City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regular meeting for the Lawrence City Council. Today is Tuesday, September 15, 2026. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Act of 2022, this meeting will be hybrid, allowing participation both in person in the city council chambers as well as remotely. The Zoom link for this meeting was provided to anybody that requested through the city clerk's office. This meeting has also been transmitted live through...

What was that?

This meeting is also being transmitted live through the Facebook and YouTube of the Lawrence City Council. Madame Clerk, roll call. Councilor Gonzalez.

Present. Councilor Miguel. Present. Councilor Marmo. Present. Councilor Infante. Present. Councilor Reyes. Present. Councilor Del Rosario. Present. Councilor LaPlante.

Present.

Councilor Vice President Levy. Present. Councilor President Rodriguez.

Present. Please join me in a moment of silence for all the victims of the 9-11 tragic and terrorist attack. Now join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Cancelers, can I get a motion to approve minutes from 8-18-2026 as well as 9-2-2026? So moved. Second. There's a motion in front of us, properly seconded. Discussion on the minutes? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. We're going to go straight to public participation. The public participation rules for the Lawrence Lee Council are as follows. You're going to have two and a half minutes to speak. Please refer to this council as a whole. At the two-minute mark, you're going to hear an indication that you still have 30 seconds. The first person that we have is Rich Russell, Councillor Russell. Name and address for the record, please.

Microphone's on. Good evening, councils. Rich Russell, 34 Cross Street. LCAT board member, I will continue to say what I was trying to convey at a meeting at another location under different rules from last evening. LCAT lost their public cable rights about 30 months ago. Cable subscribers, all 14,000 of us in this city, have paid a total of $6.75 franchise fee every month, one third of which should be going to the public access channel. $2.25 a month times 30 months times about 14,000 subscribers works out to just over $900,000. Supposedly, that money continues to be held by the city. LCAT has tried to have meetings regarding a contract written by the city attorney last May with both the mayor of Lawrence and Brian DiPena and they refuse to meet with LCAT's board of directors to discuss the situation. We hear by word of mouth the city is planning to go in a different direction or possibly put out an RFP for groups to bid on obtaining the city's permission to operate the public access channel. My real question is what's gonna happen to the $900,000? Will that money be turned over to the eventual operator of the public access channel, or will that money or a portion of that money go in a different direction and heads to the easterly end of the island of Dominica? That money, in my humble opinion, belongs to the cable subscribers of Lawrence and should be returned to them for service not provided. In closing, it's a shame the City Council does not have subpoena powers, as it would be interesting to find out why former Mayor Dan Rivera allowed the contract to expire and would not resign it. To misquote Howie Carr, you don't have to treat LCAT fairly. Just treat LCAT as a minority business. I thank you for the time to allow me to... the time to finish what I was trying to say last evening at a neighborhood meeting.

Thank you. The next person is Mark LaPlante, Councillor LaPlante. Name and address for the record, please.

Mark LeBlanc, 29 Durso out of Lawrence, Massachusetts. The Lawrence Square project continues on this week and next week and for the week after for the foreseeable future. This next week, September 17th, we'll be remembering Captain Kevin J. Ord at his square at the intersection of Park Street and Willow Street right near the fire station there. Captain Ord, his family's still with us today. Not here in the chambers, but still with us. And he left early in life, but his claim to fame, quite frankly, was when Lawrence was known as the arson capital of the nation. Kevin Ord was at the tip of the spear as an investigator and was very instrumental in helping to determine and push back and make the city safe again from the arson that we were facing back several years ago now. The next one would be Private First Class Raymond J. Perry Square on September 24th. His corner is at the intersection of Parker and Market Street. Private First Class Perry died in action, and he was in World War II, and he died on the beaches of Anzio in Italy. so we remember both of these gentlemen uh when their squares come up as always i invite you your constituents the residents of our city to to be present and to remember their stories and to tell their stories and we say they will ever forget thank you thank you uh the next person is uh joe joe risotti name and others for the record please good afternoon

and I want to thank you for this opportunity, and I will also, my name is Joseph M. Rizzutti. I am currently assigned to the New England Police Planner Association as one of their wellness coordinators. We handle the stress. I also have a personal stake in this.

Charlie Sander was my partner.

Can you say your address, please? Your address for the record. 200 Patrick Road, Tewksbury, Massachusetts. Charlie, when he got laid off, came to Revere. He was my partner. When I was injured, Charlie was there to put me in the ambulance and get me my help. When I retired... I got into the mental health field, and I got hired by NEBPA. I've been doing this work since 1996. You've got the best police department in the world right here. The men and women that I've got to work with are amazing. They do a great job. What I want to talk about is what accumulative stress does, okay? I'm going to hand out my business cards.

In the back of my business cards are a list of critical incidents.

These critical incidents, every one of my brothers and sisters... Get your mic with you.

We can't hear you if you don't take the mic.

Grab the mic and go around.

I just want to hand them out.

You can carry it with you if you want to talk.

I want you to take a look at the critical incidents on here. Take a look at the critical incidents. Those incidents, the average citizen goes through four critical incidents in their life. Our police officers and our first responders, depending where they work, they see anywhere from 2,000 to 20,000 in a busy city like this. Our hero, and I know for a fact because I stayed in touch with Charlie, he became a dear friend of mine, he's seen a lot. And accumulative stress has been documented. We know it has for first responders. We know now the work that Dr. Michael Hamrock has done in the city of Boston, who retired a Boston firefighter. Our cancer rate, our cardio rate is totally contributed to accumulative stress. We have people that are in great shape. Halfway through their career, they have physical and mental issues. The cortisol and the chemical makeup, that's what it does to our bodies. I ask you to take a moment and consider this ruling and think of our brothers and sisters and send a message to our first responders, and I know you guys care. Again, you've got an amazing police department. They're doing a great job, and it's an honor to be with you and represent them. Thank you.

Thank you. The next person is Joe Cirillo. Name and address for the record. Captain Cirillo.

Good evening, Council. Jay Cirillo, 21 Rockland, Haverhill, Mass. Today I'm here respectfully to ask for your support for the home rule petition concerning the retirement benefits of Lieutenant Charles Malkin Sandin and his family. Charlie dedicated many years of his life to the Lawrence Police Department and the city of Lawrence. Policing is extremely stressful profession. Years of critical incidents, long hours, disrupted sleep, emergency call-outs, and constant responsibility take a toll on both the physical and mental health of police officers. Charlie served during one of the most difficult times in the history of the city and in the history of the Lawrence Police Department. He was heavily involved in the Columbia gas crisis, COVID-19 pandemic, and the civil unrest which followed the George Floyd riot. These were not ordinary times in policing. These were years layered with crisis upon crisis, and Charlie was there for all of them. During the pandemic, police officers continued working while much of society shut down. We worked long hours, dealt directly with the public, and exposed ourselves and our families to the unknown illness. Charlie contracted COVID multiple times. Most significantly, he had COVID again only a few weeks before his death. I strongly believe that Charlie's years of occupational stress, the extraordinary events he worked through, the long hours, the repeated bouts of COVID, all contributed to the deterioration of his health and ultimately his death. I understand that a medical condensation is a matter for medical professionals, but I believe Charlie's death can fairly be considered without looking at the totality of his service and the physical toll that the service took upon him. This petition is not about criticizing the retirement board. The board made a decision based on the laws, the limitations, which was required that they had to follow. But that is exactly why this home rule position exists. It gives the city an opportunity to recognize the unique situation, correct it, and give us an outcome that is fair and necessary. Charlie's case is unique. He was a police officer who spent his years serving the city of Lawrence and working through extraordinary times. He was there when we need him. He was there during Columbia Gas, he was there during the pandemic, and he was there during civil unrest. His family needs these counselors today and the city.

The next person is Cassidy Salam.

Hi, my name is Cassidy Sandin. I'm Charles Sandin's daughter, and thank you for this opportunity to talk about my dad.

Yes, your address.

62 Autumn Road. Okay. Since my dad passed away in 2024, nothing in my world has been the same. I miss him every day. He was a rock in our family, steady, dependable, and always ready to show up for us. even when he was running on no sleep. No matter how busy he was or how much he worked, he tried to be at every event, every moment, and every place we needed him. When we were out and about, he would point out the risks around us, not because he was afraid, but because he cared so deeply about our safety. I know much of his worries came from love. I now know that constant worry is a result of years of traumatic police work. He knows the terrible that is out in the world. He tried to keep us from that at all costs. He was proud of his job, proud of the good he brought into the world, and I loved hearing his stories about helping families, children, fellow officers, and all about the little things he enjoyed. Since his passing, I've struggled to concentrate and to feel genuinely happy. I find myself worrying about my mom all the time. He missed when I passed my license tests, my prom, my graduation, and so much more to come. My dad worked so hard to make sure my brother and I have a better life than he did, and that commitment would stay with us forever. We will carry his values, his strength, and his love in everything we do. My brother and I will continue striving to be the best humans we can, because that's what he wanted, and because we want to honor him in every step we take. Thank you.

Thank you. The next person is David Saddam.

david sandon 62 autumn road um losing my father created two separate worlds in my life the world before he died in 2024 and the world after before even if he wasn't there physically he was present in who i believed he was strong committed and serving something bigger than himself after he died everything changed the world became quieter heavier and defined by what was missing. Sadly, I live with little memory of him and that absence has followed me into every milestone. I got to learn from him and hear his voice guiding me as a child. I no longer have that. There will never be anyone or anything that can replace him. I cannot share my accomplishments with him. I want him to feel the pride he would have in the person I am becoming. His absence shows up in everyday life. Missed holidays, missed games, missed vacations. With that, I have constant tiredness that comes from carrying grief and unanswered questions. Just months before my dad's passing, he talked to me about the risks of policing. He made it very clear that if he went into danger, He would fight without fear. He accepted that reality as a part of his duty. He believed that if he had to die, he would die with dignity because service meant everything to him. The cost of a life isn't measured in years lived. For me, it's measured in the moments we'll never have, the lessons he'll never get to teach, and the father I will never get to know as an adult. It's the difference between the world where he was supposed to be in and the world where he's gone. Thank you.

The next person is, uh, Kelly Sandon.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President, members of the Lawrence city council, mayor de Pena and everyone in attendance tonight. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you and speak about my husband, Charles Sandon. Charlie was the beloved father of Cassidy and David, and my soulmate when he died just at the young age of 44. Charlie was a prideful Laurentian, born to serve and deeply connected to the community he protected. His family roots in Lawrence run deep, dating back to the early mid-1800s. His ancestors worked long, grueling hours in the mills, preserved through the Great Depression, and worked Built lives founded on hard work, resilience, and devotion to their city. Both his paternal and maternal families in their lines included noble public servants and proud business owners who contributed meaningfully to Lawrence's growth and stability across generations. Charlie beamed with pride whenever he spoke of his ancestors. He saw this in his own service as an extension of his legacy, contributing In continuing the work, his family began more than a century ago. Charlie's lineage was characterized not only by deep roots in Lawrence, but by remarkable longevity. His family had no history of premature death. In fact, his great-grandmother lived nearly 101 years old and proudly held our firstborn, Cassidy, just days shy of her 101st birthday. The moment was extraordinary that both Lawrence City leadership and the President of the United States acknowledged it. Our generational photograph printed on the front page of the Eagle Tribune hangs framed in our home, a symbol of strength, resilience, and enduring health that defined Charlie's family for generations. It stands in heartbreaking contrast to Charlie's passing at just 44 years old, a life cut short, not by hereditary or chance, but by the immense and well-documented occupational burdens he carried throughout his entire adulthood. in service to the city he loved. Throughout his more than 20 years with Lawrence Police Department, Charlie served with distinction across several roles and was decorated with numerous accolades. His police work was predominantly community-based, rooted in nurturing the relationships that hold the city together. Whether engaging with youth, supporting small business owners, checking on homeowners, collaborating with fellow city employees, or assisting city visitors, Charlie invested himself fully in the people of Lawrence on duty or off duty. It made no difference. He prioritized those relationships. He believed deeply that trust, connection, and understanding formed the foundation of meaningful policing. The countless lives he guided, reassured, and protected stand as a testament to who he was. A detailed police report documenting Charlie's career further reflects his lifelong dedication.

Kelly, just name and address for the record, please. Your name and address for the record.

Kelly Sainton 62 autumn Rd. Did I not do that?

No program, but that's OK. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The next person that we have is Lee. Panettiere. Name and address for the record, please.

Yes, good afternoon. Lee Panettiere. My address is 37 Englewood Road in Gloucester. Thank you very much for hearing me. I am the attorney for Ms. Sandin, and my heart goes out to her family, and my contribution here is going to be limited because I don't want to use up all of the time that she and Charlie's brother officers will need to talk to you tonight. I have two things I want to talk about. The first thing is I'm a little bit out of order, but my... Contribution here is to respond to the actuarial report that was put in by the retirement board, basically showing how much it would cost to pay this pension. And so I asked, I gave you a document. You have a five-page document from me. The important parts are the first page and the last page. The first page is a letter from the Lawrence Retirement Board in response to a request from me giving us statistics.

You're going to have more time later on to discuss this. Now it's just two and a half minutes.

Pardon me?

You're going to have more time. Sure, should I wait and talk about this afterwards? Yes, please.

Okay. And if I, okay, sure, go ahead and I'll wait until the retirement program, thank you.

All these names are going to be submitted for the record. Thank you.

I would like to make a motion to take out of order and to also untable item 297-26, request for a home rule petition under the Hart Bill, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 32, Section 94, requesting a line of duty, death designation for deceased Lawrence Police Sergeant Charles Sandin.

SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION IN FRONT OF US. PROPERLY SECOND DISCUSSION. DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO REMOVE IT FROM TABLE MATTERS, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY NAME? THERE YOU HAVE IT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THANK YOU. COUNCILORS, BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS DISCUSSION, I DO WANT TO SAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND.

