6.23.26 Fall River City Council - Ordinances and Legislation

The city council committee on ordinances legislation will be called to order. It is 501 on June 23rd. Cler call the role please.

Councel Kadim here. Councel Daniel here.

Vice President Dion here.

Councelor Pere here.

Chair Reposa 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 such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one is citizens input in which we have none.

Item number two is the minutes for the May 6, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve made by council Canuel, second by vice president Dion.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item 2B is the minutes for the May 26, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion made by councel, second by vice president Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred to the committee on 692026.

Pitman Street East 110 110 ft south of Webster. Richmond Street West 196 ft north of Cambridge. Smith Street West 268 ft south of Warren Street. Stanley Street north 45 ft east of Madison Street. Wade Street south 80 feet west of Fifth Street. Woodman Street north 292 feet west of King Street. Director of traffic and parking. You want to come down and join us for a few moments?

Hello, Miss MacArthur.

Stephanie MacArthur, director of traffic and parking.

Any questions from the committee?

Motion for emergency preamble.

Second.

Motion for emergency preamble made by councelor Kade. Second by councel. Roll call.

On the emergency preamble, um councelor Kadim, yes.

Councelor Canuel, yes. Vice President Dion, yes.

Councelor Ferrer, yes.

Chair Repzo, yes.

Motion passes.

Motion to pass through all readings.

Second.

Motion to pass through all readings made by councelor Kadim. Second by councelor Canuel. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number four is a proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred to the committee on 52626 and 6926.

Section one, parking prohibited during certain hours on Hyliff Street East, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 am to 3 p.m. Hy Street West, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 to 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Locus Street North, 658 ft east, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m.

to 3 p.m. And Locust Street, 658T East, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 300 pm.

I have a question.

Yes, Vice President Dion. Well, she can go first. It's been council prayer.

Is this just because of the school for diamond?

Yep. It's for the no school.

Should it be from September to June?

I mean, that is something that if the ordinance committee wants to because in the summertime they're not back and forth. I get the traffic.

Yeah, absolutely. It's mainly for because of the placement of the new school being so far back at that bend at Hyestin and Locust, right?

What's going to happen is the teachers park out on the street. So, if they're parking out in that portion, the buses are not going to be able to make it out where they're going to be entering and exiting.

I know Superintendent uh Bentley has told teachers not to park there and students not to park there because it's an easier way when they get out of school to run to their car and and they're more concerned with parents doing drop off and pickup where the school's going to be placed at that point.

All right. I just think if you did it during the school year for or do you just think that people will get accustomed to it and never back there that if we take I'm sure I'm sure that it's it's mainly for the teachers and the parents. So it's not going to be for the neighborhood people. So even if the signage does read September through, you know, June, I don't think it's going to

make a difference for the neighborhood per se. Um so we can we can absolutely put that on the signage. That's not a problem. Okay.

I would second that. I make a motion we amend that to have from June 30th to September 1st.

I would do September 1st to June 30th.

Sure.

Yeah. Or Yeah, we can do September 1st to June 1st.

So, not just the times that you can pos the times you can.

Okay. I agree.

So, motion made to amend section one to include from September to June. These are the ordinances from September 1st to June 30th.

Yes.

Made second.

Second. Second. Discussion on the amendment.

Roll call.

Roll call on the amendment. Councelor Kadim.

Yes.

Councelor Kanual.

Yes.

Vice President Dion.

Yes.

Councelor Pereira.

Yes.

Uh Chair Ruposa.

No.

Motion passes. Okay.

Further motion on section one.

Motion adopt.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt as amended.

Yep. Second made by council Kim. Second by Vice President Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it. Section two. 15minute parking South Main Street East 76 feet north of Sle Street. Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 900 pm. Miss MacArthur, can you speak on this, please?

Yeah. So, this is for 1552 South Main Street, AP Convenience Store. Uh, so time signage outside of the store.

Vice President Dia.

So, Sunday 7 a.m. to 900 p.m. Oh, okay.

I see. Um, how many 76 feet allows for how many cars?

So, we usually do about 20 feet per space, but because of where the space is at. Yeah.

It's not a that's not a at that point in the street, not really congested. It's before the bank and Yeah. So, yeah.

Okay. Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Yeah. I um councils, it would be appropriate to make a motion to split these up into sections please.

Motion.

Second motion made by councel annual. Second by vice president Dion to split out sections one, two, and three. All those in favor?

I oppose. The eyes have it.

Motion to adopt section two.

Motion to adopt section two made by Vice President Dion.

Second.

Second by council. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it. Section three is handicap parking removals.

Abian street west 30t south of Downing Street. Bowen Street West 160 ft south of Charles Street. Brow Street north 143 feet east of Fifth. Center Street North 147 ft west of South Main. Kellogg Street West 392 ft north of Hamlet.

Lewis Street east 30t north of Slade.

