let's put it that it's eminent that it's going to happen. in a parking ban and the director and I have spoken many times on the phone and I'd much rather have it in
place and cancel it than to not have it in place. So, we've learned from those mistakes just this year where you know imposing one the morning of a storm, you're not going to get much compliance. And it really puts me at a a disadvantage when it becomes uh the enforcement factor of our initial
enforcement of tagging and then obviously the enhancement of starting to tow vehicles as we did this storm. Mhm. And I would agree with you too that some of the language in the ordinance is a little antiquated 2008 at this point. Um which leads me to a question I have. Do
we have a system in place that we can communicate with residents via phone like an emergency system if let's say they need I'm going to call it an all call like we do in school. But is there an all call system that we have that if we need to reach residents in the case of the city of Far is having a parking
ban starting effective 12 p.m. tomorrow? Does that system exist currently? So there is a reverse 911 system. Uh we attempted to use it this storm and we found some opportunity with it. So we're revisiting that. It actually is managed by the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department. So I started looking into
some solutions that we could potentially invest in as a city. Uh you know, Boston, other municipalities kind of use that as a way of people can register for it. Especially these days with a lot of robocalls that happen. Uh you want to have a system where you can kind of manage who wants to sign up for it. Uh
because it's only as good as the people that are going to listen to the message or pick up the phone. >> Sure. >> Vice President Dion. >> So my only other thought um is I know there are I believe Boston, Providence, there's a number of communities that
actually have um that issue parking permits um because obviously it's like you say, it's a scramble. It's tough to find parking. Um, you have some houses that have one car, you have others that have six cars. Um, and there's always a war
as who get So, is it something that you think we should look into that we could issue parking permits? So, if you live at this address, you get a parking permit, your your space would be across the street from your house. Um, each I
don't know if each house would have one parking permit. I don't know. I mean, it's something that we could even say, you know, once a year $20 gets you the parking permit for the year. Would that possibly make things easier? Do you think that's something um that we could do? >> I think that would be very difficult,
especially in the multifamilies. Um I mean, a multif family property, three unit, you're looking at four vehicles per unit. So, it would be we'd have to determine how many would we issue per unit. I think it would be
very difficult to do so in the city of Fall River, especially in the Corky Row area, the Flint area. >> Would it be any more difficult than it is for them to park it out? I mean, because you I mean, and I get it. It's a public street. Somebody goes out there,
they break their back shoveling, they go to stop and shop, they come home, the next door neighbor watched them leave, ran out the door, took the parking space, and now they're scrambling. Um I know it's a public street but um that creates problems so that I I don't know
in terms of parking just trying to think if there's a smoother easier way. >> I think you see you're bringing up like the north end in Boston is restricted parking for visitors. You have to have a permit and park certain areas. I mean that's a system that's been in place because there it's a very thickly settled area. So, I think it's something
that could be entertained, but to the director's point, it's something that we're going to have to look at what the quota is as far as if it's a six family, how many people get permits, but I don't think it's a system that shouldn't be at least looked into. >> Yeah. because again well and again to
your point so if pe if there are people um taking up those spaces that really aren't even residents of the city >> residents of the city shouldn't lose out because a non-resident is taking up the space. >> Sure.
>> So I mean maybe even even if we just relieve that um because I mean I think we all know there are certain areas that there are a lot of vehicles that >> Sure. I mean >> probably don't belong. >> Might be 11 in a household. You never know if people have different cars. So it def and it could be a home with just
two people living it. So I can see your point. >> Okay. With that I yield. Thank you. >> Council Canuel. >> Yeah. I just want to circle back to the idea by council repos about calling people. Um I know we rely heavily on social media, but I have a number of
seniors and folks that aren't online and they don't know when a parking ban takes effect. I mean they can certainly make assumptions when there's a foot of snow, right? Um but particularly too when that ends and when they can resume their parking. So I think you know that did exist at one point um because I remember
you know those calls coming into my parents home phone. But I think you know whether it's a a sign up method that people could do one time or whatnot. I just would like us to see you know not rely so heavily on social media particularly caring for our older
residents. Would that yield? >> Thank you councel. Yeah, I I think you know you mentioned that there's kind of an assumption, Miss MacArthur, that it's three inches or more. So, it kind of goes back to my whole point that if if it's the assumption internally that that's what's happening, >> my argument would be make it officially
that be the case. But again, it's the will of the committee how we want to handle it. I think out of this conversation, there is some need to revise the ordinance, update some of its language. Um, but again, the will of committee if we want to go that far as far as making a an automatic parking ban
take place or not. That's what really what it comes down to with this council. Um, so I what I would say is if we think we have issues now as we get more development and there is more uh special
permits being issued uh to ignore the parking requirements that are in zoning bylaws, we're going to have even more difficulty. So, I don't disagree with the residency permit. I I think it's just going to be a nightmare um from an administrative standpoint. Number one, to try to identify how that's going to
roll out, what that's going to look like, and then just enforcement alone is is going to be um a major issue. Uh I I don't know that there's any real solution to what we're dealing with. I I think overall, >> no matter what we do, it's not going to be enough in terms of the notifications.
I mean, social media, it's on the it's on the radio, it's it's on um TV. I I think you did uh you know FRED TV, FRGTV. So it it is out there but unfortunately like any any storm event that we we deal with it just the the
unknowns the variables are just it's just too difficult to manage. Um what I would say is it's you know if you want to change something in the ordinance then you you say that maybe we put in a requirement that even if it's not um put on by the administration 3 in or more or
four inches or more is going to require a parking ban. But at that point you lose that flexibility and it just becomes every time you you reach that potential threshold of a three to four inch storm then you're gonna have to deal with all the the parking nightmare that becomes what it is. And you know, I
I've lived in the South End a good majority, you know, close to 30 years, 35 years of my life. If I do the actual math, I could probably tell you exactly how much it is. But, um, parking on the streets have always been difficult. It is absolutely a nightmare. And, you know, when I was when I was there, the
Door Dash wasn't wasn't a thing. So, you actually had to leave to to go get groceries and and then when you came back, your parking spot was was gone. and and so um I appreciate and understand the frustration, but I I don't know that we have any real solution. I I think anything that we
probably do to trigger or change the ordinance is just going to create more um more issues because you don't have that flexibility uh to be able to make that determination. Just look at this this storm up until Friday. It was zero. I mean, there was two Z there was two
scenarios. There was no snow or it was 18 inches, right? And those were the two scenarios that we were dealing with all week. So, uh, from a planning standpoint and a management standpoint, it's it's hard to to say, "Hey, there's going to be a parking ban at this time." Um, there's nothing worse than issuing a parking ban and and it doesn't snow,
right? We we've done that in the past as well. So, um I would just say that, you know, in terms of what we really should be talking about is the enforcement component of the parking bands because I I think we've seen um what that really
kind of generates in terms of public safety issues, especially with fires, emergency vehicles, um that are getting trying to get down roads and then, you know, you're the police department's in a situation where they're trying to have vehicles towed and and it's already snowing out like that. that becomes the
real challenge. Um I I think overall the notification system that that we're doing is is pretty good. Um I I would say, you know, the the reverse 911 system that that is out there if you using uh Plymouth, you know, the Plymouth Sheriff's Office does a does a good job. Uh we've used Code Red, but
you know, you you got to use that sparingly because then people um tune that out as well. So when you're sending out those message, if you send too many of those out, then it that they just ignore it like it's just a a cold call anyway. So, um I I think if we can have a system like that and and utilize what
we have and then have individuals sign up and that's and that's going to be the other the other challenge, right? Because the the the target audience that we're trying to help um is not necessarily savvy to going online and and filling these things out. And that's what's going to be required is the the
filling out at least one time to say I want to subscribe to this and I want to be notified uh for these calls. So, it's still going to be a challenge even if we get that. But um I think overall, you know, we we just got to be cautious, especially from, you know, the growth standpoint that we're dealing with and
and we're having we're seeing a lot of special permits to ease the the parking requirements are just going to create even more of an issue uh in the near future. But when you start talking about the south end in particular, the Flint section, it becomes very challenging just to park on a normal day when you can park on on both sides of the street.
Um maybe we need to to start talking about, you know, what it looks like for um you know, certain certain lots, opening up lots and then coming back to parking garages, things of that nature, figuring out how we can provide more additional parking for for these um you
know, for these residents. And maybe it's reaching out to schools, allowing people uh to park at at schools in different locations that they wouldn't normally be able to park, but then of course it comes down to how do I get there? It's, you know, walking, things of that nature. So, um, it's just my two
two cents. I yield. >> Vice President Dion. >> Yeah. I think my last comment will be I think a lot of it just comes also down to human nature. I think no matter what you do or how you deal with this, somebody's going to complain.
I think you did a great job this time. You did it in advance. People were well aware there was going to be a parking ban. And you had certain people who weren't happy because they couldn't understand why you would do it so so you know so so advanced. Snow's not coming
till tomorrow. What are they doing it today for? >> If you had waited till it started snowing then it would have been why did they wait so long? They should have told me. Now I can't find a So honestly we know did you're always going to have that air that gray area that that
somebody is not going to be happy. Um, personally, I think the way you rolled it out this time was was um exceptional. Um, people had plenty of time. The weather didn't impact them trying to find parking spaces and it was on a
weekend which was even better. So, once they parked, they could just be settled in for the storm. So, with that, I yield. >> Okay. I think I think at this point um there's there's changes that need to be made anyway. to the corporation council. Um if we can make some of those updates
to the ordinance at least. >> Motion to refer to corporation council uh to review and provide suggested amendments to the ordinance. >> Second. >> Motion made by council. Seconded by councel Dion. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it.
>> Item number five on our agenda is the resolution to convene. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. Uh motion to table. >> Second. >> No motion to table. made by council Kadim, seconded by vice president Dion. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Thank
you, clerk. Uh, item number five is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance to require city council approval and authorization for all real estate leases, license, and occupancy agreements entered into by the city of Fall River or any of its departments exceeding $50,000
adopted 99205. Attorney Thomas, you introduce yourself to the committee. >> Good evening, everybody. My name is Matt Thomas. I'm special counsel for the city. >> Okay. >> Attorney Thomas, would you like to speak on this proposed? >> Yes, I would if you don't mind. Um, so
as I understand this, um, you're looking to have required by ordinance council approval of three different types of arrangements. One would be real estate leases, one would be licenses, and one would be occupancy agreements for anything over $50,000.
So, um, I've spoken to the cooperation council about this and I believe my comments reflect both of our opinions, but he's here, so I'll defer to him if I'm misstating anything. So, you're looking at three very different types of documents. Right now, by law, every real
estate lease has to be approved by the city council. That's chapter 40, section 3. So, regardless of the amount. So, in in a way, there's really no need for it to speak to that. State law already speaks to real estate leases. >> Could I just quickly
>> council >> interrupt because I think >> EMS building. >> So this is why this is before us. So council Ponty filed this because we had the EMS building come before us. We took a no vote and then >> a lease was signed.
>> I I get it. So my point is I hesitate to say that I disagreed but I disagreed with that. I I think any lease has to be approved by the city council. Now, let me just finish with the other parts of it. Having said that, now that's my opinion. >> As I've told people, my opinion is
pretty much worth nothing because I'm not the corporation council. Corporation council is the one who has to render the opinions on behalf of the city. But I believe that not only does chapter 40 section 3 say that, but the case law says that. And that's generally the normal way that most municipalities do
it. With regard to licenses and uses of occupancy, I don't think that the council has the ability to require that. And let me explain why. >> With regards, I'm sorry, with >> licenses and uses of occupancy. A license is not an interest in real estate. A license is a personal interest
to occupy something. It's actually a promise on the behalf of the person who owns that thing that they're not going to claim a trespass. So, for example, when you park in a parking garage, that's a license. When you go to a sporting event, that's a license. When you go to a movie, that's a license.
