Committee on Ordinances & Legislation 7.23.2026

All right, you guys all set?

Ready to go.

All right, the City Council Committee on Ordinances and Legislation will be called to order.

Today is July 23rd, 5 PM.

We are in the City Council hearing room this afternoon.

Good afternoon, Clerk.

Call the roll, please.

Councilor Kadim?

Here.

Councilor Canuel?

Here.

Vice President Dion?

Here.

Councilor Pereira?

Here.

Chair Raposo.

Here.

Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived, by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Item number 1 this afternoon on our agenda is citizens input.

We do have 2 individuals who signed up today.

The first to speak is Colin Dias, 560 Ray Street.

Subject is transportation.

Mr. Dias, good afternoon.

3 minutes.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

So I'm just here today, and I guess I'll start with the fact I'm here for the transportation item on the budget.

Should be noted, for those who didn't catch yesterday's meeting of the school committee, the mayor announced publicly that there was some sort of deal cut with the city council, or members of the city council, to fund transportation and end the 1-12 budget.

We are here today, it's my assumption, because there were questions about the transportation budget as it was voted on by all members of the school committee, including the mayor.

The city, the CFO and the mayor shifted the numbers around since we've taken that vote, made up numbers, cut the transportation budget of the school department, and in my opinion lied about the school department not giving the correct information.

But if you watched the meeting yesterday, it was clear as day there's been constant communication from our side and we gave everything that we have.

Now I guess the money is going to come back to us.

So I guess the question is, how does that happen?

Granted, I'll be honest, I don't believe our, our administration on our school side really has been the best at communication this issue either.

I believe we need to have open lines of communication.

We need to keep close communication.

Unfortunately The mayor voted against opening those lines of communication yesterday by not having his finance team come before the school department, the school committee.

And I guess with the proposal that's here today, like I just said, I think we need to keep the lines of communication open.

I don't think we need, um, some sort of ad hoc committee.

I, I think, um, more government isn't usually better government, but I think just all of the, uh, contracts that came on and really stupid questions were asked about that.

I kind of got bored with that.

But I didn't see anything about the mayor saying the numbers changed, and I wasn't there.

But to say numbers have changed or people have lied, I, I, you know, I'm just tired of hearing stuff like that.

I mean, you have the, uh, deputy superintendent that just walked in.

I believe this is the new gentleman that's going to be the CFO.

You have the city administrator in the back.

I'd like to know— I didn't meet with the mayor.

I know council leadership did and Councilor Kadim did, and I thought they had the money to fund it to what it was originally.

So to those of my colleagues that were at that meeting, I'm just tired of everybody, you know, there's all these conspiracy things, people are lying, this and that.

You have my number.

You have a question, you can call me.

You can call anybody here like I can call anybody on that side.

But I was under the impression that the transportation money was going to stay the same as it was that the school department had sent in, and nobody's hiding anything.

Maybe I'm wrong.

If I am, then I'll be the first to apologize.

But I'm just tired of the accusations that are thrown around without us having all the information.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Vice President Dionne, can I briefly respond?

Vice President Dionne.

So I wasn't— so I will respond to that in terms of I can tell you absolutely guaranteed 1,000% there was no deal cut.

I don't know what this deal cut means, so let's take that right off the table.

In terms of the dollar amount, they're going to send down what they're going to send down.

We know what they initially sent down, we know what the school department's asking for, and The administration will send down what they send down, and the next time we deal with the, the annual budget, we'll know what the number is, and we will either vote yes or vote no, whatever the case may be.

So the only comment I want to make is I think as much as your argument is not to have an ad hoc committee, and obviously we're going to discuss that today, I think you just gave the argument as to why we should have an ad hoc committee.

Because you just demonstrated how there hasn't been the proper discussion, the proper channels, the proper people meeting.

The communication has been poor.

That's exactly what the committee would be for, all of that.

So I think you— I think you kind of, without realizing it, even though you don't agree with it, gave the argument as to why it should happen.

And with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Very brief, just want to briefly respond.

And I, and I agree, um, with, um, the council vice president.

I just don't— I think there needs to be a conduit to having communication.

I just don't want to— I'm just not for extra bureaucracy.

That, that's just the argument I'm making.

But I agree, I think we have the team in place now on our side.

And again, I'm just speaking as an individual.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the school department or anyone.

Um, so, um, with that being said, I think you're— there's going to be an increase in communication.

I'm not sure on your side with your administration.

Again, that's not on the city council, that's on the mayor.

I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done.

I guess I'll lastly say I would encourage members of the council to watch the entire meeting because these are comments that were made by the mayor at the end of the meeting, and I'm just going off We voted for a $17 million budget.

The city submitted a $16.1 million budget.

That's the budget that was sent to this council.

And just to say members of the school committee made quote-unquote stupid comments, I don't believe is appropriate.

Members of the committee have the right to ask questions.

I would never come here and, um, bash a counselor for asking questions.

I, I think that's just not the way we should describe members of the school committee.

I know you have your opinions on our side, Councilor Pereira.

However, I just don't think that's the right way to go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's right.

And I don't think it's right to say deals are cut when they're not.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Second individual to sign up for assistance was Joseph Cavallo, 301 Millikan Avenue.

The subject— Boulevard, I apologize.

Uh, his topic today is items 6 and 7 on the Council agenda today.

Mr. Cavallo, welcome.

Come on.

Boom.

Good evening.

So initially, I want to read, and it's dated November 8, 2021.

And it's a request for a variance and special permit from Catahoula Realty Trust to construct the, uh, electronic billboard.

And, uh, the Director of Inspectional Services, Glenn Hathaway, at that time denied the, the request and said that it's contrary, uh, to our ordinances and your permit is hereby denied.

So 5 years later, we have the billboard up.

And one of my issues has to do with, of course, when your request is denied, you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

And in my humble opinion, that Zoning Board of Appeals, not only the one that's in session now, but over the years, I've had Uh, I've made testimony in the past.

Uh, we have ordinances, we have regulations.

Uh, there's supposed to be setbacks, there's supposed to be, uh, limit, you know, X amount of parking spaces.

Uh, and in my opinion, again, all depends on who your attorney is, whether you get the, the, uh, the variance or the, the setbacks.

Even in the Flint, the townhouses behind Forever Knitting Mills was supposed to have a setback from the Kookachan River of X amount of feet.

Don't need to do it.

So when this appeared, when the ZBA ruled on this back in 2010, initially 2021, uh, and then of course COVID, the governor gave another 2 years extension.

There's been multiple, uh, uh, extensions of, of this, that, and the other thing.

And now we have a billboard.

And, uh, if I may, multiple Massachusetts communities have raised concerns and been negatively impacted by both electronic and static billboards.

And they've cited issues ranging from visual blight, changing messages every 10 seconds, which they have to by the Office of Outdoor Advertising, to safety hazards such as distracted driving and light pollution.

