Finance Committee — March 16, 2026

So he cuts it down 4 million.

Isn't that awful gracious of him?

Very gracious of him.

Well, he can't have any of it.

I'm done.

Oh, we had to do this.

You good?

You all set?

It is 7:01 PM on Monday, March 16th.

This Committee on Finance meeting is being called to order.

In the City Council Chambers, Room 14.

The agenda as revised.

Note, this meeting is being livestreamed and recorded.

City Council committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

In attendance, we have Councilor Elijah E. Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor at Large Brian Kang Gomes, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver, Councilor at Large and First Majority Vice President Naomi Carney, myself— oh, James Roy, Councilor at Large, and myself, Ward 5 City Councilor Joseph Lopes, Chairman of Finance.

We do have one letter to be read into the record.

This letter is from Councilor Choquette.

Dear Councilor Lopes and honorable members of the City Council, I am writing this letter to inform you that I will be unable to attend the Committee on Finance meeting on Monday the 16th of March, 2026, at 7 PM due to a previously scheduled business commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Motion received and placed.

Second by Councillor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 1, written motion, Councillor Oliver, requesting the Committee on Finance meet with the Chief Financial Officer Bob Ekstrom and MMA Administrator— Administrator to the Assistant of the Assessor Sherry Pinheiro to review the current criteria for tax exemptions eligibility at age 70, and then to consider taking the necessary actions to lower the eligibility age to 65 and further that the Committee on Finance discuss any other exemptions that the City of New Bedford may implement in an effort to assist the city's senior property owners.

The matter was referred to here on September 11th, 2025.

Steven, place on file.

Made by Sean Oliver.

Second.

Second by Councilor Carney.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The item is properly in front of us.

Uh, representative from the, uh, somebody from the assessor's office first.

Would you like Uh, Kendra Parker.

Yeah, we'll start with Parker.

Hi, Miss Parker, how are you?

I'm doing great, how are you?

Good, thank you.

Um, have you had an opportunity to overlook this, uh, this motion as it's presented, uh, in the current policy that we have?

I have, yes, yes.

The Um, current policy that we have is at age 70, correct?

Currently, yes.

Okay.

And how many folks take advantage of the current ordinance as— or current rule as presented?

Um, so currently for— so we have 2 different senior exemptions.

One is under Clause 41C and the other one is Clause 17D.

We refer to them as our elderly and aged senior exemptions.

The only one that has the ability for you guys to vote to lower the age is the Clause 41C, which is the elderly exemption.

Okay.

And with that, currently we, we are still accepting applications for this fiscal year.

It goes all the way through April 1st.

But we currently right now have 292 applicants for that clause.

Okay.

And historically, do you know how many people normally take advantage of that?

Um, last year we had, uh, 339, and the year before that we had about 320.

So, okay, so 320, 339, and currently almost 300.

Yep.

Um, do many folks that apply Is this— is that just people that taking advantage of it, or are those total applications?

Uh, those are the applications that are granted the exemption.

Okay.

Do we know how many applications we receive?

Um, I don't have that exact number, but it's usually, um, if they don't necessarily qualify for that one, because we take into account for that clause, we take into account, um, income.

There's an income limit.

Yep.

Um, the other senior exemption, um, only takes into account, uh, assets, and the asset limit is higher.

So if they don't qualify for that one, they usually qualify for the clause 17D.

The amount of people that don't qualify for either is very few.

I want to say maybe, maybe 5 to 10.

Okay.

And these clauses, is this Mass General Law?

Is this Mass General Law Chapter 59, Section 5, clause 41C and clause 17D?

And 41C is the only one that we can change the age, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, that's a local option.

Do we know, um, I had the figure before when I spoke with Sherry, and I must have left it on my desk at home, but do we have a, uh, an idea of how the people that take advantage of this, how much of that, what's the dollar amount?

Um, so So the dollar amount that the city's not receiving by taking— by them filing.

So each, um, so for that clause, um, it is a $1,000 exemption.

So right now, uh, the amount is $291,000 for this year, and, uh, last year it was $337,000.

So it's around the $300,000.

We're talking about $300,000, right?

So I don't— yeah, in your opinion, would lowering the age cause a major ripple effect in the coffers of the city of New Bedford?

I don't think it would be an unreasonable, um, take on our part, um, but again, there is no way of us actually knowing how many more applicants we will get, um, because we don't know how many people between 65 and 70 or how many specifically will qualify income-wise.

Well, that's the thing.

I think the biggest disqualifier is probably the income, right?

And as we know, folks now are working into their later years.

Yes.

So I'm sure that even if, if the numbers seem to hover around where we're at right now, 300, 340, 320, even if we doubled or tripled that, I don't think— I mean, that's a drop in the bucket, I think.

Yeah.

And I believe we do receive some state reimbursement for, but we only receive it at the statutory amount, which was the $500 per person.

Yeah.

And before, by lowering that, by lowering that, will we still receive the state reimbursement just by lowering the age to 65?

Yes, I believe you will still receive it on those ones for the $500 amount.

Okay.

And I think my final question right now, Mr.

Chair, and then I'll yield this if anybody else has any questions, is Is— do you know if this is— I spoke with legal counsel and he's not sure.

We'll iron out the details later.

Is this something that we can just ask to be changed, or is that an ordinance that needs to be adopted?

Do you know?

Um, I believe, uh, City Council needs to vote on it to adopt it to, uh, age 65.

Okay.

All right, thank you very much.

That's all right now.

Thank you, Councilmember Oliver.

Any other questions?

Seeing no one else in there first, anyone on a second?

Mr.

Chair, I'm just going to table this for now, um, just because it looks like the, the, um, that way I can confirm with our legal counsel so that way, um, we can take the proper steps through city council for adoption.

So, but just so this is here, we're just going to take— I want to table this for now.

Made by Council Oliver, second by Council Abril.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 2, communication from MIMIC to City Council submitting a loan order appropriating $12,610,194 for the purpose of making critically needed repairs to city-owned buildings, including but not limited to projects for the repair and renovations of public safety facilities, recreational facilities, general office space, replacement of capital equipment and vehicles, and roads and infrastructure improvements.

The matter was referred here on January 22nd, 2026.

Made by Council Oliver, seconded by Council Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We'll do as we've done in the past.

We'll take each item up and one at a time.

First item is Zaitarian Theater, CP01, Zaitarian Theater renovation, $75,000.

Any questions for the Z?

Councilor Oliver, on your first.

Thank you.

Rosemary, if you'd like to go to the podium.

I'm assuming you'd want Rosemary Sean.

Uh, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Rosemary.

I made an assumption for you.

I apologize.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi, Rosemary.

Thank you for being here today to represent the Z.

Sure.

Um, Could you just, um, for my colleagues and general public, um, we have a loan order here for almost $13 million, um, and we have a newly renovated and fully finished, so the public thinks, uh, Zytarian.

So if you could just speak a little bit about the $13 million that the Z needs.

We don't need $13 million.

Oh no, I'm sorry, not $13 million.

Sorry, that was— that's the total.

Um, I was looking at the whole package.

We'll take it.

Yeah, well, I'm sure.

Yeah, yeah, nobody else gets anything.

All the money's going to the Z. I believe our item is 750.

Yes.

Yeah, so I'm sorry, your question?

Same question, just the, the new amount.

Yes, so initially, um, when we began the project, of course, uh, we put in, um, we had budgeted for a certain amount of overages and in a contingency, and unfortunately those— we exceeded those overages.

And so there's still, uh, we're still raising money, and we're still trying to close that gap.

And the gap— is this the gap, or is the gap bigger?

No, the gap is a little bit bigger.

Okay.

So you'd still be short.

What's the funding mechanism for the shortage?

We currently have a couple of things in the pipeline.

It's philanthropy.

Yeah.

Okay.

And the— excuse me— the— what is the gap, if you don't mind me asking, between the ask for here and the gap of what— That is a very good question.

And I don't know that I have a number for you tonight on that.

It's— Would you care to guess?

What's that?

Would you care to guess?

I would.

It's, uh, probably between $1 and $2 million.

Is the gap or the total ask the total that you need?

That's the same.

Yeah, yeah.

No, we're only asking $750, right?

Yeah.

But is the gap the $750 plus the million, or is the total— Oh, I see what you're saying.

The $750 is included in that.

Okay.

And the over the I guess the overages or the oversights or what have you.

What was— what were some of the— was it just a bunch of things that just added up, or was there kind of a catalyst?

You know, there were a bunch of things that added up, but I would say what specifically, um, we're looking at— I can probably itemize 5 or 6 things for you that, um, come up to close to $1 million for this regard, um, specifically that are related to the site itself.

We're not asking for the city taxpayers to pay for, you know, things that they wouldn't be responsible for within the building.

So for example, we had a significant overage because, um, an issue with Eversource, actually.

We initially got approval from the city's building committee for where Eversource, the power would be coming into the building.

And so our engineering design was approved and we moved forward with the installation of the— you know, I'm not a building person, but I would say the, like the pipes or the conduits that come in, come from the street into the building.

Whenever Source came on site, however, they did not approve that, and they asked us to move it 10 feet, which was a $95,000 hit we weren't expecting.

Then we hit in 2 places some significant amount of ledge that we had done a good deal of boring ahead of time so that we could understand what kind of soil we would be working with, whether or not we would have any, uh, hit any ledge.

And we didn't in the initial boring, but how— but when we did drill or, you know, excavate specifically in the 2 sites where we have elevators, which is one, the, the main elevator within the building, which is new, the accessible elevator there, as well as the elevator for the orchestra pit.

In both areas, we hit significant amount of ledge, which was several hundred.

And then on Spring Street, there was a lot of work there that we had not anticipated.

And that was— we had originally— when we originally budgeted and had engineering work, there was a moratorium on bringing sewer drain, the rain leader drain down to Acushnet Avenue.

So we— the plan was that we would just do it at Spring Street, and that was accepted.

However, by the time we actually did that work, the moratorium was lifted.

And so DPI asked us to move it all the way down Spring Street a full block and across Acushnet.

And that was probably a $400,000 hit, if not more.

Okay.

Um, and at what point in the process did we realize that there was going to be a significant, um, I guess, overage?

Was there any point that some things could have been scaled back to try to— Yeah, none of this.

These were all code type of issues, um, and compliance issues.