They're revocable. They're not like a lease. And so, that's why licenses are not recorded at the registry of deeds. It's a revocable right that says that as long as you're there, I am not going to say you're trespassing. that is within the purview of the
executive side of the government, not of the legislative side because it's not an interest in real estate. And it's my opinion that article 89, which is the home rule amendment, section two, says that you can't pass an ordinance that
contravenes state law and state law does not require this. And probably the entity that uses licenses the most is UMass Dartmouth over the years. um because of that that you can't really pass an ordinance that says that that should be under the control of the city
council because it's my opinion that's clearly under the control of the executive branch because it is not an interest in real estate. Having said that, um I I don't think that there's a need to do it for the real estate for the light leases. There's nothing that says that you can't
pass something that says leases have to. I wouldn't make it $50,000 though in a way because to speak to councelor Kadim's point earlier that's I think that's a needless change of law. All real estate leases I believe have to go through the city council. Um I
understand what happened with EMS. Um I don't believe at the end of the day there was a lease. I believe at the end of the day it's a license that they signed and they're going out to bid on a lease with an option to purchase. I believe I don't know that for a fact but
I believe that they are occupying it currently under a license which as I said is revokeable. >> Council you still have the floor. Thank you. Even even with the I guess the lease to purchase that would still require the city council because you're gaining an interest in the in the real
estate right. So I I guess where I I slightly differ with you in terms of um just because MGL doesn't require that, right? We can have ordinances that are more restrictive, notient. Right? So, >> as long, let me just as long, this is
section two of the home rule amendment. As long as it doesn't contravene either state law or the right of contract >> here, I think this would do both. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> But the contract and the >> and the state law. Okay. >> But you're right. You can have best example is zoning. Zoning creates a threshold. You can go above that
threshold. You just can't go below the threshold. And so that's what >> So, so my other I guess my real question And then depending on how this goes, you know, I would agree with you. I don't I don't know that we need a dollar amount. Um, at any point could the
administration make an argument um as opposed to real estate lease that any of that action could be a license or an occupancy agreement? >> The the form of them is very different. Um, a license has to have a provision in
it that is revocable. You can't revoke a lease. To revoke a lease, you have to go through court. Okay? Unless it's the end of the term. >> A license has in it a revocation period. It has in it notice periods. A use in occupancy has even less in it. Um, a lot of times a use and occupancy is used
when somebody's buying and selling a piece of property and they either have to stay in longer or get out earlier, >> right? >> So, the nature of those documents, by looking at those documents, you can pretty much determine, an attorney can pretty much determine, general public can too, what it is. Is it a lease? Is
it a license? Is it a use in occupancy? >> So, because again, we're here because we felt like the city council was the legislative body was circumvented, right? So, you're saying that you could not in good conscience make an argument that any type of lease, right? So,
similar, let's just take the let's call a spade of spade, right? So, we're talking about the EMS building. This is why we're here. that at any point how that played out that it could have been suggested that we we'll go the route of a license or inocuacy agreement.
>> Well, I think reasonable people can always differ, but my opinion is that that document would have required city council approval. That's my opinion. >> Okay. >> For whatever it's worth. And I guess then even though it's state law that
there's no harm I guess if we were to eliminate the dollar amount and just say that all any real estate lease uh would per Massachusetts general law would require approval of of the city. >> There's nothing stopping you from doing that. >> Okay. I yield. >> Vice President Dion.
>> Yeah. Basically my question was answered because I was going to say originally it was going to be a lease. It became a license. as long as it's a license, they can't enter into agreement to purchase the property, which we were told this is what ultimately was going to happen. Uh, rent it for whatever, a year or two, and
then it's going to be purchased, but it can't be purchased unless there's a lease. So, theoretically, they could lease that for two years, and at the end of two years, the landlord could say, "Yeah, I changed my mind. I'm not going to sign a lease and and give you the ability to purchase this
property." That's if there was a lease any lease provision but >> there is no lease provision it's a license right so none of that exists so there's no security there's nothing >> my understanding council was that uh Mr.
chairman through you was that the purpose of doing that was that the council spoke pretty loudly that they wanted to have the option to purchase builtin and so this was going to alleviate what was the perceived emergency to move them in there using
the license and go out and procure correctly a lease with an option to purchase. So the difference between an option to purchase and a right of first refusal is important to note too. In a right of first refusal, uh, it's it's a
right to match either an offer that's come bonafideed third party offer, something else coming in. An option is a validly exercisable right upon the occurrence of certain things. >> So, typically, you would say we're leasing it for three years. At the end of the three years, um, the city has an
option to purchase. um it'll either set a purchase price or it'll set that the city uh hires an appraiser, the landlord hires an appraiser, they hire a third appraiser, it comes out with the value, but there's a definite process. So, um that there is a definitiveness to it.
And if the city tries to exercise that option and the Lord landlord doesn't, then that is a defaultable provision. >> Yeah. Under the under the conditions of a lease. But I'm saying the way it stands now, none of that exists. No, because right now it is purely a temporary situation which is the license
which was to allow them to occupy the space while the city went out and procured the lease with the option to purchase >> which they haven't done yet. >> I don't know where that is >> because that would have to be come before us. >> Well, not the issuance of it but the execution of it. Yes. So I don't know
whether that's actually out being prepared on the street or not. But you're correct to sign that would have to come before you. >> So that's my opinion. So again, I think that that brings us back to why this took place. >> I I understand I once I saw it, I knew
exactly where it came from. But I think that there may have been some confusion at that time. I don't know. That's my opinion. I would defer to attorney Ramsey if he disagrees with me, but and and I would defer to his opinion if he disagrees with me, but um that's my opinion. >> Looks like you're up.
>> No, I would have jumped in if I disagree with anything Attorney Thomas said. I I don't. So, I'm just letting him speak. >> Thank you. >> With that, I yield. >> Thank you, Council Ken. >> So, Attorney Thomas, your opinion was that the EMS building lease should have gone to the city council for approval.
>> I think any lease should go to the city council. >> Okay. Do you concur that opinion, Attorney Ramsey? >> I do. >> Okay. >> So, when this the administration signs an agreement without the city council approval, could that be deemed null and void?
>> It was a license, I believe, but that was the issue is it was not a lease agreement. It was a license that ended up being signed. >> Okay. >> Sorry. I don't believe a lease was signed. I believe it was a license that was signed, which is a different type of animal. So my question would be, is there any
language that the council could uh adopt through ordinance that would uh change how that went that would filter it through the city council futuristically? Is there any language you can foresee that we could adopt here in ordinance
that would >> Let me defer back to a statement councelor Kadim made earlier. There's a level of good faith here. If you right now that's the law. If inadvertently something happens, everybody makes a mistake. If somebody does it purposefully, that has to be addressed.
So if you did want to make it crystal clear, you could pass an ordinance that says all le all real estate leases regardless of length or value have to be approved by the city council before they're executed by the mayor. It's no different than the process you follow
every time you sell an old school where you're awarding the bid and authorizing the corporation council to draft a purchase and sale agreement that they're satisfied with and then ultimately ultimately authorizing the mayor to execute the deed in a form acceptable to
the city council to the corporation council. So you could do that but it would only be with regard to real estate leases. Okay. >> Thank you. There are you >> council Gimm. >> So in terms of the term for a license,
so you can still circumvent the city council. Then how many times can you get a get a license? So So let's just say the administration does not come up with a lease per a lease agreement or lease purchase. >> I've written licenses of varying time
from two two weeks to four years, five years. So the fact of the matter is you can't change the nature of the document. That is not within the power of the >> I guess. So my my question would be how is it any different though from a real estate any so or any contract. So if
you've got a contract anything over three years needs to come down to the legislative body. So how would a license not require that to come? >> A license is a revocable a contract isn't revocable. Typically, a contract like any other binding document, if you go to revoke it before the end of its
term, unless there's a default, you run into a problem. The nature of a license, and this goes back to a case from 1938. This has been the law since 1938. And uh that >> don't make me tell you what happened in 1977. >> I know that. >> Okay.
>> I was actually old enough in 1977 to remember that. I'm much older than you. >> I'm just saying. >> I'll go back to 1938, >> right? I wasn't around then. But um I've read the case. >> I'm giving you fair warning. Thank you. >> Whether it's a counselor or a counselor, different spelling. I'm still It's fair game.
>> It is right. >> But um while I was not around when it happened, um it was something that we learned about um in in law school and subsequently and it's basically they made a a distinction and they basically said a license is basically the forbearance of claiming a trespass. It's
a permission, a personal permission. So yes, it is possibly true that it happens. >> Okay. So I appreciate that. So what I guess what I'm asking and what I'm looking for from legal counsel is how do we eliminate the because it seems like he we the
administration regardless of who it is would still have the ability to go into multiple one-year licenses, right, and circumvent the real estate lease. So how do we prevent that from happening? I don't think you can to be honest with you because of the nature of the
license. Now, let me speak to something. Your multiple one-year licenses, same as your discussion about parking vans. Okay. While a bright light room, bright uh rule, a bright line rule is always very nice. If you were to pass an
ordinance that said every time there's three inches forecast, it's going to be a parking ban. You would put the police department in the issue of not well, we know the weather's gone better. >> We're not going to enforce it. And so lack of enforcement makes it even worse than there is now here. There may be
instances where you want multiple one-year licenses where something's supposed to happen to a property before you want to lease it or something else and there's a delay through nobody's fault. >> So I think that that would be a little bit um counterproductive to limit that.
And I don't think with all due respect that you can change the nature of the contracts. No, I I guess what I'm saying is is I don't disagree with that ability, but I think if it's anything, let's just call it over a two-year, right, would require >> Well, my point is you already have the authority
>> and that's the power of the purse. Okay. A a license is revocable. Okay. So, if somebody's entering into multipleear licenses, you just deny the money. >> You have that authority right now. That is that is the ultimate control of the city council. >> No, I I get that. But you and I both
know that let's just say the lease is $100,000 and we say, "Okay, we're gonna we're gonna take $100,000 from EMS." It doesn't necessarily we don't control the line item >> unless unless >> unless we I I guess the way to do it is is that we say at that point all real
estate we create an ordinance that says real estate leases, licenses, and occup occupancy agreements have to be a separate uh budgeted line item. And then at that point, we control the purse strings and and so we don't worry about the 50,000. But if you know if you've
got a list of licenses in there and one of them is $100,000, you say, "Okay, it's $100,000 coming out of that." >> I that's within your authority clearly. I would caution you, though. Uh years ago when I I clerked for a court, the judge used to say, "Bad facts make tough law."
The what happened with the EMS situation, I'm sure, left a bad taste in everybody's mouth. I'm not disagreeing with that. And I would just caution you to try to overcompensate for that and try to protect overprotect against that. There is a an essence there is an essence of good faith in this. I think
that's required to leave the flexibility to the city administration to do what they need to do and I would caution you to keep that level of flexibility while staying within the law. >> See how he's trying to spin my words against me. I I can't um I know my
colleague wants to speak and we're we're getting into you know past six o'clock. I guess my my recommendation would be I', you know, I'd make a motion to um and I'll wait for my colleague to speak just so we don't table it now, but table this and then I would just ask that
maybe the uh chair of ordinance work with the uh corporation council to figure out, you know, come up with some type of solution that would help to satisfy the administration and the legislative body in in the sense that um one not trying to micromanage and not trying to take away flexibility, but
also trying to pro provide that that safety measure that we need that that we're not being circumvented and I don't I don't know what that necessarily looks like tonight looks like period and I don't think we're going to solve that tonight. Uh so >> I' I'd make that motion once my colleague's done speaking. >> Do you yield? >> I yield. >> Council Ken,
>> just very briefly I'll I'll concur with what council said. I think though when it comes down to the administration having the flexibility to do what they want, the city council generally meets every other week. So, it's that's pretty flexible for them to put something and bring it down to us. So, I think that's
all the council wants on big ticket items like what was before us before and that's what we're looking for. With that, you >> I would concur with council Kim as well on that. That's I think it's a good way forward and I think we will have further discussions on this. Uh to your motion, councelor.
>> Uh so, I'll make that in the form of a motion. >> Motion to table was made. Second >> and we're and authorize the chair to work with corporation council to come up with some type of resolution. >> James, do you have all that? >> Got it. Okay. M motion made by council Kadim, second by vice president Dion.
All in favor? >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Thank you all. Have a good night. >> Thank you. Item number six is a resolution to convene to discuss changing the roles and titles of the committee on real estate to the committee on real estate facilities and housing and the committee on human services, housing, youth, elder and
veterans affairs to the committee on veterans, youth, elder affairs and human services adopted 11:25 2025. Um and we have a draft ordinance in front of us uh for review. My understanding is corporation council has
looked at it for fact and form and >> motion or recommend uh that the proposed ordinance be passed through first reading. >> Motion made to pass through first reading by council kim. Second by councel. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn the committee on
ordinances made by council kim. Second by vice president dion. All those in favor? I >> the eyes have it. Committee on ordinances is adjourned. My over hey, Hey, hey,
hey. Part: 2
This for city council public hearing will now be called to order. Madame clerk, roll call, please. >> Council Scadim >> here. >> Camarra >> here. >> Canuel >> here. >> Dion >> here. >> Hart >> here. >> Peekom >> here. >> Pereira. >> Raposo >> here.
