City Council - Regular Meeting

The City Council Committee on Ordinances and Legislation will be called to order. It is 5.01 on June 23rd. Clerk, call the roll, please.

Councillor Kadim. Here. Councillor Cagnall. Here. Vice President Dion. Here. Councillor Pereira. Here. Chair Raposa.

Here. Pursuant to the open meeting, while any person may make an audio 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 one is citizens' input, in which we have none. Item number two is the minutes for the May 6th, 2026 meeting. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve, made by Council of Cannuels, second by Vice President Dionne. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item 2B is the minutes for the May 26th, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve. Second.

Motion made by Council of Cannuels, second by Vice President Dionne. Any 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 6-9-2026. Pittman Street East 110 feet south of Webster. Richmond Street West 196 feet north of Cambridge. Smith Street West 268 feet south of Warren Street. Stanley Street North 45 feet east of Madison Street. Wade Street South 80 feet west of Fifth Street. Woodman Street North 292 feet west of King Street. Director of Traffic and Parking, you want to come down and join us for a few moments? Hello, Ms. McArthur.

Stephanie McArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Any questions from the committee? Motion for emergency preamble. Second. Motion for emergency preamble made by Councillor Kadim, second by Councillor Cagnall. Roll call.

On the emergency preamble, Councillor Kadim? Yes. Councillor Canywell? Yes. Vice President Dionne?

Yes.

Councillor Ferreira?

Yes.

Chair Raposo?

Yes. Motion passes. Motion to pass through all readings. Second. Motion to pass through all readings made by Councillor Kadim, second by Councillor Canywell. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number four is a proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred to the committee on 5-26-26 and 6-9-26. Section 1, parking prohibited during certain hours on Highcliffe Street East, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Highcliffe Street West, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. locust street north 658 feet east monday through friday 7 a.m to 3 p.m and locust street south 658 feet east monday through friday 7 a.m to 3 p.m i have a question yes vice president dion well she can go first council prayer is this just because of the school for diamond yeah it's for the new school should it be from september to june

mean that is something that if the ordinance committee wants because in the summertime they're not back and forth i get the traffic yeah absolutely it's mainly for because of the placement of the new school being so far back at that bend at hyacinth and locust right what's going to happen is the teachers park out on the street so if they're parking out in that portion the buses are not going to be able to make it out where they're going to be entering and exiting

I know Superintendent Bentley has told teachers not to park there and students not to park there because it's an easier way when they get out of school to run to their car.

And they're more concerned with parents doing drop-off and pick-up where the school's going to be placed at that point.

All right. I just think if you did it during the school year or do you just think that people will get accustomed to it and never park there? What's your take on it? I'm sure that it's,

It's mainly for the teachers and the parents. So it's not going to be for the neighborhood people. So even if the signage does read September through June, I don't think it's going to make a difference for the neighborhood per se. So we can absolutely put that on the signage. That's not a problem.

I would second that. I make a motion we amend that to have from June 30th to September 1st.

I would do September 1st to June 30th.

Okay, September 1st through the summer.

Sure.

Yeah, we can do September 1st to June 1st.

So not just the times that you can party and the times you can't. Okay, I agree.

So motion made to amend section one to include.

From September to June, these are the ordinances.

From September 1st to June 30th? Yes. Made. Second. Second. Second. Discussion on the amendment. Roll call.

Roll call on the amendment. Counselor Kadeem. Yes. Counselor Canuel. Yes. Vice President Dion.

Yes.

Counselor Pereira.

Yes.

Chair Raposa. No. Motion passes.

Okay. Further motion on section one.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt as amended.

Yep, second.

Made by Councilor Knieme, second by Vice President Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Section 2, 15-minute parking, South Main Street East, 76 feet north of Slade Street, Monday through Saturday, 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Ms. McArthur, can you speak on this, please?

Yeah, so this is for 1552 South Main Street, AVP Convenience Store, so time signage outside of the store.

Vice President Diem.

So Sunday, 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Oh, okay. I see. 76 feet allows for how many cars?

So we usually do about 20 feet per space, but because of where the space is at, yeah.

it's not a that's not a at that point in the street not really congested as before the bank and mm-hmm yeah so yeah okay yeah I don't see a problem with that yeah you councils it would be appropriate to make a motion to split these up into sections please person so many

Motion made by council, a cannula, second by Vice President Deanna to split out sections one, two, and three. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? You guys have it.

Motion to adopt section two.

