1.27.2026 City Council -Ordinances and Legislation

My over

hey pain.

Hey pain.

Hey hey.

My back

We're coming.

The city council committee on ordinances and legislation will be called to order.

Cler call the role please.

Councelor Kadim here.

Councel here.

Councelor Dion here.

Councel Pereira.

Chair Roboso here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one on our agenda this evening is citizens input in which we have none.

Item number two is the minutes for the December 18th, 2025 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion made by councelor Canuel. Second by vice president Dion. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number three is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance requiring that the total authorized borrowing of the city shall not exceed 70% of the city's applicable statutory debt limit without additional voter approval and that any proposed borrowing authorization which would cause the city's total authorized debt to exceed 70% of that debt limit shall require approval by the voters at a municipal

election adopted 113 2026.

Can I have the invited guests down to the table for item number three, please?

Good evening all. If you can address yourselves and titles please to the public.

Ian Shaky, treasure collector.

Alan Rumsey, Corporation Council. Emily Arpi, uh, director of financial services.

Excellent. Thank you all. Council Kadim, would you like to speak on your resolution to begin?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is just a carryover from the initial resolution that I have filed, which had passed the uh, city council to eliminate the um limitations that we have for bond authorization. Uh, so as I mentioned at the last council meeting, I think a more appropriate uh, safeguard would be on the total debt that we would have. So, the debt ceiling put a put a percentage

uh limit on that. That would require um a I guess a a valid question uh if we exceeded that. So, the initial resolution was 70%. I think that's up for discussion as to um you know what that number looks like. I think a 70% is a healthy number in terms of where our debt capacity is currently. Um I believe we're at like 28% uh for bond authorization. Um, so that would give

you a little bit of of the ability and and wiggle room to continue to to go out and do bond authorizations for various purposes, whether it be um, you know, capital projects, uh, building repairs, new buildings, whatever the case may be.

Um, and with this, I think part of that is is as our debt limit increases, uh, based on total evaluation uh, for the city, this number also increases. So we never need to worry about having a percentage or a safeguard in there that needs to be addressed or adjusted um I don't know every five years, 10 years or whatever the case may be. So with that I'll yield.

Thank you. Members of the administration want to speak on the proposed resolution.

Um at this time we don't necessarily have concerns um with the thought process behind the resolution at hand.

we have plenty of room within that to do what we need to do and what we're planning on doing at this time and and see no concerns with that. So, I mean, I I'm happy to to answer any additional questions you have about where we're at and and how this all works, but in regards to the resolution at hand, we don't necessarily have concerns.

Okay.

And just so you know, um, if you so if this if we make an ordinance like this, it becomes a new legal requirement. So, we don't I mean, in my position, I don't Turn the mic. Sorry. Thank you. In my position, I don't like pick the projects and and that get authorized. But if they are authorized, the next step is that I have to go before I actually do the borrowing, go through the legal

requirements that bond council will get this ordinance, they'll incorporate it into the legal requirements letter and then they'll make sure that before we actually issue debt that all these check boxes have been checked. So, this would just be one more checkbox in the legal requirements situation.

Understood. Attorney Ramsey.

I mean, it makes a lot of sense what you're trying to do. Uh, I'm just make sure that, you know, when we get down to how it's written, it's written properly.

So, I'm mostly just here to listen, but I completely understand the concern and probably necessity. Really understood, Vice President Dion.

Yeah, I agree with um the process. Um, it does make more sense to have the um flexibility.

Um, and as council Kadeim said, as our uh as it rises, our uh borrowing power rises, as debt gets paid off, that also increases the borrowing power. I think for me, um, I would be more comfortable with 60% versus 70%.

Um, but that's obviously up to the committee and um, how they feel. With that, I yield.

Thank you, Council Canuel.

Thank you. Uh I'm in agreement with uh councelor Dion um and that I think we need to set a lower threshold than the 70% that's been proposed. Kind of tried to break this down um in a way that I could understand it that the equalized valuation for the city of Florida as of fiscal 24 was $7.2 billion which gives us a statutory debt limit 5% of about 360 million approximately. Um, if we're

looking at the 70% that's proposed, that probably doubles what we're where we're at today. In terms of our borrowing, uh, at 60% uh, that council Dion proposed, I think the dollar amount is about 216 million. I'd be more comfortable with something around 50% um, which would be 180 million. Um and I think that gives us um about 56 million uh additional uh from where we are today in terms of

borrowing abilities without going to the voters. Um I think you know given what we had in place before which was a very conservative um you know type of plan you know the 20 million on an annualized or more than 5 million in a single transaction. Um I think you know I'd like to see us be more conservative with this. I understand that this will continue to rise as well as you as the

valuations do go up. Uh that number will continue to go up as well. Um I just think 70 is too high. 60 is a little better, but I still from my perspective and the numbers I'm looking at, um I think 50% will be a more comfortable place that I could support. Yield council, uh just through you, I' I've just got a question to my colleague. I guess I'm a little concerned on why

we're putting I I understand the safety nets. Um I don't support 50%. I I would be in agreement with 60%. But essentially what we're what we're saying is we're creating safety nets because we don't trust ourselves, right? That that's essentially what we're saying. So my colleague is saying that we should go even lower. So why is it that we don't trust the people here to do the right

thing? I mean, at the end of the day, we're elected. Um there is no other municipality and I and I challenge folks to go look at we have 351 municipalities and the city of Fall River is the only one that has put this safety net in place. Um so I'm not sure why we we do it. I mean we we've got a twothirds requirement as it currently exists to do anytime any type of debt authorization.

Um so there there's already a process in place for that and we can have the the conversation. I'm just trying to figure out why we continue to go lower and lower and limit our ability uh to leverage the money that we have to provide the services that we need to provide to the to the community.

Do you yield? Council G was through you, but sure. I still want the floor.

Okay. Uh council can you want to respond to that, please?

Sure. Uh I think you're you're right that we are were the only municipality with these restrictions. Um, but it was the voters who I would interpret didn't trust the council and the administration to um spend the money wisely. That's why on a ballot question November 7th, 1977, they approved it with almost 80% of the vote.

So, can I just throw you can I do you know why that ballot question took place? I mean, it's nice to say 1977.

It was before I was born. So, okay. So, let me give you a little bit of history. That would be 1977. That's when uh the Dery School was was built. A lot of people went to jail for that uh because obviously there were you know bids behind uh closed doors things that were taking place. 1997 uh just mun Massachusetts general law in 1997 versus uh 2026 completely different. There are

significant requirements. I would tell you chapter 30b process has significantly evolved because of that.