There's a motion to approve. Properly second discussion.

Discussion.

Councillor Infante.

Thank you. Through you, Councillor President. Councillors, I want to start off with stating that the discussion that's pending before us will be a heavy one in terms of the information and also the emotional component of the overall situation. But I do want to make... I want to emphasize that tonight the city council has received numerous of supporting documents concerning the financial analysis of the situation. But on the flip side, what we have not heard was the medical situation as to why the Sandin family is now before the city council, which is why I did include an executive session in order for the city council to have the full picture as to why now they are in front of the city council. At the surface level, you will probably believe or assume that this situation was an incident of a food poisoning situation. And what I have learned, especially going through law school, is that every session, every situation, the answer is always it depends. Because it depends on the full facts and the full picture of a scenario. And I do believe we should have an opportunity to go into that executive session to finish painting the entire picture of this situation. Thank you.

Is that a motion?

No, that's my comment.

I mean, if we're going into a second session, as you request, we need a motion. But before we do that, I think that we should open up the floor for anybody that would like to speak on any other matter that is not a medical. So, councillors, at this time, we are discussing anything but the medical situation or the medical situation. SO WE HAVE THE RETIREMENT BOARD HERE AS WELL AS THE ATTORNEY AND THE FAMILY OF THE CASE IN FRONT OF US. SO IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS, WE HAVE RECEIVED MANY DOCUMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE FINANCE AND WHEN IT COMES TO ANY OTHER REQUEST THAT WAS MADE.

I would, to me, it would be beneficial to entertain the executive session to discuss the medical component, but out of respect for everyone here in the Chamber that's here to speak on behalf of this item, because we don't know how lengthy this executive session could turn out, I think we owe it to them to, you know, start off the conversation and we could leave the medical component to the very end and do the executive session to the very end.

No, that's exactly what we're doing.

Okay.

Yeah. We have the attorney here.

Just a couple of points of clarification. First of all, who has the medical records? Second of all, do you have a waiver of the HIPAA rights of this gentleman to look at his medical records? So I don't know what records you're looking at. I don't have any medical records. So I'm just wondering what medical records you're going to look at. Who has given them to you? What right do you have to look at them?

Thank you. I don't have the medical records, but if you would have been present at the ordinance meeting, we did hear from the family and the family's attorney that there is more information that they're willing to share in order to support this item. The only thing is that it should be under executive session.

Yeah, and I did send a memo to the board saying I would like a HIPAA release from the family allowing you to look at medical records and then get the medical records directly from the medical providers. Again, I'm just stating this as a fact.

I'm not taking any position on that. Thank you. Just elaborate a little more on that. Did you receive any answer when it comes to the HIPAA waiver from the family?

Getting a waiver?

Do you receive any response?

No one has ever talked to me about a waiver. I've never received a waiver. I said the board should request one. It's not my position to request one. You're the ones that are hearing it again. Again, if you're going to take medical testimony about someone, you would want the original medical records.

I would have appreciated, as you as a city attorney, and knowing that I am the sponsor of this item, I would have appreciated a direct communication from the city attorney advising me on that, because you and I, you're trying to make a point, but you and I never had that conversation either.

No, I sent the email to the entire board.

So, well...

So just something that I request the financial information. Financial information is different. You can have the financial information where you want. And that was sent to all of us. And I actually forward that information as well to the board, to the city council. When it comes to the retirement board, there is anything to be had on this matter, as well as the attorney from the family. What is your standing or position on this matter, please?

Michael Sacco Thank you, members of the council. My name is Michael Sacco. I'm the attorney for the Lawrence Retirement Board. I won't get into the medical issues because, as I agree with my brother council, although prior presentations to the board spoke about some medical issues, I'm not at liberty to discuss what's in the medical records.

Male Speaker And we highly appreciate that.

Michael Sacco I can tell you First off, I want to say that the board's position, the retirement board's position in this case is that as far as the home rule petition, we certainly defer to the council's judgment and whether or not they believe this is a proper expenditure of taxpayer money, that's up to you. WHAT THE BOARD WANTS YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT ITS POSITION WAS AND WHY IT DID WHAT IT DID BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN, UNFORTUNATELY, MISSTATEMENTS MADE TO YOU AT PRIOR HEARINGS.

BEFORE YOU CONTINUE, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF CONTENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE RETIREMENT BOARD SO WE CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S YOUR POSITION TODAY?

Sure, and I'll start with that, thank you. So whenever, and we've been through this before, I've been the board's attorney for 30 years, regardless of the board composition, we've always taken these matters very seriously. We follow the same procedure that we would do in any case, and when a member of the retirement system passes away and we receive a death certificate, there's a benefit claim that is made before the board. In this case, it was for an accidental death benefit. the accidental death benefit was submitted pursuant to what's colloquially called the heart law. Police officers and firefighters, but in this context, police officers who die as a result of heart disease or hypertension, if they die for that reason, it's presumed, for reasons we've heard from prior speakers, because of the stress and all of the pressures that our public safety officers endured during the course of their career, if they die as a result of heart disease or hypertension, it's presumed, they don't have to prove that it's job related. So in this case, we were presented with a death certificate which did not indicate that Mr. Sandin died as a result of heart disease or hypertension, but we always try to give an opportunity to the family to make their case. And what we do in those circumstances is we request medical records leading up to the death. We request records regarding the death And in this case, which we don't always have, we had an autopsy that was performed after Mr. Sandin's death. So we gather that information at the Retirement Board. I provide some guidance to the Board. The Board has the ability to award a benefit if it believes the evidence warrants it. When the evidence is unclear, the board sends it out to a neutral physician that's appointed by the Retirement Systems Oversight Authority, which is known as the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission, or PERAC. That goes to one of the, well, two misstatements that were made here prior. One is that Mr. Sandin died of a heart attack. That was said, I think, three times at a prior meeting. If, with all due respect, if he died of a heart attack, I wouldn't be standing here. the board would have granted the benefit and we wouldn't need the home rule petition. The home rule petition is being filed because his family does not qualify for the benefit that they were seeking. Going back to the process, All the medical records were sent out to a cardiologist, a neutral cardiologist, who was, again, it was misrepresented to the council that it was unknown where this doctor came from or that he was appointed because he gives negative opinions. Neither of those things are true. He was appointed by PERAC as a neutral physician to give an unbiased and neutral opinion based on the medical evidence that was provided to him. So we provided that evidence to Dr. Michael Johnstone, who I can tell you, I've been doing retirement law for 34 years now. I've seen Dr. Johnstone's reports. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree with him, but I'm not a doctor. But my point is that he's not always a negative opinion. He wasn't sought out by any means to try and prevent this from going through. One of the things we do at the Retirement Board is, unlike an insurance company, we're not looking to deny a benefit. We call balls and strikes. We base it on the evidence that was presented. So Dr. Johnstone reviewed all the medical records, including opinion letters that were provided from Mrs. Sainton and doctors who either reviewed the records or treated Mr. Sandin, we provided that all to Dr. Johnstone. He told us that there was no relationship between the mild coronary artery disease that was detected during the autopsy and his death. He died because of the E. coli and the colostrum bacteria, which in combination is very fatal. So after we received that letter, we provided that to Mrs. Sandin. They came back with a subsequent letter. And we sent that letter for clarification back to Dr. Johnstone again, trying to give the family every opportunity to present their case. Dr. Johnstone again said that did not persuade him, and then we went back to him a second time based on a second letter that came before us, which is unprecedented. We have to ask permission to go back to Dr. Johnstone a second time, which we did. He again came back and said that there was no medical evidence that Mr. Sandin died as a result of a heart attack, nor did his underlying and undetected heart condition interfere with the treatment that he received, resulting in his death. so based on that evidence we denied the claim and mrs sandon has appealed that to the appropriate administrative appeal board and that appeal is is pending there so that's the process that that took place so again i think what from the retirement board's perspective we did we always give Any applicant, whether it's for a disability, a retirement, or a death benefit, we give them every opportunity to present their case. And had the evidence been there to support the case and had a medical opinion to support it, the board, I'm sure, would have granted the benefit. But because the evidence was not there, it was unable to grant the benefit. So that's essentially what happened at the retirement board level. I don't have any other comments at this juncture. I don't know if the council has any questions. I'm happy to answer those.

We are going to open up for questioning. Yes, we are. Once we hear from the other chain, and then we're going to open up for every counselor to ask questions to either one of you two guys. Happy to take those at the appropriate time. Thank you. Just name my address for the record.

Lee Panettiere, 37 Englewood Road in Gloucester. Thank you for having me back. So I just want to respond briefly to what Attorney Sacco just talked to you about regarding the retirement case. As you can see, from what he's saying, the retirement board is denying Ms. Saindon's application based on an overly technical reading of the heart law presumption. It's their opinion that the food poisoning basically rebutted the presumption because the heart law, because it precipitated the heart attack. It's an extremely technical way to look at what happened to Mr. Saindon, to Charlie. Anyone looking at this from a common sense perspective would see that there's no way food poisoning should have caused this young man to have a heart attack when everyone else who ate the same food that he got food poisoning from basically just had mild gastrointestinal issues. No heart attacks, no deaths. Only Charlie suffered from that. This would only have happened if he was already suffering from heart disease, which he was, which is presumed to be in the line of duty. The board refused to accept this possible explanation, instead insisting that the food poisoning broke the chain of causation. Now, I believe that's the wrong way to look at the death of a police officer, but the Hart Law presumption arguably allows it. That's why we're here on a home rule petition. If we thought this was a slam dunk that we could win at DALA on appeal, we probably wouldn't be here. Hart Law has technicalities in it, and this is a problem in Charlie's case. That's why we need this from you. We need you to look at this from a common sense perspective, not from simply the perspective of this technicality in the law. The other thing I wanted to mention to you is Attorney Sacco didn't mention it. I don't know if anyone from the board is going to talk about the cost of the pension. They've given you a letter explaining that the cost is fairly high. The document I gave you, the five-page document, page one is a letter from the Lawrence Retirement Board giving us statistics that we requested. And in the last five years, the Lawrence Retirement Board has approved 10 disability retirements, and that would be actually eight retirements and two accidental deaths, three of them from people in their 40s. So just in the past five years, the Lawrence Retirement Board has approved three other people the age of Ms. Saindon. So the cost may be high, but the same high cost is already being paid by three other people who deserve it. And then the last page, and it'll take you a while to read all this stuff. That's why I'm pointing this stuff out to you. The last page is PARAC's annual report. PARAC is the agency that oversees disability retirement. Statewide, there were 538 of these approved in 2025 alone. I don't know how many of those are for people in their 40s, but 538 accidental deaths or accidental disability retirements. So I'm not saying it's not expensive, but it's a benefit that is available for people who die because of accidents on the job. Mr. Sandin's family deserves this. Even though it's expensive, this is a resource that is out there and that is available to people and families in this situation. So we ask you to approve the home rule petition because this is a difficult disability retirement. No one's fault, and the law is just overly technical and may not work for us. So we need this from you, and it's not too expensive. He deserves it. His family deserves it. Thank you very much for your attention, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Let's open up the floor for the financial portion of it. And then we can actually talk about, open the floor for questioning. So anybody from the retirement board that can give us an update on the financial portion of it? Thank you, Linda.

Hi, good evening. I'm Gina Rizzo, the administrator of the Retirement Board. I live at 15 Rachel Road in Methuen, Mass. So I had sent you all and gave Eileen, oh, I'm sorry, my not close enough, a copy of, we had sent over the data over to, or the proposed legislation over to our actuary, KMS, to help you all, just to give you a point of reference for the cost. When we first were asked to do this, it was basically to grant Mrs. Sandin what we had assumed was the accidental death benefit that she had applied for through our board. When we got the actual home rule petition, it's not granting her that at all. It's granting an accidental disability. or what Charlie Sanden would get under an accidental disability. And after speaking with the PARAC attorneys and Michael Sacco, our attorney, they said basically what would happen is if the home rule petition goes through the way it is, which you guys can change the wording if you, you know, want to change it and grant this to her, but the way it's written right now, it would grant her not only what he would get under an accidental disability, as it is right now payment-wise, FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE. IT WOULD ALSO LET HER KEEP WHAT SHE RECEIVES NOW UNDER HER SURVIVOR BENEFITS. SO IT'S BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, SHE'D COLLECT TWO DIFFERENT PENSIONS FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.

HOW MUCH IS THAT?

SO ACTUARIAL SPEAKING, AGAIN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, RUN THESE NUMBERS, BUT THEIR CRUDE LIABILITY FOR THE CITY WOULD BE ABOUT $1,300,000. AND THEN I HAD RUN A cost, you know, just how the appropriation works is in the FY2028 appropriation, it would increase about $180,000, $180,300 if you look at page two of that report. And what happens is on each fiscal year, it increases approximately 3.5% up until we're fully funded in 2027, I mean 2037.

So it ends up being, I believe, Ramona, did I enter that correctly? About 1.5%.

Can you just repeat it to the mic?

And that's just as it's written. Sure. So if you look at page two, the accrued liability, meaning if you paid basically for this right now in a lump sum, it would be about $1,312,000. But that would be granting her both benefits, the way the petition is written. You can always change the petition to grant her just the accidental death benefit, which is what she applied for through our board. But the way it's written is not giving her that benefit. It's giving her what he would have received under an accidental disability just that amount. And then it also lets her keep her survivor benefits. So if anything, I think maybe you could talk to the attorneys and they could, you know, all of them could come up with maybe, you know, if that's not the intention of this council or Mrs. Sainton. But the way it's written right now that what their attorney, Lee Panetta had posted would give her the two benefits. And that's why the cost is so high.