Motion to adopt Section 2, made by Vice President Dionne. Second. Second by Councillor Cagnall. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Section 3 is Handicap Parking Removals. Abingdon Street West, 30 feet south of Downing Street. Bowen Street West, 160 feet south of Charles Street. Brow Street North, 143 feet east of Fifth. Center Street North, 147 feet west of South Main. Kellogg Street West, 392 feet north of Hamlet. Lewis Street East, 30 feet north of Slade. Merchant Street North, 27 feet west of 18th Street. Montgomery Street South, 111 feet east of Robeson Street. North Main Street West, 20 feet south of Weaver Street. North Main Street West, 144 feet north of Mariner Street. excuse me North Underwood Street West 206 feet north of Wiedemont Street Oxford Street West 143 feet south of Warren Street Quikishan Street West 255 feet south of County Street South Main Street West 283 feet south of Woodman Street and Walnut Street North 127 feet west of Linden Street

Motion to pass through ordinance through first reading. Second.

Motion to pass through first reading made by Vice President Dionne, second by Councilor Pereira. Any discussion? Just to Section 3. Section 3. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, Ms. McArthur.

Have a great night.

We need to also pass Section 1 and 2 through first reading, as amended. We did that already. We did that. That is okay.

Item number five on our agenda this evening is the proposed ordinance to amend 62-2C, solid waste collection disposal, generally speaking, referred to the committee on 6-9-2026. I will invite Attorney Thomas down to the table and Mr. Oliveira, please. And if the city administrator wants to come and join us, feel free. welcome folks if you could introduce yourselves to the committee please al oliver director city operations uh matt thomas special counsel for the city and o'neill souza interim city administrator thank you attorney thomas welcome if you could uh speak to the committee on this proposed ordinance

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the committee. So before you have an amendment to section 62C of the city ordinance. Now, as you know, we're in the process of negotiating and executing a new solid waste contract for the next two years with an option of one additional year. And we've anticipated coming down with significant ordinance changes in whole and in mass that respond to some of the concerns that the council's raised over the past years. We're bringing this down by itself because this affects the contract a little bit. So over the years, there's been much debate as to whether five and six unit residentials are really residential or whether they're commercial. And that's happened with the larger units. What we're proposing is to amend the ordinance, and this is the language that's different, changes it to four dwelling units per parcel as shown on the City of Fall River Assessor's Map as amended, as opposed to the current language which says six units, up to six units. So, what does that mean, practically? Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average person creates about 1,800 pounds of solid waste a year. That's the national average. Of that, about 600 pounds goes into recycling. About 1,200 pounds goes into disposal. If we assume three persons per unit, because some units only have one people, some only have five, there are 706 unit residentials in the city, of which about 75% receive solid waste collection from the city. There are 305 units. of which 75 receive solid waste. If we convert to tons because that's a big easier number, the city disposes 30,000 tons a year of solid waste. The six units by being pulled out of this ordinance would account for 2,800 tons of recycling, 6,000 tons of disposal. The five units by coming out of the ordinance would account for 985 tons of recycling, 2,000 tons of disposal. So just in the fives and sixes, we're talking about 3,700 tons of recycling and about 8,000 tons of solid waste. The way the ordinance is written, though, it's by assessor's parcel. And so we have these things called, they're classified as 109s, two buildings to one property. There were four of them that would no longer qualify. Those four were located at 790 Charles Street. There was a three family and a six family on that property under common ownership. 286 Pine Street, there's a three and a six on the same property under common ownership. 2119 Kilbourne, there's a three and a six under common ownership. And 19 Danforth, there were actually two six units on that property under common ownership. Those account for about 70 tons of disposal and about 34 tons of recycling. So at the end of the day, by passing this amendment, we would be reducing, in an estimated fashion, because the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, or here it's in the bins, we would be reducing about 8,000 tons of solid waste, which if you consider we dispose of 30,000 tons, that's about 26% of what we're disposing. We'd also be reducing about 3,800 tons of recycling. Now, we don't know this for exact, these are estimates based on what's happening. And so how would this work? The contract we're negotiating has a transition provision in it. that says they had to continue to collect sixes until 30 days after the ordinance is amended, in which case that gives us permission and time to notify all of them and get them on private disposal. We've also looked at it from an enforcement side. As you know, we've always had challenges on recycling on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Those are the days that go to Lewiston Street. Monday, Wednesday, Friday is direct hauled to Zero Waste in Rochester. What we have found through beginning to cross-reference, and this is something we're starting to do, is that probably 50 to 60% of our violations in contamination are coming out of fives and sixes. Now, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on them. It's because in a lot of instances, they're absentee owners. And the tenants there just are not abiding by what should happen. It makes it tough because we notify and we cite the owner. The owner's got to pass that down to the tenants. It's among other tenant, landlord tenant problems they have. But this will also help us with our enforcement. Um, just as an aside, the contract negotiations are going very well. We've met twice. I anticipate having final drafts to be signed by the mayor and the, uh, corporation council probably by the end of this week. Um, we're basically basic right now. The discussions have been on minor technical issues here and there, but all in all it's going well, it'll be a two year contract with a one year option. And then hopefully during that period of time, we'll have been able to restructure how solid waste is reviewed internally. We'll have statistics to go out on a more informed basis. And the enforcement and education will have gotten better too. It's been a long path that we've been at this now for about five years. For me. It's like 20. Well, for you, but for me, five years. And I would like, on behalf of the administration, to thank the councillors who have been part of the process, especially Councillor Dionne, who was on the selection committee.

