It is 7 02 PM on Monday, May 11th.

I want to note that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Brefort's homepage under quick links, then meetings.

I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to read into the record.

All right.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

Is it assistant director Laurel?

I think I see her hiding.

Okay, there you are.

Sorry, I didn't just meant.

I didn't see you at first, and then I saw your head poke out behind the chair there.

Uh Chair and Members.

Ian Lauro, Assistant City Planner.

Um I'm here to answer any questions relative to this ordinance.

I will briefly tell you that the reason why we've put it forth is that quite simply we do have quite a bit of city um facilities that often come before this body for um procurement purposes and disposition and changing the zoning ordinance to allow for expedited um review and um a lot and allowances of uses um would be helpful in that disposition.

A lot of the uh the public buildings that the city has, such as schools and police and fire stations are often not zoned in the the manner in which we probably want to be able to dispose of them, particularly from multi-housing.

So that's that's the purpose of of why we're making this change.

Any questions from the uh body?

Chair recognize counselor loops on his first.

Thank you, Chairman.

Ann, I think this is a great idea.

Did we calculate how much time we think will free up in the process to go from conception to potentially an RFP going out and then a developer moving forward?

Well, that that process still remains the same, but there's a couple of things that happen.

It makes the RFP uh a little bit more uh likable for a developer because there's no unforeseen circumstances like having to go before a zoning board um for some type of zoning change or ask for a zoning change, which often can end up being spot zoning.

So it makes the RFP a little bit um you know palatable.

Um the time frame won't change except for the fact that the disposition disposition for development will be quicker because they won't have to they'll still have most likely have to go through some site plan review, but they wouldn't have to seek some type of nonconformity or zoning change.

Okay.

And then my last question you hit on it.

So none of this would be spot zoning?

No.

So that's what this is this is eliminating the spot zoning.

Perfect.

That those are my two questions.

Thank you for answering them both.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councillor Aber on us first.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Ann.

Good evening.

Good to see you.

Um at this explanation here in my notes, um, the planning board recommended here, as you says here in your description, changing the language to require a property to have been used for public purposes for at least 20 years.

Um just wondering, what was the rationale behind a 20-year threshold?

Why not 15?

Why not 25?

I'm just curious.

How was it settled on 20?

So the change really wasn't for the 20 years.

The change was from municipal to public, because I made a mistake.

I'm sorry.

It's like poking me in the face.

Um so I'll go back to the 20 years, but let me let me explain what happened in the change.

When um I drafted the ordinance, my intent was for um if it would be municipal buildings, but when it came to the criteria that uh originally got written as it was a municipal it was in minute municipal use for 20 years.

And that was supposed to be public use, and I'm gonna give you an example so you all understand what I'm saying.

If the post office um in the well I can bring a real life, the armory.

The armory was built for um mini municipal use, but then it went to the state.

Um, and then before it came back to the city.

So there's like some time changes in there.

But if, for example, the post office decided to close in the city, procured that building, and then wanted to redevelop it or to put it out for disposition, it was not a municipal building.

Was never a municipal building, but it might be in our municipal um hands.

So that's why I wanted to change it from municipal to a public building.

Thank you.

Um I have two other questions here.

Um how would um neighborhood residents um be notified and or involved?

I guess my question would be in future conversion proposals under this new streamlined planning board review process.

What's your process uh internally or externally, I should say, for engagement uh of the neighborhood residents to make sure they're involved in these conversations.

Yeah, and I apologize.

I don't have the ordinance right in front of me.

But I believe that we're still doing a special permit.

Which would be a public hearing.

Public hearing.

Yep.

Yeah.

A public hearing.

Right.

But to that point, you'll do the normal process of engaging the neighborhood of the abutters and do all that.

So I can tell you what we in the planning office do right now for all development is we um we can outforce, but we highly encourage developers before that they before they come to any of our boards or commissions to have outreach to their neighborhood and have a neighborhood meeting.

Um we're finding um some good success with that.

I guess my last question uh for now, uh Mr.

Chairman, through you to Miss Laurel.

Um not going to hold you to this, I know we're on the record, but what types of redevelopment projects does the planning board or planning department envision uh for some of these former municipal facilities we're talking?

Housing, commercial, nonprofit, other uses, um uh income restricted housing, market rate housing.

What are some of the conversations that have been had in the board within the board and then in your office?

So we work very closely with the Office of Housing and Community Development on the RFPs.

Um in the past, you've seen police stations and schools um that have gone forth.

Tomorrow you have another slate of um municipal buildings, including the armory.

Um usually it's the market that is um dictating what those uses be.

We within the RFPs do put recommended um uses also in in this particular ordinance, there is criteria of uses that are not allowed.

So obviously we don't want to adversely impact the um locations in the neighborhoods where these buildings are located, as we know.

Um the schools and fire stations, the police stations are all we're always nestled um intermittent um within the neighborhoods.

So we're we're we're not allowing high impactful adverse um uses, but encouraging uses that the market will take advantage of.

All right, thank you for answering my questions, Ann.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll yield it this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I also want to recognize that the ward for Councillor Derek Baptiste has joined us.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

All right.

Seeing that this is a public hearing, I'll ask if anyone here wishes to speak in favor, speak in favor.

Be recorded in favor, be recorded in favor.

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

Speak in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Be recorded in opposition.

Motion to close the public hearing made by Councillor Abrew.

Seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Your pleasure?

Motion referred to the full city council uh with a positive recommendation made by Councillor Avery, seconded by Councillor Loops.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item two.

Number two is a written motion, Councillor Gomes requesting that the committee on ordinances look into establishing an ordinance that would ban fireworks being shot off throughout the city after the hours of 10 p.m.

with the exception even though illegal after the 10 p.m.

curfew on July 4th, and further, that the ordinance establish a $300 fine for those caught illegally firing off fireworks between July 5th through July.

Between July 3rd through July 5th, I'm sorry, that's backwards.

Um the following um year within city neighborhoods, beaches, waterfront, and open spaces, furthermore, that this law would be strictly enforced in the city giving some relief to the neighbors, neighborhoods.

It was referred here on June 25, 2020.

It's now before you.

Motion received in place of file.

Motion received a place of file made by Councillor Gomes, seconded by Councillor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

Chairz's um Councillor Gomes on us first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, um uh to the clerk from through you to the clerk, you're reading that correctly.

Okay, July 5th to the third.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

I was it just threw me off.

I thought it was backwards.

