4.7.2025 Fall River City Council - Ordinances & Legislation

My over my

over hey

Hey hey hey hey hey.

Hey,

Black

We're coming back.

Hey, hey hey.

Committee on ordinance and legislation come to order. If the clerk can call the role here Samson here.

Um, pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or visual recording of this public meeting or may transmit this meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings and transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Has anyone signed up for citizen input? Okay.

Item number two, approval of the March 4th. Motion to approve. Second.

Minutes. There's a motion and a second.

All in favor? I. Item number three, corporation council to establish the right-of-way fees for fiber optic cable installation. Hold the discussion. You coming down? Oh.

Um, which one is Dan on? He's on this one. Okay. I thought so. It's why I went to put you first.

Thank you. Trying, man. Trying.

Thanks. I haven't worked this cast out yet.

Just for the people at home to know, could you just give your name and office position? Sure. Alan Rumsy Corporation Council. Dan Aguia, director of engineering and planning.

You want to give us a heads up on this, either of you?

Sure. Um Okay. So, my involvement, I mean, Mr. Aguar has done um a lot of the work for the permitting for this things, but I I've spoken with Mr. Aguar as well as the city clerk to try to figure out what would be fair and reasonable fees associated with use of the cities right away. So just in a nutshell um you know these companies come in and they want to use city property to um build their

infrastructure. Um I think having fiber internet in the city will be a great thing for the city of Fall River. It's something we're in support of. Um but I most municipalities have a fee structure set up in order to use it right away. So as I said in speaking with the city clerk for example um you know trying to figure out what a reasonable application permit fee would be. These are the

numbers we came up with. Um there's fees associated. Um for example, if they put a a box or a cabinet in the city right away, there's a certain fee. There's a different fee which is more if they get permission from the city to put that same box or cabinet not in the cities right away. So for example, if they wanted to put it just in the corner of a park, things of that nature. I mean,

there there are cost and fees associated with this thing with these things. So this is what I've come up with. As I said, I've looked into um what other municipalities have done. Um as much as I could find out there, spoken with all the people that are involved with it. I mean, uh Mr. Aguar, you see it right here, is you know, he's more knowledgeable on what they need to do

and what they're trying to do. So, his information is really what I used to help build this fee structure and he was he was a lot of help in me developing this. So, just a little bit of back history of where we've gone with this.

Um, city administrator Aken was the lead dealing with all of these fiber companies that were coming to the city and looking into installing. We probably sat and spoke with at least six of them.

Every one of them had a different method for construction. Every one of them had a different method for the areas of the city that they wanted to service. Um, our concern was that we should be finding one, and this is beyond the ordinance, but that we should be finding one provider that wants to provide service to everyone, not just the ones that are the easiest for them to serve,

that serves their monetary structure.

Um, and we were not at a point yet to get there. We do have one provider um who was a little bit further along than everyone else and is ready for submission to a petition to the council uh to the clerk's office like National Grid does for a pole or lines or any utility like that. So we looked at how can we capture the same types of monies that we require those other utility

providers to to come up with. So we felt the best way to do it was rather than create an entirely new ordinance was to modify the existing ordinance that deals with poles, conduit, and things of that nature just by simply adding certain words like cable, wire, fiber, and cabinets. So the ordinance that you see drafted in front of you is really just an expanded version of what the the

existing one does. So, it's it is under section A110-1 under chapter 2 administration fees 2-453 subsection 26 which actually didn't even have a title. So, um Allan did put in a title use of city's right of ways for cable wire fiber cabinets etc. And you'll see in here that the majority of them are currently the existing fees. Um, and then we added some additional as we get further down

the end of the proposals. Something we thought was important to add here, and I know councelor Pereira was running lead on this, is when we end up with a provider that has unused equipment, whether they be polls, cabinets that they just leave behind. Um so the very last fee I we have included a fee uh to be acred daily for when they leave a pole that's not being utilized or a

cabinet or things of that nature. So that's something that that should be contemplated. And as Allen stated in this we've also included a section that deals with not only right of way but city-owned properties as well. Um because we find like with the proposal that we do have, there was a cabinet being proposed around Rugles Park. Well, the cabinet that they proposed encompassed the

entire grass area outside of the paved surface, although we have no sidewalk there right now. If we wanted to go and put sidewalks around uh Rugles Park, this cabinet would impede our ability to do that. So maybe it made sense. Well, let's move the cabinet back 10 feet if we can get the parks to approve it and have it be out of the right of way. So they have submitted plans to us which

we've been going back and forth with asking them for revisions, show us where underground utilities are and and meeting all of those requirements because some of them a lot of it is just hanging lines off existing poles, which a lot of them we don't own the polls, right? They're jointly owned polls between National Grid and Verizon or AT&T, whoever owns the polls. So we have to make sure that they have an agreement

with those providers to be able to utilize the poles. But in about 30% of it, it was underground installation. So now we're dealing with street opening permits that are governed by my office. And now we're looking at streets that are 5-year moratorium streets. One of them was uh what's the restoration going to be for sidewalks?

And most of the work is in sidewalks except for where they cross the street.

So just coming up with rules and regulations of how we would allow them to enter the street. But it all comes back to their petition to the council for the use of the right of way which you you were all very used to dealing with but just not for this type of a user yet. So as far as dealing with one provider really not we're not at that point yet but we are at the point where

we do have one provider ready to submit a petition that you that you will all have to approve. Can you say who that provider is? Tilson is is the company.

Yeah. Now, when they're doing fiber optics, Mr. Agia, does that also um have the ability to have um wireless connection? Well, it is. And so, what happens is every one of them, like I said, is a different type of provider.

Some just want to come in and provide the infrastructure and then they in turn lease that space out to other providers who actually provide the high-speed internet. So they would own all of the equipment, the wires, the cabinets, and then they will entertain bids from multiple companies. Okay, if you want to come provide this section of Fall River with highspeed internet, we can allow you to use our

infrastructure. There are some that do infrastructure and service. So there's any the variables change. Some are a combination of the two. Some are only strictly one way or the other. So we we've been dealing with how do we deal with one type of provider. There's also the option of the city could take it upon themselves to install all of the infrastructure, but at that point, you

know, it takes that's a lot of money, a lot of time, but there are a lot of smaller communities that are moving in that direction. I don't think the city could take that on because the profit would be the city's profit for at the end of the day. Yeah. And it if we're looking at a 30-year plan and we had the time to in and the money to invest in creating infrastructure just like water

lines, right? We own our own water lines and we sell our own water. We don't want to have that discussion tonight about water. But similar, right? We could be the utility provider that provides the ability for highspeed internet. But I don't think we're at that at that point or ability to provide that. So tonight the discussion really is just about what should we charge these companies for

using our right of way. And if I can add one thing to that, um, so the FCC somewhat recently chimed in on small cell wireless facilities, which is just kind of the 5G that we're used to that's being built all over the city. And you know, there's fights all over the country about what is and was not a reasonable fee. But in that FCC decision, they basically said that for $270 for

um annual fee for a poll, I mean, I guess my point is some of these numbers in here or what the FCC said that um they are reasonable. These are the numbers that they'll deem reasonable.