So there's a lot of safety nets already in place. So we can't go back to the 70s. There's a there's a lot of things that we we could do in the 70s that we can't do now. I mean, we can smoke in restaurants in the 70s, right? We can't smoke anymore in the restaurants. So, I there's a there's a time and a place for moving forward. I would just say that

I'm not opposed to providing a safety net because at the end of the day, this is this is essentially a line of credit, right? This is what we're looking at.

And so, I don't disagree that while we got a 100% line of credit, we shouldn't go up to the 100% of the line of credit.

And we should put a limit as to what that that looks like. And and what I'm saying, 70% 60% that's fine. I think 50% all we're doing is hamstringing the administration to be um to be able to have the ability and the flexibility to leverage the bonding to provide the necessary resources when it comes to infrastructure comes to buildings, it comes to uh equipment that's needed. And that's that's what we what we're here

for, right? At the end of the day, we've got to review every single project that becomes comes down before us. It's not a simple majority, it's a twothirds majority, right? So, as elected representatives of the city of Fall River, we all get elected. We're at lodge counselors. So, we are responsible to the voters of of the city of Fall River and the taxpayers. So, if we don't do a good job, I mean, there's public

input. It needs to be advertised. Again, city council meetings are public.

Twothirds vote. Then I would suggest that we get elected when we're not elected to the to the position. If you're suggesting that um you know the oversight needs to be had with the you know the voters then change the form of government. Let's go to town meeting.

Then at that point if we have an open town meeting then every registered voter has the opportunity to vote on the budget has the opportunity to vote on on uh on any type of bond authorization.

The form of government we have as a legislative body is a city council. So let us do our job. That's our responsibility to do that. I think putting a li limitations on the administration. Just because in 1977 um you had individuals who were running for elected office that were corrupt doesn't mean that we're corrupt here.

We've got nine counselors. To suggest that you have nine corrupt counselors at any given point to to vote on a twothirds vote on on a debt authorization. I don't I don't think makes any any sense to me. So I I don't I don't want to go on, but I I I would support a 60% if that's what uh folks want to do. But I think at some point, just having a safety net on this, we're

already going above and beyond what 350 other communities in Massachusetts are currently doing.

With that, I yield.

Council Daniel.

Uh, first I I I'm not suggesting anybody on the the council is corrupt, but I do want to say that um from where we were before that the voters and I understand, you know, the times are different. I again, as I kind of stated at the last council meeting, I felt that, you know, if the voters put it in, the voters should take it out. The council made their decision. I'm not debating that

point at this point. I'm just trying to find the right threshold for us. Um, and before when you think about we had a 20 million cap in a single year. Uh, what I'm suggesting at 50% is about 56 million more per year, which to the point it's a percentage, which would continue to go up. at the 60% I have that at about $92 million additional um as well. So that's a pretty significant

you know bump up from there as well. I think you know we're going just from 20 million in a year to 56 million and then as debt obligations come off that again all that ground. I I think it's a good starting point. I is are there projects that are out there that we want to do? I the things that I'm not aware of that, you know, we, you know, putting out potentially $56 million in credit

wouldn't accommodate at this point. Do we really need to be at $92 million, which is the 60% threshold that's being suggested versus my 50?

Do you council?

I do.

Council the most fun I've had in a long time for an artist meeting. Uh so I I through you uh to my colleague again So from the standpoint that we're dealing with the bond authorization, it's all within the operating budget. So there is no impact to the taxpayer because we haven't gone above the 2 and a.5% tax levy. Is that is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So whether it's at 50% or 60%, what is it in your mind counselor, that if we go from 70% to 60% down to 50%, what what does that provide to the taxpayer? There's no difference from a tax impact to the voters if it's being funded in the operating budget.

I think people of the city are looking for a break for old debts to be paid off and to see some relief in their tax bills.

But but you're not going to get that that like I'm saying we haven't gone year over year. You're going to get two and a half%. whether that's going to the debt service or that's going to the police fire side. That's all tax revenue that's being funded funding the the general fund operating budget. Right? So when you take a portion of that to the debt, you're not saving the taxpayers

any money. There's zero impact to the to the to the rateayer. They're not seeing that because you're going to the two and a half% year-over-year.

So you what you're doing, you're not saving any money to the tax to the to the taxpayer. I I find sorry you no through you you may respond.

I think when I think about if I put something right now let's just say we have uh whatever the number is $125 million out there on a credit line right now. If I pay that off tomorrow my what I have to pay every year recurring will go down. So, I think the assumption here is that as bills come down, we're just going to keep recharging that back up, right? If if I

paid something off that's 20 million, I'm going to put 20 million back on.

There is no impact from that perspective. But I think when I think about if we're if we have 125 million on our credit card today and we want to go up to, you know, $215 million, let's say, or 216, there is an impact um because that's money we are not able to spend in other areas, right? But that but that's your that's the problem, right? It's not a credit card bill, right? So there's good bad

there's good debt and there's bad debt.

You can you're just focused in on credit card. That's bad debt. I I would agree with you if it was a credit card. I would absolutely agree with you. This is good debt. We're leveraging what we have, right? So if you've got I don't know, let's let's talk about police and fire. Let's just say we needed to borrow $20 million for police vehicles and fire vehicles, right? Over 20 years, right?

So, we get to leverage that and buy 20 years worth of vehicles in the first year. If not, if we're taking your premise, we're buying one police vehicle and maybe maybe one fire vehicle, right?

I mean, an engine is now a million dollars, right? It used to be $400,000.

A ladder truck is close to $2 million, right? So, again, this is good that we're leveraging it. We're having the ability to say, "Okay, we need 10 vehicles. We're going to go out in bonds." What what you're missing is is that we've got a total budget, right?

Two and a half% of the taxes is coming in, which is roughly what 40% 30% of our revenue.

Oh, yeah. Around that.

Okay. Coming into this bucket. So, if you're limiting debt services, that doesn't mean that we're not using 2 and a half% year-over-year. So just because you're you're reducing going from 70% to the 60% or the 50% on that debt service, you're not stopping the 2 and a half% increase. It's just being funded to other other areas in the budget. That's all it is.