I'm sorry.

And probably the way I wrote worded.

No, that's okay.

Um, if I just may have uh the floor for a minute.

Um as you uh no, we I wanted to go over this this evening and you invited guests like the police chief and the fire chief.

After having uh conversations with both chiefs uh earlier today, I asked that we um tonight table this item due to the fact that there is some import from the fire chief and the police chief on how we can do this collectively together and can be a real um let me just say uh a a real good deal for the city of New Bedford as far as fireworks is concerned with the implementation of a fine and some action by both parties.

So at this point, uh if no one else has wants the floor, I would ask that we table this item to the next uh audience meeting.

Okay.

Motion to table made by Councilor Gorm, seconded by Councillor Lopes.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

The ayes uh sorry, any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item three into the record.

Item number three is a communication, Mayor Mitchell's city council to uh submitting an order and an act providing for the recall of elected officers in the city of New Bedford.

It was referred here on March 14, 2024, July 17th, 2024 it was tabled.

October 9th, 2024 remained in on the table.

November 19, 2024, it remained in committee on May 28, 2025, it was heard in table three A is the order.

It was referred here on March 14, 2024.

June 17th, 2 July 17, 2024, it was tabled.

October 9th, 2024 remained on the table.

November 19, 2024, it remained in committee.

On May 28, 2025, it was heard and then tabled.

3B is the act.

Uh refer to you on March 14th, 2024, July 17th, 2024, it was tabled.

October 9th, 2024, it remained on the table.

On November 19th, 2024, there was a vote to amend the act by striking the language 600 in section three A and replacing it with 1800.

And by striking the language 100 in section 3A and 3B and replacing it with 300.

Vote to amend the act by striking the language three months in section two and replacing it with four months, and by striking the language six months in section two and replacing it with eight months, and it remained in committee on May 28, 2025.

It was again heard, but tabled.

So three three A and three B are now before you, and they are on the table.

Motion removed the item from the table.

Second.

Motion removed from the table made by Councilor Perra, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to refer to the item to the full city council for adoption.

Second.

Motion made by Councilor Perr to refer to the full city council for adoption.

Seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question?

I'm on the question.

Chair recognize Council Roy on this first.

Folks, I think there's work to be done, Mr.

Chair.

I think there's work to be done on this motion, and I think we should take the time to get it done in committee right now.

Um I'm hoping my colleagues will indulge me, Mr.

Chair, and and take the time to do the work right now before we send this uh to the full city council for adoption.

So I'm gonna vote no on this and hopefully my colleagues will follow suit and we can do the work that's needed to be done.

Chair recognizes Councilor Averonis first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, Mr.

Chairman, through you to the honorable at-large councillor, our friend and colleague.

I'm just curious um if he wouldn't mind if you would indulge him, Mr.

Chairman, just so we could further expand on the work maybe that he's referring to that we haven't done or need to do.

I'm just curious and um I'd be more than willing to listen, but I'm just curious.

Thank you.

I'll yield.

Is a motion to amend in order?

Point of point of order.

Is a motion to amend in order?

Yes, Councilor, if you'd like to uh make a motion, you can.

I would I'd like to make a motion to amend the act by striking the language 1800 in section three A and replacing it with six hundred, and by striking the language three hundred in sections three A and three B and replacing it with one hundred motion made by Councilor Roy to strike the language in three A to replace eighteen hundred with six hundred and three hundred with one hundred.

Did I get that right?

You did.

Three and three.

Oh, sorry, three A and three B.

Is there a second?

Seeing none, uh that motion fails uh for lack of a second.

Uh the motion still before us is a motion made by Councilor Perrer, seconded by Councillor Choquet on the section.

Make a motion to amend again.

Okay.

And by striking the language 15% in the final paragraph of section six and replacing it with 10%.

So in sorry, 15% to 10% in the first section.

In the first paragraph.

And in the second.

No, the last have uh 15%.

To 10%.

So that was a motion made by Council Roy.

Is there a second?

Seeing none, that motion fails as the chair, I'd like to amend the act, move to amend the act again.

I'd like to move the amend the act by striking the language 15% in the first paragraph of section three D and replacing it with 10%.

And by striking the language 15% in the final paragraph of section 3D and replacing it with 10%.

So in section 3D, 15 to 10%, in the final paragraph of 3G, 3D, sorry, 15% to 10%.

Motion made by Council Roy, seconded by a lack of a second, that motion fails.

The motion before us is on motion to table.

A motion to table has been made.

Is there a second?

Lack of a second.

Motion fails.

Motion to amend, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Is your mic on?

I think it's rolling.

Oh, it's doing that thing again.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, take the podium.

I make a motion, Mr.

Chairman, to amend the order to insert the phrase herein Attorney Garotowski, hearing attached, act attached.

Act and title and all that would be that they're asked here.

So after in the order, after the title of the act, comma, herein attached.

Which uh uh I'll wait for a second before I speak on it.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well that's the motion.

Yeah.

The motion is to amend the order to after the title of the act insert the phrase herein attached.

And act here and attached.

Correct.

Motion made by Councillor Pereira?

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Oliver on the question, Mr.

Chair can ask Council Pereira on the question.

Um colleagues attorney Garatowski had pointed out that the order allows the mayor to uh uh file the act with the state legislature, but does not explicitly attach the act of which we are we're voting on currently.

So by inserting this clause uh herein attached, the act that will be attached to the order is what has to be submitted to the general court.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

Anyone else on uh the question of this amendment which we'll in place put here in attached?

Anyone councilor Carney?

Are you looking for the floor?

No.

All right, anyone on their question?

If not, I'm going to ask the clerk to call a roll call on amendment to add in again after an act here and attached.

The clerk will call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes, Councilor Avery, Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptist, Council Burgo?

Yes.

Yes, Council Burgle, Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney, Council Choquett?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Triquette, Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes, Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes, Council Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Council Oliver, Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes, Council Pemberton, Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Council Pereira, Council Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

That passes 11 to 0.

Passes 11 to 0.

And refer as amended.

So yes.

Again, the motion now before us is referral made by Councilor Pereira.

Seconded by Council Choquett to refer out as amended to the full city council for approval for adoption.

Motion to move by Councillor Choquett.

Motion to amend has been made by Councilor Roy.

I'd like to move to amend the act by striking the language four months in section two and replacing it with three months.

And by striking the language eight months in section two and replacing it with six months.

Motion made by Council Roy to strike the language in section two from four months to three months, and again in section two from eight months to six months.