What was the finance impact that was denied by the board?

I'm sorry?

So what was the finance, the number that it was denied? Perhaps if it wouldn't be awarded, how much it will be? Now I see on the first page that it's about $49,660.

Right, that's what she receives now.

And then how much it would be if it wouldn't be a denial from the board?

So if it wouldn't be a denial, it was that second actuary that we ran on August 5th. which would have just increased, it would have dropped her $49,000 pension and given her the bigger pension, which was total benefit $81,228.

So before it was about $81,000 if it wouldn't be a denial, and then now with the home rule petition it will be $180,000?

No, that's, so are you talking about her pension, what she would receive, or what the cost to the city is?

The cost to the city, if it wouldn't be a denial.

Okay, right, right. So if there wasn't a denial, the cost to the city would be approximately the $7,500 each year.

And with the home rule petition now?

With the home rule petition now, it jumps to 180, 180,300, increasing 3.5% until 2037. Okay.

Anything else on the finance portion of it?

I don't think so, unless Ramona has anything else to add with that? No.

So let's open up to the attorney so we can have both perspectives.

So I don't have the legislation in front of me, but we are not petitioning for a double pension for her. If she gets this pension, it will be a total, including the benefits she already gets. I don't believe the language was... Oh, thank you. If the language somehow means something different, means that she's getting a double pension, we would be all in favor of editing it and we'd do that for you. That was not the intention. I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Anything else on the finance portion of it?

Is there another question for me?

Anything else when it comes to the finance portion of that petition? All right, councillors, we open now for questioning. Councillor Blunt.

Thank you. I just need more clarification. A couple of times it was discussed that an appeal is pending. What is the appeal? Where is it pending? What details can be provided on that? And I'm not sure who to ask. I guess this is a question of fact, so it could be either attorney. Sure.

So anytime a retirement board denies a benefit to a member of the retirement system, it goes on appeal to the Division of Administrative Law Repeals, or DALA, D-A-L-A. They're the administrative entity that adjudicates and conducts hearings for the denial of benefits. So that matter remains pending. And I think to what Attorney Panetteri just came up and said and what Ms. Rizzo was also saying is the way that the Home Rule petition is awarded now if you were to grant it in its current form nothing prevents her from Mrs. Sandin from continuing to receive the benefit she's already receiving on top of what the Home Rule petition would grant but also she could pursue her appeal rights at DALA and if she were able to prevail there she would get that benefit and in lieu of the benefit that the board is paying her now. And the appeal, I think, has been stayed pending resolution of what the council prefers to do.

The appeal is pending based on a vote that we're retaking on the home rule petition? The appeal is pending based on that?

We stated it, right?

We agreed to stay it, and rather than spending retirement board funds and Ms. Sandin's funds on council, the matter, we asked them not to schedule it for a hearing because if, presumably, if the council were to approve the home rule petition and the legislature then approved it, that would then, we would assume that the appeal would be withdrawn and that would end the case.

Yeah, see, I would think, please.

Yeah.

Yeah.

The clerk has one specific line that she needed for the minutes.

You made a statement. I just want to make sure I understood what you said. You said the DALA benefit is in lieu of what we're pursuing today, so not in addition to.

Yes, so the appeal at DALA is on her claim for an accidental death benefit. She's currently receiving what's known as a member survivor benefit, which is paid as a death benefit to any member, to the family of any member who dies prior to retirement. If she were to prevail on appeal, that benefit would go away and she would get the accidental death benefit instead of that benefit.

So it's in lieu, okay, thank you. Yes, in lieu, yes.

I was about to say, it just seems to me as though from where I sit, I would want to know what the administrative law judge has to say about it, what Dowell has to say about it. This is going through its normal process. The home rule petition is the court of last resort. I would think administratively you would go through the regular channels. And then if something did not happen as it was supposed to through the course of law, through the investigation, the testimonies, et cetera, then it would come back here as a fallback. So now I think we are ahead. I think we're taking a step beyond what should be taken. We should have DALA do its thing, have the docket be discussed, debated, and have a judgment. And then we may or may not be needed. And that's how I feel about it. So I think, number one, this is premature. Number two, the attorney gave us this sheet of five pages and was very purposeful with a great intent as to what she wanted us to read. And the first part, was, I think, making me, or trying to allude to me, that there's been some inconsistencies with the Long Range Retirement Board, and had that on page one. So I'm just curious. I don't want to read too much into it, but I think I can read enough into it where the state, you know, where if you gave it to these folks, why can't you do it for Charlie Sanders? So I just wanted to hear the retirement board's response to that.

Sure. Without, again, I've been the board's counsel for 30 years and pretty much handled every disability case that they've had. When the facts and the medical evidence and the law warrant it, that we grant the benefit when either the facts or the law do not allow the benefit to be granted, or in our view, doesn't allow the facts, or the facts don't support the law granting the benefit, we deny the benefit. So I don't know why that letter was presented to you, because all of those individuals who were awarded benefits qualified for the benefits. So, unfortunately for Mrs. Sandin, she didn't qualify for this benefit, and that's why we denied it. And I have to say, if I may take a moment, this notion that because there's some highly technical application of the Hart Law is just not true. The heart law doesn't presume you died as a result of heart disease. You have to first die as a result of heart disease, then it's presumed to be sustained in the line of duty. So what was said is being blurred. This is not about causation. This is about what caused his death. And as I said before, if his death was the result of a heart attack, and you're going to talk about medical issues, and you have You can certainly have all the medical records that the board has. Mrs. Sanding can give those to you. You can look at them. You can read the doctor's reports. You can read the autopsy. You can read all of those records. And it will tell you what the cause of death was. So, you know, to present this as an overly technical application of the law is just not correct.

Yeah, so my last point, at least for this point, And that, to me, Council President, is the crux of the matter. This entire discussion and debate has nothing to do with how good or great Charlie Sanden was as a police officer and what kind of family man he was. It has nothing to do with tremendous contribution he has provided to our communities, to other communities as well. It has nothing to do with that. The crux of this matter has everything to do with what is on that report, because we are being asked We are being told that the argument is that we need to use common sense. This is Picayune, and we should just come with an understanding. And the attorney can speak for herself better than I can speak for the other attorney. But it seems to me as though that is where we need to see the information. And if we're going to make a judgment that I think is an important judgment. It's an important judgment on a lot of different levels. But if each one of us is going to make a decision on this, I think we need to avail ourselves. We need to see. We need to be comfortable or at least have the opportunity to take a look at that. If our minds aren't made up yet, we need to be open to what's inside that report. And then we can look at it because that is why you either get additional monies or whatever the end of the language is for the home rule petition or not. That language is important because I am not a medical expert. I am reliant on experts who have done this thing and who have explained to me by you this evening that this is a third party, neutral, did a bunch of work, it's been on appeal twice? Once or twice, the appeals?

Well, there's one appeal, but it went back to the doctor on two different occasions after the initial review.

Okay, I call that an appeal, but that's fine. So more questions were asked twice. And so that's, to me, where it stands. And I just think, especially on that last point, US HAVING THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, I THINK, IS PREMATURE. THANK YOU.

I THANK YOU, COUNSELOR PLANT. ANY OTHER COUNSELORS?

I just wanted to respond to the Councilman's suggestion that the DALA hearing should decide this. I don't know if you know how long it takes to get through that appeal process. The DALA process may only take a year or two. But if we win and the Retirement Board appeals it, it goes up to an agency called CRAB, the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board. That agency typically takes five to seven years to issue a decision. And then if we win there and the retirement board appeals, then we have to go to court. And I don't even know how long it takes on these cases because they don't, it takes so long for them to get up there. So we're talking eight, 10 years possibly to go through the appeal process, at least five to seven. The reason we're here instead of at DALA, I mean, we're at DALA, but it's in abeyance waiting to see what happens with the home rule petition is that this is not your typical accidental death case. There is, and I'm not, fundamentally disagreeing with Attorney Sacco. It is a difficult case for disability, for accidental death. It's difficult. I'm willing to make it, and I think we can make a good case, but there are technicalities that just make it very difficult for us. So that's why we're here, because fairness and justice in this case can be done without the law completely agreeing. That's what the home rule petition is about. We're not asking you to you know, to violate the law or do something inconsistent with the law. People get home rule petitions all the time when their case just isn't consistent with the law. But please do keep in mind that if she has nothing to avail herself other than the DAL appeal process, we're talking at least five to seven years, if not ten, for her to potentially get this benefit. unless the retirement board is going to agree not to appeal the DALA decision, but I could not ask that of them, and I don't think that they would promise that. So thank you. I don't know if you have questions about that, but I just wanted to make sure that I was clear on that.

Council President, I have a question.

Yeah, Councilor Infante.

Thank you.

Before we go to Councilor Infante, any other councillors for the first round? Okay, Councilor Infante.

Thank you. Through you, Council President, we're... To get more clarification as to why we are here, at any point during the discussions with the retirement board, was the family told to come before the council with the home rule petition?

Told by the retirement board?

Yeah.

No, I don't believe so. I wasn't there the whole time, but I don't know.

Okay, I just want to clarify that.

Okay.

All right, thank you. And then my second comment, that was my first question, and my second comment, is I want to provide some clarification going back, this is not about the financials, but specifically HIPAA, the Health Insurance Poverty and Accountability Act that was passed in 1996. So I want to make sure that everybody understands what this law is. HIPAA primarily, the goal is to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge while still allowing a flow of health data that would be needed for high quality care. Under this rule, there are three provisions, which is the privacy rule, the security rule, and the breach notification rule, which each has its own requirements and thing. Under that HIPAA rule as well, they also cover who does the HIPAA apply to, and specifically applies to health care providers, health plans, and health care cleaning houses. It also covers who does HIPAA does not apply to. And HIPAA does not apply to everyday employers, life insurance companies, or fitness apps, unless that fitness app is directly associated with a health care provider or a health plan, which then you know, falls under the stakeholders that HIPAA does apply to. So I just wanted to make that clarification in case the family does want to go into, you know, ask or any counselor asks for an executive session for further information. Thank you.

I think that if you were to look at the medical reports, like the report of Dr. Johnstone, I do disagree very strongly with Attorney Sacco. Dr. Johnstone is almost always negative. And in this case, he looked very rigidly at the facts and did not appear to give fair consideration. I know letters went back and forth to him, only because he just kept denying them. He kept completely ignoring them. We don't think he gave a fair reading of the facts. So if you just read Dr. Johnstone's report, you're not going to really get a full view of the medical records.

I understand. So even though from your point of view, it is something that it might be on the negative side of the case, but as a counsel, I think that we need to have every piece of information available so we can have an informed decision. Something that is missing is, so far, the report from the medical. It's missing also a potential disclaimer from the family when it comes to a potential HIPAA law violation, even though the Council of Infants just brought that up. TO THE TABLE, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO FOLLOW THE CITIZEN'S RECOMMENDATION WHEN IT COMES TO ANY TYPE OF POTENTIAL VIOLATION OR REVIEW OF A REVIEW THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. SO, COUNCILORS, ANY QUESTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THIS MATTER?

I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS MATTER AND GET MORE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN HAVE AS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SUGGESTED AS INFORMED AS POSSIBLE. I'll leave it to the attorneys to determine which information would be in our interest to review. I realize you've got some apprehensions on at least one of the reports, but I would hope we would still get that report as well despite the hesitation. And I just want to make sure we have as much. If we want to dig in, we're going to dig in. If we don't want to dig in, we don't have to. But if we do, we're going to. So I would love, I don't know all the different reports. I can't tell you what this report, that report, that report. So I'm a little disadvantaged with respect to that. So whatever, maybe this is it, whatever it was that made the retirement board come up with their decision, that, because that's what we're doing. We're saying the retirement board based on that information didn't have the full picture or disagree with their assertion. That's what I would want to see.

That's my motion, by the way. Can I hear a second?

Second.

Properly second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays?

No.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

It's on the motion to table. Council of the plant?

Yes.

Councilor Del Rosario? No. Councilor Reyes? No. Councilor Infante? No. Councilor Marmo? Yes. Council Miguel?

Yes.

Council Gonzalez? Yes. Council Vice President? Yes. Council President?

Yes. What's the count?

Motion carries. I'm fine.

Motion carries. Thank you, both parties. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So going on top of the agenda, unless there is any city employees, we have any city employees?

The city attorney has a bunch of stuff.

The city attorney, and we have budget and finance items as well.

Thank you. I would like to take out of order and also untable item 353-26, appointment of Shane Rodriguez as Assistant City Attorney.

So we're going to- Second. Personal? No, table matters. Table matters, okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Aye. So Madam Chair from the personal committee, please introduce this item.

Council President, last meeting we had sent up this item as a favorable recommendation and I did make that as a motion. However, at the time the city attorney was not available to be with us nor Mr. Rodriguez for this item. So now it is before the council for full council discussion and decision.

All right, what's the motion?

The motion is a motion to approve.

It's a motion to approve. Properly second discussion. Discussion. Cancel the plan. Before we go into the discussion, let's allow the candidate to introduce himself. The city attorney to present the candidate, and then we can go from there.

Okay. Tim Hooten, city attorney. It's my pleasure to present before you Shane Rodriguez, his position as first city attorney. You will note that there is a little wrinkle in this one is that Mr. Rodriguez would be part-time. He would not be full-time. but I would, I'm gonna repeat myself, as I said in the personnel committee, I would tell you about his resume, but since it's so long and so in-depth, I think just a quick look would realize that he is more than competent for this position. Mr. Rodriguez, I've met with him, I think he's a perfect fit for my office. He brings knowledge, his law school background, everything, I think he would be a perfect fit for the city. I think even as a part-time position, As we know, I've been looking for someone for a long time. It's really hard to find a fit. So I'll introduce you. I think that he himself will win you over. I don't think he needs my talking because he talks better than I do.

