Good evening.

It is June 24th, 2026 at 7 p.m.

And this is our committee on ordinances.

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under quick links than meetings.

I'm joined in the chamber tonight by Ward 2, Councilor Scott Pemberton, Ward 1 Counselor Leo Choquett, Ward 5, Counselor Joseph Lopes, Ward 6, Counselor and Council President Ryan Pereira, Counselor at Large, James Roy, and Counselor at Large, Second Vice President Naomi Carney.

And I am Chairman of Ordinance, Shane Burgo.

I'll ask the clerk if there are any letters to read into the record.

I have one letter to read into the record.

This is from Councillor Baptist.

I'm writing to inform you that I will be unable to attend tonight's committee meeting 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.

Motion received and place on file made by Councillor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of receiving a place on file the letter from Counselor Baptiste.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I also received a text communication from Councillor Abel explaining that he uh he would not be here this evening due to work commitment.

Item number two.

Is it is that what I asked?

Yes.

Okay.

Clerk Lawrence would like to take up item number two.

Well without objection.

All right.

I'll ask Clerk uh Lawrence to read item two.

Item number two is a communication.

Dennis W.

Farrier, City Clerk, Clerk of the City Council to Ryan J.

Pereira, City Council President, requesting an increase for three administrative and recording fees, vital record amendments, junk collector dealer fees, and business certificates doing business licenses, DBA licenses.

It was referred to us on May 28th, 2026.

Number two is now before you.

Motion received a place on file made by Councillor Pereira, seconded by Councillor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

Clerk Ferrius, how are you today?

I'm well, Mr.

Chairman.

How are you?

I'm just so blessed.

Thank you for being here today with us.

Mr.

Chairman, thanks for uh inviting me tonight and also for taking me out of order.

I'll be very, very brief.

Counselor is this if you've had a chance to read the letter that I submitted to all of you a few weeks ago.

What we're looking to do here is just uh fairly simple.

This there's three fees that we're looking to increase.

Uh the first one is our uh amending vital records, that fee we're looking to increase that from $40 to $50, which is the state average, uh which we're currently below right now.

What that is is there's a lot of work that goes into amending vital records.

Ninety percent of it is comes from when uh is really from birth records, when people don't sign properly or don't check the birth records at the hospital.

They go in, you know, they're either they're excited about having a birth or whatever it is, or they just don't pay attention for whatever reason.

Sometimes one of the parents aren't there to sign, and then they want to amend the record later.

This is happening more and more and more now.

Uh and the work is getting more and more involved.

You know, names are a little complicated and things, so you know the hospital staff does their best, but afterwards they gotta come in and do the amendment.

It's quite a bit of work there.

So we want to just come up to the state average in that regard, and then just jumping down to the DBAs and the business certificates.

We also want to bring that up a little bit.

Those licenses, as you may know, they're good for four years.

And what that really is is a business certificate, but it's a DBA.

Um and the state averages is actually above fifty dollars.

We're looking to increase that uh from 40 to 50.

That license is good for four years.

That won't change.

Um cities like Fall River, for example, charge sixty dollars, and they even they actually also charge $15 to uh to to end their business when they go out of business, which we actually think is foolish, uh which didn't make sense.

We kind of ended that one about twelve years ago when I came on board with your help.

We got rid of that.

So those two things we can the the council can do just by uh giving us permission.

Uh the other thing with the junk dealer fees, we actually have to change that by ordinance, unfortunately.

So um I'll ask you to do that as well, and that is we have about um twenty-five junk dealers and then another ten or so in the city that also deal on gold and silver and precious metals.

So we're looking to double each of those fees from fifty to a hundred and then hundred one hundred to two hundred, which again is comparable to other municipalities in the state.

Any questions from the floor?

Chair recognized counselor Roy on his first.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Dennis.

How are you?

I'm welcome.

How much revenue are you estimating what will increase with the revenue with these changes?

In total, Councillor, it'll probably be around another.

I wrote that down here, seven.

We're looking probably about maybe another $10,000 to our office, which is it doesn't sound like a lot, but for our office it's it's significant.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair can ask Councillor Pereira on this first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Dennis, so in regards to the uh junk collector dealer fees, you said that has to be done via ordinance.

Correct.

