Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 7 p.m.

on Monday, September 29th, 2025.

Um I am Chairman Ryan Perrera of the Committee on Ordinances, and I'm calling this meeting to order.

I am joined in the chamber tonight by my colleagues, Councilor at Large, Ian Abreu, Councillor of Ward 2, Maria Giesta, Councillor of Ward 1, Leo Schocket, Councillor of Ward 5, Joseph Loops, Councillor at Large, Brian Gomes, Counselor at Large, Linda Morad, Councillor at Large, Naomi Carney.

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

There is.

I received a letter from Councillor Oliver to you, Mr.

Chairman.

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

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

A motion to receive and place that letter on file made by Councillor Morrad, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Opposed.

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chairman, I've also received a uh communication from Councillor Baptist.

He will not be present.

He's home and uh not feeling well.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I will ask the clerk to read read items 1, 1A, and 2 together, please.

1 1A and 2.

Uh number 1 is a public hearing continued on a related motion.

Councillors Morad and Carney requesting that the city council order the committee on ordinances and the planning board to hold public hearings relative to the definitions of section 1200 of the city code and the appendix A, Table of Principal Use Regulations referred from the Committee on Ordinances on May 28th, 2025.

It was referred on June 12th, 2025.

It was duly advertised in the Standard Times on Monday, August 11th, 2025, and Monday, August 18th, 2025.

On August 25th, 2025, it was heard and the public hearing was continued until September 29th, 2025, 7 p.m.

in the council chambers.

One A was a communication.

To discuss a request made by City Council for the Planning Board to hold a public hearing relative to the definitions and appendix A table of principal use regulations, Section 1200 of the zoning code, chapter 9.

Given that the request was to hold a public hearing and not to specifically make a recommendation, the board chose to include their general comments from the public hearing in the city planner's letter and submit it to the council for their consideration.

The communication also contains a presentation titled Zoning Overview Use Table, dated June 16th, 2025.

A detailed summary of zoning use table changes and addendum B use table as amended on May 28, 2025.

It was received on July 25th, 2025.

August 25th, 2025, a public hearing was continued until September 29th, 2025 at 7 p.m.

in the council chambers.

Number two is a public hearing continued on a related motion.

Council is Morad Carney, Oliver, Baptiste, Giesta, Pereira, Gomes, and Lopes requesting that the Committee on Ordinances hold a meeting within the next 30 days where a formal presentation by City Planner Jennifer Carlone and City Solicitor Eric Jakes will detail all of the changes to coding definitions and principle uses that were made to the table of principal use regulations previously adopted by the city council on November 26, 2024.

It was referred from committee on May 28, 2025.

August 25th, 2025, a public hearing was continued until September 29th, 2025 at 7 p.m.

in the city council chambers.

One 1A and 2 are now before you.

Thank you very much.

So these public hearings are open and just continued tonight.

So at this time I'd like to call forward members of the planning staff.

We have uh I don't remember your titles, but we have uh Ann Lorrow and Mike McCarthy here with us.

Um it's not Matt, no, Mike McCarthy.

Uh forever.

So uh colleagues, I at the previous meeting uh we requested um some information uh from uh the planning office.

Uh excuse me, I'm sorry, a while ago, uh Council President Shane Burgo joined us.

I forgot to recognize him.

Good evening, Mr.

President.

So on uh in our 25th, uh the meeting on August 25th, we requested some clarifications and uh I would just like to uh thank the planning department because we received a communication on August 29th.

So in four days we received uh uh uh uh a summary packet.

So I'd like to thank the uh planning department for getting that turned around fast for us.

Uh so uh the chair would like to receive and place this item on file made by counselor lopes.

Second, second by counselor Giesta.

Any discussion on receiving and placing this packet on file?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Okay.

So at this time, um I think we I'm gonna open it up if my colleagues have any further questions regarding this information.

Uh and then you can we we can open it back up to any general questions as well.

So, colleagues, do we have any questions on what was provided by the planning staff for the planning department or uh any general questions?

Chair recognizes Council Morat.

Thank you.

Ian, um changes were made for the approval authority in several cases along the way here.

I I'd like to go through those and I'd like to understand the rationale because I'm there were several of them, and I don't know about my colleagues, but there were several of them that I had concerns about.

Um changing the approving authority and why we would do that.

Certainly.

So thank you, counselors.

Good evening.

Thank you for having us here.

Um we anticipated that, so um you you what you do have before you today printed the most um up-to-date adopted uh use table chart as well as the presentation that I want to give credit to my colleague um Matt, I mean Mike McCarthy, um, the assistant city planner.

Um we both share the same title, so it's easy to remember that.

And um this is the table dated August 21st, 23.

That's that's what's the adoption date.

Yeah, so that's that's the latest.

And um, but we also anticipated questions, so we do have the the small charts that you have within the um the special permit granting authority.

We also have them up here on the right.

Right, but it's detailed in this memo, right?

Yes, and so if we could it's the same thing.

Yeah, if we could go through them.

Absolutely.

So I'm I'm actually gonna pass the baton to um Michael, and I'm gonna be Vianna White.

Hello, counselors.

Yep.

Oh, wrong way.

All right.

So we start with uh some changes that were made to the special permit and granting authority.

Um the first one here is this uh assisted living facility.

Uh we uh the majority of these changes I believe uh came from it when we did an ordinance review.

This the special regulations section of the ordinance listed a different body than what was in the the prior use table prior to the the new adoption, the new one that was adopted.

Uh looking back, we could not determine when this conflict began between what was written in the actual special regulations of the ordinance and what what appeared in the the previous use table.

Um so failing to have a uh a valid reason to maintain the the special permanent granting authority is listed in the use table, which is in conflict with the ordinance.

Um we chose to move everything to what the ordinance called for.

So the first example of that is uh assisted living facilities.

Uh the planning board is listed as a special permitting granting authority here.

The prior table had the zoning board of appeals.

We changed it back to the planning board and also reduced the number of districts with that kind of use would be allowed.

Okay, so just so I I'm clear and everybody's clear.

The 2024 update.

Yes.

Um this type of structure is not allowed in anything other than multiple use.

And for it to be permitted in multiple use, it has to be the planning board.

That is correct.

And that's what we have today.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

All right, just so we're clear, because I don't have any problem with this one, but Mr.

Chair, in case anybody else says I can't see behind me, so colleagues, I think the best way forward on this, uh, if I could, counselor, is as we go through it, if we have questions on the current slide, uh, because these are going to be very uh um uh chronological, so they don't have to keep flipping back and forth.

We'll take a pause after each slide and ask questions pertaining to that individual slide.

So I'll ask uh um Mike to continue.

Thank you very much.

Uh yeah, similarly, it's at the same section of the ordinance.

Uh the planning board was listed as a uh special permit granted authority for an independent living facility.

Uh we've rectified that and made some changes.

Uh we felt in the review that it wasn't really an appropriate uh type of use for industrial.

Um there might be some opportunities on the waterfront.

Uh so we modified that accordingly.

Any questions here?

Chair recognizes Council Giesta?

I'm sorry, could you repeat what you just said?

Uh so this was previously allowed uh in the prior use table as a special permit from the zoning board of appeals in all districts, an independent living facility.

Um we changed it to the planning board, which is what the special regulation section of the ordinance called for and removed it from the industrial A, B, and C districts as an allowed use.

But you said something about the waterfront.

Yeah, uh we in the in our review we found that uh um a lot of these facilities, like uh, for instance, in the um the Manamet Street mill complexes, those that those are uh instances where there have there has been a independent living facilities put in um like a rehabilitated mill or something like that.

A lot of those exist in our waterfront industrial in an overlay.

That's a stretch, but okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognize Councillor Choquett.

Thank you both.

Uh I'm sure we haven't gotten into it yet, but what about just so you both know, you know, the council has a motion in front of it at another ordinance meeting to we go in order, Mr.

Chair?

I'm sorry.

What happened?

It's a lengthy presentation, Counselor.

Okay.

Uh there will be uh uh time at the end for general questions if you'd like.

And then we can we can spoke.

That's fine.

Any other questions on this slide?

Uh Mr.

Chair, so just for clarification for my colleague from Ward 2, manymate place, it is in the area that's zoned waterfront industrial, correct?

I'm not sure the actual uh underlying zoning, but it is an an an overlay.

Um so we didn't we didn't want to rule those out because a lot of our uh older mills are in waterfront industrial and also in an overlay.

Okay.

Yeah.

I don't know if that's clearer, but yep.

Uh so here we have uh the motor vehicle light service station, um, similar to the gas station, uh the mobile up on County Street near City Hall.

I'm sure you're all familiar.

Uh the ordinance uh risk lists the Board of Appeals as the um special permit granting authority here.

The table listed the council.

Um we followed what was written in the ordinance here and kept it in the same districts, with the exception that we now have a uh uh note that uh anything that reads DN means it's not allowed in the downtown.

So, Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

So this is the first one I have a problem with.

So why the change made from allowing the city council the authority to grant these permits to the board of appeals?

So we changed it back to what the special regulation section of the zoning ordinance calls for.

Uh we did not modify the special regulation section of the zoning ordinance as part of the use table update.

We revert re um deferred to it in instances where the use table listed a special permit granting authority, but the special permit section uh listed a separate uh different authority.

So that that's the most of the cases at the beginning of this presentation.

Say it again.

So I'll I'll walk through this.

I'll walk through this example because I I realize it's it's it's kind of just like jargon.

Uh it section uh 4850 of our zoning ordinance, prior to any um work that we did as part of the use table update, said as of as written here that light service stations shall be approved by the Board of Appeals.

It didn't there are other instances for motor vehicle uses where it specifically references the council.

Uh this one said the Board of Appeals, the table said the Council, so when we did the update, we deferred to what was written in the zoning ordinance rather than continue that conflict between the two.