We had no choice.

We had no choice to, to, to comply with them, but you had choices to— for other things that were going on in the building.

Yeah, so we definitely have scaled back, um, as a result of those things.

Complete— for example, we haven't ordered furniture and things like that that we just can't— we can't afford at the moment.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Rosemary.

That's all I have right now.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Also in attendance, First Vice President Shane Burgo, City Council President Ryan Pereira, and Ward 4 City Councilor Derek Baptiste.

Anyone have any questions?

Councilor Gomes, on your first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here.

Could you give us a little more detail of The $2 million that you're in the hole, or at least the $750,000.

You're asking for $750,000.

You just told us about $400,000 on a pipe that had to be moved, another $100,000 for some conduits to come in.

That's $500,000.

Can you give me, uh, where the other $250,000 is going?

I can, I think.

Uh, And would you be able to provide us with the invoices of this work that had to be done?

It is all— yes.

Would you be able to provide us?

Yes.

Okay, because I would like— they're all part of the change orders.

Jen Vieira— I would like to see it coming from the Z. Oh, sure.

Thank you.

I was just going to finish that Jen Vieira has served on the building committee and has participated in all of that.

I'm asking you as the executive director of the Z to provide those documents, please.

Not right now, but you're asking me.

Not right now.

And you're about to tell me about the 2.

Sure.

So 2 others that I can tell you about.

One was when we excavated the entirety— if anybody saw this, it was kind of cool— we excavated the entirety of the theater.

In order to accommodate for the accessibility requirements, the new code, and what we call the rake.

But it is basically like the grade of the theater and the way people can move throughout the theater.

And so when we excavated, we had to have the soil tested.

Any soil that we removed had to be tested.

And unfortunately, the majority of the soil that had to be— all of the soil was contaminated and had to be trucked to facilities in like northern Massachusetts.

Contaminated with what, Rosemary?

They were mostly contaminated— my understanding was mostly contaminated with lead and other types of carcinogens.

Thank you.

Continue, please.

And let's— so how much did that cost?

I believe that was over $75,000, but I only have one of the change orders for that, which was about $75,000, so we might have more, but that was one of them.

The other was a complete reconfiguration of the sidewalk on Purchase Street in the front of the building in order to comply with ADA requirements.

And that went over about $131,000.

So we're somewhere around the $750,000.

Can you just explain to me why this wasn't included?

I can understand a couple of these things, but why this wasn't considered in the planning that this may be a possibility?

There were all kinds of reasons why.

A lot of these things were included in the plan but went went over.

The costs went over.

Other things, as I mentioned, as far as the major road work we had to do on Spring Street, was because when we initially planned and budgeted for the project, there was a moratorium on Acushnet Avenue.

So we couldn't design it that way.

The soil, we just didn't know what we were going to encounter.

We anticipated that we might encounter something, but we didn't.

Budget enough for that, as well as the ledge.

The ledge we hit was far more significant than anybody could have anticipated.

There was also— we discovered when we removed the slab from the Z, there was a failed steam line, and we had to replace and remove, remove and replace all of that, and that was another $136,000.

At this point, Rosemary, what would it take to complete the Z, and would it cost to, um, do all these renovations?

And would you see yourself coming back to us again for $750,000?

No, no, we have the, the project is done, it's complete.

We have loans that have paid for the project, so this would just be filling the gap of, of these temporary loans that we have to pay along with the one million something that you still needed to pay off the bills, are you saying?

When you said you're in the gap about $1 million to $2 million, you— that's a big gap.

The gap is probably around 1 point— I wasn't prepared for this, but probably around $1.2 or $1.3.

Okay, and that would complete everything.

Not— we, as I mentioned, we scaled back quite a bit as a result of this.

And so we'll probably continue fundraising.

You had already budgeted for— we had included it— $13, $15 million.

I don't know what you mean by the $13 or $15 million.

Um, I'm sorry, we're going to that number again, the $30 million to do this project.

Yes.

So we did have to moved things around, prioritized certain items, we've deferred certain items, and we're going to continue to fundraise to, to reach those goals.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Burgum, on your first.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today.

Um, thank you, Miss Gill.

Um, the reason why I'm thanking you is because I don't see you on the invitee list Um, did you receive an invitation to be here today?

No.

I don't know why that is.

Is it possibly because you're not a department head for the city of New Bedford?

I am not a department head for the city of New Bedford.

That's right, because is— do you own this building?

No.

Okay, I'm asking these questions to you not to be condescending, but because we have to ask it in a form of a question.

I'm going to ask you a lot of questions tonight that I already know the answer to.

I'm going to help you along because I know tonight you probably didn't think you were going to be asked any questions because because you weren't invited.

I'm sure Jennifer Viera, who's the director of Department of Facilities and Fleet Management, was here to speak on behalf of this.

Because this, again, to remind the general public, this is a city-owned building, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

So to help people, could you tell us what the original cost, if you remember, of this project pre-COVID back in 2018, 2020 of this project?

What's half the cost?

Yes.

So it was about $24 million.

$24 million, which is an increase of— it was $18 million prior to COVID in 2018, and, um, we closed, uh, at $37 million.

Yes.

And so the city— how much did the city of New Bedford, this building that the city owns, how much did they contribute to this project so far?

They contributed $5 million in ARPA funds and, uh, $750,000 from CIP a couple of years ago.

And so then this would be an additional— if it gets approved.

So potentially $1.5 million in CIP, $5 million in ARPA, which is really not city funds at all.

It's federal funds that we were able to get because of COVID because of the fact that situations like this where your original costs ballooned uncontrollably like it happened to a lot, right?

Yeah.

And there was one more.

We did get a community CPC.

Small grant of— it was a matching grant.

Yeah, $50,000.

Yes, $50,000.

Thank you for that.

I just mentioned that because then private fundraising, do you have an idea of how much you were able to raise for this city-owned building that you do not own?

$14 million.

Oh, I have $16 million here, so it might be even closer.

So it looks to me that you have been able to— this nonprofit that people vilify often, some people in this very room have been able to raise and get even more money than the city that owns this building.

Is that correct?

Yes, even more.

I know we have tax credits included in there.

The state gave some money.

Totally, the state and city combined, $21 million.

So people will try to do that number, $21 million combined, and then the $16 million that you were able to raise.

But if you really break down those numbers, some of that $21 million are tax credits.

Is that correct?

Yes, nearly $10 million are tax credits, both from— we applied for both the federal program and the state program, and we were successful with both.

Wonderful.

Okay, great.

I just wanted to lay that out there because I know we think of the Z as this big money pit.

When we did finally open up, I know— I don't know if you're trying to be polite.

A lot of the unforeseen extra costs that happened weren't mistakes that you made, right?

The nonprofit group.

Some of the city plans that weren't updated, right?

So when we were digging, I believe when I went for a tour, you were explaining what happened exactly was that we didn't have some of the layouts.

Yeah.

So that wasn't actually the city's fault.

This was really nobody's fault.

But when we had to do the excavation down Spring Street, when we had to reroute or bring that rain leader and the drainage all the way down, we actually also hit utilities which were not on anyone, either the utility utility companies or the city's records because they were so old.

So we had to go back again to our engineers, have them redesign and reroute that.

Okay, well, I just wanted to point these out because, you know, I'm glad that you're being very polite.

I appreciate that.

I'm noting that it's no one's fault, but people in this room will want to find whose fault it is, and I just want to make sure that we don't put the fault where it's not.

I want to thank the Zytarian for the work that they have done, for being the custodians of this city-owned building, because the narrative will be out there that we're just giving this money to these people just for fun, but that's not the case.

So again, I'll get off my soapbox.

I just wanted those clarifying questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Roy, on your first.

Hi, Rosemary, how are you?

Hi, I'm well, thank you.

Good.

Can you speak to the role the Z plays in the economic activity downtown and in the community?

Lifestyle downtown?

I would love to speak on that.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Yeah, it's no, no secret that the Zeitarian contributes over $10 million annually to, to the economy here in New Bedford.

And we can see that in a very tangible way, particularly on show nights, which are also known as Z nights in the community, where our restaurants are buzzing, the— we We fill lots and lots of hotel rooms in this city.

And we, you know, people go to galleries and shop and do all of the things that we would hope them to do, even the local people.

And we employ quite a few event personnel for every show, as well as any of the support activities, you know, marketing, police, all of those things.

That's great.

Thanks.

Also, how many, how many local students does the Z serve each year?

Do you know off the top of your head?

I do.

We serve— now that we're up and open, up and open, we traditionally serve anywhere between 15,000 and 20,000 schoolchildren annually.

That's it.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Councilor Abreu, you're first.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Rosemary.

Not a question, just a statement.

Um, just want to let you know that restaurant receipts on average are up 30% downtown since you've come back on show nights.

That's— that was not by magic or by osmosis.

It's because of you and your team and the great high-level quality of shows that you're putting on.

30% since you've reopened.

That didn't happen just out of nowhere.

So well done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll yield, Mr.— Thank you, Councilor.

Everyone else on that first?

Anyone on the second?

Councilor Gomes on your second.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I, I, um, I just want to state that my questioning of the money is just so the general public knows exactly where the money is going.

If I really wanted to get in depth, I could start asking questions of when— what is the payroll of the Zaitarian?

When was the last time everybody got a pay raise?

Then we're not— the questions that were asked The questions that were asked were, I wanted to know where the $750,000 was going.

It's in no way that I'm against the Z or anything of the sort.

I've sat down with you, Rosemary, and I believe in the Z, but I also believe that the Z is a public building, and you know that from sitting down with me, that I had some concerns about the general public and those less fortunate to see the inside of the Z or to experience anything in the Z and what your commitment was.

And that, that is something you answered when we sat down.

Like I said, you were brought here, you came up here tonight, and it was an opportunity to tell the general public exactly where the money is and where the money is going.

Because at this time and at this time in our city, we must know where everything is going, and there has to be accountability for everything.

And it's not easy to just throw out numbers.

We always throw out numbers.

How much did this cost?

$400,000.

Well, what did $400,000 give me?

You explained that tonight.

That's appreciated by this councilor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Am I allowed to comment on some of that?

Yes, you are.

Yes.

So, um, I love that you brought up the fact that, um, you know, what about people who can't necessarily afford to go to the, to the Z?

