8.11.2026 Fall River City Council

This Fore River City Council, uh, public hearing will now be called to order.

It is 6:13.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Skadeem?

Here.

Camara?

Canuel?

Here.

Dion?

Here.

Hart?

Here.

Peckham?

Pereira?

Here.

Raposo?

Here.

President Ponte?

Here.

Just want to let everybody know Councilor Peckham is under the weather.

He will not be joining us this evening, and Councilor Camara is running a few minutes late.

He He will be joining us shortly.

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.

Motion to open the public hearing has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 1 is Zybach Salem Alzaback of 65 Little Neck Avenue— and I apologize if I said that incorrectly because I know I did— 65 Little Neck Avenue in Swansea, Mass.

02777, doing business as Auto Genie LLC, for a license to operate an auto body shop at 235 John Street on Lot 115-22, assessor's plan.

At this time, we're calling for all proponents wishing to speak on this item?

Calling all proponents.

Good evening.

For the record, my name is Peter Salino.

My office address is 1 Father de Vallès Boulevard, Suite 311, here in Fall River.

I represent the owner applicant, Mr. Al Zaback, um, for the council's edification, this is Vic's Car Wash.

When you drive into the car wash, immediately on the right there's an existing building.

We appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals in April in order to obtain a zoning variance to do auto body repair and, uh, auto body at this location.

We're following the steps to get that license, and that's why we're here before you this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Salino.

Thank you very much.

We're good.

Calling all other proponents wishing to speak on this item.

Calling all proponents.

Hearing none.

Calling all opponents wishing to speak on this item.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none.

Thank you.

Item number 2 is a jointly owned pole location.

The Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England for one jointly owned pole location as follows.

This is on South Beacon Street.

3 new jointly owned pole locations, 2 new jointly owned pole anchors.

Installation of 3 new jointly owned poles and 2 new jointly owned anchors along the east edge of South Beacon Street.

Pole 12 and anchor will be installed approximately 125 feet southwest of the existing Pole 11.

Pole 13 and Pole 14 and anchor will be installed 135 feet and 120 feet, respectively, apart from one another, heading in the southerly direction of South Beacon Street in in accordance with plan number 31292722.

Calling all proponents.

Al Galvin, design engineer, National Grid Electric.

If you can just please speak into the microphone and say your name again for the record, please.

Al Galvin, design engineer, National Grid Electric.

So this is a new condo complex, 17 homes, and in order to bring primary to a new transformer to feed those homes, we're coming off of Pole 10, 3 poles up the street to then go underground to a new transformer that'll backfeed these properties.

Thank you.

Calling all other proponents wishing to speak on this item.

Calling all proponents.

Hearing none.

Calling all opponents wishing to speak.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none.

Item 3 is a curb removal.

Nelson Cabral of 57 Ryan's Way, Swansea, Massachusetts 02777 for the removal of curbing as follows.

This is 89 McDonald Street in Fall River.

The existing parcel is currently served by a 10-foot 8-inch curb opening driveway.

The applicant requests permission to extend the opening by an additional 14 feet 6 inches.

The total opening for the location will be 25 feet 2 inches.

Calling all proponents.

Would you like to just say— come on down.

Good evening, how are you?

So, um, I bought this property.

I'm sorry, you're Nelson?

Nelson Cabral, I'm the owner.

Yes, 57 Ryan's Way, Swansea, Mass.

Yes, and I also own E&I McDonald Street.

I acquired the property in September.

Currently, the property has a driveway that is the exact measurement when you combine both of those of 25 feet 3 inches.

The challenge is that this being a one-way street and it being the second property right when you turn onto McDonald, it causes a challenge for tenants to go into the driveway to excessively use it fully.

So the intent behind me looking at it was if we can attract the tenants to be able to go in immediately as soon as they make the turn, it will discourage them from using on-street parking, which is challenging on that street, and also encourage— if there is a parking ban, if the winter is as aggressive as it was the previous season— where it will allow them to go to the right-hand side because there will be obviously a driveway that's more, you know, that's fully open on the left-hand side, which is the ban.

Um, that is sort of the intent.

There are no tenants there.

I recently remodeled the whole house completely.

Um, it's completely redone, and, uh, that was the intent of why I did the variance, because it's going to surpass what the 16 feet that the town, the city requires.

Thank you, Mr. Cabral.

Council on Safe Harbor Council Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, just one question.

So by, um, extending the opening, that's not going to take any parking off of the street in terms of the impact on other people as opposed to your tenants?

It won't, because no one really parks there.

Because as soon as you drive into that street, there's, there's a home, then it's my home immediately.

And there's about, from the corner to my property line, it's probably about 16 feet of curb, but no one ever parks there.

Shouldn't be.

Yeah, and right, and then thereafter, then my property begins thereafter.

The weirdness is somehow there must have been an issue with the property line where the driveway is further— is wider than the actual opening.

Usually those go in conjunction together.

Typically the size of the driveway will match the curb, and this one for some reason never did.

Thank you.

I'm not sure that answers your question, man.

Thank you, Mr. Crowe.

Appreciate it.

Calling all other proponents wishing to speak.

You're good.

Thank you.

Calling all other proponents wishing to speak.

Hearing none.

Calling all opponents.

Opponents.

Hearing none.

Uh, just before we close the public hearing, I just want those in attendance, uh, tonight knowing, um, the council will be acting on these items in our full council meeting, which would start at least after 7 o'clock in items 17, 18, and 19 in our full city council agenda.

You're happy to stay, um, or will certainly be notified of the city council's decision on whether they want to adopt or reject or refer, uh, at that meeting, uh, by the clerks.

Can let you know, you can call the clerk's office or you can stay.

It's quite the, uh, quite the meeting.

Motion to close the hearing has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Dion.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

That will conclude our public hearing.

Motion to adjourn all public hearings has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

City Council Committee on Finance will now be called to order.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Spadini.

Here.

Camara.

Daniel.

Here.

Dion.

Here.

Hart.

Here.

Peckham.

Pereira.

Here.

Raposo.

Here.

President Ponte.

Here.

Councilor Peckham is, uh, not going to be joining us this evening.

For the record, he is under the weather, uh, and Councilor Camara has just arrived.

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.

Let the record reflect that it is 6:22.

This meeting has now been called to order.

First item on our agenda this evening is a citation.

I'd like to acknowledge Councilor Raposo.

So this one is important to me in 2 ways, and not only as a city councilor but also as this individual's former school principal, which makes me very, very happy to be able to do this this evening.

So all of you well know the tragedy that happened on Hicks Street in the city was a fire.

It was pretty, pretty bad fire and the individuals were displaced.

So, Juliana, why don't you come down here for a minute and I want you to be recognized here.

So Juliana has— she's a current student at Diamond Voak, was a graduate of Espíritu Santo School that I was the principal at, and some of her friends were affected by the tragedy at Hicks Street.

In typical fashion, and why this made me very proud of you, is because It's one thing to say, it's another thing to do.

And she did not hesitate to organize a fundraiser online to raise money to help support not only her friends that were displaced, but also the residents living there.

So she, without thinking anything and without mom even getting involved, she went online, started a GoFundMe, and was able to get the community to rally around this tragedy.

I'm happy to say, because I literally looked it up a minute ago, as of this moment, they raised $35,000 to support those who were displaced from the Hick Street fire.

So that deserves a round of applause, absolutely.

But it's, it's not only just that swift action.

And again, you know, we have a lot of disagreements, we debate and what have you, but this is a moment where we should highlight the youth of our community for stepping up and doing what is right and helping people.

Because sometimes we forget very quickly of the human element because we get so caught up in the world and everything we live in.

And you know that we've talked about many times.

But sometimes we just go back to the fact we're all human.

We may disagree, but we need to take care of one another.

And I am beyond proud of you.

I can't even explain to you how proud I am of you of this.

So in my official capacity.

The Fall River City Council citation: Be it known that the City Council hereby extends its commendation to Juliana Madera, current student at Diamond Regional Vocational Technical High School, in recognition of starting a GoFundMe that raised over $20,000— now $35,000— for city residents displaced by a recent fire that took place on Hick Street, demonstrating your character and leadership as an excellent exemplar for the youth of Fall River.

Be it further known that the Fort Worth City Council extends best wishes for continued success.

The citation be entered into the records of City Council, presented by myself, signed by Mr. President in the back.

But I think I can speak for all the councilors and myself.

We are beyond proud of you.

Keep up the good work, and I know that your actions will definitely help your friends in the greater community.

So congratulations.

Thank you.

The gentleman right there in seat 3 is going to take out his camera and take a picture of us.

Thank you.

And I know all the counselors like to say congratulations to you, so if you want to go— thank you very much.

All right, first item on our Committee on Finance is citizens input.

There's 2 people who have signed up to speak, 3 minutes each.

Come down to the table, state your name and address for the record, even though I'll introduce you.

First person to sign up, Jennifer Dupra.

91 Greenleaf Street, Fall River, regarding safety of access road.

Dutra, I'm sorry, there's a T there.

You should know that.

I thought that was a D, but it's the handwriting.

Well, welcome.

3 minutes.

Thank you.

Is it okay that I'm facing this?

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you for the time.

Appreciate it.

And what a pleasure to bear witness to a citation.

I think that must be the fun part of your job.

What I'm going to talk about today probably is not as fun as giving a citation to a beautiful young lady that stood out and did something exemplary in our community.

So my name is Jennifer Dutra.

I live on Greenleaf Street in Fall River.

I'm here with many of my neighbors, and I'd like to ask them to stand so you can see the show of support in the neighborhood.

When I moved to Greenleaf Street, I never expected to— I've only been here 2 years.

Some of my neighbors have been here for 44 years and such.

But I never expected to become an expert in municipal road management and potholes and deeds and easements.

But that's become, unfortunately, something I've had to become really familiar with.

And that's— and here we are.

Um, Greenleaf Street and Judge Street are Fall River streets that serve 20 households, and we only have one way in and out of our neighborhood, and that's Aruta Lane.

The road as it sits today currently has over 100 potholes, frost heaves, the pavement's failing in many places, cars are bottoming out.

The chief— fire chief has been down to look at the road.

And it's in really bad shape.

And we— I was here in April to the safety committee to report it.

What's important about this, because we brought this forward to multiple people within the administration, and we're kind of asking today for a special counsel meeting because we really need help.

We feel a little frustrated and sort of like the rug's been pulled out from under us.

The reason for that is because there's an important history here.

Fall River accepted Judge Street and Greenleaf Street as public streets in 1977, and around that same time, the owner of Arruda's Lane— it's a private lane in Tiverton— provided permission for the city, written, so that they could maintain that road.

So for decades, the city has maintained that road.

Um, the city's paved the road.

In 2017, the city was completely paved the road, half a mile of that road.

They've plowed it, they've repaired it for years, decades, and it's really only in the first quarter of this year that that has stopped.

And so we don't really understand what happened, and that feels a little bit like the rug's been pulled out from under us.

What we're asking for the city of Fall River to do is not something new.

You've been doing it for, for, for since the, since the at least 40 or 50 years.