>> President Pontia >> here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make a audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised as such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed
acknowledged and permissible. >> Motion to open the public hearing. >> Motion to open the public hearing has been made by councelor repos. Seconded by councel discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. First item uh on our um public
hearing is by the Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid for one new pole location as follows on Miller Street. The petition is proposing to install one new solely owned pole 30-20 between existing pole 3 located on
Whitman Street and existing pole 30 3-30 located on Miller Street. Proposed pole 320 will be located approximately 70 ft southeast of pole 3 and will be up against curbing in the sidewalk in
accordance with the plan number 31222 619. Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. Calling all proponents. Welcome to state your name and address for the record please. >> [clears throat]
>> Good evening, city council president, city council members. Uh my name is Aaron Roy representing National Grid uh this evening. Um this first project uh is a customer project uh for Maple Gardens. Uh they're upgrading their uh service in three locations. Uh this
location um they're installing a new uh pad mounted transformer to to service a handful of buildings in this um in this area. Um, this new poll, poll 3-20, uh, will be that riser pole to feed that pad motor transformer. Um,
that sums it up. Any questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Calling any additional proponents wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none. Calling all opponents. All opponents wishing to speak on this item. Hearing none. Is that will do it for
item number one. [clears throat] Thank you. Item number two, Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid for an underground conduit location as follows. On Pleasant Street, National Grid is proposing to install underground facilities on Pleasant Street. National Grid will be installing a new
switchgeear manhole and PME9 switch gear in parking lot number 277 on Pleasant Street. National Grid will also be installing four to 5 in of concrete conduits from manhole MH5-1 to manhole MH6-1
to new switch gear in accordance with plan number 31134152. Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. Let's again just state your name for the record, please. Aaron Roy, 1250 Brighten Point Road,
representing National Grid. Uh, this project um is a National Grid um proposed project um this area of Pleasant Street. We have old facilities. Uh Primacare is um helping us out by by
having us uh by letting us install a new above ground uh switch and module um that helps our um our circuits and our overall infrastructure. Uh but in order to do so um we have to install new new
uh conduits in the in the rightway of Pleasant Street. Um so we're using existing manholes 5-1 and 6-1 uh but installing four 5 in conduits between the two um the two locations um conduit being uh encased uh this type
of work typically is contracted out to uh body construction which uh which we use um the city the city's uh familiar with uh with body um but um whatever work they do they repair and they bring back to uh as new as possible. Any
questions? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Calling any other proponents wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none. Opponents. Any opponents wishing to speak? Hearing none. Motion to close the hearing would be appropriate. Has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Canuel. Discussion. Hearing
none. All those in favor? Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> We got to go. Our committee on finance. You guys ready? >> Mhm. >> Great. This forever city council committee on finance meeting will now be called to order. Madame clerk, roll call, please. >> Council Scadm
>> here. >> Camarra >> here. >> Can >> here. >> Dion >> here. >> Hart >> here. >> Heckham >> here. >> Pereira. >> Raposo >> here. >> President Ponti >> here. Just for everybody's edification, councelor Pereira did have another
engagement and will not be joining us uh this evening. 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 to such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed
acknowledged and permissible. First item on our committee on finance agenda is citizens input. Madame clerk hearing nobody signing up for citizens input. Next item on our agenda on the committee on finance is a resolution >> uh motion to lift from the table. Second.
>> Uh is a motion motion to lift the item from the table has been made by council vice president Dion, seconded by councelor repos. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item number two on our committee on finance is a resolution that was filed
by councelor Kadeim and councelor Tith. It's a resolution to convene with the city engineer uh director of engineering and planning and administration to develop a comprehensive funding strategy to match or supplement the city's annual chapter 90 allocation to increase
investment in roadway improvements. Mr. Aguiar, anybody else would like to join on this item, please come to the table. As you know, just state your name and roll for the record for the public document. >> Good evening. Dan Aguiard, director of engineering and planning for the city of
Ful. >> Emily Arpi, director of financial services. >> I'd like to go acknowledge Mr. Aguiar. Maybe you can give us a brief uh update uh in terms of where things are at. So, back in August, we had a great discussion with the council regarding potential supplemental funding sources
for the reconstruction of our roads. Uh, we had a discussion about what we are being supplied with through Mass Dot through the chapter 90 program, recent increases in that uh that number that Governor Hilly had implemented this year, which was very much appreciated.
In that discussion, we [snorts] um talked about potential matches or increase in municipal funds to either match completely or some mechanism of number to supplement that number so that we could more aggressively start chipping away at our depleting and
deteriorating roadway structure. Um, since that time in September, I did include a capital improvement plan that included a request for some additional street funding. Uh, since that time, we haven't had any correspondence from the administration
about that until this this uh request to come down tonight. So, if I if I may, um, out of the integrity of the resolution that's before us, Miss Arkkey, uh, I believe the councelor's purpose where it says, "Be it resolved a comprehensive funding
strategy to match or supplement the city's annual chapter 90 allocation with a goal of significantly increasing investment in roadway improvements and addressing approximately hundred million dollars in backlog identified in the pavement management report." So, what Mr. Agia are eloquently mentioned. I'm
curious to see what your team or you have done from a comprehensive funding strategy since August regarding this. >> So um it is incorporated into the capital plan that I know has not been published yet. Um it should be published tomorrow by before end of day. So it has
been included in there. It is I think in regards to um what we discussed back in August um on this item and also what was submitted um in Mr. Aguar's capital needs assessment. So, we have um included that, but the full look of how that comprehensive funding strategy
looks like it'd be best explained through the the full documents of the capital improvement plan that shows um the funding sources and the amounts um for the next five years. >> So, again, just to be clear, it's going to be in your 5-year capital plan that you're you're going to be sending to the council at the next meeting.
>> Correct. >> Roadways and infrastructure and everything along >> So, it'll it'll actually be published tomorrow. I know that we won't obviously be discussing it tomorrow, but it will be published for everybody to start reviewing um at that time. >> Thank you. Councelor and C4 council vice president Dion.
>> Um do you have um a round, you know, roundabout number that you're looking at? >> Yep. So um from the meeting um that we had back in August, um Mr. Argar talked about um being able to handle at least $5 million um in I'm going to say
generic roadway um improvements and reconstruction. So not including the special projects. Um so it is about that number. So it slowly increases from um I believe the first year which is next year it's just about 4.6 million and
then it goes up um upwards of like 5.3 by the fifth year of the plan. >> So I know um it's it's in our agenda packet here. Um we we got a print out from u Mr. Aguia are in terms of roads
that are um slated to be done um future roads would that money go towards would that increase the number of streets that we're going to be able to do as opposed to just supplement those roads? >> No, absolutely. And I think in that
document that's what we're that's was submitted just recently, correct? That you'll be discussing later on. So I think there's a line in that that says these are the roadways being contemplated. So y we don't do all of those but those are the streets that are being assessed >> and we cannot decide on a final list of
what we will be doing until this mechanis mechanism has been resolved. If it's determined that we just have chapter $90 to spend then we work off of that >> just that original correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. With that I yield. >> Thank you councel in seat one council.
>> Thank you. So, I guess [clears throat] my my question and I and I can wait for the discussion on the capital, but is is that the administration is anticip anticipating that we are going to be moving with the 4.6 and the $5 million or however whatever that projection looks like in the capital because I I
recognize, you know, capital plans are there, right? But at the end of the day, there's going to be limited resources, right? So, are we are we committing I guess that's what I'm trying to get. Are we are we committing to additional funds going over for the roads? >> Yeah. Yes. So, the the plan itself, I
know that the capital plan has not been necessarily utilized in the way that um I think we agree that it should be. So, this is all factored in um and it shows a full funding financing schedule for every project in there through all different sources, sources that have been confirmed, the amount of debt that we could take on to make all of it
happen. So, um the goal is that we will be sending it down. There will be financial orders to follow almost immediately that stay in line with the plan that show that it's not just a planning document that's required to be submitted, but it's a full plan that we intend to follow. So, um the one that's
in there for the roadways, it that almost $5 million includes the chapter 90. So, we're saying that we'll commit to about 5 million a year and then whatever doesn't come in from chapter 90, we will fill the gap with um debt service at that time. at this point in time. >> You mean maintaining the chapter 90
levels? Is that we say when when you say when you say filling the chapter 90? >> So the goal is to do about $5 million of road work a year regardless of how much chapter 90 is within that. >> Yeah. So >> so it' be 5 million total including chapter 90 and then we will supplement
whatever else it takes to get to that 5 million. >> Okay. All right. Um All right. I I'll wait till the capital item. I'm good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Um, anything else
for the counselor in seat six? Councel Peekom. >> Um, just as far as the funding, um, the local tax, the 3% community impact fee from the mar marijuana dispensaries. I know in a lot of cities and towns, that goes to the chapter 90 to take care of the roadways that the dispensary sits on
as long as well as public safety. When we take in that tax money, the 3% local, and then I believe we get 3% back, right, from the state, state kicks us 3% and we get 3%. Correct? >> Not anymore. >> Not anymore. Okay. Thank you. >> No, I'm sorry. Yeah.
>> All right. So, in a nutshell, any of the money that we receive in taxes from the marijuana dispensaries, does any of that get earmarked for chapter 90 or is it all going to the general fund and just spend it? Yeah, it's it's all right now for the general fund that um I'm gonna say host a community agreement that you
were kind of referencing that additional funding. That's what has legally been revoked at this point. So, so no. So, everything in there right now is just a part of the general fund. >> So, it's just a local tax that we collect both of it >> unfortunately. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield. >> Thank you, Councilman C2. Council,
>> thank you, Mr. President. Are we doing full reconstruction or are we doing overlays on these streets? >> Every street is is looked at differently. Um, >> so whichever one needs the full reconstruction will get done. >> Yeah. So we we make an assessment of existing pavement quality, gravel quality, granite curb, sidewalks. Um,
most of the streets need granite curb resetting. We don't we fill in with new curb when we need to, but most need new sidewalks. We don't tend to go into a street unless it needs a lot of work. Um, just because those are the streets that that we try to hit first. Um, very rarely do we do full depth
reconstruction, which would be pulling out gravel. Sometimes all of the asphalt comes out. Sometimes it's just a mill and an overlay. So like on Bedford Street, it was a mill and an overlay. So we mill first. Leveling course goes down first. That sits for about a year and then they come in and do two inches of
top after that. >> So it all depends on the on what the street conditions are. >> I'm sorry. >> It all depends on what the condition >> on the condition of the street is. most I haven't seen anything that's really required full depth. >> Okay. >> Um >> are we following the gas company what they're still doing there?
>> We are 100%. So I think in that memo again we're working with Liberty and with the department of community utilities to determine what streets are eligible. So there are a number of streets. You look at the excuse me the payment management plan that um we supplied councelor Rapo with back in
September. We have to do something to narrow down the streets. We can't just stop picking them willy-nilly of that one needs to be paid. So, if gas hasn't been done, we try to stay out of it. If it needs water or sewer work in the next 5 years, we try to stay out of it unless it's
completely falling apart and we have no other option. >> Okay. Um, there's one more question I had. Was it No, [laughter] >> it [snorts] was just I didn't write it
down. Um, with regards to the street, what was the question? I'll come back to it when I think about it. I thank you. >> If you don't remember, feel free to give me a call. [clears throat] >> No, no, I'll remember it. >> Constant C1, Council Kim. >> Thank you. So, you >> I remember [laughter] I'll take it back over too. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. [clears throat] Any vacant lots on any of these streets? Are we notifying the owners that we're going to be paving the streets if you want to put the laterals in and make >> 100%. We notify every land owner whether it's a vacant lot or not >> that this is the time to replace your water, sewer, gas, right?
>> If you want to alter your make sure we're doing >> you want to alter your existing curb opening, now is the time to do it. So yes, that all goes out um regular mail to every landowner. >> Perfect. Thank you. With that, I yield. >> Thank you. Councilman Sewan, you have the floor. Um, so my question is
regarding the pavement management report and I know you just made mention of it. Um, so the last report we have is 2014, >> correct? >> Correct. So is that useful? Is that a useful tool? >> It's useful. I honestly don't think it needs updating. >> Okay.
>> To be honest with you, I mean, if we were at the point where we were searching out streets to reconstruct, then it might be worth the effort to go in and redo it. Um you could really just throw a dot at a dart board and because there's so many >> and find streets. Yeah, there's >> all right. >> I was just going to ask
>> there is no there is no lack um of streets that need reconstruction. >> Okay. I was just going to ask if it was it would be beneficial to have a new updated pavement management report, but >> which which might just move some streets ahead of others, but I >> it might do some ranking um differences,
but we we still utilize that document to create our overall list >> and then we start looking at the qualifiers like gas, like water, sewer. Um, so we've also been very lucky with some grant opportunities that we've been able to to get over the
last year or two that help supplement this as well. And that's some of that documents uh was in that memo that I sent you as well. So, a lot of the times if we're able to get a grant that kind of steers us into, okay, well, now we have [snorts] to do that street. We just got $ 1.5 million to do the street. >> We have to [snorts] do that street, you
know. So, it's uh >> that kind of directs us as well. >> Okay. I yield. Thank you. Anything further on this item hearing? None. Is there a motion to uh table? >> Motion to table. >> Motion to table has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councel kadem. All those in favor?
>> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Agier. >> Next item on our agenda. Are you here for this too, Mr. Aguier? Regarding the uh >> Okay. Uh resolution to convene with the administration and the director of city
operations, Malivera. And um anybody else who wants to speak on this item, please come down to the table at this time. Item three, it convene with the administration the director of city operations to present a definite action plan for the repair of the Pearl Street
and Third Street parking garages. That item has been in committee and we will hear from you now. If you can please state your name and your role for the record, please. >> Ala, director of city operations. Stephanie MacArthur, director of traffic
and parking. >> Alan Ronti Corporation Council. >> Okay. Well, welcome. Um, this sponsor of this resolution was consent seat one. Councelor Kadim, uh, Mr. Oliver, I'd like to turn to you first. Can you please give us an update since we last discussed this item?
