8.27.2024 City Council - Ordinances and Legislation

hey hey he

committee on ordinance and legislation come to order the clerk can call the role councel Kad here councelor here Council reposal here councelor Simpson here vice president Perera here pursuant to the open meeting law any person can make an audio or video recording of a 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 um the first item on the agenda is our citizen input we have one person Kelly Buchanan hi Kelly so I'm I'm so grateful that we have an audience that we put together however I noticed I crit myself um in the draft that there's two things that are questionable um see on the paper I

don't unfortunately I don't have a copy of it um where it gives unless specified authorization to by the mayor or the state or federal is there a way we can have that rewarded so if that does that I'm taking it as if the mayor doesn't want to do anything with it he doesn't have to with that being in it so it' be number c I know camping on public property do you want me to read

it unless it's authorized to do so by the mayor is that the one yes okay so it's unlawful to Camp to occupy a campsite or leave a campsite material on public property unless specified authorized to do so by the park board if it's in a park by the mayor if it's in a location uh or any other city-owned property or by the appropriate state and federal officials um if located on state and

federal I think if you're saying you're unauthorized you're unauthorized nobody should be giving you permission that's my feeling that's and that's why the wording is kind of tricky okay I just wanted to read that for you we'll talk about it after all right perfect thank you and the other um question was uh letter H the penalties so again I mean being homeless I I'm it's not a crime unfortunately

there's you know however the activities that come along with it and the things they're doing they violating laws and ordinances so if there's no consequence there's going to be no change and I you know some of my uh Community has also read the draft and they had the same question I'm unfortunately I'm the spokesperson for the community well we're fortunate you are thank you Kelly so I appreciate it

that's all I had thank you guys thank you you you want to take something out of order is that all the we have yeah all right well let's uh do number two motion to approve the minutes from July 23rd motion to approve second all in favor I I'll entertain a motion to take number six out of order motion to take item six out of order second all in favor I thank

you m president Council I just going to let you know I'm going to recuse myself from this conversation and vote uh with a a recommendation from the ethic commission so I'll be back

shortly okay item six on the agenda this has already been to councel from this committee and it came back because some of our colleagues had concerned with the um adult uh ticket and the child's ticket uh being $5 and $2 and I don't know what the feeling of this committee is and um there was a comment made that perhaps we could give um a discount to veterans or to senior citizens if we're going to talk about

senior citizens I fall in that category so I may have to recuse myself as counselor reposa did which to me is crazy unless we say that I'm not a senior citizen what's a senior citizen 75 40 yeah 40 thank you thank you councilor H um so I'll I'll wait to hear what members of the committee have to say I'm going to have to recuse myself we talking about children I am a child

you have a child in school no no I am a child you are a child no um I guess I think this was sent down right so um for Resident rates I think that was another discussion that we initially had at the council meeting seniors vets um and then also children rates uh so from my standpoint I don't think you need to recuse yourself I I think we all somehow

someway have some type of impact in on any of this so it's right so I I mean just for a necessity of a quorum you know obviously we we have to to vote on these things so I don't necessarily think that there's a truly a perceived conflict here but um so I I think if the administration somebody from the administration come down and just talk about potentially and I know the intent is obviously to what

the fee schedule is to generate enough Revenue to maintain the the trolley but um have we based on the last discussion we had at the city council meeting has any consideration been given to the resident rates the senior citizen rates and the veterans rates good afternoon Seth Aken City administrator Al Al director of City operations so uh on a normal Saturday or Sunday not a special trip the trolley uh costs about

$436 um out the door to run which means gas and Driver all right that doesn't include wear and tear that doesn't include maintenance um so when we the the the costs uh or the prices if I if you if you will not the cost the cost is what it actually takes to run it the price is what we intend to charge uh we're the subject of of many uh different meetings uh and a lot of

conversation around how to do this as fairly as possible while also maintaining the trolley and that's really the issue um we have a trolley that we recently got rid of that had gone to uh a a pretty sad state of disrepair uh and part of that is that the way in which it was structured first time around really wasn't uh sufficient to to maintain to wear and tear to make

sure that it was it was uh always uh kept up and kept nice um again probably not as nice of a vehicle as we have moving around the city now um but at the end of the day uh I know that it you know there's certainly a feel-good aspect to extending some of these benefits to certain uh segments of the population who um you know it seems appropriate to do so that said um it's

been certainly considered it's been discussed and and it was we elected to um put forth what we put forth because the only way to ensure that the trolley is going to be nice and operational and clean and um uh well running and well attended and people would like to be on it because it's it is maintaining a good condition is to charge what it actually cost to run uh that's where the costs

come from um the the administration will do its very best to maintain the trolley if this Council deems it appropriate to uh to do reductions for other members of the population I don't know where you sto with that um but uh you know we'll certainly do our best to maintain a trolley schedule um given the cost of running it um but having considered it uh it's going to be very difficult to do

we just we want to we have something beautiful we want to maintain it beautifully and I also don't believe you're a senior citizen not for a second thank you I am um do you yield oh I do yeah um the only thing that I would say is I understand that you know the mayor does have the ability if there is a special trolley event or tour that it's maybe um you know some type of big band

music thing that they're driving around that that would be a special event for seniors at a reduced rate or perhaps on Memorial Day veterans day that veterans would be able to ride the trolley for free and I don't think that that needs to be an ordinance I think that's something that we can do I mean we have trash in an ordinance but yet around the holidays we allow people to have more

trash or um you know pick up heavy item with all the boxes or whatever they get Christmas gifts I think that it it's I think the ordinance is good the way it is um but I don't see on here and I don't know if we had amended it that if it was a school within Fall River using the trolley for a classroom of of students that that would be uh the $100