So Now for, for item 6 on the agenda, the development of Route 79, which is in my opinion again the last opportunity that this city of Fall River has to develop its waterfront in a way that serves the citizens of this city, and even the non-citizens, I'll, I'll add that.

Uh, so, so to have urban— it's almost like urban blight, these massive— and of course it's, it's north and south.

So Route 79, uh, Duval Street runs north and south.

This is going to be glaring in if there's, if there's going to be development on the 18 to 20 acres.

And people are talking about— I'm sure that if if, uh, Ken Fiola got his way, they'd be 10 feet— 10 stories high.

Regardless if they're 4 or 10 stories high and you're paying big bucks, market rate housing, and you're facing cityside, though, that light is going to be in your apartment 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, 366 during leap year.

Mr. Klawe, let me just cut you off for one second.

Um, he's over his 3 minutes.

Is there a motion?

Motion to extend for another 3 minutes.

Motion made by Councilor Emanuel.

Second.

Thank you.

Second by Councilor Barr.

All in favor?

Okay, you guys have it.

Another 3 minutes, sir.

So I, I emailed the council, uh, too much information actually, in my opinion, but, but I wanted people to get that information.

And thank you Uh, Councilor Pereira, because I think you looked at some of the cities, because, uh, that, that was what I got out of your resolution, because it sounded like one of the ones I looked on.

So for instance, uh, uh, oh, in February of 2019, I testified against then-Mayor, uh, Correa, who wanted to put 2 billboards up.

And I, I said at the Office of Outdoor Advertising, the idea of putting billboards up with messages that change every 10 seconds, uh, I, I would ask anyone how that won't distract drivers.

And, and now I add that the touchscreen technology in motor vehicles now and handheld phones just adds to that distraction.

I've even reached out to Sergeant Ferris, uh, the Fall River Police Department representative to the traffic board, to compile traffic incidents on the expanse of the Duval Street Route 79 to assist in quantifying what incidents may be attributed to distracted driving due to the electronic billboards.

Uh, so, so when I looked up the Zoning Board of Appeals on the MassGov website It talks about unique special permits, nonconforming properties and structures.

It can restrict some of that.

Overlay districts.

I'm not sure about Duval Street and Route 79.

Given Bicentennial Park right across the street with the Iwo Jima Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, Gulf War, Global War on Terror, the Gold Star Families, and of course the war that I fought in, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial War, all being right across the street from this billboard.

I don't think that any of those monuments or people that frequent Bicentennial Park, a recreation area and part of our waterfront, deserve that kind of distraction for a place that at least in some regard should be considered sacred land.

So it just— I can't stress enough, that one's there and it's going to stay there.

There's no taking it down, I don't believe.

I've contacted the director of the Office of Outdoor Advertising.

I've had multiple conversations with him and Uh, looked at the regs for, for outdoor advertising, uh, they got a special permit regardless of what the ordinances say, regardless of what the regulations say.

So, so my thought, even in appealing to the city council and to this committee in particular to, to enact some regulations, some ordinances that will at least, at the very least, protect our waterfront from this kind of blight.

Uh, you know, I, I just— it— that's how it strikes me.

Uh, and, and, and from my, uh, point of view, the ones I spoke about in 2019 were going to be on city land by now convicted felon, uh, Jason Correa.

30 seconds.

Okay, so, so I, I just want to, uh, implore you to, to pass some ordinances and legislation that will stop the last chance that we have to get out of the economic, cultural, and social doldrums that we've been in since we were in receivership, basically, 1933.

So thank you for List of names.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

Item number two on our agenda this afternoon is the minutes for the June 23rd, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion to approve made by Vice President Dion.

Second by Councilor Perry.

Discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred to the committee on 7/14/2026.

It reads Cherry Street.

South, 198 feet west of Grove Street.

Palmer Street North, 224 feet west of East Main Street.

Plain Street East, starting at a point of 314 feet north of Beaufort Street.

St. Mary Street East, 136 feet south of Essex Street.

And Tripp Street East, 87 feet north of King Philip Street.

Director of Traffic and Parking, you want to come down?

Good evening, Miss MacArthur.

Good evening, Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Thank you.

Anything from the committee regarding item number 3?

No.

Okay, is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve made by Councilor Proctor.

Motion that the ordinance be accompanied by an emergency preamble.

Second.

Okay, motion to be made by emergency preamble made by Vice President Dion, second by Councillor Canuel, roll call please.

Roll call on accompanying emergency preamble.

Uh, Councillor Kadim?

Yes.

Councillor Canuel?

Yes.

Vice President Dion?

Yes.

Councillor Pereira?

Yes.

Chair Raposo?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Motion for the motion?

Yeah, motion to adopt.

Motion to pass through all readings is made by Councillor Pereira.

Second.

Second by Vice President Dion.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 4 is proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred to the committee on 7/14/2026.

It is handicap parking removals: 3rd Street West, 150 feet— 155 feet south of Branch Street; Hunter Street East, 126 feet south of Hope Street; Mason Street East, 328 feet south of Pleasant; Pine Street South, 20 feet east of Robeson; South Beach Street East, 104 feet south of Oliver Street, South Beacon Street West, 343 feet north of Sprague Street, and Washington Street West, 128 feet north of William Street.

Any questions from the committee?

Motion to pass through first reading.

Motion to pass through first reading made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by Vice President Dion.

Any discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. McCuff.

Item number 5 is a resolution to convene to discuss the creation of an ad hoc school transportation committee, adopted 7/14/2026.

I'd like to invite our invited guests for item number 5, please, to the table.

We have a little chance.

Hello again.

Hey, how are you?

I'm doing well, yourself?

One more chair.

Oh, catch.

Okay.

Good evening to all of you.

If you could introduce yourselves and turn your audio off.

Can you pass that boom mic over to Miss Arpi?

Please, and she'll start introducing everybody.

Emily Arpke, Director of Finance.

Anna O'Neill-Souza, Interim City Administrator.

Gary Hellick, Assistant Corporation Counsel.

Liz Legault, Deputy Superintendent, Fall River Public Schools.

Alder Petronio, CFO, Brockton Public Schools.

I mean, Brockton Public Schools.

You know, forgot where you were, Alder.

That's fantastic.

Welcome to Fall River Circle.

Thank you.

Ken Pacheco, COO.

Thank you.

And where are you from?

Fall River.

Thank you.

Okay, make sure we're in the right place today.

Um, so I'll start, uh, as, as the author of the resolution.

So the idea behind my resolution here is to bring everyone together, um, and, and develop an ad hoc committee to essentially build some conversation around transportation Obviously, we've talked a little bit about it, no pun intended, in the budget process, and clearly there's a breakdown in communication.

So my vision behind this is to build some communication on both sides.

Obviously, the City Council has a role to play in this anyway, so this is the first step in looking to develop this.

