8.11.2026 City Council - Ordinances & Legislation

The City Council Committee on Ordinance Legislation will be called to order.

Clerk, call the roll please.

Councilor Kadim.

Here.

Councilor Canuel.

Here.

Vice President Dion.

Here.

Councilor Pereira.

Here.

Chair Raposo.

Here.

Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or 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 unperceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Item number 1 on tonight's agenda is citizens input.

We have none.

Item number 2 is the minutes.

I got something.

I didn't see the signing paper.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Stand by.

We'll come back.

No, you're, you're good.

Oh, that's okay.

She's cool for it.

We'll take a 1-minute recess.

This is only gonna take a second.

Meeting out of order under the legislation will be called back to order.

Item number 1 is citizen input, but we do have someone who signed up.

Alphonse Hathaway, 2036 South Main Street, Fall River.

Subject of today's citizen input is bicycle law.

Sir, you have 3 minutes.

Go ahead.

Uh, hello.

Um, under, um, Fall River has a city ordinance on bicycles on sidewalks.

Um, it bans bicycles and roller skates under Section Code 62-58 that bans all bicycles and roller skates riding on sidewalks.

Under the specific law, it states that only 16-year-olds and younger are allowed to use the sidewalks for bicycles.

Anyone older than 17 and older, it's a $10 fine.

To me, I think you should go up on the fine.

But I also drafted a new law for your bikes, uh, for the electrical bikes.

Um, you should, um, for starters, um, they're treated like a motorcycle because they go over a certain limit.

Um, the electric the batteries only charge— give you charging time.

The motors are inside the hubs of the tires.

It's still considered a motorcycle.

So if you guys pass a law stating that 16 and older to ride all electric vehicles, they ban them from riding on sidewalks, bicycle routes.

Um, you can also have them registered, insured like a motorcycle, and a licensed operator.

Um, with this, um, law, you can stop them pretty much dead in their tracks.

Now, in this situation, once you find someone that doesn't meet the requirements like a motorcycle— it has to have mirrors, lights, Directional signal lights, everything.

You gotta wear a helmet just like a motorcycle.

You gotta operate them like a vehicle because that's what they are.

They're a vehicle.

Motorcycles are vehicles.

So by doing that, passing an ordinance like that, um, you can pretty much stop them in their tracks.

Now when you do it, cops have the right to pull them over issue them a citation, a fine, which the fines can start at $100 for the first offense, $500 for the second, $1,000 and up for the third.

And after the third offense, you're looking at jail time, up to a year in jail.

For anyone that's caught under 16 and not licensed to operate one can be in trouble, and you can charge the parents for it, for endangering their child, pretty much.

So it's something that you guys might want to look up as an ordinance and draft one out so you guys can ban these electric scooters and stuff.

And you can also do the same thing with the dirt bikes too, because legally you can register a dirt bike on the road as long as it's registered, insured, and has the proper safety requirements to drive on the road, and that includes mirrors, lights, so on and so forth.

So I figured I'll give you guys a heads up.

I know I sent some of you some emails on this.

Um, I'm willing to work with you guys on this matter if you guys are interested.

I sent you guys some information on it, my email and that.

So thank you.

I'll let you guys go.

Thank you for your time.

Just wait one second.

Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, the only thing I want to say is, um, so we can't do anything that goes against state law.

Um, whether somebody— whether something's considered a motorcycle or not is determined by the RMV.

They're the ones who determine whether you need to register a vehicle or not and whether you need a motorcycle license or not.

And I don't remember the exact number, but it's over so many cc's If, if it exceeds 50 cc's, the engine, then it's considered a motorcycle.

You need a license.

If it's under 50 cc's, we can't make a law that goes against state law.

To be honest with you, a lot of these bicycles that come out, you can modify them now.

Well, modifying them is different.

Um, which all these kids, that's what they're doing nowadays.

They're modifying them because they get get the bikes from Mommy and Daddy at Walmart or wherever they get them at.

Then the kids go online, get the parts online to shoot these things up to go 60, 70 miles an hour.

So then I guess the question would become, is it legal to modify them?

Because if not, then the cops can confiscate them, right?

You guys can, um, set up ordinances on that like you guys did with the bicycles.

Understood.

Anything else?

Councilor Pereira.

Miss Alphonse, I think you bring up a good point.

We do need to look at something with electric bikes.

I know a woman that comes here frequently, um, very involved in the community.

An electric bike hit her car and totaled her car, um, and then she was charged.

She went to court, she fought it, she won.

But electric bikes are dangerous.

They're on the sidewalks with them.

And there's kind of a catch-22 when you talk about like scooters and things like that, because some kids, you know, that are 16, just, you know, 16 and a half getting their license, they have a scooter to get themselves back and forth to work, back and forth to school, or to a baseball game or something, because quite frankly they can't afford to buy a car, register it, and insure it.

So there's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

The people that don't follow the rules should be penalized, I believe the governor just put a, a bill in that had something to do with the electric bikes having to all be registered, right?

My granddaughter attends the University of Miami.

They do not allow electric bikes anywhere on campus because kids were banging into other kids and they were right, and they're basically getting hurt.

You bring up a good point and we should look into it.

But thank you so much for coming down, right?

Sharing that.

I appreciate it.

Just to let you guys know When I was in high school from '94 to '98, I used to work at Sampson's Farm up in Westport.

And when I used to leave Durfee High School, okay, as a freshman, I used to have to ride my bicycle from Durfee all the way up to Westport, 6.5-mile ride, and then another 6.5-mile ride back home.

And it wasn't electric.

I had to actually use my legwork.

To me, these electric bikes promote laziness.

No offense, but that's my opinion.

And which it does.

Some of these kids can actually walk and ride a bike, and they don't.

You know how it is.

Thank you.

Have a good one, sir.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate it.

Item number 2 is the minutes from the July 23rd, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve made by Councilor Canuel, seconded by Councilor Prior.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to lift item 3 from the table.

Second.

Motion to lift item 3 from the table made by Councilor Canuel, seconded by Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 3 is proposed ordinance for all-night parking of commercial vehicles.

It was tabled on 5/26/2026.

We'll welcome the Director of Traffic and Parking to the table.

Miss MacArthur, good evening.

Thanks.

Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Thank you so much.

Um, so who would like to speak from the committee regarding this?

Councilor Pereira.

Um, I understand that we don't want commercial vehicles, and there was already an ordinance not to have commercial vehicles, but I will tell you, since this has come out, I've gotten a few calls.

What is the tonnage of the vehicle?

Because some people have a commercial plate and it's a work van.

Um, which doesn't, you know, I mean, people have, um, vans, and if they're not commercial, but because you have lettering on your truck, it then becomes a commercial vehicle.