that that would be oh that's not on this one but we had amended it I think it was it was for cost each half hour rental but it didn't say the school oh for schools okay yeah so we have that and I think I thought that was I thought that was good because to rent a bus is expensive and I like the fact that if a school is renting it that

they're going somewhere in the city so at least the students are getting to see maybe the battleship maybe the Children's Museum maybe Lizzy bordon you know maybe historical building I mean there's a lot of possibilities so I thought that was good I don't have an issue with it going forward the way it was counselor Samson make a motion to pass through first reading as amended I'll second it

but on in a second I have something to say okay um just I just wanted to make sure Council was saying about the maintaining the bus um Seth these prices were obviously built in that way and to to reduce it we might be jeopardizing the M the maintenance of you know not just the $436 off the off the end of the streets in the gas but if something maybe major happens to it it could

that's the big thing um and and wear and tear is such an intangible thing you know like if you work for the state they give you a certain number of cents a mile that's supposed to yeah but you know that's what we're trying to capture here is we're not trying to make you know money on this thing we're trying to make sure that we can keep it great because it really is

an exciting addition to the city so yeah that the the the costs that we came up with the prices we came up with were um designed to try to meet what we thought the cost of this trolley given its age given the number of hours in the engine given all those things would be going forward okay that's it I and the driver you yield Council Kade so just a a question outside of the fees itself uh

are we anticipating the fees going into the general fund are we going to establish a special revenue account or so I think at this point we've already established a special revenue account because we couldn't charge fees but there were some actual costs so no one's been paid no one's been charged no one nothing's happened um I think for for Troke there might have been some uh you

know actual vendor payments but you know there's been no revenue and the idea I believe is to is to put it into a special revenue account for the maintenance maintain that going forward right into the special Revenue so we can capture it so I guess the um it it essentially comes down to uh I guess what what your stance is in terms of whether or not we need to to have a at

least a discounted rate um so I guess what I would have been looking for is under the uh trolley operations we've got the adult ticket at $5 uh the CH uh child ticket age 12 or under at $2 um so I would I would have suggested that we eliminate that $2 and actually just replace the child with senior and Veterans so that uh seniors and veterans get a discount and they only play they

pay $2 I don't know that we needed a a resident discount um because I I think at the end of the day it's going to be mostly our residents are going to be utilizing this so now it's just how are we making up for the cost we've got to pay for it so are we going to be budgeting it in the operational budget and obviously just providing that discount to the residents and then under

the special try tour um or event tickets um you know I think at that point we we could potentially talk about lowering the ticket amount for for children under 12 because it is $20 but adding a third uh subset for seniors and Veterans uh so that the you know the fee rate was $30 for an adult $20 for children and then $10 for seniors or or veterans um so that's really the only

compromise that I I personally was looking for um I know some of my other colleagues want to see a little bit more in terms of that but you know I I think when we start talking about you know the seniors and some of our veterans that do require some assistance with you know chapter 115 of federal benefits I you know I think it's just potentially a good way to to kind of minimize some of

the the cost there knowing for well that obviously we've got to absorb the cost and the and the burdening of burden of paying for that right so the maintenance so not suggesting that we don't build up a budget um whether that's a transfer from the general fund into the special or or capturing a line item in in the general fund to to offset some of the monies that you may not have in that special revenue account

um so that's that's where I stand on that can i i y I'm sorry Council Samson can I amend my motion can pass your first reading with the of adding the line of I think that was fair veterans and and the senior citizen population to the tri standard trialing fee and the special events so eliminate the $2 children under two right under 12 Under 12 yeah um free but the $2 go to Senior

Citizens senior citizens I think it's fair and and what is the senior citizen rate going to be what what is the senior citizen going to be considered is it going to be 55 like Dunkin Donuts or 65 or 60 or 7 my motion would be 65 65 and um I still that boat if you go 55 they'll live long enough to Total disrepair because we're not charging enough so it's you know at least we have

that do you feel like it um and then adding and I would like to add to the second one for the special events just add uh 65 and over and Veterans to the $20 so so what would adults be on your motion adults stay the same on we'll look at the special trolley adult stay the same I I think that for special events people will pay that and I think

for special events for a family but I think that if um a senior citizen could councelor Dion had made some good points that a senior citizen 65 R wants to do that should have it reduced to that $20 makes sense and and children would be the $20 too so when adults would be 30 seniors and Veterans would be 20 and children under 12 and the standard trolley route just to get that it's still adults

$5 um under 12 $2 or did you want to change that no I think the Under 12 I'm a family Under 12 could go for nothing and your senior citizens can ride for and your veterans your senior citizens could ride for um $2 65 and over and Veterans with an IDE so how many um people fit on that m AK is it 32 32 32 and then 28 with um we

have any ada8 folks this 2 ad8 would be 28 so if it was 28 and there was uh senior citizens on there and they were paying $21 four five be $56 for Full Ride Now $56 for full ride what do we Che what are we pay in the driver so wait a minute I'm gonna the kids need to still pay the $2 because you'll just have a pocket of kids I think we need to go

down to senior citizens and Veterans but you'll just have a gang of kids that are going to ride for free with no parents no nothing like that I don't think it's a good idea so I think we still should keep the kids at $2 I think senior citizen should go to $2 and I think that veterans can go for $2 I but I I think we should still charge the kids that's

my you can shoot that down but I think that what's going to end up happening is you'll have G kids with no adult supervision on a trolley and we won't be able to maintain it so I think that we keep that and just add the senior line that would be my motion to senior citizen better in line so to answer your question councelor um the drivers paid $41 an hour so after the first hour we'd

have $15 left to play with if I could just which would get us some gas again this is part of the collective bargaining agreement so that that is from um that $40 an hour is Monday through Friday 3 to 7 um um and then Saturday 7 7 to uh 3 so and then if you go to Saturday second shift it goes up to 47 Sunday up to the 50 so yeah I mean no people we're pulling

people out on a Sunday to drive so I mean it could go as high as $57 under the collective parking so if the drive is 57 could be on a Sunday okay and if everybody's on there for $2 at 30 people uh being there you you know but these are special events on the the normal the normal Saturday it's going to be how much $4 the normal Saturday be