Is that something you would like us to have drafted now and and move along or move along this so we can enact those fees and then you'll submit an ordinance later on?

Thank you for asking that council question, counseling.

What I'd actually like you to do for the for the other two is to move on those tonight because you can do those tonight.

Yeah.

This one, I'd actually like you to table that because I just became aware of uh some new state regulations that have changed.

Okay.

Which affect our dog citations, which also have to be changed by ordinance.

Okay.

So it might make sense to just kind of do that all at one time and save some money on advertising.

On the advertising of the ordinance.

So go ahead and and maybe pass this uh those two.

Yeah, the uh the vital records and the DBAs would be great tonight.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyone else?

Anyone on the second?

All right, seeing none.

So Mr.

Chairman, because this is a communication in which uh it's all together.

Do you want me to just refer out the communication and then make a related motion to keep in committee?

What would be the best?

I would think you just make uh I guess I refer to the David.

But I would assume you just make the motion to increase the fee at this time, and then we would leave.

But the council needs to do that, doesn't it?

No.

Yeah, the council needs if you could come to the microphone.

No.

Oh, I guess not.

Okay.

So, Mr.

Chairman, I make a motion to uh refer to the council recommendation to increase the fees for um vital record amendments and business certificates, DBA licenses.

Motion made by council by $10 each.

No, it's no, it's 30.

It's 30 to 50.

That's 28, right?

Forty to fifty.

Oh, forty to fifty, and each one.

Okay.

By $10.

So it's 30 to 40.

I made a mistake.

You can say it's written.

Yeah.

Items number one and two.

One and three.

Well, that's what it is currently, right?

No, it's forty dollars currently.

Item number one from 40 to 50.

Yeah, 40 to 50.

And then item number three.

Forty to fifty.

Forty to fifty.

Forty to fifty.

This is the one that's going to need to remain.

So that would be the vital record amendments and business certificates, DBA licenses.

Okay.

That's been referred to.

Counselor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All right.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Make a motion to table item number two at this time.

Motion to table made by Councilor Pereira.

Second by Councilor Pepperton.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Clerk Ferris.

Thank you, Councillors.

Appreciate it.

We are now back at item uh one, a public hearing.

Item number one is a public hearing continued on a communication.

Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an ordinance.

Amending Chapter 9, zoning establishing form-based code districts.

Referred on April 9th, 2026, do you advertise in the Standard Times?

On Monday, May 13th, 2026.

On Monday, May, and on Monday, May 20th, 2026.

On May 27th, 2026, it was heard, and the public hearing was continued until June 24th, 2026.

2A is an ordinance.

It was referred here on April 9th, 2026, to the advertising the standard time on Monday, May 13th, 2026.

And Monday, May 20, 2026.

On May 27, 2026, the public hearing was heard, and then it was continued until June 24, 2026.

One B is a communication.

Jennifer Carloni, Director Planning Department.

Councilor Shane A.

Burgo, Chairman Committee on Ordinances advising that the planning board held a public hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, to discuss the request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to adding a new section 6,000, establishing form-based code districts.

Further amending section 2230.

Table of principal use regulations inserting new appendix D and amending Chapter 1200 and definitions with regulating maps of new zoning districts.

The planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment.

With the recommendation that the city council further review and consider height limitations in the downtown area, FBC district, especially in the areas moving west along Kempton Street.

It was received on May 27, 2026.

May 27, 2026.

There was a public hearing which was continued until June 24th, 2026.

One, one A and one B are before you with the hearing to be continued.

So it's already opened, it's already continued.

No motions are needed.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, would you like us to receive a place on file the email communications from Assistant Director Ann Laurel?

Yes.

I would like to make a motion to receive in place on file.

Motion received in place on file made by Councillor Pereira, seconded by Councillor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Chair.

Um good evening, Counselors.

Um again, this is a continuation from the last time we were here, we did a full presentation.

We had the consultant with us.

Um I'm happy to review that again if there if there are any specific questions about um anything within the form-based code.

Um however, I do want to to mention or note that when at that meeting um in May, you did direct the planning department to um do two items.

One was to meet with developers and design professionals relative to the administration of form-based code, which we did, and I will um speak about that in a moment.