I could add to that. So it it also would mean that whatever we're not buying through this debt authorization that we would have to fund with cash and the operating budget, which to his point would cost a lot more. So you're talking about adding a million dollars in for one firetruck for one year rather than adding in $20,000 of a debt payment so that we can add in a lot more. So no

matter what, to his point, our budget is going to be what it's going to be. And how we're able to leverage what's in that is what this kind of allows for. It doesn't change unfortunately the 2 and a half% tax increase each year. And that's we're not at a place in the foreseeable future that that's going to change. It would be ideal if we could get off of that two

and a half percent, you know, need for increase one day, but we're so far from that because we've been limited for so long and we didn't always take the two and a half percent. We're so far behind where we should be that that's not going to go away anytime soon. So, there won't be a relief. It's only going to cost taxpayers more by letting us use this when we do an a debt exclusion, which

will always have to go to the voters.

That's a state requirement as well. So it's not it's not going to change anything with whatever the limit is that you set whether it's 50 the 60 the 70 even letting us go to the 100% we still have to fit it within our operating debt or our operating budget each year the payments so it won't have an impact and I would I would also state that any good financial policy would have a

baseline on what your debt limit should see be year-over-year so and it really is an arbitrary number based on affordability, right? So, we had talked in the past that we want to see debt and interest every given year at $10 million. So, as debt retires, right? And so, if it frees up $2 million, $2 million is essentially $20 million in bond authorization for a given year, right? So that's a significant ability

to leverage the bonding to to provide whatever we need to do in terms of equipment and again capital items that we I mean capital items going to come down before us and I I would guarantee you that you're going to have at least almost half a billion dollars worth of requests that get ignored year over year over year and you're trying to put a cap on our ability to leverage money to be

able to provide the departments with the capital items that we need. So from my standpoint, whether it's 10 million, 15 or $20 million, I think the administration needs to come down to to the council and that's a conversation that we need to have, right? Because that's that's another safety net and control that we as a legislative body has on top of this 70 or 60% is to say that we want to see 10, 15, 20 million

year over year in debt and interest and we will not exceed that amount in the operating budget. But that gives them the ability to plan from a financial standpoint as debt rolls off. They have the ability to be able to go out and borrow additional monies to provide the resources that are that are being requested by the departments. I mean, we've got a number of buildings that need to be repaired, whether it's um

just renovations, windows, roofs, uh HVAC's. I mean, the you know, the amount of um you know, look just let's just talk about Banks Street Armory, right? at the banks aromry. I bet you there's zero zero money being spent in that in that building. We should be maintaining that building, right? That and that comes into where do you get the funding and I I think by reducing it this down to

below 60% is just um in my my own personal opinion is is not good financial uh management uh and not allowing the you know the administration to do what they need to do. And just just think about what it would take once we meet 50%. You're going to have to schedule an election. You're going to have to get people to go out there. And as we already see it that nobody is

interested in going out to the election.

So at the end of the day, we're going to have 10,000 people making a determination for how many parcels do we have for uh residential res all told it's like 22,000 commercial and residential. So 20 22,000 taxpayers and and you know you're getting 10 thou half of them coming out to talk about whether or not they want to you know increase and it's not even an increase but allow authorize us to go out for a

borrowing because it's not going to be an increase to their taxes. So I mean if it was an increase then obviously we we got uh the debt exclusion that requires us to go to a ballot. So I don't I don't know why I mean we're putting a limit. I think it's it's a feel-good limit. I think the you know the the city council should be responsible to maintain with the administration on the on the expense

limit. So um I would support 60%.

Anything below 60% I think we're just we're fooling ourselves and we're putting in all these false safety nets that are just creating more leg work and not allowing uh the administration to be able to navigate and fin properly financially plan for for the future and the departments. without a yield.

Ramsey, I just want to remind the committee that, you know, no number is even necessary here. Um, you know, if we're talking about 70 60, you could just have no number and then as the mayor submits something, the budget comes down to city council, you can vote your conscience whether you, you know, reject it or want it to go to the voters, but you could just delete the existing ordinance and

not have any percentage at all.

Vice President Dion. Yeah, I think um so in the last five years we've had no capital improvement plan.

We I don't believe we haven't done any bonding.

How much do you know how much debt has fallen off in the last five years?

I don't have that exact number with me, but yeah, I don't have it here, but we can tell you how. Yeah, we we have had a significant amount drop off, but we've also had dery come on over the last couple of years because the timing of debt being authorized versus the timing of us issuing it don't necessarily line up. So, it hasn't quite well, yeah, but Dery's being paid with a debt override, although although it has

been absorbed in the budget to a certain extent, but we have diamond now. But I guess my point is people are always saying how we don't maintain anything, we don't take care of buildings, we don't do this, we don't do that. True, we haven't. But I think we're in a situation where uh we have counselors that now saying, "Okay, enough is enough. We need to change what we do."

You know, we have parking garages that need s a significant investment.

We get those to where they should be, they become a revenue source. I mean they are a revenue source now but the revenue will significantly increase which is going to help the city. We have the Bank Street Armory. We have the central fire station.

You can go on and on and these are things that really immediately need to be taken care of. So which is why I support this. Um wherever wherever it falls it falls. Um, but I think we need to really seriously think about what we what we want to see for this city and how we want to move forward. And with that, I yield.

Council Ken, uh, just to uh, speak back to what Attorney Ramsey said, I do believe we should put a cap. Uh, we, you know, the council at the last meeting did remove the limit completely. I don't think we should write a new ordinance that doesn't put a cap. So, I do think we should settle on some type of number. I think for me it just comes down to, you know, I think Council Padim said, you

know, the 70% is a feel-good number.

That's about $252 million limit. Um, which, you know, which you control. You have a vote on.

That's correct. But that's also double where we are today.

But you have but you have you're a city council now. You have a vote on that, right? You want to bring it back to the voters then. And I'm telling you, if you want to bring it back to the voters, change the form of government because this isn't the form of government I don't think you want to put that question to the residents of whether or not No, I do. I do. If if that's what you

support, I I'll make a motion. I'll I'll sign on to your resolution. If that's the form of government you want, then move forward with it. That there are communities that have open and representative town meetings that allow registered voters to actually vote on this stuff. If you don't want to vote on that stuff, that's on you. So then I would suggest instead of com coming over here trying to take away our authority

as as a legislative body, make the motion to change our form of government to an open town meeting or representative town meeting. That's my that would be my take.

Council K, you have the floor.

So I I think just again I come back to where we were just two weeks ago, right?

We were at a point where anything more than 5 million in a year, sorry, 5 million in a single item or 20 million in a year had to go to voters. Um, I'm not looking to run to voters for every, you know, to fix the parking garages, particularly revenue generating things.