Merchant Street north 27 ft west of 18th Street. Montgomery Street south 111 ft east of Robeson Street. North Main Street West 20t south of Weaver Street.

North Main Street west 144 feet north of Mariner Street. Excuse me. North Underwood Street west 206 feet north of Weedo Street. Oxford Street west 143 ft south of Warren Street. Quesan Street west 255 ft south of County Street.

South Main Street west 283 ft south of Woodman Street and Walnut Street north 127 feet west of Lynen Street.

Motion to pass through ordinance first through first reading. Motion to pass through. First reading made by Vice President Dion, second by councelor Pereira. Any discussion?

Just section three.

Section three.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Any oppos? The eyes have it.

Thank you, Miss MacArthur.

Have a great night.

Do we need to um also pass section one and two through three as amended?

We did that. We did that.

That is okay. Item number five on our agenda this evening is the proposed ordinance to amend 62-2C solid waste collection disposal generally speaking referred to the committee on 69 20226.

I will invite attorney Thomas Town to the table and Mr. Alivera please. And if the city administrator wants to come and join us feel free.

Are we missing J?

I don't think so.

Hiding over there.

Welcome folks. If you could introduce yourselves to the committee please.

Al all of our director of city operations.

Matt Thomas, special counsel for the city.

Ann O'Neal Soua, interimm city administrator.

Thank you, Attorney Thomas. Welcome. If you could uh speak to the committee on this proposed ordinance, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the committee. So, before you, you have an amendment uh to chap to section 62 C of the city ordinance. Now, as you know, we've we're in the process of uh negotiating and executing a new solid waste contract for the next two years with an option of one additional year.

Um and we've anticipated coming down with significant ordinance changes in whole and in mass um that respond to some of the concerns that the council's raised over the past years. We're bringing this down by itself because this affects the contract a little bit.

So um over the years there's been much debate as to whether five and six unit residentials are really residential or whether they're commercial. And that's happened with the the larger units. What we're proposing is to amend the ordinance um and this is the language that's different. It changes it to to four dwelling units per parcel as shown on the city of Fall River Assesses map as amended as opposed to the current

language which says six units up to six units. So what does that mean practically?

Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average person uh creates about 1,800 pounds of solid waste a year. That's the national average. Of that, about 600 pounds goes into recycling. About 1,200 pounds goes into disposal. If we assume three persons per unit, because some units only have one people, some only have five. There are 700 six-unit residentials in the city, of which about

75% receive solid waste collection from the city. There are 305 units of which 75 receive solid waste. If we convert to tons because that's a big easier number.

The city disposes 30,000 tons a year of solid waste.

The six units by being pulled out of this uh ordinance would account for 2,800 tons of recycling, 6,000 tons of disposal.

the five units by coming out of the ordinance would account for 985 tons of recycling, 2,000 tons of disposal. So just in the fives and sixes, we're talking about 3,700 tons of recycling and about 8,000 tons of solid waste. The way the ordinance is written though, it's by assessor's parcel. And so we have these things called they're classified as 109's, two buildings to one property. There were four of them

that would no longer qualify. Those four are located at 70 790 Child Street.

There is a three family and a six family on that property under common ownership.

286 Pine Street, there's a three and a six on the same property under common ownership. 2119 Kilborn, there's a three and a six under common ownership. And 19 Danforth, there are actually two six units on that property under common ownership. Those account for about 70 tons of disposal and about 34 tons of recycling. So at the end of the day by passing this amendment we would be reducing

and in an estimated fashion because you know the proof is in the pudding so to speak or here it's in the the bins. Um we would be reducing about 8,000 tons of solid waste which if you consider we dispose of 30,000 tons. That's about 26% of what we're disposing. We'd also be re reducing about 3,800 tons of recycling.

Now, we don't know this for exact these are estimates based on what's happening.

And so, how would this work? The current the contract we're negotiating has a transition provision in it that says they are to continue to collect sixes until 30 days after the ordinance is amended.

um in which case that gives us permission and time to notify all of them and get them on private um disposal.

It also we've also looked at it from an enforcement side. As you know, we've always had challenges on recycling on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Those are the days that go to Lewon Street. Monday, Wednesday, Friday is direct to zero waste in Rochester.

What we have found through beginning to cross reference, and this is something we're starting to do, is that probably 50 to 60% of our violations in contamination are coming out of fives and sixes. Now, I'm not trying to cast dispersions on them. It's because a in a lot of instances, they're absentee owners and the tenants there just are not abiding by what should happen. It makes it tough because we notify and we

cite the owner. The owner's got to pass that down to the tenants. it's among other tenant landlord tenant problems they have. But this will also help us with our enforcement.

Um just as an aside, the contract negotiations are going very well. We've met twice. I anticipate having final drafts to be signed by the mayor and the uh corporation council probably by the end of this week. Um, we're basically basic right now the discussions have been on minor technical issues here and there, but all in all, it's going well.