So, Attorney Howeyak, I'll start with you.

I spoke to you regarding the development of this ad hoc committee.

So I'd like you to have some words regarding this, please.

Sure.

Um, when we spoke, I think one of the questions was, does it have to be created by ordinance?

And I probably said, yeah, it should be.

But, um, I don't know, about a half hour ago I changed my tune.

Uh, and I'm just thinking out loud, and, uh, well, I was thinking to myself out loud, and I do a lot of corporate work, and you see ad hoc committees and bylaws.

And, and when a, when a corporation creates an ad hoc committee, usually it's for a temporary purpose, informal.

They don't revise their bylaws for the ad hoc committee.

So in this case, I was thinking, as a thought, instead of creating it by ordinance, which we then modify all the ordinances for this committee, maybe do a trial run, so to speak, you could create your own set of rules on how it operates.

And if it's functional and you like to keep it permanently, then you can make it a standing committee and we'll create an ordinance.

And while it's operational, you might want to— you see the pros, the cons, and it actually will perfect your own rules to create a better ordinance over time.

So, uh, to do it that way, I thought perhaps the better way of doing— or a way of doing it is an order of the council.

I know I looking at you as a— I don't set orders.

I know, but, um, and that might be a possible way of doing it.

But, but I could also do it by ordinance.

So it's kind of what your— what the will of the committee is.

The committee is— Councilor Furrer?

Yeah, I'll ask a question.

We have many liaison positions on the City Council.

There's different liaisons.

Do we have a liaison from the school committee?

We have liaisons.

We do.

We have 2. Who are the 2 that are on it?

I think it's me and Andrew.

No, not— you got kicked off.

Yeah, I got switched over.

So listen, I've been advocating for these schools 1,000%.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Who is it?

That could be— I know it's me.

Maybe I'm not sure.

Oh, maybe.

Have you had an issue with getting information or being a liaison and speaking back and forth?

I thought you have.

You bring information to us.

Well, that's a loaded question.

Do I have an issue getting information?

Not always.

Sometimes.

I don't— listen, I don't disagree with what's before us in terms of setting up a subcommittee for the discussion of transportation.

I think one of the issues that we really need to look at is And I was just having this conversation with Councilor Dionne and she actually said it.

I think we get so caught up in net school spending that we forget to talk about the other expenses that come with it and transportation is one of them, right?

So I think when we were having this conversation and if it was not for the discrepancy that we had seen this year, I don't think we would have— well, at least I for one wasn't aware that we were paying for salary positions in transportation, right?

One example.

So I said this to the mayor, I've said it to a couple of individuals, you know, if I'm using the mayor's credit card to go shopping and I'm buying everything that I like, if I'm gonna use my own credit card, I might not even be going shopping, right?

So I think at the end of the day, we should be having a conversation, at least on the city side, with the schools in terms of what transportation costs look like, how are we minimizing the expenditures, 'cause it's not part of net school spending.

And when we start talking about the sustainability of the total operating budget, which includes education, we need to start looking at ways to reduce some costs.

So if we're not at the table having those conversations, fully acknowledging that, you know, all those decisions are gonna be made on the school side, I do think that we should be a partner and there should be some collaboration in terms of what those expenses look like.

Um, and maybe even part of those discussions capturing, even if it's only short-term, but capturing what the expectations are for transportations with— and I know maybe the indirect cost agreement is not probably the vehicle to use, but even if it's just an MOA on what we're looking to see for expenses.

So I don't, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

I don't disagree with Attorney Howey with the notion that maybe we should try it temporarily, and then if we think it should be a standing committee, then let's just move forward.

But maybe the outcome of this committee is just to establish an understanding, an MOU, of how transportation is going to be funded, what expenses we want to see, what type of reporting we want to see as a, as a, as a council and as the, uh, the administration.

So I think there's some benefit to it, but I know the question was whether or not I get information.

I do get information, sometimes not the information I'm looking for.

So I just wondered how that worked as a liaison, if that worked for you, because some of the state, they do transportation a mile and a half away from the school.

In Fall River, we do it a mile, and some people have said, well, make it a mile and a half.

But our goal is to make sure that we get kids to school, so that's why we've done a mile.

But I don't know, was it 10 years ago that Cliff, you and I, we went to Boston and tried to fight.

I think we met with Pat Haddad and the head of the Department of Ed trying to do something with, with transportation because the cost was— we weren't successful, but we did try.

That's Fall River's motto, we try.

But, um, okay, do you know how much you're getting now, Emily?

Do you know how much they're getting for Transportation, it had been 70 in the new budget, whatever you've proposed.

Can you say that?

Can you not?

Because you're kind of smiling.

I don't want to put you on the spot.

I wasn't prepared to have that full conversation about what's in the budget because I don't have— I just don't have any of that with me.

So we are still in, you know, finalizing the conversations.

It will be— there'll be something put down in front of everybody tomorrow.

So there will be a decision at that point.

But I think that in the conversations we've been having, even with whatever number goes down, there's still gonna be conversations moving forward and it's still gonna be a moving target that we've already committed to kind of working on these things together to look at.

So yes, there will be a number and I am telling you right now I'm not sending out a number that we don't all agree on, but I can tell you that even if we agree on a number, it's probably still gonna continue to change.

So the number will change.

We'll agree on a number, but the number will change.

Well, because there's factors that we've been talking about.

About like today?

About the things with the transportation changes that are potentially coming down the line, and they're starting to get more information on that, but it's not finalized.

So in that sense, you know, we're gonna put down a number that we can all feel good about and agree on, but it could still adjust.

But you've been working together on coming up with a number?

We've been talking, yes.

Did you wanna add something, Mr. LeGault?

Um, yes, no, we've met a couple of times.

We've gone over the expenses from this past year.

Are these working?

Yeah.

Um, the expenses from this past year and what we've actually spent— we spent $16.2 million overall, and what my predecessor put in for me was a 5% increase for next year, which brought it to $17 million.

So now we're looking at if we're changing any of the bus routes, changing some of the, um, with the redistricting, with the redistricting, whether or not we can save some funds on that.

So we could start off if the mayor gave us a lesser of an appropriation and then revisit it in December or January, because we still, we still don't know what September 1st is going to be for number of students.

Do we have 100 more kids moving in?

You know, do we have kids moving out?

Do we have a lot more special ed kids that are going to have to have special ed vans?

Because all those costs, you know, will change our overall program for the year.

But we'll know by mid-year where we stand.

So if the mayor doesn't fully fund the request, we would have to come back in January and say, you know, I need another $300,000, another $800,000, um, whatever it is.

And I assume, I assume at that point, because free cash and everything's been certified and the, the tax rate has been set, at that point you'd have to go to stabilization to cover the costs.

So, but at least there is communication and people are working on resolving that issue.

That's— I'm hearing there's no communication, so I'm happy to hear that there is communication.