And the second item was relative to um uh building story heights in the downtown sub subdistrict, which is what you have some you have maps printed out, and I do have it out um on the smart board as well.

And there was um a direction for us to meet with the neighborhood um that was would would have been um impacted by um 14-story height, particularly in the Kempton and County Street corridor.

Although we were unable to organize a meeting with the neighborhoods, we did have a very um collaborative and productive meeting with planning board member Camille Kazan, who actually was the person who raised concerns relative to the height in that location.

Um she is a planning board member, she um grew up in that neighborhood and still resides in that neighborhood.

So um talking about the heights since we're already on that subject.

We had initially proposed in the pink areas.

Um I saw SCART service do this.

Now I'm gonna be like Vanna.

All right.

So the pink portions are what were originally proposed as the 14-story heights.

We um did that because in the downtown we did want to be be able to provide density um of height because we are a landpour city, and we didn't not propose that in any of the other districts, nor would we in any residential areas.

Um even though we do have residences in the downtown, it's an it's a different urban type of residential um lifestyle.

So recognizing that 14 was too height, based on our conversation with Ms.

Kazan, we've lowered it to eight stories.

And this is the modified map.

So we reduced the area of the pink into eight stories, and then west across county street, we brought it even lower on actually the um east and west side of County Street.

We brought it down to six stories.

And then on the other side of Kempton Street, closer to Mill Street.

It doesn't read that well color-wise, but that's four stories.

So it's a gradual um height difference between um the neighborhoods.

It's a very what we think is a very good transition of height from neighborhood three, four, six, and then the eight stories.

So fourteen's gone down to eight.

Are there any questions relative to that portion of it?

Chair recognized Councilor Lopes.

So Ann, I just had one.

Understanding that the and I'm gonna look at the picture, I'm sorry, because I don't remember them all.

The New Beford Hotel is eleven and Olympia Towers is ten.

Why didn't we say ten instead of eight?

Because they brought that was my initial and Camille felt still felt uncomfortable with the eight.

Okay.

And um we and honestly we could have done that, and there's another way of doing that, and I'm just gonna bring that up.

Because what you're looking at is this, and so we did we did a context study, and that's I should have pointed that out.

I apologize, of what the heights are of some of the tall buildings and where they're located.

And we could have done, particularly in this area where the regency is, kept that at 10 stories, and then do this portion as eight.

Um it would have required more modifications within throughout the entire code because everything's connected.

So if somebody did want to come in with a 10 story, they just go through a zoning process just as we would um now as an appeal.

And um if we again zoning can be changed, and if we find that people are coming in and saying, I really want to do 10 story, then we'll just come back to you and and present that.

I understand completely.

So I appreciate the additional information.

Thank you.

And thank you, Council uh Chair.

Council Councillor Prairon is first.

So just two questions.

First, um, in discussing the meeting you had with um designers and developers, the overall sentiment basically was uh was received well and and the idea was is something that they want to see brought forward.

Yeah, so as you know, um developers particularly um do not like to operate in uncertainty.

So knowing ahead of time what the requirements are and what type of relief they may or may not need um is really spelled out very clearly um through form-based code.

Um we do have two folks here, one a developer, one a design professional who can um also I'm sure speak um about that meeting.

And um and then the other questions put forth were based on um administration, how how the form-based code um will be administrated uh through the permitting systems, and we discussed that.

Okay, very good.

Um and then if the council um and and uh I'd like to hear from my colleagues further, but if the council does want to proceed forward with the change to the eighth story as um stated in the bottom of your email here, further uh uh you would need some time to make those changes.

I would probably need one day.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chair recognized Councilor Baptiste on his first.

Thank you.

Um Hi Ann, how are you doing today?

Hello, Councillor.

Good.

Um I'm glad that you made the modifications.

Um, you know, we we all thought the 14 was way too high.

Um I just wanna that lower school street is is really um I I think at what do you have it at eight now?

I th I think that's pretty good because of just because Hobby View being at six, you know, you got Olympia at ten, but right across the street you've got the Y, you've got the Zaitarian, and the only real lot that you have open area spaces like where the Crystal Cafe lot used to be, so that's probably the only spot that you build up over there.

You know, my you know my main concern before was the residential neighborhoods in the in the area, making sure that they was being um they was looked after and not being you know bold having big buildings next to them.