It'll be a two-year contract with a one-year option, and then hopefully during that period of time, we'll been able to uh restructure how solid waste is reviewed internally. We'll have statistics to go out on a more informed basis, and the enforcement and education will have gotten better, too. It's been a long path that we've been at this now for about five years.

About for me, well, for you, but for me, five years.

And I would like on behalf of the administration to thank the counselors who have been part of the process. Um, especially councelor Dion who was on the selection committee. Were you on the selection committee? And councelor Pereira who was on the selection committee committ and on the solid ways committee.

And we appreciate this. This is it's one of the basic services that a government is supposed to provide. when you really think about it's public safety and public health and this is the public health side. So we don't believe that the amendment is going to adversely affect anybody really that badly in a way that didn't happen already when we already went down from the eights to the sixes and we went and uh stopped

collecting the commercials. Um we don't really see a major reduction in the cost of collection because you still have to drive down the street. we will see a reduction in the cost of disposal associated with it. Um I can answer any questions you have.

Vice President DM two things. So my first question is when you say um per parcel um offer on Roberson Street but it's I can't think of the street that goes across that it's on the corner of I can't think the name escapes me at this moment. Piff, Robersonson and and Tmont Jacuma Tmont.

Tmont the four the four sets of units.

Correct.

Those are all on separate apostles.

Now it was my understanding and I could be wrong because I specifically looked at that one.

Yeah. But it's my understanding and I could be wrong that somehow they either there's something that all of those units let's call them or buildings um I don't know if it's the sewer line it's something they share in common that they cannot be split up right so if somebody wanted to subdivide they can't right so the issue we needed to draw and I know what you're talking or there's some form of easement

and I will take another look at that one okay specifically because when I drive up Robersonson Street, I see that. Yeah.

Okay. And I I wonder about that.

The issue is we needed some way to demarcate the parcels. The assessor's maps are the way we normally do it. Now, you could own two assessors maps side by side and they're not merged. They're separate ownership. And I think that's what the situation is there on Roberson.

And so, we're doing it by parcels. And that's why the 109's get brought under it where you've got two on the same property. Even if they share utilities and things like that, it's separate ownership still. They may share they may have easements that benefit each other, but theor theoretically under the law, it's still separate ownership and the separate part taxable parcels. If I was

to apply for an abatement on one, it wouldn't necessarily get me an abatement on the other one. I'd have to treat as four separate abatements.

We're using the assessor's maps because that's what we're basing our taxation on. That's what we're basing everything on. It's a a good rule to follow um in order to create new parcels. The assessors can do it, but they need the input from engineering. Um so it's it's it's a good bright line rule.

Yeah. I I would appreciate though if you would take one. Um and I'm not believe me saying you're wrong at all because I have not honestly looked at it in a long time. But I was I've always been under the impression that it was all owned by the same person, but they may be entities, but it may be four separate assessors parcels, right? So, it's not by common ownership.

And the reason I didn't go with common ownership is you could have I could own a house and my wife and I could own the property next door in a trust. Okay?

Then we're getting into all these bad these it's much too complicated to figure out what it is by doing it by what's on the ground. It's a lot easier and so I will look at it though. I promise.

No, it makes sense to me. But yeah, I would appreciate that. You know what? It is what it is. I'll look at it. Um, and then my second thing is I think and I know it's not there's one woman in particular when I say this it's not popular with her and I understand it but where six families are going going to be taken off of the trash role and nobody's

going to have an option they're going to have to privatize. Um, I would like to again say that I would support owner occupied to be excluded because you don't have the absentee landlord issue. You have somebody who's on the premises who's responsible and who we easily can if they mess up we can we can let them know if they mess up a second we can start you know institute a third strike rule.

So I can I can look at that. Um, we are the third strike rule. We are going to be coming back to you where if you get three violations in a 12-month period, you're off.

You lose your ability to get solid waste. We have to put some teeth into this.

Uh, if we have any hope of trying to get this under control. Uh the concern I have with that and we've looked at this uh many many years ago when councelor Kadim was on the other side of the table. We looked at this with building blocks and we're looking at absentee landlords versus landlords that live there on the property. It is very difficult under the law to make a distinction that is not a prejuditial

distinction if somebody owns it or if they live on the property. And that's why if we were to accept it out based on somebody being there, we would open up ourselves to an argument from an absentee landlord who says, "I have a manager who lives on there, who lives in the first unit, and they act as the super for the building, and they're just as good as if I lived there. They're

better than if I lived there." So, I clearly understand that. I would tend to suggest that we not go that way only because I think it would open us up to a lot of other issues. Um, most of the places that have reduced numbers down haven't really had an exception for that.

Okay.

As much as you want to help the people that have bought a house, they have their family living in it. They're doing the right thing.

Residents who support the city, etc.

And I can clearly understand that. I just think that it's very difficult to enforce something like that in a way that doesn't violate statutes.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I yield.