Is there a second?

Seeing none?

That motion fails as well.

If there's no second no one did.

No, this one did.

Oh, which one?

So the hair in ad?

Oliver.

Again, the motion before us is on referral out to the full city council for adoption.

If there's no one on the question, seeing none, I'll ask the uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item four.

Item number four is a written motion, Councillors Burgo Pereira, Abreu Carney, Oliver, Lima, Baptiste, Gomes, Moret, and Giesta requesting that the committee on ordinances 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 employees' immediate family to allow for the proper care and bonding with the child.

It was referred here on August 17, 2023.

On November 20th, 2023, Judy Keating will secure the monies and numbers on instituting the program.

It was tabled.

On March 25th, 2024 remained on the table.

On April 22nd, 2025, it was heard and then tabled.

On September 29th, 2025, there was a vote that the legislative council draft the parental leave ordinance that would grant the employees parental leave up to six weeks at full pay and an additional six weeks at 75% pay to be used in the first year of a child's birth or adoption, and it remained in committee.

Number four is before you and its tables.

Motion removed the item number two.

Motion removed from the table made by Councilor Pereira.

Seconded by Councillor Oliver, thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chairman?

Sure.

So colleagues, just to refresh the body's memory and the general public.

Counselors that were listed here in, um starting with uh councillors uh uh uh Mr.

the chairman and the uh at large counselor from the uh South End uh on Rickerson Street and a whole slew of other counselors joined on to this motion, as well as counselors who are not here, along with a personnel director that is no longer here.

That's how long we've been talking about this item.

Uh I am uh at the last meeting, we moved forward and asked attorney Garatowski to draft an ordinance uh with what we as a committee felt comfortable uh presenting or or voting upon at that time, which was uh six weeks of paid parental leave at full pay and another six at 75 percent of the person's pay.

I have an ordinance drafted by attorney Garutowski that I would uh uh uh uh after I'm done with my speech will like to receive and place this on file.

I will disseminate copies, but uh uh I will ask Attorney Garutowski in a minute to come up and give an overview of what this ordinance that he drafted does exactly.

We've been talking about this for a while.

This is a no-brainer for me.

Um I've I've spoken with uh various uh members of the city.

This won't won't cost the city anything up front.

Other people might have to pick up the slack as these people are away, but we budget for their salaries for the whole year.

We fund their salaries for the whole year, and we gotta really look, in my opinion, uh at what we're trying to do as a city and as a community and and build and encourage people to start families and and and be be have have families in and be able to spend time with their children when they're first born.

And I think this is a very good piece of legislation that uh uh really makes us stand out as a good place to want to work because we are a good place that want to to to come on and work that and build your family here in the city.

So uh uh Mr.

Chairman, at this time I'll ask uh a few questions to Attorney Garatowski, please.

You guys can both stand up there at the same time.

Do you want to receive an hour?

Sure.

Can we get a motion to receive and place that on file?

Motion received a place on file made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Council Pereira.

Anyone on the question of receiving and place on file?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

Attorney Garitowski.

We're playing musical chairs, sorry.

So uh Attorney Garotowski, can you just give us a brief overview of the ordinance?

Basically, I I think I spoke to it a little bit, but if you could just kind of go through it a little bit.

Yeah, so um I've had some conversations with the chairman um about some of the policies that were put in here and what some of the intentions were.

I didn't just make them up and pull them out of the out of the air.

Um so I tried to write uh an ordinance that was as simple as possible.

Um just again, that was that was as simple as possible, um, but achieves what um what I think most of you are trying to get at here.

So the first question that the ordinance answers is who's eligible for paid family leave?

And the way the ordinance is written, it's every employee of the city that it occupies a position that is not covered under a collective bargaining agreement.

And the reason why it's you cannot be covered by a collective bargaining agreement is because those are contractual issues that need to be determined between the union, its membership, and the administration as part of their contract.

So the council can't get in the middle of benefits and things that are negotiated by the union and the administration.

So it excludes people under collective bargaining agreements.

Any position that is in a collective bargaining agreement excludes them.

It's only for cities positions in the city that are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Second part of the eligibility is you have to have held your employment with the city for at least 12 consecutive months, continuous months.

And you regularly must be working at least 20 hours per week.

Okay.

So those are the you're eligible as an employee for this if you meet that criteria.

Not under a collective bargaining agreement, worked for the city for 12 continuous months, and you work at least 20 hours per week on a regular basis.

Now, you become eligible to take the 12 weeks of paid parental leave upon the occurrence of one of two things.

One, you become a new parent by natural birth by any method.

Or the second part is the adoption of a child under the age of two years old.

And the reason why we and I discussed this with the chairman, the reason why we went with two years old is because part of the policy here is to allow parents the time to bond and adapt to their child.

And usually if it's a child that's older, they've already spent some time.

If you adopt a child that's older, they've usually already spent some time with that adoptive family.

And so the policy isn't quite necessary for those who have already bonded with a child that's a little bit older.

And sometimes the child child goes to school and there's not the need to be home with the child as much as a younger child.

So that's why we put in childbirth or adoption of a child under the age of two years old.

And the 12 weeks of the paid parental leave is only available within the 12 months of that occurrence happening.

So if there's the birth or the adoption, you can take your 12 weeks now within that 12-month period after the occurrence of that of the occurrence.

So that's how you become eligible to take the leave.

Now, what are the benefits of the leave?

The benefits as we write in the in the ordinance, again, that I went through with the chairman.

Um you're not required, one is you're not required to take all 12 weeks.

You can take a portion of them, but you you don't have to take all 12.

You can take two of them, ten of them, or all twelves.

Um but the employees shall be required to take the parental leave in weekly increments.

So you can't take a day here, a day there, a day there.

You have to take a weekly increment each time you take the parental leave.

You don't have to take all 12 weeks consecutively, however, but you you must take them in weekly increments in that 12-month period.

All the 12 weeks within that 12-month period.

Now during the first six weeks that you take, the paid parental leave taken by the employee shall be paid a hundred percent of the employees' regular pay, according to the to the ordinance, as it's written right now.

Now you can change any of this stuff, but this is what what it reads right now.

The first six weeks, a hundred percent of the of the employees' regular pay.

The second six weeks that you take, um, you the employee is paid seventy-five percent of its regular pay, okay, for the second six weeks.

Um during that time that you take this leave, the employee continues to accrue any service credit, six leave, vacation leave, personal time.