And I don't know, I, I'd if people know this, but in addition, during the time that we were closed, and in addition to the resources that this private nonprofit organization has put forward for the renovation of the building, we also embarked on a new strategic plan.

Within the strategic plan, we have 5 goals.

All of the 5 goals actually are grounded in our desire to ensure that everyone is welcome in our building and that everyone has an opportunity to interact with artists, to attend our educational programs.

We distribute hundreds of thousands of dollars reductions in ticket prices.

We participate in a state program that allows anybody who receives any type of WIC benefits or those types of things where they qualify for tickets to any show for $5.

So we care very deeply.

We feel— we take it very seriously that we are stewarding this city-owned building.

We know that that this is an asset.

We know that we have an obligation to taxpayers, and we take it seriously.

I appreciate your comments, and as I said, I appreciate when we sat down, you know, that was a big point of mine, that the Z is there and the Z is to be enjoyed by all, all the shows and everything that comes with it.

With the added economics of downtown restaurants and all that, but, um, that we played— that the Z played some type of role in those that are less fortunate, or at least, um, in some way we got them to have the experience of such a magical building, as you would say, and what it brings to the city of New Bedford.

Thank you, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on their first or their second?

Any other questions for Miss Gill?

You're all set.

Great, thank you.

Anyone have any questions for anyone else that's here?

Seeing none, we'll move on to CP02, the assessor's office renovation, $480,480.

Does anyone have any questions in regards to the assessor's office renovations?

Councilor Pereira, on your first.

Thank you.

I— Mr.

Chair, if it would be appropriate for, uh, Jen Vieira.

Good evening.

Good evening.

How are you?

Good, and yourself?

Good, thank you.

Jen, can you just speak to the $51,000 for design?

What does that incorporate?

Seems a little high.

I'm not exactly sure.

That's, I imagine, architectural drawings.

Correct.

Plan for the office?

Yep, that's what that is for.

The, um, the everything we need to get it out on to bid.

So that— okay, and so that includes it— would this, would this require— would this be managed in-house, or would that— would it— a contractor would be hired?

We'll do as much as we absolutely can in-house for savings, but if there's anything that's got to go out to bid, either way we need, you know, stamped drawings anyway, whether in-house or out to bid.

And that's where that That's that cost for that.

Okay, perfect.

Uh, that was my only question on this one.

Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Anyone else on the first?

Councilor Gomes.

Jen, this is a long time coming, getting this repairs done in this office.

We've been talking about it for a while.

Yes, it's way overdue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, moving along.

CP3.

Jen, you might as well just stay there.

The City Hall deferred maintenance, $541,476.

Any questions in regards to the City Hall deferred maintenance?

Just an explanation, Mr.— Councilor Pereira and then Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Pereira, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So just going through the list of items here, Jen, um, so replacement of the existing roof systems— that— are we replacing the entire roof of the city?

Flat and the slate?

Um, I don't believe it's the entire, but portions.

You want to step up?

Yeah, that would be more for the, the plans.

Speaking in the mic, please.

That, that price right there for the flat roof and the slate roof would be more to get plans to replace the entire roof.

So that— so in that big tranche of money, it's just plans to repair, replace the roof?

Yes, just a portion of that number.

Yes.

Right, right, right.

Okay.

The— it'll be phased, as you can see, over the years for us to get it all done.

But we have to start the addressing the building envelope with the water infiltration issues that we're having.

What can you— so I know it's broken down all by different items, but can you— what will actually be physically done to the building in this round?

Not— not obviously planning is going out for plans and stuff for the roof, but what is actually going to be done to the building?

We're going to start right away with the repointing, and then of course the plans for roofing.

Okay, so repointing of the brick facade, right, will, will physically take place during this and this.

Okay.

And this is a project that we put off a couple times already, so it's, it's something that needs to get done as well.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilor Gomes, on your first?

I'm all set.

All set.

Anyone else on the first?

Councillor Burgos, this is more of a logistical question.

When it comes time to work on the elevator, do we know how long it will be out of commission for?

It's going to be a good 9 months, hopefully not longer, but it could depending on complications.

Okay.

Unfortunately, just because it's the only ADA accessibility we have for our meetings, and I don't know And I've tried, you know, I've had a conversation with Dennis, our city clerk, to see what would be the best time of the year to do it so we can gauge it with going out to bid.

And there doesn't seem to be ever a good time for that elevator to be down.

Yeah, and it's not going to be done in phases, I assume, so it would be a straight 9 months?

It would be straight, yes.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome, Councilor Burgoyne.

Anyone else on the first?

Councilor Roy.

Hi.

Hi.

Is there a backlog of Deferred maintenance?

Like, this isn't it, right?

The $541,000?

Like, are there, are there, are there other things like not included that, that have, you know, been deferred in City Hall?

Not included in this summary?

Yeah.

No, it's what's here in this summary.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone else on the second?

Seeing none.

We'll move on to item number 4, CP04, Hillman Street Complex Building 3 improvements, $1,560,818.

Questions?

Councilor Pereira, on you first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Similar to the City Hall, um, question, what is actually being done in this phase and what will be— what is planning in this phase?

This first phase will start with— of course, we have to start with plans and drawings.

This will definitely be a project that goes out to bid, but we're starting off with getting the water problems first, and we have to make the ADA situation a priority as well.

So we got to do as much as we can with what we have to start with.

So is it plans for a new roof, or is it a new roof in this amount?

Well, once we go up and really assess how bad the roof is, that will determine.

So this is just for the assessment?

Yeah.

So there'll have to be more, and again, in a phase, more funding.

Okay.

Are the ADA ramps included in this?

Yes.

To do them, plans in construction?

Yes.

Okay, thank you, Mr., um, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else?

Anyone else have a first?

Councilor Roy on your first.

Mary, can we get— can I have Mary come up here?

Well, hold on.

Does anybody have any questions for Jen before we, we bring up Councilor Carney?

Counselor Roy, I'll get to you again.

Hi, Jen.

Thanks for coming.

Um, I've been over these years have been asking for pauses on this.

It's a big bite of $12 million overall projects.

I'm just wondering if, if that was cut in half, could you do the assessment and start some of the work on, um, Hillman Street?

We can— we would do our best with whatever you could approve to try to get the work started.

The building does need these repairs, especially the ADA compliance situation has become serious where people can't get in and out of the building.

Right.

Well, yeah, because I do believe that ADA compliance has been a problem for many years now on that building.

So I think that's number one priority in that building for the ADA.

I know that's been a problem for a while.

And I've heard several complaints about that over this past several years.

I'm just looking to— looking to see how we can minimize this amount on the taxpayers.

I know it's a loan and we bond for it, but a loan is a loan and we still have to pay it back.

So I'm just looking to see on these big-ticket items if we could cut something in half.

Are you able to still get the ADA compliance and get the assessment on the roof?

Because it comes back every year.

Yeah, and it'll, you know, it's, it's easy, uh, easier to see once we get started.

We don't really don't know what the bids will come back yet, how much we're going to need, when the time frame is depending on what we are approved for.

Okay, then we can gauge our bids and how the construction will start to try to gauge when we get further funding to continue the project.

Do you have like just a cutout of what the ADA is going to cost us?

I don't have it here, but I can— yeah, could you get— yeah, could you get that?

Because like I said, that to me is top priority because it has been a concern for many years.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Baptiste, is your question for Jen?

Yeah, go right ahead, my friend.

Thank you.

How you doing, Jen?

How's everything today?

Good, how are you?

Good.

Um, like, this money is needed, right?

How far is them buildings behind?

As I grew up in the neighborhood, right?

So I'm used to seeing that building being like not up to par.

Like, so if you had to describe like we're in the year 2026, where would you say that building?

How far behind is that building in compliance to where we can get it to where we can sustain it for multiple years.

Like, so if this money is needed to sustain it for multiple years so we don't have to keep on making repairs, like, so like, how far are we behind so that we— that we can gauge it?

You understand?

We certainly should have done this already.

We should have started this already.

The ADA issue is a big deal.

We did recently have an inspection by the DLS over there, and it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be.

So it's still workable, but it's getting worse.

The leaking roof, you know, is damaging the walls and our carpenters have to keep going, tearing down that wall, putting up a new one so we don't create mold.

It's a constant.

The money we're putting into it, it's kind of ended up just becoming a waste.

We need to fix the problem so that we don't continue to waste money.

If we can fix this and, and get it going, then we're gonna— we're gonna be better off.

Um, then so the building— what I'm trying to say in so many words is it'll be worth the building to put this money into it.

The building will then be worth more than as it sits, of course, but it's worth us doing it.

The building— it's worth putting the money into this building at this point the way it is.

Because if we don't put the money into it, we're just going to keep on spending money fixing everything anyway, right?

That, and we could lose the asset totally.

All right, so that's— all right, you made your point.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Abreu, is this— Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, I, I agree with you, Jen.

No more Band-Aids, really.

I mean, I think you just alluded to it.

I was going to ask you about the roof, the ceiling.

Um, it's, uh, the existing roof has failed.

And you talk about significant water damage, it's creating mold.

That's dangerous for your employees and our visitors and constituents who visit this building, this office.

I mean, to me, this is just a no-brainer.

I mean, I, I don't want to spend $1.5 million as much as the next person in this room, but at what point— I mean, public health, wellness, and safety and ADA compliance trumps certain things, and I think those items trump the ask.

So I think, I think it's legitimate, and I agree with you.

Um, I agree with the Ward 4 councilor, you know, um, no more Band-Aids.

It's time to rip it off and get to work and fix and tune this place up.

So, um, I can't speak for my colleagues, but I'm going to fully support this item as asked.

So keep up the great work, Jen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilor Pepperton, on your first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, I just want to echo my, uh, my colleague in front of me and, uh, to the right of me.

I've, I've had a chance to go into that building recently, uh, and I was in the Parks and Recreation building, and what I saw in there was terrible.

I mean, the mold, like you said, it's the, the rain, uh, so that building definitely, uh, needs to be, uh, that roof needs to be fixed.

So I just want to just let my colleagues know what I saw as well.

Yeah, and that building does house Parks and Rec, it houses veterans, and also New Bedford Public Schools have their, um, pregnant parenting teens program there too.

So they, they all need a place to be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone on their second?

Councilor Carney, and your second.

So this amount is going to replace the roof?

The— so this is going to do the entire project?