Not looking to them if we, you know, want to do something with the Bank Street Armory. Um, but where I'm at is, you know, at 50% from where we are today. That's about 56 million higher than we are right right now.

But you wanted to limit it to to $10 million on a bond authorization just two weeks ago. So, how's that any different than what we're doing? And I would tell you that then if this is the case, it's disingenuous because now we're taking one small portion in an operating budget which is deb debt exclusion. So why are we not having a budget that is over $400 million go to out to a ballot to say do

you support this budget? It doesn't make any sense to me because there are other line items in there besides debt exclusion and it's all within the in the tax levy. All of it is within the tax levy. It's coming from the same revenue. So for for you to sit here and say that the debt exclusion should go out because we've got a bond authorization because as a city councelor I don't want to do my job and

I don't want to vet it and I don't want to take a vote and I don't want to talk to the taxpayers when they come and question me why did you go out to a bond authorization and half half the taxpayers don't even recognize what we go out for for bond authorization because they're looking at the larger picture right you've got police fire you got the treasurers you got the law office you got the city administrator's

office you've got health insurance you've School department.

School department. You're talking about a $10 million budget right now, right?

What what is that service?

13 14 $14 million, right? So, we're wasting all this time on a $14 million to really just micromanage it and not allow the administration to do what they need to do and the legislative body to to do to fulfill its authority. That that's that's where my frustration comes. It's it's to me it's just it is so so asinine for us to sit here and talk about limiting the borrowing amount when we're

talking about it's all falling in a $450 million operating budget. But we will not question any other line item or category and say that it is okay because it is the exact same impact. Every other department has the exact same impact, but for whatever reason, we want to target our borrowing, which to me has the we have the most potential to benefit this community, council Daniel, you still have the

floor. You have anything else to add?

I think it's just coming up with the right number. Um, you this is your ordinance proposal to put a limit, right?

Yeah. So, I'll I'll make a motion that we lower the 70% down to the 60%. A second.

Before we take that motion, do you yield the floor? Councel.

Okay. Yes. Okay. So, a motion has been made by council Kadim, seconded by council Dion to correct me if wrong to 60%.

60%.

60% on that call. Roll call, please.

Roll call. Um, councelor Kadim, yes.

Council Canuel, yes.

Council Dion, yes.

Councelor Pereira.

Chair Robo, yes.

Like to make a motion to amend that number to 50%. Please.

Motion made by councel to modify that to 50%. Is there a second?

With no second. Does not pass.

What was what was the prior vote?

What was the result?ous. unanimous%.

Unanimous.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure. Okay.

I was just trying to take the the reduction where I could.

Uh, Attorney Rumsey, anything else you will need from the committee in regards to propo uh putting together this ordinance?

No, I don't think so. I'll I'll get something together and if I need to, I'll maybe speak to uh since it's council's proposal, have take a look at it. We can talk if you need me.

We would like to run it by bond council, too. It goes back before you guys, right? Yeah. I' I'd recommend bond council take a look at it. Okay.

So, we make a motion to table to keep it in committee.

Correct.

Motion to table.

Made second.

Okay. Motion made to table. Seconded by councelor Canuel. All in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it.

We'll move on to item number four this evening. resolution to discuss potential amendments to the emergency parking ban ordinance adopted 211 2025.

The resolution reads as follows. It was filed by myself. Whereas the current ordinance to implement a parking ban during a weather related event is currently at the discretion of the administration. And whereas this can cause confusion among residents as to whether or not a parking ban is in place during a weather event. Whereas certain conditions should warrant automatic parking ban based on various anticipated

weather events and public school closures. Therefore be resolved the committee on ordinances legislation convene with the city administrator, director of traffic and parking, the director of community maintenance and a representative from the for police department to discuss potential amendments to the existing ordinance related to emergency parking prohibitions due to weather conditions.

Um I'll just speak real quick on this as I was the author of the resolution. One of the things and again we just lived a snowstorm so it's all fresh in our heads right now talking about the confusion that is a parking ban. Um and is there one, is there not one? when is it triggered? What is the threshold? It seems to be a very confusing process.

Um, I also have some thoughts on how it's communicated, but I'm going to go to the committee first and then to our uh guests here. Uh, Deputy Chief if you want to introduce yourself, you could.

Sure. Deputy Chief JT for Police Department.

Miss McGatha.

Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Thank you. Vice President Dion.

Um I'm not quite sure why there is so much confusion. Um it is put on the city website. It is put on the police department website. Uh the the I believe that the information is pretty easily accessible.

Um it's just a matter of people looking for it. Um, I think when you start talking storms of 4 in or more, I automatically assume there will be a parking ban. Um, sometimes I'll park my car on the other side of the street just in case. Um, I don't know.

I'm not sure what type of of weather circumstances um, you feel would warrant automatic parking bands. Um, you know, it's something the weather changes day to day. Um, so I mean, you could institute, you could say, well, you know, if if we're predicted to have a 6- in storm, um, automatically two days before we have a parking ban, automatically, but two days before the weather pattern

changes, and how often does that happen?

It goes out to sea. Now, we don't need a parking ban. I think personally that can is going to that will um cause more confusion. Um but that's just me. So with that I'll yield for now.

Uh Mica like to speak on this. I I think you know we had a conversation regarding it as well. Um and to councelor's point I think when I when I think about weather snow is is the conversation I'm thinking about. But I also think as a person who may not have a place to park, if you know it's forecasted to come, let's say hypothetically six inches, you know, a parking van's coming

automatically. So at that point, you're preparing to park where you need to park as opposed to kind of rolling the dice and hopefully you'll find one. Um I I think it's it's being proactive, I guess, in that sense. Um so this way people know it's coming, you can prepare where you need to be and then can move on from there. That's kind of my logic to it.

Miss Macatha, good evening. So, I mean to put on a parking ban, Deputy will will tell you it's definitely a team effort. I know the ordinance currently reads it's the community maintenance director um and the mayor, but it it's an absolute team effort. I mean, we meet prior absolutely my gosh, few times before a storm. Um we do tell everybody three inches or more automatically assume

there's going to be a a parking ban. Um, unfortunately, like councelor Dion said, I mean, it's New England weather. Our last storm, not this one that we had the weekend prior, um, we were in the 1 to 3 in forecast up until the morning of the storm shifted at that point. We were in the 6 to9 category. So, we had to institute that one unfortunately in an emergency. We do try and do it and

advertise it 24 hours prior. Um, and it is it's on the city website. It's channel 6, 10, 12. um all over social media. I do I agree. I think we do the best that we can prior to instituting it and getting it out there. It's like I said, you just got to look for it.