$40 for the tours I mean I think that people are more concerned with the special tours that the special tours if you if it there's not a senior or veteran event um then it's going to be $60 for the couple and some people who are living on Social Security $60 a couple is a lot of money um to go on a special event and we don't even know a special event does that take an hour or

is a special event four hours we haven't really detered that either I think it depends on the event right because the the Charlie was you know was a couple hours couple different stops there was how much was that TR singal along whatever I think it was $20 $20 and how many hours were they out I believe it was from 5 to8 so three hours for $20 so I I I understand that you know

the disrepair but you could potentially have a trolley out all day and only have two people that ride the trolley right so had that right so we still have to pay absolutely for repairs the trolley's still driving right so to say that we're gonna make amendments to the fee that that this thing's gonna fall and be and disrepair is tongue tongue and cheek is is tongue and cheek right so the bottom

line is is that we still have to have a budget to maintain no different than any of our Fleet that we have correct and that's all we're saying so from our standpoint is is do we give a discount to the veterans and the seniors recognizing that we still as a city need to pay for that right we've got taxes we got two and a half we've got other fees that are going in there so just being

reasonable and I'm not suggesting that these aren't unreason I mean we're talking about $5 $2 like I recognize that um but when we start talking about seniors and and some of the veterans like I I think if you know some of them may foro the use of a trolley because they can't afford it right because they're on fixed incomes that's that's the only thing I'm I'm saying I don't necessarily disagree if we don't want to

do children I'm okay with that um but we we we need to recognize that there's got to be a budget in place for the trolley right because there could potentially be you know hours and hours where we're not collecting any revenue and I I think at that point we have to reconsider whether or not it's cost benefit analysis makes sense from U internal aspects as to whether or not we want to run the

trolley but that's a different story but we've I know there got to be a budget somewhere right and that's got to be in the general funds to to capture it so if I may the the the hours and hours where nobody's riding that's out of our control but the fees are like we have the ability to say okay you know this is what we think you know given an expectation of anage average number of

writers you know during a certain time of year I mean because we looked at different times of year when it's likely to go up during the holidays and special events and whatever so so there certainly is a plan here knowing that some of those things we can't control I I feel like it's Folly to to even to now cut a significant portion out of what we can control which I think

is what we're doing um especially when we don't even really know the numbers of seniors and Veterans and children um it may be much more than we realize we're we're cutting off our nose to spite our face uh which I think is would be really unfortunate because uh I I really do think that you know given you know this trolley looks beautiful but it's an older vehicle um if we're not you know

doing everything we can to make sure that our budget looks at the worst case scenario of something really needing to be done to repair the thing then I think we're um you know we're we're basically asking for a repeat of what has happened before which is that you know the TR we couldn't keep the trolley on the road and it was it's something that I think people would miss yeah so I guess what I

would say to that is is that we have a $356 million budget right if we can't maintain the trer we've got a problem right so and if we think you know reducing a price of a ticket from $5 to $3 to give a benefit to to seniors and Veterans we've got bigger problems financially right so that's just my take folks pay taxes you look at all the fees that we have and I and I and I

appreciate what you've folks have bringing before us it's just a it's a conversation about can we offer a discount to those that potentially may need it right when you look at all the fees that we have you know licensing and all that stuff and you put all the work associated with all the services that we provide we never collect you know the true total cost of what it would be for

just say a liquor license you know review uh administrative fees things of that nature we never capture all the total cost right so we we know going into this we're not going to we're not going to capture all that cost that it's got to be subsidized through the general fund that and that's where I'm coming from in terms of this I I don't think it's unreasonable to to throw a senior

or a veteran discount rate there and um again like I said I'm not opposed to you know still charging children to go there it was just one of those things that we were looking for and across the board we we keep talking about increasing fees increasing fees and I know we've got to generate more additional revenue for for the city but um I I think we just kind of miss the senior and the veterans

aspect on this that's all with that I yield you yield How about if just like we did for the schools um that they can use the trolley for up to four hours for $100 which would you know be peanuts it would be a good thing for schools if you did that for your senior centers where if a senior center wanted to rent the trolley for senior citizens to do stuff that

they could have the same fee of $100 and that way just to be clear I don't think that was the that was the deal I don't think it was $100 for four hours was it yeah up to four hours that's each hour after no I'm sorry that's the that's the it was 250 yeah okay 250 for 4 hours and 400 for8 hours but if you did that for seniors too or for veterans that if the

veterans wanted to use the trolley to to go somewhere or do something within the city that would be a way of helping them as well I think if if the the pivot was toward senior organizations and children's organization that is something you can actually predict to some extent right like you said senior centers that sort of thing um not knowing you know you you figure every family of four or five you know

two of those people are going to pay you know and three of the kids ride for free those are three seats right so so that's a little harder to to manage I think um it certainly Cuts Revenue a lot I certainly understand that this is a sort of drop in the bucket compared to the large budget um but it is kind of it's representative of a larger idea right that that things cost money and the nice

things cost money uh and I think that's the whole reason why why I'm even pushing back at all um against you know the the you know the reduction for U seniors and uh um seniors and children um I think I I think we're all looking for some type of a balance because we do understand that you know a lot of our veterans do receive you know chapter 115 monies and we do have seniors that are

having it tough you know with whatever they get for Social Security which isn't much um so you know for some of them to look at how we can do that the same I think and and then I'll stop like because at this point it's it's up to the council and then I'll just I'll we'll do whatever but if this were a bus right if this were a city bus you know and we were

talking about free fairs which there are right there's Sunday service now there's free fairs there all these things but this is a discretionary more kind of entertainment driven means of transportation than a necessary means of transportation not to say that if you don't make a lot of money you shouldn't be entitled to entertainment I'm not saying that but what I'm saying is that