>> Yes. At this time, we uh I I'll give you a a quick chronological uh update of what we're we're currently doing. I I would like to also mention that part of the team that we're working with internally, we have other other tasks to
do, but these are some of the things that we work on daily when it when the situation arises. Mr. Glenn Hathaway, the building commissioner is not here with us right now. Uh Stephanie MacArthur, the director of traffic, and myself, we [clears throat] pretty much um work within the team to try to figure
out the next steps and then we work with the administration. Currently, last last Friday, I met with the appraiser. Uh the appraiser is going to be uh appraising the third street lot, the Pearl Street lot, and then the Third Street I I take it back. Third
Street garage, Pearl Street garage, and the Third Street lots. This appraisal will assess will give us a market value for each garage and lot. And this value will be able to uh plan the next steps. The appraisal will be uh
expected within two weeks. On June 20 27th, 2025, the city hired Ty and Bond designers and engineers to perform a structural concerns report of the third and the Pearl Street garages.
October 2nd, 2024, city hired Tyen Bond engineers to perform a conditions assessment of the Pearl Pearl and Third Street garages. the status in the current plan. The city has currently designed the total the
total repair of the Pearl Street garage with the possible procurement to bring the garage to full capacity. This appraisal will assist the city with the potential repairs in the poss or possible sale. Third street garage. The city has
informed its designer to complete the design of the third street garage. The city would procure these repairs to bring the garage to full capacity. Once the repairs are completed and at full capacity, the occupants of the lot,
adjacent lot will be moved over to the third street garage. Once the open lot is prepared, the city's plan is to add an additional level of a parking garage or additional levels to that open space.
Recently today, we had a meeting with the structural engineers regarding the Pearl Street garage. There was some verbal concerns of the garage. There was some chips that fell. We brought the structural engineers over again today to determine the condition of the garage.
Visually, they had no concerns. However, they're doing a a more in-depth report, and we'll have that report within a week. There are during that last investigation that they did in 2024, they actually had points within the
garage to determine if there's any shifts or or any cracks in the in the garage. And there's no cracks or or visible uh concerns at this point. We did uh cordon off some areas of concern and the only reason why we cordined off
those areas was specifically to uh spalding and some cracks of of chips falling down and potentially hitting cars or anything like that. But structurally of that garage, everything's okay to utilize right now.
>> Just be clear, we're talking about the third street garage, >> the Pearl Street Pearl Street. >> Pearl Street. Okay, very good. And that is an update that we have at this point. Any questions? >> Um to Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion.
>> So we'll have the results of two reports within two weeks. >> So we'll have a structural report that from this walkthrough that I had today and then we'll have the appraisal in two weeks. Yes. >> Okay. Um, I mean, obviously the garages
need to be repaired. They need to be brought to a useful life so that we can start um [clears throat] incurring more revenue. Do you anticipate that you will be coming down sooner than later uh to bond
to that end? >> Once we have the appraisal, we'll have the next steps of what we're going to do with each garage. And the plan is is to move forward with the repair of the third garage. So yes, we will be coming down for some financial issues.
>> Okay, I'll yield for now. Thank you. >> If I may ask, can you please elaborate for my edification and the edification of the council and the public? What is the appraisal going to do from a cost analysis in terms of how you are going to determine how much both of those garages need in terms of work? Are we
talking about an appraisal by an appraiser is going to then get you to begin your process to bid out the necessary repairs? >> No. Right now, right now we have the Pearl Street uh ready for procurement.
It's been ready for few months now. Uh the >> procurement for what, Mr. Aliver? >> Oh, I'm sorry. For the repairs for the repairs that was determined by the tie-in bond engineers. >> Okay. So those repairs we we put together a specification specification
with repairs we're uh the plan is is to procure that repair it and make full occupancy. >> Okay. So, just speaking to the appraisal part of it, there was um some questions and concerns brought up with um I think from
some members of the council or former members of the council that wanted to know what the garages were worth and if it was worth the amount of money that we were going to be putting into them to make them whole again. So, having this appraisal will just kind of hopefully proof out the cost um to repair and
maintain the garages moving forward. And be before I acknowledge I Carly can see one. How much money are these parking garages generating, Miss MacArthur, in terms of income per month? >> Just the parking garages or are you asking about the open lot as well? >> Um let's stay parking garages for now.
>> Uh both parking garages we're looking at about $50 to $60,000 a month >> each or collectively? >> Collectively. >> Thank you. Consul C1. Consul Kadim. >> Thank you. Uh, [clears throat] so you're you're saying so we've got the appraisal that's going to come back. So that's going to be a costbenefit
analysis whether or not it makes sense to move forward with repairs, right? You're saying that Pearl Street, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is ready to go out to bid. >> That is correct. >> So what is the anticipated cost for
Pearl Street? I know we're going to go out to bid, but do we have an estimate? So, when I mentioned that we we were looking at having the building uh the garages uh fully um occupied, the third
street garage is looking at 6,000 6 million uh 716,000 and then the Pearl Street is 4,255,000. So when I when we say fully that that's there's three phases that they designed
this uh these garages for. The first one was to make sure that every every space would be occupied. That's the first phase. We thought that would be important just to make sure that everyone is able to get in there, drive
into a space and be safe. The second phase was little minor constru concrete that was chipping because this this building is built in the 70s. There may be some rebar that's rotted through and has some
some structural issues. That that's phase two. Those repairs would happen as well. And then the third one is we're build we're renovating this. We're occupying this. Let's manage this by maintaining preventative maintenance. So
that's the full scope that we added to this. At any point in time, the administration or the council can say, "Hey, listen, let's just go with number one. Let's go with number one and number two. This is making that parking garage 100%
usable, stairwells, safety, everything. So those are those are the costs that we have for that. >> So the 4.2 million for Pearl includes all three phases. >> Correct. >> So when you say preventative maintenance, would what do you mean? Wouldn't we carry preventative
maintenance in the operating budget? >> Well, when we say preventive maintenance, it would be to make sure that uh we have that inspected annually. We have um repairs that just pop up during the preventative maintenance. uh
just to make sure that that those places are ready to go. >> So, and I I don't want to go down this road, but I I guess when I look at the 4.2 million, I'm looking at a complete renovation of the parking garages. >> Correct. >> Right. Soup to nuts. No other. And so, I
would I would think preventive maintenance would be built into the operating budget. I would I would think that you're either looking for a bond or one time >> like either >> Yes. So, >> stabilization account money. So I like how are you how are you building in the preventive [clears throat] maintenance into that number? >> So the preventative maintenance in in
the last phase from what I'm understanding is more of um like a step ahead of preventative maintenance. So rather than the the annual 10020,000 that we would be spending to put into it. It's to get ahead of some of the bigger things that could be
coming in the couple of years or doing things that would make sure that more of that doesn't need to be done is the way that I was reading those plans. So it's it's not as much of that number that you're hearing. It's it's probably just a small portion of it to kind of get it ready to be maintained through the
operating >> still major I guess major repairs or >> not necessarily minor repairs that you >> correct. So so the prevent the the normal prevented maintenance would be in our operating budget. That is correct. But this is a step above that. >> Okay. And so then I I I guess my
question is if if we're ready to go out to bid, there was no structural evaluation done from the the architect. >> There was there was a structural for for all all of them. >> Yes. >> There Okay. So what's what's the structural evaluation for now then? I guess.
>> So >> how's how's that different compared to what we did for the bid documents? >> So the structural what we what we did is there was some concerns counselor that we there was some chips falling down. So, we actually met with the with the engineers about a week ago. We're meeting we met
with them again today. There was some concerns about uh maybe the maybe the building shifting with all this snow load with with with some frost happening. And once that happened, we brought the structural guys in, assessed
it. We did a quick visual around and they kept after we left, we showed them the areas and they were doing their report. They were measuring things. they were making sure that we we shore up certain areas in that uh the areas that we're not occupying right now. So the
first question that I asked is please let me know if this is safe or not. Right? And without a doubt they they did we did a full walkthrough of that and then they said to what we see right now there is no concern. We'll do a full report and we'll tell you what other
things we'd like to do. Last time we met with them, probably six months ago, >> there was some concern against some some concrete falling off again, and that's why we cordined off some areas. The ma the major thing to me is making sure
that everyone's safe, that parks in there, right? I >> I think that goes without saying. I I guess what I'm trying to figure out is is that you put construction documents together without an instruct what you're saying a structural analysis was completed. But I guess what's changed? >> There was concerns that something had
changed is why we kind of called them back out. We I think internally felt like the documents we had said everything was safe, but because there was new chips that were following, there was a concern that our structural assessment from six months ago was no longer still true. And so there was just
it's just a reassessment. So, it's not holding anything up right now. It's just another checkpoint while we're waiting to move forward. [clears throat] >> There aren't actual additional concerns for >> none of that's none of that's going to be in the specification.
>> I guess why why wouldn't it why wouldn't it be in the specification though? Like if you come back with changes in structural like the report shows that there's a structural change like why why would that be in the specifications? Well, the what they're basically saying is we we just wanted to make sure that
those chips were not >> Oh, you're you're saying they said there's not going to be any change. >> Yeah, there won't be any Yeah, there won't be any change. So, I mean, what the specifications are right now, the only thing that's if we procure that today, the only thing that's going to change is the dates. >> I misunderstood what you were saying. I
I thought you were saying that there was the the structural report was not going to be included into [snorts] >> No, no, not not included. >> Okay. Um, and then structurally the the third street garage, there's no structural issues there. >> It's it's almost the same. It's just
that pearl with the pearl is this is the concrete. Um, if you look at the body, if there's if you just just little minor cuts and scrapes, that's basically what the pearl looks like. It's just some of the concrete that's that's spalding and and it looks bad, but every time we show
the the design the uh designers and structural engineers, they always say it looks good. Looks good. >> So then in terms of so we get the appraisal back um and I'm not sure what evaluation is going to be done by the
administration. So if if the decision or the outcome is is that we're going to move forward with the parking garages, are we taking both parking garages at the same time? We phasing them in. What are we what are we doing? >> The initial plan was to phase them in. Um but then we we determined let's get
an appraisal to make sure that we we're doing the right thing. And now once that happens, the plan would be the plan would be to move forward with both of those >> at the same time. >> At the same time, if that if that's what the the plan would be to do, >> the the design documents are written so
that we can be doing these repairs while they're occupied. So, um I think >> but at the same time, you're not going to take one first. You're not going to take Pearl Street first and then wait on third. >> We were only going to do one first because it was ready first because it needed less. So the only reason that we would semifase them is just whenever
it's ready, we're going to try and move forward. So >> all right. So we're looking at close to, you know, $11 million. Is that >> So the first the first immediate to get all spaces occupied is between the two is just under 6 million. So that's really the step one that we're going to
be taking financially right now. The goal would be for year one. So within this next calendar year that we would be looking for the funding for that six million to start. So you would be looking at a phased approach then >> just just for that initial I think the phases after that you know we could also
talk about adding them in then but I could tell you if you ask me today we can handle taking that six million today and I think that the goal would be to start there and move and then if we want to add to that within even the next six months that's fine I think it's just to not delay this any further we want to
get moving on the most important parts >> would I guess um from a cost save saving measure. I guess would would it make more sense just to get the authorization from the council for the all three phases put in the construction documents that
it's going to be phased so that the work obviously can be phased so we can get everybody in there. Um >> but just have one GC bid it all. Then they know they got I don't know three years worth of work that they got to do on the parking garages and then in minimizing mobilization going out to bid
again things of that nature. And I mean you got control of the you know when we go out to borrow so we don't need to go out for the entire amount. I'm just I'm just thinking long term what makes the most sense especially if you're going to phase it. >> Yeah. I mean to be honest with you it might the initial thoughts um I'm going
to say six months ago was that we were going to be doing this with free cash the first portions of it with free cash um now given this timeline that's probably not going to line up well. So that's kind of where that >> shift is coming from right now. >> All right I yield. >> Thank you. Just as a followup to councelor Ladims you you keep mentioning
preventative maintenance. Um Miss MacArthur where in your budget do you have preventative maintenance for the parking garages? That would actually be under director >> Alivera council. That would be facilities. Yes. >> So under you don't have it line item under traffic and parking. It's elsewhere.