Thank you, attorney.

Just a full disclaimer, not every Rodriguez is family. That's true. That's true.

Good evening. My name is Shane Rodriguez, and I live right here in the city of Lawrence at 226 Common Street. Good evening, Council President, Council Vice President, and members of the City Council. I've spent most of my professional life in public service. I've had 20 years of law enforcement experience, and I've been practicing law for the past 16 years. I've also been an educator for much of my life, which is teaching, whether it's teaching police officers working with preschool children, and yes, I did teach preschool children. They called me the kindergarten cop. And also now working as a law school professor. I also think it's important for you to know a little bit about where I came from. I grew up in Boston, in Roxbury, Massachusetts, with my mother and two siblings in a two-bedroom apartment. She was a single parent raising three of us. And there were times when we simply didn't have enough food to eat or clothes to wear. I know that there are children and families right here in Lawrence who are facing some of the same challenges today. That's something I haven't forgotten. And it's one of the reasons this opportunity for me means so much. I want young people in Lawrence to know that where you start in life, doesn't have to determine where you end up. If a kid who grew up the way I did can become a police officer, can become a lawyer, a teacher, then a child growing up here in Lawrence should know that those opportunities are possible for them too. What also makes this opportunity especially meaningful for me is that Lawrence is my home. And as I said, I live right here in Lawrence. I live, again, across the street, and I live in the heart of the city of Lawrence. I see the community every single day, and I care about what happens here. When the opportunity came up to serve as the part-time first assistant city attorney, I saw it as a chance, a chance to bring all of that experience together, law enforcement, the practice of law in education, and public service. and use it to give something back to the community that I live in. I also want to explain briefly why I'm seeking to serve in this position on a part-time basis. I am a full-time faculty member at the Massachusetts School of Law, and the law school is my current full-time employer. The dean of the law school has been very gracious to allow practicing attorneys and faculty members to continue practicing law outside of the law school on a limited part-time basis. That's why this position is structured for me as a 20-hour per week position. It also allows me to continue my commitment to my students in the law school. and while also giving me the opportunity to serve the city of Lawrence. I'm excited about this opportunity to work with the city council to work with the city attorney the administration and most importantly the people of Lawrence. I want to thank you for your consideration this evening and I respectfully ask for your support and your vote to confirm me as a part time first assistant city attorney and it would truly and I mean truly be an honor to serve the city of Lawrence.

THANK YOU, MR. RODRIGUEZ, CHENEY RODRIGUEZ. CHENEY RODRIGUEZ, BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER CHENEY RODRIGUEZ RIGHT HERE. YES. SO, CANCELLORS, ANY QUESTIONS?

I'm the city attorney. So for 20 hours a week, I just wanted to set my expectations, or maybe you could help me. What can we expect from a first city attorney with 20 hours a week?

So let's be realistic with the 20 hours. The 20 is a floating time period because he will be the litigation attorney. So he'll be handling the cases and taking it off. So if one week we need 30 hours because he's on cases, he does 30 hours. The next week, if he needs less, it's 10. So what we can expect is that I'm going to independently give him these cases, and they are his cases from start to finish. So not going to outside counsel, not paying the million dollars we're paying. I'm going to give him. He's going to handle it. My other hope, a little devious, is that I'm hoping that because of this work, he's gonna see it and he's gonna like it so much that it'll become full-time. But that's down the road. But for right now, I don't see any problem with the amount of work I have to give him at 20 hours. It's free time. The time that he's working at the law school is after 4.30 in the evening, so that works out well. So I don't see any problem with getting the 20 hours in any particular week. Like I said, if I need him more one week, he agrees he can come in. If I need him less the next week, then we can work it out. But that's my intent.

Attorney Rodriguez is very eloquent. I can already tell. I don't need to ask him. So I want to ask you. What about Attorney Rodriguez in your interview and your discussions and your interactions with him? Are you excited about saying, oh, my God, I need to get him on board. He's really going to be excellent for whatever.

First of all, there is nobody that I have met and I've talked to a wide variety of people that didn't think I just scored. I mentioned his name. People are. so abutant about what he has done, what he does at the law school, his intelligence, his help for people in the community. And I like his background. He has a what, which is important in mind. You can't be a one-trick pony. You have to know everything. the criminal background will help, you know, the school background, the teaching of the classes, everything will help in my office. So that's it. I mean, again, I don't want to, I look at you and I don't want to ignore the whole council. I apologize for that, but I just wanted to answer your question. But really, it's just the recommendations I got. I actually didn't know him prior to this. I saw him around. I actually thought he was the dean of the law school. I didn't know what his job was. But I did see him in the area because he lived so close. And then when I was introduced, when he applied, that's when I talked to many people, not just in the city, people that knew him, people from the law school, other professors, other people in the law field, and that's how I found out.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Councilor Rosario.

Thank you to you, Council President. With all those beautiful things that you talk about, Mr. Shane Rodriguez, Attorney Rodriguez, and all the need that we have for the first assistant, why did it took so long to bring him on board?

He had to apply first. Like I said, I didn't know who he was. I didn't walk down the street and grab him and say, hey, you'd be a great candidate. I didn't know. All I could get were the people that were sending in resumes. And as I've said before, and I know you're tired of the story, For the second city attorney, I got people apply that weren't even attorneys. It's just a hard field out there. It's hard to get the right person and get people that are interested in it because it's a different kind of a job. So yeah, why? Because there were other candidates in the past and I've gone through them and they just didn't turn out to be the right fit or didn't turn out to have the appropriate background.

Thank you, Councillor Andres. Are there any other questions for the candidates? Councillor Lourdes, Vice President Levy.

Thank you. It's through you, Councillor President. I'm going to do the same question, and welcome, and it's very nice to see you. I'm going to do the same question. There is not a conflict between your job and this job to do the work.

There is not a conflict between me doing the work here in City Hall and my role in the law school. Like I said, the dean of the law school allows faculty to take cases and have a private practice outside of the law school. And I've done that for quite some time, Council Levy. And so right now, this would be a fantastic opportunity since I live so close here and I'm able to like Attorney Tootin said, jump right in and start working on these cases. So I can tell you that there is no conflict of interest. And if there was a conflict of interest, I know enough that I would have to step back from that conflict of interest and do the work that I've been asked to do the work here.

Thank you. And also, the time. It's not like you have a specific time, five hours a day, three hours a day.

We're going to work that out. As I said, he doesn't start until 4.30, so the days are really going to depend on when I meet him. For instance, on Fridays, I tend to have a lot of matters that need to go to court, so Friday mornings might be a great time to have him. have him in here. Certain courts meet on certain days, so I think we'll just arrange it as things come in. Obviously, as the new cases come in, he'll be handling it, and it depends where the court is, where the location, and how much time he needs to spend on it.

If I can just add one thing, which is really ideal. Post-COVID at the law school, what we did is we went from a five-day week at the law school to four days. So on Fridays, Fridays are a day that we're able to be at home, do the work if we need to do the work at home, or catch up on assignments that we have at the law school. But it also gives us the opportunity to be able to take cases and to work cases outside, again, if we have an outside practice. So that's ideal, particularly on a Friday, if he's looking to have me do those types of things.

Thank you.

And he lives very far from City Hall. That's true. Two-minute walk.

Not as fast as I walk.

Any other questions, counselors? I've got another question. I'm just reviewing the contract. I've never seen one of these before, so just explain this provision. The language training under 7J, what is the... I've never seen that before, so just help me understand why that's in the contract.

He wishes because of the... So... In my office, on an average day, 70% of the people that come in speak Spanish. I'm lucky enough that I have my office manager that's bilingual. But I think if you work in the city of Lawrence, you really have to learn Spanish. So this is offering him to take courses to learn Spanish. I think it would help him in our office. It would help to have a lawyer that spoke Spanish. that it's kind of a bonus incentive to get him to learn Spanish. Meaning that he doesn't currently speak Spanish.

If I can just also answer that. This was my request. I think it's absolutely important that the clients that come into City Hall and the people that we serve, we owe them the ability to speak in their language, in their native language. And if I can learn how to speak Spanish, I think, and then be in the office, there may be days when there's someone who's not in the office. And so to have that kind of ABILITY TO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK SPANISH WAS SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME. AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S TAKEN THIS LONG, PARTICULARLY WITH THE LAST NAME OF RODRIGUEZ, TO DO THIS. BUT THIS IS AN INCENTIVE FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THIS TO BE IN THE CONTRACT. AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.

THANK YOU, ATTORNEY RODRIGUEZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILORS? JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE CITY OF LONDON IS HIRED. a part-timer as an attorney. And so far, what I can tell you is that it works because as far as I remember, the last person that we have as a part-timer, it was attorney Ruano, George Ruano today. She was a part-timer and then she become a full-timer and she become the city attorney. So it works.

And not that long ago, the majority of the office was part-time. The city attorney was full-time, and I believe there were four other attorneys. They were all part-time.

Yep. Councilors, any other questions? At this point, councilors, I'll call the questions. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Congratulations. Thank you.

Jenny. Copy. Do you have the original?

I have one of my own.

all right counselors we're going uh to can i get a motion can i get a motion to untable item 28 Can I get a motion to untable item 287-26? So moved. Second. There's a motion in front of us. Properly seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. So now we have the appointment of Juan Miguel Lopez to the licensing board. This was tabled back in 8-5-2026. Counselor. Counselor. Counselor Infante.

Just as the other item, item 287-26, was sent up as a favorable recommendation, and now I'm making that as a formal motion once again. Second.

There's a motion in front of us to approve, properly second. Discussion. I would like to start first to apologize to... Mr. Juan Miguel Lopez, due to the fact that he was here at the last meeting, and for some reason we missed it. And then all of a sudden he tells us, oh, I'm here for the appointment. But we apologize for that. Councillors, any questions? He has his application as part of the package. So, Councillor Blank. Sure, thank you. Oh, before you continue. This position have a particular request from the state law. And it's a partisan position. One of the candidates have to be a Republican. Another one have to be a Democrat. And a third position have to be the mayor have decide either party. or unenrolled. In this case, the candidate in front of us has been voting Democrat, just for the record.

Let me start with that question. So there is a Republican on the board already? Yes. Pardon me? Michael Laird. Thank you. So when I think of the licensing board, Mr. Lopez, A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES. THERE'S GAMING, THERE'S COMMON GAME, POOL TABLES, GAMING, ET CETERA, BUT THE BIG ONE TO ME, AND IT GETS ALL THE ATTENTION, ARE THE BARS AND THE NIGHT CLUBS. AND I JUST WANT TO GET A SENSE FROM YOU, BECAUSE I THINK THE LICENSING BOARD they actually have somebody from the police department sitting in the license board. So they're an important part. So I want to get a sense from you, your perspective on the activities of the bars and the nightclubs in the city. And do you think that, from your perspective, do you believe that the city currently, that there are very few problems with that? Or do you think that there are some real significant issues that need to be dealt with? Where do you fall on that spectrum?

Thank you, thank you. Good evening, counselors. Miguel Lopez, 87 Belknap Street, Lawrence. It's pretty interesting you ask that question. I've been in Lawrence for 34 years, so I've been here essentially all my life. I came to the States when I was 13 years old, and I've seen a lot of Lawrence evolve throughout the years. So if you ask someone like me, I could say it's been a rollercoaster ride. As of recent, there's been a lot of things that are happening. related to the nightlife, related to drinking and bars and things that are not what I would like to see the city be doing. I'm a father of four. I am a law-abiding citizen. I want things done by the book. I spent over 25 years in corporate America, held various roles, management roles, director roles. My last role was related to transparency reporting. And that to me is being accountable, being responsible, and doing the right thing when people aren't watching is essentially when you should be doing the right things, right? And I think that we can definitely make some tweaks. There's been deaths in the city. There's been a lot of violence in the city as a result of nightclubs coming out of late activities. And I definitely want to be part of making sure that this is a safe community for all of us.

When we had, when I say we, when the United States hosted the World Cup about two months ago now, something like that, because Foxborough was a place where some of the World Cup games were being offered, that the state legislature allowed communities to go ahead and extend the hours of the nightclubs and the bars, I think until, I wanna say two?

An extra hour, correct. Extra hour.

But I don't know if that's been repealed back to its original.

I believe it has, yes. It was only for the month of July.

What is your thought on having nightclubs open?

I was shocked to see that for the first time in 34 years, for that to get expanded. The clubs used to be open and the bars used to be open up until 2 o'clock in the morning, and then that changed to only being Fridays. Saturdays and Sundays went back to 1 a.m. And now it's 1 o'clock, 1 a.m. Correct.

What are your thoughts on that, what it is currently?

I don't think we need longer hours. I think we need to keep it the same and make sure that the city doesn't get out of hand with activities, violence, fights, shootings.

My last question, Mr. President, is this. There have been some members of the licensing board over the past, since my time here, some have been with the police department, saw firsthand, closing hours, what's happening and seeing firsthand what they're experiencing. And some are satisfied just getting the testimony, sitting here and listening to the testimony from there. Where do you fit on that spectrum? Are you the kind of person that's going to want to, if given the opportunity, go with the police department and see what's happening at the various nightclubs and bars throughout the city? Or are you going to be satisfied getting the reports and then rendering whatever the decision is based on the testimony you're hearing?

A combination of both. I don't want to just go off of what I hear. If we get the opportunity to be on the floor and check out what's going on, I think that would be ideal. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions?

Reading your resume and you just mentioned you've lived in the city for 34 years. Are you familiar with the majority of the nightclubs and the owners of the nightclubs in the city?

Yes.