They're not even going to litigate anything that these are the maximum charge. So that's why some of these numbers are in there. It's it's what the FCC used for small cell wireless facilities, which we adopted once that ruling came down. you know the the so what this did in that case is just make the same fees available for fiber or any other thing that comes in any technology. So we didn't want to limit

it to just small cell wireless facilities. We wanted to be a more expansive definition. So anything that looks like that would have the same fees.

Now this this council doesn't have to approve for example uh a cabinet in the parks. I mean, um, we can't be unreasonable withholding our approvals, but if there's anything the council doesn't like, you can deny it. Um, if it's, you know, burdensome or in the parks or the historic section comes before you, just like it does with National Grid. And so, they had sent in an initial plan set that dealt with, I

don't know, maybe 10 acres of land and all the homes that fall within that area.

That's a lot for the council to look at and decide, you know. So, we had asked them multiple times, well, I think we need to break these up street by street and we can do multiple hearings in one night so we can be as efficient as possible, but we think the information needs to be provided in a manner that the council can understand because I can sit and look at 200 sheets in a plan set

and understand what they're doing. that doesn't mean that that you have the ability and the amount of time that you have to look at it to look at every street and what are the impacts whether it be above ground underground and and what we're dealing with. So we've been slowly getting more information out of them to make the petition once it gets to you a little bit easier to digest and

deal with it you know in a regimented way not just a blanket approval.

Councelor Kadim. So the annual fees, if we approve this, we're going to be charging Comcast and well, I guess not Comcast because they're National Grid poles. So National Grid would be charged $27 for every pole that's in the city.

Well, there is an annual fee now. Whether or not it gets collected is something else. I don't know that because Allan and I have had this discussion. Why is that? I don't know.

That's I that's that's beyond my my department or Allen's department. We're still looking into um whether or not existing um cable and things of that nature get grandfathered in. Okay. I think that's the question you're asking. It is. Yeah.

Because I'm just curious because that's I mean that's a everyone should be treated the same way. Yeah. And the the the 10-year Comcast contract I don't think deals with the uh what you're talking about. No. And I would I guess I would argue with Comcast that that's um it's a pass through to the subscribers.

So the subscribers pay for it, not Comcast is it's not profit sharing from from Comcast.

Correct.

Although our contract I don't think deals with uh polls with the polls, right? So it may be another revenue source for companies like Comcast, but I'm not prepared to to say yes or no at this point. And and it's not everyone that's on that poll pays the poll. It's the owner of the poll, right? So it's just like personal property tax, but it just happens to be on your personal

property. So it's there. I know. So I don't think there's an ability to go backwards and start charging these people. But this is the opportunity to now start acrewing that moving forward for any any new materials that get um constructed like a cabinet. And I've I've explained to them it it appears with the proposal that they've just sent that they're not proposing any new poles. It's a lot of underground stuff,

handholes, vaults, stuff like that. But again, that takes up space in the right of way that precludes other utilities from utilizing the right away. So, there should be a fee associated with it.

Hanging hanging lines off of an existing pole is relatively simple. Or adding more equipment to it, but then we end up getting these utility poles that have a lot of stuff on them. And then when they when they're done with it, we want to make sure that it comes down, including the pole itself when it gets replaced and it's not just strapped to the new pole, waiting for the other provider to

take all their equipment off before they take down the pole. That was my only question. I yield. Well, we've tried to get other companies to come forward and we have to give them a three-month notice. Yep. For other um sources. Now, with fiber optics, this is not wireless though.

No, no, because I know that in Texas they had I was reading up on, you know, having this in front of me on knowing a little bit about internet. Um, and they are doing wireless. So, they put certain things in certain places, but you would still need a modem in your house with with this type of equipment.

Technically, it's wireless from your laptop to the modem that's in your living room. But um I think I think what she's saying is that they're starting to put Wi-Fi connections on poles on the poles themselves so that there are because beyond beyond the installation of lines in your right of way now you have that many connections from that you from that infrastructure to the homes

themselves because one of the problems is that when we had done internet when they had done the cable contract that was a long time ago they had a public hearing years before and all of a sudden I asked the mayor about the cable oh We just signed that. What do you mean you signed it? We didn't even have a public hearing. We did have a public hearing, but it was what, five years before? It

was before I started. So there you go.

So that was really stupid. I hate to say it, but that was stupid. If you're going to sign a at least let people come in and talk about it because the public hearing was so long ago. And if people I get calls all the time, especially from seniors complaining how much their bill has gone up. And if you just want internet because you can buy, I don't know, Roku box to put on or you can buy

something else or you can pay for Hulu or or Tulb or whatever those other, you know, those channels are. Then you just want internet. Well, they charge you a crazy amount of money. I think um T-Mobile is doing it now for $29 a month just for cable and it's 5G. I mean, just for internet and it's 5G. Um, so I'd really like to see wireless. I hate to see us hanging more wires, but if that's

the technology that's available at this time. And are you only going to look for one or if somebody else wanted to come in? Well, let's be clear. We didn't look for this at all. No, they came to this is this is strictly ordinance. Who comes in where they service, that's a different argument, okay? which I to be honest with you I am not comfortable at all with the direction that that it was

heading in but I don't know if I don't know if as a municipality if we can say no to them you know dealing with department of public utilities um oh and they just do such a great yard department of public I understand that so I honestly it's not I'll be the first to tell you when I don't know something and I do not know this this was not again this was city administrators Akens

deal where he was courting multiple companies. Um but again, no one came to say we want to service the entire city.

This is our plan for the next 10 years.

Um because I questioned, well, if that's the case, then there should be some type of a bond or shity that they're held to for providing it to the entire city.