I thought this was just the beginning of it.

No, it's, it's a project in phases.

Yes, so it's in phases, but that amount will complete that building?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Anyone else on the second?

Seeing none, we are moving on to CP5.

Thank you, Councillor.

I withdraw my request.

My— oh, our colleagues touched on some of the points I wanted to make, but I withdraw my request.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Now we're at CP5, roadway reconstruction, $3 million.

Can Commissioner Ponte.

Good evening.

Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.

Jamie, I'm glad you're wearing your rain jacket and not your, your winter jacket, your snow jacket.

That's, that's a Better sight to see.

So it's probably a rhetorical— it's definitely a rhetorical question, but during your tenure as commissioner of the department, have construction costs stayed the same?

No.

Okay.

Can you estimate how much road $3 million can replace?

A distance?

It depends on The level of restoration that we do.

We had a banner year a few years ago, and I would say we touched 6 miles of road.

Okay.

And that was several years ago, you said?

Yeah, about 3 years ago.

So 3 years ago, you touched 6 million miles of road— 6 million— 6 miles of road.

But costs have gone up, as we have all known, because we're seeing other cost increases.

Increases.

I, I'm a little, uh, I, I'll be— I will ask the chair if I can speak to Christina Connolly in a minute to get a little bit of a better gauge.

But are you able to— is your office, with all the projects going on, because I do know DPI is busier than ever, are you able to handle a little bit more roadwork, roadwork construction, to repairing roads?

Do you have the bandwidth to do so?

Well, I would say that we, we do.

Right.

We have a lot of TIP projects and grant-funded projects throughout the city, sure, as well as the Chapter 90 funding and the road bond.

So, um, there's a lot more that's managed than just these $3 million that we're here for tonight, right?

And, and this council, along with my colleagues, have continually asked for a little bit more money in this and to maybe have that scale up along with the cost of goods they go up.

So we're at least doing the same amount of road, or trying to do that in the intentions.

And it's important for me, as I state multiple times, and I will state come budget season, that I find it important to make sure we're not overextending ourselves.

But I'm glad to hear that in talking with you, I know hundreds of millions of dollars that your department is currently overseeing and doing a good job of that.

So Um, when it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk to Christina Connolly, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Abreu, on your first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good evening, Commissioner.

Um, my colleague before me kind of touched upon it.

He started the conversation, and I think it was— it's well put.

Um, $3 million, uh, how do you decipher or decide what street gets the attention, or streets get the attention?

And, you know, obviously I'm definitely going to vote for this.

I definitely think need to invest more in our streets and roadways, but I understand it is what it is.

Chapter 90 obviously isn't up to par from the state.

We don't get the kind of state aid for Chapter 90 for the roads and infrastructure that we need, unfortunately.

How do you just— how do you decide who gets the love of this $3 million?

I mean, yeah, did you work with the administration on that?

Do you conduct a needs assessment?

How does that all shakeout?

Yeah, we have a, uh, needs assessment, uh, uh, pavement management, uh, system.

So we look at that, but there's a lot more that goes into it than just that.

Um, as the council's aware, we're removing, um, lead service pipes around the city.

Uh, Eversource is in the city doing their relays, um, gas and electric.

Um, there's, uh, sewer work, to separate sewers, as the council is aware.

So a lot of the paving that we do in-house factors all of that stuff in.

All of that is timed correctly so that way we're not paving and digging up a street and then paving it again.

And I'm going to assume this last horrific blizzard and storm we just received, that did not help our pothole situation, right?

It did not help our sinkhole situation as 12 documented.

So that kind of obviously has set you back a little bit, correct?

Yeah, this went to— did wreak some havoc on the roadways, as everybody's aware.

So, um, as far as like where— who gets the love, so to speak, um, it's still being determined as we speak.

We, we always go into it with a draft, but then, you know, things like this, uh, could change our priority.

Okay, it's not an easy thing to do.

I mean, I don't envy you on this one, my friend, because it's tough to decide who gets what.

And we'll see what we get for Chapter 90 and how all that shakes out.

Oh, before I yield, I'm gonna ask you again— I ask you every year— the trillion-dollar infrastructure package from the federal government, have we seen a dime of that trickle down to New Bedford yet?

The last administration in Washington, remember the trillion-dollar infrastructure package that went to every state and to help with the economic rebound?

It was doled out to every 50 states, and then the administration of every state would be the candy man and give it out to all the municipalities.

Have we seen dollar one from that?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a specific pool of money that I would point to.

It was a trillion-dollar package, you know.

I mean, that— we get grants, we apply for grants and we get money, and most of that kind of funding is distributed through a grant program.

So for me to say like where that pocket of money came from, I don't know.

But we are pretty successful in receiving grants.

Yeah, I know, I know that you do well with that.

So I'm gonna keep asking that question.

Maybe the administration knows the trillion-dollar package, if we've received any fruits from that.

But I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All you— Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Jamie, we know where the money got to go, right?

It got to go in Ward 4.

Sorry, guys.

I don't care how you feel.

I'm tired of getting calls all day because people have potholes in front of their house the size of baby baths.

I think that it's not your fault, though, like, because $3 million is way too short.

Like, you shortchanged yourself asking for $3 million.

I think that if these things probably were done before I was in here or you was in your seat, like, a lot of these things were getting fixed over the years, we wouldn't have the deficit in the street structure that we have right now.

I just commend you guys for doing all the work that you do.

I just hope that It does get some of the things that need to get done that could, you know, last us long term.

We talk, we talk a lot about the long-term goals of everything, like longer than when we're here.

But as long as this stuff is getting done for long-term process, like I think you're shortchanging yourself for $3 million.

I think that the city needs a lot more than that.

And I think that everybody's shocks and struts and cars up in here would agree with that.

And I think that people in the city, you know, they complain about a lot of things, but, you know, if they have to put back into their roads and give them back, like, I don't think that they would complain about that.

Well, maybe they would, but thank you.

I just wanted to say thank you, you know, and keep on doing the work that you do.

Thank you, Councilor Ortiz.

Councilor Oliver, you're first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Ponte.

Uh, the— it says for roadway— for roadway reconstruction, $3 million.

I think everybody has said, you know, we would love to see more money here, and I hope the administration does hear that.

I know we've been in communication with them, and hopefully that changes.

But when— is this money only going to reconstruction, or is it used for patchwork or this or that, or is it just complete reconstruction of a road?

It could be used for patchwork.

Okay, that's what I wanted to to know if that was going to be able to be used for that or you have to do a complete section from curb to curb.

Now, as long as it's roadway reconstruction and some sidewalk work, I think is in the language.

And that's what I was saying, like this, this winter, like didn't like blow up our draft.

But as you look around, you can see there might be cause to put a few patches out.

Redo some intersections rather than the whole street, just to triage some of these areas that are, you know, in pretty rough shape.

We're looking into that.

Do you, do you have a general idea of what that's going to look like as far as from this last storm, what it's going to take to get the roads to the somewhat drivable conditions that we have right now?

We have multiple pothole crews out every day.

Yeah.

So they're still doing cold patch right now, though, right?

Yeah.

Some of the plants have opened up, so they're getting some hot mix too.

But so we're making, you know, good progress with that.

But like what I'm talking about, doing some of those patches, that won't be until April or May.

Yeah.

And that you expect that some of the repair from this last storm to come out of this as well?

It could.

We're looking— we're looking at it to make sure, like, it doesn't make sense to fill 100 potholes and then intersection when we can just pave that area, right?

A small patch of the street where that street might not be on the schedule to be paved because it has lead services or Eversource is going to come through there.

But we understand the need to be efficient with the money and triage it and make sure that it's, you know, accessible, passable.

OK. And that was, that was kind of my— where I wanted to bring it was I just don't want us to be using this money, fill in the holes, and we could be replacing whole intersections if that's the case.

So thank you.

I appreciate that you're, you're being mindful of that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Council Gomes, on your first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, $3 billion would be excellent, wouldn't it, Commissioner, divided by every city and town across the Commonwealth?

That would be some serious money, huh, for us to repair some roads.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Mr. Commissioner, you've done, um, some great work with what you have, and my questioning was going similar to the previous councilor, was, um, right now you might have had a plan, but that plan may be scrapped for the moment to get the roads back together.

And were you considering, um, cutting into these areas And when I say that, in the olden days we used to have these guys with the jackhammers go in and square this off, then the asphalt would come.

Are you considering doing that across the city to, um, kind of tie up some of these streets?

Um, yeah, in some areas it's definitely being looked at.

This money could be used for that, and that could, that could stretch it a little ways if hypothetically, you took $200,000 and just started looking at different areas where you would cut it, and the following day asphalt company comes, drops it, cleans it, and moves on.

That's something you are considering?

Definitely.

We've done it in the past.

I'd say probably about 7, 8 years ago, we ended up using a majority of the funding, which was a lot less at the time.

I think it was only about $500,000 $100,000 towards patching, doing a lot of patching, being that there wasn't enough funding to do entire roads.

And it made a big difference in those areas.

Are you going to make this money also work, Commissioner, with some of the Eversource work that's being done?

I know you're stretching them as far as you can to get them to, you know, repay— reasphalt the street after they're done with it.

Could this money help in that situation where we wouldn't leave like some areas not done?

Yeah.

As you know, Eversource paves half the road if they do a main in the road.

And we look at the other half of the road to see if it makes sense to invest that money into that other half and save a little bit of money on mobilization and pave the whole street at the same time.

But once again, there are other infrastructure issues under that road that we might take into consideration and not do that.

But we do— we've been working very well with Eversource, especially over the last couple years, in, you know, cooperative planning.

Who does the asphalt after Eversource is done, Commissioner?

Is that subcontracted out to different companies or whatever?

Yeah, if Eversource is paving it, It's their contractor.

It's their contractor.

And you're holding them accountable for how these areas are being resurfaced or whatever.

Am I correct?

Because I've seen some areas, and maybe they're coming back, maybe it's me, but I've seen some areas where it's half of the load of work there, and then some areas are just perfect.

They put it back perfect.

And I just was wondering if you were watching that, because that causes you also, causes the city of New Bedford a problem later on, and we're going back.

And that's why I wanted to put the medallions out on the streets, so we held people accountable for what work they did and what work they didn't do.

And, um, I'm just looking to make sure that that kind of work is being done.