I think the reason why we believe that the fees as proposed are fair is that no one's driving the no one's riding this because they have to you know get to a part-time job or get to the grocery store whatever they're more riding this for entertainment and you know the the the overall Whimsy of the thing which is quite wonderful um so I I I I would suggest maybe it should be looked at in

a different View and with that I'm not gonna I'm not going to push anymore I appreciate you guys letting me be heard because uh you don't have to do that and I'm grateful thank you councilor Samson so I will say that I think I think the rates are fair I think this is a a while together orance I I do think I will back on the children I think the

children should pay I do feel that it is a great thing I watched the Charlie run this weekend and that the 65 and over Community with having a lesser rate I would feel comfortable with it and and you're and you're better and and it's not that significant I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference I mean you watch the I watched the people that were riding the trolley it

was like you know people in their 20s 30s or 40s and maybe you will at special events get younger people but I think this looks great as is but I think adding that component um my uh counselor kadim was saying makes a lot of sense and I think a lot of the counselors had expressed that um in the last council meeting counc we talked about this so I don't think it's going to make that much

of a difference I think it's going to make a tremendous difference to someone who's on a fixed income at 65 and over and their husband wants to do karaoke on the thing and they're paying $40 instead of $60 to do that um but and a lot of our veterans are older so they fall under that senior citizen rate anyway so um with that I C the only thing and I'm gonna be like

mistaken last last thing I'm saying because I think we've we've talked this thing to death but you know the the other piece to this is is a you know an economic driver as well right so we've got these events hopefully folks are also stopping in restaurants and things like that so we also do have males tax that are coming back into um you know the general fund so I I I just want to

say that there's also other Revenue uh enhancements that could can be had by these types of events as well so with that I yield just real quick Council Samson need the motion it didn't get a second right no it didn't oh I did I think I oh you did second oh I didn't think he had I said I'd like to discuss something I second yeah oh all and is it still that $2 what

is it what what was the motion that I amended it I yes if you could read the motion2 okay in the first section standard trolley route tickets for number two child ticket stri out five sorry we originally struck out $2 but then we put it back in so that STV at $2 okay we had section three for seniors 65 and older for a fee of $2 we add section four for veterans a

fee of $2 and then under special tral tour or events we insert uh number three for seniors 65 and older and Veterans of a total of $20 okay that's the motion are you no I'm Jud you're giving it a second yeah okay so Council Washington filed I mean councelor Samson filed that Council hot gave it a second all in favor I I so we'll go for first reading good thank you um I think he's getting Council

reposa yeah item number three on the agenda is traffic um and we have a Stephanie macara here miss mccartha if you want to come

down we'll just give a second for Council Kine okay so item number three is um proposed ordinance for handicap parking 18 Street West 238 ft south of Merchant albian Street West 85 ft north of Donley Street Baker Street East 24 feet of Warren Street Grant Street East 72 feet north of William Street and John Street uh East 129 ft north of Morgan Street motion for emergency Preamble second emergency Preble yes yes yes

yes yes motion to pass through all readings there a second second all in favor I item number four proposed ordinance um to insert in section 70- 241 which section relates to stop sign following Detroit Street eastbound intersection of Detroit and Omaha Street Omaha Street southbound intersection of Omaha Street and Detroit Street Pawn Street southbound bound intersection of Pawn Street and anaan anaan Street um and

that is to insert no the section two is to insert into section 7372 which section relates to parking prohibited to ring certain hours uh the following Cambridge Street South 18 ft east of Oxford from Monday through Friday 700 a.m. to 4: p.m. and those are the inserting section three is to strike out handicap parking um section 70- 387 Baker Street West 152 ft south of Warren bayie Street East 230 feet north of last

Street ber Street North 443 feet west of King Street Bright Street South 65 ft west of of of St Stafford Road Flint Street West 102 F feet south of canut Street Hope Street West 74 ft east of Broadway Osborne Street North 15 156 feet east of arpen Street Plymouth Avenue East 134 feet north of DOA Street motion to pass through first reading second all in favor I thank you a thank

you item number five on the agenda genda uh Corporation councel and the building inspector and representatives Community Development agency to discuss the creation of an ordinance regarding to regulations of boarding in rooming

houses just for the committee to know we did reach out to um the building inspector Mr haway however he was unable to be here this evening for the record Alan Rumsey Corporation councel Michael Dion director of Community