>> No, we don't. >> Where is it? >> And facilities budget. So facilities has a >> repair and maintenance budget of about $2 million. >> Got it. Conc. >> Yeah, that was actually there. It goes. Um, that's what I was gonna ask because I was actually looking through the budget book just a minute
ago to see where that lined as far as the garages are particularly, but it's not just particular garage, it's overall facilities preventive maintenance >> and and we've talked about adding that line in, I think, in the budget conversations we've had once these repairs are done. So, at this point, that
>> level of you know, preventative maintenance is honestly kind of a waste there at this moment. So, as the repairs are done, so within probably fiscal year 28, um, we would have additional funds allocated into that, um, we do have the
breakout of detail of what we're kind of putting in for repairs and maintenance. So, we could put a line in if you guys would like to see it that way at that point in time to show specifically what's being done to these garages, but until these main repairs are done and brought up to um the standard that we
need it to, that general preventative maintenance line is not really fruitful. >> Yeah. Which make uh down the road that's what you want to see. Um, and I think during budget time I mentioned that the idea of that the $60,000 coming in per month from traffic is going to the
general fund as opposed to being reinvested in the long-term maintenance of the garages themselves. >> Council, we've had numerous discussions about that yet. And you're you're right. It makes sense. It does. We will make sure that when those revenues increase, the the preventative maintenance is also increasing in the budget, whether it's
in the general fund budget, whether it's in a special fund, but we will make sure that funds are very clearly designated >> um to be going towards this preventative maintenance to to not end up back here. >> Okay. And just hypothetically speaking, if let's say tomorrow the garage fully opened, would it be met with capacity at
that point? Is there is there a demand for it? >> Absolutely. I have a waiting list for both garages. >> Okay. Excellent. Um and then the last question is on the the terms of the uh appraisal. Is there any conversation or position of the administration to sell anything or is it just more of a just to
see what it's worth? >> So there is there is an appetite um to look into it right now and that repraisal will will will direct us to what where we can go with that. >> But is it safe to assume that the primary objective is to repair?
Currently the primary objective is to repair. >> Okay. I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council C4 council vice president Dion. >> Yeah. In terms of revenue and return on investment, how many more parking spaces will we gain if we bring both um up to
code, so to speak. >> In the Pearl garage, it would be 150 spaces and in the third garage it would be 120. >> So a total of 270 parking spaces. >> Correct. When we bring the garages to 100%.
At that point, we would also be able to increase the cost of parking. Correct. Which would also increase your revenue. >> Correct. Other than the individuals we're in contract with. >> Correct. >> But any of those other parking spaces, we could be renting them at today's rate
as opposed to >> what we're doing now. Correct. >> So, council, yes, that is correct. We've had nu numerous discussions about that as well. But the appraiser is also going to have the fair market typical rates in this area what we should be >> asking for
>> which I'm sure is still going to be more than what we're charging now. >> Correct. [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you. With that I yield. >> Thank you councelor councel in seat three. Councel [clears throat] >> thank you. Uh first question is there an estimate from for phase one once that
money gets authorized how long that would take to complete? So it would normally normally be around 10 months. However, we're going to be occupied at that time. Um so it's going
to be probably an additional three three months or so. Um plus. Okay. And then Miss MacArthur, you stated that we're getting I annualized it 600 to 720,000 annually for the two garages. uh
assuming these repairs are made and we get to full capacity since the demand is there. How much additional revenue would we be taking in as a result result of these repairs? >> Um I don't have that number on me. Um I can get that for you though counselor. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And that's also going to depend on if we
do increase the rates as well. >> Sure. I think just and the other thing I just want to comment on is regarding a sale of these. You know, I would be very concerned, you know, the city would obviously lose uh a revenue generator for us and particularly control of the
rates that people pay. I've seen many times uh places privatize parking and maybe get a little bit back from that, but those rates suddenly get jacked up and I'm worried about the impact to our businesses, especially downtown. If those rates were to go too high, it could deter business. So, with that, a
yield. Thank you, councelor. Before I acknowledge our colleague in seat six, just to be clear, when you say preventative maintenance in the operating budget, you're talking about in the facilities department having $2.2 million of expenses. >> Correct. >> There's not a line item for $2 million
for preventative maintenance in facilities. >> Correct. >> Okay. I just want to make it clear. I don't want people to think that we can try to find a line item of $2 million in facilities for operations. The facilities department has a budget approved of I guess it's a little over,
you know, $2.3 to $3 million or something like that for facilities. >> Correct. >> And you you're able to transfer within your own department without council approval if you have some surpluses and some funds for preventative maintenance. Correct. >> He doesn't necessarily transfer it. He's the one that's responsible for taking
care of the work being done in all city facilities. So, >> okay. I just want to make it clear because a a representation was made to this council that we have preventative maintenance accounts and I want to make it clear it's not like we have an individualized preventative maintenance account for anything in facilities. You
have facilities expenses. You don't have line items for facilities for preventative maintenance. >> Just want to make it clear out of curiosity if Miss MacArthur can or somebody can answer. Why wouldn't preventative maintenance for traffic parking garages be in the traffic department? I only oversee the
enforcement and the revenue part of the parking garages. >> You don't foresee any of the expenses? >> Nope. >> Counselor in C6, Councelor Peekham. >> Miss MacArthur, with the Pearl Street Garage, um is there you mentioned contracts a little while ago, contracted spots.
How many contracted at the Pearl Street Garage? >> Pearl Street Garage, just one. >> Okay. Um how many parking spots have they contracted to have? 250 with the option to have with a reservation fee being paid
an additional 200. >> So 250 now. >> Mhm. >> And then they have the option for 200 more. >> Yep. >> How many spots does that garage hold? >> 374. So, he's contracted or she's contracted for 450 spots and we don't even have enough spots in that building.
So, ultimately, we're repairing this building for a contractor, >> a contract. >> Contract. Yeah, >> seems like it. >> And that that's the reason that we have been at all entertaining a conversation on potential sale of the >> Okay. >> garage.
>> And with that contract, can we increase the parking fee in that contract? Can we up the cost of or the price of what we charge him monthly or is that set in the contract as well? >> Yeah, there's just an annual percentage that we're allowed to and he >> So ultimately at this point out of the
450 contracted spots we have less than that. So we might not see any revenue increase from that garage. Correct. >> Just wanted to put that on record. With that I yield. Thank you council president. >> Councilman seat one. Council Ladim. >> Thank you.
Um so in in in terms of the preventative maintenance have we talked to the structural engineers in terms of what we should be doing for preventive maintenance or I don't know if the architect has provided like just a checklist of yearly tasks that we should be doing. Do we do we have
>> Yeah. So that's part that would be part of the the agreement that we had with them. We just to make sure that they guided us to what we needed to do after the fact after all this construction. I mean making sure all the joints are are taken care of annually and inspected. So those are all things that were inclusive
of that. So they would give us a checklist. Absolutely. >> That that's inclusive of the [clears throat] going out to bid for the phases. >> Correct. >> I mean can we is that something we can get in advance just to know you know on a yearly basis you got to you know test concrete you got to test rebar you got
to I don't I don't know power wash. I don't I don't know what goes into the preventative maintenance for parking garages. So, I I'd like to just I guess see, you know, what what that task looks like, right, that on a yearly basis, make sure that we're following it, and then at that point, we can get a a
better estimate of what the yearly preventative maintenance costs associated with the parking garages would be. >> I'm just I'm just curious to know what that that looks like. And then we just have a a schedule of tasks that that need to be completed on these garages. But I just don't want to get to a point where, you know, we're spending $12
million and then we're just, you know, letting them just sit there without doing the preventive maintenance ourselves internally. >> That's a great question, council. That's the reason why I I phased it in. The first one is occupy. The second one is to repair and the third one is to make sure there's a preventive maintenance
schedule and and plan at at all those we could pick any one, two or three or all three. >> Okay. >> So that was the plan. >> So is that I mean is that a significant cost to like to phase it? >> It's really to fix it. >> No, no, to phase it, right? You're saying the main Okay. So, so we so when
we when we when we put the the phases, we can include all that as one, but just to know that what what work is going to happen in each phase. >> Yeah, I I guess I would be looking for the report in advance to any construction taking place so that we already have it, you know, so we we know whatever phase we're dealing with, you
know, we still have to go in there and do some type of >> I think that's the plan. When we submit a full financial order and plan, it we will include all of those documents that we've been looking at to make these decisions so that you all have that same information that we are making our decisions based off of. >> All right. I just want I just want to
>> and that's a great question, Council, but because we don't want to be here again because if we repair this and we put the funds into this, we don't want to come back and have a condition typical to this or any close to this. >> Yeah. I just I know we're not all
experts in parking garages, but I just want to make sure that you know I know elevators need to be inspected on a yearly basis is that that's what's needed on parking garages. Is there any type of you know specialty maintenance that needs to take place that would might have to you know sub out to to a
vendor to come in and do it for us and just get on a annual basis. That's all. >> Thank you. With that with that I yield. >> Thank you council to council chimera. >> Yeah it's just like bridges. It's very similar to what same maintenance they do with bridges and overpay over sightes, anything. There just they'll check for cracks, structurally sound, how strong
it is and that type of thing. Same inspection at the bridge. >> The joints hap joints happen to be one of the the top ones that >> they have to inspect. Just don't get the providence firm. [snorts] >> I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Councilman seed 88. Councelor Reposo,
>> just quick [clears throat] question. I don't know if you said it or not. When is the appraisal coming back on the two grounds? >> In two weeks. >> You're going to share that with us once you have it? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. I yield. >> Thank you. If I could offer a suggestion, um I think a lot of the discussion here tonight um had a lot to do with real estate and facilities. So,
if it if we could refer this item, if it's the will of the council to the full council so that the real estate committee and facilities committee would be able to discuss this in length and if there are appraisals come in, vet that there and then come back to the council if if it's the will of the committee. And if you're worried about getting a
financial outlook, um, we're going to capture that by Miss Arkkey is telling us in our capital plan. >> Motion to refer to full counsel. >> Motion to refer the item to full counsel has been made by councelor Raposo. >> Second. >> Seconded by council vice president Dion. Is a discussion on the referral? >> Hearing none. All those in favor?
Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to adjurnn finance. >> Motion to adjurnn finance has been made by councelor reposo. Seconded by councel pekkham. All those in favor opposed. The eyes have it. Thank you. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N.
Heat. [music] Heat. This forever city council meeting will now be called to order. Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Here, >> here. >> Daniel >> here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Heck
>> here. >> Carrera. >> Rapos >> here. >> President >> here. If everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer. [cough] [clears throat] >> Thank you. And a salute to the flag. I pledge allegiance
>> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 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 they're deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda, Madam Clerk. [clears throat] >> Mr. President, the first item before you
is the fiscal year quarter 2 budget report. >> Motion to refer the committee on finance. Second >> motion to refer the quarter 2 budget report to full coun uh to the committee on finance has been made by councelor reposo seconded by councel pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have
it. [snorts] >> Item two is a communication from the council president uh to the corporation council and the director of human resources regarding the executive summary of a recent internal personnel investigation into the public record and the corporation council's reply. Motion
to accept and place on file. >> Motion to accept and place the item on file has been made by council vice president Dion, seconded by councelor reposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item three is a communication from the council president to the mayor in
support of proposed renovations to the city clerk and council offices and the city council chamber lobby. >> Motion to accept. >> Motion to accept and place on file has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councelor reposo. Discussion. I just want to let my colleague in the colleagues in the community know I did
draft this letter only because um for a couple of reasons uh there is quite a bit of work needed in the city clerk's office uh even from a um from a perspective of weddings and some of the things that they do in that office for handicap accessibility for the main room in addition to the council chamber um
outside of our council chambers the floors are in terrible condition there's schools that come here for field trips and we're often uh dealing with deleg allegations uh and it needs to be a little bit more acceptable. A discussion was had with the city clerk, myself and Mr. Alivera prior to our first meeting
and I just wanted to be totally transparent with [clears throat] the council on our efforts to make sure that we clean some of these things up and make sure that our support staff, the clerks have a uh environment that is conducive to working conditions. So that that was the purpose of that. I just wanted my colleagues to know. Motion
hearing. No further disc 8 council repos. Yeah, I guess there's a question I'll probably have and and maybe it can get answered later, but essentially I know there was discussion about some of the improvements that were being done, ADA compliance for example. We talked about that a few years ago. I don't I don't know at this point where that
stands and if that was included a part of this because I know there was some work that was done. Madam clerk, I don't know if you can speak to any of that. >> Would you be referring to the counter? >> Yeah, >> that is complete. >> That is all complete. Was there any other work to be done outside of what that was going to happen
>> within the private offices of the city clerk um for the public to enter our conference room? There are some ADA limitations um because of the way the >> um the pathway to the conference room. So it does we've had some issues over the years
>> to to say with that >> to to just be to be more uh direct with you on that disrespect. Um, if somebody with a wheelchair comes into the side uh of the city clerk's office and tries to go around that door, it makes it extremely challenging to make that turn.
As well as it's also um a challenge for the staff to get behind that individual at times to help move move to get into that hearing room for a wedding or whatever they're there for. So, the discussion was had in that hallway that leads to the city council office is to hopefully see if we can put a door in
there that would be accessible to access the city clerk's hearing room so that they could adequately do that without that additional strain. >> Okay. So, I guess my I guess my bigger question is the status of the ADA um improvements that were slated to be done in city hall. I guess my my larger
question is is that if that's part of it. So, I guess Mr. president threw you to the clerk if we can get a update on that um to see if that's actually a part of it and if not probably should have that conversation. Um >> are you talking about ADA compliance counselor in the city clerk's office in the council room or all of city hall
>> that and of all of city hall because that in that committee we talked a few years ago when I was chair of that we discussed that um but I haven't heard anything since on it. So maybe an update would be helpful. All right, we'll certainly um get that update for you. Uh madame clerk, if you can send that email on behalf of councelor reposo tomorrow to Mr. Oliver to get an update on all of
city hall, that'd be great. If you want to file a resolution at the next meeting, we'll do >> find it appropriate to do so. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Motion to accept and place on file has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? You guys have it? [snorts] >> Item four is the communication from from the director of engineering and planning
regarding reconstruction projects under contract. >> Motion to accept and place on file. Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by councel Pekom, seconded by councelor reposer. Is there discussion? I will be the only one to tell you that um this is also a communication that I've had with Mr.