Um, so what we're asking for you to do is, um, I think do the right thing for the citizens of this neighborhood.

But we're not asking you today to make a decision on that.

What we're asking for is a special meeting, um, I, so that we can come forward together and figure out a plan There's been some jurisdiction questions that the folks have brought up and things of that nature.

We feel like we have a lot of backup documentation that we've provided.

And so really what we want to do is get all the players at the table and find a win-win solution.

If that has to be creative or something different than what we've done in the past, we're totally open to that.

It's just that we've just been receiving no.

And why.

And the why has been it's a private lane, and that doesn't feel solid to us given the history.

So we really want to try to navigate to a yes and how.

So, um, basically today I'm asking for the counselors to provide some kind of, um, model for us to come to a table.

And if that is a special council meeting, then that's that's what I'm asking for today.

Thank you.

Councilor in seat 7, Councilor Pereira.

What I would suggest is this issue, it's been talked about for a long time.

I've done a lot of research on it myself.

With the city did pave it back when Ed Lambert was mayor.

It wasn't done with Chapter 90 monies that comes from the state for roads because we can't take care of a road in another state.

Um, so they used other money that they had to fix it up, but then learned that we can't take care of it.

Tiverton should be taking care of it.

Maybe Tiverton needs to be involved in this as well.

Um, but that would be my suggestion.

She— you did mention that it went in front of, um, the Public Safety Committee for discussion.

Yep.

So I think Public Works and Transportation, it's a road, would probably be best off going there.

And you can have our attorney and our city engineer provide all the research that's been done on it so that everybody's on the same page and we know exactly what's what, times, dates, etc.

That would be my suggestion.

So who chairs Public Works and Transportation?

Joe.

You're in competent hands with him chairing the meeting.

Thanks a lot.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

And C5, Councilor Hart.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thanks for coming tonight.

Um, I got a call from Ryan, um, Martell about a couple weeks ago and talked to me about the street.

Um, explained the history of it to me, um, said that there was some kind of tree down in that area.

And so I said, what address are you talking about?

He said, well, it's 65 Judge.

So I Googled 65 Judge, and that's Fall River, Massachusetts.

Now, I don't know the history that, that you might know or others might know about it, um, but there definitely seems to be an issue with the town of Tiverton and Fall River in that only particular area.

I did have, um, I, I asked the, uh, the members of the DCM to go down and clear that tree out.

They did.

Um, but as far as like, you know, the potholes and the street, it's in very bad shape.

It needs to be either repaved or maybe Band-Aid approach right now to clog those potholes up.

But I think that's probably a good suggestion, is to have, um, Councilor Camara who's the chair of that committee.

I'm on— I'm one member of the committee, and so is, uh, Councilor Canwell.

So I mean, it's up to him whether— what to do, but I would think we could schedule something quickly.

But it's— it has gone on too long as far as like who— what— who's going to do what.

What if this is on the Tiverton side, is on the Fall River side?

I saw 65 Judge Street, Fall River, Massachusetts, so I'm not sure if there's a portion of the street that is on— is owned by Tiverton.

That would seem ridiculous to me, but I don't know, maybe you know that, knew the answer.

Yeah, Judge Street and Greenleaf Street are landlocked, um, streets by that.

Our only access road is the Ruta Lane, and in 1977, there, by the records, there was some discussion with making access to our neighborhood through Fall River, and it would connect to, um, I can't think of the street, but it looks like rather than build a new road, they made a relationship, an agreement with the farmer to manage half a mile of that road.

If I was going to say go back in the records and look at what I've seen, so it would probably behoove the city at that time to maintain access to these— this Fall River neighborhood with the existing road that was there than to create a new road into the 2, the 2, the 2 lanes.

Thank you very much for coming, and thank you, the, uh, neighbors, for showing up as well.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilman.

Seat 1, Councilor Kadeem.

Thank you.

I, I can appreciate your concern.

I guess the, the only question I would have, and I don't know that we can change it— so number one, Massachusetts General Law doesn't allow us to spend public money on private property, right?

So, and, and I guess what I'm hearing is the far portion of the roads are fine, it's just the Aruta Lane.

Is that, is that what you're talking about?

So where are the potholes?

The majority of the potholes are on Aruta Lane, which is, which is, which is a private lane, the only, the only lane that we can use to access our neighborhood.

The— my— what I don't understand about that is that this has been— and you, you know, to say Oh, we shouldn't have done that.

This has been managed this way for literally decades, so we're not asking for anything new.

We're asking to continue what has been providing service to this neighborhood for so many years.

And then I can't speak to prior administrations and how they spent their money.

I can just tell you that it's illegal, that you can't spend public money on, on private roads.

And I see folks shaking their heads.

It's, it's an absolute fact.

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

We may need to navigate has nothing to do with states.

It's, it's private property, so we can't spend money on, on private property.

So I guess I'm all for referring this to a subcommittee and having a conversation.

What I would suggest is that we have the owner of Ruta Lane come down, and if he's willing to turn over that roadway to the city of Fall River so that we now have access to it, then, then we can have a conversation with the city in terms of whether or not we want to spend money and improve that.

But until we have ownership of that that land, I don't know how you spend money.

So, um, and I, and I appreciate the agreements and I appreciate that, but I think that needs to be part of the conversations.

If not, you're just going to mislead all these individuals that are here tonight to talk about the roadway, right?

So I appreciate what you're saying, but the real conversation needs to be had about Aruta Lane, what that looks like in terms of who owns it.

And until, I guess, the owners of Aruta Lane— I'm assuming it's— I don't know if it's the Ruders, uh, who owns it.

Um, it's a Ruders Dairy Farm.

But, um, how does this— I guess this would be a question for the subcommittee, but how do you— the city has substantial property in the neighborhood for— by easements and stuff.

How do you gain access to the property that the city owns without maintaining the roadway there?

Yeah, we have the easements.

And what about, um, intermunicipality agreements that we have in other neighborhoods?

Would that cover Is there an intermunicipal agreement that we were going to maintain?

If an intermunicipality agreement were in place, would the City of Fall River maintain the road?

Is that the only missing piece?

Because we did find a document where the, where the owner of Aruta Lane granted access to the city to— but I guess my point is, even, even with an intermunicipal agreement, the, this— the Town of Tiverton doesn't own that, that land.

It's a private way, right?

So if it was public way in Tiverton, then we— I think we would be having a different conversation.

So it gets back to the crux of you have to have the owners of the private way here to be able to grant us the control of that, because, because an easement is just a pass-through.

It doesn't— they're just given the authority to go over that land.

That's it.

So, so all I'm saying is, for it to be productive, I would, I would just suggest whoever— are you the chair?

That we have the owner of Aruta Lane here as well to have that conversation in terms of ownership of that, at least that easement.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Um, and just for the council and those here's edification, I jotted down a very quick resolution that I handed to the clerk.

There's nothing currently anywhere where we would be able to have a subcommittee meeting unless the city council has a resolution, it's approved by the body to refer it to a subcommittee, and and then that subcommittee could have a discussion unless Public Safety refers it to Public Works and Transportation.

So I drafted one.

If it's the will of the council, it's just handwritten quickly.

We can hear it after tonight's meeting.

We can refer it to that committee, and then they can call a meeting.

And if it's the will, they can amend it.

They can do whatever they want.

But right now we don't have an item before us, so we can't really have a subcommittee meeting yet.

But hopefully that will be able to accomplish that.

Councilman C2, Councilman— as the chairman of the committee, once the resolution is voted upon, we'll hold a meeting and we'll have everybody come to the table.

We'll try to get the owners of Rue du Fond to come down, and we'll try to settle this.

We'll have the attorneys present, everyone that needs to be there.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah, I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person to sign up to speak is Ian Tompkins of 636 Rock Street regarding the zoning amendment correction.

Good evening, councilors.

Good evening.

So, uh, as you know, I was here last month with my zoning amendment petition.

Um, according to Mass General Law, it should have been sent to the planning board within 14 days, uh, but it was, uh, not.

So we are here because I contacted the city law department and they recommended that we either send it to planning or that I was willing to just accept, um, accept the refund of the fees I paid to the planning board and to the city clerk's office, which I'm in favor of because I'm gonna go talk to the Niagara Neighborhood Association.

We're going to kind of change what my zoning amendment was.

We're probably going to shrink a portion of it, and then it would probably be beneficial to the city to have me submit it freshly with the smaller portion because there's less— there would be fewer residents to have to notify about the zoning amendment because it would not affect as many residents as my current zoning amendment petition did.

Um, that's pretty much— in my original petition, I expected, since I had already paid the fees, that it was going to go to planning.

I was going to show up at the planning board meeting, suggest that we make certain— oh, you know, have a discussion with the Niagara Neighborhood Association, come to some kind of agreement and then have them hopefully send it back to the larger committee with an amend and approve recommendation.

That was my goal with the original.

I didn't expect it to be approved as written because I kind of just wrote it, got enough signatures to get it here, and then expected to see what— how it would be changed by the planning board and by the subcommittee, essentially.

But if we would— it's probably better for the city if I do some of that work ahead of time so that we're addressing a smaller number of residents and not spending as much money sending out individual letters to everybody in a 30-block radius.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on our agenda is a loan order for repairs, renovations, and maintenance of the 3rd Street parking garage in a loan amount of $6,883,400.

Questions councilors have?

Anybody have any questions?

Refer to full council for action.

Motion to refer the item to full council for action has been made by Councilor Pereira.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion on the referral?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Item 3 is a resolution that the Committee on Finance reconvened with an administrator representative from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, the city administrator the city engineer for an update on the progress of the Route 79 Duval Street corridor improvements.

This was tabled in December of 2020.

Motion to lift from the table— motion to lift the item from the table has been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. President, would you like me to start?

Yes, Mr. Aguiar, introduce yourself.

For the record, my name is Dan Aguiar.

I'm the Director of Engineering Planning for the City of Fall River.

And O'Neill Souza, Interim City Administrator.

Mr. Aguiar, if you want to give us maybe an overview of where we're at.

I know you're heavily engaged in this process.

I am, and it's, it's every day it's something new, but we are getting close.

There have been a number of different site visits now with city personnel, myself, Water Department, Sewer Department, going through as-built plans, which are plans that reflect what's actually been constructed, looking at our trees surviving, our trees not surviving, landscaping, a number of different items so that they can finish their punch list items so that we deem the project complete, um, so that we could eventually take over responsibility of the roads.

We are not at that point yet.

Could we be potentially by late fall or winter, possibly.

But there are items that we've called to their attention that need attention.

Over the next few weeks, you're going to see dramatic construction at the intersections of every shared-use path and driveway crossing.

So we've worked for a number of months, probably the last 6, to come to some resolution of how that's going to be handled.

So we finally have an agreement from MassDOT, so they will be reconstructing all of those.

So they're going to be going back into the shared use paths and putting in some safety enhancements to make sure that people can use the shared use paths the way they were intended to, that people aren't driving on the shared use paths.