Development okay I had filed this resolution because it appears that we have some people that are coming from out of town buying a three family house with maybe two bedrooms on each floor double parlor and the double holla gets converted into extra bedrooms so then you have different agencies within the city placing people in these rooms and um people don't know one another they're

not related to each other um they might come in with different issues various issues and two of the homes that this has that the city was made aware of that this happened to ended up requiring police to attend because of um arguments or whatever was going on and I think one of them was a little bit stronger than than an argument but we need to do something with that how do we um monitor

who's purchasing homes and who's living in the homes and I mean I know milit has one resol one ordinance that you to be living in a house it's got to be a relative or something like that not just like which is kind of odd because if you had somebody who was just coming to spend a couple of weeks with you or somebody who had a kid who maybe was going to a local college and was going

to live with you not related to them so I don't know I thought that was a little weird but I think we need to do something with this because stepping stone uh is putting people into these rooms uh Catholic Social Services the shelter um and they're robbing each other from the rooms one lady that I met said she was robbed and that's why she left and she's homeless again because

she was fearful of being there what we don't have anything on our books relative to rooming houses it's just the state law yeah and I've looked at a few things I mean we have a license CP for a public lodging house um but other organiz I mean other municipalities have have tried to address a little bit it looks like it's mostly state law I mean frankly I think the two instances that you referring to

where there was violence um I I don't think they were operating U properly under state law but I can I haven't spoken with Glenn Hathaway yet but I wanted to speak with him to see you know what he enforces what he doesn't enforce because you know I can I can read about it and some case law here but you know without he's got the boots on the ground and try to figure out what kind of

problems he deals with on a regular basis I know a lot of his issues are simply that he doesn't know it exists so you know unfortunately sometimes you find out it exists when there's the police your called um and I think you know he hasn't suggested he does does not have the tools to handle it once he finds out about it so but I can speak with him more in depth and try to figure

out there's something I can do something I can craft that will help him um take care of the issue is there a motion to table and give uh some time yep motion to table a motion to table is a second all in favor I thank you the last item um item number seven members of the historical commission and you want to talk about this um attorney Rumsey sure I'll give everybody a brief overview so something

to the way this came about is that a historic commission wanted to have let me get the name right here it was a um sorry excuse me a second certified local government that's it certified local government so they made submissions to the state and the state pointed out that our local ordinances in conflict with the state statute in essence that the state statute requires that the the members of the histor

commission are appointed by the mayor so the questions that were presented to me at least initially was well are the city council appointments just nominations that have to be verified and ratified by the mayor and the answer was no and it was right now it's it's set up so that I believe it's four for the mayor three for the city council and they said that's not good enough so the only

reason I the the suggestions being made is that we are inconsistent with state law and they will not make it they certify local government until we are consistent with state

law and that opened up for that opened up for more um High degree from the state on what historic could do so how do we get consistent with st law what do we need to do well I've already written it um just I mean basically I'm not sure we even need I mean technically we don't really need an ordinance if we have the state law but um I just made it consistent with state

law and that's what is before you I did put in there that the mayor's appointment would be uh subject to confirmation by city council as to not remove the city council's role but the appointment has to be from the mayor so how many people are we sh out short I don't know I mean I I I think there's at least some suggestion I have not spoken with the mayor on this that he would probably just appoint

whatever members were city council members and then you know the the way it's set up is that every two years um two members I guess every year at least two members would do um and then he would just if there were any changes that need to be made he would take it up the next possible time so I don't think there's any intent to make any changes to the composition motion to pass through first

reading second all in favor I thank you

item number eight camping in public

property okay um what's before you is my my attempt to uh wrote the ordinance for unauthorized camping um candidly you know the my hands are tied to some degree of what what the state and federal law allows us to do um it's I listen to the concerns that the uh the public concerns and I know I've heard other concerns as well I'm frankly I'm not sure I can write it any stronger

than it is um to address the the two specific issues um one was on section c um you know you got to remember the camping there's going to be hopefully plenty of legal camping um which would be the park board would determine whether or not the camping is permitted on and park property um obviously state and federal would determine whether or not it's permitted on state and federal property but there

were instances where the mayor would want to authorize um camping on City owned property just kind of spitball on here but you know for example if they decided to have you know a two-day concert on some some State Park um or some city-owned property then the mayor could allow it then um if hypothetically there's some kind of disaster where people are homeless and there's no place in the

homeless shelters I mean it could be something where it's not what you would consider a a typically homeless person I mean there's many catastrophes where people who have shelter all of a sudden don't overnight whether it's by fire flood or some other reason so I mean I think having the mayor having the ability to declare that camping is permitted is is something that needs to be in there discussion

yeah Paul you got it oh I I thought you no no no I'm covering for oh right right right um we can second it is now oh can I nominate um counil kadim for pro second the motion I hi okay discussion did you have I guess no I'm I guess what I'm I'm just thinking Alan you you're making a point where um I didn't even think about that um so I can

see that and see um I don't have a problem with any of the others uh I thought I did have a question on one but I don't right now I yield Council Samson um so I actually agree with you um you got that property down on Blossom Road that beautiful nature site if you want to do camping down there with kids you you're going to have to have that in there to be able to

do that um I do am concerned with the penalties like not imposing a penalty I'm not can you explain that at least just give me some information why there's no penalty and that state sure um when you're dealing this is the camping law is going to deal with your traditional campers as well as homeless so um and the case law which is the Supreme Court has changed to some degree um but the case law basically

suggested is that you can't criminalize being homeless um and you know I think it started in La before it got to the other places but the idea that if there's no where else to go where are they going to go um you know not not committing any of the crimes they're not littering they're not doing other things in public they shouldn't be doing um that you can't it's inhumane to criminalize just existing essentially um

what the Supreme Court case recently said was that um it's not cruel and unusual punishment to have to enforce these laws but it didn't address other things that are still out there so I think the premise is still out there which is you know do we want to penalize somebody or F them or charge them if there's a place for them to go and they refuse absolutely I think most would agree um

and a lot of the problems that we have is they refuse to go for whatever reason maybe it's the cohabitation rules rules against cohabitation maybe it's against pets maybe it's because their sobriety rules wherever they want to go um but you know in the hypothetical where there's absolutely nowhere for them to go they're willing ready and ready to pick up and pack up and move on and

there's no place for them to go and I thought that was probably the compromises maybe that's not one we can have them move along but maybe a monetary f is not the smart the smartest way to handle that issue I think some of the things you can do I will tell you that I know rosarios has had a big issue um and people are not wanting to walk on the Alfred Lima

