New Bedford City Council Committee on Ordinances Meeting - May 11, 2026
New Bedford City Council Committee on Ordinances Meeting - May 11, 2026
The City Council Committee on Ordinances met on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 7:02 PM. The meeting, chaired by Councillor Pereira, covered six agenda items including zoning amendments, a fireworks ordinance, recall procedures, parental leave, electronic tax billing, and asphalt plant regulations. No public comments were recorded.
Discussion Items
1. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Public Buildings (Item 1)
- Assistant City Planner Ann Laurel presented an ordinance to allow expedited review and redevelopment of city-owned properties (e.g., former schools, police stations) that have been used for public purposes for at least 20 years. The change shifts the zoning designation from "municipal" to "public" to include buildings like former post offices. The planning board recommended a public hearing process via special permit, ensuring neighborhood engagement. Councillors questioned cost savings (e.g., reduced spot zoning risks) and staff bandwidth. The public hearing was closed and the item referred to the full City Council with a positive recommendation.
2. Fireworks Ordinance (Item 2)
- Councillor Gomes proposed an ordinance banning fireworks after 10 PM citywide, with a $300 fine, except on July 4th. After discussions with the police and fire chiefs, he moved to table the item for further collaboration. The committee voted to table it until the next meeting.
3. Recall of Elected Officers (Items 3A and 3B)
- The committee considered a mayor-submitted order and act providing for recall of elected officers. After a lengthy history (tabled multiple times since 2024), the item was removed from the table. Councillor Roy offered several amendments (changing signature thresholds and percentages) but they all failed for lack of a second. An amendment by Councillor Pereira to insert "herein attached" after the act's title passed 11-0. The amended item was then referred to the full City Council for adoption.
4. Parental Paid Leave Ordinance (Item 4)
- Attorney Garatowski presented a draft ordinance providing up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for city employees not covered by collective bargaining agreements: first six weeks at 100% pay, next six at 75%. Eligibility requires 12 consecutive months of employment and at least 20 hours/week. Leave must be taken in weekly increments within 12 months of birth or adoption (child under 2). Director Gouvea raised concerns about consistency with federal FMLA, cost implications, and gender neutrality. Councillors debated operational feasibility and noted similar ordinances in Boston. The motion to refer to the full council passed 11-0, with a note that the final reading is scheduled for May 28, 2026, with a potential second reading on June 11, 2026.
5. Electronic Tax Bill Delivery (Item 5)
- Treasurer Taxi Arcos proposed an ordinance allowing taxpayers to opt-in to receive real estate and personal property tax bills via email instead of paper, saving an estimated $35,000 annually. Currently 30% of taxpayers have online accounts but still receive paper bills. The committee voted to refer the ordinance to the full City Council for approval.
6. Zoning Amendment for Batch/Asphalt/Concrete Plants (Item 6)
- The committee discussed an ordinance amending the table of principal uses to allow batch asphalt and concrete plants and contractor yards in certain zoning districts. Councillor Pereira moved to strike Sections 8, 9, and 10 (which would have given the City Council special permit authority), arguing that council staff lacks the technical expertise and software to review complex engineering plans. The motion passed. A subsequent motion to strike Section 6 (definition of asphalt plant) also passed to maintain coherence. The amended ordinance was referred to the full City Council.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 (Public buildings zoning): Public hearing closed; referred to full council with positive recommendation.
- Item 2 (Fireworks): Tabled for further input from police and fire chiefs.
- Item 3 (Recall): Amended to include "herein attached" (11-0); referred to full council for adoption.
- Item 4 (Parental leave): Referred to full council for adoption (11-0); timeline for review set.
- Item 5 (Electronic tax bills): Referred to full council for approval.
- Item 6 (Asphalt plants): Sections 6, 8, 9, and 10 struck; amended ordinance referred to full council.
- Items 7 and 8 were waived without action.
The meeting adjourned at 8:19 PM.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com