But I think that's a little bit you know condensed up in there.

Um how do you think that this zoning right here is gonna trickle more because a lot of this is in Ward 4 and it's gonna trickle more down that purchase street corridor, and how is that gonna um how is that gonna intertwine with what you have going on in that area too?

So these are three pilot areas that we've put forth um to kind of test the waters of how this works.

Um it's a new form of zoning, both for external um folks to use and internal um staff to administer.

So um as we move into other areas, as I stated before, it's about retaining character.

So when we start getting into neighborhoods, you're not gonna you're not gonna see heights.

Yeah.

If we start going, as you mentioned, further south onto purchase in Pleasant Street, going um, you know, south towards towards like maybe Wing Street and those neighborhoods, you're you're gonna be looking at the retention of that neighborhood character.

Um the tallest buildings are probably two and a half or three story buildings in those neighborhoods.

So it's very similar to what we did down at the Gulat Square, which I don't have a um a map, it's not on this map, but Gulat Square is a bigger area.

And when we got in when we got into the neighborhoods, or actually I can I can talk about it here, that gold color um in the downtown.

Those are the residential blocks in the downtown.

That's two and a half, three stories.

So that's what we was worried about just keeping that lower there.

So we can make sure that we're gonna be able to do that.

Yes, and if we advance this into the neighborhoods, that's gonna be the same approach.

So why is um the area up around McDonald's?

Is that Middle Street?

Yeah, up around McDonald's, blacked out and the area around uh oh that's the one you change right there, right?

That's where I changed.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

Um so does it end at where McDonald's is or does it start where that development is right after McDonald's with that French?

The McDonald's right now is six stories.

All right.

It's six stories, McDonald's?

Yes.

All right.

Yeah, it's not eight.

McDonald's is not eight stories.

When you get to County Street, whatever is facing County Street.

But that but that plot right there is six stores.

McDonald's ain't gonna go six stories, but next door to it, is that still um six stories as well with the apartment building is, or does that start where the What across the street?

The King You know how McDonald's is on the corner?

Oh, oh, yeah.

And then that fence, and then that building right there.

Yeah, the one on Elm and Middle Street.

Yeah, that's eight stories.

That's eight stories.

All right.

We just want to make sure, like, you know, that area is not very much of a there either.

Are they planning on building a big courthouse in that area?

Have you heard anything about it?

I have not heard.

Because I know I know in the state they're having a lot of problems.

I know the courthouse is having a lot of issues with mold and a lot of people getting sick and them having that old building.

So I've been hearing a lot of noise about them trying to build a.

So the I know the courthouse, it's amazing.

I as a preservation planner want to point out that old buildings are the best buildings.

Because they will last for hundreds of years.

You have a courthouse.

I don't know, I don't know the exact year that courthouse was built, but it's not probably no no less than thirty years ago.

And it needs to be demolished because it's it's so bad.

So I I know that the administration has lobbied our legislature in the state.

If there's a new um for a new courthouse, obviously to be located in the downtown.

I know um a response that we received a few years ago was like, yeah, it's in the planet.

Because I know everywhere else in you know this this area, especially in Bristol County, have gotten new courthouses in the past.

Yeah, it's it's something that I think the city has advocated for, but this the state has not committed to it.

Thank you for answering my question.

If I have any more, I don't know how to get in touch with you.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on their second?

Okay.

No, okay.

Uh anything else from the planning side?

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Uh anyone here from the general public wish to speak in favor?

Speak, wish to speak in favor.

Mr.

Pereira.

Good evening, everybody.

Um Armando Pereira, comprehensive design build services with an office on 227 Union Street.

Um as I look at this, and I was part of the uh the online meeting that we had, um, this makes all the sense in the world.

And I can tell you right now, just real quick, I have a lot that I'm working with that's an MUB, but the with a lot, if we take and we follow the zoning regulations that the ones that just passed when we got eight and eight, my building was a sliver.

So when we start looking at what form base can do as far as allowing the the maximum and allowable space per district, obviously if you're an MU4 or an MU3, and if you work with it, it does make a lot of sense.

We have lots throughout the city that this particular lot that I'm working on, um my client that bought the building next to it was looking at it, and he was thinking you can do a parking area.