Were you on the selection committee?

And it's Councillor Pereira who was on the selection committee. And on the solid waste committee and we appreciate this. This is, it's one of the basic services that a government is supposed to provide. When you really think about it, it's public safety and public health and this is the public health side. So we don't believe that the amendment is going to adversely affect anybody really that badly in a way that didn't happen already when we already went down from the eights to the sixes and we went and stopped collecting the commercials. We don't really see a major reduction in the cost of collection because you still have to drive down the street. We will see a reduction in the cost of disposal associated with it. I can answer any questions you have. Vice President Diem.

Two things. So my first question is, When you say per parcel, or on Robeson Street, but I can't think of the street that goes across, that it's on the corner of, I can't think, the name escapes me at this moment.

Pine, Robeson, and Tremont, Tecumseh.

Tremont. Tremont.

The four sets of units. Correct. Those are all on separate parcels.

Now, it was my understanding, and I could be wrong.

Because I specifically looked at that one.

Yeah, but it's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that there's something that all of those units, let's call them, or buildings, I don't know if it's the sewer line, it's something they share in common that they cannot be split up. So if somebody wanted to subdivide, they can't.

Right, so the issue, we needed to draw, and I know where you're going with this.

Or there's some form of easement.

And I will take another look at that one, okay, specifically, because when I drive up Robeson Street, I see that, okay, and I wonder about that. The issue is we needed some way to demarcate the parcels. The assessor's maps are the way we normally do it. Now, you could own two assessor's maps side by side, and they're not merged. They're separate ownership. And I think that's what the situation is there on Robeson. And so we're doing it by parcels. And that's why the 109s get brought under it where you've got two on the same property. Even if they share utilities and things like that, it's separate ownership still. They may have easements that benefit each other, but theoretically under the law, it's still separate ownership. And the separate taxable parcels. If I was to apply for an abatement on one, it wouldn't necessarily get me an abatement on the other one. I'd have to treat it as four separate abatements. We're using the assessor's maps because that's what we're basing our taxation on. That's what we're basing everything on. It's a good rule to follow in order to create new parcels. The assessors can do it, but they need the input from engineering. So it's a good bright line rule.

Yeah, I would appreciate it though if you would take one more look. Sure, I'll take a look at that. And I'm not, believe me, saying you're wrong at all because I have not honestly looked at it in a long time. But I've always been under the impression that it was all owned by the same person.

It may be, but it may be four separate assessor's parcels.

Right.

So it's not by common ownership. And the reason I didn't go with common ownership is you could have, I could own a house and my wife and I could own the property next door in a trust. Okay, then we're getting into all these, it's much too complicated to figure out what it is. By doing it by what's on the ground, it's a lot easier. And so, I will look at it, though, I promise.

No, it makes sense to me, but yeah, I would appreciate that. I will take a look at it. And you know what? It is what it is. It's a fair question. I'll look at it. And then my second thing is, I think... And I know it's not, there's one woman in particular, when I say this, it's not popular with her and I understand it, but where six families are going to be taken off of the trash roll and nobody's gonna have an option, they're gonna have to privatize, I would like to again say that I would support owner occupied to be excluded. because you don't have the absentee landlord issue. You have somebody who's on the premises, who's responsible, and who we easily can, if they mess up, we can let them know. If they mess up a second, we can institute a third strike rule.

So I can look at that. The third strike rule, we are going to be coming back to you where if you get three violations in a 12-month period, you lose your ability to get solid waste. We have to put some teeth into this if we have any hope. of trying to get this under control. The concern I have with that, and we've looked at this many, many years ago when Councilor Kadim was on the other side of the table, we looked at this with building blocks and we were looking at absentee landlords versus landlords that live there on the property. It is very difficult under the law to make a distinction that is not a prejudicial distinction if somebody owns it or if they live on the property. And that's why if we were to accept it out based on somebody being there, we would open up ourselves to an argument from an absentee landlord who says, I have a manager who lives on there, lives in the first unit, and they act as the super for the building, and they're just as good as if I lived there. They're better than if I lived there. So I clearly understand that. I would tend to... suggest that we not go that way only because I think it would open us up to a lot of other issues. Most of the places that have reduced numbers down haven't really had an exception for that. As much as you want to help the people that have bought a house, they have their family living in it, they're doing the right thing.