Deputy Chief War, I think, uh to the point that the director here had mentioned, we're in constant contact when there's something that comes up on the radar. Um no pun intended with storms. So, uh, with that said, you know, the communication with the mayor and the DCM director, it's really to the point you're saying is like, you know, just when a storm is about to happen, you get like a winter storm warning.

We kind of did that with this storm. We gave a really big notice like, hey, there's a parking ban that's eminent and then we announced it way ahead of ahead of time and then we enforced it very quickly. So, we kind of adopted a different kind of procedure here. So, I think the ordinance is sufficient. I think procedurally um there's things that were in practice now specifically with this this storm as it relates to

announcements uh but also the enforcement factor right so I think the confusion lies in what avenues people can be looking for the information uh so the only thing I would suggest in the ordinance being updated is I think it's kind of antiquated where it speaks to kind of using uh radio or something like that I would say that you know my suggested language would be like uh announce through any combination of city

operated communication systems included but not limited to public radio, television, official city website, social media platforms, uh emergency notification systems and other media deemed appropriate. So that would kind of if someone is uh looking up the ordinance, they would say, "All right, these are the avenues I look at." I think we really lean towards social media uh these days because everyone's

tuned into it. Uh but I think in the future, we've kind of looked at let's put it that it's eminent that it's going to happen. in a parking ban and the director and I have spoken many times on the phone and I'd much rather have it in place and cancel it than to not have it in place. So, we've learned from those mistakes just this year where you know imposing one the morning of a storm,

you're not going to get much compliance.

And it really puts me at a a disadvantage when it becomes uh the enforcement factor of our initial enforcement of tagging and then obviously the enhancement of starting to tow vehicles as we did this storm. Mhm.

And I would agree with you too that some of the language in the ordinance is a little antiquated 2008 at this point. Um which leads me to a question I have. Do we have a system in place that we can communicate with residents via phone like an emergency system if let's say they need I'm going to call it an all call like we do in school. But is there

an all call system that we have that if we need to reach residents in the case of the city of Far is having a parking ban starting effective 12 p.m. tomorrow?

Does that system exist currently? So there is a reverse 911 system. Uh we attempted to use it this storm and we found some opportunity with it. So we're revisiting that. It actually is managed by the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department. So I started looking into some solutions that we could potentially invest in as a city. Uh you know, Boston, other municipalities kind of use that as a way of people can register for

it. Especially these days with a lot of robocalls that happen. Uh you want to have a system where you can kind of manage who wants to sign up for it. Uh because it's only as good as the people that are going to listen to the message or pick up the phone.

Sure.

Vice President Dion.

So my only other thought um is I know there are I believe Boston, Providence, there's a number of communities that actually have um that issue parking permits um because obviously it's like you say, it's a scramble. It's tough to find parking. Um, you have some houses that have one car, you have others that have six cars. Um, and there's always a war as who get So, is it something that you

think we should look into that we could issue parking permits? So, if you live at this address, you get a parking permit, your your space would be across the street from your house. Um, each I don't know if each house would have one parking permit. I don't know. I mean, it's something that we could even say, you know, once a year $20 gets you the parking permit for the year. Would that

possibly make things easier? Do you think that's something um that we could do?

I think that would be very difficult, especially in the multifamilies. Um I mean, a multif family property, three unit, you're looking at four vehicles per unit. So, it would be we'd have to determine how many would we issue per unit.

I think it would be very difficult to do so in the city of Fall River, especially in the Corky Row area, the Flint area.

Would it be any more difficult than it is for them to park it out? I mean, because you I mean, and I get it. It's a public street. Somebody goes out there, they break their back shoveling, they go to stop and shop, they come home, the next door neighbor watched them leave, ran out the door, took the parking space, and now they're scrambling. Um I know it's a public street but um that

creates problems so that I I don't know in terms of parking just trying to think if there's a smoother easier way.

I think you see you're bringing up like the north end in Boston is restricted parking for visitors. You have to have a permit and park certain areas. I mean that's a system that's been in place because there it's a very thickly settled area. So, I think it's something that could be entertained, but to the director's point, it's something that we're going to have to look at what the

quota is as far as if it's a six family, how many people get permits, but I don't think it's a system that shouldn't be at least looked into.

Yeah. because again well and again to your point so if pe if there are people um taking up those spaces that really aren't even residents of the city residents of the city shouldn't lose out because a non-resident is taking up the space.

Sure.

So I mean maybe even even if we just relieve that um because I mean I think we all know there are certain areas that there are a lot of vehicles that Sure. I mean probably don't belong.

Might be 11 in a household. You never know if people have different cars. So it def and it could be a home with just two people living it. So I can see your point.

Okay. With that I yield. Thank you.

Council Canuel.

Yeah. I just want to circle back to the idea by council repos about calling people. Um I know we rely heavily on social media, but I have a number of seniors and folks that aren't online and they don't know when a parking ban takes effect. I mean they can certainly make assumptions when there's a foot of snow, right? Um but particularly too when that ends and when they can resume their

parking. So I think you know that did exist at one point um because I remember you know those calls coming into my parents home phone. But I think you know whether it's a a sign up method that people could do one time or whatnot. I just would like us to see you know not rely so heavily on social media particularly caring for our older residents. Would that yield?

Thank you councel. Yeah, I I think you know you mentioned that there's kind of an assumption, Miss MacArthur, that it's three inches or more. So, it kind of goes back to my whole point that if if it's the assumption internally that that's what's happening, my argument would be make it officially that be the case. But again, it's the will of the committee how we want to handle it. I think out of this

conversation, there is some need to revise the ordinance, update some of its language. Um, but again, the will of committee if we want to go that far as far as making a an automatic parking ban take place or not. That's what really what it comes down to with this council.

Um, so I what I would say is if we think we have issues now as we get more development and there is more uh special permits being issued uh to ignore the parking requirements that are in zoning bylaws, we're going to have even more difficulty. So, I don't disagree with the residency permit. I I think it's just going to be a nightmare um from an administrative standpoint. Number one,

to try to identify how that's going to roll out, what that's going to look like, and then just enforcement alone is is going to be um a major issue. Uh I I don't know that there's any real solution to what we're dealing with. I I think overall, no matter what we do, it's not going to be enough in terms of the notifications.