Well, to do a parking area, you need at least uh forty-four feet plus clearances plus uh, you know, I mean you sit back.

This lot's not even 50 feet.

So what you end up doing is you end up creating um you can't create pocket parks, which obviously pocket parks we end up creating an issue where now you can have to police because people can go in there, they can you know just hang out and could create problems.

Um the area that I'm working on happens to be in the pilot uh area, it's on a Cushionet Avenue, and when we start looking at with what the city's put out, it makes sense.

It gives us a menu that we can work with.

Uh if you follow what's there, I feel that you know getting permits will be expedited, and this is what we need.

We need we listen, what we've gone down with the dimensional uh zoning changes that make sense, it helps out with the lots, but when you take it and you div you get into areas like this and you look at it, and how can we take lots that would not be able to be buildable and how do you bring them back in?

It's a win-win.

You clean out the city by not creating these pocket parks where people can hang out and cause trouble.

When you're allowed to build in these areas, we can definitely, because of the the use, you can definitely create you know residential in there, which is something that we're looking at.

And then the third part, which is a very big one, and I speak of this because I own property in the city of New Bedford, and that's your tax base.

I mean, we've got to do what we gotta do so we can keep the tax base where it's at and not go up, which it's inevitable, you're gonna have to no matter what.

But um I applaud the planning department for this.

Um, and I think it's just something that moving forward, uh after we get beyond this uh pilot stage, as a matter of fact, I'm working in another area that I think the form-based code will be good, but it's on an overlay district as well.

Um and it's just another avenue to really help improve the city.

Listen, I've been in the city since 1970, and I've seen it go where it was nice and steady, I've seen it go down, and what we need to do is keep this city moving and going in the right direction.

Um and I really feel that this is a uh right direction.

So I think it's it makes sense for the uh uh ordinance committee to approve it, move it forward, and let's get it done.

Let's keep the city moving forward.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak in favor?

Gary Gagney, divine contractors.

Uh I agree with Mr.

Pera.

Uh I was also on the meeting with the planning department, and they put in a ton of work, as I'm sure you guys have seen since it's already been presented, and it's really thoughtful what they've put together and specifically in the areas as Ms.

Laura was just explaining of staying out of the residential areas, and I know the lot that Mr.

Perra is talking about.

It's actually across the street from my office, and we see all these three families or four families that have burnt down or suffered loss, and I drive by there every day, and there's drug addicts hanging out in there every single day.

Right.

It just gives them a spot to hide, you know, and the the day or the next tax year, right?

You get the land reassessed and the lands worth the hundred grand.

It was a $700,000 building.

This is been handcuffing developers in the city.

I mean, even the last case, guys in here talking about $10 for uh DBA license.

I mean, how how are we not focused on hundreds of thousands of dollars in assessed value, you know, which could lead to millions with the height restrictions, right?

Mainly I'm speaking about the what the lack of setbacks required, the lack of side setbacks required, it's gonna change the city.

It's gonna revitalize it, bring housing down.

This is a supply and demand issue that we've been fighting, or we say we've been fighting, but the planning board is actually fighting.

This is what we need because if we don't continue to add supply and the demand keeps coming, the prices keep going up.

So the only way we can combat it is by getting creative, trying to add housing, trying to make lots that were established with the original infrastructure of the city of New Bedford.

Where are these what we call undersized lots now?

But you know, Mr.

Pera owns property.

I know a few of you guys own property, I own property, it's all in the same same size lots.

Now we can actually rebuild it instead of, I mean, I'm sure you guys drive around your city and you see vacant lot, vacant lot, vacant lot.

That shouldn't be the case.

This is a great pilot to really combat the housing crisis.

And you guys have already been doing a great job with the um reduction of parking and you know you guys are making the great effort to move forward, and I think this is the next step to really tie in the zoning changes all together to be able to make it all make sense for everybody involved, mainly obviously the constituents who I mean I have an apartment for rent right now.

I had 17 of uh applications.

I can only pick one.

That means that 16 people looking for housing.

If this passes and let's say somebody puts up a eight-unit building, I'm not getting 17 applications, which could inadvertently hurt me as a landlord, but it's going to really help the city and lower the cost.

That's the only way.

This is the only way to lower cost of apartments and housing for people to be able to afford buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wish 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.

