City Council - Regular Meeting

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

Here. Pursuant to the open meeting, while any person may make an audio-video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium, attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one is citizens' input, in which we have none. Item number two is the minutes for the May 6, 2026 meeting. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve, made by Councillor Cagnall, second by Vice President Dionne. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye

Motion made by Councillor Cagnall, second by Vice President Dionne. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred to the committee on 6-9-2026. Pittman Street East 110 feet south of Webster. Richmond Street West 196 feet north of Cambridge. Smith Street West 268 feet south of Warren Street. Stanley Street North 45 feet east of Madison Street. Wade Street South 80 feet west of Fifth Street. Woodman Street North 292 feet west of King Street. Director of Traffic and Parking, you wanna come down and

Any questions from the committee? Motion for emergency preamble. Second. Motion for emergency preamble made by Councilor Kadim, second by Councilor Canyal, roll call.

Yes. Motion passes. Motion to pass through all readings. Second. Motion to pass through all readings made by Councilor Kadeem, second by Councilor Canual. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number four is a proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred to the committee on 5-26-26 and 6-9-26. Section one, parking prohibited during certain hours on Highcliffe Street East, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Highcliffe Street West, 763 feet north, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Locust Street North, 658 feet east, Monday th

Is this just because of the school for Diamond? It's for the new school. Should it be from September to June? No.

Because in the summertime, they're not back and forth. I get the traffic.

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

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

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

So not just the times that you can possibly have, the times you can't. Okay, I agree.

So motion made to amend section one to include.

From September to June, these are the ordinances.

Made. Is there a second? Second. Second. Discussion on the amendment. Roll call.

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

So Sunday 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Okay, I see. 76 feet allows for how many cars? So we usually do about 20 feet per space, but because of where the space is at, yeah. it's not a that's not a at that point in the street not really congested as before the bank and mm-hmm yeah so yeah okay yeah I don't see a problem with that yeah you councils it would be appropriate to make a motion to split these up into sections please

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

Motion to adopt Section 2 made by Vice President Dionne. Second. Second by Council O'Connell. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Section 3 is handicap parking removals. Abney and Street West, 30 feet south of Downing Street. Bowen Street West, 160 feet south of Charles Street. Brow Street North, 143 feet east of 5th. Center Street North, 147 feet west of South Main. Kellogg Street West, 392 feet north of Hamlet. Lewis Street East, 30 feet north of Slade. Merchant Street North, 27 feet west of 18th Street. Montgomery Street South, 111 feet east of Robeson St

Motion to pass through ordinance through first reading. Second.

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

We need to also pass section one and two through first reading.

Item number five on our agenda this evening is the proposed ordinance to amend 62-2C, solid waste collection disposal, generally speaking, referred to the committee on 6-9-2026. I will invite Attorney Thomas down to the table and Mr. Oliveira, please. And if the city administrator wants to come and join us, feel free. Welcome, folks. If you could introduce yourselves to the committee, please.

Thank you. Attorney Thomas, welcome. If you could speak to the committee on this proposed ordinance, please.

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

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

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

No, it makes sense to me, but yeah, I would appreciate that. I will take a look at it. And you know what? It is what it is. It's a fair question. I'll look at it. And then my second thing is, I think... And I know it's not, there's one woman in particular, when I say this, it's not popular with her and I understand it. But where six families are going to be taken off of the trash roll, and nobody's gonna have an option, they're gonna have to privatize. I would like to again say that I would support owner occupied to be excluded. Because you don't have the absentee landlord issue. You have some

Residents who support the city. Exactly. Et cetera, et cetera.