I mean, social media, it's on the it's on the radio, it's it's on um TV. I I think you did uh you know FRED TV, FRGTV. So it it is out there but unfortunately like any any storm event that we we deal with it just the the unknowns the variables are just it's just too difficult to manage. Um what I would say is it's you know if you want to change something in the ordinance

then you you say that maybe we put in a requirement that even if it's not um put on by the administration 3 in or more or four inches or more is going to require a parking ban. But at that point you lose that flexibility and it just becomes every time you you reach that potential threshold of a three to four inch storm then you're gonna have to deal with all the the parking nightmare

that becomes what it is. And you know, I I've lived in the South End a good majority, you know, close to 30 years, 35 years of my life. If I do the actual math, I could probably tell you exactly how much it is. But, um, parking on the streets have always been difficult. It is absolutely a nightmare. And, you know, when I was when I was there, the Door Dash wasn't wasn't a thing. So, you

actually had to leave to to go get groceries and and then when you came back, your parking spot was was gone.

and and so um I appreciate and understand the frustration, but I I don't know that we have any real solution. I I think anything that we probably do to trigger or change the ordinance is just going to create more um more issues because you don't have that flexibility uh to be able to make that determination. Just look at this this storm up until Friday. It was zero.

I mean, there was two Z there was two scenarios. There was no snow or it was 18 inches, right? And those were the two scenarios that we were dealing with all week. So, uh, from a planning standpoint and a management standpoint, it's it's hard to to say, "Hey, there's going to be a parking ban at this time." Um, there's nothing worse than issuing a parking ban and and it doesn't snow,

right? We we've done that in the past as well. So, um I would just say that, you know, in terms of what we really should be talking about is the enforcement component of the parking bands because I I think we've seen um what that really kind of generates in terms of public safety issues, especially with fires, emergency vehicles, um that are getting trying to get down roads and then, you

know, you're the police department's in a situation where they're trying to have vehicles towed and and it's already snowing out like that. that becomes the real challenge. Um I I think overall the notification system that that we're doing is is pretty good. Um I I would say, you know, the the reverse 911 system that that is out there if you using uh Plymouth, you know, the Plymouth Sheriff's Office does a does a

good job. Uh we've used Code Red, but you know, you you got to use that sparingly because then people um tune that out as well. So when you're sending out those message, if you send too many of those out, then it that they just ignore it like it's just a a cold call anyway. So, um I I think if we can have a system like that and and utilize what we have and then have individuals sign

up and that's and that's going to be the other the other challenge, right?

Because the the the target audience that we're trying to help um is not necessarily savvy to going online and and filling these things out. And that's what's going to be required is the the filling out at least one time to say I want to subscribe to this and I want to be notified uh for these calls. So, it's still going to be a challenge even if we get that. But um I think overall, you

know, we we just got to be cautious, especially from, you know, the growth standpoint that we're dealing with and and we're having we're seeing a lot of special permits to ease the the parking requirements are just going to create even more of an issue uh in the near future. But when you start talking about the south end in particular, the Flint section, it becomes very challenging

just to park on a normal day when you can park on on both sides of the street.

Um maybe we need to to start talking about, you know, what it looks like for um you know, certain certain lots, opening up lots and then coming back to parking garages, things of that nature, figuring out how we can provide more additional parking for for these um you know, for these residents. And maybe it's reaching out to schools, allowing people uh to park at at schools in different locations that they wouldn't

normally be able to park, but then of course it comes down to how do I get there? It's, you know, walking, things of that nature. So, um, it's just my two two cents. I yield.

Vice President Dion.

Yeah. I think my last comment will be I think a lot of it just comes also down to human nature. I think no matter what you do or how you deal with this, somebody's going to complain.

I think you did a great job this time.

You did it in advance. People were well aware there was going to be a parking ban. And you had certain people who weren't happy because they couldn't understand why you would do it so so you know so so advanced. Snow's not coming till tomorrow. What are they doing it today for?

If you had waited till it started snowing then it would have been why did they wait so long? They should have told me. Now I can't find a So honestly we know did you're always going to have that air that gray area that that somebody is not going to be happy. Um, personally, I think the way you rolled it out this time was was um exceptional.

Um, people had plenty of time. The weather didn't impact them trying to find parking spaces and it was on a weekend which was even better. So, once they parked, they could just be settled in for the storm. So, with that, I yield.

Okay. I think I think at this point um there's there's changes that need to be made anyway. to the corporation council.

Um if we can make some of those updates to the ordinance at least.

Motion to refer to corporation council uh to review and provide suggested amendments to the ordinance.

Second.

Motion made by council. Seconded by councel Dion. All those in favor.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number five on our agenda is the resolution to convene.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you. Uh motion to table.

Second.

No motion to table.

made by council Kadim, seconded by vice president Dion. All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you, clerk. Uh, item number five is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance to require city council approval and authorization for all real estate leases, license, and occupancy agreements entered into by the city of Fall River or any of its departments exceeding $50,000 adopted 99205.

Attorney Thomas, you introduce yourself to the committee.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Matt Thomas. I'm special counsel for the city.

Okay.

Attorney Thomas, would you like to speak on this proposed?

Yes, I would if you don't mind. Um, so as I understand this, um, you're looking to have required by ordinance council approval of three different types of arrangements. One would be real estate leases, one would be licenses, and one would be occupancy agreements for anything over $50,000.

So, um, I've spoken to the cooperation council about this and I believe my comments reflect both of our opinions, but he's here, so I'll defer to him if I'm misstating anything. So, you're looking at three very different types of documents. Right now, by law, every real estate lease has to be approved by the city council. That's chapter 40, section 3. So, regardless of the amount. So, in

in a way, there's really no need for it to speak to that. State law already speaks to real estate leases.

Could I just quickly council interrupt because I think EMS building.

So this is why this is before us. So council Ponty filed this because we had the EMS building come before us. We took a no vote and then a lease was signed.

I I get it. So my point is I hesitate to say that I disagreed but I disagreed with that. I I think any lease has to be approved by the city council. Now, let me just finish with the other parts of it. Having said that, now that's my opinion.

As I've told people, my opinion is pretty much worth nothing because I'm not the corporation council. Corporation council is the one who has to render the opinions on behalf of the city. But I believe that not only does chapter 40 section 3 say that, but the case law says that. And that's generally the normal way that most municipalities do it. With regard to licenses and uses of occupancy, I don't think that the

council has the ability to require that.

And let me explain why.

With regards, I'm sorry, with licenses and uses of occupancy. A license is not an interest in real estate. A license is a personal interest to occupy something. It's actually a promise on the behalf of the person who owns that thing that they're not going to claim a trespass. So, for example, when you park in a parking garage, that's a license. When you go to a sporting event, that's a license. When

you go to a movie, that's a license.