Yeah, our engineers inspect all of the work that any contractor performs in the city, and I would just ask you to keep on them.

Commissioner, just, just because of the nature of the beast of the roads and everything, that they put everything back as best as it can be.

Will do.

That makes everyone happy.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Ryan, you're first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Commissioner.

How are you tonight?

Pretty good.

Um, putting aside the pothole issue in the city right now, can you comment on the overall condition of our roads?

Are, are we, are we falling behind in, in fixing them?

Are we gaining ground?

Can you just speak to that?

And that's it.

I would say over the last several years, we've been pacing the PCI, the Pavement Condition Index score.

So it, like I said earlier, it's not just the, the funding that we're asking for tonight or the Chapter 90 funding.

There's also TIP projects that come in.

There's grant projects, Eversource paving half the road.

So a lot of work that is going into the road affects that PCI score totally.

And we've basically been pacing it and the city rates in a fair condition overall.

Thank you.

I yield.

Anyone else?

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else?

Is that first for the commissioner?

Councilor Carney, you're first.

Hello, welcome, Commissioner.

So first of all, I want to thank you and your men for the work you did for the snowstorm, because that was a big one, and you guys were out there 24/7.

And thank you for taking care of some of the issues I called you up.

The people were very pleased after you went and removed some of their snow.

So I wish I could give you more on your, on your, your, uh, road construction.

I think That's— that is something that when we talk about deferred maintenance and putting things off for years, I mean, some of these roads could have been upkept a long time ago if you had the, the funding to do it.

But, um, but I just want to say, you know, with Eversource and, and the way you're working things with the water replacement, they have been filling up the holes that they've been Um, dug up.

So it's— the roads are kind of smooth, and you can only do what you can with the, with the money that you have.

I wish I could give you more.

I would give you $10 million if I could.

But keep up the good work.

I just wanted to commend your department for what you did for the— over the snowstorm.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Anyone else for the commission?

Councilor Bergo, on your first.

I just have a question in terms of— so we're planning out, uh, because looking at our charts just for a visual, for, um, obviously this year you're only asking for $3 million, but over the next— this is a 5-year plan to accumulate $15 million towards roadways.

Is that correct?

I believe so, yes.

And so I guess my question is, um, because we've given money in the past, is does it ever happen with DPI where like you accumulate a certain amount to then attack like the problem in a way to, to work at certain roads?

Or do you— when you get the $3 million, you start working right away with what you have, or do you wait to get a larger sum of money?

We typically hold back sometimes almost half of the $3 million.

Say I got $3 million last year for spring, so that way we have funding to start with, because this $3 million if approved, we wouldn't have until later on in the year.

So we'll usually have a little bit of money left over.

We plan for that.

That way we're not just sitting on our hands waiting for funding to arrive.

But we don't typically pool money like that.

No, we try to get it into the road.

And then because the potential is next year, even though you've presented this to us, we have the visual of the long-term 5-year plan here, a counselor could say next year I only want to give you half because this year I don't want to give you the full $3 million.

So then you're anticipating that $15 million total, which we have that chart for because this is a 5-year plan.

But then someone might say, oh no, this year I don't want to continue that 5-year plan that we're planning on, which is why we do 5-year plans.

And they might say no, next year we're not going to approve that, even though that's why we plan these out.

And so that would be a detriment, right, in the thought process of planning ahead?

Absolutely.

Okay.

I'm just asking these questions in terms of, again, we do 5-year plans for these larger projects to pace them out for these loans.

And then as old debt falls off, yes, we take on this new debt, but it's money that we know that we're, we're getting rid of old debt, we're taking on new debt.

It's not going to cost the taxpayers more in that sense.

And it's that way we can plan out in that 5 years.

And so I'm just trying to create that visual for people when we're planning ahead.

But I'm using that— using you to create that visual.

So I thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Anyone else in there first for the commissioners?

Anyone want a second?

Seeing none, thank you.

Councilor Pereira, Christina Connolly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, Christina, have there been conversations with increasing the allocation to roadway reconstruction?

There have been, yes.

And, you know, honestly, if this blizzard had— you know, if we had— this had been foreseen or it had happened before we submitted this new number, it might have been, you know, even more serious conversation about a larger number, knowing we're going to have even more catching up to do.

But yes, we have discussed increasing the number.

And just because, if logic follows, less and less roads will be able to be done with the same tranche of money that's being allocated, why is there not a plan to either, A, increase it over the next 5 years as, as was laid out in the plan that my— the colleague before me spoke about, or even this year to, to something that, uh, was just mentioned when the last CIP that was put before us was rejected.

Why is— was that not, uh, looked at, and why wasn't there an increase this year?

Well, it was a little bit of a push and pull because, as you know, we, we had submitted a bigger, a bigger, uh, CIP number, uh, previously that the council wanted us to go back to the drawing board and cut that back, which we have done.

So in the service of trying to get— like, we have more priorities than we can fund, as you know.

So in the service of trying to get as many of the buildings, the critical building needs addressed, as well as vehicles, which are really critical as well, and the roads So this, you know, was kind of a compromise.

But that is not to say that we would not consider— you know, nothing's set in stone with the out years of the 5-year plan.

So there's nothing to say that we couldn't consider modest gradual increases over that time.

And we are certainly open to that conversation with the council.

I would really appreciate Um, and, and I think it would be a, a, a sign of good faith between the administration and this body if when it comes time for the next CIP, that in that build-out is some sort of escalation in roadway construction money being allocated there.

And if that means the CIP has to grow a little bit, and it's in, uh, because The administration proposed $18 million, and I appreciate— something like $18 million that was rejected.

I appreciate your trying to get that number down, but I also— in that rejection was also, uh, it was 2 objections that I believe the majority of this body had, was one, it's way too much money, and 2, not enough money in roads.

Okay, you tackled one, but I think the second item was missed.

I appreciate you attempting to do that, but I think, uh, in the next time we have this conversation, uh, I really, really think it's— it'd be wise to see an increase in roadway construction money and a plan over the next 5 years for that to escalate, uh, to keep up with inflation.

So at least we're trying to do that, that bare minimum amount of roads and trying to keep that consistent.

Understood.

I, I think in general it's worth noting that, as you— many of you have acknowledged, that costs have increased considerably since we started the CIP program, you know, 10-plus years ago.

We put forth our first CIP and it was in the $5 or $6 million range.

Um, that's just like not reality anymore.

I mean, you just can't get much of anything done with that amount of money.

So this $12 million, which is double, say, what you we might have been used to for several years is really you're getting this the same amount of work done as what we used to get done with that $5 or $6 million.

It's just the reality of how costs have increased.

So we're certainly open to the conversation about, you know, increasing the overall pot and then as part of that increasing the road, the road number.

I think it would be beneficial and on good faith on both parties if that was to be started to be incorporated moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember Pereira.

Anyone else on that first for Christina Connolly?

Seeing none, CP06, McCoy Turf Field Replacement, $1,764,000.

I see Bob walking.

Oh, Bob's not walking.

Councilor Forever, who would you like to call up?

Uh, Assistant Superintendent of Finance David Flynn.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So I, I, Mr. Chairman, a little bit of, uh, leeway.

I know we're on CP6, but the next item also was for the schools and might touch a little bit on that as well.

So as far as the McCoy turf field replacement, in the, in the blurb that's written here, it also mentioned the lighting in the scoreboard would need to be replaced.

Is that in this money?

Yes, it is.

It is.

So it's the turf field and the scoreboard and the lighting at McCoy?

Yes, at McCoy.

Yes.

And then the next item on this list is going to be for the lighting, just the lighting at Walsh Field?

Correct.

And looking at your replacement, the plan for the next 5 years, there's like almost another $4 million in and somewhat for next CIP, which is more turf fields, correct?

So, excuse me, so the other schools that have turf fields that at some point need to be replaced, all 3 elementary schools and the Abraham Lincoln— all 3 middle schools and the Abraham Lincoln Elementary School all should be cycled through in the upcoming years.

Now, is that something that can be phased in and not taken all at once?

Absolutely.

Okay, because that's kind of my thinking here.

Do you— if, if one of these 2 is, uh, that's before us this year is more important than the other, which one would it be?

The lighting at Walsh and, uh, or the McCoy turf field?

To be honest, it's really 2 different needs because at McCoy it's about the age of the field, the infield that is worn away.

Talk about— it should be a premier high school field for boys and girls.

Sure.

And it's to the point where it would not pass in today's standards, like the safety test of the impact testing and things of that nature, and the seams lifting up.

At Walsh Field, it's the inability to use that field anytime at night without those lights because they're so inconsistent.

We've patched them here and there to try and get them to come on when they can.

Other times they don't come on.

So it's really 2 very different needs, but both for your high school, which should be the premier facility in any community for the sports for the high school to work.

So, and one thing I also wanted to say is that the estimate for the Walsh Field, that $496,000, that's the fixtures.

I— this was kind of priced out to be doing these 2 together.

So if you were to look at, say, Walsh lights in and of themselves, that's probably not enough because you don't have the design and engineering and construction admin alone.

That's just like the fixture cost in there.

This was looking at being designed all together as an athletic replacement of the 2 fields.

So I really don't want to— so that $1.7 include for McCoy includes design for Walsh?

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Well, when you put the 2 together and you're at roughly $2.3 million almost, correct, that'd be the design and construction administration for both together.

Yes, because it'd be economies of scale of not doing them Yeah, okay, okay, it makes sense.

Um, but, uh, so can we at some point see a revised plan for the school department for the turf fields?

If that's— because, because, uh, in, in was— would be the 2 middle schools and then Abraham Lincoln, um, uh, elementary school turf fields.

Those can be phased a little bit separate and not all done next year?

Like it's in the plan?

Absolutely.

I mean, I'm being completely honest here.

We put it as the year out as to put it on the horizon and not necessarily saying that all 4 remaining fields would have to be done next year.

Okay.

It's those— the priority is Walsh and McCoy.

Fair enough.

And then the other 4 could be done in any order at any time in the future, but we're really prioritizing on these.

It's just to vote tonight, it would— and obviously there's going to be more votes in the future when it goes to City Council.

But just so that I could have— because making that, that statement makes it easier for me to vote tonight on this, because not having to think about $5 million, $4-point-something million next year for the more turf fields.