And just a question to you, uh, counselor, as far as the teeth to that amendment, when do we expect that? I would anticipate probably in August.

Okay. And are you writing that ordinance?

Yes, I am, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, let me ask you with input from the law department. I mean, and everybody else that's given us ideas. Some of them have come from the counselors. So, there has been stuff in there. And you'll see it's going to be a little bit different, but I am writing it.

Thank you, Council Per.

I'm not in favor of it.

Of what?

Of doing this for six families, five families, and six families. Okay. So, I have a single family home. I have a two family home. I pay my taxes. My trash gets picked up. She's got a five family home. You've got a six family home. You got to pay. You pay your taxes, but you've got to pay for your trash, too. I don't think that's equitable. I don't think that's fair. I think the bottom

line is, and nobody's going to like it, but I'm going to say it. We need to do something with trash citywide. the city's budget cannot afford. What's the budget that What's your contract that you're working on? I heard it's between 9 and 11 million.

It's in that range. It all depends. You have to remember, council, if I can answer respond to that.

The last contract we got was 10 years ago and it was written for pay as you throw.

I agree.

The day the city went from pay as you throw, if I was Mr. Marula, I would have walked in and said, "I'm done. I default the contract." You defaulted the contract. the numbers have changed radically.

And he didn't and he didn't. The issue that we're facing in the increased numbers is if you look at the um the um wages the um prevailing wage numbers that were attached to that contract 10 years ago and you're going to look at the ones that are attached now, you're seeing postcoid sticker shock.

I agree.

Okay. Now on that point though, I understand what you're saying. It doesn't seem fair.

No, it doesn't. But if you have an 8-unit, if you have a 12 unit, if you have an apartment building, you're still paying your taxes and you're still providing solid waste for yourself. If you have a condominium, single family condominium in a condo association, you're still providing your own you're paying a a fee for for solid waste collection. Oh, so if you own a condo, you're paying a fee,

a monthly fee for everything. For somebody to come and take care of the lawn, for somebody to shovel the snow, and for somebody to pick up the trash.

Yeah. You pay for everything. That's what a condo fee is. So, if you don't want to do that, you don't buy a condo because you know that that's in there. I just think this is unfair to me. I like the three strikes and you're out. Whoever it is, if you're not putting your trash out the way you're supposed to, you get three notices. After the third notice, they empty the trash and they take the

barrel. Then you have to go and get private. And if you go and get private, now you can say to your tenants, and I no longer own a six family. I did, but I don't own it. So, I'm not fighting. I just want to say that because I'll have somebody on Facebook saying she owns a six family. No, I don't. However, I I just think it's not fair. Do you really

want to live in a six family or would you prefer to live in a two family with less people or a one family? You know what I mean? And their rent's going to go up if the landlord has to pay for trash disposal. You don't think that the tenants are going to take a hit on that?

They are.

And our tenants are taking a hit even though our rents are still lower than New Bedford and and Lowel, etc. But I just think there's a better way to do this. Either we do this or we look at what it is for trash. I was in the Azoros, a little tiny section, Agora, small, maybe there's 800 people living there. They pay for water, they pay for trash. Every community around us does

that. I'm not saying gouge people, but if this is a problem, then the whole community needs to solve this problem.

And it is a problem. And Morola didn't do anything until he they came in and wanted more money on their contract when they went to uh what is it up in New Bedford?

Capital.

What is that?

Capital.

No, not Crapo. When they went to Crapo because they were going to Republic right in F River on Airport Road, a truck would go by, dump, come back. Now they have to go up to Crapo, come back.

They had to buy another truck or two to keep it going where they have trash out by five o'clock. I mean, I've been in talking to trash people for a long time.

But we need to bite the bullet and do something. We This city budget cannot afford to take $11 million out of the budget just for trash. I mean, my colleagues talk about things like our clerks don't get paid enough, you know, but we're spending all this money. I just don't think this is fair.

I get it.

However it goes, it goes. But the call I received, and I think councelor Dion probably received the same one. A woman who lives in a six family, every unit has one person. She puts out one barrel for trash and one recycling every week.

So, is it going to be cheaper for her to get somebody to come and pick it up?

I would argue she's the exception, not the rule.

Well, maybe she is the exception. and we can't write an ordinance based on we try to account for the exception. Let me just respond to two points. You're well within your rights to take your position. It's fine. I don't think it's unfair. I think it's a cost of owning a property. Secondly, your point about the Azors. Statistically, Europe produces per person half as much solid waste as

America does. We're a disposable society.

We are. And we have been trying and we will continue to try. Working with the schools, working with everybody else for waste diversion. Your point about it being a budget buster is well taken.

Solid waste is going to be the budget buster in going into the future for every municipality. If you look at New Bedford and Dartmouth, they're fortunate to have Crapo Hill.

Yep.

But there there are not other communities that are like that.