They're revocable. They're not like a lease. And so, that's why licenses are not recorded at the registry of deeds.

It's a revocable right that says that as long as you're there, I am not going to say you're trespassing.

that is within the purview of the executive side of the government, not of the legislative side because it's not an interest in real estate. And it's my opinion that article 89, which is the home rule amendment, section two, says that you can't pass an ordinance that contravenes state law and state law does not require this. And probably the entity that uses licenses the most is UMass Dartmouth over the years.

um because of that that you can't really pass an ordinance that says that that should be under the control of the city council because it's my opinion that's clearly under the control of the executive branch because it is not an interest in real estate.

Having said that, um I I don't think that there's a need to do it for the real estate for the light leases.

There's nothing that says that you can't pass something that says leases have to.

I wouldn't make it $50,000 though in a way because to speak to councelor Kadim's point earlier that's I think that's a needless change of law. All real estate leases I believe have to go through the city council. Um I understand what happened with EMS.

Um I don't believe at the end of the day there was a lease. I believe at the end of the day it's a license that they signed and they're going out to bid on a lease with an option to purchase. I believe I don't know that for a fact but I believe that they are occupying it currently under a license which as I said is revokeable.

Council you still have the floor. Thank you. Even even with the I guess the lease to purchase that would still require the city council because you're gaining an interest in the in the real estate right. So I I guess where I I slightly differ with you in terms of um just because MGL doesn't require that, right? We can have ordinances that are more restrictive, notient. Right? So, as long, let me just as long, this is

section two of the home rule amendment.

As long as it doesn't contravene either state law or the right of contract here, I think this would do both.

Okay.

Okay.

But the contract and the and the state law. Okay.

But you're right. You can have best example is zoning. Zoning creates a threshold. You can go above that threshold. You just can't go below the threshold. And so that's what So, so my other I guess my real question And then depending on how this goes, you know, I would agree with you. I don't I don't know that we need a dollar amount.

Um, at any point could the administration make an argument um as opposed to real estate lease that any of that action could be a license or an occupancy agreement?

The the form of them is very different.

Um, a license has to have a provision in it that is revocable. You can't revoke a lease. To revoke a lease, you have to go through court. Okay? Unless it's the end of the term.

A license has in it a revocation period.

It has in it notice periods. A use in occupancy has even less in it. Um, a lot of times a use and occupancy is used when somebody's buying and selling a piece of property and they either have to stay in longer or get out earlier, right?

So, the nature of those documents, by looking at those documents, you can pretty much determine, an attorney can pretty much determine, general public can too, what it is. Is it a lease? Is it a license? Is it a use in occupancy?

So, because again, we're here because we felt like the city council was the legislative body was circumvented, right? So, you're saying that you could not in good conscience make an argument that any type of lease, right? So, similar, let's just take the let's call a spade of spade, right? So, we're talking about the EMS building. This is why we're here. that at any point how that played out that it could have been

suggested that we we'll go the route of a license or inocuacy agreement.

Well, I think reasonable people can always differ, but my opinion is that that document would have required city council approval.

That's my opinion.

Okay.

For whatever it's worth. And I guess then even though it's state law that there's no harm I guess if we were to eliminate the dollar amount and just say that all any real estate lease uh would per Massachusetts general law would require approval of of the city.

There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

Okay. I yield.

Vice President Dion.

Yeah. Basically my question was answered because I was going to say originally it was going to be a lease. It became a license. as long as it's a license, they can't enter into agreement to purchase the property, which we were told this is what ultimately was going to happen. Uh, rent it for whatever, a year or two, and then it's going to be purchased, but it can't be purchased unless there's a lease.

So theoretically they could lease that for two years, and at the end of two years, the landlord could say, "Yeah, I changed my mind. I'm not going to sign a lease and and give you the ability to purchase this property." That's if there was a lease any lease provision but there is no lease provision it's a license right so none of that exists so there's no security there's nothing

my understanding council was that uh Mr.

chairman through you was that the purpose of doing that was that the council spoke pretty loudly that they wanted to have the option to purchase builtin and so this was going to alleviate what was the perceived emergency to move them in there using the license and go out and procure correctly a lease with an option to purchase. So the difference between an option to purchase and a right of first

refusal is important to note too. In a right of first refusal, uh, it's it's a right to match either an offer that's come bonafideed third party offer, something else coming in. An option is a validly exercisable right upon the occurrence of certain things.

So, typically, you would say we're leasing it for three years. At the end of the three years, um, the city has an option to purchase. um it'll either set a purchase price or it'll set that the city uh hires an appraiser, the landlord hires an appraiser, they hire a third appraiser, it comes out with the value, but there's a definite process. So, um that there is a definitiveness to it.

And if the city tries to exercise that option and the Lord landlord doesn't, then that is a defaultable provision.

Yeah. Under the under the conditions of a lease. But I'm saying the way it stands now, none of that exists. No, because right now it is purely a temporary situation which is the license which was to allow them to occupy the space while the city went out and procured the lease with the option to purchase which they haven't done yet.

I don't know where that is because that would have to be come before us.

Well, not the issuance of it but the execution of it. Yes. So I don't know whether that's actually out being prepared on the street or not. But you're correct to sign that would have to come before you.

So that's my opinion. So again, I think that that brings us back to why this took place.

I I understand I once I saw it, I knew exactly where it came from. But I think that there may have been some confusion at that time. I don't know. That's my opinion. I would defer to attorney Ramsey if he disagrees with me, but and and I would defer to his opinion if he disagrees with me, but um that's my opinion.

Looks like you're up.

No, I would have jumped in if I disagree with anything Attorney Thomas said. I I don't. So, I'm just letting him speak.

Thank you.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Council Ken.

So, Attorney Thomas, your opinion was that the EMS building lease should have gone to the city council for approval.

I think any lease should go to the city council.

Okay. Do you concur that opinion, Attorney Ramsey?

I do.

Okay.

So, when this the administration signs an agreement without the city council approval, could that be deemed null and void?

It was a license, I believe, but that was the issue is it was not a lease agreement. It was a license that ended up being signed.

Okay.

Sorry. I don't believe a lease was signed. I believe it was a license that was signed, which is a different type of animal.

So my question would be, is there any language that the council could uh adopt through ordinance that would uh change how that went that would filter it through the city council futuristically?