And they're feeling like, I can park my caravan on the street, this is the same size, although it's commercial.

Does it go based on tonnage?

And what do we do with like trailers and things like that?

Because it's difficult for people to park.

There are more cars in the city.

We've even said— Stephanie and I, I know we've talked about doing a survey of the city.

There's a lot of streets that are two-ways with parking on both sides, and you can't get back and forth.

Um, and people wanted a clearer definition of what is commercial.

Is— are we going to go just by the plate that says commercial?

Or is it going to be by commercial and the tonnage of the truck?

Is it 2-ton?

Is it 4-ton?

And who's going to measure that?

Who's going to weigh that?

Miss MacArthur?

Yep.

So, and I think that's where the complication comes about.

So everybody is under the assumption that it's a commercial plate, but the ordinance reads a commercial vehicle.

It doesn't read commercial plate.

So even if it's a regular passenger plate, if it follows the gross vehicle manufactured weight of 3,000 pounds or more, it is essentially considered a commercial vehicle.

So at that point, it can be issued the violation.

I, I mean, I will say that what we have been enforcing more so is the large box trucks, the Penske trucks, the U-Haul trucks, those types of vehicles.

I have advised the officers for the vans with commercial plates, we're not going after those types of vehicles right now.

It's, it's those those large box trucks that are taking up anywhere between 6 to 8 parking spaces.

So that's what we're looking at.

Who's going to gauge if it's 3-ton or more?

How do you know?

Is there a label on the truck that says— oh, the registry?

Yep.

So there you can get it from the registry.

It does specify the exact registered weight.

Is that vehicle— sorry, I yield.

Thank you.

I, I think one of the biggest concerns I've heard from residents is in particular if we strike out the— for a period of a time longer than 1 hour.

Let's say someone, it's the middle of winter, their heat goes out.

If it's in the summer, their AC, or they have a plumbing emergency and they have those vehicles come in and they're parked outside for, you know, sometimes that's 2 or 3 hour job.

Removing this would theoretically subject those potentially to ticketing, which could lead to those type of vendor saying I can only service Florida residents between, you know, the hours of, you know, 8 and 5 or whatever, something like that.

And that's a big concern for me.

Do you have any response to that, or— Yep.

So I mean, that was at the recommendation because it was brought to the Traffic Board from the Public Safety Committee.

So that was the recommendation of the Traffic Board.

Essentially, if we are looking to amend it, that would be the only amendment that we would recommend.

Okay.

I don't know if I'll be supporting this.

Um, just, I, I think without some carve-out for those type of situations, I don't know that I can get on board with this.

I, I don't want to see businesses, you know, for heating, HVAC, any of those things start to, you know, say to affordable residents we're not going to service them.

I don't know.

I think I would suggest— I don't know what the solution is, but going back to the drawing board, I don't think this is the solution for me.

So with that, I yield.

Vice President DeAndre, did you want to speak?

Please.

Um, so I'm just contemplating what, uh, Councilor Cano just said.

So I, I mean, could there be a carve-out, uh, in the event of an emergency situation?

Obviously, if it's in the, you know, if, if it's in the middle of winter, your heat goes out, I don't think any neighbor is going to call and say, hey, my neighbor's got a commercial vehicle parked over there, doesn't belong there, unless the park and ban in effect, then maybe not if you're on the side of the street where you're supposed to be.

No, but you know, I, I would think we could have that type of caveat, like except in an emergency situation where something has to be done.

Um, I mean, because again, no heat, that could potentially be a life-threatening situation as well.

So I think maybe we can work with that or around that.

What I was going to say before was When you open your car door, on the inside you have the different labels inside the car door that show your vehicle number and different things.

Isn't the weight listed on those stickers?

So anybody can open their car door, look at the sticker, and know the gross weight of their vehicle.

Well, now I'm going to have to check the weight of my vehicle.

I don't do any mechanic work, as you can tell.

Yeah, so yeah, there's a lot of— people don't realize how much information is actually there.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Just quickly, Councilor Kadim.

So I don't necessarily have an issue with this.

I guess the, the only thing I would look to modify is just as opposed to 1 hour, do, uh, 2 hours, because if we are concerned about the emergency component of, you know, doing the work overnight, uh, 1 hour may not be sufficient.

So I would, I would be comfortable with a 2-hour time period for that, and then anything over 2 hours be a violation.

So the only thing with that modification, and this is the issue that comes up with the police department, if an officer— obviously from the 5 PM to 7 AM, it's mainly the police department— if an officer is called to that call, doesn't mean it's going to be the same officer who's going to go back in 2 hours.

So it could essentially still be there within the 2 hours, but if it's a different officer, that clock will start again, so they won't eventually get tagged.

Were there— um, that issue is what is happening in the overnight hours with the police department when they're going to enforce it.

It's not always the same officer who goes back.

So that was the recommendation for— from the Traffic Commission to remove that completely.

Right.

So, but if you get it— if you get a call at, let's just call it 11:30, and you got the, uh, you know, you got the 8 to midnight making the shift from 12 to 8, then they're going it as well, right?

So I think at some point you're going to have that.

Um, but I, I think with the number of complaints that are coming in and, you know, the photographs and the videos of what's taking place, I think there's enough evidence to be able to prove that there's enough time.

The only thing I would say, just to, to elaborate, is if the ordinance— I guess I get, I get a little bit concerned.

I understand what we're trying to do, but if we're— if the ordinance says that it's, it's commercial vehicles and then we're treating certain commercial vehicles one way versus— and we're publicly saying it, that becomes a little bit of an issue.

So I, I would say that if we should try to figure out how we can amend the ordinance to structure it so that it's the larger vehicles, and I'm not sure, you know, what weight distribution we're going to be looking for for those vehicles, but I would, I would try to, I guess, amend it that way so that there's no concerns, right?

Because once we start having this, and then, you know, if they want to pull this, this video, you go to court and you're going to say, well, you know, they're not, they're not doing normal, anything over 3,000, but they're going for 12,000, right?

So tons.

I'm not sure what the difference is, but I just don't want the evidence to be out there that we're targeting certain sizes versus others without the ordinance actually specifically reading it that way.

So that's the only thing I would say about that.

Thank you.

Vice President Young.

Yeah, I just have one more question.

In terms of the trailers, have we looked into that anymore?

What do you mean the trailers?

The attached trailers?

Attached trailers?

Yes.

So I mean, they— we do have the violation for unattached trailers.

If the vehicle— if the trailer is unattached, to issue the parking ticket for $25.

Um, this ordinance does also cover that because it does have the capacity of 2-ton or more for a trailer.

So if that trailer has a capacity of 2-ton or more, it can essentially fall under this ordinance as well.

Okay, attached or unattached.

Okay, good.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from the committee?

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to table this.