So I know Ian wants to say something, but Mr.

Chair, I want to talk to Attorney Garatowski.

Yep.

That's fine.

Colleagues, any other questions regarding this slide?

And Ian wants to say something.

Go ahead.

Your council that to the change, the ordinance should be changed so that the ordinance reflects what you probably want, and then would reflect in in the um in the chart.

Because right now there's a conflict with the ordinance.

David?

Attorney Garotowski.

So do we not approve these?

Well, so as of right now, they're they're saying that they changed it to Board of Appeals.

So as we are now, no, unless you change that back.

But don't we do this?

We do this.

We they these people come in front of us, we hold these hearings.

Yeah, I don't know how many we've done in the last year since this.

We did one not too long ago.

Um it could have been, yeah.

And so it might just be that you know, people are coming in and they're just filling out the paperwork because people aren't sure that it's changed.

Now my thought is that they're going to the building department asking for a uh an occupancy permit, and they're saying, well, here's the process, and they send them down to the council, and no one knows that that this change is taking place.

Um that's that's part of the issue.

But I I agree that they should both say the same thing.

Um it appears to me that 4850 was done in 2003, and somewhere along the line, it probably that the table was changed without making the change to 4850.

Um that's what it appears to me.

But I'm I'm not sure.

But I think you're right, they that we may be getting them just out of habit because the process, in other words, the building department and the city council office, and they're not gonna check the code every time someone comes in, they say, Oh, yeah, this is what we do, and they just do them.

And that's part of the reason why when a lot of these went by, sort of without a lot of people recognizing it, and it just got changed, and no one was really diving into what was changed.

Nobody knew, and we're we're just going through the same process.

Somebody goes down to the city council office and says, Oh, the light repairs for motor vehicles, they say, Oh, yeah, we do those, and no one knows that it changed.

So that's probably what's going on.

Yep.

So, Mr.

Chair, I'll yield, but I'm not comfortable with passing this authority to the Board of Appeals.

Um, and I want to thank the Board of Appeal members who work very diligently uh once or twice a month to hear all the cases.

They're all well educated, they educate themselves on the issues, but in the last year, I've had differences of opinion with several of the decisions that the Board of Appeals has granted on cases as they relate to quality of life in the neighborhoods that people are requesting relief.

And here's another thing that I'm not willing to relinquish, but I only got 99 more days, Mr.

Chair, so I'm not really sure what my colleagues think about this.

So the chair would like to uh just note for any members of the uh body.

If there is an item that you're not comfortable with or would like amended, um we are going to ask that you submit that uh uh make those amendments um at the end of this hearing if it's closed tonight or or continue to another date, but if it's if and when we close this hearing, submit items that you would like heard uh roughly uh submit that the language um with the clerk's office.

We'll then go go ahead and the committee will uh uh refer those to the full council order he order new hearings to be held both with the uh planning board and this committee again do that process to fully review ordinance uh zoning changes and then vote on that final.

So the the we'll get through this presentation, ask questions, inform ourselves in the public, come up with a list that we'd like to see done, formalize that language and refer it all out uh for to order new public hearings on each one.

Um or as a group, and then we can vote on each one, I think would be acceptable.

So uh with that being said, any other questions on this item on this slide.

Council Shokat.

Thank you.

I just wanted to second the the comments from my colleague from the far north end of Cushionate Avenue.

I think we should do everything we can to maintain a balance of power and and not give up what we have.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, counselor.

Any other questions here?

Okay.

Thank you, Ann.

Venna.

Uh here's another example of uh a conflict between what was in the use table and what was uh in the code, wireless communication facilities.

Uh these specifically call for the zoning board of appeals.

Uh and it was uh listed as a special permit uh by the planning board.

So we corrected that change.

Any questions here?

No questions, thank you.

Uh so then we made a few a few changes to uses where the uh the special permit granting authority was uh slightly different than what the uh what similar uses had.

Uh a restaurant required uh what was an SP, which we believed that that was a unique case in the old use table.

I believe it was a special permit from the planning board, although sometimes it says PB instead of SP.

So we changed it to uh Board of Appeals because they are the special permit granting authority for a fast food restaurant in any district.

I have a question.

Council Moran?

But that doesn't preclude the restaurant from having to go through site plan review correctly.

No, no, not at all.

Yeah.

Any other questions, colleagues?

Thank you.

Uh a live work creative studio, sort of a a building where uh an artist could have a residence and also have a workshop.

Um this was sort of covered by the live work category in the the previous use table, although the the definition made a slight change.

Um we changed it uh we took it away from the uh zoning board of appeals and changed it to a yes for uh mixed use business.

Um recognizing that there's sort of these uh shop house style buildings in a lot of mixed-use business where there's a um a commercial or shop space on the first floor and uh living space up front up above.

Yes.

Am I understanding correctly that and also in the industrial areas as well that it's updating by that wasn't allowed to do that?

Yeah, so that that's not covered in the specific part of the the presentation, but that's correct.

Uh we did expand the use to industrial uh areas um under the um assumption that uh some of these facilities uh if it's more of a um small scale manufacturing, artisan manufacturing type of um enterprise, they would be better suited to look being located in an industrial um district than in a residential district.

So we wanted to open up the possibility for uh reusing some of our uh mill space, maybe like Hatch Street, that would be a good example where there's um a lot of uh carpentry and metalworking that happens in that building.

Uh you wouldn't want that in in a in a residential neighborhood.

But who's regulating that, I suppose, since if if I understand the why means by right?

Yes.

So they would just someone still screens this, is that my understanding?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all.

Just because it wasn't highlighted, so I just I wanted to make sure that there was noted that there is a change.

So as Counselor Moore had uh asked on the last one, um nothing the triggers for site plan and administrative site plan review still apply, even though if something is a yes in the table.

So there are there are thresholds now for industrial and commercial uses, which this would fall under uh at a at a 2,000 square feet of a use, which I we assume that most of these would would uh cross that threshold.

I just realized I started talking without being recognized.

I apologize, Mr.

That is okay, Mr.

President.

Any further questions, Mr.

President?

Okay.

Chair recognizes Councillor Giesta.

Um thank you, Mr.

President.

Could you just clarify that again about Hatch Street?

Um what you said about it.

Sure.

So uh our um idea of expanding this type of use to um industrial districts is that the artist studio um live space um they some sometimes the the models that these spaces use um requires a certain level of uh uh sort of an industrial floor play, uh uh large scale.

There's a certain level of noise and uh act uh off hours activity that's generated at these places.

Uh and we didn't we felt like if they were gonna go anywhere, they would probably be better suited to an industrial uh district.

Sort of a um a small scale artisan manufacturing was was what we had in mind with that.

But Hatch Street is in a neighborhood.

Yep, but it is industrially zoned.

Right.

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that whatever noises they may be making.

Yes.

Uh so something at the scale of Hatch Street would be would did and would come under site plan review as part of that.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Councilor Chiesta.

Any other questions on this item?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh so in this case, uh grocery store.

Um so we removed the um special permitting granting use uh entirely.

Uh this use because of the size would come under site plan review.

And we also um created another category.

Uh we sort of cut the old definition of grocery store in half.

There's this one that's under uh 15,000 square feet, and then over that is now uh categorized as a supermarket.

Um so that that that would be a different use that would capture that um the the intensity.

Can you go back to that?

Sorry.

Sorry.

Any questions?

Any questions, colleagues?

Good, thank you.

Uh and in this case, we updated this use to uh require a special permit granting authority.

Um this definition previously um was defined in the title of the use in the use table.

It didn't have its own definition.

Um we wanted to expand it a little bit to capture facilities uh similar to the parallel products and give the zoner the zoning board of appeals special permit granting authority.

So if these ever were to come forward again in an industrial district, um there would be that extra layer of discretion at the city level.

The chair recognizes Council Schocket.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh please don't be offended by me saying that um there are many, many constituents who probably disagree with the idea of letting that go to the Board of Appeals.

Um this based because similar facilities would be having such a profound footprint on the community, we want to make sure that the city council has the special granting authority on that based upon many things, but the most important being that we're the democratically elected representatives of the people and not anybody who has been put in there.

Now again, I used to serve on the zoning board of appeals, so it's not a slight against anybody on there.

But given recent events, and I'm sure everybody in here would agree uh that whole debacle that we're still going through, we need that to come before us.

And if Attorney Goratowski wanted to uh speak on that, I'd be more than happy to have him come up.

Thank you.

Okay.

In a minute, Councillor, uh I have a couple other counsels that will um counselor um loops.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So my issue is more with the waterfront industrial.

Before Mass CEC was using the terminal, we had XL recycling using it.

And it was approved all along.

But the noise was astronomical.

You know, metal scraping metal, 23 hours a day, you know, five o'clock in the morning, they'd be working on it where you can't use a power tool at seven o'clock in the morning.

But we were allowing it, you know, in a waterfront industrial area where i.e.

one block away, it's residential.

So I would my concern would be allowing it in a waterfront industrial area, just because most of these waterfront industrial areas are pseudo-residential.

Um I would me personally would like to see it be an N like we do in in industrial A and Industrial B.

And oh um, uh I'm sorry, Council Loops.

Uh that the uh the Ns are from the the prior use table.

Previously it was allowed by right only in waterfront industrial.

Yeah, and I'd like to remove them put it because not a law at all.

Just because I know the issues that transpires with it.

But that's my personal opinion.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Loops.

Anyone else on this item?

Counselor Giesta.

I I just want to be on the record that I agree with my colleague from Ward 5.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Gesta.

Anyone else on this item?

Councillor Morat.

So, Mike, is there a reason why all the categories can't be in?

Yes.

No.

And it has the answer.