The reason why I ask is because Oftentimes, that's where the hard decision comes because it's like we're familiar with the owners. We live here, so we also consume and partake on our days off. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's that fine line of now within this position that you're potentially going to have, will you have the ability to say no to these very people that you could be friends with or you're familiar with? Do you have the ability to potentially having to revoke or penalize them? I just want to hear from you.

Absolutely. I don't play favoritism. I think that you get what you deserve. I'm a firm believer of that. And if you're doing something that's wrong, that's illegal, that's outside the code, then there are consequences to that. I say that for everybody. I say that for myself.

Okay. Thank you. I had the opportunity to ask questions during your initial interview round, so thank you for that. But I do want to add, and I know you've made your stance very clear, but I wish for you to you are, the way that you're presenting yourself. I'm gonna use the 3 a.m. extension as an example. Like you, I was shocked to see that that happened.

I thought it was crazy.

And I did reach out to members. and the sentiment was there was pressure. So not just by owners, but also within this building. So I want to make sure that, because it will happen, there will be pressure, that you keep these values and ensure that you assess the full picture and not let the buzzing or the pressure get to you at the end of the day.

Those that have known me for a long time understand that I walk a straight line. I don't deviate from that. I'm called the strict guy. And, you know, I'll take that other than being called something else, right? I'd rather be the strict guy. I'd rather be the one you can rely on that you can rest assured that I'm going to make the decision that's right, not the one that favors me or someone else.

Thank you. Madam Vice President Levy. Thank you. I pass the gavel over to the Vice President Levy because I have a few questions and also a couple of statements that I would like to discuss with you. I have had this opportunity to vote in favor and against board members, specifically the licensing board, for specific reasons. And questions that I have, I want to keep it consistent with you. The way that I see this board is an economic development board because you have to deal with the licenses and those licenses also are important part of the local economy. Sometimes we just focusing on the, on the bars and the clubs and so far so one, but there is a lot more that have to deal with this specific board, one of the most important board of the city. So what do you think or what are your thoughts about this board being an essential portion of the economic development here in Lawrence?

I think it makes the world go round. It's needed, but as long as we're following the compliance, as long as we're following the regulation, right? Let's make the decision to move forward with it as long as all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted, so...

So the reason why I'm asking is because we always focus on the negative portion of the board when somebody gets suspended or when a bar owner gets punished because of specific reasons. Sometimes those reasons are based on specific reports. I have a fundamental issue, and I'm going to tell you right now what it is. One of the fundamental issues that I have is the police department actually sit on the table. And the reason why I have fundamental issues on that is because if you got appointed today, you're gonna be one of the judges of specific situations that happen down there at the city with a specific particular situation that has been presented to you on a report. So the judge, they look at the different versions of the situation, and they look at the facts and make a determination. And the way that the city of Lawrence operates right now, the police department and sometimes the firefighter department and the ISD sit down with the board as part of the board. which at the end of the day, it is not, it is potentially a biased report that you're receiving because the city wanna move in that direction. But not necessarily it happen all the time in the way that it's presented. And I believe that they should be sitting in front of you and present the facts. And all the bodies that are potentially the one that are being affected also present the facts in front of you and you make the determination. So that's not happening in Lawrence. And I would like to get your thoughts on that.

That's pretty interesting. It takes me back to a role I had. good 15 plus years ago, where I became a complaint investigator. My trainer literally took me under her wings and taught me how to how to put things in their place, right? And start from scratch and literally take it all along the way. And she described it as painting the story. You have to paint the story. So something happened with the product, this is an allegation. the product, someone was involved with the product, and there was a result of what happened. And all of that comes in, and then we have to assess it, take it from scratch to what the customer says. Then we do some testing to confirm whether or not that piece of equipment malfunctioned so that we can make a well-designed, well-decided conclusion as to what the results really are. Did the machine malfunction or was it user error, right? So those kinds of things are very interesting to me because they're very logical. I'm a very logical person. I'm a ones and zeros and let's look at the facts and let's see where it takes us. So I think I can definitely contribute. to an area where you really need to hone things down and review the facts and consider the probabilities. How likely is it to happen? And if it did, how serious would it be? What are the implications that come as a result of that? So I think I could definitely be a great contributor to this role.

No, and the way that you're presenting yourself, I think that you're going to be a good candidate for the board. Also, you need to take into consideration the accessibility. There is people that have more access than others when it comes to presenting information to the board. and also that get into the department, the city departments that get involved with the potential decision that the board is gonna take. Different board have different perspective and different way of operating. This particular board is a three people's board. So if two of them are in favor and one is against it, it's a done deal. I just want to make sure you understand the importance of this board and how this could affect or benefit any portion of the community at any time, and not necessarily focusing on the alcohol licenses or anything related to that matters. It could be a lot more. than just that specific topic. That's the topic. That's the hot topic, but that's not the only topic. There is suspensions that are being offered to a specific situation that happened on a questionable situation based on a specific report that potentially can be thrown out of court. But in the meantime, the board made the decision, and eventually people suffer consequences of that. And that could be a business that goes down the hole because of a situation that was not quite presented or analyzed.

I understand.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate that you came in front of us today. Thank you for the opportunity, guys.

All right.

Councillor, any more discussion or question? Councilor Rosario.

Thank you to you, Madam Vice Chair. Mr. Lopez, first of all, I want to say thank you. I know you for a long time, and I know why you put it on the line just to serve for free. And people don't know that. Sometimes we don't take in perspective what people are losing. When they sit on the board, they got to make decision and strong decision. And because I know you, I know you're a straight guy, and I know you're going to do a great job, I want to say thank you. And think about it before we take a vote, because you're going to put a lot on the line, and the way that you live and you move yourself. There's pressure coming. People are going to turn against you when you make a decision, and I know you're going to make the right decision.

I can handle pressure.

And I know that. Think about it, but I want to say thank you, because you're putting a lot on the line just to serve the city for free. Thank you. Thank you.

Council, any other question or any other discussion? So there is a motion on the table to appoint Juan Miguel Lopez to the licensing board. All those in favor? Aye. Any no? Say aye, Javier.

Thank you, guys. It's been a pleasure.

Thank you. Congratulations. So what do we have? All right, going on top of the agenda with the committee reports. We have a couple of people here present. Let's go straight to the Finance Committee. Madam Chair from the Finance Committee.

Thank you. The first item, Council President, item 354-26. I'm actually going to make a motion to table as the auditors were not able to make tonight's meeting.

There's a motion to table. Properly second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Item 355-26.

Item 355-26, authorization to expend $3,099,150 funding from settlement agreement following the Columbia gas explosions for clean and efficient municipal energy projects. was sent up as a favorable recommendation in the amount of 379,000 for the council to expand for these projects, and I make that as a formal motion.

There's a motion in front of us. Properly second discussion.

Selena. Oh, Councilor Reyes, sorry.

Any questions?

Council President.

Councilor Vice President Levy.

So are we talking about the item 35526? Correct. Because the amount that we have in here is $3 million.

We just recommend $379,000. $379,000. Okay.

In the meantime. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

Any questions for this amount? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Item 370-26.

Item 370-26, authorization to expend $60,000 from the state fair share transportation earmark program was sent up as a favorable recommendation, and I make that as a formal motion. Is there a motion in front of us?

Properly seconded. Discussion? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. The ayes have it. Item 371.26.

Item 371-26, appropriation at addendum to fund school lease contract. Addendum. Addendum to fund school lease contract transfer in the amount of $720,000 from account, which account?

02-30-10.

But what? 02. Stabilization of reserve. From the stabilization of reserve to account. School lease. TO ACCOUNT SCHOOL LEASE WAS SENT UP AS A FAVORAL RECOMMENDATION, AND I MAKE THAT AS A FORMAL MOTION.

IS THERE A MOTION IN FRONT OF US? CAN I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND. PROPERLY SECOND. DISCUSSION? DISCUSSION.

CLEARLY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GOT SOMETHING HE WANTS TO SAY ON THIS. NO, NO. SO I'M ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AND LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED ON HERE. THIS WAS, FRANKLY, matter that I use the word waste just because it's unnecessary spending. We may not, we may be able to be made whole with respect to getting monies for what was formerly known as the old Leahy I'm not sure what you want to call it, substation or whatever, the place where they had the students go to while the school was being constructed on Merrimack Street, excuse me. And I don't know if there's anybody from the school department here to speak on this matter.

There is.

And maybe somebody can tee it up for my colleagues here with the issue we're voting on this evening. I'll help. This is a... Yeah, context would be good, and then I'll fill in the gaps. Thanks.

Good evening, members of the Council. I'm Jason Cabrera, Chief Financial Officer for Lawrence Public Schools. I'll try to answer as much as I know. This is usually the COO, the Chief Operating Officer is the one that handles the leases and facilities and all that, but I'm here on behalf of the schools. The property on Merrimack Street, we renewed that lease last year. For context, this is what was happening at that time. We were coming out of COVID. We went from 22, 23, increasing enrollment. 23, 24, increasing enrollment. 24, 25, increasing enrollment. 25, 26, we lost 358 students. And next year, for this year, the October 1st numbers, which is what the state uses to fund schools, as of right now, as of today, we are down 306 students. So when we talk about students and money, The 358, for example, is almost $8 million that we are not getting because we don't have those students. Same thing for next year, 300 will equate to roughly about $7 million. So that is the context. We were in the up and up as far as enrollment. We do more, I don't know that in the past we did, or maybe we didn't do it as good as far as projected, but that's something that is not exclusive of the city of Lawrence, losing students, but it hit us harder than was expected and that space is not needed.

I don't quibble with any of that. My quibble with this entire discussion, and it helped me understand this a little bit more, was that initially there was a sum to lease it for another additional, I think, was it three years? Three years, yes. About $900,000? $982,000 and some change, yes. Almost $1,982,000, but fortunately... And we were going to pay $982,000 for a space that we weren't going to occupy and not going to use because now the Leahy School is fully functional and students are over there. Now the amount because of some sort of, my understanding, is that there was some sort of negotiation and a settlement was reached where we would have to pay $720,000 to the leaser or whoever that is that owns the building. So we're gonna be paying $720,000. I realize there's some other plans potentially, but right now, what are we getting for $720,000?

We're getting a space that we're not paying $900,000 for.

That's very polite and very... But what is being used besides having an empty space? What is that being used?

Currently, we do not have possession of it, we being the city. Let's be very specific. There is the school in the city. So what... He was trying to say is the school was hedging its bet. The school, the increase in the amount of students meant that even with the new school, they were going to have students that needed to go someplace if that trajectory kept going. So that's why they entered into the lease, so that they would be placed to educate the students. When it dropped, unfortunately, as you know, the money for the school comes from the state. And the state... based on the amount of students you have. So that was paid for in the first year because you had the students. Second and third year, they don't have the students, the state isn't gonna give you the money, so you now have a lease with two more years and no students to put in there. So the city has taken over that obligation, or is asking to take over that obligation. And we have plans, but until you approve the money, until we pay the thing, I can't tell you who's going in there. Some, I have a lot of ideas and a lot of people, but until it's actually transacted, I can't say anything because I don't know. I haven't signed anybody on the dot.

So that's, and that leads to my next question, which, who approved this? Who approved and said, yes, this is how we're gonna proceed. We're gonna buy some insurance. We're gonna lease this for three years, just in case we don't know what's going to happen. Who approved this?

The school department.

Who in the school department? Was there an LAE? Was there an overseer? Was it a superintendent? Was it the fiscal officer? Who approved it?

Well, I don't know internally, but the superintendent signed the contract. As did the mayor.

So who are the parties to the contract? The mayor, the superintendent, who else?

Well, you would have the CAFO. Again, whoever is on every contract. There would be procurement. I signed as to form when the mayor signs. Again, I'm trying to remember the back of the contract. Comptroller's office. The normal signatures on every contract.

So... There's one, so everybody that is signing has a piece of the pie. Correct. So the attorney, according to form, CAFO has a piece of the pie. She is signing it. She can explain better than I what her responsibilities are in a contract, and maybe she'll tell... Tell us what that is.

I believe it's pretty simple. She's saying that there's money to pay in the first year. Because, again, we can't look to the future. We could be bankrupt in year two and three. She can't forecast that.

So far, neither you nor the Capo has made policy discussions on this. You said, yeah, according to form. The Capo said, yes, we have the money.

I'm sorry. That's not what the contract says.

Okay, please help me.

So the contract says, I hereby certify that no appropriation is available for and encumbered against this contract. The vendor will receive a city purchase order, which will be authorization to ship the supplies and or render the services. Basically I'm saying, no funds have been encumbered for this expense.

Those funds have been encumbered. Have not. Have not been.

Yes.

Secure the funding.

Right, in this case, no funding was put aside on a purchase order.

So, so far, thank you, thank you. We have two more signatories on this. Somebody has the contract? Who's got the contract?

Thank you.

All right, so we have, We have the capo. We have the attorney. Now we have the comptroller. And what's the comptroller's role in this? So that's the certification. That's the certification. So you and the, is that duplicative? No. Are you both, both you and the Comptroller doing the same thing?

So basically I'm signing because over one year, anything over one year, the capital has to sign.

Okay, okay, so it's over a year, okay. And so that remains. I see the Mayor. Walter H. Callahan.

Procurement for the schools.

For the schools. That's our school department. Yes. Not the state, okay. And so the mayor signs it because the mayor signs all contracts.

Yes.

And Callahan signs it because he's what? He's a procurement officer making sure that this is done legally and lawfully.

Right. Okay.

We're running out of signatures. And there's Ralph Carrera on the superintendent schools. His role is what?

He is the one that negotiated the lease, determined whether that was a need of the school, et cetera.

Okay.

So in any contract, the person that requests it is the person that signs it. In other words, if it's DPW, the DPW director signs it. If I want something, it's me that signs it. Whoever needs the service or contained in the contract, that's who signed it.