They don't come in and they service the 20% that they want. That's an easy installation and then the rest of the city gets nothing. So, so there needs to be some protection to the city and to the taxpayers that they will be provided the same service. Um, agree. Yeah. I want to make clear to Rumsy did did who's picking up on this now meeting with these companies? Somebody in your office, I would assume. Well, yes and

no. I mean, I was present for at least one or two, maybe three sales pitches.

There's probably been six or seven or eight. Um, and what I can tell you is they all have the pros and cons and all of them are going to be extremely beneficial to the city. I mean, I live in the city. I have the same issues that everybody has that you were speaking about. The speeds at the prices that their sales pitch are suggesting are reasonable. Um, it's going to be

everybody's going to be thrilled to have anything. So, any of these companies would be great to have it in. So, I said their pros and cons. the one that is currently um either that's pushing hard right now their position and I think it's accurate is you know they don't necessarily want to enter into any agreement with the city to provide coverage to the south end or the Flint or anything else. They

just know that the law requires us to give them uh reasonable accommodation and they're just going to do it and they're going to start where they want to start and they're going to see if they make money. If they make money they're going to expand. They they say they're going to expand throughout the whole city, but they also call this their pilot, right? So, this is their pilot. I think even are they in western

Mass? I can't remember. This one may be in Western Mass or maybe this may be their first location in Mass. And what they love about Fall River is the fact that they know that Fall River has the Comcast monopoly for internet. So, the first one in to compete with Comcast is going to do quite well is the theory.

Um, so it's a rush to get in because what's the chance a competitor will come in and be the second fiber or the third fiber. Um, I believe, and don't quote me on this, but I think this particular company's uh business plan is to let up to two or three competitors buy it from them. So, Fall River will have a choice.

We won't be stuck with just one more person. Um, but you know, competition breeds better prices, right? So, who's taking over now to deal with these companies when they come in? So right now there have been no discussions with any companies since administrator Akens left. Okay. So I think it's important for us to figure out and and we had a discussion today I did with with Annne

O'Neal um about how we are going to deal with new companies when they approach us. Is it to be a team effort? I asked where we were at with getting a new administrator. Um, I'm just sitting here thinking now I don't know if we have or could have the ability to hire an outside consultant to deal with this that that's all they deal with.

Right. Right. Where it's no one's expertise in this building or even administrator Akens. Um, maybe reaching out and getting a consultant to handle this is the right way to do it. I don't even know if those kind of consultants are out there, but that might that might seem like the right thing to do, but somebody needs to make the determination. Do we want 10 different equipment owners, right? Or do we want

someone that's going to do the entire city? I think most of these providers have actually reached out to Tyler first. I could be wrong on that, but my I think that's where it initially originated that Tyler uh and Tea in the IT department and Seth were working on.

it often will field it and at the time he would then discuss it with the city administrator and then tasks were kind of handed out as need be. I mean I've been asked to look at of a couple legal issues u but I wouldn't say that I've been running with it at all. I was asked to look at the implications to the right of way construction permitting and stuff like that. So, everybody's had their own

little niche, but we've all somewhat been involved in the general discussion, but I can tell you I haven't been involved in enough of it to say that I'm comfortable with taking the lead on it moving forward.

Council, just real quick, Dan, you you mentioned Tillison. That's one TS. Uh, is that the company that you're talking about that would take would be in charge of the entire city of for this? Right now they are they they they are chomping at the bit to submit their proposal to the city clerk's office to be heard by you. Now who who are the other companies similar to I don't remember their names

off the top of my head but I can send you what all of those names were because when you look them all up there are none no there there are none from Massachusetts like these are all companies from most of them are from down south and most of them are used to dealing with wide open spaces that aren't city streets. Um, and so we had one provider that really wanted to look

at they show us on a map and when I sat with them I said, "Well, threequarters of what you just showed me on the map is the bio reserve." So they it's it's odd that I question I'm like, "Have you done any homework before you you've come and have this discussion like they want the easy areas, you know, up the north end of the city where things are wide open

and not but this group Tilson um the area is immediately downtown. So, the most difficult area to provide it, like I said, around Rugles Park. Um, this is the area that they're looking at. And I don't know whether that's just based upon sheer volume of people. Um, and that's the way that they go. Um, I'm not privy to them finding out why they decided this area. And, and Alan, you mentioned that you did some research

with other municipalities as far as the fee structure goes. Do you uh but do we also did you go as far as also seeing what other uh cities have actually um taken part in this particular project with fiber optics and if they have have they what what's the um you know the general opinion that the uh that the f that that what what we're thinking of doing um like how

did it work out for the that particular municipality as to how it worked out I I don't really know that I have a good answer to that. But um question No, no, no. You you face it fine. I just don't know if I have a great answer. I mean, I was looking mostly at the fee structure. So, for example, I think it was Boston that was more based upon I was looking for my

notes. I know what happened somewhere.

Uh more of a a 5% fee. Um the problem with that is for some FCC rules. Is this what you're looking for? The email that you sent that that's also Yeah, that's a Will that help? Yeah. So, Boston had the greater 15,000 or 5% of gross revenue, which frankly the company's probably like that because 5% when they're when they're, you know, capital is probably difficult to come by when you're

starting out. Um, so, but the problem is, of course, 5% um might not be allowable because it has to be based upon a reasonable fee, not a based upon a portion of their profit, if that makes sense. So, New Jersey had the linear foot idea, which I think works better because it it's it's also somewhat based upon their expansion. You know, if if they start small, their fees aren't going to be so high. Um, but it

it's based it's a I think it's a reasonable thing, not based upon their profit margins, but you know, there's different fee structures I've looked at in Virginia, Colorado. I mean, I have an overview here you're happy to look at here. You know, how it played out, I don't really know, but you're happy to share this with you. There's Well, it's the beginning stages here. So, I mean, but I think what you what Dan just

mentioned about is a consultant, that's I think we should definitely look into that. I'm sure there's plenty of consultants that have expertise in that world. See, what happens is all of our fees in areas.

So, there isn't actually an ordinance for the installation of poles in the right of way. We just happen to have a fee schedule that captures it. So, do we create a a true ordinance that points you in the direction of the fee schedule like many of our other ordinances do?