And I don't want to diminish the other schools, but they are middle and elementary compared to your high school, your, you know, your varsity sports trying to be a draw.

Yeah, we were just hosting a regional tournament basketball, we could never host anything for any other sport outside.

Understood.

They would not come here.

Okay.

Yeah.

So if, if, if in the next week or so before this goes to the city council, um, if you could provide, uh, and, and maybe just forecast out those other fields a little bit better over the next 5 years when those requests would come through, that would be greatly appreciated.

We actually have an engineering report being done of all the fields is doing exactly that, prioritizing the need for them.

We just knew that these were the 2 that were going to be on the top of the list.

Okay, so I pushed those to the top.

Sure, we can certainly provide you with the whole report and the other ones as well.

Okay, yeah, if you wouldn't mind and funnel that through the clerk's office, I would appreciate that.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Derek Baptiste is next.

Thank you.

Um, with the turf— with the turf field replacements, um, how often Do they need to be replaced?

Like, because I know them turf fields, we don't have the maintenance, the proper maintenance to keep them up to par like that.

So I know that we have to, you know, replace them.

We do own the equipment to groom them periodically.

However, they're all designed for roughly, say, 10 to 12 years of a lifespan.

We're looking at a facility now that's roughly 20 years old because it was built when Keith, the old Keith, was torn down.

Yeah.

So was just about 20 years ago.

So it's about 8 years past its expected lifespan right now.

And I think that the Walsh— the McCoy Field, it's just tough.

It's just not up to par when you look at other fields, when you go around the state, you know, with especially when you look at the visitor side and the scoreboard, it's really blah.

Like, so those are upgrades that are needed just so that we can compete, like you said, compete around and be in the you know, the school that we are and trying to make it happen around here.

But, um, the Walsh Field lighting is— are games going to stop being played at Walsh Field if the lighting gets fixed?

That is the hope of the high school, that they would like to have their home football games at night on that field.

But we'd also need to know that the lights were reliable enough to schedule them that way.

All right, because my— it ain't nothing like New Bedford High School football at Walsh Field.

Like it's not the same at McCoy.

Like, it has to be at— like, it has to be at Walsh Field.

So I'm always with, you know, the betterment of helping the youth in the community to make sure that, you know, their safety and whatever, you know, whatever activities they're in, you know what I'm saying, they can thrive.

And so, you know, I'm all with it.

You ain't never going to ask me.

I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Abramowicz, you're first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree wholeheartedly with my esteemed colleague who spoke before me.

If we're going to breathe life back into this esteemed Division I football program, it starts with taking care of our own house first.

So I support the Walsh Field lighting, full stop, 100%.

That's a no-brainer for me and I think for everyone else in this room.

My question about the McCoy turf, couple of questions, and pardon the ignorance of the question, but I'm going to ask because we have some terrible elements here in southern New England— snow, sleet, rain, the whole deal.

Is there some type of tarp we could always purchase to roll off over on top of the field to preserve it a little bit, to give it a little more mileage?

I don't know, I'm just wondering.

I do believe they make them.

I've seen them at something like Gillette.

I'm not sure I've seen them at any high school fields around here, but they certainly exist.

If you wouldn't mind doing some homework and reporting back, I'm just curious.

I'm just for the future, you know what I mean?

Because But talking about, you said 10 to 12 years these things can last.

But if we can purchase a tarp, I don't know what the cost would be, but I'm just trying to figure out maybe we could buy another 5 or 6 years on top of that.

I don't know.

I just, I'm just trying to think of economical ways to save this turf because it's not cheap, as is documented here.

You're looking at $1.7 million and change, um, for this alone.

But I don't know, it's just something that you might want to consider or think about.

Going forward.

Um, and the other question is, uh, from McCoy, I mean, what's, what's the deal with the scoreboard?

What exactly is wrong with it?

I've gone to soccer games there and whatnot.

What's, what's wrong with it?

Works fine to me.

I don't know.

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong.

I think when analyzing the, just the age of the, of the entire facility, that if we're upgrading, you know, the, the track was resurfaced 2 years ago.

If we're putting in a new field, if you're going to upgrade the lighting to LED lighting, the engineers who were looking at it were saying, well, if you're going to do all that work, now is the time again with the economies of scale to do the scoreboard.

If we thought that that was something you wanted to take out, I could certainly look at what's being held in that estimate for that.

But it was more just to— if we're going to finish off this facility, why do everything else and then leave a 20-year-old scoreboard sitting there?

Well, what's interesting is, is I know you can't answer this question.

This would be a question for probably the superintendent or even legal counsel.

But I mean, you see these other football high school stadiums in the area— I'm thinking of like old Rochester Regional, for example— big Coca-Cola logo right there on the scoreboard.

I mean, that obviously is a paid sponsorship that offsets that cost.

Has that ever been talked about or thought about, some sponsorships to kind of help provide some funding for these resources?

I'm gonna be honest, I mean, not, not Not to my knowledge, but again, I've only been here one year, so maybe the high school has talked about that prior, but I'm not prepared to answer that tonight either way.

All right, well, it's just a little homework from me to you, if you don't mind, uh, no pun intended, but, uh, I appreciate that.

I'm just, just throwing out some ideas, so I'm just curious.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All right, Councilor Kanyan, you're first.

Yes, thank you.

Um, just a quick question.

Um, are you playing— are we playing football on Walsh Field?

Now we're not playing because of the lights, correct?

They would have— they had certain games there, but they had them on, say, a Saturday afternoon and not a Friday night because of the lights.

Because that's a great field to watch football in.

So does, does the McCoy even accommodate the amount of people that would want to go to a football game?

Probably not for a big game, especially with the seating only on one side of the field as well.

At McCoy, you know, there's only the stand on one side.

So depending on the number and also being quite honest with the rivalry is you might not want them sitting on one side together anyway, right?

Because it seems like a small field.

I didn't think that they played a lot of football on that field, that Walsh Field was the field to— again, the athletic director and the football coach would prefer to play at Walsh.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, I'm just, I'm just wondering because I was looking at that saying that we do need the lights at Walsh Field so we can get back there and play football.

Obviously we're not doing night games there, correct?

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Gomes, on your first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try to be as quick as I can.

The lights at Walsh Field, you say fixtures.

I— are you replacing the entire light structure?

Uh, so at Walsh it would be because right now it's, it's a system of 8 wooden poles which are short You know, any modern design is going to be 4 large, like aluminum or steel poles.

So that's the cost of the fixtures for the poles and the lights.

Again, what's not included in there in the $496,000 would be the design and construction administration, only because we were looking at it as a one project.

And just as a comparable, the Wareham Public Schools just replaced their lights.

The bid came in for it at $569,000 plus the design and Contract Administration.

How much is that?

About $60,000.

So we're talking about $620,000.

Just the lights would be about $620,000 to complete it.

Yes.

Um, I would want to see those lights done.

Way overdue.

Not only for the high school, not only— because actually, um, I don't like to pat myself on the back, but some people say he got nothing done when he came here.

Well, one of those things where Sergeant Field at the time which is now the Paul Walsh Field, which was in decaying condition.

Paint could be scraped on any given day.

The conditions were awful, and they went in during the Rosemary Tierney administration and straightened that out.

And it was one of the calls out from this council and this councilor.

I would like to see those lights on because, as I said, they don't only benefit the high school and having those night games as they always were, but it would benefit the high school and in other areas and other factors of that field even being leased or, uh, for other activities or whatever without ruining the field or whatever.

The other thing I would like to tell you, most of these turf fields, they don't have covers, and they don't have covers simply because— isn't it true that the water just drains out of them?

Yeah, they're designed to exactly to flow water out of them very rapidly.

So It's not so much weather conditions, it's wear and tear of the play of the field.

Yeah, well, exactly.

Yes, I, I was here when that field— when Keith got taken down.

I was here when that field got built.

That field is still beautiful.

We should maintain it.

We should do the turf now and get everything done now instead of piecemealing it.

Piecemealing it means we have more to do the next round that we come.

I'm sick and tired of that here in the city.

We're going to take care of something, we take care of it now and for the, the life.

And you see, and we got 20 years out of that.

If we get 12 to 15 out of this new one, I, I think we're getting our money's worth.

But that's, that's my plan of action.

And everything you're asking for tonight, I plan on voting for because of the kids in that school and because of what it means to the city of New Bedford.

It's not all about the championships.

It's about the opportunities.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Roy.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, uh, why, why, why is, um, why is McCoy Stadium— McCoy Stadium— why is the McCoy Field at the top of the list?

2.

One is the sheer condition of it.

I don't know if you've walked on that field or not.

Virtually every seam is lifting up.

The logo is lifting up.

It's just 20 years old.

The infill is barely there.

And number 2, it's our high school should be our varsity field for boys and girls at the high school, which would be a premier part of your premier complex within the city, in my opinion.

Again, not to diminish middle school, elementary.

Those are the other fields on the list further down the road.

High school, junior varsity, varsity, just in my mind, should take a higher priority if you're putting one against the other.

Are kids still using the field?

Yes.

Yeah.

Are there safety issues on the field?

I mean, if it was to the extent that we thought it was purely unsafe, we wouldn't use it.

However, it's not as safe as what a brand new field is going to be.

I know our superintendent's son is on the soccer team.

Soccer hits the field an awful lot.

They probably play in better conditions in other places than at home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Uh, Councilor Oliver, you're first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Flynn.

Um, as, uh, sports teams are getting away from turf fields, are schools doing that too, or no?

Are we still— still staying with turf fields?

I think the priority for schools staying with turf fields is quite the longevity, the amount of upkeep that once they're installed— yes, you have to upkeep them but it's not to the level of grass turf.

It lets your playing seasons be longer, and they do just take more wear and tear than grass would.

So you can play soccer, then you can play lacrosse, and you can play football all on the same day, 7 days a week.

You can't do that on grass if you want to maintain the grass to the level you should for your varsity sports.

And they're lined and stuff already for that.

Exactly.

And the only reason why I asked that is because the general public is going to be like, well, why don't you just go to grass?

The grass is cheap.

And this, you know, like, but the maintenance of grass, the redrawing of the lines on every couple of days, you're gonna have to— yeah, right.

So I think for the schools, it's still beneficial, obviously cost-effective-wise for the turf.

And then take it, take the weather like today, you could play on— it's sunny tomorrow, you could play tomorrow.