Motion to table made by Councilor Cannuel.

Is there a second?

I'll give a second, and that way it affords the traffic department to look at the suggestions this committee has made.

Understood.

Motion tabled by Councilor Canuel, seconded by Councilor Perrier.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

So just for direction, so Councilor Gadeem, you have your— I guess I'm not sure what the direction is.

So, so I would— mine would be— I have it here for the possible amendment for the weight restrictions.

So we want to look to put in the weight restrictions into the ordinance, and then I guess— and the 2 hours, emergency situations.

I guess apparently I wasn't clear.

I should have paid attention a little bit more.

But I guess one of the things that I would also look at, if we're looking at, you know, if we're going by tons, right, and we're saying it's multiple spots, then maybe we should just have the ordinance read that or a certain length of the vehicle.

So that way, not so much a weight restriction versus length, because we're concerned about the number of spots that are being taken up, I assume.

Okay.

And if we don't agree, that's, that's fine.

I'm just trying to figure, figure out ways to— any specific length?

Yeah, no, I don't.

If it's longer than a box truck.

But I thought the target was like multiple parking spots.

So a parking spot is essentially 20 feet, right?

So anything over, you know, would you say 60 feet?

Yeah, 30 feet.

No, I'd say anything over— that's a lot.

Anything over 20 feet spaces, roughly.

Anything over the 20 feet?

Yeah, I would, I would just say any commercial vehicle that's, um, taking up more than one parking space.

40, right?

I mean, they're not marked parking spaces within more than 40 feet or 20 feet or 25, whatever, whatever.

I'm just throwing— I don't care what the footage is.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah.

And then Miss McArthur, when you have something new, let me know and I'll put it back on the generally get it squared away.

I'll send it over.

Thank you so much.

Thanks.

Have a great night.

You too.

Thanks.

Item number 4 is a proposed ordinance amending 62-2C, Solid Waste Collection Disposal, Generally Speaking, referred to the committee on 7/14/2026.

I just want to state for the record that this did go to full council, um, and it was referred back to the Committee on Ordinances and Legislation.

At this point, we'll invite our invited guests to the table.

If you could introduce yourselves for the committee, please.

Anne O'Neill-Souza, interim city administrator.

Christopher Hathaway, director of community maintenance.

Matt Thomas, special counsel.

Thank you all for being here.

I think based on the last conversation we had and how this ended up back here, Attorney Thomas, if you'd like to speak first on the matter.

Well, sure.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members.

I just want to touch on a couple of points.

Initially, the reason we even brought this forward was concern from the council that we had heard for repeatedly about trying to address the 5s and the 6s, because we've heard that 5s and 6 units are more like commercial structures rather than residentials.

We've heard that it would be a way to reduce the tonnage.

And so the reason we brought it forward ahead of everything else was to try to get it done so that we could get some savings from it in the new contracts.

And the savings is only on really the disposal piece.

Last time we were here, Councillor Kadim, I think, calculated that it'd be about $500,000 to $600,000, I think is what he said, doing back-of-the-envelope calculation, because the trucks still have to go by the street.

So we're not going to lose— we're not going to pick up any savings collection.

They're driving by these properties.

The issue is disposal.

That was one issue.

The second issue was, in the past we've been having trouble with recycling, and we had the Monday, Wednesday, Friday that was going direct haul, and the Tuesday, Thursday was typically more contaminated.

And when we looked at the types of units that were in the Tuesdays and Thursdays, they there were large numbers of 5s and 6s there.

So by pulling them out, we would also have an added benefit from that.

So we'd have the savings in disposal, we'd have the saving— the less occurrence of the issue on contamination.

When we also looked at it, we thought that by doing this, the private sector could pick this up.

And there has been an issue that I understand with the ordinance that it's got to be put out on the same day as the regular trash collection.

And so that makes it difficult for a private hauler to come into the city 5 days to pick up on 5 different days.

And so we had actually kicked around the idea of removing that out from the, from the ordinance.

And it would have probably been in the larger ordinance amendment to allow them to have their own day of doing this.

We estimated when I was here last time that there were about 706 units and about 305 units, and there were 4 109s that have multiple buildings on the same property that would also lose collection.

Using those estimates, we figure somewhere between 50 and 75% of them have trash collection from us.

Others are already getting the private collection.

So that was the context.

Having watched the city council meeting and listened to the debate, I'm here to tell you that this is basically up to you folks.

I mean, we're proposing doing this in response to the council.

If the council has an issue with it, then Fine, they have an issue with it.

If we can try to work it out, we can try to work it out.

Now let me try to address some of the potential solutions that came out of the discussion at the council, if I can.

One was to treat the residents of the city, the residents that were owner-occupied in those units, and the absentee landlords differently.

And I think when I was here the last time, I said you can't do that.

And That is because under the law there is a principle in the— it's actually the United States Constitution, that's the Privilege and Immunity Clause, that basically says that people are supposed to be treated— different states and different areas are supposed to be treated the same.

When it comes to taxpayers, there's this thing called the Rule of Substantial Equality, and it comes out of a U.S. Supreme Court case.

Was dealing with taxpayers.

And so we really can't deal with taxpayers differently in Massachusetts, especially in the state of Vermont.

If you live in the state of Vermont, you get this homestead exemption on your real estate.

If you live outside and you own it as a second home, you don't.

But that is by their constitution and by their ordinances.

We don't have that.

We don't have that ability to treat them differently by law.

So that's the first issue.

Secondly, um, I think it was Councilor Kadim that came up with the idea, well, let's charge them.

So we looked at that, and right now, based on information that the city's gotten, Joe Kennedy's been calling around and trying to find out which companies would do this and which one wouldn't.

There's 2 companies that have expressed an interest.

One is United States Bins.

They would charge $262 and 36 cents per quarter for a 95-gallon bin.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that a 95-gallon bin holds about 225 pounds of garbage.

It's between 225 and about 315, but let's use the lower number.

So United States bins— and forgive me, I need my glasses— is at $262.36 a quarter.

E.L. Harvey— and that's for one 95-gallon bin, that doesn't include a recycling bin— E.L. Harvey would provide a service for $225 a quarter for a 95-gallon bin, plus a fuel charge which would change from time to time depending on gas costs.

If you wanted a second bin, it would be $30 plus the fuel.

Charge.

So typically a 6-family has 2 bins, except for that one property that we all know about that deals with only one bin.

But most 6-families use 2 bins.

So that would mean that if you went with the El Javi, it'd be about $255 a quarter for 2 95-gallon bins.

They would also provide recycling.

Now, they would make their own schedule, but they would set it up so they would come on the same exact day every time.

If the city were to provide that same service, the issue is not the collection.

Again, it's the disposal.

E.L. Harvey owns their own disposal facility.