um walk anymore because of homeless people living there and coming out and uh harassing people so maybe something's got to be here that you can't be you know near the bike path or in certain areas um and that if they don't want to go to a shelter and we can find shelters for people if they don't want to go they need to move you need to keep moving them because we they go and they'll move

something now and then they're they're moving right back in again it's Council hot just one other thought Allan you are um putting this together um other towns or cities our size or whether or not they're our size or not have they been busy as well putting these together have you talked to any of your colleagues in b no but I I've probably read close to 10 other ordinances and this is this is

not a cut and past job from any specific Town um it's you I've CED together what I thought were some of the stronger provisions and deleted ones I thought were weaker um I mean this truly is something I created um you know I think Newton probably had a pretty strong influence that one seemed to be I thought very well written um trying to think of the other ones that I looked at

but Newton's the one that comes in mind but you know it's it's there's no perfect there's no way to write an ordinance that solves the problem it's just possible I think you know the best we can do is give um the administration the tools to maybe move them from one section you know assuming all the shelters are full maybe move them from one section to a section that is um where the city feels

they can provide better Services other times you know maybe they're never allowed on the city property because there are places to go and they're choosing to be their voluntary right and have the other cities like Newton have they implemented fines yes I believe so yeah what cap like what was the do you remember or do you recall I didn't look at that but do you recall when when you did research Newton a

little bit what they might have been let me see if I brought Newton with me did not bring it with me um just curi this just so you know that the fine provision is in there I didn't specify what it is we have the ability to find in this ordinance it's just uh that not impos that those three condition conditions are met so this does have a fine added it's only if those three conditions are met

that they would not find them how you um we need a motion to reverse the motion to reverse the prot temp second motion was made second and all those in favor I oppos so voted motion carries thank you how do you get this fee from them if there's a fine how are you going to get the fine paid that's a great question I mean that's one of the reasons why some places choose not to find um

although maybe I shouldn't say this but you know if there's no money in panhandling there wouldn't be any panhandling right CC Kad so um I guess I I understand where you're coming from but I I guess the the argument that I would make is just that um we've had folks come before us you know we've we've got uh the homeless en camp on the quicker Shan rail trail we've we've got it down by the Kennedy

uh Park overlook area those those individuals are there because we have nowhere to house them right so prior to the Supreme Court ruling as long as we had somewhere to house them they could be removed right so without any fines what are we really doing with this ordinance if we don't have the fines now granted if they're truly homeless they probably don't have the ability to to pay the fine but I I

just hate to see us remove the ability or specifically say if they're homeless that they're not going to get fined because I I think it just it's it's not going to address the issues that we currently have in those those areas and and it's not for everybody I mean I'm sure that we have some you know let's just call it 20 30 40 or even a 100 rooms that they can potentially go to

but if we've got two 300 folks there and we don't have enough rooms we just we're essentially saying that we're going to allow them to stay there it could potentially be amended I mean I'm taking what you're saying here um you know in situation where there's nowhere no shelter to go to I mean I could understand if maybe what you're suggesting is they would have to move from a specific spot they could still be

F hey you know there are other places to go you just can't go here or or I would I would just say because I I think department heads have the ability to wave fees right so maybe we just put in the language as opposed to um the imposition of a fine shall not be imposed if one the person is homeless right we we scratch that and just say unless uh waved by you know the mayor or

I would leave it to the mayor right so that the mayor would have the the ability to take each case on a caseby casee basis and say okay we we're gonna find we're not going to find I just I just hate to have that automatically in the ordinance to understand you know what I'm saying just a 4 officer that could right use these as criteria um to wave the fine if there's an appeal so I

understand that point yeah I yield councilor was um U so I have a question um I agree with everything um councelor kadim said but the not having a place to go there is you know may not be in Fall River but right there is PL like Pine Street you can get people to Pine Street in Boston and from there they bust them to the other encampment so you know

I don't know how that looks in here but when that is a shelter is unavailable that means there is a shelter unavailable in Massachusetts because you know people just don't want to go to Boston Pine Street and they don't want to be Camp other places but that's not you know that's just you can't stay living in a tent in a yard and you're going to get a lot of um push back from

people in these camps because they don't want to go to those places but they're more healthy and sanitary and Humane than living in a tent with no running water so I just just um I don't want there to be this notion that there was no shelters available in the state of Massachusetts there are no shelters maybe that people don't want to go to and I would like to see our own shelter

here in Fall River increase their beds um but that being said um there is there's got to be that no shelter available anywhere does that make sense it makes sense and I I trust me I've struggled with um the concerns that everybody here is having as well as the public I mean we all I think we probably all have a lot of the same concerns you know my perspective is a little more

legal as far as you what I see over and over again when communities do get sued and that becomes costly is it's always as I said uh the idea that you're criminalizing or finding somebody for just existing um and you know once once there's a place to go and they choose not to then that compassion is gone so that was my attempt here I mean can it be reworked that last part I think so

um you know just there's no clearcut rule that I can say hey this this will prevent a me suit and this one will not I mean I I can't guarantee that in fact some you know there's already been lawsuits after the Supreme Court case that have that have been filed but I do you yield I yeld I get it that the ACLU comes down and they you know they're going to argue with

different things I get that but what bothers me is that um like uh councilor Samson was saying there are other places that people can can go to other shelters available they choose not to go they just don't want to go I mean I had um a woman and her son he was an adult and they found her a place in New bedf she said she'd rather stay in Far River than

go to new bedf which is nice I'm glad but there you had a home an apartment you you know you had a shelter and they could help you um we as a community have spent a lot of money with teams of people going in and assisting and I just think that we've got to do more you and I have talked about you know um people panhandling and you know the AC said