And my counselor in— he's not in seat number 1, but my counselor Kadeem says, you know, he's had communication and hasn't gotten all the information that is asked for.

So I would hope that the school department would give him all the information he asks for, because then he shares that with us, right?

Well, I wasn't suggesting it wasn't coming from the schools.

I was just saying, oh well, wherever the information is coming from, I hope you You get it all.

I just want to clarify that.

Because then we get it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice President Diem.

So I think first I just want to say why I think the ad hoc committee is actually a good idea.

So number one, as we discussed, transportation is not net school spending.

And I think we've all fallen into the trap of we're so used to net school spending and we have to and you go along with whether you agree with it or not because net school spending is net school spending, that transportation just kind of followed and we've all basically always just sat back and said, well, it is what it is and we have to pay it and that's it.

That's as far as it's ever gone.

And this is probably the first time that people have actually sat back and said, wait a minute, wait a minute.

If it isn't net school spending, then we should have a say in it.

Um, we are paying the bill.

So should we just be handed a bill and expected to say, okay, here's your money?

Or do we sit and discuss— um, and I'm not going to steal anybody's thunder because I know it's coming— but perhaps policy changes?

I mean, we've heard about redistricting for years, but we haven't really seen anything happen.

We don't know, is it going to save money?

Is it going cost more money.

And I think in fairness, it's just all of us to sit at a table, have a conversation, and come to a logical and sensible conclusion.

That's just my take on it.

I know one thing, and I always manage to step in it, but it's probably not going to be well received by some people, but I'm going to say it.

I know that we've always and I forget what the program is, but there are children who excel in school and they get transportation even if they don't live a mile from the school.

Gifted and Talented.

Gifted and Talented.

We still— I— now I'm going to assume we still have that program.

Do we?

Do we not?

No, we do not.

So we did.

And when did we eliminate that?

2 years ago.

2 years ago.

Really?

And was that a savings?

I don't believe it was a huge savings.

Mr. Pacheco, can you use the microphone please?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

So everybody can hear you.

Wow, we give money to everybody, but gifts and talents— I'm gonna say that I don't know if it was a major difference.

We had already eliminated a certain level of the GATE program, so what was remaining was probably a bus.

Maybe 2, but I don't believe it was much more than that, and that was about 2 years ago.

Okay, now see, eliminated— that was something we had no idea because we're not involved in the conversations, and it would have been— and it would have been nice to know that and to know what it did save.

I mean, I know a few years back, and it used to kill me because there were 2 kids that lived on one street that were part of that program, and then there were 3 kids who lived 3 houses away who weren't part of the program.

So the bus would pick those two up and drive by right by the house of the other three, and they had to find their way to school.

And I used to say, "That's not right.

That's not right.

This has to change." So I'm glad that changed.

So with that for now, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Canuel.

Yep.

You got a head spot.

Oh, there we go.

First, just for a point of information, the school.

Liaisons for the City Council are Councilor Khadim and Councilor Hart.

Okay, um, when we talk about numbers changing, um, I would assume we're not— well, I guess I can't assume.

If we agree on one number, is it a safe assumption that the money would only go down, we would only save money potentially, or is there a real concern that if we agree on a number that everyone's comfortable with, that we could actually go above that number?

Um, I think that the goal at this point, from my perspective, is that we would agree on a number that would potentially only go down further.

But obviously there's always going to be the case that something could happen and, and everything could change in that sense.

But that would be the case even if we approved the original budget number, that that could go up if something dramatic, you know, shifted or changed.

So in that sense, I think the goal is to have a conservative number that would only continue to go down, but there's always a chance that it could go the other way.

Okay, this I'll direct more to the new CFO.

I don't like the assumption that we would just go to stabilization for more money.

I think we would first urge— I think the number is the stop sign, right?

Don't spend more than that number.

Because there's a— we have a whole city budget to balance, right?

And I believe we are doing much more than the state requires us to when it comes to transportation and the minimum expectations.

And I think, um, I think if there was a number that you guys had real concern with, I think you should look at policy changes to make sure you don't go past that number.

It's not acceptable when department heads go above their budgets Uh, and this is a line item within the city budget.

So I think if, you know, we'll see what the number is.

I think potentially, yeah, my statement basically was if the mayor were to fund us less than what we requested, then we would have to go that route because there is no other available cash.

There would be.

We would— stabilization would be the last-ditch effort, and that would come from me at that point.

So I wouldn't, I wouldn't stress about that because I would like to do everything possible to not touch stabilization.

So that would be the last possible stopgap.

But are there not policy changes that the school department could look at?

Obviously, redistricting is a policy in and of itself, a change.

But, you know, when I think about what charter schools do, they don't do door-to-door stops.

They do— we'll pick you up at Kennedy Park, we'll pick you up at Maplewood, we'll pick you up at Bicentennial.

You know, I think we'll obviously see what that number is, but I think I would encourage the team, if the number is not where you hope it should be, to take a look at all the available options.

Correct.

When you look at transportation, you really have like 2 divisions.

One is your fixed busing, which is your fixed stops, your street corners.

Those you set your routes and you have your buses that, you know, routinely run the same routes.

Then there's the variable cost, which is your, your, your McKinney-Vento homeless and your special eds.

Those change every year.

You get homeless kids that come in, homeless kids that go out.

You get special ed kids that get approved.

That's the cost that really drives the overall cost of the, of the program up.

You never know what you're going to have.

You could have a special ed student that's going to go to Worcester every day, so now you've got to hire a private van to take that special ed student.

They may have just moved in.

That's going to cost you $100 each way every day.

Times 180 days out of the year.

So those are the costs that, that you can't really get control over.

You're mandated to have to work on.

As far as the walkout goes, yes, if you wanted to go from 1.5 miles to 2 miles, that can be done.

I mean, it's a, it's, it's a model.

You've got a program that'll tell you what your bus routes will be, but you also have to factor in the number of students that fit on a bus.

So you've got that variable, but you've got your fixed routes and you have your variable routes.

It's the variable routes that really drive the costs.

Do we think we'll have a lot of students outside of the current mileage per se?

Again, I'm not fully involved with the, the school transportation policies and how that works because my kids don't go to the Florida public schools.

But when you do the redistricting, I think the idea is that they'll be in the neighborhoods, right?

They'll be closest to the school closest to them.

So the odds of them falling outside of that range should be reduced.

I would think that is the goal.

I think one of the biggest things that frustrates me a little bit is we don't know if what the savings would be from redistricting.

Like, we've talked about it, but to me this should be— because I asked the question at a council meeting whether or not someone's manually doing this or whether or not we're using technology.

If we're using technology to do it, we should already be able to project what those savings would be.

And I don't feel like it's been provided what the savings of redistricting would be.

And I think that would answer a lot of the questions that are before us when we talk about a number that's $900,000 different.