So I'm not a lawyer, so you might want to confirm with Councillor Garatowski, but we can't prohibit a use if that use has not been that if that use has been in place prior to 1987 per mass general law.

So you're telling me that I can't put no's across here because there's already a business somewhere in the city that's operating this type of business.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm not saying.

Mass General Love.

So I anticipate it, so hey.

I see MGL across your head.

And highlighted it because I knew I had this somewhere.

So um, but anyways, uh it it does say that a city or town shall not adopt an ordinance or by law prohibiting the um the siting of certain facilities and expansion of facility um for industrial use um again prior to that 1987.

So we can check with um Eric, Eric is here.

Um we're not opposed to any changes that obviously.

Yeah, I mean, um, if I can put ends across the board here, I would prefer that versus CCs, because that that gets to be an issue down the road.

Absolutely, I understood.

Yep.

Mr.

Chair, I'll hold my comments until I hear what attorney Garatowski has to say.

That's fine.

Thank you.

Attorney Garotowski, can you take the podium, please?

I don't know what the part is being referenced, so I'd have to look at it.

Generally speaking, you can generally speaking, you can change a zoning law for an existing use, but that use becomes what's called an uh a pre-existing non-conforming use.

In the in this industrial setting, I'm not sure what that law says.

I'd have to look at it, make a determination of whether I mean I would find it hard to believe that you couldn't change the zoning of any industrial use that that existed prior to, but I have to look at it and try to figure that out.

Okay.

Council Choquett also has a couple questions for Attorney Garatowski, I believe.

Council.

Yes.

Perfect.

Counselor Schulkat.

I just wanted to say if you had anything that you wanted to add, Attorney Garatowski on that.

With regard to the to this to this particular Yes.

Um well I guess um you had filed a motion or an ordinance to change various um I think it was three different categories in the table of use to change it from Board of Appeals to City Council.

Um this was one of them, I believe, and there were two others.

Yes.

You could always you know make those amendments now, and we could add them in now instead of waiting for you could include those in this change to the um to the use tables if as we're making changes now rather than wait for another hearing.

I don't know where that I don't know where that motion stands at this point, if it went to planning board, if it's come here, I don't know.

But you could always uh try to make those changes now if you if you sought to do so.

Okay.

You just have to identify what the other two were.

I don't know.

I forget what they were.

Okay.

So just for clarification from the chair, there is still a little bit of a lengthy process.

So if Council Shokette, you wanted to make those amendments, we could follow the same uh uh David.

We have more questions for you, sorry.

Yeah, sorry.

Can't get away that easy, David.

Sorry.

Um so basically if you want to make those amendments tonight uh at the end of this presentation, essentially that motion we could move that along a little bit quicker.

Absolutely.

All right, perfect.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Councillor Morrad, then Council President.

David, you put on a suit and tie, so don't keep sitting down now.

We can't so David, what you said a few minutes ago, I know what Ann said, but you what you basically said is that we could change the zoning to prohibit this type of business in the city of New Bedford.

However, current businesses that are currently operating under in these areas with this type of business would be quote unquote grandfather.

Is that what you're saying?

Generally speaking, when you change a zoning law to change a use, but there's already someone operating that use, and you say it's no longer pro it's now prohibited, they don't have to close their doors and walk away.

Um I'll give you an example.

I think Dylan's restaurant on County Street is on a residence A property.

But it's been a restaurant forever.

So they can't make them close.

But if that use suddenly left and was gone and nobody was ever operating there, then they could make them because that use changed.

So it's it becomes what's called a pre existing non-conforming use.

Right.

Generally, but if the state law is making as she's reading it, something about not being able to zone out industrial types, I'd have to look at what that is, how they define industrial, all that stuff.

But what if using your Dylan's example, if the property gets sold, the next person can't operate a restaurant?

So long as the continuous use of a restaurant.

It's not the owner, it's the use that got dictates.

So someone can sell it from one to the other so long as the use doesn't cease for a long period of time and then it goes away.

Yep.

Um, so that's generally speaking how it would work.

I think I think actually, if I'm not mistaken, the gas station that's across the street from your house is a pre-existing non-conforming use.

So that's been zoned out, but because it's just in continuing operation at that use, they don't um it doesn't keep they don't make them shut their doors.

Anytime he's tried to do anything to change his business footprint, he's not allowed because it's non-conforming.

Yeah, if you wanted to sell that gas station and make some sort of, you know, I don't know, KFC.

He couldn't do that because it's not zoned to be able to do that anymore.

But he can continue to operate with the same general use.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna yield, but I I hear that people want to make this we're not done, David.

Uh I hear people want to make this city council, but if I would like to ask attorney Garatowski to research whether these could be N, because as my colleague from Ward 5 said, there's too many of these types of districts that are within the ear of or the smell of or the sight of single family properties, and it's causing a problem for quality of life in my city.

So, yeah.

So uh at the end, uh counselor, when when we get to this item again, uh the chair would recommend putting some sort of amendment forward, and that amendment can always be altered at the next city council meeting.

This is move that process along the case.

I think the other the other issue that I'm thinking is before it said N wasn't allowed before.

We changed it to Board of Appeals, and I just don't know if maybe it was N before the law, the state law passed.

So I don't I don't even know all of the ins and outs of what how this did.

And maybe the change now to Board of Appeals may now prohibit us from going back to N, but I don't know.

I don't know all the ins and outs of what that particular language would say.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmore.

Chair recognizes Council President Burgo for Attorney Garatowski.

Well, yeah, he just mentioned what I was going to ask about because I was saying that I was noticing obviously previously it was all well up until the waterfront industrial, it was only uh permitted by right in the waterfront industrial.

So it seems to be that it was not allowed in all those other areas.

Why wouldn't we be able to just put N across and then I guess maybe C C under the waterfront for City Council under waterfront industrial?

So that was gonna be my question, but it looks like you were already on the ball there for it.

Okay, so did I answer your question?

Yeah, uh yeah, you already yeah, that they basically already started to answer what I was uh alluding to.

Um you already mentioned it.

So that I guess you'll look into whether or not that because I agree with uh my colleague from a cushion av that if we can try to just stop it altogether, that would be a lot easier than mitigating the risk of uh having it come before the city council altogether.

Okay.

David, I think you're all set.

Thank you.

You can now you can sit down.

You can't go home.

All right, Mike and Ann, back to you guys.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Any more questions?

Thank you, David.

No.

Okay.

Uh so now uh these are places where the use was expanded or reduced uh regardless of whether it's a special permit granting authority or not.

Um so live works studio, we already covered that.

We expanded it to uh industrial um buildings because uh those style of buildings and setups um favor that type of use.

Uh restaurant was not previously allowed in industrial B, but we in the review we noted that industrial B zones uh exist on the periphery, a lot of uh multifamily neighborhoods uh where it would be conducive to maybe use that have that use, and it was already allowed in other industrial districts.

Um and fast food, uh a similar thinking.

It was it was um we have these uh industrial B uh neighborhoods uh where there's the you know people that would um be patrons of the facility as long as well as um employees and then um the same thinking for industrial C.

Uh for example, you have that uh Dunkin' Donuts and the Cumberland farms are on the outside of the industrial park, which is mostly industrially C zoned.

Uh commercial indoor recreation.

Uh this was expanded to industrial B because uh we eliminated the health club use and expanded the definition here to include um what would traditionally be in the health club use in the prior table, and that was uh already allowed in industrial B, so we didn't want to eliminate that.

Uh outdoor recreation.

Uh we've um assumed that this would be a um compatible adaptive reuse for uh some brownfield sites that are zoned industrial B, like the um the painkutlery site or the um AirVox site.

Chair recognizes Council Moore.

Anybody wanting to build a drive-in theater?

Not yet, but I I I I'd welcome it.

There's there aren't many around.

Those are good memories.

Okay.

You're too young for that.

I think you went or maybe I maybe it was a repeat in here.

Uh bat batch asphalt uh concrete plants.

Uh so this was expanded technically to be allowed in more districts, although um section 4310 uh did grant this authority uh already to the council, so we wanted to make sure that it wasn't in conflict with the table as it was in the prior table.

Uh waterfront storage and distribution.

So we have uh in our designated port area um IB and IA zoned industrial districts, so we allowed this use there as well as waterfront industrial.

And again, the the definition lends itself to requiring a waterfront location, so it wouldn't be allowed in districts out and I B and IA zone districts away from the waterfront.

Mr.

Chair?

Chair recognizes Council Giasta.

Thank you.

Um the prior table did not allow that in the No.

So why are we changing that?

Uh because we have within our designated port area land that is zoned industrial A and industrial B.

Uh so we wanted to allow this type of industrial development to happen within the designated port area, and the definition was crafted in a way that it would only be allowed in a facility with a waterfront location.

How is that going to affect our fishing industry?

If you're allowing these types of petroleum products, I mean this is an industry I feel that would be uh like a supportive industry for the uh the fishing industry, like fuel man would be an example of this.

Okay.

Um those type of uh facilities that that bring in material for them to uh for to supply the the fishing ships and I just want to be careful.

I understand.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, counselor.

Now we already covered this in the the previous one, the material salvage and recycling.

If there's any other questions on this one, okay.

Uh assisted living facility, we covered this at the beginning of the presentation.

Uh assisted living facility again, sorry about that.

Independent living facility, similarly, we covered this.

Um adult entertainment establishments.

Uh we haven't seen one of these in the city in a very long time.

Um we didn't want to take them off the table uh, but we didn't want to take the power and or take the power away from the council, but we recognize that there are sorting certain siting requirements with these types of businesses, and we felt like it would just never um happen in one of the city's densest residential districts.

Uh hospital and nursing home were combined um into one category.

Uh and they were all they are now only allowed in mixed-use business.