All of that continues to get, it's as if you were working.

So it's you you continue to accrue any of that that time that time that you get as if you were working during that twelve weeks.

So that's the benefits that you get.

Now, how does this happen?

Well, the employee who's seeking to take the family leave must provide notice to the head of their department um in the case of a department head, the department head pro note gives notice to the mayor.

Um in the case of a department head, the department head pro note gives notice to the mayor.

At least 30 days prior to the date the employee anticipates taking the leave.

So you try to give the city at least 30 days.

Each employee notifies the department head.

If it's a department head taken, they notify the mayor.

And upon receiving the notice, the department head or mayor, as the case may be, shall notify the director of personnel within five days of getting that so that the um personnel department can begin preparing for that right away.

We don't want the department head to wait until last minute and then spring it on the personnel department.

So they within five days of getting that notice from the employee, if there's any questions, they have five days to get those questions answered from the employee and then notify the um director of personnel.

And lastly, it says that the mayor and the director of personnel may implement policies not inconsistent with this section to effectively carry out the provisions of this section.

So if there are forms, if there are things that personnel needs, or that the administration requires to implement this and they can carry out their administrative duties, they are allowed to implement policies without seeking um seeking your um change to the ordinance to implement policies to effectuate what you're asking to do.

Now they can't be inconsistent with this, they can't put a policy that changes the pay or anything like that, but they can implement policies by which they assist the administration in effectuating the um what's in the ordinance.

So that's pretty much how it works.

That's the mechanics.

Any of that can be changed if you disagree with any of it.

Um but that's where we're the sort of the launching pad of where we are here with this.

Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Garatowski.

I apologize too for make running off and making some copies in between there, but I appreciate that.

Um I think some of my colleagues have a couple questions, so I'll yield it this time for them, and if I have any other questions, I will also uh ask them.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

The Chair recognized Council Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, David, uh, for drafting this.

I think it was well thought out.

Uh my only question is um I understand the uh 12 consecutive months.

I'm hired for the city of New Bedford for 11 months.

My uh wife has a child, we have a child together.

After a month, can I apply?

The child's born, I've only worked for the city for 11 months.

Oh, so you're gonna be able to do that.

A month later, I wait a month, I now have been employed for 12 consecutive months.

The way this is written, you can once you've served those 12 continuous months in your position, you can then become eligible if the occurrence is within 12 months.

So for example, the occurrence happens today.

You don't have you can't take any leave until you hit 12.

If you don't hit 12 until August, you can start taking it in August, but you you don't get as long to take it.

Right.

Right?

You don't have the your year will be f will go back to the date of the occurrence.

Okay.

But the way it's written, you you don't need the 12 continuous months at the time of the occurrence, you need the 12 months to take to become eligible to take the leave.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

That's all, uh Mr.

Chair.

Thanks.

Counselor Avery on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

My cor my question is actually for Director Gorvea, so I'll yield right now.

If others have questions for our attorney, then you can come back to me if you'd like.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else on their first chair recognize Council Lopes on his first attorney Garatowski.

Thank you, Chairman.

So Attorney Guratowski, they would be able to take 12 consecutive weeks if they want it.

And let's say that individual had three weeks vacation time.

So they could take 15 weeks consecutively if they wanted to.

Based on how this is written, because they're collecting the.

The vacation time has to be approved by your your supervisor, is my understanding.

So technically they they could, if the supervisor then approves the tacking on of the vacation time after.

Um but my understanding, and I don't know for sure, but I think each supervisor has to approve your vacation time.

So you can't just say, I'm I'm not coming back because I got vacation time.

You have to do that.

Correct.

So but there'll be some intertwining maybe with FMLA where they may be able to say, well, I've taken so many weeks, but I think FMLA may be 12 weeks anyway.

So they may not be able to do it if but there may be some intertwining with that where they could take FMLA, but I'm not sure how that would work, because I think FMLA is only um 12 weeks anyway.

So we could the city could count that as FMLA time as well, so that they can't then after the 12 weeks take an additional 12 weeks off with FMLA.

They could count it probably as part of the initial 12 weeks, I think.

It's possible, but I'm not I don't know for sure how I don't have not well versed in the FMLA, but I think the city could say if you're taking the time, we're gonna count that as FMLA, so you can't tack it on at the end of the 12 weeks paid leave.

Thank you for the additional information.

I think Chairman.

Anyone else for attorney Garetowski?

All right, seeing none.

And I just will say, because we've we've talked about this, Mr.

Chairman, that this really doesn't cost the city anything more.

Like we're saying it's paid leave, but there's not an additional cost to it because whether they're the we're budgeted, whether they're working or whether they're taking the paid leave.

The only way it would cost a little bit is if you have to bring in another employee while they are out in smaller departments, that could become an issue.

But in most departments that can handle people being out, um it does create some administrative issues, there's no question about that.

If somebody's out for twelve weeks on paid family leave and then other employees that want vacations, now you're you have some people out.

But as far as cost, really doesn't cost on its face anything more because the employees getting paid whether they're taking their family paid family leave or whether they're at work.

So from a budgetary standpoint, it doesn't add an additional expense by the city on its face.

So just so that people don't think this is an additional amount of money that we're gonna have to come up with to pay these people.

It's not thank you.

Uh Director Gouvea, uh ask you to come to the podium and the chair recognizes Council Aaron is first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Director Gorvea, good to see you.

Likewise, good evening.

Thank you.

So, as the council president mentioned, um myself, he and the chairman and many others were the original co-sponsors of this for a while, and I'm glad we're finally nearing uh getting this into the end zone.

Um obviously um fiscally, morally, ethically, this makes sense.

Um, but now let's address the operational question.

Um the human relations side of it, it's a no-brainer.

We all support it for new parents.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room, the operations side of it.

Um there's gonna be times where uh the this policy could create um some gaps or um folks having to leave critical departments for an extended period of time.

What are we telling our department heads?

I mean, I think it'd be all the more reason to encourage uh cross-training um and as the council president I think mentioned earlier, um we have to just make sure we plug the gaps, right?

We have to be prepared because life happens and we have to fill it in.

So I don't know what your thoughts are, what you're telling your department heads, but I think it's gonna have to be uh a promotion from us within City Hall that when these are family and life events occur and happen, it has to be business as usual here in City Hall.

Do you agree with that sentiment?

I do.

And and I think if if the purpose is to find solutions, then the funding solutions will be the initial standpoint, not the not the challenges that can potentially arise.