You cannot play on a grass field tomorrow, right?

With the term— the McCoy Field, though, it, it is not regulation size though, correct?

Oh, it's a full— I mean, it's a full football field and soccer field.

It might not be— you know, soccer field has like 3 different approved widths, is my understanding.

It might not be the widest.

It's not an official pitch for soccer field though, right?

That's the— I'm, I'm— it's cool.

I mean, it certainly meets the specifications for the smallest minimum.

Dimension.

And it meets it for MMA purposes?

I believe so.

Okay.

Um, all right, I was under the assumption that it was not.

I think so.

That's why, because there's like 165 and then 195, 208 feet.

There's 3, there's 3 different dimensions.

I believe it's the smallest approved dimension.

While there are other fields out there that are larger, okay, it meets the smallest minimum dimension.

Okay.

All right, and that's why I wanted to ask to see if that was if it, if it was an approved dimension or if we were just operating at, uh, you know, because if we're going to redo it, then let's redo it.

That's right.

That was why I was asking.

Obviously, obviously it fits inside the track, so you're confined to the— without disturbing the track.

But it's my experience that any of those fields inside the standard track meets the smallest dimension for soccer.

Okay, thank you.

And, um, do you know how much money that we've probably saved you may not know, or an estimate maybe, of having the turf field versus a grass field?

If this was a 20-year-old grass field, would it, would it have surpassed the $1.7 million you're asking today?

You think it would probably be close on it if you counted the labor hours and materials and, you know, to water it, to fertilize it, to cut it, to line it for every single event that you do.

Yeah, you could probably easily add that up to $30,000 to $50,000 a year in labor and materials.

Yeah, okay.

Well, thank you.

I'd like— again, I just wanted to get that information out for the general public that'll be asking why we're replacing a turf field instead.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone on a second?

And it seems like we took items 6 and 7 collectively together, which was the Walsh Field.

But before I move on to 8, does anybody have any questions for CP07, the Walsh Field lighting?

Seeing none.

Hold on, hold on one sec.

I have one question.

Not, not with just the lighting, with the Walsh Field.

Is like, would you say that it's going to get up to par so that they can play night games?

Is the whole facility going to be up— is, is the whole facility up to par too?

Like the concession stand and all that stuff, like up to— I know it's up to compliance, but is it like— I mean, we would certainly like to see the concession stand understand in the area underneath the bleachers that should be— can we hold on?

Yeah, but that's part of the lighting.

I, I, I, I, I'm not part of the lighting, so I'm going to shimmy in.

Focus only on the item in front of us.

Put more money into the— okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

So seeing nothing else on the lighting, item CP08, which is the Zoo Harbor Seals Habitat, $150,000.

Is there someone from the zoo?

We have two people from the zoo.

So we're not Shara, but she's on my phone.

So she's going to be helping answer questions.

For those of you who remember last time I filled in for Shara when she was away, I'm the veterinarian Emmy Buddis, and then this is our assistant director.

Christy Caterly.

Does anyone have any questions for the 2 ladies representing Shira from the zoo?

You want to give us a quick overview of the request?

Sure.

Yep, sure.

Um, so number CP8— oh, sorry about that.

Uh, CP8 is the harbor seal habitat, so we're requesting $150,000 that can be broken down into 3 main projects.

The first one is the Harbor Seal chillers.

These chillers are well past their prime.

We've had them for about 15 years now.

Their life expectancy is 10 years, so we're at the point where we're getting recommendations to actually replace them.

This is an important part of of water quality and care for our seals.

Basically, without it, we would not be able to have harbor seals in our pool.

The second is shade structure for our seals.

So currently, the habitat shade structure also is about 15 years old, and just through weathering and time, we've actually had to remove a lot of the lots that actually cast shade over the pool.

And that's causing a lot of extra UV lighting and extra solar radiation into our pool, which is causing a lot of issues.

One of those is some eye issues that seals can get through UV or overexposure to UV, as well as it's actually heating our pool, causing our chiller to work harder.

And the third reason also is we do get— we do have a saltwater pool.

So extra UV helps the algae grow and that also causes issues with our water quality.

So having shade structures will actually help with all of those 3 items.

And then the third and last is upgrading our seal holding.

So inside our seal— go ahead.

Sorry.

One of the things that was brought up actually at our most recent USDA inspection in 2025 Um, was the lack of shade that we have for the seal pool.

And it's actually something that we did get written up for.

And so we did show them that we have this proposed plan to bring in this shade structure.

But it is really, really important for us to be able to provide the seals with this shade.

Just to put into perspective for you all, when you're feeding a seal, they're actively looking up at you and looking directly into the sun.

And that was one of the concerns from our USDA inspector was lack of our ability to provide them shade.

And also providing them shade goes into our third part, which is our holding area.

So harbor seals are semi-aquatic mammals, which means that they like to spend time near and in water.

So they do— we do actually train them to go inside holding, but they voluntarily really prefer not to go inside holding.

And a huge part of that is because there just isn't adequate pool space for them in that area.

Um, so increasing— or, and actually, I might add that this holding area is also made in 2000, so this is also an outdated holding area as well.

So through some modifications, we would like to give them a much larger pool space inside holding, which will overall give them much more shaded area or opportunities for shade.

And like Emmy has just said that both of these, or all these, affect USDA regulations as well as AZA standards, um, and affect, you know, animal welfare as well as husbandry and health.

So again, just to paint the picture, I like to make drawings for you guys.

Um, so our current seal holding, it's basically just one small room where the seals come into And right now we're actually using kiddie pools for them to go into, one of which came from my backyard.

So as you can imagine, that's not adequate for seals.

It was something that was mentioned when the AZA came out for their inspection over the summer as well.

We were lucky we had USDA and AZA at the same time.

But basically the point that I'm trying to make is that whenever we need to do any maintenance on the pool, which is their main place where they like to live, they do have to come into this holding.

And it's really important that when they have to come inside, when the pool is getting redone or the water has to get changed, maintenance needs to be done, that they have an adequate place for them to be housed in temporarily.

So it's obviously not their permanent home, but we should be able to provide them the adequate standards for their temporary home while their new home is getting renovated.

Thank you.

We do have a question for you, Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, how you guys doing?

Good.

How are the seals doing?

They're amazing.

Yeah, they're good.

Have there been any health issues because of everything that you've described?

So actually, yes.

So just to paint the picture for you again, we have 2 young girls right now.

They came to us in November of 2023.

Very healthy besides eating rocks caused some dental issues.

But we do have one of our harbor seals right now who does have a very, very common disease called pinniped keratopathy, which essentially is just fancy terms for seals that get eye problems.

And it's super common in a bunch of seals all over the world in captivity.

But one of the things that we are pointing towards potentially causing that with our very, very young seals, they're only 3 and 4 years old, is the fact that they are getting exposed to this UV.

So unfortunately for our harbor seals, once they get pinniped keratopathy, it's actually not completely curable.

It's just manageable.

So our harbor seal right now is actually having to get eye drops twice daily just to manage this disease that was essentially caused by us not being able to provide them the best care possible.

Possible.

Thank you for that information.

I yield.

Thank you.

And sorry, Chair, just reminded me of one more really important thing.

We're also getting a 3rd seal, so which is really exciting and great for us, but even more so to the point that if we're bringing in another seal who is this adorable boy named Goose, we want to make sure that we're able to give him the best house as well.

Thank you.

Councilor Roy already answered.

And Councilor Abreu, on your first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening, ladies.

Um, I know Shara had sent us an email last week with a highlighted section for the portion that she had omitted in this ask, for the lack of shade for the harbor seals and the absence of an indoor holding pool limiting choice and control by seals as to where they have available shade and water was listed as an accreditation concern and must be addressed.

Um, I, I texted our legal counsel to see if we could even do that.

He hasn't gotten back to me because it's right now.

Um, the administration checked with the city solicitor.

He seems to think that we can add it, but he's not our lawyer, so I'm not comfortable with that either.

This puts us in a pickle, I think, because I don't want to get you jammed up on what you need If this language is really critical and the ask for what you need, because that could be a problem.

You know, like if our lawyer's not here, I'm not really comfortable and I'm sure no one else in this body is.

We have an attorney who represents us to make sure we're doing things legitimately and legally.

I don't know, it puts us in a spot now, you know, this last-minute curveball, you know, I don't know.

Do you have a response?

Probably not to that, right?

Um, I wish I did.

I'm waiting for 3 dots to appear on my phone to see if my boss does have a wonderful response, but she is not saying anything yet either.

So yeah, because the email we received from Shara on this was on Wednesday of last week.

Um, oh, our attorney just texted now.

I guess you could move to accept the requested change proposed.

I guess we could, apparently.

I don't know.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

Through you and the council, they've mentioned the AZA already in their findings, and it doesn't change the amount of what they're requesting.

So what are you saying, Mr. Chairman?

I'm going to leave it as is.

That was as was published and duly advertised.

Well, in all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we're going to leave it as it was advertised.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to— point of order, Mr. Chairman.

If you're going to challenge the chair, we do not have legal counsel here.

The advertisement was duly advertised and properly advertised.

It was not provided.

It does not change the requested funding amount that is requested.

They have mentioned in their description the importance of the AZA, and we do not have legal counsel here.

Well, I guess anyone else want to request?

Yep.

Seeing none, anyone on a second?

Next is CPA 09, Zoo Regulatory Deferred Maintenance, $180,000.

Sure, we can do that.

Um, so these funds would be targeted towards a few different items, um, HVAC repairs and upgrades, Um, so roof and building repairs that are needed, and, um, one off the top of my head that I'm aware of is our Bison Barn.

A lot of our public pathways, just like all the streets— New Bedford got hit pretty hard with the fun winter we had, um, so those are on the list for repairs.

Replacement of a damaged door on our Rainforest Building.

So we actually have some handicap doors on both sides of our buildings that need to be replaced.

They have a hard time opening, a hard time latching.

They're well past their prime.

Like I said, the Bison Barn holding area, replacement of the Bison Barn medical chute.

So one of the important— so we, since we've gotten bison back, which we hadn't had them for a little while, the Bison Barn is also a very old structure.

And again, the same thing, we're getting some of wear and tear as, as it ages.

But one of those replacements is the medical chute that we use for bison.