Uh these are 24-7 operations, and we didn't want them in our lower density residential neighborhoods because we felt like it conflicted with the quality of life there, and we also felt like they would conflict with uh industrial operations in our industrial districts.

Yeah, so this looks like Chair recognizes Council President Burgo.

Sorry, there I go again.

Um this just looks like the kind of going back to the uh question we had regarding putting no across the board.

Here's a situation where we uh we had hospital nursing homes allowed everywhere, and now we're reducing it down to just one particular area, and there seems to be no issue with that at all.

Is that correct?

I'm understanding that correctly.

So we went from having it allowed uh anywhere within residential areas, mixed use business, industrial areas to now only being allowed in mixed-use businesses.

Uh that's correct, but uh you want to clarify what you mean by I'm comparing it now to earlier we were asking a question about the um the waterfront um yes, just like you so the that related to the the the law that Ann quoted relates to industrial uses uh only.

Yes.

So I guess oh so just industrial uses.

I see, okay.

So in this case, because it's mixed use.

Again, as we said, if the council feels differently and then amendments.

Well, we can feel a certain way, but if the law is a different way, then it's a good thing.

Yeah, no, no, no, no.

Well, unless anyway, I won't get into that.

Um okay, I just wanted to uh clarify that.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Council President Burgo.

Chair recognizes Councillor Loops.

Thank you.

So when we're looking at mill conversions, nursing homes like Whalers Cove would be a mill conversion.

That's not in mixed use business.

That was in industrial A or B, correct?

Probably, yeah.

So now we're saying whalers cove, pardon my friends in your award, but whalers cove today wouldn't be allowed, but that was the first mill conversion in the city from an industrial mill vacant for 20, 25 years.

The family that owned Mars bargain land rehabited and turned it into Whalers Cove, which is a high-end nursing home facility.

That wouldn't be allowed today.

The overlay may allow it, yeah.

Only in the overlay.

Yeah.

Most of our mill have a special mill district overlay.

Okay, so that would be allowed in the overlay districts then.

Yes.

If the overlay allows for it.

But the the the zoning board of appeals has uh some wide discretion on the use changes within those overlays.

Okay, but now it doesn't even get to the zoning board of appeals.

It's in the overlay district language, I meant.

Oh okay.

All right.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Council Lopes.

Any other questions on this item?

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh medical device manufacturing.

This was previously a yes in waterfront industrial, and we felt like it's not a water dependent industry and uh is also a growing industry in the state, so we didn't want them to compete with our uh waterfront industrial um land with those who actually need the location.

Okay.

All right.

Or back at the beginning.

Perfect.

So colleagues, any other general questions on um these items uh or this presentation that we've heard.

Okay.

So the public hearing is open.

I believe Attorney Garatowski would agree that if we're gonna make amendments, we should probably close the public hearing.

Would you recommend that, Attorney Garatowski?

Um, you take all the testable.

Perfect.

Yep.

Okay.

Perfect.

Mike, did you have anything you want to add?

Sorry?

I thought you raised your hand.

I'm sorry, I out of the corner.

All right, all right, no worries.

Okay.

Oh, Councillor Shokat.

I'm sorry, what have you closed the No, we're gonna close the public hearings next.

Yeah, so we're gonna finish the public hearings, we're gonna go through all that.

If anyone else, but this is like our time to finish fact finding.

So if there's no other information we need before we make amendments.

Mr.

Chair, point of clarification.

Sure.

If we're gonna make amendments, but there's a discrepancy between what the planning board team has said and what attorney Garatowski thinks about the law.

How do we handle that if the public hearing is closed?

So uh the procedure that I'm once the public hearing is closed, we're going to compile a list of amendments.

That item that th that list then has to be sent to the full city council.

The full council will then reorder a new public hearing to take place in both the the planning board and the ordinance committee.

It'll be re-advertised with those specific amendments listed out.

So technically we would have until next city council agenda to change that or clarify that.

Um so you could put forward an amendment tonight and then at the next council meeting, we should be allowed to rechange that because we haven't advertised that as required when changing changing a chapter uh a zoning law.

We wouldn't we're gonna need to re-advertise the specific amendments, and then the council can only authorize that, which will be at the next council meeting.

Which will be October Sumter.

October 9th.

And then that would get referred to both the planning board and the ordinance committee for new hearings.

But obviously on October 9th, uh any amendments could take place from the we could amend the whatever comes out of committee.

Would Attorney Garatuski agree?

Yes.

What you're saying is you take the specific amendments you want to take you want to make.

If the b if this committee tonight feels there are some amendments that wants to be made.

And we put them into a into an actual ordinance.

Send that to the full council.

Yep.

And back here for a hearing on the specific proposal.

Yes, sir.

And then you could that that you could do it that way, yes.

Okay.

And that would accomplish readvertising.

And then to clarify, Council Morad's question, if between now and that council meeting there is a change that we want, we can still make an amended change on the council floor because nothing's been advertised yet.

Correct.

So let's assume for the moment that um let's assume for the moment that we can't change those industrial uses to a an N.

Let's assume that's true for the moment.

You could then just change them from Board of Appeals to City Council for the time being.

Right.

Put that in in whatever ordinance until we get a chance to look and see if we can just make it a straight no.

Perfect.

And that could take place on October 9th.

And then when we come in for the hearing, we could make that change if needed.

But for the time being, let's assume that we can't make the change and put in city council because I think I think I think everyone agrees that they want to take it away from the Board of Appeals, right?

So put it in the hands of the council for the time being.

And then if we find that we can legally make it a an N, then we could advise the council either to strike the city council and put an N, you can do it either way that you want.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

Council Lopes.

So I am going to write down the difference.

Amend that material savage recycling be reflected.

Um be amended to reflect that material, savage and recycling not be allowed in waterfront industrial zone areas.

Would you prefer that I changed it to the granting authority be reverted from to the city council?

Yeah, for the time being, because I want to get a chance to look at the law referenced by the assistant planner.

So at for the time being, let's just strike Board of Appeals and put in City Council, and then if we can change it to an N, then maybe we can do that when we come back before the uh when the whole when the ordinance comes before the council or the ordinance committee for a public hearing on the specifics.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Council Lopes.

All right.

Yep.

Yep.

Thanks.

So at this time I'm going to continue the public hearing.

So at this time, if anyone from the public would like to speak in favor of anything that we've discussed here, speak in favor relative to these changes.

Be recorded in favor.

Be recorded in any of these favors in any of these changes.

Speak in opposition.

Speak in opposition.

To be recorded in opposition.

To be recorded in opposition.

Seeing no comment from the public, the chair would ask that we close the public hearing at this time.

Motion to close the public hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing was made by Councillor Gomes, seconded by Council President Burgle.

Any discussion on closing the public hearing?

Seeing none.

All those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

So in order to keep uh maintain order, I'm going to just go down the list of everything we discussed.

If anyone has an amendment, please at that time make an amendment.

If not, we'll we'll keep on going down.

Okay.

Any amendments to an assisting living facility slash residence.

Seeing none.

Any changes, amendments requested to an independent living facility?

Seeing none.

Any requests or changes made to motor vehicle light service stations?

Yes.

Okay.

Councillor Morad?

So um Mr.

Chair, I'd like to revert this current 2024 update to the prior table that lists city council in mixed use business, industrial A, Industrial B, and waterfront industrial.

Second.

Motion was made by Councillor Morrad to strike B A slash D N and M U B, B A and IA, B A and I B, B A in WI, and insert it with C C in every category.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Morrad, and it was second by Councillor Carney.

Any discussions on that?

On the question.

May I just say that what we're going to do with that one is we're going to strike Board of Appeals in the table, but we're also going to strike it in 4850 so that they're consistent with the way the assistant planner had described that they're so we're going to and I think how I'll do it, Mr.

Chairman, is you can send the report with these with these motions.

I will then craft an ordinance and attach it to the report to go with to the council.

Perfect.

That reflect what we're what these amendments are.

Okay.

But in this particular one, we're going to do both 4850.

We're going to strike it in the text of the motor vehicle light service as well as the table so that they're consistent, because that was the reason for the change in the first place that they were inconsistent.

So we'll do it that way.

Perfect.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

To the maker of the motion, is that acceptable to you?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Any discussions on that?

Okay.

All those in favor of this amendment say aye.

Aye.

Oppose the ayes have it.

Next is going to be any changes to the wireless communication facilities.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

I would move that the change be made both to the code 4940 and to the table that it reflects what it used to reflect, which is planning board across the board.

Second.

Yeah.

Okay.

So it would be to strike BA from every category and from 4940 and replace it with PB in the table and planning board in 4940.

That motion was made by Councillor Morrad.

Second by Councillor Gomes.

Any discussions on this amendment proposal?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Restaurant.

Any changes to the restaurant category.

Seeing none.

Work live creative studios.

Any changes to this category?

Seeing none.

Grocery store.

Any changes to this category?

Seeing none.

Material salvage and recycling.

Chair recognizes Council Shocat.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to make a change from BA to C C on all items across the board.

And if Attorney Goratowski, if you think there's any other definition or any other addendum here, please feel free.

So your amendment, Council, just to clarify would be to strike BA in IA, IB, IC, and WI categories and replace them with City Council C C.

Attorney Garatowski.

So that motion was made and second by Council Berg, made by Council Schocat, second by Councilor Burgo.

David, uh, the only thing I would point out, I believe that material salvage and recycling was one that the board one council had proposed.

And then there was also biomass recycling facility in his motion and recycling collection, I believe was the third one.

Yes.

So we could if if if that's if you wanted to encompass those, we would include those two categories striking BA and all now.

Thank you, attorney.

Okay.

So biomass facility and rescale.

Biomass recycling facility and I believe recycling.

And recycling collection facility also.