So this is going to be something that's going to cost. There will be some issues. We can always revisit this if we have to. Um, I really do strongly suggest that we've given this a lot of thought. This is not a bareborn notion by any means. And so I would strongly suggest that it makes sense to do it and work through it and try to deal with issues in another way.

Well, I'm more from the then the the point of if people are not disposing things the way that they should and they're getting cited, then remove you empty the trash that third time and remove the barrier, then they have to go do it. So, everybody is being treated the same way. You know, I have a single family home and what if I'm living with, you know, three other I mean, I have

somebody who the daughter and three children moved in with the parents. They want another barrel. Oh, they really can't get a barrel or whatever. One of the kids is in diapers. But if they're not recycling, they're going to get penalized and the barrel will be removed. Yes, there are little incidents here and there and every every detail is different. But I say if you're not following the rules, then there's a

consequence. And I think that's what's wrong with society. Rules are broken and very seldom do we get the consequences that people need to get. I just don't think it's fair. And I would rather have it where they're penalized that way.

Gotcha.

Just my thought. And also, we need to do something with trash.

Yeah.

With that, I yield.

Vice President Z.

So I guess my question would be 10 years ago and I I to and to a certain point I agree with you. I do to a certain point but I think I'm also looking at it as 10 years ago what percent of the multifamilies were owned by people who lived in the city versus today. There's been a big move today. We know that people from outside have come in and scooped up the property. The properties

have gone the values have gone through the roof because of it with 79 coming.

train being here. Um, I don't think we're in the same situation. I don't know what the percentage is. I don't know what the percentages percentage of absentee landlords is. And I don't know what the percentage of conglomerates who have come in and bought multiple multifamilies is. But I think that is kind of like um what has shifted the conversation. Um these people all from out of town and don't care. they're just

wor they just want to come in, make their money, get their rents, and everybody's happy. And I think for me that has shifted it and does make a difference. Um, you know, again, it's it's tough decisions are what's going to solve it and what's going to fix it. Um, I mean, I personally would have no problem with paying X number of dollars a month. It's cheaper than getting a private hauler. I I can guarantee that.

But um you know we we work with what we have I suppose. But with that I yield.

Council Kadim, can you just the the only question I have is the savings. So the 8,000 uh tons in trash and the 3,000 tons of recycling. What's what's that equate to for a savings?

Fig about $125 a ton in disposal.

Mhm.

For the first year, that number is 125 for the first year, 13250 for the second year, 143 for the third year. That includes recycling too or No, that's only on the solid waste. Um the recycling is 115 for the first year unless it's contaminated. So we're we're actually on the cusp of not having to do Tuesday, Thursday the way we've been doing. If Tuesday, Thursday recycling is 135 a ton. Uh Monday, Wednesday, Friday

is 115.

So, um, it's 115 and then I think it goes up to 120 and then 126 I think is what the numbers are.

So, it's about a million dollars. So, just about it's it's not ins.

Yeah.

It's not an insubstantial number and it also will help us on the enforcement side because as we're seeing and I'm not trying to be porative against people that own sixes or fives. I grew up in a multi myself when I was younger. It's just we're seeing it happen more and more that the enforcement issues have been difficult there.

And you know, I'm not saying that the best way to enforce is just to stop doing it, get rid of them, but it will help us. And you know, we can always revisit these things, but right now I really think it makes sense.

So from the I think my colleague had mentioned 9 to1 million for the cost of the contracts.

Mhm.

And that's annually.

Well, yeah. So, the thing is this, the way this contract is bid, you've got um and I apologize, I don't have those numbers with me, but you've got four things that they're providing.

They're providing solid waste collection and disposal. They're providing recycling collection and disposal.

They're providing bulky waste collection and disposal. And they're providing yard waste, bulking yard waste collection, disposal. So, the collection pieces are all fixed costs. the disposal pieces are all based off of whatever that cost is and that changes from year to year. Um, so I apologize council. I don't have that number off the top of my head.

No, but I mean it's just you're in the right the quick math between the two assuming that it's not contaminated about $1.3 million. So that comes off so annually 1.3 million. So you're knocking that 9 to1 million by 1.3 just by reducing it from six families down to a four family. Exactly. And the contract is written such that they recognize that there that there is waste diversion

efforts happening and waste minimization e efforts happening and we are not guaranteeing them a disposal price. Um the collection price isn't going to go down because they still have to drive down the street but they will not charge us more on the disposal side. They will not and what they've done is it's a two with a one-year option. for the one-year option. They've already secured the

disposal costs and their contract on that is that if the city picks up the option for that third year, they have to deliver it to Republic and this is their cost. So, we we have fixed costs throughout this as best as we can um for right now. But yeah, you're right.

That's that's a that's pretty good estimate.

Okay, I yield. Thank you, Council Per.

I have another question.