Is there any language you can foresee that we could adopt here in ordinance that would Let me defer back to a statement councelor Kadim made earlier. There's a level of good faith here. If you right now that's the law. If inadvertently something happens, everybody makes a mistake. If somebody does it purposefully, that has to be addressed.

So if you did want to make it crystal clear, you could pass an ordinance that says all le all real estate leases regardless of length or value have to be approved by the city council before they're executed by the mayor. It's no different than the process you follow every time you sell an old school where you're awarding the bid and authorizing the corporation council to draft a

purchase and sale agreement that they're satisfied with and then ultimately ultimately authorizing the mayor to execute the deed in a form acceptable to the city council to the corporation council. So you could do that but it would only be with regard to real estate leases. Okay.

Thank you. There are you council Gimm.

So in terms of the term for a license, so you can still circumvent the city council. Then how many times can you get a get a license?

So So let's just say the administration does not come up with a lease per a lease agreement or lease purchase.

I've written licenses of varying time from two two weeks to four years, five years. So the fact of the matter is you can't change the nature of the document.

That is not within the power of the I guess. So my my question would be how is it any different though from a real estate any so or any contract. So if you've got a contract anything over three years needs to come down to the legislative body. So how would a license not require that to come?

A license is a revocable a contract isn't revocable. Typically, a contract like any other binding document, if you go to revoke it before the end of its term, unless there's a default, you run into a problem. The nature of a license, and this goes back to a case from 1938.

This has been the law since 1938.

And uh that don't make me tell you what happened in 1977.

I know that.

Okay.

I was actually old enough in 1977 to remember that. I'm much older than you.

I'm just saying.

I'll go back to 1938, right? I wasn't around then. But um I've read the case.

I'm giving you fair warning. Thank you.

Whether it's a counselor or a counselor, different spelling. I'm still It's fair game.

It is right.

But um while I was not around when it happened, um it was something that we learned about um in in law school and subsequently and it's basically they made a a distinction and they basically said a license is basically the forbearance of claiming a trespass. It's a permission, a personal permission. So yes, it is possibly true that it happens.

Okay. So I appreciate that. So what I guess what I'm asking and what I'm looking for from legal counsel is how do we eliminate the because it seems like he we the administration regardless of who it is would still have the ability to go into multiple one-year licenses, right, and circumvent the real estate lease. So how do we prevent that from happening? I don't think you can to be honest with

you because of the nature of the license. Now, let me speak to something.

Your multiple one-year licenses, same as your discussion about parking vans. Okay. While a bright light room, bright uh rule, a bright line rule is always very nice. If you were to pass an ordinance that said every time there's three inches forecast, it's going to be a parking ban. You would put the police department in the issue of not well, we know the weather's gone better.

We're not going to enforce it. And so lack of enforcement makes it even worse than there is now here. There may be instances where you want multiple one-year licenses where something's supposed to happen to a property before you want to lease it or something else and there's a delay through nobody's fault.

So I think that that would be a little bit um counterproductive to limit that.

And I don't think with all due respect that you can change the nature of the contracts. No, I I guess what I'm saying is is I don't disagree with that ability, but I think if it's anything, let's just call it over a two-year, right, would require Well, my point is you already have the authority and that's the power of the purse. Okay.

A a license is revocable. Okay. So, if somebody's entering into multipleear licenses, you just deny the money.

You have that authority right now. That is that is the ultimate control of the city council.

No, I I get that. But you and I both know that let's just say the lease is $100,000 and we say, "Okay, we're gonna we're gonna take $100,000 from EMS." It doesn't necessarily we don't control the line item unless unless unless we I I guess the way to do it is is that we say at that point all real estate we create an ordinance that says real estate leases, licenses, and occup

occupancy agreements have to be a separate uh budgeted line item. And then at that point, we control the purse strings and and so we don't worry about the 50,000. But if you know if you've got a list of licenses in there and one of them is $100,000, you say, "Okay, it's $100,000 coming out of that."

I that's within your authority clearly.

I would caution you, though. Uh years ago when I I clerked for a court, the judge used to say, "Bad facts make tough law."

The what happened with the EMS situation, I'm sure, left a bad taste in everybody's mouth. I'm not disagreeing with that. And I would just caution you to try to overcompensate for that and try to protect overprotect against that.

There is a an essence there is an essence of good faith in this. I think that's required to leave the flexibility to the city administration to do what they need to do and I would caution you to keep that level of flexibility while staying within the law.

See how he's trying to spin my words against me. I I can't um I know my colleague wants to speak and we're we're getting into you know past six o'clock.

I guess my my recommendation would be I', you know, I'd make a motion to um and I'll wait for my colleague to speak just so we don't table it now, but table this and then I would just ask that maybe the uh chair of ordinance work with the uh corporation council to figure out, you know, come up with some type of solution that would help to satisfy the administration and the

legislative body in in the sense that um one not trying to micromanage and not trying to take away flexibility, but also trying to pro provide that that safety measure that we need that that we're not being circumvented and I don't I don't know what that necessarily looks like tonight looks like period and I don't think we're going to solve that tonight. Uh so I' I'd make that motion once my

colleague's done speaking.

Do you yield?

I yield.

Council Ken, just very briefly I'll I'll concur with what council said. I think though when it comes down to the administration having the flexibility to do what they want, the city council generally meets every other week. So, it's that's pretty flexible for them to put something and bring it down to us. So, I think that's all the council wants on big ticket items like what was before us before and

that's what we're looking for. With that you I would concur with council Kim as well on that. That's I think it's a good way forward and I think we will have further discussions on this. Uh to your motion, councelor.

Uh so, I'll make that in the form of a motion.

Motion to table was made. Second and we're and authorize the chair to work with corporation council to come up with some type of resolution.

James, do you have all that?

Got it. Okay. M motion made by council Kadim, second by vice president Dion.

All in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Thank you all. Have a good night.

Thank you. Item number six is a resolution to convene to discuss changing the roles and titles of the committee on real estate to the committee on real estate facilities and housing and the committee on human services, housing, youth, elder and veterans affairs to the committee on veterans, youth, elder affairs and human services adopted 11:25 2025.

Um and we have a draft ordinance in front of us uh for review. My understanding is corporation council has looked at it for fact and form and motion or recommend uh that the proposed ordinance be passed through first reading.

Motion made to pass through first reading by council kim. Second by councel. All those in favor.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn the committee on ordinances made by council kim. Second by vice president dion. All those in favor? I the eyes have it. Committee on ordinances is adjourned.

My over

hey,

Hey, hey, hey.