Was the um three and also salv and again salvage and recycling.

Which is so let's not leave any loopholes.

Let's get them all while we're here.

Yep.

That motion was made by Council Schulkat, Councillor Burgo with those out of categories are still okay.

Council Burgo on the second.

Any clarify any questions?

So Mr.

Chair, um I'll support the CC request from the Ward 1 counselor, but I would prefer to see N on these three categories.

And I just want to be sure that that's on the record so that Attorney Garatowski can do his research and if possible, these three categories be changed to no.

Okay.

Yes.

That's fine, Councilor, and I will uh uh I will ask Attorney Garatowski to do that research in the meantime.

So just to clarify, uh biomass facilities will be striking BA in those categories, replacing them with C C.

Recycling facilities, we were going to strike those BAs and turn it to C C and material salvage and recycling will be striking BA and putting C C as well.

Yeah, and I just wanted to add I I understand and agree with the counselor from a cushion advisor rationale, and she has my full support on that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So that motion was made and seconded.

Any one any more discussion on this item?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

All right.

Expanded news.

We already did that.

Now restaurant fast food or takeout is the next different one.

Any recommended recommended changes there?

Which one's next?

We did that already.

So we already did work life in the first half, it's the same thing, it's just twice on this list.

Same thing with restaurant.

Those are twice on this list, so I just don't know.

We already talked about those.

Next different one would be restaurant fast food takeout.

Any changes requested there.

Okay.

Um could I ask the planning team to come back?

Um David, are we allowed to ask them about some of the things you made, and you won't want to get back into the pile of all the hands.

So we have more ask basically on the motion of the file.

Okay, I I'll ask my question to them tomorrow, and if I need an existing change, I'll make it at the next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Moran.

I'll do it just one-on-one though in the room.

Commercial recreation indoor.

Any changes to that category?

Seeing none.

Commercial recreation outdoor.

Any changes to that category?

Seeing none.

Batch asphalt and concrete plants.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes.

I like I move to make the change to the table to change C C in IB in IC to N.

So strike C C strike C C and turn to air.

Batch asphalt and concrete plants.

I can't hear him, so attorney Garatowski's concern is that it's industrial and might fall under the same law that the planning board has been referencing.

So the chair would be a would be amendable to taking this amendment now.

And at the next meeting, if it's found that it's not acceptable, we can take no further action to this one particular amendment at the next meeting.

So Mr.

Chair, in one case, it was N and it was changed to C C.

Sure.

So that can be edited at the next meeting.

So the Chair will entertain this motion at this time.

So striking C C and IB and IC and replacing them with N.

Any discussion on this amendment?

Chair recognizes Councillor Burke.

I just wanted to make sure just in previous uh amendments there's a section 4310 mentioned in this.

I don't know if uh amendment would also have to be included in that as well, Attorney Garatowski.

Yeah, I have to receive these changes.

No, we'll be alone for that.

Let them let them do the research we can take that.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Burgo.

Do I have a second on Councillor Morris?

Seconded by Councillor Giasta.

Any further discussion on this item?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Waterfront storage and distribution facility.

Okay, seeing none.

That's all done.

That one's done already.

That one be dead.

Any changes to the adult entertainment establishment?

That would be the next new one.

Seeing none.

Hospital nursing home combined.

Okay.

Seeing none.

Medical device manufacturing.

Seeing none.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Councilor.

Sure.

Attorney Garatowski, can you go to the podium, please?

So Attorney Garatowski, um, there are some things in the current table of principal use that were not changed by the planning board actions since 2024 that I might like to change as part of this discussion.

Is this an appropriate time to do that now?

Um I believe so.

I mean the the hearing was to discuss the the definitions and table of uses, so you could include it in your um amendments and we'll put it all in one ordinance.

Okay.

So Mr.

Chair, um, on our table of use under J for my colleagues industrial.

There's something called a contractor's yard that I know several of my ward counselors are dealing with in their various wards.

In IA and uh industrial A and Industrial B, they are currently allowed use.

I would make the suggestion that they be changed to no.

I have it here.

For your research?

Sure.

So a motion was made to change contractor's yard from yes in IA and IB to no in IA and IB.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councillor Giesta.

Any discussion on this seeing none.

This is the time for you to move that by a warner for next year.

A roll call vote was requested on this amendment.

So on the question?

On the question, Councillor Morris.

So Mr.

I certainly I'm not really sure why roll call, but I certainly know that there are several of these within our city today.

And making this change, Attorney Garatowski has said that we would not affect the ones that currently exist today, but we would prohibit this from going forward.

And what we have in several locations across the city is contractors' yards in places that are abutted by residential districts.

And in some cases, they're also mixed-use business.

And their eyes, they're also a problem for quality of living because people access these yards at 6 a.m.

in the morning and 7 p.m.

at night.

And I think we should take the opportunity to eliminate this type of activity in the city of New Bedford, especially where it abuts residential neighborhoods.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councillor.

Any other questions?

Chair Recknus, Council Burgo.

I just want to be clear that we're still waiting for Attorney Garatowski to even clarify if what if that's even allowable.

I guess of course we can make the change.

Um but in the meantime, I uh I just I'm asking for a roll call because I'd like to vote no.

Um as we're uh well aware, you can't just say oppose if we do a voice vote.

It's not allowed.

Um so that I just wanted to clarify why I'm asking for a roll call vote, because I plan on voting no.

Um and I just also would like to wait to hear from Attorney Garatowski whether or not we're even allowed to change in an industrial situation to all no's.

So I just wanted to clarify that on the record as well.

Okay, thank you, Councilor.

And then just just for clarification point to the body as well, further, that there still is a whole other process to even approving these amendments.

So even if this does get to go to the full council in uh in this uh item, uh it is this chair's uh opinion that at the next ordinance meeting when we when we discuss this and have the recommendation from the planning board, we'll vote on each amendment independent of each other as well so that we can once we have all the data because there's still be some more fact-finding on each independent amendment uh in the future as well.

So with that, I seeing no other questions on this item.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on approval of an amendment for contractors yard to be changed to no's in IA and IB zones.

Council Abro.

No, Council Abel, Council Virgo?

No.

No, Council Burgo, Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney, Council Triquet?

Yes.

Yes, Council Triquet, Councillor Giesta?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Giesta, Council Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes, Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Council Hopes, Council Morrad?

Yes.

Yes, Council Morrad, Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

That passes.

7 to 2.

Item passes 7 to 2.

Mr.

Chair?

Council Morat.

There's something on the um proposed chart called freight terminal and heavy materials, sales and distribution.

Yes.

Uh those are currently permitted by the Board of Appeals.

They are in IA, IB, IC, and WI.

I would like to see those changed to City Council.

So on freight terminal and heavy material sales and distribution.

Strike BA in IA, IB, IC, WI, and replace with C C for City Council.

Correct.

And Mr.

Chair, if my colleagues are uncomfortable with that, I would make the further amendment they could change to planning board to PB.

Okay.

So the motion was made for city council.

Is there a second on that item?

Second.

It was seconded by Council Giesta.

Any discussion on that item?

For those looking at the table, it's under J industrial.

That's under J2, then.

Under J as well.

Yes, sorry.

No, that's fine.

J industrial general industrial uses and about four or five down.

It will say freight terminal and heavy material sales and distribution.

Striking Board of Appeals and replacing with City Council.

And all of the accepted uses.

So the special permit would be granted by the council in those two items.

Is there a second on the other?

I'm sorry, it was already second.

Any further discussion on the question?

Mr.

Chair, I followed the um I followed on the use table the same approval authority for batch asphalt and concrete plants with these two items.

So that was my logic and my thinking for my colleagues.

Okay.

Any further discussions?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Any further amendments, colleagues?

On our table of use.

Okay.

So seeing none this time, the chair would entertain a motion to refer all these items to attorney Garatowski and the Council.

Attorney Garatowski will draft ordinances relative to these items that we made in further research in the industrial issue regarding national law and put that compile that with the uh meeting notes, and that whole thing will be sent to the city council.

That was made by Councillor Gomes.

Second by Councillor Carney.

Any discussion on this item?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the planning department for putting together two very very nice uh presentations.

They were very informative, and I I I really appreciate it on behalf of my colleagues.

I think this was uh uh a job well done.

Thank you very much to the both of you and to Jen wherever she is with her new baby.

Item number three, please.

Item number three is written in communication.

Councillor Gomes requesting that the committee on ordinances review the mobile food truck ordinance, section 15-72, the locations where these trucks are allowed to operate, the use of their power generators, and also the noise that affects the quality of life in the neighborhood and areas that the food trucks are operating in, was referred to on May 23rd, 2024.

Number three is now before you motion received a couple of years.

Motion received and placed on following by Councillor Gomes.

Second by Councillor Carney, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomes.

Motion for no further aye.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

Uh the good counselor, Mr.

Chair.

Um this is something we were dealing with up at R Riverside, kind of an isolated int incident with the um food trucks that have um generators on them.

The generators that are ran by gas are really loud.

This was really affecting that neighborhood up there, and um it was brought before you.

So Joe went down, I went down, talked to the guy.

He went out, he purchased a nice generator or a nice quiet one, have had no complaints from the neighborhood.

That's why there's no further action.

So no further action made by Councillor Gomes as the situation was remedied.

Second by Councillor Burgo.

Any discussion on no further action?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose, the ayes have it.

Item number four.

Number four is a written motion, Councillors Burgo, Pereira, Abrew, Carney, Oliver, Lima, Baptiste, Combs, and Morad requesting that the committee on ordinance explore the enactment of an ordinance or city policy to establish parental paid leave to provide compensation for a period of time for city employees in the event of an addition of a child to the employee's immediate family to allow for the proper care of and bonding with that child.

It was referred to here on August 17, 2023.