You want to put in a curb opening. It explains an ordinance. There's an ordinance for putting in a driveway that's 16 ft wide and it points you in the direction of the fee schedule for what the fee is associated with that. We don't have an actual ordinance for the installation of these types of utilities in a right of way. So, whether it's too late to do that, I don't know. And

that's a discussion that we've had is this this company is ready to submit. I don't think we can say no.

Can we hold them to some fee schedule?

These are all questions. And you're well, I just say for the consulting, just just to make sure you're aware, you know, for example, this company, there's not a whole lot that we could provide consulting for. There's they're they're not asking our opinion. They're asking for your permission to allow them to use the cities right away. And that's where we where we are. I mean, other companies

that have had specific questions, you know, I think the administration has found an answer to for them. Um, I know some companies came in and said they were going to build 80% underground and had no idea that, you know, the amount of ledge in Fall River and they disappeared real fast once we told them to launch. There's one company that does micro milling about three inches down,

which is basically just a blade cut and they lay it down in in something that narrow. um not taking into account frost and Thor and so there's I think they're out of North Carolina, right? Probably.

I think so. So he said it's been it sounds like a great plan. And when I say consultant when I say consultant it's to look at not ordinance. Yeah. but city as a whole, right? How to implement fiber right across the city. And is it okay for us to have 10 different providers or 10 different installers of, you know, hard structure? Um, that that I don't know. So, basically, the fee structure

that we have before us is one that attorney Ramsey has looked into and the FCC said these are fair. We wouldn't get challenged that we're overcharging or or Correct. Correct. And we're just trying to make that definition that it's not just for small cell wireless facilities that have infrastructure right away. It should apply to everybody that's has infrastructure in our right away. So

again, what what you see as proposed ordinance, look at what the existing ordinance is. Yeah, it's here. We have and and the the dollar amounts are just about the same. All we're doing is adding in language and we we made that Yeah.

purposeful to let's just change or include the equipment that this company needs in the existing ordinance rather than rewrite an ordinance. We're just we're just covering their type because we don't mention fiber in the in the existing ordinance for small cell wireless. So, it's really the small cell wireless fee schedule, but now we're just going to include Yeah. And we have added like cabinets. I mean obviously I

apologize but I have to get downstairs.

Motion to pass through first reading.

Second to go. All in favor? I There's a motion and a second. All in favor. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Aguia.

Thank you.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes on. It it'll be great if and when it gets built and I hope more than one gets built.

Item number four is proposed ordinance traffic handy uh handicap parking.

Motion for emergency preamble. Second.

The first and a second. Roll call, please.

You may hang up. Roll call. You okay?

Touch my phone.

Uh, yes. Sorry.

Yes. Yes. Samson. Chair. Yes. Motion pass through all readings. Second. All in favor? I. Item number five, miscellaneous traffic handicap parking removals on Broad Street and Osborne Street. Motion pass first reading.

Second.

All in favor? I.

Item number six needs to be uh lifted.

Motion to lift. Is there a second?

Second. All in favor? I.

If we could have the building inspector and community development.

Oh, sit down. Got a new one.

Um, attorney Ramsey has already stated who he is. A few gentlemen just for people watching. Leon, director of community development. Glenn Hathaway, building commissioner, city of for river.

Mr. Hathaway, if you want to take it away with the rooming houses and what you've seen or or corporation council, somebody.

Yeah, we'll let Corporation. I'd rather have him speak first if you have questions than I can that's fine. Yeah, I I mean I'll start. Um Okay. I think Glenn's going to have a better overview than I do, but um you know there's recent case law out there. I'm not sure if this the council is aware of it. Came down March 28th of this year. Um BAK realy versus city of Pittsburgh dealing

with sober houses specifically. Um which is helpful. I mean, it's the most reasonable decision I've I've read on sober houses maybe ever. But in a nutshell, what's been happening across New Bedford Fall River and other places is that sober houses have basically said that the zoning laws don't apply to them. Um, so there was some kind of idea if we needed to tighten up their lodging house rules. Um because we're for

example sober houses were saying they didn't require sprinklers and we were suggesting they're more like lodging house they did require sprinkler systems. Um what the court case essentially said is that municipalities are free to define what a family is as long as it's a constitutional definition. I think in Fall River it's more than five people. Is that correct Glenn? Yes. Uh more than five unrelated

people or less than five unrelated people would be considered a family. So, but what the court case says is one, municipalities can define family and two that uh sober house or any other um lodging for disabled people. Um if they fit the definition of family, then you can't discriminate them. You would have to treat them like any other um definition of family. But if they don't fit the definition of family, then you

would treat them like a boarding or lodging house that does not have a disability. So finally, we have concrete authority that says that sober houses can't just come in and do whatever they want. Uh they're going to be treated whether like a family or a lodging house depending on the size and whether they fit that definition of family. So I have spoken with Glenn about this about you

know whether he thought whether we needed a specific ordinance as to lodging houses because most municipalities even like Fitsburg this case it was Fitsburg they don't have ordinances that deal with it. They have more I mean I have it here. It's regulations and guidelines. It's more I think it's the the like this is the board of health lodging house regulations. They don't have specific ordinances and you know I

would defer to Glenn on whether or not he thinks we need an ordinance um or whether we're okay with the way we are.

Milford has one too for boarding houses because lots of people were living in one apartment that were not related. And I think you've had a couple um situations, Glenn, where people have purchased homes and then taking a double parlor, let's say, and putting two more bedrooms there. So now you've got five bedrooms in one apartment and people are paying $400 or $500 for that room with a

community kitchen and community bathroom and we were having people stepping stone Catholic social services with moving people in but then they didn't know one another. There were fights and there were two of them that happened that I'm aware of. One on Peekom and one on Tuck Tucker or Tuttle Tuttle Tucker Tucker.

So there's a major difference. Let's let's start with I think sober homes.

Okay.

Um, sober homes is a five and under group of people and usually there is a house monitor that is um monitoring the daily activities of a group of people that need to be monitored uh in order to become sober, whether it be alcohol or drug addiction.

And sober homes has a I'm going to call it a rule of thumb.

You stay five and under because you beat a lot of the necessary codes that have been implemented with lodge hosts. So you stay five and under. Um in in reference to the house that you're referring to.

Um, so they assume that they can take an apartment house, three family, and they assume that they can add another bedroom and make it a fourbedroom, and that's legal. Uh, as a sober home. Um, again, it's five and under. And they succeed in that mission.