So there'll be— there is still work to be done, but 90% of the project is complete to date.

We're just in that final process We will not— I, I can tell you, and I think you know how we, how we deal with even our own small little streets— we will not approve or take responsibility or ownership for the utilities or the roadways until they're deemed to our standard, which is pretty high.

Thank you.

Councilman C7, Councilor Pereira.

Yeah, I have a question, Mr. Aguiar.

Is it that Route 79, the east and west side where the grass is, that's going to be the responsibility of the city to maintain and not the outsides of Duval Street on either side?

Yeah.

So there is some discussion what will that ownership and management responsibility be, and we've had internal discussions where we have multiple options that we've discussed.

One has not been finalized, but that's really more internal until the project is complete.

The outside portions that you're talking about, the shared use paths and that landscaping, is the responsibility of the contractor.

And I've been adamant with— I'm not taking ownership of these areas if they're not complete, if trees are dead, if striping isn't to our standard, if, if there are little potholes.

Or every day someone needs to go back in there.

I want to say the electric company is back in there today, or we'll be going into the intersection of President Avenue and Lindsay to go back in and fix a duct line that they had put in that has been crushed since.

So there's going to be some dotting of i's and crossing of t's, but the intent for MassDOT is for us to retain ownership and maintenance of those outside areas.

MassDOT itself, not MassDOT's contractor, right, is responsible for everything inside.

Actually, they were out there cutting grass today.

I did notice that.

But as of now, the actual site contractor is responsible for the maintenance case.

But we've had internal discussions about the need potentially for additional staff, equipment, and that has included myself, the mayor, and Director Hathaway as well, and coming up with a plan if and when it does become ours.

Are we capable of doing it?

But we've, we've thrown around a few different ideas to push that off.

My guess would be that we will not take ownership of it until next spring or summer if it, if it ever did become part of our responsibility.

Because I'm hearing that that would be the responsibility of the city to maintain it, and I agree with you.

Are we going to need more staff?

Are we going to be able to do that?

And then I'm hearing, well, they're going to do a contract with someone to come in and that'll be their responsibility to do it.

But what we pay for contracts sometimes versus hiring more individuals for the Parks Department because that's who would ultimately be clearing that out.

We do some islands as it is.

Is it less expensive to hire more people, even with a benefit package, and get the right equipment that we need to maintain that?

Especially in the summertime, that's going to be a lot of work to maintain, and in the winter too, to shovel all of that.

Agreed.

And we have had that exact discussion.

That was one of the scenarios that Director Hathaway is working through with estimates.

What does make sense.

Um, but in that discussion, we were comfortable with that we really wouldn't have to be responsible until next year so that we had time.

I think the last time we talked about it, we didn't even have a budget established, so a lot was in flux at that point.

But we are having those discussions about taking on the maintenance responsibility.

Well, even when they put up all the trees on Eastern Avenue, a bunch of the trees died.

But whoever put them in, that, that contract that we had They were responsible for them for 2 years.

So they came, pulled them out, same with putting new ones.

I drive by there a lot.

I keep making sure they're going to bud.

If there's one broken, I call Chris Martin and say, you know, need to do something before, um, there are their time limit.

There are warranties on trees, plants, pavement, drainage pipes, everything, you name it.

So just because we say, okay, construction's done, you're now moving on to another project, right, that doesn't mean that they've given up complete responsibility.

We still hold them to their warranty period.

We go out and inspect.

If there's a deficiency, we call them immediately, put together a punch list item for them.

I send inspectors out usually a month or 2 before a permit, even for a normal street, before their patch.

So there's a warranty for 1 year for a street patch.

I make sure that 2 months out of that patch warranty expiring, we go do an inspection.

And if this is deficient, we send a photo and the original permit to the contractor and tell them they need to go and fix it.

I've been really happy that that's been being done.

They did Robeson Street after we did it, and the gas company came in and put all these cuts.

They did a great job paving all of that and getting it back.

They should all do that.

If they know they can get away with something here, they're going to try to get away with that.

The other thing, and I know you can't do anything about this because you haven't turned it over to us, it's not completed, but the lighting— not the, the lights per se, the traffic lights, I mean— those need to be coincided somehow because I can give you some information.

Jammed up traffic.

So we had probably 2 months ago, the consultant came through and did a retiming of things which had made a dramatic difference.

One of the issues that have, President Avenue specifically, the traffic requirement from MassDOT requires us to have a pedestrian-only set of time, which means no one goes anywhere so that the pedestrian is exclusive to the intersection.

I don't know if we need that yet.

However, I was told we have no choice because of the way the funds were procured, the way that it was constructed.

There has to be a pedestrian-only movement.

So it is frustrating.

I sit there too and I say, why am I sitting here?

There's nobody here.

So we haven't taken over that.

And then— but then I am told once it does become our ownership, then we could potentially deal with it differently.

So they're following MassDOT rules.

Chris Hathaway, um, we'd had a site visit to look at all of the equipment.

Every cabinet got open, all the controllers, all the signalization, went through all of that.

There were deficiencies in that.

So they were hoping to get a clean bill of health a month or so ago on that.

That did not happen.

So they're in there making some more modifications and changes just to the equipment.

Chris, again, will not accept it until he's entirely comfortable with what they've done before it comes— becomes his responsibility.

Well, and that's good.

Yeah, to have somebody go in and check out, you know, that all of that is being done.

Now, we have to have that level of expertise in wiring and signalization in our DPT PCM director.

Don't they have a button so that if I'm going across the street, I'll push a button?

That's correct.

Does it just automatically stop right now even if no one is there?

So even if no one's there, it stops.

There will be a time where no one moves, everybody's at a red light.

Yeah.

And the white light will come on and tell you it's okay to, to move, to cross, but there's nobody there.

Even if no one's there, there is a button that if you are there— and that's DOT's rule?

That's DOT's rule.

Yeah, interesting how they think.

It is.

Yeah.

With that, I yield.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilman in seat 1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Can you just elaborate what were the, I guess, the issues with the shared use path?

So on the original design plans, it had called for the intersections of every driveway, whether it's a residential property or a commercial driveway, that every one of them had a concrete pad, detectable warning strip, which is the yellow dimples that you see at crosswalks, striping, normal crosswalk striping across the driveway, and then flex posts, which are just a fiberglass post that's set in the middle of the shared use path.

You see them all over the place in traffic for bike lanes and to demarcate where are the ends of the driveway and to preclude people from driving we're actually having an incredible amount of trouble with people driving and using the shared use path as a road.

So at about the— once it gets procured and out of the 25% design, it becomes what's called a design-build.

So the contractor and MassDOT work through construction, and in that process, dealing with those crossings in that manner was removed.

So as we're watching the striping get done, when they did the little dashed line down in the middle of the shared use path, I asked, where, where are the rest of it?

This is not safe.

Well, that's, that's what it is.

That's what we decided to do.

So luckily, with the help of some legislators, our administration, we've been able to work with MassDOT.

And again, it's taken— I want to say last— since November to get them to agree to going back to what the original design was.

So every one of those intersections now will be dealt with just like a street.

It will look no different.

There will be a concrete pad, the detectable warning strip, crosswalk painted, and, and the flex post to keep people from driving on it.

So we were glad to be able to get that done.

And that work should be done before the end of this construction season.

That's absolutely— I mean, phenomenal job to you for picking up that and recognizing it and then obviously holding MassDOT accountable to that.

So how long do you How long do you think that it's going to take to actually do the entire strip?

It's a lot.

It's a lot of work.

It's a lot of money.

But I, I would expect that it would be done— I always like to think of Thanksgiving as being the construction season, so probably before that.

I know they want to have, um, a ribbon cutting, um, to say that the project's complete.

My guess is they want to have that complete before, before the ribbon cutting.

So yeah, maybe the end of October.

To, to be optimistic.

Not that it's necessarily the city's money, but did they come under budget, or is that— is that as far as I know, the project is under budget.

Okay, so they're able to accommodate those?

I think so.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Appreciate it.

I yield.

Councilman C2, Councilor Camara.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. Tagliaferro, welcome.

You had said just now to Councilor Kadim's question And MassDOT went back to their original design.

How do they get away from it?

Why did they go— no one can answer.

How do they get away from not sticking to the original design?

They just create a design of their own?

Well, no, MassDOT was, was part of the original design.

Yes, but you said they didn't— once it gets into the contractor's hand, and this is— they, they have been unable to point fingers of, say, and say who said it was okay not to do it.

Who's the project manager?

Valerie Kilduff.

And she didn't know about it?

Nope, knew nothing about it.

We've gone multiple levels above Valerie to get this resolved, but we have not been— no one has been able to tell me at what point did they decide to get rid of these.

Did they change any other designs, or did they vary off of anything else?

Some, some minor things that we're working through as-builts on, and that's why we require as-builts and we do inspections to make sure that built to what we had asked for, right?

This is the most glaring.

I mean, it's, it's just, it's, it's, I don't know, it doesn't make any sense that they could just vary from the original design as a contractor knowing that that's not what's in the plans.

Well, they sign a contract with, with the bid at a 25% design, and then at that point it becomes a design-build, just like if you hire someone to build your house and the plans aren't 100% complete.

Through that process Somebody may decide, well, I don't want that faucet, I want a $10,000.

But it has to be agreed upon.

It should have to be agreed.

It has to be.

You are correct.

But, but it's— it was apparently agreed upon between the contractor and MassDOT, but no one wants to see who agreed to it.

No one.

No one asked us.

No, no one asked us because we're— in all honesty, it's not our jurisdiction.

It's there.

Look, I'm not trying to, you know, nothing we can do, but I'm glad they're fixed.

I'm just curious as to how that takes place.

How, how do they get away from— I, I can't give you that answer.

I don't know.

Yeah.

All right, well, thanks.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anything further on this item?

Is there a motion to table?

Motion to table.

Motion to table is made by Councilor Pereira.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Item number, uh, 4, right?

Yep.

Item number 4.

Motion item Motion to lift item 4 from the table has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

It's like the Red Sox, 4 outs.

Item number 4, resolution of the Committee on Finance convening to discuss the anticipated timeline— Mr. Fiola, come on down— of the land ownership transfer and planned real estate distribution process with the Route 79 corridor improvements project area.

Area.

That item was referred in July of 2025.

I know we've had previous other discussions, and I believe our colleague in seat 2 was the author of this resolution at first.

Uh, Mr. Fiola, if you could please, um, uh, introduce yourself.

And then thank you, Mr. President.

Uh, Ken Fiola, Executive Vice President of Bristol County Economic Development Consulting.

Mr. Aguiar again, please.

Dan Aguiar, Director of Engineering and Planning for the City of Fall River.

Anne O'Neill-Souza, interim city administrator.

Thank you.

The resolution is before us.

Mr. Fiola, do you want to give us maybe a quick overview of where we're at?

And I, and I did, just for everybody's edification, I did send a letter.

I believe I copied everybody here at this table on the letter, kind of speaking to the Department of Transportation, asking about the bidding process to kind of see where everything's at and to see where the city's hand is in this.