All right.

Seeing none.

Motion to close the public hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

President, Mr.

Chairman.

I make a mo I know you like that, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman.

I make a motion to uh instruct the uh planning department in Laurel to provide the proposed changes as presented here tonight to the to this body um at an at her earliest convenience.

Motion made by Councilor Pereira for the proposed changes, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Um I don't know why it was like on the question, Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I have spoken with uh legal counsel attorney Garatowski, and it basically the council, this body is able to end the public hearing.

We discussed the heightened changes as the recommendation from the planning department, uh reducing that.

Ian indicated that it would take a few days for her to come up with that.

We can refer this whole package out to the full council.

She can provide the council with those changes and we can make a substitution amendment uh at that next meeting in July.

Um grant I imagine she said a few days, so July would be no issue.

Okay, she indicated no.

Okay, so as long as this motion passes, it's basically uh instructions for her to make those changes and provide it to the council.

David?

Yeah.

Motion to instruct the planning on those changes.

Uh here is uh she could just provide it to the chair.

Okay.

You got that?

Yeah, provide to chair.

Yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

So the motion has been made by Council Pereira, seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion motion to refer the item out to the full city council.

Motion referral to the full city council made by Council Pereira?

Seconded by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

We are now at item three.

Number three is communication.

Mayor mixed up to the city council submitting an ordinance.

Amending chapter 19 personnel, section 19-7.

C of the city code to create the position of the assistant superintendent of green space at a pay grade of M11, the position fully paid uh out by the water enterprise.

It was referred here on May 28th, 2026.

3A is the ordinance referred here on May 28th, 2026.

Number three and 3A are now before you.

Motion refer out to the full city council for no further action.

I well I do see that uh Bob Ekstrom is here.

Did you want to speak on this at all or no?

Okay.

I just wanted to give that as an option.

I know that uh Commissioner Ponce did send communication that he was not able to make here.

I just wanted to make note that he did uh send communication to us that he wasn't able to make it tonight.

Um so a motion has been made uh by council per to refer off for no further action seconded by Council Connie's I was going to say Councillor Baptiste.

But thank you so much for that clerk council baptisms all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed the ayes have it we are on item four.

Yes.

Oh item number four number four is a motion council lopes and council president Pereira requesting that the city solicitor in conjunction with the administration to have to home rule petition for submission to the Massachusetts general court authorizing the City of New Bedford to establish an early retirement incentive incentive program for eligible municipal employees said petition shall provide that employees who have attained the age of 50 years older and who have completed 25 years or more of credible service with the city may be eligible to retire with a retirement allowance calculated at up to 75 percent of the eligible retirement benefits subject to approval of the Massachusetts legislature and the governor that was referred here on May 28, 2026 and item number four is now before you motion to receive in place on file.

Made by Council Pereira seconded by Councillor Lopes uh all those in favor say aye aye.

Any opposed the ayes have it councilor Pereira Mr President when when if you can Mr Chairman I keep saying those Mr Chairman if you recall Mr Chairman at the full city council meeting when this was discussed I came down from the podium and spoke from this desk very similar to comments made by Council Lopes but I had requested that the solicitor notify this body if this is something the Mitchell administration would like to entertain.

Now I have heard through the grapevines that there is no appetite to entertain this that it actually might not make sense to entertain this is fine.

But we did not receive the email communication if that's not something the administration wants to pursue because it would be a home rule petition which can we can't override a veto the mayor needs to sign it.

Why waste this committee's time?

Why waste these department heads time if there's no appetite to do that.

We received no email communication from the solicitor.

Maybe I'm misspeaking but I checked with my colleague we have received none.

So it is my understanding the Mitchell administration does not want to pursue this so uh director Cullen CFO extrom solicitor Jake's all wasted their time sitting here for 40 minutes in this meeting that we didn't even really need to have on this item because the Mitchell administration doesn't want to do it.

I'll yield if my colleague who co-sponsored this wishes to add anything but I I still want communication if the administration wants to do this.

So I'd make a motion at table at the time but I'll yield to my colleague from what five so I've talked to the co-maker of the motion on this and the idea is to look at reasonable solutions to provide the city with an avenue to save money without laying off people.

You know in the budget the administration had an amount for unemployment benefits.