Sure. If people are going to have to get privates, is there going to be something in the ordinance where the city is divided in four sections where these trucks are going to come at certain times to certain areas or are they just going to run free throughout the city?

No. No. That would be between them and the private sector if they were going to get privates.

If there were an ordinance in place privates pick up the same day as the city pick up the same day as the city now. So are the are privates going to know that?

Well, that's why we've got the 30 days.

That's the idea is that as you go through your process, we'll be working our way through this.

Okay.

And if we have to delay the implementation by a little bit to make sure that it's implemented in a way that works, we'll delay it.

Point of information, if I can help out on this one, council vice president because I have had so when we when this whole debacle, that's what I call it started 10 years ago. I switched to private and I was like I am not getting off of private until the city straightens everything out because so I did do that and you can choose whatever company you want. At the time I chose it

was Cleanway. It's not Cleanway any longer. They've been bought out so I can say that.

Um and yes, they they pick up the same day as as as um as the city.

Um and they've actually been very good.

But I can tell you that whatever the city would charge if they chose to say per unit everybody pays x amount of dollars would be far less than what you pay a private. Um they're very good. Um they've since been bought out. They operate on a different holiday schedule that though like for instance Junth the city didn't pick up the private did.

Sometimes the holiday schedule is the same but other than the holiday schedule it's it's exactly the same. So, and they would follow that.

Council Prairie, you have the floor.

No. And they would follow that. Thank you. With that, I yield.

Anything else from the committee?

Is there a recommendation on the committee?

Recommend the ordinance be passed. I recommend the ordinance be passed through first reading.

Motion made by councelor Canuel to pass through first reading. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by councelor Kadeim. Any discussion?

Roll call.

Roll call.

Roll call to pass through first amendment. Councelor Kadim, yes.

Councelor Kual, yes.

Vice President Dion, yes.

Council Per, no.

Chair Roza, yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

To the committee. We have Madame Clerk here if we would like to entertain possible motion to take item eight out of order. Motion. O motion take item A out of voter.

Second.

Motion made by councelor Canuel, second by vice president Dion. All those in favor.

Opposed. The eyes have it. Item number eight is the proposed ordinance amending 50-303 the salary schedule for political appointments and boards and committees referred to to the committee on 692026 for the public's edification. The um title that we are discussing is the assistant clerk of the council.

And we have our city clerk here. Good evening, madame clerk. If you want to just introduce yourself for the committee please.

Sure.

Initiate city clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Molini.

Nick Molini, director of human resources.

To the to madam clerk, I'll let you speak on what this is about.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, so historically, the um assistant city clerk has always attended um city council meetings. Um, there hasn't been a stipen or salary. um uh attached to the um assistant clerk of council position, which the assistant city clerk also serves as um and with my uh recent absence from the council, you know, the uh question did come up as to

why that had never been the case. And I thought it'd be the fair thing to do to um propose that a stipen also be um established for the assistant city clerk who um attends all meetings um and um serves in my capacity in my absence.

Motion to recommend first reading.

Second.

Motion to pass through first reading made by councelor Kade, second by council. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any oppose? The eyes have it.

Thank you, madam clerk.

Item number six needs a motion to lift from the table. Motion.

Motion made by councelor Kadim, second by vice president to lift from the table. All those in favor? Any oppos?

The eyes have it. Item number six this evening is a proposed ordinance for salary amendments for the director of health and human services which was tables as amended on 428 2026.

Mr. Molini, would you like to speak first before I recognize the council members?

Yeah, I don't really think I have too much to add. you were waiting on information from me from the last time just with uh comps on how many employees um surrounding communities health directors supervised. So I did send that out um early in June uh with just a list of FTEEs.

Yes. Thank you, Miss Mley. Council Canuel.

Uh I just have one amendment that I'd like to make given how much time has passed. I'd like to make a motion to change the effective date of this change from 112026 to 712026.

Is that a form of a motion counc motion made by councelor Canuel, second by vice president Dion to amend the effective date um at the end of the proposed ordinance from 1120 2026 to 712026.

Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the amendment?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The eyes have them.

Motion that the ordinance be passed through first reading as amended. Motion made to pass through first reading as amended made by councelor Canuel. Second by v by president try that again by councelor Pereira. Any discussion?

All those in favor.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number seven is a proposed ordinance amending 50-301. It's a salary schedule for executive officers, department heads, and non-union personnel. Referred to the committee on 692026.

Mr. Malini, please.