To me, we should already know if we're using technology, as we say we are, what the savings from redistricting would be.

And it might have made this whole discussion moot, I guess.

So I'll leave on that point.

I think that $900,000 though is— a lot of that is the 5% increase from one year to the next.

So it's not as if $900,000 is a number that we're assuming there's going to be more stops and more students.

The enrollment has been going up every year, which is great because in turn that brings us in Chapter 70 funds for the district.

But you could have one bus route that has 9 kids on it, you know, fixed bus route.

You can have a a second bus route that has 47 kids on it, you still need that one bus that's doing the, you know, picking up the 9 kids because you can't have kids on the bus over an hour.

So you can't expand that route to where the bus is on the road an hour and 20 minutes each morning picking children up.

So that's where you kind of have some restrictions.

But there is software that does all that programming.

You're correct on that.

But we don't know what the savings might look like, even a range of sorts?

So I think Ken has— yes, I think we— the software obviously is what we develop our routes with.

The issue is, is we don't have a set number of students until closer to school starting.

There are students who walk in, there are students who will register after September 1st, our start date.

Those are the wildcards on the outside.

They may need every one of them that you would We— there are times in August where we have 100 kids a day walking in to register.

That's the kids we don't know.

100 kids, if 50% of those kids needed transportation, that's a bus.

So that's how— that's why we can't predict it at this point.

Could you not do ranges though?

If we— if our current population is about flat, it would be this.

If we go up— that's exactly what you have.

So So we're, we're saying that we're not going to have movement.

Mr.

Chair, this is a great example of why we need the committee.

I agree.

I just, I just don't want to get into a budget.

We've been going on to it, and we're going to get an open meeting law violation since there was no budget discussion.

And, and I appreciate the conversation because I think the conversation is great to be had, but I think it just, you know, just shows why we need to— it explains exactly why having a committee, an ad hoc committee, makes sense, because there are a lot of questions that I, I don't think any of us here have the answers.

Most of you in the, in the school department have more answers.

And I think, again, building a collaborative effort together, considering we're going to have to address this in the budget, is a perfect reason to Councilor Kadim's point why we should do this.

So I'll back to Councilor Cando if you want to continue.

So I was actually going to close with the reason I don't support the ad hoc committee is because I think this is something the full council should hear, um, you know, not just a, a member or 2 of the city council.

Every department, every line item, you know, they get to the table.

The whole council, the finance committee has the opportunity to— so from my perspective, we already have that opportunity.

The school department comes down during the budget, it's in finance, all 9 members are able to ask questions and weigh in.

And that's why I don't support an ad hoc committee, because I don't I think it should, you know, I don't want to get a summarized report after the fact.

I want to be able to ask my questions.

So that's where I'll leave it.

And with that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Brewer.

I just think that it's very difficult to figure out what you're going to need for transportation.

And if we think that we're not going to get more students, I think they got 1,000 students last year.

With all the housing development that's going on, people aren't moving in and never having children, there's going to be more children coming in.

And like, I'm sorry, I forgot your last name.

Petroni.

Mr., as Mr. Petroni said, if you have a child that comes in with special needs that requires a placement in an out-of-school district, we have to provide that transportation.

But I do agree with you, Councilor Canuel, to look at everybody weighing in on on an issue.

But just like we have a lot of different subcommittee meetings, I watch the subcommittee meetings.

I watch subcommittee meetings of the school department.

Or I guess my life is quite boring that, um, I, I do watch all these meetings.

But if there's a meeting, it's going to come— whatever the issue is, it's going to come to full council to then be voted on.

So I'd say, you know, I'm, I'm supporting the ad hoc committee.

Let it go to full council.

And see what the entire council feels about it.

But there needs to be a little bit more, um, because we're paying the bill from the city side.

There needs to be a little bit of communication, more than we have now.

So that I would agree with.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Madam Deputy Superintendent, good afternoon.

I'll give you a minute to speak here if you'd like to weigh in on this.

Sure.

First of all, I, I thank you for inviting us.

And wanting to be collaborative with the school district because that's what we want.

And the communication and the doors of communication are open.

I'm certainly— I didn't realize there was a liaison, and I certainly would be willing to sit down with Mr. Qadim at any time or Mr. Hart and have conversations on a weekly or biweekly basis with myself and the CFO, Mr. Pacheco, or— and the superintendent.

Dr. Smith is not here this evening because she had another engagement.

But we're here because we want to be part of the solution, and we certainly don't want to be reactionary.

We want to be pro-solutionary.

So instead of coming up behind the bus, we want to be in front of the bus.

And so if we can start having these conversations today— obviously I'm behind the bus because I came April 6th, but right now we are moving pretty quickly.

Eldo and I, Mr. Pacheco, have been together all day today working on different things, and I believe that we can work with you.

And I know that Eldo has met with Emily, I think, twice now, and they've had conversations, they've had emails going back and forth.

So I think the communication and the lines are starting to open.

I appreciate it.

I certainly will take this back to the school committee.

I cannot speak on behalf of the school committee.

But I can say on behalf of Dr. Smith and myself, to open the doors of communication and to get this moving in the right direction is what we want to do.

When you ask about redistricting, if it is going to save, it should.

There's a lot of reasons why you redistrict— community schools, easier for parents, kids like to stay in the same school K through 8, K through 6.

They have their own middle school.

We get walkers, saves on transportation.

Those types of things are wonderful things.

We're going back that direction.

I hope to do more redistricting in the future.

We can only fit so many students in, in every building that we have and big programs that we're moving around, and we're doing it for the success for students.

And that's, that's our main goal, is how do we best support our student body and, and the students of Fall River.

And, and lastly, I think that I have asked, uh, transportation, and now that Eldo is here, uh, he and I will work on getting together and finding out and giving you what, what does it look like at a mile, a mile and a quarter, a mile and a half, a mile and 3 quarters, and 2 miles.

What are the cost savings at those mileages.

Um, I haven't been in Fall River for only 4 months, so I don't know how those policies started and why, you know, we opened them up and opened them up or closed them and closed them.

And now, you know, people said you pick everybody door to door.

If, if you've ever been in a superintendent's office or in transportation office on the first 2 weeks of school or in the middle of the winter, you get phone call after phone call after phone call after phone call I can't— my son or daughter can't walk down the sidewalk.

We— you can't get the bus down the street.

They need to drop them off in front of the door.

My mother— my mother is an invalid.

I'm not home from work.

I need someone to drop my child off in front of the door.

So we get those conversations, and that's what pushes— if in fact we move policies around to help that, that's what pushes the conversations to door-to-door pickup.

I appreciate the walking school bus.

I have said to many of the principals, and I will continue to say to principals, this year I will be walking to school with the kids.

I want to be there to walk possibly every Friday with the kids for the walking school bus.

I'll meet them at one of the corners and I'll walk with them to show, to show families that we are in support, that this is what we're going to do and this is how we're going to run the district.