But in order to I look at them sober homes, um, they have to be registered with the state agency. And I don't I I don't know the name of them, but there's an agency that acknowledges strictly sober homes and uh they're certified through that agency and it's just an agency in the state uh in in it's master something. And I I I don't quote me on the on the uh the

organization, but um if they are they follow their guidelines and their rules pretty strict and usually uh there's no not many problems with a sober home. Uh we recently uh last year the code changed for sober homes. uh the code changed for people that um have a disability in the sense that uh they're incapable of self-preservation. So at one point in time um all of these houses whether it be single family

um if you had a sober home or a or and it was not a family all by name, by blood, marriage, so on and so forth, uh then you had to put a sprinkler system in it. They had to put a fire alarm system in it and it had to be handicap accessible. Uh the code has relinquished the sprinkler system for the sober home community uh with five and under. So the

uh and and some of it even falls back on to uh people with a disability such as uh convolescent uh incapable of self preservation. Uh, People, Inc. has many houses uh in the community here that they've had to spend thousands of dollars and put sprinkler systems in because of what they are uh incapable of self-preservation. But some of that, as long as they hold to the five uh people in a house, uh they can

uh uh not face the rules and regulations of a sprinkler system. They still have to have the fire alarm. As far as uh people uh again, sober homes, they're doing it. They've done I I've heard of a couple of places throughout the city.

So, they do it and I've closed a couple of places. Uh they buy a three family and they take all three floors and they put so many people in there. Um they're being monitored by somebody, an a social worker of some type with an agency. Uh there's been individuals that tried to do this and they weren't successful because they weren't taking care of the tenants that they were putting in there

and they ended up subsequently I closed them down. Um if you recall there was a three family on Roberson Street that had a fire. Uh one of the individuals got mad with the people running the place and set the house on fire. So, um, some of them have a disability that is above and beyond.

Um, that house closed down because they weren't, uh, part of MASH, I think it is. Uh, they weren't part of MASH. They weren't part of anything. And, uh, he was just scalping $750, uh, off of each person he rented a bedroom to uh, in the house. So, he was making an enormous amount of money. But, uh, I closed him down. Anyways, um sober homes is one thing, lodgeing houses is another. Uh we have still several lodge

houses within the city. Uh some of them are run very well. Some of them have diminished a little bit. Uh but they have to abide with all the rules and regulations of being a lodge house. They have to pay uh the annual fee. Uh they have to have a certificate of inspection uh annually. They're they're uh they have a sprinkler system. They're inspected quarterly by the fire department for the sprinkler system. So,

there's uh quite a few fees to go along with a lodging house uh atmosphere versus uh sober homes. Then there's um congregate living and there's boarding houses. So, we do have a we don't have as many boarding houses as we used to have. There was an agency that was uh maybe um Mike was no better. They were being financed through some type of uh fund and they'd have boarding house where uh they'd rented an apartment uh

could be uh a two family and they'd have first and second floor, women on the second, men on the first and they were monitored by a social worker every day they lived there. Uh one would change shifts every day.

Um they were very well monitored. They uh those houses had sprinkler systems.

Um same rules as more or less the lodging house but not quite as stringent. Uh again they had monitors.

They couldn't come and go as freely as one could in a lodging house atmosphere.

Lodging house is somewhat self- sustaining. Uh you can come and go as you will. Uh you take care of your own meals. you have access to cooking. Uh the boarding house had restrictions. That's the type of things we have.

Didn't New Bedford just um put in an ordinance that all their sober houses had to have a sprinkler system?

If they did that, um they might be going against the building code.

I don't know if they changed you up, but I I did hear about that. Do you know anything about that, Attorney Rose? No, I don't. I mean, I just to kind of shorten the conversation, I mean, I'm more than happy to write any ordinance that we need, but in my conversation with Glenn, I asked him, "Do you think it would be helpful?" And his opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, was he

didn't think he needed an ordinance, that the building code was all he needed, and he was okay. For lodging houses? Yes. Yeah. For lodging houses.

So, I'm sorry. I go ahead council. Is there any ordinance that should be written drafted for sober houses or any other I I know the lodging houses are taken care of with the building code and things of that nature and and I guess sober houses would be the same right in terms of the building code. So is there any ordinance that this this so we should probably down the road look at

putting sober homes maybe into our ordinances our zoning ordinances so as to regulate them uh whereby they wouldn't be uh maybe uh 50 ft from a school as an example or 50 ft from um a nursing home of some type. Well, we couldn't treat them differently than anybody else just to be that's right.

They have to be treated like everybody else, you know, but create a set of rules um similar to lodge if if they're in certain they're allowed in certain areas of the city automatically by our zoning regulations. If they're not, then they would have to go to the board for special permit or a variance uh based on But I think the sober homes I think that's what they were saying that they're exempt from, right? Correct.

You're right. They were right. They wanted to say they're exempt from any zoning and the court just says no, you're going to treat like everybody else. Part of it, the big part of it is where they can locate. Correct. In terms of the zoning. So, I'm familiar with an out of town and I don't remember the community. Um, they had an area like the Highlands. Mhm. And they had all mansions all around. And this guy,

particular attorney, uh, purchased one of these houses next door. it was for sale and he put in a sober home next door. Um he started out with uh with back then it was um four individuals. He increased it to eight. So now he had to abide by all the rules and the regulations. But the point here is is that he did not meet the zoning requirements for single ne single family

neighborhood and he fought and now we're at the same level whereby they they mash that agency. They won in court back then and um they restrict you to five and you can go in any neighborhood you want and any location and there's not a darn thing you're going to do about it. uh because they are so-called uh under the do amendment, right?

So, I guess I'm just trying to figure out so is there so there's no ordinances that we should be looking at to create or establish. Personally, I'm not aware of the need for one, but as I said, um Glenn would be in a better position to know of what problems he has and what he would need to help his enforcement, but right now, I mean, I I don't think we're

fighting over any rules we do or do not need. It's just a it's it's more a legal argument as to the building code, which would be the same thing as if it were an ordinance.

Anybody else?

The only thing I'm going to say is that unless you people I I know two more just moved into the city. Um there's again we're not going to be able to do anything about that. Um, however, if you are aware of complaints or something and you want us to write an ordinance restricted, but we're restricted on what we can write because the do amendment is going to apply. They fall under it. So,

I would say, did you yield?