they have a right to do that but why don't we have you can only panhandle from this time to this time or on these specific streets you cannot Panhandle because there's too much traffic or it's a safety hazard we we haven't done that and I think this is falling in the same kind of thing if you cannot be here you don't want to shelter you need to pick up and

move and I read an article many years ago that Joe good had written and one individual who was homeless here in Fall River said he loves Fall River because nobody bothers him that he had been to tton he had been in New Bedford and they're always coming and they make us move make us move make us move so he came here nobody bothers him and then you know our citizens can't I mean you

have in here that they can't be on a bike path uh letter D but who's going to you know we're going to go there we're going to get people out of there every day if that's what we need to do that's what we need to do there needs to be a whole team working on this to get people moving maybe if they have to move so much they're going

to say yes get me to a treatment center get me to a you know a shelter yes I don't want to live like this anymore and it's unfortunate because some people that have mental health issues they can't live by themselves and you know years ago when they got rid of Paul deor and got rid of um people at tton State some of that you put all these people that had mental health issues that we

don't like to talk about as Community but you threw them back in the community and expected them to survive on their own and they can't do it it's not fair to treat a human like that I have very mixed emotions about this because I know some people yes it's alcohol it's drugs it's you know people who have been priced out of their Apartments but there's very few that have been priced

out of their apartments that are living homeless the biggest part is either mental health drug or alcohol abuse and you got to get them to get the help and they're only going to get the help if they at rock bottom but I I just think we need to be stronger with some of what we're doing with that I Y councelor reposal yeah I just want to I think going back to the original conversation

when we're looking at we had we did not have a definition of what any of this is so at this point this ordinance starts with defining what is unlawful which before was not defined either an ordinance or either by the Supreme Court case I think my biggest takeaway from this is the idea that when we talked about getting areas that were encampments cleaned up our hands were tied to do any of that this ordinance

and again through the Supreme Court case allows the city and the Agents to go in and clean these are areas up so now if you're going to essentially people are thrown out of that area the city now can go clean up that area that has been a disaster for God only knows how long so my perspective here is that this is a start and I agree with what you're all

saying it's a start could we improve it later on most likely but at this at this stage of the game we're going to have something that's defined we can start making some progress and then like any law or any rule we're going to have to look at it is it effective enough does it need to be strengthened but I I think we need to move forward and get something going so we can start making

some effective progress and cleaning up some of the areas like the citizen has come down many of times and discussed so that's kind of my piece inste I just want to remind you I mean when you read the penalties we're talking about the fine but there's nothing to prevent um whoever's enforcing this to have them move move along and so failure to move would be a number of other things you

know so you know the fine is so they can still be asked to move so for example let just in this hype of the bottom of counted Park if they're under authorized campign you know they meet the the elements here and they're told to move along they still have to move U so there's some discretion on whether or not you want to find them and I would imagine that our Police Department

whoever is enforcing is they're not trying to write fines first and foremost they wanted to move along so I mean this the fine honestly I I I hope that it is something that doesn't happen very often it's it's that uh stubborn person who isn't going to move along no matter what you tell them to do so the so to be clear the fine is not going to make the move the moving is the first piece the

fine is the additional punishment right if needed so it's it's I think that's what I'm hearing is that we're concerned about the penalty in the terms of a fine but we're going to still the ordinance doesn't allow for the city its agents whoever to go into these areas you have to move along there is no if and a buts about it correct and to what you were saying you know if if I take uh

councelor kade's ideas you know maybe I could rework it later I'm not sure you want to slow down getting this past because I think it's maybe a tweak and maybe work with the police and see what what they think helps them in their efforts but the fact that they can be told to move along with this um if you want to you know if you want this pass sooner rather than later I think it's we

can work on things in the future and ultimately I think the question is if person a refuses to leave it's now a criminal act right and which the police can then enforce through their through their powers right that yield thank you C team so I guess my recommendation would be just to strike um someone the third line right after the Fall River where it says however the imposition and just

strike all that so that the penalties just read any person found to be in violation of any provision of uh section 46 uh 19 shall be subject to the non-criminal procedure right because it's non-criminal uh set forth in subsection 2- 1021 through 2-125 of the code of the city of Fall River period and then you know at that at that point you know the mayor still has the the authority to really go move forward or

we just put the language yeah it could be a policy decision right and I I think this way obviously we would we would hope that the administration uh uses comment sense as they they proceed but we're also not highlighting saying that you know folks are not going to be fine they they have the ability because you need you need some type of mechanism to to enforce it so uh so I'll make that motion that we

strike however uh all the way through uh available okay second so that's penalties in section each strike from however to available second the motion second all in favor I and did we touch on C so can I just go ahead so I I don't disagree I I I think um the way C is written you know you have for example Relay for Life I know they were at dery at one point and now

at at Bishop Conley they they do sleep overnight um so I think if you don't have language in there specifically to allow them to do it then they would be in violation of the of the ordinance um I guess the question to you was is this really trying to identify the I guess the three major groups that have authority over property in in the city correct so the park board and then

obviously because the question I had was the appropriate State and or federal officials located on the state or federal property so we we don't typically have jurisdiction but this this would allow an officer to ask if they have permission and if they don't and if they don't have permission then that was the hope okay okay we don't want somebody saying well this is State Property go away okay I

you Council Samson did you have something to add okay so I'll make the motion to pass to First reading as amended amended second all in favor