And maybe if you can highlight anybody at the table that, that would be great just for the council.

And I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Fiolo.

Okay, uh, thank you, uh, very much, uh, Mr. President.

Good evening.

Um, so I think, you know, in terms of providing clarity as to where we are with the particular project, uh, MassDOT has now issued an invitation to bid seeking proposals from developers for the development of the entire Route 79 corridor, which is just about 19 plus or minus acres.

That invitation for bid is, you know, you can find it online.

It's rather extensive.

But it talks about the need for additional housing in the area, mixed-use housing.

It talks about the need for financial capacity of a developer to move forward with the project.

Also stipulates how the, how the proposal is to be structured in terms of what the phasing of the particular project would be, what the overall amount of projected rental units would be, how much commercial/retail/restaurant space would also be considered as part of the proposal.

And it also asks for a phasing plan in terms of how long it is anticipated to develop the entire parcel itself.

The invitation for bid was issued probably a couple— on July 23rd, so it's, you know, relatively recent.

They'll be looking for proposal submission on October 21st, so it's a relatively, uh, you know, fair amount of time in which to have developers put their proposals together.

Mass Development will be making determination as to who the developer or developers would be.

And also, they will be encouraging developers to work with the city administration, the engineering department, Redevelopment Authority, and others, you know, to get their input on the development itself.

So it's anticipated that there is strong developer interest in this that will come to light as project proposal process moves forward.

But essentially, you know, after 20 years or so of trying to get this to come to fruition, we're in a position where it is coming to fruition, and we would probably see construction beginning after the award of the contract, probably within a year to year and a half after the award is made.

They would have a 9-month period to do due due diligence on the property.

The property is being offered as is, so the developer would have to go out there and do their own environmental permitting— actually, environmental testing.

We all believe it to be clean, you know, since clean fill was brought in on that, but it's just one of the, you know, thresholds that any developer is going to need in order to secure project financing.

Once the environmental due diligence process is over, the developer then has a year to enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the property with MassDOT.

That year will be used for securing any other permits that may be necessary from the state in terms of environmental impact reports and other types of permits that may be necessitated by the type and proposed number of units that the developer is contemplating as that Phase 1.

The developer would have a 3-year period in which to complete that first building.

We— the invitation for bid calls for the preferred first building location to be located at either side of the intersection of President Avenue and Duval Street, but a developer can come forward and identify another spot as opposed to that.

So, um, you know, there's a few moving pieces in the overall plan itself, but for the most part, I think we can all take solace in the fact that it is moving forward.

We are going to see some development there probably within the next— I'm hoping within the next 18 months.

We've also— the RP call, invitation for bid, calls for a minimum of 125 units being constructed as part of the first building.

So that's pretty much in a nutshell as to where we are with regard to timing-wise and the project in terms of the invitation to bid.

But be happy to answer any questions that councilors may have.

Thank you, Mr. Filo.

And for everybody's edification, the council did— we did invite MassDOT to this meeting.

They did send us over a letter, a timeline, and also there are 71 bidding pages that are available.

And want to print 71 pages for the bid instructions, but that is available if anybody finds it necessary.

Councilor in seat 2, Councilor Camara.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Welcome, Mr. Fiola.

Thank you.

So are they looking for one developer to do the entire project?

Are they looking for multiple developers?

Uh, it's one developer.

That developer could partner with other developers, but it's one developer.

So how would that work?

Would they— one developer put in a bid for the entire piece of property?

Yeah.

So the way they're looking for it is that there would be a price associated with the number of units that are being constructed.

So for easy math's sake— and I'm not saying that this is the number, but just for easy math— so the master plan calls for 1,480 rental units.

A developer could come forward and say, I'm going to price each of those out at $10,000 per unit, so that'd be $14,800,000.

Um, that $14 million would be the bid price upon— $14.8 million would be the bid price upon which the developer would submit his development— his or her development proposal, and then the developer would commit to the other aspects of what's required within the invitation to bid in terms of building that first building.

Keep in mind that a cost, a proposed estimated cost for 125 units, is probably $50 to $60 million.

That's what you're looking for in terms of a development cost for a building of that size.

So even though they're purchasing the property for X, they also have to commit to that first building, which would be a preferred 125 units.

They could come in larger, they could come in smaller.

That's a determination that MassDOT would need to make a determination on whether— as to whether or not they accept it.

So I just want to backtrack one second.

How much did you say the cost would be to them?

$65 million, or roughly for the— for 125 units, probably between $50 and $60 million.

So they'll be paying taxes on $60 million.

There's a difference between an assessment and construction cost.

So whatever the assessor comes up with in terms of the valuation in that building, that $60 million includes— uh, $50 to $60 million includes a hard cost, it includes soft costs, it includes permit fees, it includes developer fees.

Most of the— and utilities has been already put in place.

Most of the utilities, yeah, each of the parcels, significant savings.

Yeah, it's pretty much plug and play.

And, you know, we got to give a lot of credit to the state, right, uh, for doing that, right?

Um, like I said, we've worked on this for 20 years.

I know some of you people have been involved at different, uh, points of this discussion and, uh, projects.

So, you know, one of the things we wanted to ensure was that when, as part of removing that elevated highway and creating these developable parcels, that all the, all the parcels would have stub for the utilities, right?

But they still have to go through site plan review with the city, you know, to make sure that the proposed development comports with city rules and regulations for site plan review.

So separate from the units themselves, the rental units, what's the bottom floor of these buildings?

What will that be looking like?

Were they going to put apartments on first floor they're looking at, but so it depends on developer.

It's a mixed-use development plan, right?

So I think— I can't speak on behalf of the state, but it does specifically talk about mixed-use.

And I think the state is looking for maybe not all of the buildings, but a portion thereof to be— have retail, restaurant, cafe space within the, the first floor.

And it's also a preferred preference for podium parking.

So the parking would be included within the building itself as opposed to utilizing developable property for parking, right?

So if you, um, you know, and Dan could speak to this a little bit further, but if you include a mixed-use development as part of the project, you may be able to knock down the number of required parking spaces that would be required for the actual building itself.

If there's no mixed use, I believe it's 1.25 as part of the WTOD.

That would be the regulation.

I mean, when will we determine whether or not we want to have mixed use with— that'll be part of the submissions.

Yeah, that's really not up to us at this point.

That's up to whatever the developer comes in for a proposal.

But shouldn't we be— what, what do we want, right?

In our master plan, we should be saying, hey, listen, part of this project, we want to see X amount of businesses and mixed use.

We've done that.

Yeah, we've done that.

We've done that, but we're not the controlling entity with the final say.

What I can say, Ken alluded to this, is that the WTOD zoning district, there are carrots that are built into it that allow for mixed-use developments to take advantage of parking reductions.

If it's not a mixed-use development then they have to provide the parking that's required.

So if there are components that are mixed-use, then they can actually— if it's a project that requires over 200 parking spaces, that's mixed-use.

They can actually apply a 30% reduction in the number of parking spaces required.

That's very attractive to developers because there's no space there for parking.

Correct.

So, um, there are things that we've done to build into zoning and into the master plan that have set the framework for a very successful development.

We're with bated breath waiting for what do these development proposals come in with.

But even during the process of writing the, the master plan, we met with some of the largest developers in New England when we crafted that, and we were— they— we received guidance from them for the different types things that they found to be attractive, and that was one of them.

So do I imagine every building will have restaurant or retail or office space, hotel?

Who knows what, what they're going to come back in with.

We've laid out what we would like to see in a very general format.

Zoning allows for specific things to happen.

We have the ability through the Zoning Board of Appeals not to waive on those.

So you may have a developer that comes in and wants something substantially different than what we have in zoning.

It's up to the Zoning Board of Appeals to, you know, we've created this area, we've expanded this location of this area for what we want in here.

So we'll, we'll see how that plays out in the future.

If I could just add to that too, so one of the other aspects of this plan and why it's down to 19 acres as opposed to the 20 or 22 acres that were previously mentioned.

There will be a public use parcel, and we think we're going to use it for public parking, located at the intersection of, um, uh, what's the street?

Turner and DeVall.

So Turner South, there's a triangular piece, yeah, that the city will have ownership of and be able to build.

And that's where some of these CSO infrastructure is already located underneath that parcel.

So in terms of development potential, you can't develop it because you have the CSO things, but you can certainly use it for public flat surface parking there.

And we're also working on identifying— there's 2 identified locations for parking garages within this 19 acres where, you know, there's been legislation passed by the House of Representatives in the economic development bill for a $4 million appropriation for a parking garage.

City-owned parking garage, or is that going to be owned by the developer?

I think it'll probably be owned, uh, by the city or the Redevelopment Authority, whichever entity is best suited to manage it.

The state wouldn't want to take control of that?

No, no.

And so, um, but you know, $4 million doesn't get you that far in terms of the number of spaces, you know, you're typically looking at $40,000 per parking space.

So we're, we're going to probably have it designed.

It's, it's going to go to conference committee with the Senate.

Um, maybe there's a possibility that there could be some additional monies added to it.

But in any event, if whether there is or isn't, it'll be nice if there was.

We're going to hopefully design that parking garage to accommodate additional levels.

Uh, how many levels will those buildings be able to go up?

Highest point, 80 feet.

6 stories or 80 feet.

What's Point Gloria?

13.

13.

Not even close.

Yeah, it'd be similar.

I believe, uh, residents at River's Edge— yeah, where the Bay Coast Bank is.

Yeah, that meets the zoning rule.

They can't go as high as the Bay Coast Bank.

Yeah, the Bay Coast Bank is by right.

That's, that's written into zone.

So the buildings that we're going to look are going to be equal to that height?

Yes.

Well, they could be.

But no, for— no, not without a special permit, right?

Okay, that's what I'm saying.

Apply for a special permit?

They can apply for a special permit, yes, but that's determined by the ZBA as to whether or not it would be granted as such.

Interesting.

I'm sure some other colleagues have questions.

I mean, they just— I think it's a fabulous, you know, I can't wait for it to get developed.

I just want to make sure that we don't miss a mark don't put all apartments and nothing else there, because then where are these people going to go?

Where are we going to go down to our waterfront?

And then, yeah, well, this is, like I said, I think we can all agree this has the potential to be transformational, right, in terms of if we do it right, if we get the looks that we want to have.

Will those buildings have like the first floor be on pedestals because of the 100-year storm being so close to it?

It's not in the floodplain, it's outside the floodplain.

Floodplains.

So Point Gloria is inside the floodplains, and it's unfilled.

So we're above sea level enough to— Point Gloria is unfilled in tideland, so that they had to do that.

Yeah, good.

It makes a big difference.

All right, with that, I yield.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilman C7, Councilor Pereira.

I, I've got to tell you, I am personally afraid of this project being done the wrong way.

Because it's supposed to be an area that's going to attract people to come to Fall River.

And if you have some developer coming in and, you know, I don't know, did you say, Mr. Aguiar, that they can only go up 6?

That's correct, by right.

But that's what's written.

Then they can go ZBA.