Aguar due to a number of individuals that have reached out to the council office and through our emails about when is their street getting done. I had a conversation exchange with Mr. Aguar. He um clearly let me know what locations and streets are planned getting done at various times and I wanted the council
to be aware of that. But I also asked Mr. Aguar if on a quarterly basis he could send this communication to the city council office so that we can be shared with all of you in a transparent manner. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it.
>> Item five is a communication from the director of city operations regarding the inspection of the central fire station. >> Motion to accept. >> Motion to [clears throat] accept the communication and place it on file has been made by councelor Pekham. Second. >> Seconded by councelor Canuel. discussion
>> hearing none constency 2 >> just want to clarify in that report there was no mention of asbestous blowing up there was no quicoan river in the basement I didn't see it
>> you asking me I can tell you that the letter says at the base at the basement I found suspicious white product inside of a pipe scattered on the floor This looks like uh clarification >> classification. >> Yeah. Whatever that word is byproduct inside of a cut cast pipe,
>> right? >> I didn't see the word asbestous. >> Correct. >> On it to answer your question. >> Yeah. I didn't see the word asia though. >> And as far as the quick shan river flooding out that basement is that I didn't see in the report as well. There
was no mention of that. >> You're correct. Was not in Mr. Olivera's report. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Council consent seat one. Council Kadim. >> Thank you. Just to piggyback on my council's uh my colleagueu's questions. So, do we know has the testing come back? Well, number one, I guess, has
there been testing for that? And I'm looking at that first picture that's in this letter where it says, "As I enter the basement, I found a suspicious white product inside of a pipe and scattered on the floor. This looks like a calcification byproduct inside of a kite, a cut cast pipe." I guess can we
get clarification because it doesn't say if it was tested or not tested and what did the test come back as because there's clearly white material that's that's there that could be it could very well be but I I guess I just want confirmation that it's not
asus right so if we can through the clerk get >> if you would like concert do you want to keep it you want to accept a place on file or refer the item to a subcommittee >> sure we'll uh we'll we'll send it to the uh chairs committee. Uh what's it called now? Real estate and facilities
>> or uh public safety, whatever you prefer. >> No, we'll just do real estate facilities. >> I think the questions are valid. I don't have any of the answers. I haven't been briefed by the mayor or Mr. Olivera on this. So to your point, counselor, I think we should uh certainly send it to the most popular committee by far in
these last two weeks. >> Is that a motion by council? >> So moved. >> Motion to refer the item to the committee on real estate has been made by council kadem, seconded by councelor reposer. Is there any further discussion on the referral council in seed 8 uh six council? >> Negative on the referral just the uh the topic itself.
>> That's okay. I'll let you speak on it. >> Um so I just want to touch upon what council Kadim said. If it was suspicious, you wouldn't know what it was. So I would like to get it tested. Um and as far as the Crican River running under the station, I've seen it. If nobody, if you're down there and you don't see it, better get your eyes checked. There's a big square in the
floor that's cut out and the water's running right under the station. Um it's a >> Oh, I I I know. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just let I'll acknowledge you next council. >> Yeah. And I know they have other issues such as rodent issues and whatnot in the basement and it appears to be uh that cut out in the floor with the water
running under the building seems to be a big uh contributor to that. Um but I just wanted to add that as well. Thank you council president. >> Thank you council conscency too council. >> Yeah. No I I I get that the river shank the quicker shank river flows under those buildings goes under chamber of commerce building as well but I don't want it I was told was flooding the
basement. >> That's different. So I mean if we just want to say in a report I didn't say what says you get >> no of course from flooding the basement. So >> if I may counsel I was only referring to the fact of what was reported to us that there was no mention of it at all but it's it's right there.
>> No no I know the building's under the shan and so is the chamber of commerce. A lot of buildings are but I want to make sure it's not flooding the basement there. Yeah the basement in the chamber of commerce building. It's not flooding any of the basements that I know of. So >> I don't want to take >> So I wanted to make sure he wasn't
flooding the basement to the fire station. >> Valid concern. >> You yield, counselor? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. Counselor in seat six. Council Pekkham. >> Just to touch upon that, I can tell you I've seen video to where [clears throat] it backs up and it blows guises out of the sinks. >> Wow. >> And the grease trap,
something you would see in the movies. So, thank you. I yield. >> You want to make a motion to wave the rules? Motion to wave the rules uh to bring Mr. Alive down. Mr. Salivary, you just welcome to the chamber. We're talking about the fire station. Your letter has been made by councel Kadim. Is there a second a wave of the rules?
Seconded by councelor repos. All those in favor? I oppose. The eyes have it. There is some follow-up questions. Mr. Oliver, I know you weren't in the chamber regarding um the fire station that you inspected in your letter. The motion is on the floor right now to refer it to the real estate and facilities committee so we can have a more broad discussion about it.
Counselor in seat one and counselor in seat two are asking questions about if you saw asbestous and if the basement was flooding. If you could just uh let the council know because that was not in your letter. If >> it was tested the suspicious material >> uh in the suspicious suspicious material if it was tested or not
>> or if you plan on it. Al Oliver, director of city operations. So there were two reports that uh materialized regarding this asbestous. The first one was every time we have any renovation,
older building older than 1972, you typically have to test. It's not typical. I It's a mandate. So, you test every product that may be interrupted. Wall plaster, ceiling plaster, ceiling tiles, floor
tiles, the mastic, pipe insulation, anything that could potentially be asbestous. That report was done and completed and I shared it with the uh the house captain. The only thing that they found that was
asbestous that they have potentially interrupting during the construction was the pipe insulation. Uh very rare that um I'm I'm surprised that that was the only thing that came up asbestous. A lot of times your mastics under the 12 x 12s come up
asbestous. Um ceiling tiles can sometimes but >> council in C2 council commander. >> Thank you Mr. Alvare. My concern is this. Where's there asbestous along the floor that is airborne? >> So there was in the basement. So I did that. That was the second inspection
that I did. I actually went down there and I saw this white dust. It to me it's calcium. It's a calcium product and because it was cut in the pipe. So if you cut a pipe it was clogged in. So, it was some type of a
calcium product. I also saw a holding tank, a water holding tank in the back underneath the large holding water tank that was cut at the uh pipe itself, not the asbestous. It was placed there. Those were the two
potential that it could be. I walked a contractor in last week. I'm going to be getting all that cleaned up to make sure that >> So, there was asbestous on the ground all over the place. Is it? No, it's not airborne. No, no, that is a different No, that's not what happened. So, when
someone walks in, they I saw I took a picture of it. >> It looks like it's a white product. It looks like it's a calcium product that they insulate pipes. >> Okay. >> That was inside cut within the pipe. >> I understand that. My question is very simple. It's not complicated. Very simple. Absolutely. Just Just hold on
one second. Is there asbestous all over that floor that is airborne that can be airborne by any >> unless you unless you get in a leaf blower and this could potentially be something. >> Oh, they're not the same thing. Anyways, what about is there the Quickershan River flood the basement? Did you see
any signs of the Quickers River flooding? >> So, I did talk visually it's not it's not flooding the basement. There's a sump pump there. So, there is a flow underneath that building. >> I I asked the house captain how many times he's seen it. He said he's seen it once. I've witnessed it. I didn't
witness it, but there was a flood prior to me coming on board in 2004. >> There is a pump. Once the pump fails, there could be a back backflow into that. >> So, that's the only concern that there was I think councelor Pekkham mentioned that there was a uh a grease trap
backing up and we repaired that and that's that's in that situ. >> I'll tell you if that's the case, I don't think we should be fixing anything in that building. We should knock it down and build a new one. to have the quick river flood that building. I mean, it just makes no sense. >> I I've council I've been I've been in
numerous buildings and I've managed numerous buildings with water flowing underneath. >> Water flow is one thing, but to have a river flow through it because when you get torrential 100year storms, it's going to cause major structural damage to that building. And we haven't had one in a while. So, if it's flooding now and you haven't had a hundred-year storm in
a while, once you get one, that building is going to be the basement's going to be full of water from the Quick Shane River. When that river starts to overflow, it's going to cause havoc, especially in that building. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, counselor. In seat one, councelor Kadina. >> Thank you. So, you said you went in there and you said it's not as
speestous. Did we test to see if it was a speestous or are you just saying based on your visual inspection of it that you're saying it's not asus? >> Well, that in that holding that little small holding tank there was in the corner underneath the hot water tank that I I believe is asbestous. So, what
I did the next day, I brought in a contractor. We're going to schedule a time with the with the fire department to make sure that we can go in there, clean that up. Even if even that white stuff, if it's calcium, if it's asbestous, we're going to clean that up one way or another. That's what I would
normally do if I was inspecting that building. The other thing we're going to do is there is in the second in the main floor. [clears throat] It's been repaired once, but there's some openings like microscopic openings. We're going to have that repaired with what they
normally call a wrap. So, those we're going to make that building safe moving forward if there's any concerns. And the house I I walked it with the house captain. He was not concerned at all with any of those those issues. >> But I guess you would have an environmentalist come in and and or a hygienist, I should say, not
environmentalist, hygienist come in and look at this, right? Because even if you're going to clean it up, you got to know whether or not it's a asbestous because if it's asbestous, you got to treat it differently, right? So even just the disposal piece. So I guess why haven't we tested the the white material that looks suspicious?
>> I to make a determination one way or the other, it's a speestous, it's not as um you know, the accusation is is that we have a speestous all over the floor. So one, I I think obviously we've got to clean it up. And again, as I mentioned, if it's a speestous, we've got to have it removed properly, right? So,
>> so the company that I brought in, that's what they do. Uh, it I asked, they didn't test it. But what I asked to do is the company that was testing this, I asked them to test it. They didn't test it. So, the next day when I went in, I actually brought in a contractor just to
do a vacuum and and wash that wash that down. It would be minimal. >> So, I can still test it, but it's not going to tell me anything that I >> No, but it would it would tell us whether or not we had firefighters in the basement that were We're kicking up asbestous and things. >> I'll have that tested first thing in the
morning and I'll have it 24 hours. But to me, I was I was trying to be proactive with that. No, normally what I would have done. >> I I appreciate the proactiveness and I'm I guess I'm also just trying to make a determination whether or not it was a speestous right on on the floor. And and again, I I don't
>> I mean, listen, I I know the protocol is we can't just go vacuum and clean things up if it's a speestous, right? So, it >> would be a heavu. Yeah. Right. So, >> it would be these were licensed licensed contractors that do that. So, council. Normally that's what anyone would do with as a as an
inspector just get it. But even even the I guess my concern is is even the vacuuming even if it's hepoilters and all this other stuff like you would have to you know once you have to cordon off right you would have to cordon off the plastics >> no one no one would be allowed it's just
it's just what they call it's it's a um it's a a preventive maintenance that they call it's shortterm it's DI allows that to happen they spray it with water and then just ho vacuum and they wash it down if that's what it was I'm going to sample that first thing in the morning,
counselor. Right. I really am. I don't believe it is because it's within the pipe and it's calcium product and it's >> it would make it would make you feel a lot better if it wasn't asbestous and you come back to the council and say it wasn't as everybody was just a little worked up about calcification as opposed
to whether or not I mean listen the media already have it like I I just think we need some type of response as to whether or not it was asbestous or isn't as just to put you know that uncertainty to to rest as to whether or not it is and and um if we're rectifying it That's
fine. And then obviously as as you're going through the windows, they they test the caulking as well that there's no asbesus in the caulking. >> I don't believe there's any cocking in that. It's just it's within it's within the frame. So, but that that >> once that gets in into the design factor, they'll they'll come back and
and inspect that. >> All right. Perfect. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council consul 3. Consul. >> Thank you. Uh so you'll conduct a test of whether or not that's asbestous. The accusation was that it's airborne. Is there an air quality test? Something
that we could test the air to also for going through the step of testing what's on the floor. Something to check the air as well. Put us all at ease. >> I can get that tested as well again. So the proactive was to get it done, but I can get that tested with no problem.
>> Thank you. I >> you yield. >> Council in seat six. Councelor Pekham. >> Uh Mr. Aloa, has there been any asbestous uh remediation done at all yet? Like in the recent like in the recent past? >> No, since I've been here. So, what hap
anytime anytime we have to interrupt that, we will we will have that taken care of. We'll have an asbestous company come on in, get it tested. But the last time we had anything at central, it was that um pipe that was an issue. They cleaned up that pipe with at the level
um there was a major walkth through and I wasn't able to walk through my uh maintenance manager told me the next day we brought someone in and we corrected the issue. So, and that was recently, correct? Sometime >> probably last year or the year before it was >> cuz I was told re I was told recently
that at the end of last year there was some pipes removed. One of them being up in the back south corner second floor there was a pipe removed that had some asbestous concerns and then a pipe wrapped in the bathroom. There was some work done because I was there last week and I saw that there was some >> wrapping I believe you called it put on
the pipe in the bathroom. council. It was a preventive maintenance. And once that uh happens, that's what that you wrap it. It's like a cast. You you put the water on it and you cast it. You mold it. >> Now, who came in and did that? >> That was a licensed contractor. Okay. >> ERS. >> Okay. All right.