I do if I may, since I'm I was invited to come to the pudding, there's a couple of things.

Um it is perceived that is not additional cost, that is a soft cost, because it is embedded as someone's salary is in 2,080 hours.

However, if the employer does not have a cruise sick time, then that needs to compensate it with additional cost of that.

That's a fact.

So if you don't have sick time, that's a fact.

Of course, there are advantages to that.

The employees who have been with the city for less time may not have accrued sufficient vacation time, sick time, and their families need to start at some point.

All that makes sense.

But um, and I appreciate all the effort that that you put on this, Council, but this needs to be structured in a way that it works.

Because and and I have drafted a couple of things.

If you're really gonna do this in a way that it works, then it needs to be fair and consistent for everybody.

Let me just give you a quick example I promise I would not take too much of your time.

But I'm gonna use to a little bit of older terms.

You hear a lot of parental leave, but rental leave is a combination of a few things.

But if you go back not long ago to the maternity leave, which was for the mothers delivering or adopting the child with a mother figure in the relationship, and then the paternity leave that has been recently introduced to the father of the child.

And what the city has been doing is of course, under federal FMLA law, we do allow them to be out for twelve weeks.

But in addition to that, under the parental leave, we allow them to stay an additional eight weeks for the mother.

For the father, it's a total of eight weeks under the parental portion of that.

Under the FMLA guidelines, that also means we also have couples here that we have both father and mother in the city.

Under the federal law, that's what I mean about some guidelines in here and some and some deeper deeper structure on this.

Technically, they are supposed to share their family time.

If they are supposed to share their family time, are we saying that both parents would have full benefit of six weeks and an additional six weeks?

Because it's not matching what federal law is.

So that's one thing to take a look at.

The definitions of maternity leave and paternity leave and just put it on the parental leave, would also be for us to bring up to date, it is 2026, and there are couples who may have the same gender.

And it shouldn't matter whether they are one gender or another.

But if you go back to out of both parents in the city, which one will be allowed to have the maternity component and the paternity components.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Governor, what was that gender?

I couldn't even do that.

What I'm saying is we also have parents that may be under the same gender.

Oh they have the same right to have a child to adopt a child.

But if you are following what it is, and then with the same concept that the father and the mother will have to share the time and therefore the benefit, the same thing will be applicable to any other couple, regardless of the identification.

That's one thing.

In terms of the 20 hours, and you're you are correct, Counselor, it is 12 months consecutive months have been with us with the city, or a combination of that will 1,250 hours.

Someone working 12 hours 20 hours a week will not come up to that eligibility.

So we've got to be mindful about that.

So it has been on the table for quite some time.

I have been here a couple of times.

I have provided some data to you in the past.

I have looked at what what this looks like.

But it does need some structure.

It definitely needs some structure that we are being consistent and fair with everybody.

And put those elements in, one to follow what the intent of this is, but at the same time following the the federal the federal law.

Council Abram.

No, I I um I I I hear your points, Director.

Um do you have some specifics that you came to the table with today?

Uh that you could, whether through a handout that we can receive in place on the file to look at and consider, or do you have any?

I can send I have a I have a very rough draft of some scenarios and some other elements that I think it's important.

I can send that to you this week.

I'm going to take a look at one more time because I was waiting for this component.

Through the clerk's office, if you don't mind, and the chairman can distribute that to us.

Yes, yes, I can do that.

All right, I'll yield for now.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh Chair recognize Council Oliver on its first.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, uh, for being here.

Um my question is as this is written, obviously you have some concerns with it.

As this is written, is this above and beyond what other people are doing?

What is where is it with the industry standard?

It it is it is above.

Um, but sometimes it is above in some areas that there are some that may even give more, there are some that may even give less.

So I think instead of looking as a comparable situation, let's take a look at what what the intent is from from New Bedford.

Uh then it depends on what way you look at it to answer your question.

Again, some do more, some do some do less.

With some elements of the economy, some companies, major companies are taking it back a little bit.

Others are still exploring this opportunity.

So depending on the on the revenue piece.

And I just want to bring to your attention that some of the concerns that we have, for example, with the intent of providing six weeks at a hundred percent, and an additional six weeks at seventy-five percent, it goes above of what it is in terms of federal law.

So that piece is up to the entity, the organization, to design it in any way we want.

We are giving more, we're not taking anything out of it, right?

But in terms of the eligibility, in terms of the fairness, in terms of the equity the intent of this brings, it needs to be done in a way that needs to be structured so there's no confusion.

That is that is important because the way we have today, as far as time, not paid, not the benefit, but as far as time, we are allowing the mother to stay out for 12 weeks and an additional eight that's under the parental leave extension.

I'm not talking payment.

The father is allowed to stay out for eight weeks.

Now, the parents, both parents may be with the city or one of the parents is, regardless of what it is.

And my comment earlier is that we need to be mindful about the paternity piece and the maternity piece to allow flexibility throughout, and at the same time conscientious about what they need to be done.

So if we don't take that time away and we are giving an additional benefit and we put some structures around it, I think that's the point that we need to take home.

Right?

I think the decision was already made by this group, but we need to take home just putting some structures around us, then there's no questions of the what ifs afterwards.

And I understand your mindfulness as to the two genders.

Wouldn't it if they're both working for the city, couldn't we just iron that out with both of them of who's gonna be able to do that?

But that's that's what it is.

When it comes to benefits and items like this, let me give you an example of scenario A.

I work for the city.

My wife may or may not work for the city.

So on the parental component of this, I'm entitled being the father, I'm entitled to eight weeks.

And we are what what we call a traditional couple, right?

Let's assume that I am married to another parent who happens to be the same gender as me.

And if we follow their concept, then that means that automatically we both have to be at eight weeks, and that's unfair.

They have the same right to adopt, they have the same right to raise a child a child.

Right?

So what it happens in that case is that if both of them are in the city, they can select one to be paid the same thing, but one followed the twelve weeks and the eight weeks and one of them the eight weeks.

So it would have to be between both of them.

The same thing would be applicable on the other side.

If it is a couple of the same gender and two of them are females, it does not mean that we both will have twelve weeks and both will have eight weeks.

Only one of them would follow that.

This will be our fair for all scenarios A, B, and C.

Does that make sense?

So you would be interested in some language with with that.

That would distinguish the case.

That would address all those all those that are.

Yes, well, under the eligibility.

Right.

Under the eligibility, but all that would be lined up in that.