It's called Thunderbird.

It's in Alabama.

United States Bins has a deal with somebody, I'm sure, for disposal.

We're paying $125 a ton for disposal.

Um, let me address that a second.

I've heard comments that the costs are higher because we went with the shorter— we would have had more competition if we had gone with a longer-term contract.

Well, by way of comparison, the city of New Bedford went out with a 10-year contract and they got 2 bidders.

We went out with a 3-year with 2 options we got 2 bidders.

So it's not a matter of the, the length so much.

We might have gotten a little bit cheaper, I'll— I won't take that away.

But the issue is collecting solid waste in a municipality, in a city.

That's the real issue in a city, because it's not as easy as it is in a suburb where you can use those arms and things like that.

But let's go back to us doing it.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a 95-gallon bin holds 225 pounds of trash.

Let's assume that we pick up for 52 weeks.

52 weeks times 225, that's 11,700 pounds.

Let's divide that by 2,000 to convert it to tons.

It comes out to 5.85 tons a year.

Let's round it up to 6 because I use the lower end of the, the thing.

6 times $125 a ton, that's $750 a year for collect— for disposal.

Now we still have to pick up, and if you're getting— if we're charging for the service, we should be recouping something.

So I took $10 a week for collection to cover just fuel.

So $10 times 10, uh, 52 weeks, that's $520.

Add that to the $750, we come out to $1,270 a year.

Quarterly, it comes out to $317.50 for a 95-gallon bin per quarter.

How much for a 25-gallon?

Uh, for, for, uh, I only did 95 gallons, so $317.50 a quarter for a 95-gallon compared to E.L. Harvey, which does $225 plus a fuel cost, compared to United States Bins, which does $262.37.

6.

If the, if the 6-family was going to have 2 bins, we're talking over $600 a quarter from us just for the, for the trash bins.

Now, this doesn't include in it the cost of internal costs of running the program, the cost of collection if they don't pay, because if they don't pay, we would have to try to collect it.

If that doesn't happen, it goes to the tax bill.

If it goes to the tax bill, doesn't get paid, it goes to tax title, and so on and so forth.

Point of information, just for a second.

Vice President Dionne, can you just repeat— repeat though, you went so fast— just repeat those numbers again?

Sure.

So this— yeah, like 95 gallons.

Yep.

Times $2.25 a gallon, because that's the pounds, gives you 11,700 pounds.

Yep.

Divide that by 2,000 to get to tons.

That gives us 5.85 tons.

So we rounded up to 6,000 tons, up to 6, because I used the lower end of what you could put in there.

The 6 tons times $125 a ton, that's what we dispose at, is $750.

Yep.

Okay, collection cost, I estimated just for fuel, $10 a week.

So that would be $520 plus the $750 gives you $1,270.

Divide that by 4, that gives you $317.50 a quarter, I think.

If you want to just confirm that, I don't mind.

So the bottom line is we still would be charging more than what the residents would get it at if they were going to the private sector.

Now, if the— we're estimating 225 tons— I mean, 225 pounds.

Okay?

If there were contamination issues in there, if there were other issues that were going on, we have the whole recycling issue that we haven't even touched.

So figure the recycling could be close to this cost.

It would be costing us— and I know this is pretty much the third rail, and so I hesitate to say it— But if that's the case, you're almost better off going with the trash fee, okay?

Because this is very expensive.

Then there would be the issue where we would have— these would be in city bins.

The private sector would have their own bins.

So that was my response to Councilor Kadim's idea, which wasn't a bad idea.

We just had to work the numbers.

The idea of accepting out people who don't use as much.

With all due respect, that is an administrative nightmare that requires us to monitor people's garbage on a weekly basis.

And with all respect, we don't have the staff to do that or the ability to do that.

Frankly, the reason we went with outside is why most places go with private sector, is because it's cost prohibitive a lot of times to bring it in-house, right?

And while DCM is working their way through these issues, the idea is that clean up our house, so to speak, over the next 3 years and go long after that.

So it's not that I'm insensitive to it, and I don't mean to be the wet blanket, but we're here to discuss any other options you may have, and we're willing to discuss options and look at different ways to do it.

But those were my responses quickly to the ones that came up.

Thank you, Attorney Thomas.

Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, I think back to the, um, owner-occupied.

So I, I get the taxation thing, the constitutional thing, but you're talking somebody's domicile versus somebody who's living in wherever.

Um, there is a differentiation between private and commercial, correct?

So if somebody has an LLC, clearly that's a business.

You're running a business.

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.

There was a recent case that just came out of the city of Boston where a person had put their house into an LLC because they want— they got a really good mortgage rate from a commercial lender that wouldn't lend to anybody but a business.

So they put their house into an LLC.

And the City of Boston said, and then they tried to apply for a residential exemption.

And the City of Boston said, no, you can't, because the owner, the record owner of the house on January 1st is the LLC.

They went to the Appellate Tax Board and they got into this huge discussion about disregarded entities.

So if you have an LLC and you're the only member, for income tax purposes it's disregarded.

You can choose to whether to have it as a corporation or a partnership if you have 2 people, or you can do it as your own self.

In any instance, if you're a partnership or you're disregarded, you're gonna show it on a Schedule E on your income tax return.

Tax, which is not the business side.

The business side would be Schedule C. ATB allowed the exemption, went to the appeals court.

The appeals court ruled last week, overruling the ATB, that they're not entitled to the residential exemption because of the way it's written, but that it's not necessarily a business.

So I understand what you're saying, and we've had these discussions quite a bit, and I can see why, because we've had these discussions with regard to vacant properties, with regard to other things where absentee landlords are not taking care of their property to the same degree as an owner-occupied.

And I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but we all know that 9 out of 10 times, people that live in the house tend to deal better than people that are absentee, although that's not always the case.

So to do something like that, I would be very very cautious in advising anybody to do— to make that differentiation.

That would have to be a filing every week.

If we go back to what happened under the— when we went with purple bags, there was an option to opt out, and you'd have to file with the assessor's office, and you'd have to file every year.

It was a nightmare, and there's lots of ways to get around it, and the enforcement on it is very difficult.

So I think that's speaking in favor of treating everybody the same, as much as we want to understand and help people that are owner-occupied.

I also understand that these are not insubstantial costs and that there's the concern that it's going to be passed on to the residents.

I get that.

But the same way that our electric bills in this area are very high, And it's usually— it's the transmission part, it's not the generation part.

There's other bills that are high.

I mean, fuel costs are adding into everything.

It's just the cost of doing business for these landlords.

And so, you know, some of them may try to gouge, but I don't think the vast majority would.

I think they're just trying to make ends meet.

It's not an easy job being a landlord.

It's not— not that all of them are wonderful, but it's not an easy job.