The policymaker in this particular document, the person who is saying whatever assistance he's getting, his name's on here, the superintendent of schools has stated, aye. a need correct to to acquire or have access to this property for the reasons that mr carrera already mentioned about making sure we've got enough space just in case but he made that decision correct okay and we couldn't okay so so we i don't know I'm going to tell you why this still troubles me. Thank you for that. And the last signature, so we're all clear, the last signature was Albert Nunez, who apparently is his contractor. He's the landlord. The landlord. The owner. Okay. Thank you. So what's concerning to me is this. I get the argument. We purchased essentially a $970,000 insurance policy. in case we needed space. And I don't know, I mean, if this was the city council, if this was something internally, There would be some accountability. If the DPW said, or the police department, you name the department, non-school side, we're going to have a major expenditure. During the budget discussions, we always ask these questions. I see half a million dollars. What is that for? Well, the half a million dollars is for blah, blah, blah. we don't have we don't drill down because that's not our job to drill down on the school department's budget that's a school department committee capital not capo but overseer that's their thing right we have to make sure all the numbers at the end of the year add up revenues equal expenditures we got to make sure that happens But here, it just strikes me that we're about to spend, we were originally about to spend almost a million dollars for an insurance policy, and I'm just not convinced that we did the right, I understand the logic, but I'm not sure, what were the other options?

No, I agree. Unfortunately, again, I know you hate the, the horse has left the barn.

I get that.

I mean, I'm happy. I'm not happy either. If this contract were in front of me and I was negotiating it currently, I would not have terms in there. I would change the terms. I would do things differently. Unfortunately, I didn't have the ability to do that. I think the school, and again, because they get their money from the state, They operate on different rules. If you say the DPW, the DPW can do projections because they know I'm going to have so much road next year, I better have that money in my budget, et cetera. The schools, it's all dependent on amount of people there. And again, they could have had, it could have gone the other way. They could have gotten 600 new students and the next thing you know, they have no place to put them. Again.

I'll leave you with this. I think because of the argument that you made at the budget committee, we really have no, your quote, the horse is out of the barn. We have to spend this money now. We have to. If we don't, we'll be in violation of the contract. And then more damages, it's worse. We have to. Now, I understand we're going to take the lemons, we're going to make some lemonade, potentially, once we have this, and we may do some things there. But my God, does this stink, the way we're doing it this way? I don't like being in this position where I'm paying for an empty building for two years, because now I have to. Or it could be worse if I don't. It'd be irresponsible. As much as I hate this, if me for devote no on this, it'd be irresponsible. We're setting my city, our city up to a very bad place. And I don't want to do that.

I understand perfectly. And that's why.

I just, I just, I'm sorry that I'm. I need to vent a little bit because I have no problem. This to me is very black and white on this. And I realize you find the school department's throwing some gray in there. I get that. But to get to this point to me, it seems unnecessary. And in a city like Lawrence, when I have to contact, when someone's talking to me about sidewalks, someone's talking to me about roads, someone's talking to me, I want to get this. Somebody today asked me that I want to dig something in DPW. They need a manhole cover. They need a storm drain done. And I go... It's going to be hard to get that. It's going to be this. The money's going to be the issue. But yet we're going to spend $720,000 for an empty building for two years. That we have money to. That drives me crazy. That's all I'm going to say. I'm voting yes, but...

Thank you. Something very important in this situation. So the city do not have possession of the building as of yet. The intent of the city, is the city planning to potentially do something with it or rent it?

We're looking to sublease it. We also have certain departments that may be moving there. So they'll be used by the city. So that's planned. Again, those are higher level decisions. I don't make those decisions. But yes, there is a plan. And we also are actively pursuing buyers of the property. We're looking for everything to remediate what we owe.

Let's see how proactive we are when it comes to this building. Councillor De Rosario.

Thank you for you. On budget season, when we were talking about putting the money for the transportation, also the leases came up, right? Mm-hmm. Was that involved in that? Did we know back in those days that we were going to be responsible for that and we were going to get the money out? Because I remember that when we asked the questions about the leases, it says they all cover. And now it says we've got to pay $700,000 that they weren't presented back in that budget. So if I'm wrong, I just need some lightning when it comes to that because I was in the perception that every lease was taken care of it. Now this curve ball, now you throw me this curve ball, and I feel the same way as my consular plan here, that... I don't want the city to be in the compromise of being sued by Mr. Nunes, right? Because now we have to basically vote yes on this and take care of this issue that again, it was brought up into the budget season and we were okay with all the leases. So I want some clarify how this did not come up. When we were doing the numbers.

No, I think that, Councillor Rosario, I think that it was the opposite. When we were, during that time, something that we were discussing, it was the transportation, and the city was not quite clear, but they said that, oh, the lease situation is going to come up. Am I correct? They told me that was all covered. Let's clarify that, because there wasn't a question that we didn't...

They told me the lease was all covered while we... I mean, we were talking about the transportation money, and the leases come up, and they... I believe that Councilman Marmo was the one that asked the question, and they told us, for this year coming up, all the leases are covered. That's what I said. Yes. And now we... This, we have this now. I'm gonna look at the video.

Yes. Nope, you're 100% Councillor De Rosario. We provided the leases that the school department requested based on the current leases that they had. Now just to give you a little bit of history on this particular situation, we had a previous contract with the landlord at this location for three years. Then that was renewed for another three year term. The school department paid for the first year, and the second year, the city was expected to pay because of DESE regulations. After three years, the leases become part of the city's responsibility. Yes, so this lease was not part of the budget at the time, because the school paid for the first year, and then the second year, which starts July 1st, it was, we went back and forth, we're trying to figure it out, but it wasn't presented to us until later in the process, so this was not part of the budget. the budget included every lease that the school department had requested per the budget book so if you look at their budget book that's the leases we covered for the school's request this particular one unfortunately came in late and um that we're just trying to catch up got it

Any other questions, Councillor?

Councillor Miguel. I just want to have some clarification in terms of... the previous contract that we have and now three more years. Was that consecutive or do we have another term? Yes.

So it was three years and then another three years. So that's where, while the schools were being built, that's where your students were being taught.

Are we allowed to engage the city like a multiple contract without going through council approval or do we actually get council approval? LIKE, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY CONTRACT THAT GOES PAST THREE YEARS NEEDS TO GET A CONSOLE APPROVAL. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING TWO CONTRACTS. TWO CONTRACTS OF THREE YEARS EACH. TOTAL OF SIX.

RIGHT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED, YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED BEYOND THE FIRST THREE YEARS, SO IT'S THREE AND THREE AND THREE. SAME AS IF THEY DID TWO, TWO, TWO, YOU HAVE NOTHING THAT'S OVER.

WE ARE ENGAGING INTO THE SAME CONTRACT AGAIN WITH THE SAME PRODUCT. SO THAT RULE OF GETTING Council approval past three years, it wouldn't make any sense if we can just do two or two and two. Like per procurement regulations.

Again, I didn't do it. I don't want to speak out of turn.

Also, I noticed the accounts that were transferring the money, is that from free cash or any particular funding?

Stabilization.

Oh, that's the reining funds. From where? The reining funds. Okay.

Any other questions.

Councilman from thank you.

Correct. Clarification for the for the capital of capital when you are answering. Council there was a real you mentioned that this wasn't anticipated correct me if I'm wrong want to make sure that I understood what you were saying that this particular lease was not included because there was still some back and forth a current correct.

Yes, so the school paid the first year. The city did not know that we had to pay the second year or take over the lease until later in the budget season. So when we passed the budget, we were still trying to figure out where the funds were going to come from. Are we going to get more money here? So we tried every possible way we could to avoid doing this, but unfortunately, we did not get another solution.

Right, I know, I understand that that portion of it, my I guess my question comes now, why wasn't there and I understand that we're still some missing pieces of the puzzle during that time. But why wasn't there a risk assessment analyzed or included in the the the financial analysis when you guys were preparing the budget in case something like this were to happen?

We were hoping the school was going to pay for it, and unfortunately, that did not happen.

Okay. And my second question is either for you or the city attorney. The city attorney mentioned the possibility of an option being subleasing. Does the contract allow for us to do such action? Yes. Okay.

Specifically, that was known in our negotiations with the landlord. Specifically, we had brought up the many things that we were willing to do. Look for a tenant for him, sublease it, put in certain departments, try to get a buyer of the property. Many of these things, and again, I don't want to... There are many people that are interested in purchasing things, as you know, because of the LRA, that now have no place to purchase, that might be interested in this property.

I wanted to make sure that was OK because sometimes I know landlords are sometimes iffy when it comes to sub leasing. I specifically made sure that that was in there. All right. Thank you. Thank you for those qualifications.

Any other questions, Councillor? At this point, I'll call the questions. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it.

Thank you very much, Councilors, appreciate that.

So, Councilors, we have, let's go back to the top of the agenda, public hearings. Madame Claire, please read the notice for item 10426. So 104.26, 139.26, 140.26, 166.26, 242.26, and 307.26.

Notice is hereby given that the Lawrence City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber's 200 Common Street, Lawrence, Mass., pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, and in accordance with recently revised City Council Rule 2. This meeting will be hybrid, allowing for participation both in person and remotely to accommodate participants with health considerations that prevent them from participating in person. To receive access codes for remote participation, Please contact the city clerk at eileen.brunel at cityoflawrence.com or 978-620-3230 or view the meeting on Facebook and YouTube. The purpose of the hearing is to gather testimony, information, and public input concerning the proposed amendments to revised ordinances of the City of Lawrence to be further amended by adding the following subparagraphs to Section 10.36.340 of the Municipal Code of Handicapped Parking in the proper alphabetical order. DOCUMENT NUMBER 104-26, GARDEN STREET NORTH SIDE FROM A POINT 265 FEET EAST OF JACKSON STREET TO A POINT 285 FEET EAST OF JACKSON STREET. DOCUMENT NUMBER 139-26, LANSDOWN COURT WEST SIDE FROM A POINT 20 FEET SOUTH OF BLAKEMORE COURT TO A POINT 40 FEET SOUTH OF BLAKEMORE COURT. Document number 140-26, Lowell Street, north side, from a point 70 feet east of Winter Street to a point 90 feet east of Winter Street. Document number 166-26, Kent Street, north side, from a point 320 feet... WEST OF SOUTH UNION STREET TO A POINT 340 FEET WEST OF SOUTH UNION STREET TALKING NUMBER 242-26 BROOKS STREET EAST SIDE FROM A POINT 353 FEET NORTHEAST OF UNION STREET TO POINT 555 FEET NORTHEAST OF UNION STREET DOCUMENT NUMBER 307-26 WEST STREET EAST SIDE FROM 1.170 FEET NORTH OF FLORENCE STREET TO 1.190 FEET NORTH OF FLORENCE STREET AND FURTHER AMENDED BY DELETING THE FOLLOWING SUBPARAGRAPHS OF SECTION 10.36.340 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE INDICATE PARKING DOCUMENT 333-26 BUNKER HILL STREET EAST SIDE FROM 1.250 FEET SOUTH OF BUSSWELL STREET TO 1.270 FEET SOUTH OF BUSSWELL STREET AND DOCUMENT 334-20 STREET 334-26 Alder Street, south side, from 0.80 feet west of Poplar Street to 0.100 feet west of Poplar Street. Persons wishing to be heard shall be afforded the opportunity.

Public hearing is now open. Anybody from the public that wishes to speak? There is none. Public hearing is now closed. Councilors, I entertain a motion to take all those items as a block if it is any objection. It's a motion to take it as a block. Any objection to that? It's been properly seconded. Discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. SO COMMUNICATION FROM THE MAYOR, CITY OFFICIALS, CITY CHENEY. THAT IS NON-COMMITTED REPORT. WE ALREADY FINISHED WITH BAYANO FINANCE COMMITTEE. SO HOUSING COMMITTEE, THAT IS NO REPORT. ORDINANCE COMMITTEE. COUNCILOR, VICE PRESIDENT, LEVY. WE HAVE, IF IT IS NO OBJECTION WITH THE COUNCIL, I would like to take item 125, 256, 26, 274, 26, 302, 26, 325, 25, 303, 26, 306, 26, 338, 26, 362, 26, 380, 26, 381, 26, and 382, 26 as a block if it is not a judgment. And all those items are to order a public hearing. There is a motion in front of us, properly seconded, to take it all as a block. Madam Clerk, do you mind reading all those? Yeah, can you just give me the history of all of it item of 125 which is resident parking only on Washington Street. I don't know to 56. 26 resident parking on Greenwood Street. I don't to 74 not one on one. one-on-one, 25, which is resident parking at Lake Street. 274, 26, request for zoning, no, 274, 302 26. Handicap parking at 66 Elm Street. 325 26. Resident parking on Water Street. This is the window, sorry. 306 26. Handicap parking at 83 Warden Street. 338 26. Childcare at 63 Boswell Street. 380-26 remove handicap parking at 65 Union Street. 381-26 remove handicap parking at 321 Union Street. 382-26 remove handicap parking at 124 Tremont Street. And any other? Trio. 3 of 5 handicap parking at 22 Reservoir Terrace. That's what we do. Yeah, no, I think that we we call it right. So all those items are to order a public hearing any other.

That's it.

All right any addition to take it as a block and to order a public hearing. I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Item 32525, resident parking at Water Street, that's to withdraw. Item 27826, handicap parking at 72 Tundrake Street, to withdraw. Item 326, handicap parking at 428 Andover Street, that's to withdraw. Item 301, 26, handicap parking at 99 Berkeley Street, to withdraw. Item 305, 26, handicap parking at 22 Reservoir Terrace, to withdraw. If it is no objections, we would like to take that as a block, to withdraw. Any objections? There is a motion in front of us. Properly second discussion. I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, did we miss anything?