Residents who support the city. Exactly.

And I can clearly understand that. I just think that it's very difficult to enforce something like that in a way that doesn't violate statutes.

Okay, thank you. With that, I yield.

And just a question to you, Councillor, as far as the teeth to that amendment, when do we expect that? I would anticipate probably in August. Okay, and are you writing that ordinance? Yes, I am, sir. Okay, thank you.

Well, let me actually, with input from the law department, I mean, and everybody else that's given us ideas, some of them have come from the councillors. So there has been stuff in there, and you'll see it's going to be a little bit different. But I am writing it.

Thank you. Councillor Perot.

I'm not in favor of it.

Of what?

Of doing this for six families, five families, and six families. Okay, so I have a single family home, I have a two family home. I pay my taxes, my trash gets picked up. She's got a five family home, you've got a six family home, you gotta pay. You pay your taxes, but you've gotta pay for your trash too. I don't think that's equitable, I don't think that's fair. I think the bottom line is, and nobody's gonna like it, but I'm gonna say it, we need to do something with trash citywide. The city's budget cannot afford, what's the budget that, what's your contract that you're working on? I heard it's between nine and 11 million.

It's in that range, it all depends. Okay. You have to remember, Council, if I can respond to that, the last contract we got, It was 10 years ago, and it was written for pay as you throw.

I agree.

The day the city went from pay as you throw, if I was Mr. Merula, I would have walked in and said, I'm done. I default the contract. You defaulted the contract. The numbers have changed radically.

And he didn't.

And he didn't. The issue that we're facing in the increased numbers is if you look at the wages, the prevailing wage numbers that were attached to that contract 10 years ago, and you're going to look at the ones that are attached now, you're seeing post-COVID sticker shock. I agree. Now, on that point, though, I understand what you're saying. it doesn't seem fair.

No, it doesn't.

But if you have an eight unit, if you have a 12 unit, if you have an apartment building, you're still paying your taxes and you're still providing solid waste for yourself. If you have a condominium, single family condominium in a condo association, you're still providing your own, you're paying a fee for solid waste collection.

If you own a condo, you're paying a fee, a monthly fee for everything, for somebody to come in take care of the lawn, for somebody to shovel the snow, and for somebody to pick up the trash. Yeah, you pay for everything. That's what a condo fee is. So if you don't want to do that, you don't buy a condo. Because you know that that's in there. I just think this is unfair. To me, I like the three strikes and you're out. Whoever it is. you're not putting your trash out the way you're supposed to you get three notices after the third notice they empty the trash and they take the barrel then you have to go and get private and if you go and get private now you can say to your tenants and i no longer own a six family i did but i don't own it so i'm not fighting i just want to say that because i'll have somebody on facebook saying she owns a six family no i don't however I just think it's not fair. Do you really wanna live in a six family or would you prefer to live in a two family with less people or a one family? You know what I mean? And their rent's gonna go up. If the landlord has to pay for trash, disposal, you don't think that the tenants are going to take a hit on that? They are. And our tenants are taking a hit, even though our rents are still lower than New Bedford and Lowell, et cetera. But I just think there's a better way to do this. Either we do this, or we look at what it is for trash. I was in the Azores, a little tiny section, , small. Maybe there's 800 people living there. They pay for water. They pay for trash. Every community around us does that. I'm not saying gouge people, but if this is a problem, then the whole community needs to solve this problem. And it is a problem. And Merola didn't do anything until they came in and wanted more money on their contract when they went to, what is it, up in New Bedford.

Capitol.

What is that?

Capitol, please? No, not Capitol.

Oh, Crapo Hill. Crapo. When they went to Crapo, because they were going to Republic right in Fall River on Airport Road, a truck would go by, dump, come back. Now they have to go up to Crapo, come back. They have to buy another truck or two to keep it going where they have trash out by 5 o'clock. I mean, I've been talking to trash people for a long time, but we need to bite the bullet and do something. This city budget cannot afford to take $11 million out of the budget just for trash. I mean, my colleagues talk about things like our clerks don't get paid enough. You know, but we're spending all this money. I just don't think this is fair.

I get it.

However it goes, it goes. But the call I received, and I think Councilor Dion probably received the same one, a woman who lives in a six-family, every unit has one person. She puts out one barrel for trash and one recycling every week. So is it going to be cheaper for her to get somebody to come and pick it up?

I would argue she's the exception, not the rule.

Well, maybe she is the exception.

And we can't write... an ordinance based on, we try to account for the exception. Let me just respond to two points. You're well within your rights to take your position, that's fine. I don't think it's unfair. I think it's a cost of owning a property. Secondly, your point about the Azores, statistically Europe produces per person half as much solid waste as America does. We're a disposable society.

We are.