So I really have a problem legally and administratively with making that distinction between owner-occupied and not.

Now, that's just my opinion, and I don't really get a vote in this.

It's just my opinion though, because I have looked at this.

I've tried years ago when I was in New Bedford, I tried to make that distinction because for— there's some obvious reasons why you want to go after absentees, not locals.

I get that, you know, not you folks, but just in general.

Um, and we tried that and we couldn't do it then.

We tried to do it with building blocks, we couldn't do it then.

Became a house is a house.

Okay, I'll yield for now.

Thank you.

Councilor Kenyel.

Thank you.

Good evening, Councilor.

Good evening.

Um, I, I, like many councilors, have received calls from the residents, in particular that one resident we know about.

But I think, you know, her point is really about— has been about equity, right?

If, if my neighbor gets one free bin, shouldn't I get a free bin, right?

And I think if I need additional bins— I've received calls, single families looking for a second bin— the answer has been no.

And I think, you know, it comes down to there's no mechanism if I do have more trash other than going out and getting private.

I think the math— I understood your math, but if we scale back the assumptions a little bit from $10 a week collection to $5 a week, because we are going, to your point, we're going down the street anyways, the math comes down to $252.50 per quarter, which puts us kind of square between U.S. Bins and E.L. Harvey, depending on what they're charging for that.

You would want 2 bins, so multiply that times 2.

If you were in a typical 6, that number.

Well, I would argue that if we gave everybody a free bin, 5 families, 6 families, that first bin's free, almost like airlines.

Well, I guess no one gets free bags anymore, but when they did, the first bag was free and then you used to pay for the second and the third, etc.

If we gave everybody the same free, and then for that additional bin, the math would work out for them, I think.

And it would give single families who have approached looking for a second bin in Avenue, that this is the process to follow potentially.

So I think for me, you know, they are paying— 5 families, 6 families— they are paying taxes, arguably more taxes based on the valuation, likely much higher than some of these single-family homes, and they want to be getting something as well.

There are many things people expect.

They expect, you know, good road maintenance, which we're working on.

You know, they expect the streets to be plowed, and they expect their trash to be picked up.

And so I think for me, what I'm looking for, you know, just based on some of the feedback I've heard, is that we have some equity across all residents in, in whatever we decide.

Can I respond to that?

Absolutely.

I agree with you, this is an essential municipal service.

When you go down the list, you hit them all— public safety, streets.

The only one you missed out was education and, and trash.

Those are the big ones you have to worry about.

So I agree with you, and I agree that every resident should have that right to do it, and they do.

But that doesn't mean that residents can't make choices to opt out of it.

And I had this conversation last time I was here with Councilor Pereira.

The best example of that is a condominium.

You choose to live in a condominium, there is no trash collection in your condominium by the city, there was no snow plowing in your condominium by the city.

Those are basic rights that everybody else has.

You choose to live in a condominium where that's picked up by the condominium association.

So in those instances, that happens very regularly, and that doesn't— that's not inequitable.

It's a choice you make.

Inequity happens when you, in my opinion, when you don't have a choice, when the choice is foisted on you.

But when you have a choice to opt out That's a choice.

It's not an inequity.

With regard to the valuation, I would argue, with all due respect, that if you have a 6-unit and you have a value, you're actually paying less per unit than a single-family house is for 1 unit.

Now granted, we're comparing apples to oranges here.

A single-family house and the structure in it, you compare it to other single-family houses, a 6, it's a little bit different.

I get that.

I grew up in a 3-family family— 2-family, excuse me.

I was living in the midst of 3s and 6s growing up.

It was normal middle-class housing at the time.

Times change, and so I understand that that changes.

But I always thought a floor of this 2-family was just as nice as any other single-family house I lived in.

Some of them were bigger than regular houses.

It was double parlors and everything, you know, so you kind of get used to that, you know.

But I mean, I, I understand the concern, and I understand that We want to be equitable, no doubt about it.

That's something that I think is very basic that we have to do.

The question becomes— and I don't want to make everything about dollars and cents, but I don't see the savings.

If we're the same— if we're in between U.S. BINS and Harvey, that means that we're competing with the private sector.

The private sector can do it for the same price we can.

We won't have to even deal with it.

And so from an operational stance, I think that tips in not doing it.

But then again, as I said, I don't get a vote.

Yeah, I think for me it just comes back to when I think about the people in 5 families, the people in 6 families, if we do this, this is going to become a new expense for them.

And sometimes those are the people struggling the most, living paycheck to paycheck.

So the moment we go to, you know, they have to Okay, if a landlord's got, you know, a 6-family, they're gonna say, okay, everybody's going up $50, you know, a quarter, right?

Or whatever.

No, again, I— my only response to that would be, I, I— those are very valid points.

I'm not trying to say they're not.

It's just that I think that for maybe 2, 3 years we heard, let's get rid of 5s and 6s.

And now that we actually looked at getting rid of 5s and 6s, now we're hearing back, don't get rid of 5s and 6s.

So I mean, the reason for doing it, I think, all along was people were thinking that 5s and 6s are more commercial than residential.

We've heard this, or that there was added tonnage coming in from it.

It's the reason we went down to 6s from collecting 7s and 8s and from collecting businesses.

So a business, you pay your taxes to the city, but we're not collecting them anymore.

So these are choices that are made.

They're tough choices because Tough choices have to be made sometimes.

I, I'm— I can write whatever you folks want me to write.

I can draft it in a way that satisfies the law.

I'm not the policymaker.

I'm just the one that's not— and I'm not even trying to poke holes in the policy.

I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands the pros and cons of whatever the decision is.

Yeah, respectfully, I wasn't here, you know, prior to— I get that.

I get that.

I wasn't one pushing for this, um, but I, you know, as I've had time to contemplate and consider this, I don't support this in its current form, um, and I'd like to hear, uh, what my other colleagues have to say.

So with that, thank you.

Councilor Kadim.

Thank you.

So I'll just throw it out there, I support the elimination of 5-family and 6-families.

I— we, to your point, we've been talking about this, we're talking about the sustainability for the operational budget for a very long time.

And obviously, uh, solid waste is a significant cost associated with it.

So once we eliminated the pay-as-you-throw program, we incurred a ton of expenses on, on the safe side.

So that being said, I— can you just go back to the arithmetic?

Sure.

One more time.

I'm sorry.

So a 95— so here's what I did.

95-gallon bin.

Yep.

Holds between 225 and about 300 and 30 pounds.

I went with 225.

I went to the low end.

If I take 225 pounds times 52 weeks of pickup, that gives us 11,700 pounds.

Okay, now let's convert to tons.

So that's 2,000 pounds in a ton.

So that gives us 5.85 tons.

I rounded up to 6 because I had used a low number to start out with.