The last one.

There's a motion to, there is a motion? A motion to withdraw that item. Can I hear a second? Second. Properly second. Discussion? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, there is any missing one?

You said, what was the number you said, Council? I apologize. The one you just withdrew.

259. 25 or 26? 26.

26. I get it. Yeah, no, I thought you said that one. Okay, perfect. I got it.

That's great. So 278, 279, and 300 are for withdrawals, also 26.

There is a motion to withdraw item 278, 26, 279, 26, and 326. Do we have those before us? All right. Let's get a motion for that.

Motion to withdraw.

Motion to withdraw. Can I get a second? Properly second. Discussion? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it.

Yeah, I do. I just thought that we have two that didn't get dealt with. One is that sidewalk display, and the other one is the councilor's dedication.

Correct. So we have two more items that we're going to deal with, and that's item 32226 and also 38626. Madam Chair, from the Ordinance Committee, item 32226.

So the item 3-22-26 is the... Mic. Oh, I'm sorry. Item 3-22-26 is the Dedication Honorary Former Lawrence City Council Mirka Alvarez-Rodriguez was sent to the full council with favorable recommendation to order a public hearing.

Second.

This is the order, yes, to order a public hearing. That's for the... Second. It's an ordinance, so we need a public hearing for an ordinance. Who are we? Through you, Council President.

From the Parliamentary Commission? Yeah. It's through you, Council President. We honor it, so we should approve this here. if we have what we're going to honor it. So it shouldn't have a public hearing. Because it's honoring what we're doing. It's to honor it, if I'm not mistaken.

So let's go back to the clerk. Is this an ordinance? Does it have to be registered as an ordinance?

So earlier today, Councilor Del Rosario gave me an excellent heads up. He said, can you look at what we did with Juan Pablo Duarte Boulevard in Route 28? And in that one, we specifically made a note in the file that reads, As it was a ceremonial renaming of the street for honorary purposes and not an actual renaming of the street, there was no public hearing required. If you are going to actually rename a street, we should have a public hearing. If you're doing it for an honorary purpose, which is what I understand the council's desire to be, then you don't need to have the public hearing. So that is actually great that you had me look that up today. But if that's what we're doing, I'm unclear on what street we're talking about.

All right, no problem. So let's clear this up. So we're not changing the name of Fremont Street. We are just doing like some type of boulevard on top of the name. That's correct.

Yeah, that would be, it seems long, but it would be Fremont Street from Hampshire. if we approve it, it will be four signs that we're going to put up. And eventually, I hope that the family will pick what's closest to the house to do, I mean, the reveal or the dedication that they're looking for. One piece of information that I was looking for back in those days is that Even though Nicole Alvarez wasn't Dominican, she was one of the biggest advocate for Juan Pablo Duarte's boulevard, which is amazing. She was one of the biggest advocate for us to name Juan Pablo Duarte's boulevard, and now we have the option to give her back what she fought for us to have while she wasn't Dominican. She thought it was the right thing to do for us as a community to have part of the Broadway, which it was short, now we have a longer, And she advocated for that. And talking to the family, I believe that we have done this before, so it's nothing new. And we're not renaming the street. So I believe this would serve the purpose of what the family and what she deserves. I mean, the first option that I gave was the triangle and Bennington Street because... the group that we had told me to do a research, what do you have to see? So that's what I have available that I didn't have to change any names. But after speaking with the family, the family wanted to be closer to where Her political and her life actually, her political life started and all her service started, which is on Tremont Street, and I actually understand and I fully support and I hope my colleagues also support that. There will be not renaming of the street. It will be honoring Nick Alvarez on Tremont Street from Hampshire Street to West Street. Thank you.

Yeah, I got the mapping here.

I think it's in the entire street.

Yes, it's the complete street from West Street. So all the Tremont Street up to Hampshire Street.

Yeah, that's the end of the street.

Yeah, and basically it will be four blocks where the street sign is. It's about four signs that if we approve it, that I hope we do, that we need to put up.

Yeah. Councilors, any questions? So I just want to, Councilor Brown.

Just a comment on how this was started off, this proposal. I think in the future we should be very more mindful that rather than saying we want to honor somebody, throw something on the agenda, and then figure it out later. We need to put a proposal on the agenda saying we want to do a street, a corner. We want a stop sign. We want a handicap. We need to be specific when we throw something on there. Just not say, I want to honor somebody and I don't know. Whatever we come up with will be worked. This is what happened here. And I don't think, according to our Rule 13, this is really not what we're supposed to be doing. I understand we're going to do it tonight. But I just was hoping in the future that we were more mindful of how we're supposed to do it.

No, I mean, in Council Lapland, the first day that we brought this up to the agenda, that was part of the discussion. We want to make sure, like, you know, we have something that provides some content to the people up there as to what we're doing. And definitely, that's definitely a point that we need to take into consideration. Something that was brought up to social media and some councillors were getting hit. It was like questions around when the ordinance committee sent this item over to the full council as a recommendation. Thank you. A question was asked, a fair recommendation of what? And it is important to clarify that when we send something to the full council with a fair recommendation, that means that it's a positive recommendation from the subcommittee to the full council so we can move on as per the recommendation of the committee. If it is a committee report, and then that means that the committee didn't get into an agreement as of what to do with that item and allow the city council to start from scratch and present any potential suggestion. On this particular case, the committee sent this item WITH A FAIR RECOMMENDATION INDICATING THAT IT WAS A POSITIVE SITUATION THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT COMMITTEE AND SUCCESSFULLY COMES OVER TO THE FULL COUNCIL RECOMMENDING IT.

THROUGH YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE THROUGH YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I LEFT TODAY. I MEAN, I HAVE HAD A COMMITMENT. OUR MEETING ACTUALLY STARTED A LITTLE LATER THAN WHAT WE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED. AND I HAD THAT PROPOSAL TO SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE. with the recommendation that it needed and the request that it was gonna be. But I do apologize on my behalf and I do apologize to the committee that I left and I also did not pass the notes, even though we have the emails of what the family actually required. But the clarification of what needed to be done, it wasn't shared until today and I do apologize for that. It wasn't clarified and that's where we are right now. But I mean, again. Yeah, we could try not to happen again, and I agree with Councillor LaPlante. We need, when we put something on the agenda, it needs to have some meat and bones altogether. Councillor Levy. Councillor Levy.

Thank you. Well, we went through whatever that's also the information that was sent to us by the city attorney. We explained it. We read the email that said, you know, If this is not changed, all the names, so we don't have to do a public hearing. But if we're going to change it, but also this is like an honoring and he doesn't see any problem. So we read when we, after we finish reading, so that is when we approve that we were okay with the recommendation from the city attorney to proceed and send the, we favor recommendation to the food council.

Yep, any other questions, councillors?

I'll turn to you, Councillor Preston. Councillor Reyes. I think the miss on the tooth was through the beginning because the family, when they do the presentation, we're missing the tooth. We understand they want to change the name on the street. That is the reason we send it to the legal opinion. But at the ending, they do a clarification They only looking to honoring the same we have through Juan Pablo Duarte. That is the reason we send him to asking for legal opinion.

So just to clarify, the honoring will be in Calvarez Rodriguez Boulevard? Correct. All right. All right, councillors, any other questions? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? No. Council, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilor Gonzalez? Yes. Councilor Miguel?

Yes.

Councilor Mamo? Yes. Councilor Infante?

Yes.

Councilor Reyes? Yes. Councilor Del Rosario? Yes. Councilor LaPlante?

No.

Councilor Vice President? Yes. Councilor President?

Yes.

8-1.

8-1. Motion carries. All right. Next item on the ordinance committee.

The next item, yes, is 341-26. This is an act compelling city agency to adhere to Chapter 9.25 of the Municipal Code, Solving Technologies. That was sent to the full council. We favor it. How was that? 3, 4, I'm sorry.

No, it's item 386 that we are dealing, we're gonna deal with.

I'm sorry, yeah, no, I was reading something different. Item 386.26 is the Side 1 Merchandise Display 293 Hancher Street by Jose Refrigerator and was sent to the full council with favor recommendation and I make it as a formal motion. Second.

There's a motion in front of us, properly second. Discussion, councillors? Can we give us some context as to what is it that they're going to do there? This is a bodega or this is another business?

This is a different place. It's not a bodega. It's like they're selling half stuff, different... Appliances.

Use appliances?

Just Google it.

I think we provide a photo from there.

Appliances. Appliance.

Yeah, appliance.

So, counselors, we're opening up a good line of... work eventually if everybody is trying to use the sidewalk for other business other than bodegas. I just say, this is the first time we deal with another business that is not a bodega for the displaced.

It's not the first time. For the displaced? Yeah, we use, in Brother Street, we use for a different business too.

What business?

I'm not reminded the name right now, but we have one item, I think the last year or two years to put the display on the sidewalk.

No, I don't remember. But you need to look at it. No, I mean, if you prove me wrong, then I will take it. But in the meantime, to me, this is the first time.

OK. So, Council President Trujillo. Yeah, . Also, this item was saying that to order a public hearing.

What?

That's the motion?

That's the motion. Who is the public hearing? 362. 386. 362, 26. 386, 26, the last item? Yes. Oh, it's 386. Yes. The last item.

Through you. I'm so sorry. It's okay. Quick question. If this goes through, does this allow for businesses for public displays permanently or is it seasonal? I'm wondering, is there a temporary, I'm just curious if there's temporary approvals that gives them, or is this like throughout?

Normally they renew the approval every year. They need to present in the item every year when they request some permits. So we can put it, it is approval, we can provide to the inspector Because sometimes they use the site working, but it's now, the item is now, they are permanent. It's the time they're opening.

That's the new thing. Council President, through you.

This is a one-year license?

Yes.

So, Madam Clerk, please make sure that we have that on the notes.

Okay, Council President, through you.

Council President Levy. Thank you.

So I have seen, I have seen a lot of businesses like at Broadway Street, the one on Broadway almost with the corner with Hancher Street that sometime they hadn't displayed. So what I'm saying is that sometime I have seen some business principal on Broadway. on Broadway Street, I can see people with the display or the refrigerator, with the stove, laundry, washing machine, and all those kind of stuff, and display. And I have never seen them to come over here asking for permit. So that's an ISD.

That's another illegal stuff. That's just like when you park illegally.

What? That's what... That is why now that you are mentioned, that is why you are mentioned this, you know. That is what I'm saying. I have seen all of these people, and you said that they had never come over here, or we have never given a permit. So that's the problem. Now they should know that it is an item of change.

If the first item we have on the table, we need to double-check, because we need to move it forward from this item.

I'm concerned about this item, to be honest with you. I mean, I never seen, because I mean, essentially everybody that have a sidewalk in front of the business, potentially they can use and display their product. And their product in this case is a stove.

Refrigerator.

Refrigerators. Those are big stuff. It's not like, you know, a pineapple or something like that.

Yeah, they put it outside, and then when they close it, they put it inside. So they do the bodega.

So I Googled the address, and it's June 26th, June, right? They've been putting the stuff out there. So I'm wondering what a district consulate has to say about it. I mean, how does she feel? Because this is District B.

Well, that is the problem.

Well, through you, Council President, I was going to speak, but. I'm so sorry. I know.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Well, that's what I was actually going to say. I have, I mean I pass by there all the time and they've always had their products outside. It's refrigerators, stoves, and I didn't think any of it because I see this going on on Broadway Street as well. And it's actually, the location is actually on the corner of Broadway Street with Haverhill Street. All the time. So, I mean, at least we have these people that come forward and they're requesting a permit to try to do it the correct way, at least. But, I mean, it's still an issue. It's going to create an issue.

Eventually, that's what I'm saying. So, at the end of the day, it's something that we're opening the door for that potential situation. And let me tell you something. It's like if we're allowed to one, we're going to have to allow it to others.

So right now we have...

Cancel, cancel. Excuse me, let me finish. The... This could be because a potential situation that ISD might pass by and told them, like, listen... You cannot do this. And the only way that you can do this is if you can get a permit from the city council. That could be the situation because they obviously did it before, now they need it. So it could be that that's the case. I don't know. It could be a situation there.

Okay, so how many times did ISD pass by?

I mean, I'm just assuming that it could be a situation that they come forward. because now potentially they need a permit to be able to displace their product.

If it's the case, he tried to do the right thing. That is the reason I put the item in the agenda.

That is the reason we request through this body that kind of permits.

Yeah, I agree.

To support our small business around our community to do the right thing, to have the permits.

What about if the displays of those items, now that they have a permit, we don't have enough space for handicaps? Do we have this data? Do we have the measurement of the sidewalk?

We can double-check that part because we never had the opportunity to check. We don't have the ability to approve it or deny it.

No. If we approve it, we approve it. I think that those are questions that should be asked to a specific department to go and check, or perhaps we pass by and check. I mean, at the end of the day, it's the data that is needed. A couple of months ago, this was a hot topic. Because we were having the COVID situation still allow people to use the sidewalk for restaurants and stuff and a lot of people were complaining because there was not enough space for people to walk. What I'm saying is if we opening up this situation with other business that is not just bodegas to display the products, This could be a stove and the stove are big, 36 inches wide. And it could be that eventually we're going to end up having a lot of products that are not quite as high. And then the city might look, I'm not going to say it through the mic.

Through you, Council President.

Councilor Regis.

I believe every person to use the sidewalk need to take in consideration they need to respect the space to the people have the ability to walk or the special need person have the ability to passing around. I strongly believe that part. Every person to request permit to use the sidewalk need to take in consideration to respect some space.