I would say come up with an ordinance specific to sober houses and make sure that you know they're not going to be treated any differently but that you know I think they should have um just like a boarding house over so many that they should have a sprinkler system that that's concerning to I don't believe we can write the sprinkler system in uh depending on how many people they have

well five and over the five and over over five the building code takes effect right under five and they just relinquished that this past year uh in the building code that under f five and under does not require a sprinkler system.

I I really like to I know New Bedford did something with sprinkler systems. I can find no but I can check but I'd be very very reluctant to write anything specific as to sober houses. The whole point of it is they have to be treated like everybody else that uh that doesn't have a disability. Well, there was one that people bought and they had people with disabilities living there and I

know some people had made an issue of it and there was nothing we could do. They have just as much right to live anywhere but they were supervised. It was 24-hour a day supervision on the premises as well. Um, and I don't know if sober houses have 24-hour day or social workers just pop in or what, you know, different rooming houses have because you, let's face it, with the cost of rent, you're going to find people,

especially if somebody's alone, where they're going to want to have shared, you know, shared expenses with people.

Sober homes um counselor has a supervisor and they're usually on site for three sh for the 24 hours. Okay.

um whether they're there for 24 hours and then are off a day and somebody else comes in but they they normally have a monitor there. Have a monitor? Yes. Yes.

Mr. Dion, what do you have to add to this conversation on not much? Well, share your thoughts. No, because I know you deal with one one of the things we deal with is a lot of sober housing. Um but we make sure that um they're certified, you know. Um and a lot of the uh certified sober housing that we use are not included in Fall River. Um we work very closely with Glenn to make

sure that um you know, we're not violating any any regulations or any rules or anything like that. What do you mean they're not included in Far River?

We don't do a lot of so we a lot of our sober housing is in is uh um we have encampments enhancement without encampments where we put people in sober living right um we do it mostly in Bedford Attboro Taton we don't do a lot in F River um uh you know we do have some lodging houses in the city Jerry's Lodging House which was Gil Jerry Lorton yes is now run by Stepping Stone um

there's 23 SRO uh over at that location, that location has 24-hour um people that are monitoring that um case management.

Um but you got to understand it's also a housing first issue. Um something that HUD came out with where you're providing the person housing. Um you cannot require them for to to go through uh um any kind of case management, so living, that type of thing, right? Um um you know, you're renting out an SRO, an apartment. Um, we're working right now with um the Passionac property on Rock Street. We're looking at maybe

purchasing that um because we do have a lot of people that um are good people that can't afford the rents that are in in the uh um uh in the city right now.

Um but in terms of uh um we know what Glenn goes through. So we work very closely with his office to say, "Hey, you know, we want to do this or we don't want to do this." Um uh and we look towards him to to give us direction, you know, we really do. So you don't think we need to do any kind of an ordinance, Glenn, or would it help you? Because you

need to have ordinances to do your job.

So I'm just trying to look at what to make at this point in time. There's nothing I haven't Sober homes are coming in no matter what. Okay. Okay. They're going to go wherever they want to go. Um and there's there's not a thing we can do about it. And they're here and as long as they behave themselves and and do what they're supposed to do, we don't get any complaints, right? Um, for the

most part, the ones that come in and start acting up and doing certain items like Tuttle and and Palmer Street, um, we're taken care of because they're not abiding by the rules. Now, if we're going to create an ordinance, uh, to deal with those, that's that's going to be a difficult ordinance.

um that would be a zoning issue uh whereby we could let them into that area, but if they're certified, which is most cases, they can go anywhere.

They're going in anyways. You're not going to stop them at one point, right?

So, the legitimate people we're going to make it more difficult for versus the non-legitimate. Let's just deal with them as we get them, the non-legitimate, and we close them down. Yeah. And that's what it really comes down to when we find out that they're not legitimate.

Sometimes it's it's horrible. You find out later. Um uh we just had one just recently where uh this not Francis House in Fall River, but Francis House up in Boston were shipping people down here, putting them in a in a in a um multif family and charging like, you know, $1,400 for each room. Soon as we found that out, and we only found that out because there was a fight, god forbid, a

murder at that location. Um, we found out, uh, I was in the meeting and we told Francis House to, uh, go back to Boston. Take take your people back to Boston, move them out of Fall River.

Because people don't understand is is even though they're transplanted to another community, all of their services are still provided by Boston. So these these people were going up and and getting their doctor's appointments up in Boston, medication up in Boston and and they were living down in Fall River.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever at all. So the minute the administration found that out and we also did a look at some other properties that were owned by the same owner and come to find out was it one or two of them were being going to be used and we put a stop to that. So as soon as we find out we but that St.

Francis was not a Catholic organization.

It was a Catholic organization out of Boston. Yeah. I thought it was just a corporation that named themselves Francis. It was but it was the Catholic the Catholic Church. It's uh there's I looked at them as the same people just a different agency that sent everybody that uh became homeless uh down here and we were supposed to support them, you know. Uh yeah. What happens is the name. What happens is is that they they

probably get from the state homeless prevention and rapid rehousing money because Fall River at the time was cheaper than surrounding locations.

Instead of leaving the person up in the Boston area at, I don't know, $3,000 a month or whatever it is, they want to bring them down here and they they can service more people having the rent cheaper. That's not the case. They, you know, we don't agree with that. They should they should keep those people up in Boston. Keep them in the community. Let them get services in the community instead of

putting them in Fall River. And while I'm the community development director, if we find out, we're going to him and we're we're shutting them down.

We we had two of those on Ray Street.

Ray, uh not Ray. Yeah. Roy Street. Um several years ago.

Uh they somewhat put themselves out of business a very short time after getting here. uh with the trouble that they stare up and it just attracts us to them. Thank you, council. H I just have a real quick question. What you just brought up both of you guys. Um when you find out that there's the pro there is a problem, you you deal with it and you get rid of that particularly St.

Frances. Is there is there any way to be more proactive is to find out it gets tough, right? To be more proactive before they even set. So, the one on Palmer Street that uh council Pereira is talking about, that was a um out of town um investor or the three family decided to convert the house uh through this agency that Mike is referring to. Um not the same one, not the uh the homeless,

they they were putting up homeless people. Uh but they had some issues uh whether it be alcohol or or uh sexual predators. Go ahead. There's there's no way of us knowing that and the out of town investor doesn't care. He's going to put him in and hope he can get away with it such as this guy did. And it took it normally in some cases it takes us a little time to to succeed in our

mission in my mission. Um it doesn't happen right away. Some cases depended upon the case we can get rid of them right away. Uh the one on Palmer Street was a little uh cumbersome because uh they had no place to go and we didn't have the funds to put them in a hotel. Um, so we took out a troublemaker and the rest of them had to go within they were paying

monthly. They were they had a lease for per room for that landlord per month.