>> So, the other one that you're probably looking at, it was it was a an air cell, which is cardboard that has asbestous woven into it. They put a glove bag in there and they removed that because there was a concern that there was a potential um for asbestous and it wasn't
a and it was a crazy area that normally you wouldn't have asbestous in. >> Okay. >> But so we we weren't sure. We just had it done that way. >> And the tiles on the second floor that have kicked up because I've seen quite a few and one of them's a leather floor cuz they used leather back then. Um what about the subfloor under that because
that floor is extremely damaged. So, councelor, in the report, you'll find that that's what they call battleship lenolium. >> Um, they have that in battleships, and it's like a um a like a like a bag underneath that, like a a like a woven bag underneath
that. There's usually potential mastic beneath that. That was tested. The mastic and the product itself was negative. >> Okay. I appreciate I yield, council president. >> Thank you. Um, just for our own edification, I I can acknowledge my counselors who want to speak. The item is being referred to the real estate
subcommittee, but if we want to continue this conversation, that's okay. But I just want to remind us we're in full counsel. Uh, and uh, we want to keep this full council meeting going. Council in seat 8, councelor Rapo, >> I yield. >> Council seat one. Council Kadim, >> I just quick clarification then we can
discuss it in subcommittee. But you had just told me that you had a company come in to vacuum and then council Pekkham asked you if there was any asbesus removed that you had to get a licensed contractor to come out and take care of it. So did we have a licensed individual come
to vacuum or >> No. No. There's been no vacuuming counselor >> because we don't know if it's a speestous. We I had a plan to come to have the guy come on in once we once we got a proposal from him to come on in and clean that up because there was a potential that it could be.
>> So the only thing I'm looking for an explanation because again not my area of expertise but if you need a required or you're required to have a licensed company to come in for any type of asbestous removal why would you not need a licensed individual to come in and do
asbestous cleanup? It's the same company that we would use. We would not use any anytime there's the word asbestous. You don't use any other company except someone who's licensed. >> So the individual who came with the vacuum is a licensed asbestous. >> No one came with the vacuum. I I actually walked them through.
>> Just to be clear, Mr. Oliver, you you indicated that to councelor Pekkham. That's why >> two different events. That's why talking about before >> just want to make it clear >> this is >> no no I I understand there's two different events but the question the line of question that council Pekkum asked was was there any asbestous removal
>> and then he said yes he had a licensed contractor who is licensed to do asbestous removal come in and I was questioning the most recent one which last week or whatever it was so we're fast forwarding I don't know how many years to the present day right >> where we have potentially white
substance on the floor and we were told that somebody came in with back and just started vacuuming it. >> Council, I actually brought the person in to walk through to give me a proposal. No one did any vacuum. No one did any testing. >> The thought was is to get the contractor in
>> to get a proposal. I would not put it this way. If I walked someone through and they did that work, we would be breaking the law. They still need to get a an authorization. >> That's that's where I'm getting confused because I ass >> that's why I was asking you, did we tape up the doors? cuz I I assumed Well, I
guess what I understood was that you had people come in and vacuum it up. >> Absolutely not. All right. Absolutely not. Just a proposal to get that work done. >> Understood. Okay. That clarifies everything. Thank you. Thank you, council, for the clarification. Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion. >> Yeah. Just one question. I just want to
make sure that I understood correctly. You said that the uh caulking on the windows tested negative for asbestous. >> We didn't we didn't test any any caulking. That wasn't that wasn't part of the plan on that one yet so far. So you have no reports at all on asbestous testing anywhere in that building?
>> We do. We have the report. The report with all the interior work right now. >> That's the only thing that was tested right now. >> What was the only thing that was tested? The only thing that was tested was any material. The wall plasters that I mentioned, the ceiling plasters, the
ceiling tiles, the concrete baseboard, the concrete mastic, the floor tiles, the um battleship lenolum, and then pipe insulation. There's interior door that they they
tested that they tested the glazing on the interior door. So anything that within the interior there was no testing on the exterior or or anything like that yet >> and those >> because that's not the plan >> and all of that list that all come back negative or positive. >> Everything came back negative with
exception to the known asbestous piping. >> Okay. Thank you. I yield >> and >> for again just to be clear to our colleague in C4's question the testing that was done that was at a prior event that hasn't been recent and tomorrow you said you're going to go start go downstairs with the house captain and
start getting that white stuff tested that's in the basement. Correct. >> So yes the the one that I just mentioned was was to get ready for the construction project. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further >> hearing? Now there is a motion to refer the item to the committee on real estate
and facilities that has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you, Mr. Oliver. >> Thank you, >> Madam Clerk. >> Item six is uh the traffic commission recommending amendments to the traffic ordinances. >> Motion to refer to the committee on
motion to refer the item to the committee on ordinances and legislation has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> The committee on real estate at a
meeting held on January 20th, 2026 voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying order be adopted with councelor Hart absent not voting. This is the order for the sale of the site of the former Deval school located at 112 Flint Street to Contractors Lending LLC
for $150,000. >> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt. The order has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pekkham. Is there discussion hearing? None. All those uh roll call [snorts] >> on adoption. >> On adoption, council kadim,
>> yes. >> Chimera, >> yes. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> yes. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes.
Whereas the city of Fall River currently contracts with easy disposal for residential solid waste and recycling collection and that contract is set to expire in the upcoming fiscal year. And whereas the city of Fall River historically provided residential solid waste and recycling collection inhouse
through municipal operations prior to the 2016 decision to privatize these services. And whereas the city is expected to seek external bids for a new solid waste collection contract with a multi-year term. And whereas the city council has a
fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all major expenditures are evaluated in a transparent datadriven manner to secure the best possible value for taxpayers. And whereas the only option currently under discussion is the solicitation of
external bids and the city has not publicly publicly presented a recent comprehensive analysis of the cost to provide residential solid waste and recycling collection in house. And whereas the cost of external bids is not
known until proposals are received and market conditions including labor, fuel, equipment, and disposal costs have materially changed since the original privatization decision. Now therefore be resolved that the city council hereby
requests that the administration in coordination with the director of financial services, the director of city operations and any relevant parties prepare a full cost analysis of providing residential solid waste and recycling collection inhouse
and fur and be a further resolved that this analysis shall cover the same contract lengths being contemplated in the upcoming solicitation for external bids. include all associated costs included but not limited to staffing equipment, acquisition or leasing vehicle
replacement schedules, maintenance, fuel, benefits, insurance, administrative overhead, and long-term capital obligations. Clearly identify all assumptions used in the analysis. Be structured in a manner that allows for a direct comparison to
external bid proposals when received. And be a further resolved that this cost analysis shall be for formally presented to the committee on finance within 90 days of adoption of this resolution. And be further resolved that the completed analysis shall be presented as a viable
option for consideration by the city council prior to any vote authorizing a new solid waste and recycling collection contract. >> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt. And I don't think it's necessary to refer to the committee on finance because the resolution does
that. So motion to adopt has been made by councelor repos. Is there a second? >> I seconded by councelor Canuel. Discussion the sponsor of the resolution. Councelor in seat three. Councelor Canuel. >> Thank you. I just filed this resolution because about a decade ago under Mayor
Jel Korea, the city privatized the trash and since then uh I know we're still paying for the trucks. And right now, as far as I've seen, the only discussion item is uh an extension of external bids. And at this point, I just want to
make sure that prior to us taking a vote for any potential contracts that we have an applesto apples comparison of what that would cost to bring it in house. I'm not saying that we have to do that. I'm not saying that's the best one. I I think the numbers will speak for themselves what the in-house cost would
be versus the external bids. And I just want to make sure, especially for my uh colleague right next to me, Vice President Dion, that you know, the council doesn't have their backs up against the wall without a choice when bids come in. That there could be uh
another option on the table by having this potential analysis completed and what those are. You know, when I think about private companies, they are for-profit companies. And you know, I just want to see what those numbers line up to be side by side so that we can make the best decision. With that, a
yield. >> Thank you. Just I'm just curious. You mentioned paying for trucks. Which trucks [clears throat] did I hear you say we're paying for? The old trash trucks. >> The old trash trucks. Correct. >> We're still paying for those. >> All right. I just we'll we can we can certainly find out. I I believe those trucks got auctioned under the Jel
Carrera administration. Um >> the mayor made that comment to me the other day. >> Okay. And I'm I'm not calling you out on it. I'm just I because if we're still paying for trucks, I'd like to know more about that. So to your point, thank you councelor. Any further discussion? Councilman C4, council vice president Dion. >> Um I do know that yes, there was a
balance that we were still paying on. I don't know if we still are at this moment, but yes, that part >> through our debt through our debt service. >> Um I don't know. >> It is. It is. It's they didn't they didn't auction off enough money to pay
the debt service. >> Understood. We're still paying those. Okay. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, Councilman Seat 1. Council Ladim, >> thank you. And and I'm just going to say I I fully appreciate and I'm professing my love to councelor in C3. I I'm not
trying to beat him up. However, however, I just we just need to understand our role. And I know I I sound like a broken record. We are a legislative body, right? So there is nothing wrong with asking for this information. However, the
resolution is basically telling the administration to consider bringing in-house the services of trash that we just privatized. And we went through this entire um analysis 10 is it 10 years ago? Uh six years ago, whatever how many what whatever years how many
years it was um and not not for nothing like that that's up to the administration to make that determination. There is a lot that goes into this. Uh you want to go back I mean there's workers comp. I mean, there are people that we're still paying for uh just because of either deaths or loss of
limbs or things of that nature when we had this service in house. And I don't know of a community who has privatized trash and then decided to bring it back in because the um liability and the cost associated with it. It's not a business we want to be in. Um so I I I don't mind
the question of what the cost and the costbenefit analysis that's that's done. I think I think those conversations should be had when a contract comes down before us uh to approve a contract uh for any type of future services whether
it be solid waste or or even um recycling um even if this gets approved to think and and listen I'm I'm the first one that beats up Miss Arky when she's down here and but I'll also be the first one to say and and try to protect
her when if we honestly think that this can get done in 90 days amongst everything else that's getting done. This type of analysis doesn't happen in 90 days. There there is absolutely no way if you if you're looking for for the right analysis. She's in the middle of putting together a capital plan. We need to do that. She's already started her uh
FY27 budget outlook that's not even completed. And then we're going to start throwing in additional stuff where probably there is never any consideration to go in and bring these trucks back in. Then you got to go get bids um or or at least a cost estimate for what it would cost to get trash
trucks in here. And then how many individuals you would have to be then you'd have to have to talk about whether or not the maintenance uh associated with it, the routes that are associated with it, how many people, you know, there there's uh economies of a scale when you have a company who does this for other other municipalities, right?
They they don't not held to the same standards that a municipality is. I I just there's a lot here, but I I I think we need to slow our role a little bit. We are legislative, right? We we can't dictate to the administration the direction we want to go in in terms of how he provides, and I say he because
Mayor Kouan, how the administration uh provides these services. I mean, we can stop questioning some of the the decisions when they come back down before us, but we have nothing before us to to really discuss. I mean, if we want to talk about an ordinance, whether or not we want to stop, you know, collection to businesses, then that's
that's within our purview in our in our um jurisdiction for for ordinances. And and again, and I appreciate uh the proactiveness of trying to get it, but again, we are legislative. We do appropriations. We do ordinances. We can't get involved in day-to-day
operations, and this is clearly getting in uh involved with day-to-day operations. And and and quite frankly, there's a lot here. This is this is a lot this is a lot of work that goes in just to provide the documentation that's that's requested. And I know we only
meet every two weeks and and I know the mindset of elected officials like okay we meet for two weeks we don't think about this stuff. We go back and we do our day-to-day business and then we come back in two weeks and we think everything's going to be done right and we we don't understand or appreciate the
day-to-day activities that take place in running a municipal government. There's there's no way that that that can be done in 90 days. Not even close. Even if we wanted to have it like we're just setting people up for failure. Um so with that I yield. >> Thank you. Council >> point of clarification. Can we bring Miss Arkkey to the table? Wave the
rules. >> Is there is that a motion? >> Yes. >> Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor Canuel. Is there a second? No second to the motion. Council seat 8. Councelor Raposo. >> Yeah. Just out of [clears throat] curiosity, what is the timeline of the trash contracts right now? Do we know when they expire?