We're all in this together.

We're part of a community, and that's how we, we grow.

But those are— I appreciate Mr. Canal's— when he asked, you know, is it a mile, is it a mile and a half?

I think you're right.

We need to give more information like that, whether it's the technology so you can just give, you know, if we had these routes at this time, this is what it would cost.

I agree with you.

And those are types of things that I've been talking to my staff and my team Dr. Smith's team about put it down, take a look at it, show it, and have conversation.

And it's the only way— Mr. Gadeem would tell you that it's the only way that we're gonna, we're gonna move a district, move a community, is you've got to weed.

You got to get through the weeds so that you can see what's on the other side.

So we're willing to work with you.

I hope you're willing to work with us.

And so on behalf of Dr. Smith and our staff, that we're here and we want to work with you.

And I'll bring it back to the school committee and to see if we would like— if they would like to be a liaison and work with us down here as well.

And I appreciate you, Mr. Raposo, for reaching out to me and asking me to come down with the CFO and the COO.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Um, any other discussion from the committee at this point?

So to Attorney Howeyak, I think at this point, um, we're going to look forward, and I believe you said an ordinance would be the, the best way forward to get this rolling, or what's your recommendation?

Okay, what— I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I lied.

I'm just kidding.

What would be the best way to proceed?

You know, it's a choice you have.

I don't know the best way to proceed, but my recommendation was not to do an ordinance.

Um, since it's an ad hoc committee, it's temporary in nature, you're kind of exploratory, and you're going to have to set the parameters of, you know, what's totally school side and what, what questions your committee is endeavoring to answer.

Uh, it was going to be a charge of the, um, an order of the council.

That was gonna be my suggestion, that the council just create an order, create the committee And once the committee's created, we can, I can create a set of rules that you operate under.

The rules in essence will mimic an ordinance without the formality of creating an ordinance.

And then you could, we can tweak the rules as it goes along.

When you say, oh, we like this, this is working or this isn't working, you know what, maybe we should have a member of the school department CFO as part of it.

You know, so as it morphs, it might be, Um, it will change over time, and then if you really love it, then we'll create the ordinance.

Fair enough.

I'll make a motion to, uh, request that the council establish an order to establish an ad hoc committee that would last for 1 year, and that'd be brought back before ordinance committee to make a determination if it should be a permanent standing committee and ordinance.

I'll second that.

Should we, um, motion made by Councilor Kadeem, second by Vice President discussion.

Councilor Pereira, should we have on that, uh, order that it would be maybe the vice chair of the school committee and the president of the council joined together to pick whoever's going to be on this?

Who's going to select these people?

Yeah, I would, I would lead.

Would it be Attorney Howeyak?

I guess I would, I would say that it needs to be an odd number of individuals.

I would say that would be 5, 7, 3 counselors that would be, I guess, established by leadership.

And then I would leave it to the school department as to— I know they've got a transportation committee.

If it's, you know, 2 members of the transportation committee or it's 2 members of the school committee, it doesn't really matter to me as long as we understand that it's going to be conversations about— just if it's going to be put in an order that that's going to be X amount of individuals to serve on that for a period of one year on a temporary basis and then you would write it up?

Yeah.

Okay, just give me the— actually, I think I understand the parameters based on, uh, what I've already read, so I understand what you want to do.

Understood.

Do you yield, Council?

I yield.

Ready to vote.

Councilor Cano.

Uh, I would like to amend however this is written that if it's only 2 city council members, that the— it is going to be 3, so I would request that 2 of them be the school liaisons that are appointed by the president, and then let the president of the council choose a 3rd member.

But I think given we have our roles, I, I would say that would be how I would prefer.

And I'd give up my seat to Councilor Cannuel since he wants to be part of it.

Sticks and diagrams.

So we have a motion on the floor made and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, folks.

Appreciate you.

Very nice to meet you.

Pleasure.

When do you stop?

Item number— thanks.

Item number 6 this evening is a resolution to convene to discuss development, traffic, and parking concerns with the Route 79 DeVall Street corridor.

It's adopted 6/23/2026.

Motion to lift from the table— or no, it hasn't been tabled.

This is first time.

First time.

First time.

Come on down, Director MacArthur.

You want to sit in the middle?

That'd be, be great.

Or not.

Or not.

Or not.

You don't want to serve?

That's all It's all good.

Introduce yourselves once again, please.

Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Anna O'Neill Souza, Interim City Administrator.

Thank you both.

I'll recognize the author of the resolution, Councilor Pereira.

The only reason that I put this in is because we all know 79 is going to be done, and people don't know what's going on there, who's having control of it, um, you know, and what the zoning regulation is going to be there.

When you look at that property that they built on Duval Street where the garage doors face each other and you can't get a car in either way— I know some of them have sold, maybe the ones on the side, but the other ones, I think they're just renting them.

And that was because it was under a certain zoning for arts overlay, uh, whatever.

And that was— that's a mess.

That should have never been.

So I just want to keep people up to date on what's going on there and what they're going to do, because to do stuff without involving the community, and then there's issues, and then people complain.

So there should be public hearings where people can weigh in on, you know, what's going to happen there.

I mean, when I look at Lindsay Street, for example, we made one section of Lindsay a one-way to Brownell, and then it's a two-way.

And if you go down that two-way, there's a lot of six-family houses there, yet you have this huge island of grass that we're going to be responsible for cutting.

But they didn't have to make it that wide.

They could have shortened it and you would have had additional parking for all of the homes that were there.

Like, I, I don't see the forethought in doing things, and then after they're done, it's too late.

Now it's going to cost money to come in and to change things.

So I would hope that we would just keep on this, if this can stay in committee, to look at, you know, what's happening down the pike.

Is it going to be the state?

Is it going to be the city?

Is it going to be mutual?

How high are the buildings going to be?

Are we going to have wraparound businesses in the front?

If we do have businesses, a coffee shop, a pizza pizza shop, a jewelry store, whatever.

Are we going to have wide enough sidewalks there so that in the summer if people want to put their wares on the sidewalk, that there's room for a wheelchair to go by or somebody with a baby carriage to go by?

Like, what are they going to do?

And I just think it's better to have the public involved now and weigh in on different aspects of 79 than create something without any input from the community.

I mean, I went down when they first did it.

My input was I thought that the 2 roads should have been on one side coming and going, and we should have gone from the grass all the way up.

But I guess there was a lot with electrical and under route, then I lost.

You know, I did get it widened near the Prestige there, the auto body place, because it was too narrow.

So that we got past, and now the hospital bought it, but Um, you go down and you try to give your opinion, and, and I think we need to give people that opportunity.

And that's the only reason that I put it in.

So if we table it here and just keep it going because other people aren't here that would have, um, knowledge of this— with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Vice President Dionne.

Thank you.