And we have been trying and we will continue to try. working with the schools working with everybody else for waste diversion your point about it being a budget buster is well taken solid waste is going to be the budget buster going into the future for every municipality if you look at new bedford indictment they're fortunate to have crapo hill but they're they're not other communities that are like that so this is going to be something that's going to cost there will be some issues we can always revisit this if we have to I really do strongly suggest that we've given this a lot of thought. This is not a bare-born notion by any means. And so I would strongly suggest that it makes sense to do it and work through it and try to deal with issues in another way.

Well, I'm more from the point of if people are not disclosing things the way that they should and they're getting cited, then Remove, you empty the trash that third time, and remove the barrel. Then they have to go do it. So everybody is being treated the same way. I have a single family home, and what if I'm living with three other, I mean I have somebody who, the daughter and three children moved in with the parents. They want another barrel, they really can't get a barrel, whatever, one of the kids is in diapers. But if they're not recycling, they're gonna get penalized. and the barrel will be removed. Yes, there are little incidents here and there, and every detail is different. But I say, if you're not following the rules, then there's a consequence. And I think that's what's wrong with society. Rules are broken, and very seldom do we get the consequences that people need to get. I just don't think it's fair, and I would rather have it where they're penalized that way. Just my thought. And also, we need to do something with trash. With that, I yield.

Vice President Diehl.

So I guess my question would be, 10 years ago, And to a certain point, I agree with you. I do, to a certain point. But I think I'm also looking at it as 10 years ago, what percent of the multifamilies were owned by people who lived in the city versus today? There's been a big move today. We know that people from outside have come in and scooped up the property. The properties have gone, the values have gone through the roof because of it. With 79 coming, the train being here. I don't think we're in the same situation. I don't know what the percentage is, I don't know what the percentage of absentee landlords is, and I don't know what the percentage of conglomerates who have come in and bought multiple multi-families is, but I think that is kind of like what has shifted the conversation um these people all from out of town and don't care they're just worried they just want to come in make their money get their rents and everybody's happy and i think for me that has shifted it and does make a difference um you know again it's it's tough decisions are what's going to solve it and what's going to fix it um I mean, I personally would have no problem with paying X number of dollars a month. It's cheaper than getting a private caller. I can guarantee that. But, you know, we work with what we have, I suppose. But with that, I yield.

Councilor Kadeem.

Can you just, the only question I have is the savings, so the 8,000 tons in trash and the 3,000 tons in recycling, what's that equate to for a savings?

Figure about $125 a ton in disposal for the first year. That number is $125 for the first year, $132.50 for the second year. 143 for the third year.

That includes recycling, too?

No, that's only on the solid waste. The recycling is 115 for the first year, unless it's contaminated. So we're actually on the cusp of not having to do Tuesday, Thursday the way we've been doing it. If Tuesday, Thursday recycling is 135 a ton, Monday, Wednesday, Friday is 115. So, it's 115 and then I think it goes up to 120 and then 126, I think, is what the numbers are.

So, it's about a million dollars?

Just about. It's not insubstantial.

So, it's a million dollars of trash?

Yeah. It's not an insubstantial number. And it also will help us on the enforcement side because As we're seeing, and I'm not trying to be pejorative against people that own sixes or fives. I grew up in a multi myself when I was younger. It's just we're seeing it happen more and more that the enforcement issues have been difficult there. And, you know, I'm not saying that the best way to enforce is just to stop doing it, get rid of them, but it will help us. And, you know, we can always revisit these things. But right now, I really think it makes sense.

So from the I think my colleague had mentioned $9 to $11 million for the cost of the contracts, and that's annually? Well, yeah.

So the thing is this, the way this contract is bid, you've got, and I apologize, I don't have those numbers with me, but you've got four things that they're providing. They're providing solid waste collection and disposal. They're providing recycling collection and disposal. They're providing bulky waste collection and disposal. And they're providing yard waste collection and disposal. So the collection pieces are all fixed costs. The disposal pieces are all based off of whatever that cost is and that changes from year to year. So I apologize, Council, I don't have that number off the top of my head.

No, but I mean it's just the quick math between the two assuming that it's not contaminated about $1.3 million so that comes off so annually $1.3 million so you're knocking that $9 to $11 million by $1.3 just by Reducing it from six families down to a four-family. Exactly.

And the contract is written such that they recognize that there is waste diversion efforts happening and waste minimization efforts happening. And we are not guaranteeing them a disposal price. The collection price isn't going to go down because they still have to drive down the street. But they will not charge us more on the disposal side. They will not. And what they've done is it's a two with a one-year option. the one-year option they've already secured the disposal costs and their contract on that is that if the city picks up the option for that third year they have to deliver to republic and this is their cost so we have fixed costs throughout this as best as we can um for right now but yeah you're right that's that's a that's a pretty good estimate okay thank you council burr

I have another question. Sure. If people are going to have to get privates, is there going to be something in the ordinance where the city is divided in four sections, where these trucks are going to come at certain times to certain areas, or are they just going to run free throughout the city?