It's not for us to identify and decide, it will be between the couple.

Yeah.

It'll be between the couple to decide, but for for our purposes, we would need to know.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

So really quickly, just to clarify that that might be how we're doing it now.

But I just want to point out here in section one, this is to amend what our current structure is.

Now I just want to clarify for the general public that might be watching and listening to what you're saying up there.

Um this here is gender neutral uh it is say is it says parental, it says parent, twelve weeks.

So you might be speaking on what we are currently doing right now, the current policy, but this is to amend the current uh policy.

Um so I just wanted to clarify that, Council Oliver.

Um I I know you haven't had a chance to really review this uh uh in its entirety, but I just don't want us to have you s uh saying things out and think that it's pertaining to the particular ordinance that we're voting on and people are assuming that what he's saying is what we're trying to do here.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Uh with that, are you all set, Council Oliver?

Yep, thank you.

Chair recognized Council Perra.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So uh w thank you, um Joseph for being here with us.

So I I hear your c your thoughts regarding the federal law, but I I I take federal law, but in Massachusetts uh and in this city, we have laws that go beyond the federal law, federal law being a guideline sometimes, and we can enhance those laws.

And I I think this is the direction that uh uh the the w we should be going in.

I think this is the direction we are going in.

This is a gender neutral ordinance.

There is no it doesn't talk about the father or the mother, it's any parent uh uh of of the child, and it offers twelve weeks to either one, which I think is is what I'm what I would expect uh I think at the end of the day, personally.

And if my spouse, male or female, works for the city, we can take it concurrently or separate or however.

And and if there are some ambiguity like taking it together, we allow for this city uh uh to set policy, yourself, the mayor, to set policy to further give direction that does not contradict this this ordinance.

So this is the structure uh I I think the new structure we're looking to implement, and then you are allowed to create policy and procedure to help bridge the policy with the intention of twelve weeks to both parents.

I think is the most important thing, at least from this councillor's perspective.

But none of that is in question here.

Okay.

And I don't want what I'm saying to be misconstrued either.

What I'm saying is what we are offering in this ordinance, it's above and beyond of what of what the law is.

Okay, great.

Right, exactly.

That that point is not a concern.

But this alone in itself, it's not enough to put destruction guidelines, so there's no misinterpretation of any kind.

And everybody that receives this benefit knows has been treated fairly and accurately all the way across.

That's all I wanted to say.

Okay.

I I appreciate that's a good idea.

I appreciate your concerns.

I I do I I appreciate your concerns.

I at this point disagree with them.

I in reviewing this.

Now, granted I've had a lot of time to review this and have had a lot of conversations uh uh with our attorney.

And I do think it's it's adequate to implement.

I I I would welcome any comment.

We have time if this does get referred out of committee tonight.

We have three weeks until the next city council meeting for any comment to come and at that point if there is a serious uh uh gap, we can refer it back to the uh uh committee and for further amendments.

But I I I think in in my opinion and reviewing other cities in Massachusetts who have ordinance, specifically Boston is is what I looked at.

Uh this is this is almost a mirror image of what they've run.

So uh with with certain changes.

I think they're they're even more lenient with the the figures in the weeks, but uh this is what the committee felt comfortable at the twelve weeks total six and six.

So that's just my point of view.

Uh uh here my colleagues, but I think there's plenty of time for yourself, the solicitor, the mayor to send any comment or review down to the council if that is something you want to change moving forward.

But I I think we gotta just keep this ball moving in this momentum that we have now to get this over the line.

To finalise my my my point it's not a mar a matter of changing anything that's been voted and agreed upon here, it's just a matter of sending you some some elements for you to I think once you read what I have, you would understand nothing is to take away.

Everything will be exactly how you wish to be.

But it's just some of the things that proceed with need as guidelines.

I think that will be very helpful.

If you send it to the clerk's office, we'll take a look at it between the clerk.

Yeah, now in the 28th.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chair recognition is Councillor Carney on our first.

Thank you.

And thank you, Mr.

Cavea, for coming.

Um I uh Councillor Pereira asks one of the questions I was just working on the policy aspect.

Uh with this ordinance did you get to read this ordinance already?

That what we've got.

Today.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I mean it's late notice too, because I'm just reading it today too, but we've had a lot of discussion on it.

So with this ordinance in front of you, are you able to adopt a policy that will be fitting that would fit into this ordinance, or do you need to change anything?

Nothing of this, and here needs to be changed.

Okay.

I think procedurally, just needs to to represent this in greater detail of what the intent is.

Right.

And I and I believe the intent of this council is here is the ordinance, and then your department would create the policy that we fit in that we that would fit this ordinance.

The second thing you brought up is that 20 hours.

You said you have to work X amount of hours, and then 20 hours doesn't fit that bill.

Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?

If according to the the eligibility should be very much mimicking the FMLA to be eligible for that.

And I believe Council did mention that as well.

But that's a combination of two things the twelve months and one thousand two hundred and fifty hours.

If someone is only working about 20 hours a week, and some people may be working 20 hours a week, and that merit alone, they may not qualify.

So they'll be but what does that mean?

They probably need to stay with us a little bit longer in order to qualify and meet both criteria.

Okay, so versus a full-time employee that has that meets that automatically within twelve months.

So you just you just so the criteria is you have to work the 1,025 hours.

So you can st you can still be a part-time employee at 20 hours long as you hit that benchmark.

Once you hit that benchmark, you will now be eligible.

So that would you put into your that would be in a policy that you put in there.

Right, so we'd fall in line with everything.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

My question is answered.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else for Director Gouvea.

Okay.

I make a motion to refer the ordinance to the full city council.

Motion referred out to the full city council for adoption.

Seconded by Councillor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognized Councillor Pereira on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Colleagues, I asked for support in uh referral.

We're going to um have uh this will not make tomorrow's meeting.

It's not on Thursday this week, it's tomorrow.

Um so it will not make tomorrow's agenda.

We have three weeks essentially uh to hear this item.

If there are changes that need to be made, we can amend them on the floor.

We can refer it back to committee and have the discussion again.

I just think we gotta keep the ball rolling.

That gives I think uh uh Mr.

Gove enough time to send us some comments.

Uh solicitor should have enough time to review it, and if there's any discrepancies or issues, he can relay them to attorney Garatowski and the Council.

I think it it allows us to keep things moving, and I ask for your support and referral out tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on the second?

Oh, Chairman, it's Council Carney on our first.

Yes.