Thank you. So, uh, this had come up during the budget process. Um, I think during the budget process, hard to pinpoint exactly when at this point about the salaries that have exceeded the ordinance, um, due to cost of living increases. So, what you're seeing here is we identified um those positions that were exceeded the ordinance as of when this was sent down um due to the ask me that these employees have typically

followed. Um and then the positions that would exceed it come 7126 based on the 2.5% cola that uh they follow with ask me. So what we did was we took those positions, we took their current salary and added 2.5%. So the intent of this was not to do large increases. This was literally just to catch everybody up to follow with that cola for 71 um 26. So this the amounts that you're seeing here

are exactly what they would be as of the additional 2 and a.5% on 7126. It's still our intent to come back to you with a a complete restructure of these salaries with mechanisms in place so that we're not exceeding ordinance whether that be an escalator or steps um or steps that follow a defined cola every year so that we're not running into this problem every two every three years. But what we didn't want to see

was people uh either lose money or um you know start to get impacted by inflation. The the idea of a cost of living adjustment is to help keep them from losing money every year. So when the budget came down before you, anyone um that was over that uh not to exceed amount stayed at that not to exceed amount. Anyone who would go over it as of 7126 was frozen at at that cap. So,

you'll see some didn't get that full 2 and a half% um some it may have been $50, some it may have been a couple hundred, but we just we kept into that cap um in hopes that we could work with you to get this through now as a band-aid solution until that full restructure comes down to you.

Thank you, Council Can.

Thank you. So his the position we just passed through first reading or recommended pass through first reading.

The director of health and human services. You did comps for that position showed us, you know, why that should be amended. Um I think we should be doing the same methodology for all of these positions. I don't know that we should just be arbitrarily raising it without conducting the same equivalent comp looks as well. I think um I understand what you did and how you did it, but I I can't get on board with the

methodology here that we're just going to add 2 and a half% from where someone's at because what the market may pay for any of these positions. I don't know what the market pays. I think we should be looking at that before we say yes, we should improve it. No, we we should not. So, uh with that, I can't support this right now. Uh I think, you know, looking across this, some of these

are only moving on, you know, $154.

Others are moving $4,000. that's it's kind of all over the place and I think it just based on the methodology that you've applied here but I personally would like to see you know I think just for any of these positions um equivalent comps as well and what the market's paying and to you know I I don't know I I don't know the context of whether or not these numbers are appropriate you

know moving one of these $154 may you know may not be appropriate with the market maybe I don't know um so with that I'll yield to what my other colleagues have to say.

Thank you, councel.

I'll make a motion to table to We have still council to speak. Vice President Dion.

Yeah. Well, my question was going to be so how far again and he's correct.

There's $153.95 here. Um, is that just to satisfy FY26?

Is that going so it's going to have no effect on FY27?

I'm sorry. This would be for 7126. So, it would be for FY27.

So, it's it'll satis for the whole year.

Correct.

That whole fiscal year. Correct.

Um so yeah, and I guess that was my concern. Um when do you when do you think you're going to be prepared um for us to have a a full picture um something substantial to to consider? Um and and I will say right off the bat, I I'm not sure I'm okay with an escalator. Um, I think an escalator just makes it possible for it to just keep going up and up and up without necessarily coming

back to the council. The do not exceed is a solid number. Um, steps is a different issue, but an escalator I can I don't know that I'm on board with that unless somebody can explain it differently than what I'm thinking. Um, I mean, you know, next next week is fiscal year 2027.

So, obviously to to be in line um these changes need to be made again. We're back to and it happens all the time.

Okay, next week it changes. So, this week we have to vote on it and we've been waiting months to discuss this.

Drives me crazy. Um, so yeah, when so when can we have a more comprehensive plan? When can you come back and say, "Okay, not to exceed this is what we're looking for. This is what we'd like to see. This is what we'd like to see the numbers uh set at so we have something more concrete to deal with." Yes, is my question.

To councelor Canuel's point, I think part of this is that we want to do an analysis on all of these positions. And if we do what we what we think we would like to do here with a type of gridlike system that factors in longevity, uh I think it's going to take a little while for us to look at where positions line up on that grid with like positions here, uh comparables outside of the

city. So I do think this is going to be a little bit of time, which is why we were coming down first with the band-aid approach so that no one was losing money. Um but I I mean I'm going to be honest with you. I think this is going to take a little bit of time and right now there's just so I but I guess that's my question.

What is a little bit of time? Is a little bit of time a month, two months, three months, six months? What's a little bit of time?

I would say a few months. I can't give you a a hard deadline for that.

At the max at yeah the absolute max. I would like to be down here before that.

So we're saying 3 to 6 months. So we'll be halfway through FY27 before we have any resolution to this. I mean, I think part of this is that we know that there's going to be some work to do once it comes to this table. Again, to to your point on the escalators, that may not be the best system and there may be some limitations that we need to put in as part of whatever ordinance change we

do to keep that from ballooning. That's the other thing was we don't want salaries to come in and start ballooning once we, you know, do those comparables that we can't just come in and have there be an increase of 10, 20, $30,000.

It's got to be done in a um logical manner. So, um, yeah, I mean, if a few months if we could come down and and this at least gets us through where everyone's at the two and a half% for all of um 20 FY27 budget, it gives us a little bit of time to do this the right way.