>> I don't know. What? What is it? Just say it. >> June 30th. >> June 30th of this year. >> This year. >> Yeah. June. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything further on the resolution? >> Hearing none. There is councilman seat 3. Council annual. >> I just want to go back that the decision
to privatize uh we were promised an $8 million savings when that was done. I don't think I've ever seen an analysis that actually showed that we achieved that savings. Um, again, I I'm concerned that our this council's only option if
we don't have this type of analysis will be the external bids and we won't have a reference point as to whether or not that's a good deal. You could come you could have one bidder for a billion dollars, right? And we have no alternative on the table. Easy hired all of our uh laid off city workers when
they took over. uh that was my understanding at least we could easily if we did not have a contract with easy go and look to hire those individuals uh back. I do fully appreciate that there are a lot of cost and things to consider. Um I do believe uh that Miss
Harpy has completed a some type of analysis about a year and a half ago uh I think when uh easy was threatening to walk away uh from their contract. I think they did that analysis through the end of the contract as I understood it. Um, so there are some basics in there,
but obviously if you're only going from a year and a half out of what's remaining in the contract, the numbers are not going to make sense. But if you put it over a 10 year, 12-year period, which is what this contract would likely be, uh, I just don't know. There could be a significant savings. I think when
we think about the things that will directly impact the taxpayers over the next decade that one of the biggest ones is going to be this trash contract and how much that costs and all. I'm not directing the administration telling them what to do that this is the best deal. I think the numbers will speak for
themselves. I just would like the numbers to be completed because I'm not convinced that this was a good decision a decade ago. I haven't seen the numbers to prove that. And with that, I yield. >> Thank you. Uh the motion on the floor has been >> Can I dismiss the president?
>> I'm sorry. Council C1 council. >> So if my colleague hasn't seen the information to suggest that it's not working, what information does he have to say that it isn't working, right? So it works both ways. So you either have information or you don't have information. But we we've done the
analysis 10 years ago like we've already gone through it. the liability. I again there are reasons why there are communities [clears throat] leaving the industry. This is not a business we want to be in nor should we be in the cost savings
alone. You don't need to have all the detail that's there. Just liability exposure, the liability exposure alone for workers comp. You go ask ask corporation council the number of people we are carrying for the for the remainder of their lives that we've got
to pay workers comp because they've got lost the limb or there was a death associated with the trash collection. It is significant. That alone in itself would tell you that the liability for this this job itself should be outsourced and not part of what we need
to do. And if there's only one bidder that's bidding, that's what the market is driving. Like there there are there are companies out there that are constantly I you know I I just went out for for Secon last year. We had three bids that came in. It's a smaller community. You know, when you're talking
about the size of the city of Forever, you're going to have more than three companies coming in to to put a bid. Just just the tonnage alone is going to drive it. Just the tonnage alone. Um I don't know. And and when you say you're not directing it, you're directing them to complete an analysis,
a full analysis, a full scale analysis that they don't currently have. So I don't know how you could suggest that it's not directing, right? Be it further resolved that well be it further resolved that this cost analysis shall be formally presented. So
you told them to submit a cost analysis of benefit and that the complete anal analysis shall be presented to us. So you just directed them to do a complete analysis of you know our trash program to bring it in house. >> This council asks for analysis of books all the time.
>> C1 we we ask for analysis on trash things that we're currently doing. Right. We're not saying to go backwards and start redoing an entire analysis on, you know, bringing bringing trash in the house. Listen, I'm good to I'm good to to go. It's it's just not legislative. I I
would suggest, you know, that that folks really learn what the legislative body is is responsible for. That that's all I'm saying. We we we are walking such a blurred line. And I said this to the administration. I said it to you, council president. Like there is a lot that's going on. I mean, a lot. Like
there are city councilors overstepping their responsibilities. And I don't know how the administration hasn't pushed back on it. And I've said it from day one. Listen, Mr. Arkkey, I had a conversation with Miss Arkkey, you got to stop pushing back. This is going ary. and it's going to arrive really quick and you're not going to be able to come back and push people back and into their
direction. We are a legislative body. That's what we are. We took an oath to be a legislative body. I didn't run for mayor. I don't want to be mayor. I'm good with that. Right? That's not what I want. So maybe there's eight other councils that want to be mayor. I don't. I'm here as a legislative body. I am
here to do appropriation ordinances and have conversations and obviously, you know, ask tough [clears throat] questions with regards to what is being presented to us doing financial analysis. I'm good with that. But directing the administration in terms of a direction that they're going to go in, like you would never see that from a legislative body. I I would ask you to
go attend a town meeting in another community where the legislative body is the voters where the voters are going and telling the administration what direction to go in. That's what the board of selectmen do. With that I yield. >> Thank you Councilman C2. Councelor Lamar. >> Thank you Mr. President. So yeah 10
years ago we made the switch. Why? Because the trucks were falling apart. He talks about liability. Good point. Just the maintenance just to keep up of the fleet that was old and you know the quickest thing that goes in trash business is the trucks. You know how expensive those trucks are? Then you
have to maintain them and you got to store them inside to make them last longer or to keep them out in the street so they can get full of snow today like last weekend. It's just they deteriorate so quick. You got to get there's so many issues that take place
as council once said when you're running a trash business. It's beyond anything the city can can take care of. And it's just we have a tough time taking care of a couple of bobcats and a couple of lawnmowers and it's just gets no maintenance to those
things and they fall apart and we can't maintain them and we have people operating properly. It's just it's it's difficult. But the fact that my colleague in C3, which I respect his resolution, you know, listen, if we can change the world, we will and we'll help you do it. But some things like this I just can't be a part of. But the fact
that he said we might get one bidder for a billion dollars. Now, honestly, like let's be let's be fair, right? We're going to get one bidder for a billion dollars. Maybe the one bid is going to be like $2 billion, right? Three billion dollars, four, who knows what the bids are going to come in. And if we get one bidder, as my KC once said, that what
that's what the market bids. There's only one person interested in doing it. A lot of a lot of companies, we've had it before when we put it out to bid, they gave us different bids, different options, and we chose one that went with it. So, I I can't support this. Therefore, I'm out. With that, I yield. Thank you,
>> council seat 8, councelor reposo. >> I I [clears throat] guess my my larger question I'm sure there's some historical data that could be made made available to the councelor regarding the days we did do trash in the city and give them some baseline of of what you're thinking about. Maybe that would be a good start here. Um because we have
that I'm sure we have that financial information because you know we are there's a lot of historical conversation going on here but I'm sure some numbers from the past would probably help and then obviously add inflation what have you. So maybe if that's something that's available, it could be shared with with council Canuel. I yield
>> council in seat one, council kadim. >> Yeah, listen just go back and do research. I mean there's discussions that were had like you can go watch the meetings 10 years ago. You can hear the presentations that were done. You know, we talk about the $8 million savings. You know why we didn't save $8 million? Because we were
also supposed to lay off all the people that did trash, but we kept half of them. >> They are now currently in working in uh community maintenance, right? So, are we now suggesting that we're going to take those individuals? I mean, is is there anybody saying that community maintenance is not busy doing what
they're supposed to be doing? I mean, because I I would suggest that there are more complaints saying that they should be doing more, right? So, knowing that, so the people that used to pick up trash are now doing something else. They're preoccupied with it. So, so we're going to have to hire way more individuals,
right? And so, we only eliminated half of what we said we were going to eliminate because they said, "Well, you know what? We actually need these individuals to do other tasks." and they reassigned folks. So, you didn't get the complete savings that you thought you were going to get. That that's just
>> Yeah. I mean, we can go on all night, but with that, I yield. >> Thank you. You're out. Councilman Seat 3, Council Canuel. >> Yeah. I just want to remind my colleagues that this is just to get the numbers to make sure that we are making the best decision for the residents of F
River. I think 10 year old data is very outdated. Uh I feel like this, you know, should be something that, you know, the administration should have already considered as this contract comes up upon us at the end of the fiscal year. And again, I am just looking for the
numbers on that and and what they would be in today's dollars. >> Thank you. You yield. >> Hearing no further discussion, motion to adopt has been made and seconded. Roll call. >> On the motion to adopt the resolution, council scaven.
>> No. Chamra, >> no. >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> no. >> Hart, >> no. >> Heckham, >> no. >> Perro, >> no. >> President Ponti,
>> no. >> Next order of business. Whereas the city of Fall River through its community development agency, CDA, has worked diligently to secure and administer grant funding to support public safety, mental health, and
addiction outreach services for vulnerable residents. And whereas the FA the Fall River addiction support and treatment fast team currently operates on the federal connect and protect grant and plays a critical role in connecting individuals experiencing mental health
crisis, substance use disorders, and homelessness with appropriate services and supports. And whereas the city has been advised that several federal addiction and mental health grant programs have been reduced or eliminated, placing increased
strain on local agencies attempting to maintain continuity of care and outreach services. And whereas CDA has made good faith efforts to identify and secure alternative grant funding to sustain the fast team, but reports that maintaining
this funding has become increasingly difficult. And whereas the potential loss or reduction of fast team services would have a direct and negative impact on public safety emergency response and the well-being of residents most in need of assistance. And whereas the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has demonstrated a strong commitment to addressing mental health, substance abuse, and homelessness through state level funding partnerships and legislative initiatives. Now therefore be resolved that the city council formally request assistance from the
commonwealth of Massachusetts to help identify potential funding sources to sustain the fast team and related mental health and addiction outreach services and be a further resolved that the city council send a letter to Senator Michael J. Rodri, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Ways and Means, requesting guidance and consideration of state funding options or bridge funding to support these essential services. And be a further resolve that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the mayor, the director of financial services, the
executive director of the CDA, and the Fall River State Legislative delegation for their awareness and support. >> Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Rapo, seconded by councel Canuel, the sponsor of the resolution. Council in seat 3. Councel Canuel. [snorts]
>> Thank you. I offer this resolution because we are seeing significant challenges from a federal level with cuts and I really would like to see the state step up particularly with our chairman, Senator Michael Rogers, who's in a very good position to potentially
help us find ways to fund this. So um I know I understand sometimes the answer is no but I also know I also know that if you don't ask the answer is always no. So with that I yield. >> I agree with you. Motion to adopt has been made and seconded. All those in favor? >> I opposed.
>> Council did you want to speak? >> Negative. >> Sorry I didn't see that. U motion to adopt has been motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councel Canuel. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? I >> opposed. The eyes have it.
>> Item 10 is a citation for 911 emergency dispatchers as me council 93 local 3177 for their service to the city of Fall River on the night of July 13, 2025 during the Gabriel House Assisted Living Residence Fire.
>> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt a citation has been made by councel Canuel, seconded by councelor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> The next item is an order from the Massachusetts Electric Company EVA
National Grid for one new pole location on Millish Street. >> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Peekham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item 12 is an order for an underground conduit also from National Grid to
install underground facilities on Pleasant Street. >> Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councelor Hart. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have >> item 13 is the renewal of an auto repair
shop license for Richard Artori's DBA Empire Hyundai at [clears throat] 428 street. >> Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Peekom, seconded by councelor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Item 14 is the police
chief's report on licenses. >> Motion to adopt the >> Motion to adopt the police chief's report has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pekham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item 15 is an order from Fall River Taxi
Service, Inc. for new taxi cab vehicle applications license number 6, 111, and 16. >> Motion to adopt. >> Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? opposed. The eyes have it. >> Item 16 is a number of claims.
>> Motion to refer to corporation council. >> Motion to refer the claims to corporation council has been made by councelor Pekham. Seconded by councelor reposer. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item 17 are zoning board of appeals minutes for the December 18th, 2025
meeting. >> Motion to accept, place on file. Second. >> Motion to accept the zoning board of appeals minutes and place it on file has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to take items 18 through 20 23 together.
>> Motion to take items 18 through 23. City council minutes has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by council vice president Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? >> Read 18 through 23. >> She's going to his motion is taken together has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have
it. Madam clerk read for the approval. >> Motion. >> City council minutes for the public hearings. um held on December 23rd, 2025. Committee on finance held on the same day and committee on finance held January 13, 2026. We also have regular
meeting of the city council minutes for December 23rd, 2025 and meeting of the city council and organization of city government held on January 5th, 2026. And lastly, regular meeting of the city council minutes for a meeting held on January 13, 2026.
>> Motion to adopt. Motion to approve has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Beckham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. [snorts] >> The committee on ordinances and legislation at a meeting held on January
27, 2026 voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading with council Pereira absent not voting. This is the proposed ordinance for the city council committee. Title changes. Motion to pass through first reading. >> Motion to pass the item through first reading has been made by councel
Pekkham. >> Second. >> Seconded by councel annual. Is there discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> Motion to >> And the one more item if I could. Um the committee on finance at a meeting held on January 27, 2026 voted unanimously to
recommend that the accompanying resolution be referred to the full council for action with council Pereira absent voting. This is the resolution for the Pearl Street and Third Street parking garages. >> Motion, that's the mo uh motion, madam clerk, to be clear, to refer that item to the committee on real estate and
facilities. >> Uh the motion was to refer to full counsel, but you can >> that would be that would be the appropriate motion. >> Motion made. >> Motion to refer to the real estate and facilities committee has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion on the referral hearing none. All those in favor?
>> Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> Motion. >> That's all we have, Mr. Motion to adjurnn has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart. All those in favor oppose the ice. Good night. Thank you all. Hey, hey,
hey. Hey, hey, [music] hey. black color. Black >> [crying] >> We're coming back. [music] >> [music]
>> pain. Hey pain, pain. >> [music]