Just quickly, Mr.

Governor, is that enough time to put that together in person?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great.

All right.

So the motion at hand is on refer on referral out to the full city council for adoption.

Uh I'll ask for a roll call.

Councilor Abrew.

Yes, Council Abro, Council Peptice.

Yes, Council Peptice, Council Virgo?

Yes.

Yes, Council Burgo, Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Carney, Councillor Turquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Turquette, Councillor Gomes?

Yes.

He has Councillor Gomes, Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes, Council Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Council Oliver, Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes, Council Premierton, Council Carrera?

Yes.

Yes, Council Purple, Council Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

That passes 11 to 0.

Passes 11 to 0, and that will appear on May 28th council agenda and hopefully pass to a second reading to appear on June 11th, just to give people a time frame of how long they'll have to review and potentially uh give any uh concerns, especially since we've been working on this since August of 2023.

2023.

All right.

So I'll ask the clerk to thank you, Director Govea.

Um to read item five.

Five is communication.

Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 10 by inserting a new section 10-86 point one voluntary electronic email delivery of real estate and personal property tax bills after Section 10-86.

It was referred here on March 5th, 2026, 5A is the ordinance, which was referred here on the same day.

Motion to receive in place on file made by Councillor Avery, seconded by Councillor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Uh Treasurer Taxi Arcos.

Do you want to do a presentation for us?

We appreciate your patience tonight.

Thank you.

And I see your hand, Counselor Lopes.

You alright?

The amendment to this ordinance essentially allows us to allow taxpayers to receive their bill by email rather than U.S.

Postal Service.

Thereby eliminating the cost of printing and mailing.

It'd save us approximately $35,000 annually to do that.

But it also brings us up to you know the technology technological age best practices.

And we're currently sending we have about 30% of our taxpayers who have an online account and they continue to receive paper bills because we haven't been able to adopt this yet.

So those people that wish to only receive their bill electronically should be able to do so, and that's what we're here to do today.

Chair can ask Councillor Lopes on his first.

Could you explain the opt-in or opt-out?

Would people be automatically opt in to receiving?

So can you go into that?

Yeah.

So essentially what they would have to do is in their online account, they would have to opt into receiving email delivery only.

So what if somebody is getting a paper bill?

Is there something on the paper bill every quarter that they could opt out of a paper bill or retain the paper bill?

Could you explain that?

Yes.

So I mean it's almost I think we're saying the same thing, but if they're getting a paper bill now, they would have to opt in for email delivery and then they would stop getting the paper bill.

If they want to continue receiving both, they can.

But this at least allows them to say, no, I don't want to get the paper bill anymore.

I just want email delivery.

But people would have to opt out of the paper bill.

They wouldn't automatically be opted into electronic communications.

Yeah, they're almost doing it simultaneously, opting in for email delivery and out for paper billing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chair, can I ask Counselor Gomes on his first?

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

You said we could save 35,000 a year.

Where'd you come up with that number?

As far as the percentage of people that would opt into getting it on online.

Right.

The potential for uh the people who have online accounts currently who would potentially opt out of paper belly.

Okay.

Let me ask you this.

Um if I was just looking for penalties or whatever.

Say the computer system went down, things did not go out on time.

Would would say penalty structures that they would build with uh with the constituent as far as penalties or anything like that, or we would eat that immediately.

They well we hope that it wouldn't be down more than a day, but the they would should get email delivery as soon as the bills go out.

Um and then they can also review their bill online at any time.

So once those are available.

Have precautions been put in place for the person that calls you and says uh I never receive my electronic um billing.

You know, we know that these things come out in the period that they do.

But if precautions been put in for stuff like that.

Sure.

In those situations, we would also refer to um our online provider and uh request that they send us the report on who got emailed those bills.

And so we would know if they did or not.

Okay.

Last question.

Nobody will be forced into it, especially our elderly who do not play with computers.

The closest thing they may have is a phone, but they don't do any transitions on there or we know that many people will not want to receive email delivery of their bill.

They um like getting the paper bill, and that can continue.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

Chair Organized Council Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you for uh for that.

Uh my question is I know the whole idea is obviously we're gonna try to look for ways to save money any way that we can.

You came up with the that figure of what uh 35,000, something like that.

Approximately active online users right now.

Correct.

So obviously that the benefits could be even more if you're sign up.

Right.

Um the whole idea of saving money.

Is there was there any discussion maybe of and I know we we need money and I know that we want to collect the money, um, but is that was there anything to try to get more people on, maybe some sort of incentive program to do so uh within the first year of rollout or anything like that?

Has anything like that been discussed to try to get more people on so that we're saving fifty thousand dollars or whatever it is?

Yes.

So um the goal is to get a buck slip into the mailings so that they can see that they have the ability to opt out of the paper billing and choose to opt into email delivery if they want to.

So that was the goal to increase that number um from where we see it currently.

And the rollout of this, is there any additional cost other than just are we just looking to make an put another additional piece of paper in with their bill to incentive to tell them to sign up?

Okay.

So no real additional cost to do it.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, motion to refer out to the full city council for approval would be appropriate.

So made by Councillor Gomes, seconded by Councillor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item six.

Item number six is a report of the committee on ordinance, is recommending that the city council approval of the ordinance as amended.

Amending Chapter 9, appendix A, Table of Principal Uses, Regulations.

It was referred here on March 26, 2026.

6A is an ordinance, table of principal uses, regulations draft, referred here on October 9th, 2025.

Referred as amended to allow batch and asphalt and concrete plants and contractors yards in certain zoning districts on March 26, 2026.

Six and six A are before you.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Motion receive and place on file made by Councillor Pereira, seconded by uh Council Oliver.

And all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Pereira.

I make a motion to amend the ordinance before us by striking sections eight, nine, and ten in their entirety.

All right.

Motion made by Council Perever to strike sections eight, nine, and ten in their entirety, seconded by Councillor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Pereira on the question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So uh colleagues, I um made this motion tonight to strike this uh these items after discussions with uh our office staff, Clerk Farius and uh uh planning director uh Carlone uh in our team and being here uh representing that department.

I have concerns voting for this amend uh this ordinance, and normally I am all in favor of this body uh uh standing up for uh uh uh withholding its power when it comes to making uh voting decisions on uh uh uh impactful items in our city.

However, in this case, I feel that we would not be able to have the correct information to make an adequate decision.

Uh our office staff is great.

I there is no doubt I get compliments on from constituents all the time, and I know that that they work diligently and hard.