No, no, that would be between them and the private sector, if they were going to get privates.

If there were an ordinance in place right now that requires privates pick up the same day as the city.

They have to pick up the same day as the city now, so are the privates going to know that?

Well, that's why we've got the 30 days. That's the idea is that as you go through your process, we'll be working our way through this. Okay. And if we have to delay the implementation by a little bit to make sure that it's implemented in a way that works, we'll delay it.

point of information if i can help out on this one because i have had so when we when this whole debacle that's what i call it started 10 years ago i switched to private and i was like i am not getting off of private until the city straightens everything out because so i did do that and you can choose whatever company you want at the time i chose it was cleanway it's not clean any longer they've been bought out so i can say that um and yes they they pick up the same day as as as um as the city um And they've actually been very good, but I can tell you that whatever the city would charge if they chose to say per unit everybody pays X number of dollars would be far less than what you pay a private. They're very good. They've since been bought out. They operate on a different holiday schedule though. Like for instance, Juneteenth, the city didn't pick up, the private did. Sometimes the holiday schedule is the same, but other than the holiday schedule, it's exactly the same. And they would follow that.

Councilor Perry, you have the floor.

No, and they would follow that. Thank you. With that, I yield.

Anything else from the committee? Is there a recommendation from the committee? I recommend the ordinance be passed.

I recommend the ordinance be passed through first reading.

Motion made by Councillor Cagnall to pass through first reading. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councillor Kadim. Any discussion?

Roll call. Roll call.

Roll call to pass through first amendment. Councillor Kadim?

Yes.

Councillor Cagnall? Yes. Vice President Dionne?

Yes.

Councillor Ferrer?

No.

Chair Raposo? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a lovely evening. Thank you.

Thanks. See you later.

To the committee, we have Madam Clerk here. If we would like to entertain a possible motion to take item 8 out of order.

Motion over. Oh. Motion to take item eight out of order. Second.

Motion made by Councillor Cagnall, second by Vice President Deon. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item number eight is the proposed ordinance amending 50-303, the salary schedule for political appointments in boards and committees referred to the committee on 6-9-2026 for the public's edification. The title that we are discussing is the assisting clerk of the council. And we have our city clerk here. Good evening, Madam Clerk. If you want to just introduce yourself to the committee, please. Sure.

Initially, city clerk.

Thank you. Mr. McElhinney. Nick McElhinney, director of human resources. To Madam Clerk, I'll let you speak on what this is about.

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. So historically, the assistant city clerk has always attended city council meetings. There hasn't been a stipend or salary attached to the assistant clerk of council position, which the assistant city clerk also serves as. And with my recent absence from the council, you know, the question did come up as to why that has never been the case. And I thought it would be the fair thing to do to propose that a stipend also be established for the assistant city clerk who attends all meetings and serves in my capacity in my absence.

Motion to recommend through first reading.

Second.

Motion passed through first reading, made by Councillor Kadim, second by Councillor Cagnall. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Item number six needs a motion to lift from the table.

Motion to...

Motion made by Councilor Kadeem, second by Vice President DeHaan to lift from the table. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number six this evening is a proposed ordinance for salary amendments for the Director of Health and Human Services, which was tabled as amended on 4-28-2026. Mr. McElhinney, would you like to speak first before I recognize the council members?

Yeah, I don't really think I have too much to add. You were waiting on information from me from the last time, just with, uh, comps on how many employees, um, surrounding communities, health directors supervised. So I did send that out, um, early in June, uh, which is the list of FTEs. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. McAleeny. Council of cannula.

Uh, I just have one amendment that I'd like to make given how much time has passed. I'd like to make a motion to change the effective date of this change. from 1-1-2026 to 7-1-2026. Is that a form of a motion? That is my motion.

Second.

Motion made by Councilor Canuel, second by Vice President Deon to amend the effective date at the end of the proposed ordinance from 1-1-2026 to 7-1-2026. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it.

Motion that the ordinance be passed through first reading as amended.

Motion made to pass through first reading as amended, made by Councillor Cagnuol, seconded by Councillor Pereira. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number seven is a proposed ordinance amending 50-301. It's a salary schedule for executive officers, department heads, and non-union personnel. Revert to the committee on 6-9-2026. Mr. McElhinney, please.