And that's why I, I had prefaced my comments previously with if the Zoning Board of Appeals holds the line on what's requested or what's allowed in zoning, that would be the opportunity to do that.

But that's my fear, because many times they don't hold the line.

And there was a gentleman that came before us at citizen input time a few months back, and he said something about it depends what lawyer you go to the ZBA with and how things get approved and things don't get approved.

Um, and that was hard to hear.

Because it shouldn't be that way.

The rules should be the same for everybody.

I can tell you that's not true.

A lot of people say a lot of things.

I know, but it was hard to hear.

I, I just want to be absolutely clear, okay?

The ZBA— and I don't want to speak on behalf of Dan— but they evaluate each application as it comes before it upon the merits.

It doesn't matter who the attorney is or who the developer is.

Well, I'm just telling you that that's the feeling out there.

And we have to listen when people say the same thing.

I was there once when some man wanted to come and build apartments where the old ward was for veterans, and neighbors complained.

They didn't build it.

Those neighbors have all moved out of, out of the city, and the thing is still vacant.

No, no.

It's just concerning.

I believe he just got his occupancy permit yesterday for 8 2-bedroom apartments.

Well, wonderful.

Yeah.

So we find ways to— I know, but my poor veterans.

I was worried about them.

But I just want it to be something that's done the right way.

We went on the train up to Boston last Friday.

By the way, Fridays the train ride is free.

I didn't know it.

I was surprised.

Free parking, free train.

It was a great day, but we stopped all along the way at many places, and every place we stopped, huge buildings.

Apartment buildings, because you know that these people get tax credits if they're building near the trains.

There's also tax credits attached to this.

And we do have a lot of buildings that are going up in Fall River, a lot of affordable buildings, which, you know, we're going to have to look at more police, more fire, more schools, um, you know, more infrastructure.

Do— and that's not always bad, that, that's positive too.

I would just like to see more things in little shops than an ice cream parlor or a coffee shop or a small restaurant or a sub shop or somebody that sells trinkets and jewelry and crafts.

Make people want to come there.

And if you're doing that, to have large enough sidewalks so in the summertime, good weather, spring, summer, fall, people can Put stuff outside.

Make it more like what they do in Newport.

You walk around and there's a lot of outdoor seating.

Granted, we're not going to have that in January, February when it's really cold, but we have to start thinking outside of the box.

Well, just, just on that point, I don't know, I'm just nervous about it.

I wouldn't, I wouldn't be nervous.

Um, on that point there, the way the, the setbacks associated with these buildings will allow for that type of use, cafe use and outside use, and those types of amenities that will make the, uh, the project area and the particular project, I think, more, um, you know, acceptable, and also, you know, more a project that people are going to want to frequent.

Um, so I think we, we really try to take that all into account.

The widest sidewalks that you have, the less developable parcels that you have.

We don't have a lot of width there, right?

So we had to be cognizant of, you know, trying to fit buildings on relatively, you know, smaller parcels in terms of width.

They're long, but they're not very wide, right?

So we do have the ability with setbacks to accommodate some of these outdoor cafes and, you know, some retail and some restaurants, and that's all part of the plan, right?

And I think, you know, I think we're just going to have to look at it optimistically.

I don't think we can fall within the trap of negativity and casting a negative light upon this until such time we get it up off the ground and actually see what's going to be proposed.

These are not cheap buildings.

No, no.

So, you know, developers are going to make sure that in order to get a return on investment, they're going to have to offer a product that's attractive to people to live there.

Um, you know, clearly You know, these will most— these will be market rate units, okay, as opposed to subsidized units.

And, you know, the constituency that will be, um, that will most likely take advantage of these units would be— I put them in 3 different buckets.

One would be Fall River people that are looking to go into an apartment that has the different types of amenities, off-street parking, HVAC, security, other things that dishwasher, dishwasher, and you know, washer dryer.

Yeah, essentially that they may not be afforded now, but they're looking, they'd like to move into that, those types of units.

And we see that occurring in some of the other units that are taking place in the city now.

Second constituency would be young professionals that would use Fall River, you know, to, to work as well as live.

And, you know, a lot of people work from home these days, but they can get on the rail and get into Boston or downtown Providence within a short period of time.

And then the third constituency are empty nesters that, you know, have outgrown their homes and now they're looking to sell them or, you know, transfer them to, you know, to their children.

But they want to have a place where they feel secure, they're next to restaurants, they're next to shopping opportunities, they're next to doctors' offices, they're next to other amenities that, you know, that they've become accustomed to, accustomed to.

But at the end of the day, if they want to go on vacation, they just lock the door.

They don't have to worry about maintenance of the property.

So though that to me is the constituency that's there, the master plan identified a market demand for 5,000 units, um, you know, for Fall River.

A lot of those people will be coming from Greater Fall River as well.

If you look at, if you look at a 1-bedroom right now in Quincy, for instance, a 1-bedroom is, is $2,000— excuse me, it's $3,100 a month.

Now, if you can offer a 1-bedroom to people that have commuter rail access and the ability to, I think, an equal or better quality of life, and they come down here at $2,100 or $2,200 a month for a 1-bedroom— it'd probably be closer to $2,200 or $2,300— that $800 savings translates trans into $9,600 a year, right, for a person, right?

So that's a lot of money.

And I think those are the types of things that are going to be determining factors as to the constituency and the type of people that may be looking to occupy these units.

Ken, who wrote the invitation for bid?

Who prepared that document?

The city— excuse me, the state put in.

Uh, we looked at some of the early drafts.

We incorporated some suggestions into the ITB.

Some of the— most of the suggestions that we offered were incorporated in some fashion.

So for the general public, if they wanted to see a copy of the invitation of bid, that would be on some website?

Yeah, it's on the massdot website.

The massdot website.

And for people who want to see the master plan?

It's on the city's website.

It's on the city's website.

I just think that people will question after, or they'll complain after, or they'll question a bunch of things after.

Um, where— let's tell them where things are now so that they can look at it and they can see what it is.

Do they have a copy at the public library, for example?

People that don't have a computer, can we have a copy of the master plan?

You can come to my office and pick it up.

I, I always offer that anyone that wants to come in, review the master plan, review the underlying zoning, and that's to all of you as well.

Um, that's my job.

Well, that's good for the public to know.

Absolutely.

Because, you know, people will call and they'll say, are they doing this?

Are they doing that?

And how come all, you know, all 20 acres or 19 acres are going to one person?

That's not fair.

Why are they doing it?

So I think explaining a little bit of what you did tonight was that yes, one person gets it, but then they can obviously deal with other people that are coming in as subs and doing different developments.

Let me offer this.

So the City of Fall River, the Redevelopment Authority, um, Ken's office as well, we've done all that we can to set this project up for success between the master plan, the underlying zoning, everything that we've done, making sure that the that the construction is done completely.

We've set it up for success.

We don't own the land.

We can't dictate who buys it or how it gets disposed of.

We were incorporated to, to a pretty good extent of helping put the— put this together.

A number of us were.

Now we just have to have some faith that MassDOT— and again, that doesn't mean that you stop advocating.

Advocating state to the legislators and to the governor and to the lieutenant governor with what you would like to see.

And when they look at the selection, we will not see them.

They've been advised to speak to us so that they know and get an understanding of what's the permitting process going to be like, what's the city like to work with.

So those types of things we can help guide them through, the developers, but we will not see them.

We will not have a say in which proposals we find advantageous.

I mean, we've had some good people in here to develop things.

I— South Coast Marketplace is a prime example.

Those 2, Mr. Godley, they've done a wonderful job there.

And people were afraid of that development.

They were.

But I— Sean and I met with them, um, once or twice.

Great, great gentlemen to work with.

I just hope it, it comes out well.

I'm keeping the faith that, you know, it'll work out for us and be a good destination for people to come to.

As far as putting a parking deck, um, on Turner Street, that's near Point Gloria.

It's not going to be a deck, it's just going to be flat surface.

Flat surface.

Yeah.

How many spots is that?

Not many.

I had done a layout.

I want to say it close to 90 or 100?

Yeah, I think it was something like that.

Something like that.

So we're not doing a parking deck there?

No, no, we can't because you have the CSO infrastructure.

Yeah, underneath.

Well, it's a good thing.

And that's actually state land that they're transferring over to the city for no cost, which is— which was originally supposed to be a developable parcel, right?

Good.

Isn't there an electric thing down Turner Street at the bottom?

All electric lines?

That's actually on privately owned piece of land.

Yeah, yeah, that's owned by, um, Vitaly Fedorov is the developer's name that owns that.

It was Liberty Utilities, right?

And he was recently purchased that.

Oh, Liberty didn't want to give it to us.

Too bad.

Well, well, I don't think you want to.

It was contaminated.

It has some issues.

Oh, did have issues when we don't want it, right?

All right, well, hopefully it'll, um, turn out okay.

With that, I yield.

Thank you for all the, uh, work you guys have put put into it.

Thank you, appreciate it.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Thank you.

Councilman Seat 1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you, Mr. President.

So I know a lot of folks say a lot of different things.

We're not supposed to believe everything, so I think I might be in a good mood today.

So I, I do— I've already given some recognition to Mr. Aguiar.

I do just want to acknowledge, number one, your foresight on the WTOD.

I think we approved that back in '23-'24.

So the fact that we had the foresight, or you had the foresight to put that together and have that overlay district submitted to us and that the council actually took the action to move this forward, I think is a testament to you and everybody that was involved because I think what I've heard, it's significantly helped to move this process forward.

So I want to give you kudos to that because I don't think a lot of people do that.

So I do have just a, I guess, a couple of questions.

I think some of my questions were answered, but I guess I'm a little concerned about it.

So the first thing was just in terms of the, uh, the proposals coming in.

So we have nobody that's part of the review process or anything like that?

No.

And I think the part of that is because we're so intimately involved with the creation of the ITB, and if there were local people that were submitted submitting bids and everything else, it may be a conflict of interest.

So I think just to keep it clean, above board, and without any sort of, you know, taint to it, it'd be easier just for the state to make the determination.

But as Dan had indicated, most developers will be coming to the city— propose— I would anticipate most developers will be coming to the city proposing different ideas and getting feedback from the city as to what the city may be looking for there.

I guess I would have just expected, expected at least from the state, especially since MassDOT was down here at a public meeting saying that we were a partner— and I'm not saying that we weren't a partner— that we would at least had one person on there to help at least review some of the proposals if they were going to be maintained.

Well, I think we've been, we've been a partner up until this point.

I don't want to say that we're not a partner, but when you start talking about a partnership, I anticipate a partnership from beginning to end.

You know, I don't want to add to the divorce rate, I guess.

You know, I want to stay in a marriage.

So, you know, I think we, we should right from the beginning to the end at least have one individual.

I mean, it's something that we're going to have to live with, right?

So I think we should have at least one individual.

I mean, it's not going to skew, obviously, um, you know, decision-making process, but we should have somebody at the table to talk about the input, uh, with the proposals that are coming forward.

I mean, it is our community.

We're the ones that live down here.

I'm not trying to take anything away from the, from the state of those.