But if we're allowing people to retire early then you don't need to exhaust unemployment benefits.

Now I appreciate you know everyone being here behind me and as the the good counsel as the good council president stated if we were able to get some direction in regards to the direction the administration would take we could have saved everybody behind us some time if there is no appetit appetite.

But when you listen to the radio and the Mitchell administration says the council doesn't want to work with him the tables are now justly turned.

We're looking to work with the administration to provide an avenue to allow the city to reduce its workforce not through layoffs but through attrition and bring on a younger staff that actually comes in at a young at a lower salary and a higher retirement contribution than some of the people that would have 25 or 27 years of service.

So collectively we're providing an avenue for the administration to work with all the unions and all the departments but we're not receiving that same communication back.

So as the council president said at this time I think it's appropriate that we table this until we're able to get some communication from the administration.

Thank you.

Chairman anyone else on there first I do see the solicitor is here.

I do see the solicitor is here.

I don't know if there's anything that you motion at table.

Second.

Well, I just want to give him the opportunity because I know that in the past the administration, I believe you have mentioned the actual council president, um, Mr.

President, that the administration has chastised us before by not giving his um staff the opportunity to speak.

So I just want to to showcase that we are giving his administration the opportunity to speak and if they want to.

So I don't want to to give the appearance that we're silencing them.

So if there is something that you want to share, Solicitor Jakes, if there's any information that there is to give, this is your opportunity.

If you have nothing to add, you don't have to get up to the microphone.

If you're just going to get up there to say there's nothing at this time, then you don't need to get up.

But I just I don't want you to feel as though we're silencing you at this moment.

Point of order.

We have a valid motion at table and a second.

I'm sorry?

We have a motion at table pending.

And a second.

And I'm not recognizing it.

I'm recognizing Solicitor Jakes.

Solicitor Jakes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone.

I made the vote.

Yes.

And he already has.

Solicitor Jakes, if you'd like to come up to the microphone.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, I just before Solicitor Jakes, I don't want to discuss the merit of the item if he has if the President.

And we're not, and we're not.

What I'm all I'm asking is if he has information from the administration, you're saying that we haven't heard anything from the administration.

He is here as the representative from the administration.

And I believe you have told me in the past that the administration has criticized us, that we have not given him the opportunity.

And so I'm asking right now if he has any information to share regarding this.

That is all.

And he is going to answer now.

We can't say that the administration is not communicating with us if we at right now in this moment in it effectively saying we don't want to hear from them when they're here.

That is all.

He sat here for 40.

How long has it been?

42 minutes.

We can at least give them the respect to have him answer.

If he does have any information for us, that's all.

We don't have to do a back and forth.

He can answer whether or not there is any communication from the mayor's office.

That's all.

Solicitor Jakes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

I have had a discussion with the administration.

And I am informed that the administration has considered a number of ways of reducing the expenses in the city, which include potential ideas such as an early retirement.

At this time is the focus of the administration to concentrate on health insurance reform and pension reform and not proceed with this proposal at this time.

Okay, so he's not in favor of it.

And that he will not proceed with it at this time.

That is correct.

Okay, so there's our answer.

So we didn't have to wait for it.

He came down with the answer.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for him?

The makers of the motion.

Do you have any questions of Solicitor Jakes since he does have knowledge from the mayor?

Councilor Lopes?

I would say uh Solicitor Jakes.

I made a typographical error when I submitted it.

It wouldn't be 50, it'd be 55.

I don't know if that changes the appetite of the administration, but at 55, it's more in line with what the state has already adopted for early retirees at the state level.

I can understand 50 being extremely young.

I made a an error and I will own that it should have been 55, not 50 when I submitted the application, the uh the motion.

Do you think it was an age issue or it was other factors?

And I'm not asking you to speak for him, but you did have a conversation.

So my belief is the difference between age 50 and age 59 would not change the administration's position at this time.

And that's all I needed.

Thank you, uh Solicitor Jakes.

Thank you, Chairman.

Council Pereira, any questions?

Anyone else?

Thank you, Solicitor Jakes.

Make a motion.

Motion made by Council Pera, seconded by Councilor Lows for no further action.

All those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, made by Councillor Roy.

Seconded by Councilor Choquette.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 7 44 p.m.