Thank you. So this had come up during the budget process. I think during the budget process, hard to pinpoint exactly when at this point about the salaries that have exceeded the ordinance. due to cost of living increases. So what you are seeing here is we identified those positions that exceeded the ordinance as of when this was sent down due to the AFSCME COLA that these employees have typically followed. And then the positions that would exceed it come 7-1-26 based on the 2.5% COLA that they follow with AFSCME. So what we did was we took those positions We took their current salary and added 2.5%. So the intent of this was not to do large increases. This was literally just to catch everybody up to follow with that COLA for 7-1-26. So the amounts that you're seeing here are exactly what they would be as of the additional 2.5% on 7-1-26. It's still our intent to come back to you with a a complete restructure of these salaries with mechanisms in place so that we're not exceeding ordinance, whether that be an escalator or steps that follow a defined COLA every year so that we're not running into this problem every two, every three years. But what we didn't want to see was people either lose money or start to get impacted by inflation. The idea of a cost of living adjustment is to help keep them from losing money every year. So when the budget came down before you, anyone that was over that not to exceed amount stayed at that not to exceed amount. Anyone who would go over it as of 7-1-26 was frozen at that cap. So you'll see some didn't get that full 2.5%, some it may have been $50, some it may have been a couple hundred, but we just, we kept them to that cap in hopes that we could work with you to get this through now as a Band-Aid solution until that full restructure comes down to you. Thank you.

Thank you. So the position we just passed the first reading, or recommended to pass the first reading, the Director of Health and Human Services, you did comps for that position and showed us why that should be amended. I think we should be doing the same methodology for all of these positions. I don't know that we should just be arbitrarily raising it without conducting the same equivalent comp looks as well, I think. I understand what you did and how you did it, but I can't get on board with the methodology here that we're just gonna add two and a half percent from where someone's at because what the market may pay for any of these positions, I don't know what the market pays. I think we should be looking at that before we say, yes, we should improve it, no, we should not. with that i can't support this right now i think you know looking across this some of these are only moving off you know 154 dollars others are moving four thousand dollars that's kind of all over the place and i think it's just based on the methodology that you've applied here but i personally would like to see you know i think just for any of these positions um equivalent comps as well and what the market's paying and to you know i don't know i i don't know the context of whether or not these numbers are appropriate you know moving one of these 154 dollars may you know may not be appropriate with the market maybe i don't know um so with that i'll go to what my other colleagues have to say thank you council i'll make a motion to table to we have skill councils to speak vice president

Yeah, well my question was going to be, so how far, again, and he's correct, there's $153.95 here. Is that just to satisfy FY26? Correct. So it's going to have no effect on FY27?

I'm sorry, this would be for 7-1-26, so it would be for FY27.

So it'll satisfy for the whole year?

Correct.

That whole fiscal year? Correct. So yeah, and I guess that was my concern. When do you think you're going to be prepared for us to have a full picture, something substantial to consider? And I will say right off the bat, I'm not sure I'm okay with an escalator. I think an escalator just makes it possible for it to just keep going up and up and up without necessarily coming back to the council. The do not exceed is a solid number. Steps is a different issue, but an escalator, I don't know that I'm on board with that unless somebody can explain it differently than what I'm thinking. I mean, next week is fiscal year 2027. So obviously, to be in line, these changes need to be made. Again, we're back to, and it happens all the time, okay, next week it changes, so this week we have to vote on it, and we've been waiting months to discuss this. Drives me crazy. So yeah, so when can we have a more comprehensive plan? When can you come back and say, okay, not to exceed, this is what we're looking for, this is what we'd like to see, this is what we'd like to see the numbers set at, so we have something more concrete to deal with, I guess, is my question.

To Councillor Cagnall's point, I think part of this is that we want to do an analysis on all of these positions, and if we do what we think we would like to do here with a type of grid-like system that factors in longevity, I think it's going to take a little while for us to look at where positions line up on that grid with like positions here, comparables outside of the city. So I do think this is going to be a little bit of time, which is why we were coming down first with the Band-Aid approach so that no one was losing money. But I mean, I'm going to be honest with you. I think this is going to take a little bit of time. And right now there's just...

But I guess that's my question. What is a little bit of time? Is a little bit of time a month, two months, three months, six months? What's a little bit of time?

I would say a few months. I can't give you a hard deadline for the six. Yeah, the absolute mountains. I would like to be down here.

So we're saying three to six months. So we'll be halfway through FY 27. Before we have any resolution to this.

I mean, I think part of this is that we know that there's going to be some work to do once it comes to this table. Again, to your point on the escalators, that may not be the best system, and there may be some limitations that we need to put in as part of whatever ordinance change we do to keep that from ballooning. That's the other thing, is we don't want salaries to come in and start ballooning once we, you know, do those comparables, that we can't just come in and have there be an increase of $10,000, $20,000, $30,000. It's got to be done in a logical manner. Yeah, I mean, a few months if we could come down and this at least gets us through where everyone's at the 2.5% for all of FY27 budget, it gives us a little bit of time to do this the right way.