Um, that was a signed lease they made with the landlord. So when their leases went up, that's when they had to leave.

Uh, he would have been putting a sprinkler system and he chose not to do that. So, so like what you just said, an investor comes in, buys a three tenement or whatever whatever it may be, and they um want to maybe change the structure of the the apartments and put add more apartments to that or whatever they want to do if they have to increase their utility output there. There's no u

mechanism where they might have to come to the city to get approval for something like that and then then we can maybe there might be some red flags there. So, if they probably build if they probably properly apply for building permits will catch them then.

But they don't do that. No, these they turned the PA so they had a double para in the front half half of the house. He put a petition down the middle and created two more rooms. Um I hate to say this out loud because this is some of my key points, but when they block a second means of egress, I can shut them down immediately because the other tenants

can't get out. So um they have to go period. They have to open that up and and and open the keep the open second means of egress. Now once that's accomplished in Beck Palmer Street incident, there was still a tenant left or two. um they had 30-day leases to an agency and they agreed to let them stay until the lease was up and then they had to move and close down permanently and

make it back to an apartment. So that's how we succeeded in in that particular case. But he did all this illegally and that's the owners, the investors that it's just like they're creating apartments everywhere, right? You know, and when I when I mention be proactive, I don't mean that you're not being proactive. No, no, no. I understand.

Yeah. I wish I wish I could be proactive. It's tough. It's tough to be proactive in that particular scenario.

There is uh I just closed two more recently uh with the police department uh in regards to similar situation um but with drugs, you know, strictly drugs. Um they went from one house to the other. Uh and uh they're working on another house right now. Uh and soon as the police department gets uh the opportunity, they're going to call me and we'll work on that one.

Sometimes you find out too that a person will go to Catholic Charities or they'll come to my office and look for assistance and then you start asking the questions of where you live and what are you doing and how many apartments you got on. And then from there, you know that hey, that person's not living in the in the correct uh um location. We will not help anybody uh that's living

that's that's uh um teamed up in that type of uh atmosphere, you know. So, when I go to these places, I call Mike.

I call the fast team.

Um, and uh, they come in and they'll interview some of them and take over and help out some of the some of the people that they're, you know, that's looking for help. Um, but not all of them are looking for help. Motion grant leaves to withdraw. Second. Motion granted, a second. All in favor? I. Item number seven on the the agenda uh is short-term rentals. Are you uh you want me to stay? You sure? Sure. I'm

here.

Sorry. Second the short-term rentals.

Motion to pass through second reading.

Second. Oh, Andrew. Councelor Reposa.

Thanks. So, I I have a few questions and just Allan, maybe you can help help with this. So, I had somebody reach out to me concerned about this, but it may have I may have answered my own question while I run it by you anyway. So, short-term rentals, essentially the Airbnbs of the world, correct? A right thing here. So, there's a requirement that requires the owner to live there for nine months of the year,

which led me to the question of what would be the difference between a short-term rental and a lease or or a normal renting situation, a normal home.

But then I then I realized to go on later on that residential units located in a single family zoning district are not eligible to be Airbnbs. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So, what would What would leave what zones in the city would be allowed to be Airbnbs? That that's the case. Well, let me I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, but I think I am. Um, what a lot of people

don't realize about this ordinance is the general idea of what an Airbnb is.

The investorowned property solely for Airbnb, it's not allowed in the Fall River. So that's what people have to get their head around is that this is I mean the first time Airbnb h B&B happened it was somebody who had an extra room in his house and there was a conference in I think it was San Francisco and rented it out. It's turned into a vehicle for rich people to buy up housing that only

increase the cost of housing and limit supply in cities across the world. Um, so what this is designed to do is allow somebody who is potentially a snowbird who lives in their house for at least nine months out of the year or apartment that's not a single family home that then they could rent it. And you know, the idea is that this is a compromise.

first of all that, you know, the single family zoning, the expectations that homeowners have who raise a family and live in a single family district won't be harmed by something um of somebody living next door that you know, let's face it, when when people rent an a house or an apartment for a week at a time, they usually are there celebrating on vacation, it's it's a different lifestyle than somebody who lives there

uh you know, 247 the whole entire year.

So it'll, you know, it's not allowed in single family homes, but if somebody has, you know, lives in a a two family district and goes to Florida for a few months and wants to rent out their property, then that's allowable. So I think that's the two major things that people don't understand about this ordinance.

Okay. So I guess I guess the only question I had left was in regards to the the number of months in which they reside. I guess the question is is nine an acceptable number? Should it be less than that, more than that? I guess is my kind of dilemma with it. Yeah. And I mean, ultimately, it's for the city council to decide. I mean, a few things though. Um, this is taken from a webinar

I watched in January of this year. Um, so my numbers are off. They're not my numbers. But, you know, just to give you an example, 2.4 million listings in the US alone. They're growing by approximately 20% a year. Um, the homes that are being purchased for short-term rentals are generally going between five and 10% more than a standard price. Um, to me that's a big one because, you know, if you're looking

to buy a home, um, you know, raise your family, you're you finally saved up enough money, you're always going to lose to somebody who wants to put an Airbnb in if they're permitted to. If they're willing to pay five 10% more, um, they're going to win every time. So, there's been so many numbers showing how it's increased the cost of living. Uh, I could probably dig through and find it,

but it's increases the cost of living.

It decreases the the supply out there and it's really not for the benefit for anybody other than the people who can afford housing quite easily. One who can afford two h two houses um it's become big business. It's not too much different the effect that corporate America has had um with things like um let's the Zillow purchases of homes how a detrimental effect on the cost of living and you know

I have traveled in many places where Airbnbs I've stayed in Airbnbs and most cities I would say are very very negative and they wish they could undo what's already been done because the people who make that city great usually can't afford to live there anymore. So that's good and I appreciate that. So I guess at the end my last question because it says that single family resident zoning districts would

not be allowed. So zoning districts like I don't know a bunch of three- decker houses for example that would be allowed assuming the person lives there nine months of the year. Correct. Okay.

If I may. So we I have and we currently have some three families in an A2 apartment district that are doing this.

Um there's one not far from well it's in downtown almost in downtown. Uh he was uh doing an Airbnb on weekends um on the first floor apartment.