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

If you own a condo, you're paying a fee, a monthly fee, for everything, for somebody to come and take care of the lawn, for somebody to shovel the snow, and for somebody to pick up the trash. Yeah, you pay for everything. That's what a condo fee is. I understand. I get it. If you don't want to do that, you don't buy a condo. No, I get that. Because you know that that's in there. I just think this is unfair. To me, I like the three strikes and you're out, whoever it is. You're not putting your trash out the way you're supposed to. You get three notices. After the third notice, they empty the tr

What is that? No, not Capitol Hill. Crapo. When they went to Crapo, because they were going to Republic right in Fall River on Airport Road, a truck would go by, dump, come back. Now they have to go up to Crapo, come back. They have to buy another truck or two to keep it going where they have trash out by 5 o'clock. I mean, I've been talking to trash people for a long time, but we need to bite the bullet and do something. This city budget cannot afford to take $11 million out of the budget just for trash. I mean, my colleagues talk about things like our clerks don't get paid enough. You know,

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

Well, I'm more from the point of if people are not disposing things the way that they should and they're getting cited, then you empty the trash that third time and remove the barrel, then they have to go do it. So everybody is being treated the same way. I have a single family home and what if I'm living with I mean, I have somebody who the daughter and three children moved in with the parents. They want another barrel. They really can't get a barrel, whatever. One of the kids is in diapers. But if they're not recycling, they're going to get penalized. and the barrel will be removed. Yes, the

So I guess my question would be, 10 years ago, And to a certain point, I agree with you. I do, to a certain point. But I think I'm also looking at it as 10 years ago, what percent of the multifamilies were owned by people who lived in the city versus today? There's been a big move today. We know that people from outside have come in and scooped up the property. The properties have gone, the values have gone through the roof because of it. With 79 coming, the train being here. I don't think we're in the same situation. I don't know what the percentage is. I don't know what the percentage of abs

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

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

No, but I mean, it's just a quick math between the two of assuming that it's not contaminated about $1.3 million. So that comes off. So annually 1.3 million. So you're knocking that nine to $11 million by 1.3 just by

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

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

Point of information, if I can help out on this one.

Because I have had, so when this whole debacle, that's what I call it, started 10 years ago, I switched to private. And I was like, I am not getting off of private until the city straightens everything out. So I did do that. And you can choose whatever company you want. At the time, I chose, it was Cleanway. It's not Cleanway any longer. They've been bought out, so I can say that. And yes, they pick up the same day as the city. And they've actually been very good, but I can tell you that whatever the city would charge if they chose to say per unit everybody pays X number of dollars would be fa

Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilor Kadeem. Any discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to recommend through first reading.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. So the position we just passed the first reading, I recommend to pass the first reading, the Director of Health and Human Services, you did comps for that position, showed us why that should be amended. I think we should be doing the same methodology for all of these positions. I don't know that we should just be arbitrarily raising it without conducting the same equivalent complex as well, I think. I understand what you did and how you did it, but I can't get on board with the methodology here that we're just going to add 2.5% from where someone's at because what the market may pay

I'll make a motion to table to we have skilled councils to speak.

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

That whole fiscal year? Correct. So yeah, and I guess that was my concern. When do you think you're going to be prepared for us to have a full picture, something substantial to consider? And I will say right off the bat, I'm not sure I'm okay with an escalator. I think an escalator just makes it possible for it to just keep going up and up and up without necessarily coming back to the council. The do not exceed is a solid number. Steps is a different issue, but an escalator, I don't know that I'm on board with that unless somebody can explain it differently than what I'm thinking. I mean, next

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

So we're saying three to six months, so we'll be halfway through FY27 before we have any resolution to this.

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

Councilor Kadim. Thank you. So I support what's before us, and I hear what my colleague's saying, and I don't disagree. The problem is I think three to six months is an aggressive time. approach. I think when you start looking at human services and the staffing levels, I mean, how many folks do you have in human resources? Uh, five, five, right? So you're doing payroll benefits, you're doing negotiations. So to find a time to actually truly do a, uh, a valid, uh, comp study on, on all these salaries, especially what positions that may not be, um, in other communities is a challenge, right? So

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

So just back to the methodology that you're applying, you said it was 2.5%, right? Or is it different?

So like if I pick the administrative assistant of code enforcement right now as a not to exceed a 53, 324, 27, the increase that's listed here would amount to 7% higher than where it is today. From the current salary? From the current not to exceed. So you're saying the current salaries that had exceeded earlier? Yes. Okay. I explained that. Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

Can you just pass that message up? We absolutely will. Within a month, let us know. Send us a letter to the committee.

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

Motion to pass to the first meeting, made by Councilor Kadeem, second by Councilor Pereira. Any discussion? Roll call.

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