I mean, I feel like time has been wasted already, that there has been time. I feel like we've been having this discussion for months already. I feel like we've had this discussion in the past, so that kind of bothers me a little bit when we're talking another three to six months yet. But for now, I'll yield. Thank you.

Councillor Kadim.

Thank you. So I support what's before us, and I hear what my colleague's saying, and I don't disagree. The problem is I think three to six months is an aggressive I think when you start looking at human services and the staffing levels, I mean, how many folks do you have in human resources? Five. Five, right. So you're doing payroll benefits. You're doing negotiations. So to find a time to actually truly do a valid comp study on all these salaries, especially with positions that may not be in other communities, is a challenge, right? So I would say at least a minimum of a year to be able to get it. And I don't disagree. We've been talking about this for a while. But it's a significant undertaking. If it's going to be done properly, you'd have to go right through this. So, you know, one thing I would suggest is that maybe we try to outsource this as opposed to having to do it internally. So I would suggest that the administration look at hiring a community, I mean, an organization to come in, just do a comp study on all our positions, right, even our union positions as well, and come back down to the council for some funding mechanism on that so that we can just do it once and for all. Because we've talked about this on the union side. We've talked about it for the non-union. I think that needs to be done, and it's a very comprehensive work that needs to get done. It takes a while. I mean, just one of these positions will take you anywhere from two to three weeks to get done. So just take that, multiply it by the number of positions that we currently have. And the hardest part is waiting to get responses from other communities. A lot of communities are not responsive in terms of what they're paying for salaries and things of that nature. So it just becomes a challenge. So I'll support this, but I'd also just urge the administration to come up with a game plan moving forward. And if there's funding that's needed, come back down to the council and I for one will support that endeavor to get you what you need to get this kind of rectified and back down to the ordinance committee.

With that, I yield. And I'll echo my colleague as well. I mean, my anticipation would be this would be in place for the FY28 budget at that point. So this way, any changes or things that need to be had will be ready for that point. So, Councilor Canual.

So just back to the methodology that you're applying, you said it was 2.5%, right? Or is it? 2.5%. So like if I pick the administrative assistant of code enforcement right now as a not to exceed a 53, 324, 27, the increase that's listed here would amount to 7% higher than where it is today. From the current salary? From the current not to exceed. So you're saying the current salaries are already over? That had exceeded earlier, yes. Okay. Can I explain that?

Okay. Thank you. Counselor Diem.

So, I'm thinking what if we agreed to this, vote yes for this, with the amendment or caveat that the administration get back to us sooner than later with a plan so that we know something is in place and that we will be moving forward. and I'd put that in some form of a motion if somebody wants to figure it out. With that, I yield.

I think my recommendation, you could file a resolution for the committee to maybe in six months discuss the current progress of that system, possibly. For a salary study. For a salary study.

Six months just have a discussion on moving forward with the salary study?

Or see where they are in the process.

Could we avoid that if I commit to update you by the end of summer on where we're at instead of doing a resolution or an amendment that this is something that we want to do? It's the will of the committee.

I'd be okay with that. I guess I'm looking for some type of commitment, something more solid than what we've had so far. Yes, I would be amicable to that. With that, I yield.

Counsel Farrar.

I would rather have... an outside firm come in and look at everybody from top to bottom, our clerks, our union, our non-union. You and I have spoken, Nick, about how we have lost people because salaries are greater elsewhere, and someone will start here. We'll do all the training and do everything, and then they leave us so i think that's important and if you can't do that with just the people in your office i would say within a month let us know what administration and i would i would put this to to the interim city clerk in a month let us know what the mayor's decision is on that because we could certainly fund something like that to do straight across the board thank you

As Councillor Kadim mentioned, it is a daunting task, especially when you have to do comps with cities comparable to the size. And with Nick's department, it is difficult what he's done already and just prepared the sheet of all the positions and the different ideas of whether it be escalators or grade levels has taken a lot of time to get done.

Can you just pass that message up that within a month, let us know, send us a letter to the committee?

We've also looked at software, too, potentials for software that are available that may make the task a lot easier as well.

I think that'll help us when we look at these individual ones, but definitely an outside consultant to do a full study would be a very good solution. Absolutely.

With that, I yield. Anything else from the committee? Motion to pass to the first reading.

Motion to pass to the first reading, made by Councillor Kadeem, second by Councillor Perera. Any discussion? Roll call.

We'll call to pass the first reading. Councilor Kadeem? Yes. Councilor Canyal? No. Vice President Deon? Yes. Councilor Perera? Yes. Chair Raposo?

Yes.

Motion passes.

There's nothing else in front of us today. Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by Councilor Perera. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have. The Committee on Ordinance to Legislation is now adjourned. Thank you.