We did advocate for that.

We did.

So it's not something— I was actually in Las Vegas.

Yeah, we do.

Yeah, it's something that we, we advocated for.

Is it, is it a dead issue or is it something we can still— yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So I mean, we— again, you hear a lot of things.

We tried legislators tried to keep this in our own ownership at some point in time.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided, for whatever purpose— and the federal government gets involved as well because it is federally— the highways were built with federal money— that that was not going to be the case.

And it was probably a 2-year process of continually trying to find a way to have more say in this matter, and it just didn't come to fruition.

Um, but again, that was out of our hands.

But we tried.

Many people tried.

That's disappointing.

Just, just as, as one councilor, I mean, we, we sat here and we, we heard the state basically saying— because when we were talking about, you know, where, where the property was going to go, is going to come back to the Redevelopment Authority, is going to come back to the city, and, you know, we were reassured regardless.

And I, I think you were president at the time.

Um, we were reassured regardless of what transpired that there would be a partnership and we would, we would have a say.

So a little disappointed that— well, I shouldn't say a little.

Let me, let me take that back because I'm not a little disappointed.

I'm extremely disappointed that we don't even have at least one member.

I'm not looking for control of, um, the committee that's going to be evaluating proposals, but not to have one representative from the city of Fall River to review the proposals.

And Ken can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't even know in the ITB if it spells out how the evaluation committee is made up.

Am I wrong?

It's going to be messed up, right?

Masked up.

But like, did it say that there's a committee of 10?

I don't know.

That hasn't been determined.

I think it's just going to be internal people involved in the project.

Well, like, maybe we advocate for that.

I think, uh, just looking at Council President, since he's, uh, just an advocate of everything City of Far Rockaway, I think you should probably try to make some calls to see if we can make that change.

I know they've worked with folks, but from my standpoint, all I'm looking for is one individual to be able to say that they have some input with some of the designs and proposals that are in there.

Like, I think that's the least we could— I did send a letter.

I put a copy on everybody's desk asking for that.

I missed that.

It's okay.

It is on item 3 on our agenda too, but I did send a letter out to Mass Department of Transportation seeing if they will do something, but I haven't heard back yet.

But we did send it out last week.

I thought you said you wanted to go— you were going to a Red Sox game or something like that.

You were going to make a stop at the State House, go talk to the governor.

I did.

They didn't let me in.

They didn't let you in.

Okay.

You should try again.

Just in terms of— you spoke about phasing.

So what are we looking for phasing in the ITB?

And I apologize because I didn't read the ITB.

Is it callouts?

Is it spelled out?

It's probably a 3 or 4 phase process.

Project over a 10-year period.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then the, the parking— I— you talked about the parking, 125 units initially, and then depending on if it's a mixed-use or changes, you're saying parking underneath the buildings?

That's, uh, that's the preferred preference, correct?

Okay.

All right.

Um, we also, just on the parking thing, was part of this process.

We didn't take it to full, um, discussion, but we had preliminary discussions, uh, with the MBTA in the event that additional parking is needed there, that we can go over that flat surface lot.

But that's a little bit more complicated because now you're talking about air rights and everything else that's associated with that.

As part of the initial MBTA project, we tried to advocate for a parking garage because we knew it was forthcoming.

But, you know, parking garages are expensive.

I I get it, right?

So, but I think parking, you know, parking is one of those issues that, um, you know, it's part of every project and something that has to be addressed, and people will figure it out.

Thank you.

Mr. President, through you to the, to the clerk, can you, can you do me a favor?

Can you, um, send to the council president a list of our federal and state delegation along with the contact information for the governor, lieutenant governor?

Speaker of the House, Senate President, so that the council president can make appointments to, to work with council leadership to go have meetings with all those individuals to make sure that we can try to get somebody on the review.

Thank you.

Councilor Kadim, if I can add, um, as much as I would want to be involved, I should not be involved in that.

No, no, but just whoever But if you're going to have that discussion— no, no, because— all right, no, because all of the ultimate— all the ultimate permitting will come through my office.

I don't— I don't want to have that.

I'm not suggesting— you are right, someone should be.

Who, right?

All I am saying is there should be a representative of the city of Fall River, whether it's a constituent, uh, somebody in an official role.

I, I don't— I don't care who it is.

I'm not trying to remove any type of conflict But I also think we need to, to really, at least from a city council standpoint, this is, this is a significant issue from my standpoint.

I mean, we were told that there was going to be a partnership, and, and I think there's been a partnership from the very beginning.

I don't want to see it end now.

It shouldn't end at the, you know, the proposals coming in.

I mean, that's not what we were told.

We were told that they were going to work with us, and, and working with us means that we should be able to have a seat at the table and review the proposals as well.

So I just want to make sure that we've got that sense of urgency and trying to light the fire under some folks.

I know I'm joking a little bit, but I'm serious in terms of just having somebody.

I don't care who it is.

Hopefully somebody with experience just to review some of these proposals.

You know, even if it's a developer within the city who has no interest in developing that property, to be able to sit there and just kind of review some of these proposals.

I think there's just the benefit to it.

It could make— it could maybe be a consultant, or a consultant, whoever, right?

It could be a master plan consultant, actually, something like that.

That's perfect.

I just think we should have a seat at the table.

That's, that's all I'm looking for.

I don't— and I don't think it's a tough ask.

Um, so I mean, you know, every time the state's looking for something, we're always willing to work with them and extend, you know, our support for different things.

So every election they're coming down here asking for, for support and pictures.

So if they want support and pictures, then give us a seat at the table.

We'll, we'll take all the pictures we need.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anything further for discussion from this council?

Councilor— and I'm sorry, Councilman C2, Councilor Camara.

Thanks, Mr. Fiore.

I just want to get back to one of the things you brought up, a one-bedroom apartment.

Are there going to be a limit as to how many one-bedrooms they can build in those buildings?

2 bedrooms?

3?

It's 3?

What's the— what's the— what's it looking like?

That'll be The master plan calls for a mix of studios, 1s and 2s, with a sprinkling of 3s, but the developer will propose their own.

He wants to divide it up?

Yes.

But will he have to have any 2s or 3s?

No, not necessarily.

Depends on what he wants to put down.

Again, the challenge here is to try to— whoever develops this project is going to have to take a bit of a risk.

Oh yeah, right.

Because right now they're gonna have to create the rental market, as opposed to— it's not like you're developing in Quincy where you know what the rental market is for one bed, then you put it into your pro forma and you know what your return on investment is going to be.

Here it's going to be a little leap of faith to try to create this market, and they will make a decision.

You could have the first building looking dramatically different than the second building.

You could have a mixture of more studios and ones and a couple twos in building number one, and you could have more ones and twos and threes in the second building, right?

So I think as time moves forward, the market gets established, and they'll identify what the biggest demand is for.

There's nothing in here that says you couldn't do a condo building, right?

So somebody could come in with a condo, you know, proposal as part of the overall development.

To purchase the condos instead of renting them?

Yeah, that could be part of the overall thing, right?

So, you know, there's a— and who knows, there's, you know, you could— it's 10 years is a lot of time in terms of a phased development.

You could have somebody come in and propose an office building, a hotel, right?

So it's going to be a lot of, you know, nothing that's going to be necessarily stagnant.

Right?

Everything's going to continue to evolve over a 10-year period.

Yeah.

I want— you mentioned the city of Quincy a couple of times, and I spent a lot of time there, as you know.

Those apartments that I walk by on a daily basis, go to the bank, most of them, they're $2,800 for one bedroom, and it's in the middle of the city, which doesn't have any water view, doesn't have that type of attraction that we have here.

And the commuter rail is right across the street here.

It's just— I think you're going to see a lot of people who— and I've had— I know people that have asked me about how long it's going to be because they're looking at apartments now in Forest that are a lot less expensive than anywhere else in the state.

Um, so it's— it's— I think you're going to get more interest than what you think.

I hope so.

I, I— listen, I'm optimistic.

I think we're going to get interest, but I'd like to have a lot of interest, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think you'll see— we'll know soon.

Yeah, we will.

Yeah.

Hopefully the right person will get on board and, you know, and we can make it all work.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Seat 3, Councilor Canuel.

Thank you.

I just wanted to echo the sentiments of my colleague in Seat 1 when it comes to having a seat at the table.

I think it's extremely important that the city gets a seat at this table.

Um, this fact that the state has full control, uh, just worries me that the state will put down there what the state wants and what's most advantageous.

For them and not necessarily what's most advantageous for the residents who live in this community.

So I really would like, uh, I don't know how to get it, but find a way to get a voice on to help make that decision, to help weigh in and represent this city.

I think it's very important.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Councilman C5?

Councilor?

Yeah, just real quickly, um, thanks for coming down.

Uh, Kent 45 and 1.

Yes.

Um, very good.

Different subjects.

Yeah, I wanted to see how that could— like, I know it's not going to tie into the state's plan, but it has— it has— it can tie into our plan.

Yes.

And where does that sit in with, with us as far as the waterfront?

So the Redevelopment Authority has purchased the property from Liberty Utilities.

Um, they're in the process of identifying how many parking spaces could be located on that parcel.

They're also trying to identify which buildings should remain or not remain.

Um, you know, some of those I think are on the local historic registers, so if there's anything that needs to be done with those buildings, they'll have to notify the Historic Commission in terms of what their proposed plans are.

I think moving forward you may see some Um, initially there until, until they figure this whole thing out, trying to accommodate some additional free parking, at least initially, so that to ease some of the parking burden down there moving forward.

And this is all subject to Redevelopment Authority board approval.

I think you're probably going to see a pay-for-parking type of scenario there with an arm and some, you know, the ability to, to pay park and leave, uh, just so you can have greater control over it, because there's going to be expenses for electricity and it's going to be expenses for, um, snowplow and upkeep and maintenance and those types of things.

So it's not going to be astronomical.

I can't imagine it being an astronomical amount, but it's primarily— I think the plan now is for to see what buildings can be salvaged and utilized and then see how many park and spaces can be maximized there.

All right, I just, I just wanted to get an update on that.

Now I'll go back to the 79 project.

Um, as far as the, uh, the, the state— again, I'm not— I, I've talked with you.

Yes, this is a lot to you about us being involved, and, uh, the fact that we're not going to be is very, uh, upsetting.

Um, we're going to be involved in some way, like Councilor Campbell said, but not not— we won't have a decision, uh, making in that.

But, um, as far as that, like, when they're— when the folks are developing, the project is on and it's good and it's going on.

Could, or will they— the folks that are in charge of the development, will they ensure there's going to be meetings to discuss that?

Will they have the meetings here in Fall River?

Um, I don't know.

I kind of would recommend And then, as I think Mr. Aguirre said, during the time period for the preparation for the submission of the proposals, developers will be reaching out to the city for input as to the development plans.

Then the proposals will go to the state for a review.

I'm not sure at that point whether or not they're going to come back to the city or they're just going to make a determination as to who the developer is Boston.

You know, we need to, you know, keep in mind here a little bit, you know, listen, we try to do our best to try to get the local input, but it is state property, right?