On November 20th, 2023, Judy Keating will secure the monies and numbers on instituting a program, and it was tabled on March 25th, 2024.

It remained on the table.

It was heard on April 22nd, 2025, with Jose Goveya present, and it was again then again tabled.

Item number four is now before you and it remains on the table.

Motion to remove from the table.

A motion to remove this item from the table is made by Councillor Giasta, second by Councillor Lopes, I believe.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

I will ask Jose Govea if he could come to the podium, please.

Good evening.

Um so when we left this off, we had said that uh we had requested some information, which uh we have in our packets here, some some information as well.

Um did everyone get this packet, by the way.

If we could receive in place this on file, made by councillor lopes.

Second by counselor carney, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed the ayes have it.

So we have this uh uh packet which has some very useful information in it.

I appreciate putting this information together for the council.

Now uh I believe at the last meeting you had uh discussed um looking at a uh carrier such as uh um forget who who would uh um an employee pay benefits carrier we have trust mark, but you were looking talking with other uh carriers.

Can you tell us the status of where we're at with all of this and if uh some sort of paid parental leave is in the works?

Yes.

So one of the uh one of the carriers that I was working with, um they came in, but they it would not work with them because what they had in terms of what we're currently have a trust mark will not be comparable.

Um so what I have done also uh since that that time is looking at the progression of how many people actually had used the maternity leave and the paternity leave.

This way we get an understanding more focusing on what is happening throughout the year so far since the last conversation.

But if I recall correctly, at that time, I think was um counselor Moret that asked Bob to put what would cost for one week or two weeks of pay if we were to do something around that time.

So I looked at it, and of course, we start with with the reality of if this were to go beyond the maternity and paternity leave.

If you were to assume that every full-time employee were to use one week of pay, it is close to a 1.4 million.

This is assuming that everybody would be there, everybody would use their their entire week for FMLA.

And then I'll tell you why this this also came into uh consideration.

Then, of course, if you were to go with a two-week's pay, same numbers, about a thousand um FTEs, that number will double too close to a 2.8 million.

But then again, this is the assumption that everybody would have this paid, would use this time, everybody is equal to have the same the same situation.

So since then we are averaging um the same type of percentages that you have in there in terms of utilization, but coincidentally the FMLA that that comes across paternity leave, maternity leave, it's a little bit higher.

So for the last this current year, we have about eight maternity leaves uh so far, the year is not over, but so far they have been on the maternity leave with the average of 12 weeks they've been out.

And then on the paternity leave has increased to 14 plus of people that have been out on maternity leave.

So if you were to take an average of what it would cost for to pay for the for the paternity and maternity leave, we are looking at a cost somewhere fluctuating just for the salon, somewhere between 360k to 450K and continue to increase even higher.

So then I I think it's important to come here before you and also present you additional information for consideration.

I believe that it's a fair thing to do and representing what your intent is.

But if you take a look at that from that perspective, there are three things to keep in mind.

It's the affordability of of of this of this item.

There's an affordable affordability factor that it needs to take a look at that.

So let's assume that people are out on maternity leave or paternity leave.

We always take a look how much would it cost.

Should we go and make a decision?

Should he go and make a decision with the mayor of one week or two weeks or whatever that the decision is.

But beyond that point, if we really consider doing something like that as a benefit, there are other costs that are OT costs, there are different costs that we cannot pick and choose, it would be a benefit to everybody.

So there's the affordability piece.

There's a fairness piece.

I'm a father of two, and many of you have children, so we know the importance of welcoming a new baby to our lives.

But at the same time, surprisingly, my mirror tells me that I'm getting older every day.

And what would we do with those who are going through critical illnesses?

Illnesses like cancer, illnesses like that are severe, heart surgeries, things like that that takes some time.

Shouldn't those be considered as well?

I mean, having a child is fantastic, but keeping your life, keeping you alive is another thing to consider.

So that would be a fairness that that we need to keep that in mind.

And of course, there's a legal component to this as well.

So again, affordability, the fairness piece and the legal components.

So it would have to work with some things within the law, would have to work with some statutory things.

And with that, there's there's the law piece, there's the guidelines, there's the perimeters that to consider all that.

That being said, this is where we are at this point, and then um what we are doing that I also found is that the current employees who are participating on short-term and long-term disability, it's not in a high number.

So that gives us an opportunity that some of them not fully understand or opt to go with that, which covers a portion if someone goes out on leave, it covers a portion for critical illness, the things we that I've been presenting and talking to you, which would be good to put that in in the open enrollment piece and have a section just to talk about that.

Allow them to understand what that will bring, allow them to understand what that would give to them and the benefits of participating on long-term and short-term disability.

That being said, what I have done and putting a plan with my with my team this year to open enrollment, we're going to do something different.

We actually gonna be at the site when uh the employees are.

We will have one actually at City Hall as well.

And hold sessions to an hour, an hour and a half, and go through all this, allow them to ask questions, allow us to answer as well, so they can make some decisions.

So the long-term and short-term disability could help out quite a bit in these matters.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Covey.

Any questions for um Jose at this time?

If the body will allow from the chair a few questions.

So I can't see Council Lopes.

Did you have a question?

Okay, okay.

No, no, that's okay, that's okay.

That's all right.

Um Joseph.

Um, so in regards to the OT costs and and not the actual dollars of implementing this policy that you spoke to, that technically occurs now if people are take unpaid FMLA.

The answer is yes.

But it could be expanded if it's if there's a paid incentive, which more people might utilize.

Exactly.

So there's there's two factors there that will that will increase the the prolonged leave and also the number of people that are taking leave.

Let's not forget that occasionally there are leaves that are smaller one week or two weeks.

That does not always be captured, we probably know those after the fact.

But once it is paid, and once and once it is carried out through for everybody, assumably so, then those two factors will increase.

Okay.

I mean, uh from my opinion is if we offered one or two weeks, which is what I think would be something to roll out and implement in the beginning, it's not gonna it's not gonna be enough to uh cause a mass uh uh uh mission by all of our employees to start uh uh having children.

I don't think that's enough of an enticement uh for them to do that.

So I don't I wouldn't necessarily see like uh I think it's a added benefit that we should be providing, but I don't think it would cause a huge uptick necessarily in uh a mass amount of people going and and utilizing uh I'm being uh making a little bit of a joke, but um a bad one at that.

So with that being said, if we were to implement something at one you said you gave a number of the actual costs based on on who utilized unpaid FMLA for a parental leave being somewhere around 360,000 to 400,000 dollars?

450, okay.

4360 to 450, okay.

And that was for one week, sir.

This this will be for the duration of the leave.

Should we go in and implement this for all those that are parental and maternity leave?

So for the max 12 weeks?

Max 12 weeks.

So we could offer 12 weeks paid parental leave and it would run the city under half a million dollars?

That's a good assumption.

So let me go back to your joke.

I don't I did like your joke.

I think it's a joke.

But if you were to consider the fairness piece and just isolate paternity and maternity leave, again, what would we do with the rest of the people who are going through critical illnesses, right?

And I don't think, to the point that you were making before counselor, I don't think this alone would entice people to have babies.

That's that's not what we are talking about.

But if we are really being fair to the employees, all employees, we ought to consider everybody.

That falls on falls under the critical illness, that was under some mental illness that could be severe.

Unfortunately, the world is going through a fast pace, and there are a whole bunch of situations that in which we need to be sensitive and empathetic about it.

So that's what I'm saying.

So the numbers that I gave you are estimates just for one portion of the so but in my opinion, and maybe my colleagues disagree, but shouldn't uh uh trust mark or other carriers uh like uh I have I think a precision I have AFLAC at my day job I have AFLAC.

Don't you think that those cover long-term uh illness and disability existing?

But I don't believe they have an option for paid parental leave.

So my question to you would be is there a way of expanding our voluntary benefits to our employees so that they are covered, which is a minimum cost uh if if I might if I remember correctly, it is a minimal cost uh uh to the employee pre-tax uh comes out before taxes are taken out, and would allow the bet the employee for very small amounts of money that long-term care if an illness or critical illness came about, but paid parental leave is something that I think you said was still having trouble finding a carrier to offer.

So is that something are you confident?

So my question is because this is all kind of tied together in your points of being fair and equitable.

Do you believe you would be able to secure uh whether uh do you believe Trustmark is the carrier to offer this, or are there other carriers?

You were saying there's other carriers you're talking to.

Are you looking to expand that and give our employees more options on voluntary benefits?

So whether if you were to stay with with Trustmark, let's use that one as an example.

One of there's an opportunity there.

One of them is educating the employees that this really exists and the benefits that this gives, right?

And put a table and put a scenario for estimated costs they will go through on a monthly basis and what that would cover, should they go on any leave.

That being said, as I mentioned earlier, it is part of the plan to embed this in the open enrollment piece, which we will have discussions with the employees.

This is just a suggestion, but to consider.

I will strongly recommend to get to that period of time, having those open enrollment discussions and see what activity employees are enrolled in post that period.

And then we can say we went from this percentage of employee to this percentage of employee.

Circle back to Trust Mark or any other carrier and say at this point we have a large population that is in interested in the attending and participating.

Can we talk about enhancing some of these benefits within that those programs?

Okay.

And I would agree with you, we need to take care of uh, you know, every employee with every illness, such as you know, or every issue that that's affected by FMLA.

But where there's uh uh what I see and and uh again uh you're gonna do a little bit more work when we're walking into as we approach an open enrollment, as you said you're gonna do a little bit more outreach, your office will.

Uh from my end, those issues regarding long-term disability uh due to illness or work-related issue, uh those voluntary benefit carriers like the one that I have, is it it's it's actually they're actually very good, but they don't have that paid parental part.

So I I to balance that equitable side of that.