I mean, I feel like time has been wasted already that there has been time. I feel like we've been having this discussion for months already. Um, I feel like we've had this discussion in the past. So that kind of bothers me a little bit when we're talking another three to six months yet.

Um but for now I'll yield. Thank you, Council Kadim.

Thank you. So I support what's before us and I I hear what my colleague saying and I I don't disagree. Um the problem is is I I I think 3 to six months is an aggressive approach. I I think when you start looking at human services and the staffing levels, I mean, how many folks do you have in human resources?

Uh five.

Five. Right. So, you're doing payroll benefits, you're doing negotiations. So, to find a time to actually truly do a uh a valid uh comp study on on all these salaries, especially with positions that may not be um in other communities, is is a challenge, right? So, I I would say at least a minimum of a year to be able to get it. And I and I don't disagree.

We've been talking about this for a while. Uh but it's a significant undertaking. If it's going to be done properly, you'd have to go right through this. So um you know one one thing I would I would suggest is that maybe we try to outsource this as opposed to having to do it internally. Um, so I I would suggest that the administration look at hiring a community I mean an

organization to come in just do a comp study on all our positions, right? Even our union positions as well. Um, and come back down to the council for some funding mechanism on on that so that we can just do it once and for all because we've talked about this on the union side, we've talked it about for the non-union. I think that needs to be done and it's um it's a very comprehensive uh

work that needs to to get done. It it takes a while. I mean, just one of these positions will take you anywhere from two to three weeks to to get done. So, just take that, multiply it by the number of positions that we currently have. And and the and the hardest part is is waiting to get responses from other communities. Uh, a lot of communities are not responsive in terms of what they're paying for salaries and

things of that nature. So, it just becomes a challenge. So, I'll support this, but I I'd also just urge the administration to come up with a game plan moving forward. Uh, and if there's funding that's needed, come back down to the council. and I for one will support that endem that endeavor uh to get you what you need to to get this kind of rectified and back down to the ordinance committee. Without a yield

and and I'll echo my colleague as well.

I mean my anticipation would be this would be in place for the FY28 budget at that point. So this way any changes or things that need to be had will be ready for that point. So council at Canuel.

So just back to the methodology that you're applying you said it was 2 and a half% right or is it different two and a half% So like if I pick the administrative assistant of code enforcement right now is a not to exceed a 53 32427 the increase that's listed here would amount to 7% higher than where it is today from the current salary.

Uh from the current not to exceed.

So you're saying the current salaries exceeded earlier? Yes.

Okay.

Okay. Council lady.

So, um I'm thinking what if we um agreed to this, voted yes for this um with the amendment or caveat that the administration get back to us sooner than later with a plan so that we know something is in place. and that we will be moving forward and I put that in some form of a motion if somebody wants to figure it out.

With that I yield.

I think my recommendation we we could we could you could file a resolution for the committee to maybe in six months discuss the current progress of that of that system possibly for salary study. for a salary study six months just have a discussion on moving forward with a salary study or or see where they are in the process.

Could I could we avoid that if I commit to update you by the end of summer on where we're at instead of doing a resolution or an amendment that this is something that we want to do and it's the will of the committee.

I'd be okay with that. Yeah. A I guess I'm looking for some type of commitment, something more solid than what we've had so far. Yes. I I I would be amicable to that. With that, I yield.

Council prayer.

I would rather have an outside firm come in and look at everybody from top to bottom. Our clerks, our union, our non-union. You and I have spoken, Nick, about how we have lost people because salaries are greater elsewhere. And someone will start here. We'll do all the training and do everything and then they leave us. So, I think that's important. And if you can't do that with just the people in your office, I would

say within a month, let us know what administration and I would I would put this to to the interim uh city clerk. In a month, let us know what the mayor's decision is on that because we could certainly fund something like that to do straight across the board.

Thank you. As councelor Kadim mentioned, it is a daunting task, especially when you have to do comps, right, with cities comparable to the size and with Nick's department, it it is difficult. What he's done already and just prepared the sheet of all the positions and the different ideas of whether it be escalators or grade levels has taken a lot of time to get done. So, can you just pass that within a month?

Yes.

Let us know. send a letter to the committee.

We've also looked at software too, potentials for software that are available that may make the task a lot easier as well.

I think that'll help us when we look at these individual ones, but definitely an outside consultant to do a full study would would be a very good solution.

Absolutely.

With that, I yield.

Anything else from the committee?

Motion to pass the first reading.

Motion to pass the first meeting made by council kadim. Second by council prayer.

Any discussion?

Roll call.

We'll call to pass through first reading. Councel can uh Kadim, yes.

Councelor Canuel, no.

Uh, Vice President Dion, yes.

Council Perau, yes.

Chair Reposa, yes.

Motion passes.

There's nothing else in front of us today. M. Motion to adjourn made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councel Per. All those in favor? Any opposed?

The eyes have. And the committee on ordinance legislation is now adjourned.

Thank you. Thank