Um I was able to shut him down because he was operating a business illegally in the sense that he didn't have a second means of egress uh for the first floor apartment.

uh it was not handicap accessible, nor was there a bathroom that was handicapped and if somebody was handicapped, they couldn't get in the building uh as an example. Um so, uh eventually I was able to close him down, but he told me that it was a very lucrative business. Instead of dealing with tenants that didn't want to pay the rent, he'd rent it out for a couple of weekends and make double the rent. and

uh he uh guaranteed the city that he'd pay his taxes. That's what he told me.

So, by doing so, um they're making a lot of money in a couple of weekends uh with very little work and they're hiring an outside agency to do the cleaning and um uh it's just lucrative for somebody to do this. So, but but ultimately it doesn't I think we've made that point that it doesn't that doesn't help solve the housing issue we have. Nope. So, you're you're you're taking away

possible apartments from someone to live long term versus an in-n-out. And I mean, and I guess I guess I failed to understand, let's say I'm thinking about a three three family in the Flint. Why would you run an Airbnb in the middle of the Flint, for example?

I think when I think an Airbnb, I think of you, you're staying there because you're going to something. So, I mean, an Airbnb wall on the waterfront, maybe, but an Airbnb next to a venue of some sort, sure. But, yeah, I think it takes away from a place where someone could live long term and invest in the city more than just a, you know, come visit, see it by. We have that situation on

Plymouth Avenue. Oh, we had it. uh gentleman owns the house. He leased the second and third floor to a investor in Boston. The investor in Boston um rents the second and third floor apartment out of an Airbnb every weekend. Uh that's what he was doing and he was according to my calculations uh making a large sum of money every weekend. Uh however, it was annoying the tenants on the first

floor. uh because of the activities over the weekend. Um so that's how the complaint started and that's how it ended up getting shut down is uh but the the in again you can't solve the problem until it happens. Correct. And then you find out the circumstances. uh this the second floor in this apartment um and and I recall there was eight or nine people uh for the weekend there uh

became quite the party house. So uh they had a birthday as I recall or somebody's birthday and they decided to rent a house so they wouldn't have to have it at their home and clean and uh they raised enough of havoc to uh call a building inspector in. So, okay. It's it's a lucrative business in in regard through this ordinance, but regardless, they're subject to building codes and

and inspections as a normal home would be anyway. And yes. Okay. And then Allan, the only other question I have is on the affidavit section. So, this is uh 14723F number three. So, it requires the owner's sworn statement that he or she owns a residential unit being offered and resides in the unit the minimum of 9 months. And the way they prove that is basically just showing their license

that that's their what they deem their permanent address. Correct. Um I'm just trying to proof of ownership which is C, right?

It's uh driver's license in a bill or a voter registration. So that with for an affidavit is how we're going to prove it. I mean, there's different ways to prove it, but that's the best. I I looked at so many different ways to prove that the residency. I mean, clearly, somebody could probably somebody could somebody could declare it their primary residence and actually not live there, right? But the driver's

license is I mean, that's that's the biggest part here. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. I yield. Thank you. You yield. Um, Mr. Haway, when you're going around to these these homes, you know, short-term rentals or uh whatever, are people still posting so that you know who's managing that property or who's not? That's supposed to be posted there for you to reach out to those people. So, if somebody is renting two floors, would you call that person or the landlord? Or would the landlord have to have

something posted there just for you to be able to contact people? I know it's tough enough. you drive. I'm not inspecting anything at this time. If I get there in a complaint, I'm going after the landlord. Okay? And then the landlord brings me to the person that's renting it. He's leasing it to and has no idea supposedly that that's going on.

Uh he leased two apartments. I have no idea what's going on, which I'll tell you, I am I am aware of the fact that you are doing a lot and it's a matter of going and catching people. I mean he closed down a house and all of a sudden drove by and they were bringing in groceries went in whole house had been redone inside on a house that he had closed down. You know if people see

something say something you know that's the only way that still dealing with that one counselor. You're still dealing with that. Absolutely. You know hire an attorney.

So it's it's difficult to No. You only find out after and with housing being what it is a lot of people they remodel.

They don't get a permit for doing anything in the house. Was there an amendment? There was an amendment to that one. Item number six had an amendment. If you want to give it to us on the That's why you went in for second reading because of your amendment, remember? Well, I know that I thought the the question was about insurance.

Yeah, that that may that was the main thing. But that was when I looked into it, that was already set because, you know, Fall River's position is until this gets passed, no short-term rentals are allowed anyway. But there are state regulations. State regulations require registration, which is a million-doll insurance policy. So, they would still have to register with the state even if

if and when we pass this. So, that's all taken care of by the state, which is which is much higher than a typical residential unit anyway, right? Right?

Because the states, that was one of the arguments that helped us win with the house on Highland Avenue. It's that the court correctly ruled that this is a business. You know, you've got commercial coverage through Boston. You have to register through Boston. You got to pay taxes as if it's a business. It's a business. So that so that eliminates the question of of the insurance essentially. Okay. I yield. That was the

annual registration fee. The biggest for sale I've ever seen in my life. The uh the annual registration fee. There was no number on the ordinance what the fee was going to be.

Um okay. So that would probably be in the fee schedule. Yeah.

What was the amount there?

Right.

Mhm. Well, I at the time I guess I didn't know, but we did the uh application fees, registration fees, probably similar to the fiber. We could Yeah, we have that one. The clerk's office is probably more familiar with what the fees are. I would just say keep it con consistent. Maybe Glenn knows. I don't I really don't know what Do you know what the registration fee?

You could keep it. I don't think there is one. So, we'd have to if we could create one. Yes. What would you what would you think you deal with this all the time? How much? $100 annual um $100 annual registration fee. The annual fee for example the uh for the fiber is 500. So, I mean, I can suggest that for now and then the the full council can decide if they want to raise or lower it

and I can maybe do a little more work in it, but I would I would probably go with 500 for now.

Motion to amend the ordinance so that the fee the annual fee is $500. Second.

All in favor?

I uh motion to recommend pass through second reading as amended. Second. All in favor?

I motion. Second

500 registration requirement of $500 annual annual now that's does that say strictly how Airbnb and in uh all the other associated ones or is it just a No, it has a definition of a short-term rental.

Okay, short-term rental. Beautiful.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor?

I. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Hey, hey hey.

Hey, hey hey.