This— the state paid $130 million to remove, um, well, actually the $115 million to remove that elevated highway.

The city contributed $8 million for this to— for the CSO preparation so we wouldn't have to dig up the road.

So it's state land.

It's like it's, it's their land.

I get that.

Yeah, it's in our city.

I, it's just like, I think, I hear you.

As the project is going along, um, maybe they, with updates about how the project is going along, building, they have those meetings in Fall River.

Yeah, I'm sure you'll see that.

I'm sure that— I think the biggest thing is seeing the phase.

So the way is developer comes in, has to commit to that first building.

They have to then start second building within 3 years of the first building.

So we will have input on, on that all throughout this.

So we will know what's being proposed there.

And because it's still within the state's jurisdiction, if it's something that we don't like, we can have our voices heard, right?

And just say this doesn't make any sense, right?

So I think they're going to be— it's going to be an interactive process during the course of this 10 years, you know.

And, you know, there's going to be changes in governors and gubernatorial administrations.

So, you know, I think it's just— and local elected officials too, right?

So it's just going to be an evolving process, and we got to stay on top of it, right?

We just got to do our best to stay on top of it and remind them of what the commitment was and remind them that we want to see a first-class project here.

That's what we've been advocating for.

Absolutely.

I'm just like Councilor Pereira, I'm just concerned about the, um, not the project itself.

I think it's going to be fantastic for the city, but I'm just concerned that we don't have a solid grip on it.

Well, we can always bid on it.

No, absolutely.

I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anything further?

Hearing no further discussion, is there a motion?

Motion to table in the Committee on Finance made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Keep it up, guys.

Motion to adjourn the Committee on Finance has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Canuel.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

This 4th City Council meeting will now be called to order.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Skadeem?

Here.

Tamara?

Here.

Canuel.

Here.

Dion.

Here.

Hart.

Here.

Peckham.

Ferreira.

Here.

Raposo.

Here.

President Ponte.

Here.

If everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

Thank you.

And a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let the record reflect at 7:43 the City Council meeting has been called to order.

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.

Good evening, Madam Clerk.

Good evening, Mr. President.

The first item before you is a communication from the mayor and a request for the confirmation of the appointment of Anne O'Neill Souza as the city administrator.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm.

The appointment has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion?

Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo.

Yeah, just, uh, one question through you, maybe to to the interim city administrator.

What is the intention of the current chief of staff position?

I had a conversation with the mayor about that.

He's not sure at this point what he's gonna do.

There hasn't been a decision.

It's an open position.

He's not sure if he's hiring for it, unless that's changed.

No, not at this point.

So still a budgeted position.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Nope.

Motion to adopt, uh, uh, and confirm the appointment has been made and seconded.

Roll call.

Do we want to hold off so the council come back for a seat, or, um, 30 seconds?

Do a brief recess.

2-minute recess.

The city council meeting is now back in order.

Madam Clerk, please reintroduce the item.

Mr. President, the item before you is, is a communication from the mayor requesting the confirmation of Anne O'Neill Souza as city administrator.

Motion has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussion before this council roll call, please.

Councilor Skadeem?

Abstain.

Camara?

Yes.

Cannuel?

Yes.

Deon?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Congratulations.

Congratulations.

Item 2 is a— excuse me— is a communication from the mayor and the Corporation Council requesting reconsideration of the petition of a zoning map amendment previously submitted at a regular meeting, um, of the City Council on July 14th, 2026.

The petitioner has agreed, um, to a refund instead of, um, having the petition move forward.

Motion to accept, place on file.

Motion to accept the item, place it on file, made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Councilor C8, Councilor Raposo, did you raise your hand?

And I see you seconded Oh, you seconded.

All right, hearing no further discussions, all those in favor— uh, Councilman C3, hold on.

Councilman C3, Councilor Kmeyer, can you— I like to waive the rules to bring, uh, Attorney Rumsey down.

It looks like he had something to say on this.

Motion to waive the rules.

No, no, unless you guys have questions.

No, okay, sorry.

You're good?

I'm good.

You yield, sir?

Yes.

Councilor yields.

Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 3 is a letter from the City Council President to MassDOT regarding the Route 79, the Wall Street Corridor redevelopment.

Motion accepted.

Second.

Second.

Place on file has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 4 is a communication from the interim city administrator and chief of staff regarding updates involving the former police station on Bedford Street.

Motion accepted.

Place Well, motion to accept and place on file has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

I just wanted to let everybody know there was a number of people have reached out.

I just wanted the council to be brought aware on that, so I've asked the clerk to add this as a communication because I'm sure my colleagues are also getting calls.

Uh, motion, uh, to accept and place on file has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Item 5 is a number of recommendations for traffic ordinances from the Traffic Commission.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinances.

Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinances and Legislation has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation, at a meeting held on July 23rd, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend the accompanying proposed ordinance accompanied by an emergency preamble.

People passed through first reading, second reading, passed to be enrolled, and passed to be ordained.

This is a proposed ordinance for handicapped, uh, parking.

Motion to adopt emergency preamble.

Motion to adopt the emergency preamble made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Kadim.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Roll call.

Roll call.

Roll call on adopting the emergency preamble.

Councilor Kadim?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion to pass through all readings has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Cannibal.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation, at a meeting held on July 23rd, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading.

This is a proposed ordinance for miscellaneous traffic.

Motion to pass the item through first reading has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Cannuel.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation, at a meeting held on July 23rd, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying order be adopted.

This is an order establishing a 1-year ad hoc school transportation committee.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Whereas there has been— excuse me— there have been several complaints by city residents regarding noise pollution in various areas, the throughout the city, and whereas Section 46-7 of the City Code, which section relates to noise, establishes various noise pollution violations during certain hours of the night, and whereas this ordinance does not clearly define noise pollution violations during daytime hours or establish clear decibel levels that would qualify as noise pollution, now therefore be it resolved that the Committee on Ordinances and legislation, convene with Corporation Counsel to discuss amending Section 46-7 of the city code to include, among other potential needed changes, noise pollution violations during daytime hours and define decibel levels that qualify for noise pollution violations.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

The sponsor of the resolution, Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Thank you.

I just want to clarify, this was in response to an email that I was— I received from a resident concerning some noise regarding certain vehicles in the city, so I wanted to bring it to ordinances to kind of dive into the section.

So I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anything further?

Hearing none, motion to adopt has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Whereas the City of Fall River is responsible for providing essential municipal services including police, fire, emergency medical services, water, wastewater, solid waste collection, road maintenance, and public health; and whereas responsible budgeting and long-term planning require accurate and up-to-date population data to ensure municipal services and infrastructure meet the needs of all residents; and whereas concerns have been raised that recent population changes, including increases associated with migration, may have increased demand on municipal services beyond what official population estimates and funding formulas currently reflect, and whereas the administration and Commonwealth have admitted to not having an accurate estimate as to the number of residents living without municipality, and whereas increased demand for municipal services without corresponding counting state or federal financial assistance places additional pressure on the city's limited financial resources and local taxpayers.

Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council Committee on Finance meet with a representative from the administration, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor's Office, a representative from our state representatives' offices, and a representative from Senator Michael J. Rodriguez's office to discuss the most current population estimates available for the city of Fall River and evaluate whether current local aid formulas accurately reflect the number of residents utilizing municipal services.

And be it further resolved that the administration— administrator of community utilities, the director of Health and Human Services, the director of Parks, Traffic and Parking, a representative from litter enforcement, the building inspector, the police and fire chief and EMS chief and director of city operations also be available and attend this meeting for potential questions pertaining to an increase in population and how it may affect their respective departments.

Is there a motion to adopt?

Is there a motion?

Is there a discussion?

Motion to adopt?

No.

No.

I did speak to Councilor Peckham, who did file this resolution, and he did ask that I say if the council would consider adopting his resolution, he would appreciate the support.

Um, so is there a discussion?

There's no motion before us at this time.

Motion leave to withdraw.

Motion to give the item leave to withdraw has been made by Councilor Pereira.

Is there a second?

No discussion on a motion leave to withdraw.

Is there a second to leave the item to give leave to withdraw?

Second.

I think there's, there's no discussion on a motion to leave to withdraw.

Roll call.

Councilor Cadime?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

No.

Pass.

7 yeas, 1 nay.

Yes, the motion— resolution was granted leave to withdraw.

Right.

Can I have a point of— point of information, Councilor Enciso?

I, I think, you know, I understand Councilor Peckham's concern, making sure that we have enough public safety and what the census are.

But you can't bring in all these people to come up with a total.

I mean, when you do the city census and they have census going out, they've even gone all over to try to get people.

We need to push people to fill out their census, and maybe we need to— maybe we need to do some kind of push about that.

But yeah, we are getting more people into the city.

I agree, um, but I don't know that all of the people that he listed would have information on it.

I— but I understand what he's saying.

It concerns me too.

We'd get more money if the population was to such a degree.

I just think, um, maybe it was too long, the resolution, on too many people coming in and wouldn't have the information.

That's why.

But good for him to think about population.

Next order.

With that, I yield.

Next order of business.

Motion to take items 11 through 16 together.

Second.

Motion to take items 11 through 16 together has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion accepted.

Put on file items 11 through 16.

Motion to take, uh, items 11 through 16 and place them on file has been made by Councilor Camaro, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion after reading?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, for the record, those items were citations for Michael Doc Crane, Davina Grossman, Brandon Gomes, Scott and Monique Lopes, Juliana Medeira, and Ryan Levesque.

Thank you.

Item 17 is an order for an auto body shop license for Zyback Asylum, Zyback, 65 Little Neck Avenue, Swansea, TVA Auto Genie LLC, for a license to operate an auto body shop at 235 John Street.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 18 is an order for a jointly owned poll location, uh, filed— the petition was filed by National Grid and Verizon New England Inc.

Uh, at the, uh, polls are to be located on South Beacon Street.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 19 is the curb removal at 89 McDonald Street for Nelson Cabral.

Motion to adopt.

Second.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Kadim.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 20 is an order for an auto body license renewal for Fausto Ortiz, DBA Auto Rally, at 1033 Pleasant Street.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 21 is an order for auto repair shop license renewals for Fausto Ortiz, DBA Auto Rally Inc., at 1033 Pleasant Street, and Pablo David Rodriguez Silva, DBA Brothers Auto Sales and Services, Inc., at 59 North Quarry Street.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt is made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 22 is the police chief's report on licenses.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt the police chief's report has been made by Councilor Hart, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 23 is a number of claims.

Motion to refer the items to Corporation Council has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Khadim.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 24 is a communication from a city resident regarding taxicab companies.

Motion to accept and place on file.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo.

Mr. President, through you to the clerk, do we have a return address on this note at all?

No, we don't.

Just submit it.

Thank you.

Motion to accept the place on file has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Item 25 is an open meeting law complaint filed by Colin Diaz regarding the July 28, 2026 Uh, special meeting with an alleged violation.

Motion to refer the item to Corporation Counsel has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President DeI.