What's going to happen if they don't? So we have the item in front of us and we need to do the due diligence. We need to check on those before we do any approval because we could be approving something that, you know, eventually might reduce the space for people to work at the ability. What I'm saying is we have it on our end now. We need to do the work because eventually they're going to, if somebody have a legal concern, or an ADA complaint, they're gonna ask, who approved this? And this body was. So we haven't get all the data. Just like when we approve any other particular situation, we send these items to different departments to get a specific data to back up the approval. I'm saying we can approve it today, but We should, now that we have it in front of us, we should do the right thing by actually requesting the information that allows that business to operate with all these placements in the front and the city to walk and have the ability to use the streets.

Through you, Council President.

Councilor Reyes.

I'll now mic to tabling and sending to the... No, we're going to the legal department to have ISC because they... Somebody to take a measurement.

Yes. And the disability department too.

And also, if we're going to start the displacement of these type of products, I think, I personally believe that we should have an ordinance in place so we can have standards. Because eventually, what we're doing today, we're opening the doors for a lot of people to do the same thing. And eventually this is going to be 182 in New York. 179 in New York. Uptown Manhattan. It's going to happen. It is going to happen.

Through you, Council President. So if we are going to use this item and this particular location or store or business as the guinea pig, that's what we're going to do right now. No, no, no. I don't want to put it that way. I just want to say this. I think... that it's a good idea to have it tabled and get the proper documentation to see if we're going to say yes to this or not, see if we're going to prove it. But in that case, we should know what we're going to do moving forward with the other businesses that are doing the same thing. it wouldn't be fair for just this business, for us to require this business to apply for a permit and for them to go through everything that we're requesting and then have the other businesses keep on doing what they're doing without a permit.

Yeah, I mean, I think it would be a great idea to put an ordinance together, and that way we can have the enforcement portion of it to anybody that doesn't have a permit. Just to come forward.

Cancel the resolution.

And this is a good beginning. This is a beginning of something new. I mean, most of the bodegas ask for the permission to use it in the summertime to bring the products out. So what you guys could do, whoever wants to work it, is go to ISD, I mean, or ADA, and find out what's the correct measurement. And from there on, you guys can create an ordinance. And from there on, all the business go by the measurements. All of them, not just this one. So, I mean, this is a good beginning of a good ordinance to create in the city. I mean, I see them. I see bodegas all over the place where you can't even go through. And they have permits, right? Because there's not a measurement assigned or there's not an ordinance or how much of the sidewalk we leave it as the common sense. And some of them don't have common sense and they just want to display the product. So, I mean, there's a good beginning. Table 8. ADA, ISD together, and find out, I mean, what's the correct measurement, create an ordinance for it, and let's move forward with that.

Gonzalo Rosario, you know that less than five bodegas have the permit. I mean, I'm trying to be fair. I'm just trying to be fair.

I mean, but when it came to the display, it was one bodega to come in for the permit for the first time ever. And that was the beginning of those permits, which now we can create in order for, you know, how much space can they use and can they live? That's good.

We can organize ourselves and then have some type of procedure or process as of what to follow. So, Councilor Reyes, are you looking to the table?

Yes, motion to table. Second.

No discussion on the table matters. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. All right, let's go on top of the agenda now.

Do we get out of the irony here?

personal committee that has no reports, public safety and emergency management committee that has no report, committee of the whole, no report, all business. Councillors, we have a couple of items on the whole business, and I'm going to explain to you also why we have these items, especially the National Grid items. We received an email from National Grid asking us to figure out how we can expedite these items. item 408.25, which is the install of a J.O. pole on Windrush Ave. Item 409.25, install a J.O. pole on Marlboro Street. Item 425.25, install a J.O. pole on East Haber Street. Item 44625, a jail pole on M Street. Item 46425, install a jail pole on Beacon Street near the Andover Street. So all these items, at some point, they represent a potential project or a need of aid electricity or a utility at some locations around those areas. Um if the council is not have no objection to pull those item from committee from the ordinance committee and discuss it at this level and potentially order a public hearing for these and then I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules to pull it from committee. I interested in a motion how to proceed.

What is the president? What are the items?

items are 408-25, 409-25, 445-25, 446-25, and 464-25. They're from last year. Do you need a motion to entertain this as a block? Yes.

Can we make one motion that would be to take it as a block and to discharge it from the committee pursuant to the

Second.

Thank you.

The motion is as the City Clerk presented. It was made by Councillor Esparza and Levy, second by Councillor Marmo. Any discussion? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? No. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Council plant.

No.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes, what's the count?

8-1.

Motion carries. Item 388.26, that's the authorization to enter into a 30 years non-aviation land lease.

Now we need to order public hearing.

Sorry. All right, all those items we're going to entertain as a block, and I'm going to entertain a motion to order a public hearing for the items mentioned previously. So moved. Second. There is a motion to order a public hearing. Public second. Discussion? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? No. Councillor McClure, please hold the vote. Sure.

Councillor Gonzalez? Yes. Councillor Miguel? Yes. Councillor Vidal? Uh-huh, yeah. It's late, I'm sorry. Councilor Marmo, thank you. Councilor Infante? Yes. Councilor Reyes? Yes. Councilor Del Rosario? Yes. Councilor LaPlante? No. Council Vice President Levy? Yes. Council President Rodriguez?

Yes, motion carries. Item 388.36, authorization to enter into a 30 years non-aviation land lease with a DWSI, that's going back to the Ordinance Committee. Item 143.26, and this is under old business. This is Bailey Street temporary closure. Councillors, this item was put into the agenda back in 2023 for the purpose of the project. located on Bailey, between Bailey and Salem Street going all the way to Parker Street?

Yeah, Parker to Blanchard, right?

Parker to Blanchard, yeah. And that was for the purpose of the construction of the school, of the Catholic school. The project has been finished. And now, councillors, we are looking to entertain a motion to remove the order that allows this street to stay closed. Councillors, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to remove the temporary construction order to fully reopen Bailey Street and also to sign a correspondence to the Lawrence Catholic Academy with the City Council's decision.

Second. So much in front of us properly second discussion discussion.

Thank you for you come to president of the president originally this item was put before the council as you mentioned back in 2023. The order was essentially if there was a time frame for the order and it was supposed to and in May of 2025. We are now in September 2026, and since then, over the last, I would say, four to six months, myself and a councilor at large, I'm not sure if the other councilors at large have received as well, but we've received various complaints from the residents pertaining to the parking situation on Bailey Street. The videos and the photos, it's a lot. Residents are also getting ticketed unjustly simply because they're finding their own, they're building their own parking because there's no parking. I've also had incidents of cars getting trapped by an ambulance that visited the area. There was another incident recently where an individual that was parked in front of that fencing was backing out of Bailey Street and almost hit a child because they didn't see the child on the street. So it has caused various incidents and discomfort from those residents. Also to the extent that ISD and DPW have had people call and also show up in person to relay situations that have been occurring on Bailey Street. Aside from that, I also want to acknowledge that I understand that the school is there. The school has been using the city-owned street even after that side of the construction was completed for recess, for ice cream trucks, and et cetera, and residents have been seeing that and also bringing those complaints to me. But aside from that, I don't want to diminish the need to improve safety in that area as well. That's already a conversation that I am having with DPW. But the first stage is to reopen Bailey. From there, we are planning a second. This would be the second safety meeting that I would have in that area to bring back DPW to... pinpoint exactly where we need more signages, where we need to improve pedestrian crosswalks, and even look at if there is an area on Bailey Street, which I believe there is specifically the side of the street where we can designate parking for staff members, because I'm aware that they're also using that for parking. So there are various outstanding um um work or issues that not will work that needs to needs to be addressed in order to improve overall but the first step is to honor the temporary um order that was supposed to end in may 2025. all right counselors any other questions

Thank you. And we actually were there last week when they were opening the gym, and there was people actually stopping to talk to us about, I mean, I'm not from that area, but they were stopping to talk to us about when they were going to reopen that, what they were going through. In person, they actually show up there. The mayor was there. They gather and they ask us questions like, can you guys, when are you guys removing this? And the mayor says that he ordered it to be reopened. I don't know if it's this week or next week, but it was people actually showing up at that gathering to ask for that street to be open. So it's something that we need to look into.

I have received multiple complaints as well.

I got the president. I also want to add, I understand the school, so the school voiced obviously the safety concerns and the 600 students that they have. I want to say that we have schools throughout our city that have thousands of students, where we don't have half a street closed for that school. But what we do have are other remedies where, you know, for a period of the day, it's a one-way, or for a period of the day, you know, don't enter this, you know, don't enter the street at all. So there are other factors to look at, and we did suggest that to the school. they prefer for that half of the street to remain closed permanently, but unfortunately, when you look at all the parties involved, that is not a feasible outcome or a feasible solution. So I am, again, working with other um parties to figure out other solutions at least to get to a closer to a close of a happy medium as i could get for both the school and the multiple residents that have been coming um to various people with their concerns i had a curiosity was there anybody officially who wanted the the street to be permanently closed any official person that wanted that not not official nope

Okay. I had to talk to the pastor who's in charge of the school just because, well, I go to church there. I just think that from their perspective, for them it's just a matter of safety. I don't think they really make a difference what happens as long as the kids are there and they're safe and drop off, pick up, et cetera. And I'm sure... I know that she had a meeting in June with stakeholders and I just heard now that she's going to be reconvening that group. I know there's a lot of discussion that took place during those meetings. A lot of positive things. So I know that she had a meeting in June with stakeholders and I just heard now that she's going to be reconvening that group. I know there's a lot of discussion that took place during those meetings. A lot of positive things. I feel as though that there's going to be a good place. I don't think that the school is going to object to opening it up. I just think they want to make sure that their safety things factored in, which I think is your next step.

Yes. Yep. And, Mr. President, if I may, I do have already a list that I have already forwarded to DPW for us to take a look at when we reconvene for that safety meeting.

All right. Any other questions? At this point, I'll call the questions. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any nays? You guys have it. All right. Counselors, any table matters that we would like to discuss tonight? Through you, Mr. President.

Counselor Rosario. I would like to, just to send correspondence, I would like to take out of table item 24525. On the table matters.

There is a motion to remove 245.25, which is to adopt a new farm flood plains map for the city to approve amendment of the city flood maps management ordinance in Chapter 1532 with the latest regulation of the National Flood Insurance Program.

I would like to send correspondence to them a card thing and maybe that's that's that's the more first. Oh yes, I shouldn't any questions counselors.

I can't get a second. Probably second discussion here none of those in for the same. All right, any nice. The ayes have it. Item 245 from the Senate.

Thank you, Consul President. To you, I want to send correspondence to Dan McCarty. Back in July 2025, we were reviewing for possible reconsideration. I'm still getting emails and calls from constituents in that area, where they expand the flow panel, where they have been forced to get another type of insurance. Something that I asked question to McCarty and say there wasn't, none of that was going to happen. So we need McCarty, I need McCarty to actually come back to us send an email give us give us an update and maybe come back and we can uh six uh a possible reconsideration on on this uh ordinance that we that we pass uh and i encourage anybody that any of us, any of my colleagues that go back to that meeting where I actually asked the question 20 times that if insurance were to be a factor for the constituents in East Lane, no, no, no, no. And as soon as we approved it, the next day all the insurance companies were around that area asking the people to update the insurance from the houses because the flow plan was expanded way, way far away from what it is. So we need McCarthy to to either give us an update or come back and take this item out of the table and we can talk about it on the reconsideration of the full plan.

There is a motion to send correspondence to come to Mister McCarthy. Can you include the fact that he need to send us the current plan and the offline. We can compare yes. Can you get a second. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA. different residents live there now. They may have a change of opinion. Maybe they don't. Maybe in this particular case, they don't. But in principle, we should just be careful about going back too far and pulling things up. That's all. I wouldn't be in favor of it, but we should be mindful of that.

Yeah, I mean, essentially what I was requesting to see the old plans, it was because the Council of Rosario and a couple of us emphasized on that specifics of not changes on the flood plan. So people doesn't have any specific changes on their insurance. But I guess that if we change, we need to figure, like, what is it? What was changed? And if we vote for that change. So that's why. Any other questions, councillors? I hear none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Any other matters, Councilor, that we would like to remove from the table matters? Council President. Councilor Plank.

I'm looking for the speed limit item. Yep.

Is that table matters? That's on table matters, yes.

Good job.

That's on item 125.17. 125? 17. This is the second, the second item.

The police department came and had a discussion. It's 125.7. It's a recent police department. We had a public hearing on it.

Yep. We got an update report as well on that item. Can we get a motion to pass then?

Motion to pass then.

Second.

Second. Discussion? None. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any nays? The ayes have it. Yes, cancel the plan. Do you want to remove that from table matters?

Is it table matters? What number is that?

Second item from the top of the table matters.

Yeah, that's not 125.17. Yeah. That's not the one that I want. We actually had the police department here having a long discussion regarding changing the speed. Noise. Forget the speed limit. Noise. Thank you. I'm looking for the noise ordinance. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. My bad. IT'S GETTING LATE. IT IS 10 O'CLOCK. I KNOW, I KNOW. DO WE SEE THAT ANYWHERE? DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOISE? I DO. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT?

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

WHAT NUMBER? 365. PLAIN OLD 65. 65.

Can I get a motion to untable this item? So moved. Second. There's a motion to untable item 6526, the proposed update noise ordinance. Properly second discussion.

Discussion. I just got someone the other day just come up. Today, as a matter of fact, concerned about noise, getting calls about noise. And I think we need to make a decision on whether we're going to support it or not support it. It's not making a decision is a decision. And we need to get past that. So I like to not vote on it tonight because we need the police department back here. I would like to invite the police department to our next meeting so that we can finally put this to bed one way or the other. So, Kim, I'd like to make a motion that the police department, whoever's in charge of the noise ordinance, come before the city council in anticipation of a final discussion and vote that evening.

Second.

The motion in front of us, property second.