We pay $125 a a ton for this year, right?

It's going to go up in the futures, but for this year— so if I take 6 tons times $125 a ton, that gets us to $750 a year in disposal costs.

All right, well, can we stop right there?

So how, how are we not less than, uh, what were the U.S. bins?

And right, partly because they own their own disposal facilities.

No, no, but you— that's— you said it was $700 $750 a year.

So $750 a year is still lower than both of those individuals?

Well, what do you mean by lower than both of them?

So it's $262 per quarter.

Oh, so if I multiply that by 4, right, because that's over $800.

So here's the problem: they don't have to pay disposal costs.

They own the disposal facility.

But I recognize that.

You just— you told me it's $750 just for the disposal a year, right?

But that's for the entire year, right?

So if I divide— so if I add that Plus, and as Councilor Cannavale said, I arbitrarily took $10 a week.

No, yeah, I don't even want to get into the transportation first.

I just want $750.

So divide the $750 by 4, right?

Okay, so we're still lower than the 2 companies except for the fact that the numbers they're giving us are for collection and disposal, right?

No, no, I, I get that.

So what I'm saying is if I divide the $750 by 4, we're lower than the $262 and the 225.

So from my standpoint, we're not here to, you know, in just my own opinion, looking to actually recruit— recoup on the entire cost, right?

So because if— because here's the options: we either eliminate the 5 and 6 families and we save roughly $500,000, or we don't do it.

If we don't do it, we're not saving anything.

You're right, right?

So if we do the 5 and 6 and we start coming in at the $7.50, and then those individuals who own 5 and 6 families want to do this, and we're collecting on the tonnage, then I say it's a win-win, right?

We're still saving the additional money.

We're not losing real money.

You're trying to add— no, I don't disagree with you.

So you're trying to add some additional transportation costs.

We— the transportation cost is taken— they're going down that street regardless.

So, okay, let me explain why I did that.

See, that's a valid question.

So you're right, the savings is on the disposal side.

But if by ordinance we pull 5s and 6s out from the as-of-right, right, and say you have to participate in this program, then they are not entitled to the benefit of the collection going down the street.

They have to pay a piece because they're not part of the people that are in that automatic collection anymore.

They have to reimburse something.

Now whether you go with my number of $10 a week or you go with Councilor Canuel's of 5, it's about 6 and 1/2 a dozen the other.

But you actually have to add in a cost for collection.

So if you go with the 5, maybe that's a more reasonable number, okay, because they are going by, right?

But what I guess what I'm saying is, is forget the collection, right?

Because every, every resident is going to be picking up.

We have the collection.

If we don't pick up this house, we're still driving by the house.

Right.

So the— so all I'm saying is, is if we can recruit— recoup on the tonnage, then let's go for the tonnage if they, if they so choose to do it with us.

But in my mind, that's where you get into the equity issue, because under the equity issue, it's no different.

But it's an option, so you don't have to.

So, you know, no, no, let me finish.

It's no different than if a business puts out their garbage and we collect it, paying just the tonnage without paying the collection.

They're not paying for the collection anymore.

They're out of the program.

So the idea is to get them back in the program, they have to pay for the right for collection and— so maybe I'm trying to collect— but let me ask you a question.

So if I own a 3-family, right, how am I, how am I paying for the collection?

Through your taxes.

Okay.

If I own a 6-family, the same argument would apply that— no, just hear me out.

I am paying the same amount of taxes.

If you're paying more, probably.

Right, so if I, if I say that I'm, I'm now kicked out of this program, I can either go through Harvey or U.S. Bins, and I say, you know what, $262, $225, and I can actually go with the city for $180 per quarter, then I'm going to the city for $180 a quarter.

My response to that is I understand what you're saying, but they have opted out of the program.

It's like a condominium.

They're paying taxes.

They didn't opt out.

We, we basically told them that we're not picking up.

We've changed the law.

So what we're saying is we're allowing you to— you have to go get a private.

If you don't want to get a private, you can opt back into the city, but it's going to cost you $180 per quarter.

Then what are you going to do with condominiums?

It's the same story with condominiums.

No, we're not touching condominiums.

Okay, so wait a minute though, let me finish.

That's when you're running into equity issues.

A condominium is not collected.

Okay, they drive by condominiums, right?

So, but what are we going to do with Commonwealth and all those other businesses?

That's my point.

That's my point exactly.

But we're doing it now.

My point exactly is we have taken the large, the large apartment buildings out.

We have taken condominiums out.

That's just by general law.

We've taken out, uh, the businesses, and we've taken out anything— well, but large apartments, so it's over the 6s.

If we take the 5s and 6s out and say you can opt back in by paying just the trash, we are not recouping the, the transport— the transportation cost.

I get it.

That's my concern.

Now, that's a policy issue that you guys could decide, right?

But that's my concern.

They're not getting it.

They're not paying for that because they've been taken out of it.

But as a city, we recognize that and we're saying, okay, here is the cost associated with it.

If you don't want to go with the private and you want to still continue with the city, because it's no additional cost to us because we are driving by down the street, passing your house, if you want us to pick up, it's going to be $180, or even if it's $200 a quarter, that's what it's going to be.

We cover on the tonnage.

I get it.

That's what it is.

And then from my standpoint, the city saves $500,000 per per year, right?

As opposed to what you have now is, is that potentially if I'm looking at, you know, the votes that are going down, we're not saving $500,000 on trash.

So, right, so I'm going to be the lone vote to say yes, let's eliminate 5 and 6, right?

So here we are, we're not saving anything, or we charge $200 a quarter.

And your idea is that half a loaf is better than none.

I get it, right?

Now, if we were to go that way, what I would suggest is a little bit of a corollary to that These are estimates, okay?

I would basically take a look at our tonnages as they're going out and amend the estimate maybe twice a year or something that we're charging them, because we want to make sure that we're being equitable.

So we would have to amend that.

So the idea is you're paying an estimate of what your charge would be.

And then what I would also suggest is, if we're going to do that, that you add a demand fee on Okay, because if you get water and sewer and you don't pay your water and sewer, there's a demand fee.

The tax demand won't come in until it hits the tax bills a year later.

So not only would you have to do this, but you would have to add a demand fee on there, okay, so that you, you're treating that apples to apples, right?

But like I said, that's a policy issue.

I, you know, I'm here to give you pros and cons and how things could work.

Work.

Administratively, I would defer to Mr. Hathaway because he's the one who's actually going to have to do it.

And all I'm saying is, is I appreciate the affordability issue that we have across the city, the country, but the affordability issue also carries over to government, right?

So we have increased costs that we have to deal with.

We start talking about gas.

I mean, we use more gas than the average citizen between police, fire, DPW.

Like, there's real costs associated with that.