Would that be something uh could we get estimates for um well, no, because you gave us that estimate.

So if we were to go out and do a six-week paid parental leave, it would be half this number of that 360 to 450.

If you were to do a six week, yeah.

Well, that will be depending on the participation, but it it would be it will be less than that.

But then again, let's not forget we'll be at the mercy of offering.

Yeah, well, of course, yeah.

And and who will be enrolled in the program.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh, Chair recognizes Councillor Carney.

Okay, so um I think we went off the little thing a little bit with the trust Mac.

Um, and you said about the open enrollment.

So are we looking at other carriers to bring in for the employees to like pay because I I also have AFLAC too as uh a supplemental to what I've got.

Um but are we looking at I know there's there's a multitude of companies out there that do offer um all these different plans for um long-term, short-term disability.

Are we going to look into the all those plans and have maybe uh fear because I know when I back in the day when I worked at the sheriff's department, um we had in the courtroom all day, it was like loaded with different vendors that you could talk to and sign up with if we could you know look at something like that and the options that the employees have like that.

If we can bring them in, that would be great.

So the answer is yes, we are we are having the health fair this week.

Uh some vendors will be there.

That's another opportunity to engage, there's another opportunity to interact, there's another opportunity to ask some questions, and it ties them to to work and collaborate with us.

Right.

Right.

I saw the I saw those times and not conducive to me, but that's okay.

Um, but yeah, so that's what I was looking to see the other vendors coming in for the long-term short-term disability also.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Carney.

Chair recognized counsel President Burke.

Thank you.

Um, I just uh sorry, I didn't receive the the packet before.

I want to thank my colleague from Ward 5 for letting me borrow it really quickly.

So I was just running through some of the percentages here.

Um I totally understand the thought process of wanting to have equality uh when it comes to offering benefits to all of our employees, but the reality of that situation is it's not feasible.

Um but what is possible and obtainable in this case and what we brought, not just you but your predecessor for, and this has been a long way.

So some employees have had their second child by the point of this conversation.

So I'm a little frustrated because I felt like getting this information about uh you know uh paid family medical leave act was kind of uh why are we talking about this?

Mainly because maybe that's something we can strive for later on in the future if we have more revenue to do that.

Um and I appreciate you advocating on behalf of our employees, but I'm looking at a number here of 32 percent.

Um what I'm doing there is combining your percentages of birth of a child of 26% and then parental leave of six percent.

Um and my focus here is mainly on our employees that are coming here sometimes fresh out of college or starting a new life, and we're trying to settle here in New Bedford, and we're not offering them enough incentive to want to even work here in New Bedford.

Um we want to do other things.

I often talk about retention, and I and when you were uh coming here to interview for your job, that was something you talked a lot about, and I think that is a piece of this when we're talking about paid family medical leave, and we can get to that eventually, but in the meantime as well, I think a part of the retention of retaining young educated talent that's coming here and set up fleeing to other industries.

I think paid maternity leave when people are starting and growing their families, why would anyone want to come work for a city that isn't catering to their growing family?

And that's why for me we should be prioritizing and green lighting.

If I'm understanding these numbers correctly, you're saying for if we were willing to pay uh a pa mother or father who's going on 12 weeks worth of paid paternal leave, it would cost the city potentially between 360,000 to 450,000.

In comparison, the balloon number that you gave us originally was everybody.

Everybody, if every single employee that we have for one week of uh fell ill and had to take it, and we wanted to give them one week pay would be 1.4 million, or we double that for two weeks.

Okay, yeah.

So that's outrageous.

We're not gonna do that.

Um at least I I wouldn't uh sign up for that.

I assume everyone would agree we don't have money for that.

But I think that it is well worth the money and retention to at least go after a small piece of this pie, which is the paid uh parental leave.

Is that something you believe that we can obtain within this well upcoming fiscal year?

I think it's it's encouraging to hear the interest on this topic, which I think it's good.

I do appreciate the fact about looking for the younger generation coming in.

Um it's equally important.

I I'm all for that.

But if you if you are to consider something that is beneficial, I always see talented from two two different types of buckets.

The the talent that we are trying to attract and the other talent that we are trying to retain.

If you are focusing on the one that we are trying to attract and not the one we are trying to retain, that will be it, what that will be a revolving door at some sort.

So we don't want to do that.

To answer your question directly, I think it can be done.

One of the things that I believe will be it will be more concise in terms of of what we can do.

It was what I was I was stating earlier with with the upcoming open enrollment, with the upcoming sessions, informing them about short-term, long-term disability and have an understanding to come back and say this is what we are seeing as far as activity, as I continue to explore other possibilities with other carriers as well.

I think that will be because in that effort, I think we can probably accommodate everyone and come up with something that that is doable versus versus a group.

Although I'm not undermining the group that is important.

I mean, if I were to be to be having a child now with my wife, I would like to know that I would like to be a part of that.

I'm not I'm not uh disregarding that.

But I still have the same mentality in mind.

Once we're gonna do something that is attractive for everybody, let's do it for everybody.

If we're doing something good, let's try to do the best we can in finding a solution that is doable for everybody.

Yeah, I just think that this approach uh you can correct me if I'm wrong, is the thought process is it's either for everyone or no one at all.

No, no, no.

What I'm trying to what I'm trying to increase is the opportunity to do this for as many people as we can.

Because let's face it, not everybody's gonna have a critical illness.

Not everybody's gonna get sick, right?

So the good news with with the uh continue to explore the SDDs is if if we create a program like this, the cost that it will have to the employee are for those who participate.

I may have a stage in my life that I would say, okay, so I am here and I need to build my sick time.

I don't have sick time.

The city is generous providing 15 days of sick time a year, but I don't have that.

So let me hop into the short-term disability and long-term disability for a few years until I build it up and then I can drop it off.

Those are the things that we that that become circumstantial in someone's life.

If I am a young, a young father or a young mother and planning to have kids, let me explore that too.

And then once my numbers two or three or four and I'm good, I may not need to hop on that anymore.

So that's what I'm saying.

Those situations though are ever evolving depending on the person's circumstance.

That's what it is.

So it's not just to not make an isolated case, because I think it's a good discussion.

I really, really do.

But is if if we have still the opportunities to continue to explore this for a few more months until we get that point, and then when it comes to the budget, let's see what we can do this for the next year to answer the question before.

I I guess I appreciate that thought, but I just to put it into more perspective for you to understand, I guess our frustration behind it is this is a motion that we've been working on since August of 2023.

So to you, it might just be, oh, let's just wait a few more months.

But to us, it's like let's wait another few more years.

And again, as I retorted in the beginning of my remarks, we've and this is not a actual joke.

There have been actual employees that have already on their second child since we started this conversation.

So that next few months it's just it's delaying uh a benefit that could be the reason that we lose a really good employee that could be beneficial to this city.

And so that's my again, my thought process of why not have that incremental change as opposed to let's stall progress, let's not do anything at all for anybody because the potential of not being able to help everybody.

It's the I think the starfish theory of throwing as many back into the water as possible as opposed to just giving up.

That's you know, again, I know you're not categorizing it that way, but that's how I'm seeing it is let's keep waiting and seeing how we can help everyone, but in the meantime, there's other people being left behind in that process.

Um I I guess obviously I can't make you work faster in that regard, but I just wanted to give you that perspective of we would like to see this particular aspect move forward because that's what this motion was designed for, not for paid family medical leave.

Um I to be honest with you, I don't really want to see an expansion of paid family medical leave, mainly because it's been my experience that a lot of employees have abused uh paid family medical leave.

Um so it that's why for me personally I would like to see just us focus on parental leave.

Um but I guess uh I'll just leave it with that.

Thank you though for being here tonight.

Thank you for the the research that you've done on this.

And please please understand, President Burgo, that I totally totally get what your point, honestly.

I I get your point, and and I think it's very valid.

Um please uh don't think that I'm walking away ignoring what you're saying.

That's not the case at all.

I understand.

But again, I I just wanted to thank you for being here tonight and the the work that you've put into it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So uh from the chair, I concur with Councillor Burgo.

As far as um I appreciate what um you your your thoughts, and I don't disagree with your thoughts, uh Jose.

But I do think I I think there was sufficient appetite and the the I was uh for some reason I was expecting the dollar amount to be a lot more.

Um and and I'm actually reassured about this that I would I would actually like to see this move forward, and and that doesn't mean we can't continue to work and add other pieces in the future uh with and expand that.

But I uh as far as this piece goes, I think that's uh something that's attainable now and it's something that we can work in.

And and I I think um uh that's that's my thoughts on this.

I do have uh uh um a question for attorney Garatowski from the chair if if there's any uh no objections from any further questions for Mr.

Gove at this time.

Okay.

Um Jose, if you don't mind just taking a seat for a minute, and I can have a couple questions for David.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

David So this motion is strictly describing parental paid leave in which uh in our discussions uh we can uh determine we we've received our numbers that 12 weeks paid parental leave could be between 360,000 and 450.

So if this body wanted to institute something like six weeks of paid parental leave or something to that effect, um a uh well using the Boston ordinance, I think as a template, is that something that we could accomplish?

Is that something you feel that we could write?

For which employees?

You can only you I don't think you can do it for collective bargaining units.

I think you could only do it for people who are in nothing.

So I I I hear you on that, but when I went back, the ordinance sets the uh PTO for the entire city.

Vacation days and sick days.

I I that's what I thought, but I look back and I contracts they can negotiate paid time off in their contracts.

Okay.

Um and the mayor is the bargaining, you know, he's the uh exclusive person bargaining for the city, and I don't think you could start adding all these benefits by law that the mayor may want to use in a collective bargaining negotiation.

Even though the order may be able to speak more to that than I, but I think that's the case.

Okay.