Um, so I think, I think some of what you mentioned has been addressed Only because in the master plan some of these things have been addressed.

They have had public meetings.

I attended a couple of them where they were talking about underneath the, the housing units they would have stadium parking with wraparound for businesses so that you don't see the parking.

Um, I know in ordinance it's 6 stories.

However, with a variance, it It could be up to 8 right now.

So right now it's 6 to 8.

Whether that changes or not, I don't know.

But definitely one of the concerns is we still have not gotten a definitive answer.

Is it going to be state and RDA, just RDA, state, federal?

And I think hopefully we can come to that conclusion sooner than later and really ultimately know what's the plan here.

You know, are they looking— because I've heard Um, they want one mass developer with very deep, deep, deep pockets to take the whole thing over and develop it and get developers under them.

So we don't know, we don't know.

Um, I certainly hope we don't go to 10 floors, 12 floors.

I, I would be against that.

But, um, there are variables that— there are knowns and there are definitely unknowns, and it's probably a good idea to to continue to have conversations.

With that, I yield.

Anything else from the committee?

Members of the administration, anything you want to add?

I mean, I can add that there has been a committee put together.

It includes the council president, um, uh, Ken Fiola, the consultant for the Redevelopment Authority, the Redevelopment Authority, the mayor, uh, Dan Aguiar, who is kind of been the City Point person on the administration side on all the meetings, not just for the construction, but he is involved now in this.

There should be a decision, I would say, pretty imminently regarding what the state has decided, whether they want the city to be part of it or whether they are going to bring in a developer from— put bids out for developers.

So there should be some answers coming soon, and we can ask that when that group meets, if they could maybe put a little report together that the council president could bring back to you to let you know, um, what's going forward.

Be glad to.

Yeah, that would be— that would be good.

Anything else?

I'll make a motion to table.

Motion to table made by Council Perot.

Second.

Second by Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

May oppose?

The ayes have it.

Item number 7 is a resolution to convene to review city ordinances relating to outside billboards and advertising signs.

It was adopted 6/23/2026.

The author of the resolution, Councilor Ferraro.

Many years ago, I believe it was under the Carrera administration when Kathy Amber Vares was city administrator, we looked at all these places where we could put signs.

There was only one place in the city that we could put a sign, and that was if you go down Center Street across from where the mechanic shop for the postal service is, there's a little piece of asphalt there.

Some— one of the post office trucks are parked there.

That was the only place that we could have a billboard.

And all of a sudden, for billboards to go up, or with special permits or what have you— I mean, the one that's up, it's up.

Um, you're not going to change that.

But I think that we really need to look at what the regulations are on this.

We don't want billboards all over the place.

It really deters.

I think Steve Camara was on the council at the time, and I forgot the first lady that he mentioned.

I want to say it was Laura Bush, but don't quote me, who had a whole campaign against this.

I should have called him this week, but I didn't.

To ask him.

But, but I really think we need to look at this.

And I will tell you, I give kudos to Mr. Cavallo, who really went above and beyond looking and sending all kinds of information.

I mean, a bunch of us have spoken with the Office of Outdoor Advertising, and this is something we need to look at.

There are other communities that do have restrictions, so I would say that this be something that the legal department look at at ordinances around this, around this issue.

So I would refer this to the law department to see what ordinances that they could suggest to us that would fall within our charter and within ordinances.

Do you want to make that in the form— I'll make that in the form of a motion.

And can you repeat it for the clerk, please?

Uh, a motion that this resolution be sent to Corporation Council for Corporation Council to come up with a list of ordinances relative to billboards.

Got it.

What is it, James?

Correct, correct.

You want to— you can say it, share with the committee, please.

I just wanted to state that, um, if you do refer it to Corporation Council then it's with Corporation Counsel.

It would no longer be tabled in committee.

So personally, I would recommend that you— that you table it and you write a letter asking what it is that you're asking for.

Absolutely correct, James.

We shall do that.

So send a letter to Corporation Counsel with a copy of this resolution, and we will keep this resolution in the Ordinance Committee tables.

And I believe Council Kadeem.

So moved.

Gave a second to the first.

I don't know if he'll give a second.

So moved.

Okay, so the motion on the table is to send a letter to Corporation Counsel with a copy of this resolution for their— for them to further investigate possible ordinances regarding billboards.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Made and seconded by Councilor Kadeem.

Any discussion on the motion?

Oh, Councilor Dionne.

No, I just want to make one comment, and I did say it at a city council meeting Personally, my point of view, I do not want to turn our waterfront into Las Vegas, as much as I love Las Vegas.

If I want Vegas, I'm going to go to Vegas.

I think I want our waterfront to be more in line with Newport, where people— it makes people happy.

Uh, we're not— and I agree with every single thing that Mr. Cavallo said, 1,000%.

And I think for us to allow the waterfront to have nothing but those signs would just be horrific.

Such a huge mistake.

I mean, hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in, in a beautiful location.

To ruin it, I can't go along with that.

So I'm glad you wrote this resolution.

Hopefully we can come up with an ordinance that will, um, mandate what can and can't be erected moving forward and that we can get a good handle on this.

With that, I yield.

Any discussion?

Councilor Kenyon.

Thank you.

I do want to thank Councilor Burr for filing this resolution.

I was already in the works of crafting one, and I was advised by the clerks that you had already filed one, so I said, well, there we go.

Um, I think my only suggestion, uh, in the language to the Corporation Council is just to look at other communities who have enacted restrictions as a starting point of options across all of the communities within Massachusetts.

And with that, you know, any other discussion on the motion was made and seconded?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Further motion to table this here in committee.

A motion to table in committee.

Motion to table by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Vice President Dionne.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 8 this evening is a resolution to convene to amend Chapter 66-186 of the City Code for the naming of city buildings, parks, recreational facilities, and other public properties.

It was adopted on 5/26/2026.

The, uh, council— the author of the resolution is Councilor Peckham, so I will read it for the public edification.

Whereas the City Council has encouraged in discussions over many years regarding the naming of city buildings, parks— excuse me— facilities, and other public properties in honor of members of the community for their significant contribution, service, and dedication, and whereas such recognition served to celebrate local heritage, foster community pride, and inspire future generations by permanently associating exemplary citizens in public spaces, and whereas recent occasions have arisen in which it would have been appropriate to name or dedicate a city building or property in memory of a deceased community member whose lifetime achievements merited such an honor, and whereas past conversations of this matter have stalled without resulting in a a clear, consistent, and transparent policy, and whereas it is in the best interest of the City of Fall River to establish clear, equitable, and dignified criteria and procedures for the omnistic and posthumous namings of city assets, now therefore be it resolved, the Committee on Ordinance Legislation convene to amend Section 66-186 of the city code to include, among other people— other possible needed changes, the ordinance apply to any member of the public, public official, or city employee.

Excuse me, Vice President Dionne.