So as gas goes up, there's more expenses for us.

So I don't disagree with that.

I think from my standpoint, we have talked about solid waste and trying to minimize the expenses to continue to provide the services that are needed.

I say we eliminate— continue to eliminate the 5s and 6s, and then if they don't want to get a private vendor, they come back and we figure out what the tonnage is.

And if it's 180 per quarter, that's what we get.

And obviously we're not going to pick up on the collection component, but at that point, again, like I said, we're driving down the street.

So at least we're, we're collecting some additional money, plus we're saving from those other, you know, 5s and 6 families that are probably just going to go with, uh, you know, either Harvey.

And then if we change the ordinance, who, who knows who else is going to come in, right?

Maybe when, when Waste comes in, maybe it's possible Waste Management.

So, Councilor, that's one bin.

So we would have to do that times 2 for a typical 6-family.

Unless it's this person who doesn't need it.

But most 6 families need 2 bins.

Yeah.

And then the $225— and we would also have to add recycling to that.

This doesn't include recycling bins.

Right.

But the $225 per quarter for— was it Harvey?

That was, that was an additional $30.

The day— what Harvey does is it's $225 for the first one, right, Chris?

And $225 for the first one, first one, and then $30 for the additional Ben, so $225 includes recycling?

Yes.

I may or may not have been a business major when I went to college, which was a long time ago.

How is both Wynn and US Bin able to do it cheaper?

They own their own disposal facility.

No, no, I, I recognize that.

That's help.

But, but at some point there's a cost associated with them to dump, right?

So there was such an economy of scale when you own your own facility.

Let me ask you, why does New Bedford and Dartmouth get to pay $26 a ton?

They own their own facility, right?

But Harvey's still going out, still charging.

Listen, Harvey's— Harvey's making money, right?

I, I get— I get they're making money, but to, to that, that extent where it's that significant, that doesn't surprise me because you've got one route.

It's not— it's not a constant, you know, going through the routes.

You've got a driver, you've got additional overhead costs associated with it.

We're streamlined.

You're going down to the same, same routes all the time, right?

You're in the same city.

The— it's just the economies of scale is a lot different than having to drive here, go there, go over there.

It just— so, Council, I understand, but it is— I'm here to tell you they are making hefty profits.

And assume for the sake of argument you had the only drinking water hole in the town and you charged everybody else in town $120 to drink.

A cup of water, you're not going to charge your own family $120.

We did that to Westport.

They didn't want to pay us.

I recognize that.

So, I mean, my point though is that's what's happening here.

That's the level.

Because these facilities they own are so large that— and they've got other types of technologies they're doing that they actually want the solid waste.

It's an economy of scale.

Their trucks are driving down whether they're full or half, filling it up and making sure there's a backhaul is how they do it.

Well, they're not that much cheaper.

I mean, well, for the disposal, if you— right, you get 2 bins for $255 from them.

So here's, here's my suggestion, because the council president is going to get really mad at me if we go past the 6 o'clock time.

If we want to save $500,000, I would say that we try to figure out how to, to make this work per quarter, you know, for the 5 and 6 families that want to be able to still stay within the, uh, you know, the city pickup.

And then let's change the ordinance so we can add a little bit more competition to come in for those 5 and 6 families, uh, so that they're not on the same days or whatever the case may be.

And that way the city wins, uh, you know, 5 and 6 families, uh, don't necessarily get hit as hard as they would if they went to the, uh, to the private sector.

So, okay, with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Perer.

Yeah, it's, uh, close to 6 o'clock, our meeting's starting.

I disagree wholeheartedly with charging people that have 5 and 6 families.

Everybody gets their trash picked up or nobody gets their trash picked up.

You've got to be fair to everybody.

I agree, I get frustrated when people from out of town come in, buy property here, don't live here, and don't take care of the property and scour the tenants.

That frustrates me.

But I think nobody's going to like it, but I think you talk about tonnage Then let's look at the tonnage from Freetown, Tiverton, Somerset, Swansea when they all come and dump here because they have bags.

So instead of them paying, they come and dump here.

Our trash in the North End and the South End, when we got rid of bags, skyrocketed.

I remember because we talked about that.

Then with Easy, we didn't go to Republic anymore over on Airport Road to dump we were going to Crapo because it was going to be cheaper.

Till now, Crapo's full, so now they don't want us.

But in the meantime, we paid easy $3 million more.

They had to buy 2 more trucks to get it up to Dartmouth and back to Crapo instead of going right to Airport Road.

You know what I think?

Every community pays for waste.

We need to do that, and we need to have the fortitude to do that.

No, I don't want to have to pay more.

I don't want to have to pay taxes.

I'm sick of paying stormwater fee.

But I have to do that.

That's what it is.

So one quick response.

So I would say you guys go back to the table, get a couple of us to go with you, and let's look at what we're going to do for the long term.

Because this— you're going to have people If I still owned my 6-family, I'd get a group of people together, 10 taxpayers, and I'd want to know why I'm paying and not this one that has a 3-family or that one that has a 2-family.

I would.

So let me just respond really quickly.

I understand, and you don't have to respond.

I'm just giving— well, no, you made some statements I need to respond to.

Well, I just appreciate that you're trying to work on it.

It's already 6 o'clock.

I don't want to— I won't go too far, but go ahead.

The thing about the increase in EASY was not just because of Crapo Hill, but it was that they bought 2 trucks.

Believe me, no, Council, I did that negotiation.

They had entered into a contract that for years they had been saying they had underbid into because of the way that contract was structured.

They were going to go up on their costs no matter what.

Well, they did a lot of things that they didn't have to, like picking up businesses.

Secondly, when we went to Crapo, it's because Republic ended at October, and the fees that Republic wanted to charge us were higher than what Crapo was going to give us.

We went to Crapo with the understanding that we were only going to stay at Crapo till all the contracts— because you are— no, I'm fine talking about it.

I don't have a problem.

But I think you've got to go back to the drawing board.

I'm not willing to vote on having 5 and 6 families.

I understand what Councilor Kadim's saying about saving money, and I think it's wrong.

Everybody in the city should be treated the same.

So there's more people in that home and they need another barrel.

You go to bags, everybody pays for what they use, and you're not going to have all these outside communities coming and dumping here.

And those that are putting them all over the place, and then we have our flock cameras, let's nail them.

We all have to do the same.

We all live in this city.

We all want safe streets.

We all want good schools.

You know, we want public safety.

We all want it.

It's unfortunate that things increase every year, but every other community— how many communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts do not pay for trash?

How many do you know?

It's not very many.

How many?

It's not very many.

Pay as you throw is pretty much exactly— we just came in with pay as you, you throw stupidly.

We didn't vote on it.

It was the, it was the Board of Health that voted on it.