So I mean, uh uh I'll hear what my colleagues have to say, but uh I'll I'll send you the ordinance, David, because it does it like says like every other thing was like unit C, unit C, and C then this section said all city employees shall have.

So I I found that weird that everything was unit C, and then this one section say that, but I'm I mean, no, and that's fine, and that's take precedence over the ordinance by state law.

And my uh when when you look at this further, is that a way uh my only other thought was because I think we briefly discussed this previously.

Um was there a a thing that's like a minimum that we set as a minimum and then unions can bargain for for more on top of that?

Is that something like we all agree that this is something that's a basic right for every employee, and then they can bargain further if they want an expansion?

I don't I don't I don't think that's the case.

I don't I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that whatever the the bargaining unit would want to they could give up to get something else, it's all part of the negotiation.

Understood.

Um and then David, if we if this body was to ask you to write an ordinance, um would you be able to put something together um by before next meeting, sometime in October?

Um I don't know.

I'd have to look at what detail, but I I don't think it would be that difficult to do, but um I I'd want you to be specific about exactly what you're looking for.

Sure.

In the motion, so I know not just say, oh, just write something about the paid time off.

What uh what is it that you how much time, what is the criteria for which you want this this to apply, I need to know that.

Okay.

Colleagues, any questions for attorney Garatowski at this time?

Chair recognized Councillor Burgo.

Yeah, thank you.

So based on your line of questioning, I I think we're on the same thought process here.

Um again, as I had alluded to, if you were listening to my uh questions with uh Director Gouvea, um I appreciate his advocacy work on behalf of all of our employees uh in regards to other uh potential benefits, but I've made it very clear to him uh and to the administration that my focus here is the parental leave.

Um to answer your question about if we were to move forward tonight, pushing forward a specific ordinance based on the data that uh Director Guevea has provided to us, it would be my intention uh uh in regards to the 12 weeks paid parental leave, which I guess if I I'll probably oh six weeks well the $360,000 to $450,000 figure, I believe was for well, yeah, anyway.

But I want I guess I I would want to ask Director Guevea, which I'll ask him in the uh before I have you sit down, but um is if that was based off of just unit C employees or I guess all employees, but I I think that the I think that if you created an ordinance, it would apply to the unit C employees because That's your thought.

Yeah, because you're saying that the school committee controls the school employees, the the collective bargaining agreements control the bar you know the bargaining units.

Um so I think it would just apply to the um Unit C.

The unit C.

Okay.

So essentially if we were to make a motion tonight, though, the specifics that you would entail is like if Councillor Burgo makes a motion that uh our legislative council draft a motion uh in regards to the city moving forward with a parental leave uh offering to our unit C employees uh 12 weeks paid leave for paternity leave.

Yeah.

Or paternal leave.

Well, I'd also want to know like um what your intention was or when that could be taken.

Parental leave be taken.

My my child is 16 now, I'd like to take my parental leave, please.

Is it based upon how many how how long away from the birth of the child do they have to take that leave?

Um would be uh uh something that I'd want to be able to put in there so that people don't just say, oh, I'm taking parental leave, you know, for my 18-year-old.

You know.

So I I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but that's a policy question that you you need to guide me as to when you want that to be available to somebody within within the first month of the child's birth or something to that effect.

So I'd want to know what your intention was with that.

Okay.

Um maybe um also some sort of way to show that that's occurred.

Um, to present the birth certificate to the personnel department or something to show that they're that they're um do you want it um then the other question that comes into play is do you want to include adoptive parents upon the adoption of a child?

You know, there's all these different things that are well, yeah.

So it sounds like a lot of legalese that you're talking about.

Well, it's the fine-tuning.

Yeah, I mean there are policy questions that that would come in people would have questions about and to put them into an ordinance, it's got to be specific.

But uh so the the point that I'm trying to make here is that we've made motions before to have you draft things that have had to be very lengthy like that, but we haven't sat here going reading to you a whole dissertation of like specifics.

So I guess my question to you is if what would be the vague motion to then have you work with, let's say, for example, the chairman of ordinance who has uh obviously expressed uh uh like the ordinance from Boston that has that kind of specific legal easy of those kind of guidelines and parameters.

Say how many weeks is the is the pay full pay?

Um how soon must it be taken from the event occurring, the adoption or or or birth if you're not sure.

I guess what I'm getting at, David is need to know those those basic things.

I guess what I'm getting at is instead of what I would like to do is have you draft something working probably in c uh collaboration with the chairman, maybe myself, anyone else who would like to not uh well absence of a quorum, obviously, and then be able to present that full detailed.

Well, right, right.

I'm gonna do that.

To the body to then.

I haven't thought about this that much until I got here, right?

So there may be, as I'm drafting it, there may be a bunch of questions that come into play that I might have to build into it.

Yeah.

But I think from a very basic standpoint, what I do want to know is how many weeks is it full pay?

When does when would that take place?

You know, can you should you have to take it within the first, you know, should your if you're giving people a maximum of six months, does that have to begin within the first six months of the child's birth or adoption, something like that.

That gives me the basics.

Yeah.

Now I might start writing and come up with all these different questions that I may need to put in there, but I don't know yet, because I haven't really thought about it that way.

Yeah, it's just uh obviously the the main makers of the motion of this original uh myself, the chairman, and I believe a counselor at large, uh Ian Abrew, the three of us, I would say would want to be instrumental in drafting that, and then obviously the body uh would possibly want to make amendments and changes like that.

But I guess the what I'm trying to say here is it's go it's going to be lengthy.

And so it's it would be difficult to do.

Yeah, so I'm just saying to you, like it would be difficult for me now to put into words that right now to say uh Mr.

Chairman, I make a motion to present move.

You can make move that a that you request um legislative council draft an ordinance um requiring employees to have parental leave for up to how many weeks?

And um at full pay for those weeks.

And that such leave would need to be taken or begin within X months of the event of an adoption or childbirth.

That would be the basic stuff.

We could get into other avenues once we start.

If I might interject so that we have that information.

The Boston ordinance that I kept referencing allows for uh that paid parental leave to be taken up to one year after the birth of a child?

Twelve months?

Twelve weeks.

Boston, I believe I I will triple check, but I believe it's 80 percent pay for 12 weeks.

Or it's I'm sorry, excuse me, what's the first six at full and the next six at 80 percent?

That's what it is.

So six weeks at 100 percent pay, six weeks at 80 percent pay, uh both the adoption and birth of a child count, and it can be taken up to one year and the p and it doesn't have to be taken consecutively.

Okay.

All right, that was all.

Thank you.

Okay.

Perfect.

Yeah, I mean, those are specifics enough to get some.

Something on paper.

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

Colleagues, any further discussion on this item?

Could Chair recognize Councillor Giesta?

Um Mr.

Chairman, if I could just add my name to this motion if the makers of the motion would allow that.

Can we do that with the Okay, yes, absolutely?

Thank you.

Shane and I.

All right.

Seeing no further discussion, Councillor Virgo.

Yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

That's all right.

Um I would uh Okay, I am scribbling something.

You can get the verbiage to the clerk after, but more or less.

Okay, well, I'm just hoping I'm saying this right.

Um right, and then David Gertowski can tell me if I messed up.

All right.

Um I'd like to make a motion at this time um that our legislative council draft a parental leave ordinance that would grant our employees, I guess, specifically unit C, or just well, until we can figure out who we can.

I guess I'll just say our employees paid parental leave up to six weeks at full pay and an additional six weeks at 75% pay to be used within the first year of birth or adoption of a child.

Was that specific enough, David?

Or is okay.

So again, the motion at hand is to have our legislative council draft an ordinance that would grant our the employees of the city of New Bedford up to six weeks of paid maternity uh paternity leave or paternal leave of full pay for six weeks and an additional six weeks thereafter, if they so wish, of only 75% pay to be used within the first year of a child's birth or the first year of an adoption.

Made by Councilor Burgo.

Is there a second?

Second seconded by Councillor Giesta, Council Lopes on the question.

Through you to the making of the moon to the make of the motion.

So I just want full clarification.

Somebody could have a child on Monday, and then eight weeks later, 12 weeks later, they could decide to go out on you know paternity leave.

Because oh sorry.

It was through so it was through you through through the chair to you.

Yes, so because in the situation of obviously uh for fathers, uh sometimes the mother and father might not take it at the same time.

You might have a mother who takes the first um 12 weeks off, and then when she goes back to work the 12 weeks later, the father then takes it off, especially because of daycares and things like that, uh might not take children right away, or they might not have an opening.

So then sometimes mothers and fathers take um paternity leave at different times.

Through you to the maker, that's what I did.

My ex-wife was out for eight weeks and I was out for a couple weeks, but we didn't have a whole year to take that time.

That was my question, you know.

If I might address that uh as well.

Um attorney Garetowski drafts the ordinance, we're still gonna be able to make further revisions and changes, and we can dwell on that.

But I I I like to just see if we could get it on paper and look at it on paper too.

Counselor Burgo on the question.

The other thought process too is we're also thinking in the idea of traditional birth, but as also mentioned here is adoption as well.

So obviously with adoption, uh a mother that's adopting a child might not have gone through the actual physical birth, so they might need to take off a few weeks uh at first, uh, and then later on there might be other times that they need to take it off sparingly throughout the year.

So I think that's also the thought process behind giving them the full year of that transition period of having a new child with them and doctor's appointments throughout that year or transition or potentially court hearings or what have you for that uh first 12 weeks or 12 weeks whole for that first year.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions on drafting this ordinance?

Okay.

It's been made and duly second.

Second by counselor Gies.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Seeing no further business before us.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

No, because who's gonna make the motion to join me by counselor Giesta, seconded by counselor Carney?

All those in favor of enjoyment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 8.53 p.m.

Thank you, everybody.