Discussion?

Councilor in seat 7, Councilor Pereira.

I would like, uh, the attachment of why this council is getting an open meeting law violation.

I want that read for the records because I was actually stunned when I read, uh, what the allegations were that we failed to do.

Would the clerk read that into the record?

Without a problem.

Madam Clerk, are you referring to the complaint itself?

The complaint, please.

I'll allow it.

Yep.

So this is the description of the alleged violation as listed on the Open Meeting Law complaint?

Yes.

Submitted by Colin Diaz.

I attended the July 28, 2026 Fall River City Council meeting in my capacity as an elected member of the Fall River School Committee.

Although I was participating as an individual member and did not claim to speak for or bind the school committee as a body, my attendance and intended testimony were directly related to my official responsibilities.

School committee policy BBA identifies the adoption of a budget sufficient to carry out the school committee's policies as one of the committee's principal responsibilities.

Responsibilities.

It also identifies public relations, keeping the public informed about the schools, and remaining informed about the needs and wishes of the community as important functions of the committee.

Policy BBA states that an individual member has a duty to maintain knowledge of the school's goals, objectives, and programs, vote and act impartially for the good of students, and represent the committee and the schools to the public in a manner that is promotes interest and support.

It also requires the member to accept the will of the majority vote in all cases and to remember that he or she is one of a team and must abide by and carry out all committee decisions once they are made.

Policy BCA further provides that a school committee member's primary responsibility is to the children and that a member represents the entire community at all times.

Because the school committee had voted to approve the budget, my attendance and intended testimony were consistent with my responsibility to support and carry out that decision and advocate for the interests of the students and school community.

On July 28, 2026, I attended a meeting of the Fall River City Council in my capacity as a member of the Fall River School Committee.

I intended to participate in public input and speak in support of the school department budget.

This incident took place in the city council hearing room immediately before the meeting began.

Fall River Corporation counsel Alan Rumsey was present in the hearing room, presumably in his official capacity as corporation counsel and in connection with the memorandum of understanding scheduled for discussion by the city council.

Mr. Rumsey approached me in a stern and confrontational manner regarding a private matter unrelated to the orderly conduct of the meeting.

As he approached, he asked, is this you?

While apparently referring to a Facebook meme that he believed I may have posted.

Mr. Rumsey positioned himself immediately beside me and partially in or near my only reasonable path of travel from where I was seated at the time.

I had intended to get up and use the restroom before the meeting began.

Because of his positioning and the confrontation that followed, I was unable to do so without attempting to pass directly by him.

By the time the interaction ended, the meeting was about to begin, and I did not want to leave and miss any part of the proceedings.

During the interaction, Mr. Ramsey told me, I will find out.

I presume this was in relation to who made the meme.

I asked him, is that a threat?

Mr. Rumsey responded, it just might be.

Multiple witnesses were present and observed or heard the interaction.

Considering Mr. Rumsey's stern approach, his partial obstruction of my path of travel, and his response after I directly asked whether he was threatening me, I felt threatened, intimidated, and in fear of my safety.

The incident interfered with my ability to move freely within and leave the meeting area immediately before a public meeting.

I believe the City Council failed to ensure reasonable and unobstructable public access to its meeting when an official present in connection with council business confronted and intimidated an attendee and partially obstructed that attendee's reasonable path of travel immediately before the meeting.

I also left the meeting early, in part to avoid Mr. Rumsey because I feared for my safety.

I also fear retaliation for filing this complaint, which I file in my official capacity as a school committee member, because I attended the meeting in my official capacity as a school committee member when this incident took place, carrying out official responsibilities as stated in the Fall River Public Schools policy manual.

You still have the floor, Councilman.

I, I find it appalling that the city council would be held responsible for people that come to watch a meeting.

I saw them— Mr. Rumsey near him, and I saw other people near other people talking.

If people come in here tonight, there was a group of people, they were chatting with one another.

I don't know what they're saying.

Didn't we have a police officer there that night?

We did.

So if he felt threatened, he should have said, officer.

If he had to go to the bathroom and couldn't because Mr. Rumsey was in his way, there's 9 gentlemen here.

I'm sure any one of you gentlemen would have escorted him to a bathroom door.

You wouldn't?

Okay, well, somebody— you know, I, I find that's appalling.

Now the question I have is, is this going to cost us money?

Who's going to investigate this?

Who's going to file this?

Is it going to be Corporation Counsel?

Or because Corporation Counsel's named there, we're going to use part of that $40,000?

What are you going to do?

Are you asking me?

I am.

Uh, we are the president.

I'm asking you.

Yeah, we're referring it to Corporation Counsel.

Uh, that's the most— well, watch it come back that they can't do it because it refers to Corporation Council, then good thing we got the $40,000 and Mr. Diaz will start spending our money.

It's ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but I was appalled by this.

Like, it's my responsibility if someone's talking to you, having a conversation?

It's got nothing to do with us.

How were we in violation of open meeting law?

Open meeting law doesn't say anything about the council needs to survey people within the audience and make sure everyone's safe.

I thought that's why we had the police officer there, but perhaps Mr. Dietz sees it differently than I.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

To accept the item and place it on file has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. President, was that to refer to Corporation Council?

I'm sorry, yes, to refer to Corporation Council was the correct motion.

I misspoke.

Thank you.

The motion, just to be clear, was to refer to Corporation Council, not accept and place it on file.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Item 26 is an application for a structure on or over public way for Modern Auto Repair and Service to place a building sign at 830 Globe Street.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion to approve the application for structure over public way has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Before we do, can we clarify for what event or what purpose?

It's a building sign that's protruding onto the public way.

Can you clarify what do you mean?

It's a, it's a 4'4 by 3'4 auto repair sign for the business that is over the public way, so that it requires permission from the city council because it's over on it.

Protrudes over the public way on the sidewalk.

So it's a sign for the building— for the business, excuse me.

It's very common practice that happens with— through the building inspector's department.

Thank you, Councillor.

And seat 3, Councillor Kenyon.

I think my question's particularly around the dates of this.

This is retroactive to July 13th, so is this already happening and they're doing it without permission?

And then the second question is, this is only till January 1st, so if this this is a sign.

Is this a permanent sign or temporary sign, or— it would be a permanent structure.

My follow-up, once the council voted for it, was to request that the permit be approved effective August 12th.

The reason for the January 1st date is because all permits expire on January 1st, but they are renewable through my office.

So my request is that the permit be approved effective tomorrow.

Through the end of the year.

All right, thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Motion, uh, to approve has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

And the council's okay with the August 12th start date?

Yes, because that's when we approved it.

It would be starting today, uh, today starting tomorrow, not before.

Thank you.

Item 27.

7 is also an application for structure on and over public way from the election department to hang an Election Day/vote banners from August 19th to September 1st at the following locations: downtown on South Main Street, Bedford Street, and Pleasant Street.

We did receive a communication from the building department that they find the banner on Bedford Street to be, uh, problematic due to the, uh, demolition of the old police station.

All right, motion to approve A and C. Motion to approve A and C has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, Madam Madam Clerk, um, would it be appropriate maybe to send another communication to the Board of Elections to see if they can find another location on Bedford Street, up further, maybe up further, to accomplish the same, if it's the will of the council?

But before I do, Councilman Seedate, Councilor Raposo, that's exactly what I was going to ask.

If we could, uh, have them just play another space on Bedford Street, they could do it except that location itself.

Okay.

Mr. Lyons was amenable, was not putting it up.

My only concern is I don't know which building on Bedford Street already has the structure set up for a banner.

That these are the 3 usual locations that the city puts up banners.

I mean, I could certainly consult with him, but by the time the council meets next, uh, um, it would already— yeah, that's true— be past the date.

So this is true.

Yeah.

All right, well, it's before us right now.

Is there a— council could since the demolition hasn't started yet, the council could authorize permission for the banner to go up until such time as the demolition starts.

I was just going to say, maybe you should give us 3 new locations because no one seems to be voting.

These are the same locations used all the time downtown.

I mean, it's just— maybe he's putting high traffic areas other than these 3.

Plymouth Avenue.

I mean, you have plenty of places.

Send a letter to DC.

CM recommending that they provide the council with other options, you know, just for future reference.

What we're doing, we're voting these 2, and then if he comes back with a different location, he can come back at the next meeting.

Okay, be too late, but that's, that's no problem.

Councilor, you yield?

Thank you.

Anything further?

Councilor C4, did I see your hand?

All right, hearing no further discussion, is there a motion to— what would it be— deny Bedford Street?

Motion to deny 27 Baker.

Motion to deny 27B has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

Yes, Mr. President.

Your point of information, Councilor?

Yeah, if we could just, uh, send a communication to Mr. Lyons and see, um, to Councilor Camara's point, are there other locations that can be utilized?

And if it's not banners, are there other methods in which we can advertise elections in high traffic areas.

Noted.

Yield if we can.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Item 28 is a drain layer application for Farland Corp Inc. Motion to approve.

Motion to approve the drain layer license has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 29, our planning board minutes for May 13th, 2026, and June 10th, 2026.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 30, as zoning board of appeals minutes for the meeting held on June 18th, 2026.

Second.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to take items 31 through 34 together, please.

Second.

Motion to take items 31 through 34 together has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to approve items 31 through 34 after reading.

Motion to approve items 31 through 34 after reading has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Poso.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Minutes for public hearings, Committee on Finance, in the regular meeting of the City Council held on July 14th, 2026, and minutes for the special meeting of the City Council held on July 28th, 2026.

Committee on Finance at a meeting held on August 11th, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend that the attached loan order be referred to the full council for action, with Councilor Peckham absent and not voting.

This is the loan order for the 3rd Street Garage.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt as made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Is there discussion?

Councilor C7?

Councilor— I, I just have a question on this, and maybe the city administrator could— how long does it appear that it will take for them to redo that garage and get everybody parking back in there again.

Do we have a— real quick, do you have a timeline?

Hopefully November of this year.

She said hopefully November of this year.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Motion to adopt has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions, roll call.

Councilor Cadime?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dionne?

Yes.

Peckham.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 7 yeas.

Whereas residents of Judd Street and Greenleaf Street have expressed concerns over road conditions, now therefore be it resolved that the City Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation convene with residents, the city engineer, city corporation council, and other interested parties to discuss this matter.

This was a resolution filed by the city council at the end of the meeting.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Cannual.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

That's all we have, Mr. President.

Uh, Councilman C5, Councilor Hart.

I, I missed that Can I, can I, can we go back to it?

Because I'll vote on the loan order.

Yeah, we need a motion to reconsider.

Motion to reconsider would be appropriate.

Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor— he couldn't wait for me.

I, I did.

Seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, if you could please reintroduce the item.

The Committee on Finance at a meeting held on August 11, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend that the attached loan order be referred to the full council for action.

With Councilor Peckham absent and not voting, this is the loan order for the Third Street Garage.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skadeem?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

Pereira?

Yes.

Proposal?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 8 yeas.

Motion to adjourn has been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Councilor Hart.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Good night.

Hey, uh,