You didn't give the people the educational piece they needed and everything else.

Bite the bullet because we can't afford it.

That whole lump of trash comes out of our budget that we don't have money to do other things.

I've said it, people are not going to like it.

Some people will, but I don't sit here to make friends.

I sit here to try to make the best decision I can based on what our finances can afford.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

I, I, I think it's clear that we're going to revisit this.

Is there a motion?

Councilor, before you make a motion, can I ask you a question?

Is there something we can do to come back to you so that the next time we talk about it, you— I mean, do we get some dir— do you want to give us some direction?

Yeah, put a committee together.

I'll be on it.

We certainly can do that.

Vice President Dionne.

So I just want to put this in perspective a little bit.

So $250 a quarter A 6-family, it would cost each unit $14 a month for their trash with the 2 95s plus the recycle.

A 5-family would be $17 a month.

That's not an exorbitant amount of money.

It just truly isn't.

Um, I pay for my trash.

So I, I don't have a hard time.

I, I don't have an issue, and I have a single family.

I privatized right from the get-go when this whole debacle started because I didn't know what direction it was going on.

I— whatever.

So I can tell you I pay a lot more than that.

Um, I don't know, is it an issue?

Yes, it's an issue.

It's a huge issue.

But I think at the same token, we're in a situation today where, you know, 40 years ago, 90% of the multifamilies were owned by people who lived in the multifamilies.

Today, what percentage is owned by businesses?

Is it 90%?

Is it 95%?

Is it 80%?

Um, 84.3%.

Well, he does that.

I don't know that number.

I don't either.

But, um, the point— I guess the point is businesses own the 5 and 6 families for the most part.

Do I sympathize?

Would I like to see the, the resident, the people who that's their domicile Um, they're not in it for a business, not have to be involved in this.

Absolutely, I would love to see them taken out of it.

But when you're talking possibly 90% of the units owned by people who are making massive money and do it as a business, I think we have to pull some kind of a trigger.

I don't know what the answer is, but, um, I mean, we just can't keep going down this road.

I mean, what, you know, $15, $16, $17 million a year, that— and then people don't want their taxes going up.

Well, something has to pay for this.

I, I don't know what the answer is.

I, I don't know what we need to send back to you.

Um, I'll tell you, I as a resident, I'd be happy with $20 a month across the board for every single unit in the city, including single families.

That's cheap.

People don't get it.

It's cheap.

Uh, but so I, I didn't really contribute much.

It's just more of a rant.

I don't know.

We should have passed through second reading enrollment.

Do you yield, Councilor?

Uh, yeah, motion to table.

The motion to table does take precedence in the matter.

Motion to table made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Councillor Locatino, roll call on the table.

Roll call on, uh, tabling the item.

Councillor Kadim?

No.

Councillor Locatino?

Yes.

Vice President Dion?

No.

Councillor Pereira?

Yes.

Chair Raposo?

No.

Motion fails.

Motion to recommend the ordinance be passed through second reading and enrollment.

Motion made to pass through second reading, enrollment, and ordination.

Roll call.

Made by Councilor Kadim.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Vice President Dion.

Roll call.

Roll call to recommend second reading and enrollment.

Councilor Kadim?

Yes.

Councilor Cano?

No.

Vice President Dion?

Yes.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

Chair Raposo?

Yes.

Motion passes.

And just for the record, and through the clerk, just to correct that it will not be on this afternoon's agenda, is that correct?

Correct.

It could technically— okay, fair enough.

Thank you.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you all.

Appreciate it very much.

You too.

Item number 5 is a resolution to convene the draft of proposed ordinance to define the city council's authority to vote to approve, reject, and any contract renewal granted to a department head whose expiring contract was executed for a term of less than 3 years.

It was referred to the committee on July 14th, 2026.

Can I speak on that?

I think we can resolve that.

Um, we surely can.

I think we have Corporation Counsel.

May not need you.

Okay, so why don't we— why don't we hold that?

Uh, Councilor Pereira, you were the author of the resolution.

You are recognized.

I, I don't like the fact that the administration will send out a contract for an individual for 1 year, the council votes on it, gives the 1-year opportunity, and then all of a sudden it comes back without council approval that the mayor can extend it for 2 years or 3 years.

If it's not a full contract of 3 years that comes before us to be voted on, it has to come back for us.

It shouldn't just come for 1 year and then administration can extend it.

It should come before us.

Now, my understanding is that administration— the mayor has spoken with council leadership, or some individuals with the council president, and has come to a determination he will not send 1-year contracts down.

He will make sure that contracts come down again.

I didn't know about it either.

You look surprised.

I didn't know about it either.

Part of that, we didn't have any information on that.

But I'd like that— it's good that this mayor agrees to do that, but I think in future mayors that come in, this should be a change in the ordinance.

I know it's 10 past 6, our meeting starts at 6.

I would certainly agree to table this so that the chairman can bring it up again when we have ample time for further discussion.

But that's what I was told.

Do you yield, Council?

I yield and make a motion to table.

Does anyone else want to speak?

I do, yeah, just quickly.

So I'll support the, uh, motion to table.

So I was in the meeting where the mayor has essentially agreed to this resolution, so anything that's less than 3 years, uh, for a contract would come back down to the council.

That was a verbal agreement, uh, so I'm okay with table this in committee so that if it doesn't happen, uh, moving forward, then we can just revisit it.

But that there is a commitment from the administration that, again, anything less than 3 years would come back to the council for, for confirmation, and I'm okay with that.

So with that, I yield.

Vice President Diack.

Yeah, I just want to add that, yeah, in that, in that conversation, um, it was stated that the council would know and would be aware, and it would be in ordinance, that if an appointment was sent down and the council approved a 3-year contract, they, they knew in advance that was it.

You had the one vote.

3 years after that, they can renew it as many times as they want.

So I mean, it was very clear that 3 years is forever if the mayor is there forever and wants to reappoint the person for forever.

And it only on the less than would we have another bite at the apple.

Well, I wish that other councilors would have been informed of that.

We weren't, so I learned that, and that's why I— well, it was part of a discussion, nothing written in stone, no agreement made, because we can't make agreements.

We've already been through this.

We can only have discussions.

So when there's a meeting with the administration, the rest of the council should be known when things like that happen.

I wouldn't have filed this resolution because I thought a 1-year wasn't fair to the council, that you come down for 1 year, you get a vote, and then the mayor can— and I agree, and I think the intention was do that, but you did file a resolution, right?

So we just waited to have— question was after the resolution.

Yeah, I'll second table.

Vice President Dion, you yield?

I yield.

Motion made by Councilor Burr to table, second by Councilor Khadim.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Cannibal, second by Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The Committee on Ordinance Legislation is now adjourned.

I put it over there.