So in this— in the ordinance, I'm only going to read A of the ordinance, the purpose.

This section establishes a process and criteria for consideration of a request by a member of the public to name or rename a public or private street, a park, building, or other real or personal public property located within the city limits.

This process also includes a request for additional name or sign to be added to an already existing name.

The reason I read that is, to me, this resolution— you want to introduce a member of the public, public officials, city employee.

I think politics is involved sometimes in too many things.

And changing this ordinance to include public officials and city employees, I think, defeats the purpose of the ordinance.

I think it's nice that for once there was something that was for the general public to name things generally that, that residents come forward and make the requests.

Um, I think my— just me— I would prefer to keep it that way.

I think this ordinance can be tweaked in the respect that perhaps some more criteria be put into it as to, you know, and I'll give her an example.

I'm going to try and give an example without offending people.

But, you know, so let's say, okay, so somebody works for the city for 30 years.

Are we going to name a street after every person who after 30 years of working retired?

I don't know.

Um, you know, I think to me, somebody who has really given back to the community, somebody who's made an impact on the community, somebody who's dedicated a lot of time to the community.

And not to say that somebody who works for the city isn't a relevant individual, but, um, I'm probably not explaining it well, but I think there's a difference.

So I just feel like there should be some criteria along with this.

But again, it does not stop either or exclude any city employee or public official from filing a petition, submitting it, and then coming to the table as a resident and presenting it to the council.

And the council say, yes, okay, we'll forward it to— I believe it's planning.

Yes, here's where it goes.

Forward it to planning, and then it comes back to the council.

It does not stop that from happening, but I, I just— I like the idea that you're doing it as a resident, as imposed to an elected official, and it keeps the politics to me out of it.

And with that, I'll yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Canuel.

Thank you.

I'd like to echo her sentiment as well.

I don't believe we should introduce this for public officials, especially, uh, you know, it would allow the city council, a city councilor, to potentially do that, but then later it comes back to the council for action.

So it would be kind of a very influential piece for me in that process.

I like the resident aspect.

I'm not keen on the city employee part either, just because they're not always residents of Fall River, and I do think it should be coming from people who live and pay taxes here and feel that impact every day being residents here.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Pereira.

One of the things in looking at the resolution that we already have, the ordinance that we already have on the books, If you want to name something in a park, and I'll give you an example, at, um, Bicentennial Park, Herman Bombach, graduate of Durfee High School, very involved with the veterans, and his wife wanted to have one of the benches down at the park have his name on, on a bench.

Um, and, you know, that needed to go before the Park Board, and the Park Board voted on it, made a decision And we did have a ceremony, and there is a bench there for Herman Bombach.

Another one is the young man that got into the accident.

He was on his bicycle and got hit and died.

He was like one of the best skateboarders around, and there was a group of people that came to a city council meeting requesting that that skate park at Lafayette be named after him.

And I know that Darren is working on it as well as someone else working on it.

I talked to Alan's— Alexander Silva's sister today who's involved with that group to get the gentleman's mother's phone number to reach out to her.

And the Park Board's going to be dealing with that.

But in this, it doesn't say anything.

It talks about the planning board, but honestly, it's been going to the Park Department and they're the ones that vote on it.

It doesn't come to the council at all.

So I don't know if that's something we need to look at, because I don't know how I— you know, it ended up with the Park Board.

But a lot of the things we do at Bicentennial, it always goes in front of the Park Board, especially with dedications and, you know, names.

Another one was an Eagle Scout who started to do the rail trail with Mr. Lima, and as his Eagle Scout project, he had it all.

His name is Machuse.

That the new area that they put— they want to put a bench with that Eagle Scout's name on it because he was the initial one that had come forward with that, but just didn't think, you know, he didn't know the wherewithal and we, the government, as Mr. Leamer and that whole group did.

But, you know, his father would like something there for him.

He had contacted Joe Camara and then he contacted me.

Maybe about 9 months ago.

So we're looking at doing that again.

That goes in front of the Park Board.

So there's nothing in here that talks about the Park Board.

So if it's not supposed to be going in front of the Park Board, then maybe this ordinance needs to look out for, for that aspect of it.

But other than that, I think this is good.

And we don't need to have anything else.

I would give I would give this, uh, leave to withdraw.

Motion leave to withdraw.

I think what we're doing is good.

Do you yield, Councilor?

With that, I yield.

Yeah, the one thing I will say, I mean, to Councilor Dion's point, this ordinance was written in 2009, so it could very well use a review just, just for to make sure that it's correct.

And if there's any amendments that need to be made as far as words and, and where things go, that may be useful.

Vice President Yeah, the only thing I was going to say was, and it's interesting because it does say public or private street, public park, public building, other real or personal public property.

But I think the difference being, so if somebody's requesting something for a park, the Park Board does have authority over the parks.

We don't.

And I think that's why those benches and that sort of thing went to them.

And maybe public parks should be taken out of this ordinance because we don't have jurisdiction in parks, only the Park Board does.

But that's part of the conversation to be had.

Um, with that, I yield.

Councilor Kadeem.

So I was just going to make reference to that.

Uh, so they definitely do have jurisdiction.

I, I would suggest that we refer this to Corporation Counsel so that they can get, uh, some, I guess, a legal opinion from this, because I, I do think that while Park Board has a ruling, I, I do think it should follow the same process that the city on city buildings would have.

So go through planning, and then we, we should have a say as well as the, the Park Board.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's still property of the city, and I think naming rights should be coming from the same process.

So I would just suggest we send it over to Corporation Council, have that reviewed to see if we can put in an ordinance that would require the Park Department to to follow the same process from through naming rights.

Is that a motion?

Yep.

I will second that motion.

Is that a motion?

I was going to so move my own motion.

Motion made by Councilor Khadeem, seconded by Councilor Perry.

Any discussion on the motion to refer to Corporation Council?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Can I make a motion to table this so we get it back and see what Corporation Council— Second.

Most certainly you can.

Only if we send a letter, right?

That was the first motion.

The first motion was to refer to Corporation Council.

Listen to James.

No, no, we referred a letter.

So to clarify, referring to write a letter to Corporation Council regarding the ordinance, right?

Mr.

Chair, sir, city administrator has something to add.

I was getting there, one second.

You got that?

Okay.

I was just going to mention that If it is a park bench or something new, it goes to the Park Board.

But if someone made a request to name a field for someone, that would go through the process it goes through now as well as the Park Board.

But the, the planning process is to do the research to make sure that we're not renaming something that's already named for somebody.

Yes, understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a further motion?

No, just a motion to table.

Motion to table made by Councilor Cabrera, seconded by Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

That is— excuse me— that is all we have on our agenda this evening.

Regrettably, because I was having a good meeting here tonight.

We disagree but agree and resolve things.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Canuel, seconded by Vice President Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

The City Council Committee on Ordinance Legislation now adjourned.