And this is not a matter of work ethic.

Um this is more a matter of of bandwidth and capabilities when it comes to understanding uh plans.

These projects, if they were to come before us for a special permit, in which we would have be the granting authority, would be 50, 60, 70, 80 pages of blueprint documents that would have to be properly stamped, formatted, stamped by an engineer, reviewed.

Our department does not have that software.

We do not have the capabilities of looking at a plan and know if this is a correct plan, if it's stamped right, if it's dated right, if it's the right uh copy for our office.

Further discussions with the planning department revealed that their staff trained in the planning board and in the zoning boards uh in in filtering staff reports, do not have the capability at this time to adequately brief the council and keep up with our schedule.

Uh you know, the planning board has scheduled meetings throughout the year, so think so does the zoning board.

And those are set dates throughout the year that very rarely shift.

And our meetings, as counselors know, get moved, canceled, and rearranged all the time.

And to have adequate staff here from the planning department, I think is a little bit uh uh un unrealistic at this time.

I I would hope my colleagues would understand that when we vote in here uh uh we need to be making uh educated decisions.

And and we do 90 uh uh a hundred percent of the time, but I think that number would lower to 90 percent if we were to enact this.

Because when these items come before us, we just might not have uh the adequate reports before us.

And that's no fault to our staff or the planning staff, it's just the reality of where we stand.

And I don't feel comfortable making decisions on projects, yes or no, without having adequate information.

Uh we need to be weary of our power because just giving ourselves power, uh unchecked power uh is also just as dangerous.

And that's setting ourselves up for future failures.

Uh future myself in the future, ourselves in the future, and our colleagues in the future.

And I think at this time, the best course of action is to remove these items, allow the planning boards and zoning boards to do their job.

We can, as the person who normally sits in this seat would say, we what we make up, uh what we lack an authority, we make up an uh um influence.

Thank you.

He needed to chime in to finish it.

But long story short, we I just think that we need to uh really make sure that we get all the information we're making these decisions decisions, and if we enact this, I believe at this time we will not be able to uh uh uh truly receive the appropriate information.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Tough seat to fill there, huh, Council Farrell?

A lot more space though, huh?

Uh counselor Abraham, his first year, yeah.

There's not much more to add.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I agree with the president.

What did I say that was so funny?

Oh no, there isn't much, no.

Um he's actually correct.

I mean, spot on, hit the nail on the head, it's a bullseye on that one.

Um yeah, I mean.

This is about practicality.

And he and I had a discussion earlier today.

It's about being realistic, it's about um uh not having the appropriate training, expertise, legal knowledge, and it's very complex legal questions, and these people, these developers are you know, they they're dealing with attorneys and engineers, and um it's just about the taxpayers of New Bedford, the investors of New Bedford deserve to have the correct people and the correct offices at the correct time.

Okay.

So that's just what this comes down to.

Um again, as he had said, and I agree, we all agree.

Our office staff is tremendous at what they do.

They make us look fantastic, but again, this is a whole other dimension that they're just not qualified for, and it's no slight on them.

It's just not their trade.

I mean, we know what we know and we know what we don't.

I mean, we all go to school or have go to a trade school for something or other.

I mean, I mean, I don't know.

I mean, I think the Red Sox are playing terrible.

It doesn't mean I should be their manager, you know.

I mean, like, I I mean, I don't know.

I can't I can't teach somebody how to hit, like, you know, so it's like I can have an opinion, but I'm not qualified to go you know, replace Alex Cora.

I mean, let's be honest.

So it's like, you know, uh it's a silly example, but I mean, come on, what are we doing here?

So um I supported, um that's why I I very graciously accepted and seconded the um the striking of eight, nine, and ten of the sections because it's about giving the the taxpayers and the investors into this community um the right people at the right time in the right office.

So that's kind of where I'm at.

I'm curious if my colleagues agree, but that's kind of where my thought process was going.

I'll yield for now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

All right.

Again, as a reminder, this is a motion to amend striking sections eight, nine, and ten in their entirety.

Seeing that there's no one else on the question.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Point of uh uh point of information, Mr.

Chairman.

Can I speak with Attorney Garatowski, please?

You may not.

Just kidding.

Attorney Giratowski if you go to the podium.

All right.

David, uh just section six of this ordinance doesn't make sense to me, granted that we amended it in the last meeting to allow these uses again.

So if the body wants to allow asphalt, when we wanted to originally when we made it so you couldn't do these asphalt plants in industrial A and B in in those uses.

Uh section six was to remove the definition altogether.

But now that we want them, we have to keep the definition.

Am I wrong?

Um it would I I think you would probably be correct that I guess 4300 when the original um instruction was given to get rid of the permitting for these asphalt plants that we just struck that whole section entirely.

Right.

4300, I believe.

4300 definitions and then asphalt portion.

So ask the right.

So if you're going to keep them, I'm not sure.

I'm trying to look at what that section is.

Sure.

In my research, and again, I just wanted you to confirm, but in my research.

Yeah, so if if it's if 4300 is detailing what an asphalt plant is, then you want to leave that in the in the ordinance if you want to continue to allow those through the permit.

Sure.

So in the last meeting.

Thank you, um Attorney Garotowski.

I appreciate it.

I make a motion to amend by striking section six in its entirety.

Motion uh motion made by Council Pereira to strike section six in its entirety, seconded by Councillor Abrew.

On the question.

Uh Chair recognized Council Perrone of the question.

So originally uh the the body had wanted to eliminate these use uh these items from use in in the in all zones.

And at the last ordinance meeting, we amended it to allow them back.

So in order to make the ordinance before us now make sense with all the amendments that we have made, we need to eliminate section six so that it is coherent and there is an accurate definition.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

All right.

Seeing none, again, this is uh a motion to amend by striking section six in its entirety.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion refer the full city council for approval adoption.

As amended.

Motion refer out to the full city council as amended for adoption.

Made by Council Pereira, seconded by Councillor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chairman.

We would like to make a motion to waive the readings of items seven and eight, take no further action, report out to the full city council.

Motion made by Councilor Pereira to waive the reading of items seven and eight, refer out to the full city council for no further action.

Seconded by Councilor Oliver.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, made by Councillor Pereira.

Second by Councillor Oliver.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

Councillor Gomes on the question.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd just like to relinquish my time to Council Pereira.

All those in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, the ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 8 19 post Meridian.

Thank you and God bless.

I'm going to be using all that stuff.