I and number nine I know we I know we passed through first R can we do an emergency Preamble on this is that okay you want to yeah so I'd like to make a a motion for emergency Preamble is there a second roll call apologize Council Kad yes councel CL yes Council yes councelor Samson yes Vice pres yes motion to pass through all readings at this point yeah so as amend do you want to

withdraw your original or do you want to withdraw your original motion I'll withdraw my original motion for first reading and I'll make a motion to pass through all readings as amended okay so withdraw the motion the second all in favor I and pass through first reading second readings as amend all readings as amended second all in favor sorry

all readings have correct okay item number nine on the agenda um correspondence regarding the creation of proposed ordinance relating to short-term rentals okay so have anything on that yeah um just so this council is aware you know we have uh Penny lawsuit right now with what I refer to as the jerbec house uh the Stone House near uh Charlton hospital um their position essentially is if there's no specific

rule against a short-term rental Airbnb type thing then it's allowable and the city's position is it's absolutely not allowable unless we do allow it so I mean it's obviously not being used as a single family home it's not being used as a residence the person who purchased it is purely for investment purposes it's it's a 100% U being used as a short-term rental so I believe it is I can't remember the exact date in

September but there's a u a hearing in September where this is going to Gove forward now so the reason I'm telling you that is what this ordin is ordinance is designed to do is right now the city's position is they are not legal in any way this is what will allow it so the idea is that with strict regulation we can allow it um you know from and this is just my perspective you know

there's backlash all across the world right now against short-term rentals I if you go to Lisbon um everybody there complains that nobody Portuguese actually lives in lisban anymore if you go to Barcelona sometimes tourists are being squirted with squirt guns because uh they can't afford to live there anymore um you I guess the one good side about F River not being the the the tourist destination of some of these

other places it hasn't ruined the city yet but I think there is an idea that short-term rentals are ruining cities and at the same time I think most of us have stayed in one and love it we're using it without seeing the repercussions I mean it's hard to go to Portsmouth right now everything along the water is an investment property yeah it's happening all over and I think it's

it's best for Fall River to get ahead of it before it wrecks what is our beautiful Waterfront is going to be um so that's the purpose of this it's it's obviously not completely finished because there's a couple blanks uh you know spoke with Glenn I wanted him to review it and that we sit down you know this is my first attempt from here this council's welcome to give me any ideas

viewpoints there's a lot of things that could go either way it's not so much like it has to be black or white I mean there's a lot of input from the city counsil from the mayor who I wrote this without his input um you know Glenn wanted to have some input on it um so you know I don't know the best way to handle it but you know my phone's always available my email if

anybody wants to chat about what they think they want in here what's not but I mean the the big things are the idea is that somebody's supposed to live if it's a short-term rental they should be it should be their primary residence for nine months out of the year it does get difficult on how to prove that um but that's what this effort is is to prove that um somebody actually lives there

and you know we're not trying to selectively enforce it only against the properties in the highlands it will be throughout the city and you know from as I wrote this I'm hearing more and more about there's more in the city that we're just not aware of it's the same problem so do you want to take some time to wait till you have the court decision yeah I think it's best I mean we could

probably put it on the next agenda and in the meantime I'll take input from whoever wants to offer it and we'll we'll figure it out and if there's no you know I know Glenn was talking about uh certain things that I know he'll probably have some changes but I think maybe just put it on the next agenda we should be good to go I mean this is pretty thorough it

just it's it's my ideas as opposed to this body's

ideas and once again I've looked at numerous just so you know there's numerous ordinances I kind of Cobble together for this oh yeah Council hot just a quick question Alan um me I I agree with you I agree with this this ordinance as well but there's nothing really preventing that property owner to divide it into Apartments is there yeah for zoning um you know single family area if

it's a single family home you can't just put apart apartments in it but there's apartments in that neighborhood that's my point well you go if you just go over to the next street Handover I I guess the idea is this you know what are we trying to do um are they really operating Hotel is is the apartment is that person to divide that into an apartment is that different from an

Airbnb yes okay that's yeah so I mean if it I I'm all in favor of this ordinance but I'm just saying there's nothing really preventing that person to build five or six apartments in here yeah this is not designed to prevent somebody from purchasing a property and renting out all three Apartments if it for example it's a Triple Decker that's not what this is trying to do and not suggesting

going to do that I'm just curious if if if that's been I wouldn't want that to happen but there's nothing preventing him from doing that no right I mean there not with this and it's becoming a hot topic now just whether it's short-term rentals whether it's sober houses whether it's rooming houses which we've talked about earlier I mean what the city just needs to be vigilant upon is you know you have

a real estate per investor who doesn't care about the neighborhood and just about extracting the maximum value out of it and in Fall River particularly with some of the older historic homes you know the way to extract value there is to put as many people in each room as possible and they don't care about the zoning they don't care about the neighborhood they care about the bottom line so this is just another you know

short terms we talked about the lodging houses sober houses it's it's a problem across the country really no and and again uh having known the fal bird family for many years been playing basketball in the backyard and and going to high school with them and being in that house I would hate to see it become what he's trying to do so um but I I'm just I just want to make sure that um

that with this coordinance uh it's going to be at the next on the next agenda for next meeting I I could definitely put it on that okay the next agenda yep all right and I was there with Y reens who was the anesthesiologist so I'm older than you that's and you're right the inside of that house is beautiful and I hate to see it being destroyed but there are people in Far River who have bed and

breakfast is that different than a short term there is there's a license for that and I don't know this for a fact so I probably shouldn't say it but my understanding is that was the intent for uh the Lizzy bordon house maplecraft that somehow failed and I don't know how it didn't get the license but the idea was to try to get that there um I know people that looked at the you know

jarback felberg house who didn't buy because it was just too much house I mean it's it's not fair that somebody purchase it for an investment when other people avoided it because they knew they couldn't run an Airbnb out of it so right so did you make a motion to table I didn't but I will motion to table second second all in favor I I thank you we have a motion to motion

to adjourn second all in favor I thank you

I have heard rumors about

heyy