That's something that did deteriorate and we had to remove that.

That's an important part of medical care for bison.

So this actually allows us to safely, efficiently, and safely, efficiently, positively, like, bring up, you know, less stress of bringing an animal into a chute for medical and husbandry purposes.

Um, so that's on that list.

And I can— oh, sorry.

Yep, right here.

Sorry.

I'm sorry about that.

Um, replacing and deteriorating fencing and caging, um, in a few different areas of the zoo.

So one of those is our hospital, um, caging area or holding area, as well as our otter beaver holding areas and our bear holding area.

So the otter, beaver, as well as bear, all of those were also done in the year 2000, so they're all showing their wear and tear.

I can speak for the otter, beaver as an example.

The chain link in that area is rusting and deteriorating.

The gates that we use to open and close these enclosures are very hard to move.

They need to be replaced.

Even the overall design is very outdated.

The design itself doesn't even allow us to put in like the correct, correct size crate sometimes that we really need.

And we sometimes have to— I have to go in there and grab them.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So, so it's, it can be challenging.

We have to work a lot of those little challenges.

So the doors aren't appropriate size.

And the habitat in general inside our holding areas when our otters and beavers have to be locked in overnight, say due to severe weather like a blizzard, um, don't really give them that appropriate choice in, in, um, as far as like water, pools and whatnot.

So we would like to really upgrade that holding area since they, they potentially could spend some time in there for, A, working on their enclosure, or B, you know, shoveling out from a blizzard.

So we would like to upgrade that and to make that more of an animal welfare a change for those guys so that they can, you know, do their natural behaviors inside.

Um, I can go— if you want, I can go down the, the specific costs that she has itemized.

No need for that.

We do have a question from Councilor Roy, so that might be a question he might have.

Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to know, um, you're asking part of your request is asking for the replacement of the bison medical chute.

And I heard you mention that.

I just want to know what a bison medical chute is.

Yeah, so, so the old one rotted.

And that's why we need a new one.

But so basically what this is, is it's a— they did— they designed these specifically for bison.

And so essentially what it is, is it's this device that you put almost in the walkway from where they would be leaving their barn to go out into their pasture, and they have to walk through it every day to get used to it.

But it's basically like an enclosed space for them so that if you needed to, you could close a door on both sides so that then I could, for say, come in and give them an injection while they're in this enclosed space.

But it's very safe and contained so that obviously, as you know, bison are very big.

They have big scary horns.

They have big scary feet.

You don't want to get kicked by them, but also if they were to do anything, they could injure themselves.

And so this creates a nice contained, like, enclosed space so that they can't harm themselves or you.

So right now what I'm actually having to do for our bison, since we do not have a chute, is dart them.

And that is incredibly stressful for them.

So essentially what we do is we have to contain them in our small barn, and then I dart them, which leads to them running around in a panic in this very tiny area kicking doors that could fall over.

It's not safe for them.

It's not safe for us.

So that's why we need this chute for them to safely walk through.

Can you just tell me how much it costs?

I appreciate that answer.

I can just— yeah, I think it's on here.

Is it not?

I think it's on here.

Hold on, we will get that for you.

Okay.

Okay.

Bison chute, um, $7,650.

Thank you so much.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone there second?

Seeing none, item C10— I mean, CP10, airport marking, $225,000.

Commissioner Service, you want Councilor Gomes on your first?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner, just an overview for the general public to know what this money is for.

Sure.

So, uh, this us to upgrade or repaint and redo some of the signage and markings on the airfield.

The paint on the runways and taxiways over time fades.

Plowing does not help, it scrapes off the reflective surface of it.

Some of the signs— we've been lucky with the 2 new runway projects, but some of the signs are starting to blister and fade.

So to keep up with our FAA requirements so that the markings are properly reflective and visible and the signs are to where they need to be.

That's what this money is to do, is to replace those and upgrade.

We're doing some from the bond we got last year.

This spring, the $225,000 is an estimate of what we will need to do either this fall or next spring to then finish off.

That will complete all the signage Will that take care of all the signage that you need to replace?

Yes, for this round.

The signage doesn't fade as fast as the markings on the ground, and we've been fortunate with the last couple of years with a couple of inches of snowstorms.

This year was a lot more snow, so it's a lot more detrimental.

But as the pavement gets a little bit older, it starts to fade, crack, because we're very low and the water table is high.

We get water that comes up and the iron comes up and it actually turns the white markings to a light brown.

Yeah.

So then we have to eradicate and do them.

So it's kind of an ongoing issue for the paint.

The signs, usually, you know, you replace some sign panels and you're good.

This is an airfield safety, safety situation that we're in for all flights in and out of this airport.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Council President Pereira.

On your first, uh, it's for Bob Ekstrom when you have a second, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Let's write that down.

Sean, Council Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Service, for being here.

Um, the— you have in the, in the, um, brief statement here it says, uh, they were last painted in 2023.

Um, and then the— before that it says the markings will last for 2 years.

Is that 2 years after painting, or are you saying 2 more years, or what do we— I— the standard is usually get about 2 years out of surface markings.

Okay.

Um, signs you'll get longer because, I mean, they, they get UV, but they don't necessarily get beat up by snow and weather.

Um, the 523 runway that was done in 2010 starting to get some cracks and such, so those markings will fade a little bit quack— a little bit quacker— a little bit quicker.

Sorry, I'm, I'm still thinking about the zoo.

A little bit quicker, um, than 1432 will because that one's a little newer pavement.

Yep.

Um, my only question is, with this being— with it being something that has to occur kind of on a, on a schedule basis, I guess.

Is there a reason why this doesn't go into the operating budget versus the CPA or CPC or CIP, all the OPP, whatever it is?

Don't think we can edit that.

I, I don't have the bandwidth in my operating budget to, to do this out of that.

Um, you know, the cost of everything goes up each year and— no, I understand that, but it's like a recurring thing, right?

So it's, it's part of the operation, right?

So it's one of those things that I, I understand you don't have it in, um, um, it's— it, it would, you know, blow your operating budget out of the water, but it is a cost of operation on almost 2-year basis, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Um, is— how has this been handled before in the past?

Has it always been through appropriations like this, or— We've been fairly fortunate because the main runway was done in 2010.

We got our 139 certificate in 2017.

Part of that push, we worked with the state and we got some markings done by a grant from them.

Um, that we handled internally, the local share of that.

The state grants are usually pretty good, like an 80/20 split, so that worked out well.

1432 was redone in 2019 to 2020, so that was all repainted after it was resurfaced and redone.

So we've kind of ridden out a good series of some of these things getting done.

The state does come in every once in a while and do airport markings, but they don't do it every year.

They kind of do it on their own schedule.

Yeah.

And they choose which airports they want to touch or not touch.

Sometimes we make the list, sometimes we don't.

So as a contingency, we need to plan in case we don't fall into that.

Like the last time the state came in, they did white markings on runways.

They didn't do any taxiways or surface painted hold position signs.

Um, when you come around on the end of the taxiway, it's the big red box with a number in it.

They just— because it made it cheaper, easier for them, they just wanted to do white.

So that $125,000 kind of picked up the difference of what they didn't do for that one.

But, you know, again, we'll have to go back and touch up some of the other markings as they, as they age.

Okay, where does this put you as far as like on a, on a rotation?

Is it Like these— this gets done and then we'll see something for the other runways?

Or is that— or is it just gonna— is there a plan, I guess, to get it all uniform at some point where it's everything's painted and fresh and it'll fade together as well?

I, I try to be as cost-effective as we can.

So if some markings didn't get as damaged as others during the winter from it that we're only painting what we need to, not just painting.

I mean, some airports that have more revenue, they'll just repaint the airport every 2 years.

Yeah.

And stay ahead of it, where we're— we kind of more work on the triage method of it and do what we need to do.

You know, some things we do in-house if it's a small amount of work, but, you know, eradicating these markings and grinding them off the pavement's a lot of effort.

Yeah.

You know, a little bit more than 4 maintenance technicians can kind of handle.

And do they have to be, um, ground down every time, or— okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Council Roy, and you're first.

Hi.

Uh, are the markings dull and worn?

What's that?

Are the markings dull and worn?

Yes.

Yeah, like, like, are they, are they worn, um, to the point where they don't meet FAA standards?

Correct.

Think about it, especially today, our worn to the point where they don't meet FAA standards.

Yes, that was brought up during our inspection in the fall.

We told them that we would be doing it in the springtime, whether they gave us a correction date of June 1st to have it done by.

That's that first 1/25.

Okay, so, you know, there's not a time limit on this one.

But like driving tonight when it's dark and it's rainy and you try and— when you're on a street that has a nice yellow line down the side and a white line on the side of it, It's very easy to figure out where the road turns, doesn't turn.

Um, same thing when you're in an airplane.

Airplanes are designed to look up and fly, not necessarily down and drive.

So having those markings, you know— yeah, I got you.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Anyone else on that first?

Seeing none, hold on.

Councilor, um, Pereira, you wanted, um, Bob Ekstrom.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Bob's making his way up, I already had just confirmed that I was correct, but I'm going to ask it for the general public to know.

Bob, because the airport— good evening, thank you for coming up.

Nice mustache, by the way.

I think you took the inspiration from me, so I would just like to say that the— oh, I didn't call it on you, Sean.

An enterprise fund will end up paying for their share of this loan package, correct?

Yeah, that's correct, Councilor.

We, um, on the summary sheet, we break down general fund and enterprise funds.

What will happen is this goes out as one debt issuance, but we allocate, uh, to all the individual funds.

So we don't go through a separate issuance with, uh, through the debt processes.

Sure.

One, if we got everything tonight, it'd be $12.6 million.

Goes out as one issue for $12.6, but we will allocate it directly to the airport.

Okay, very good.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Council President.

Anybody else on there first?

Seeing none, anyone the second?

Seeing none.

All right, we are moving to the equipment acquisitions.

EQ03, public safety communications, $250,000.

John, if you want to give us an overview of the, the request.

And John, I'm assuming you're gonna stay there for the next one as well.

And the next one, which is computer and switch replacement.

I'll be here for a while.

You're going to be there for a while.

Please go ahead.

Thank you very much.

So, so yeah, so this is, um, an addendum to the logic radio communications project, um, that I actually asked for last year because we had, um, some 2 change orders for 2 separate tower locations for the, for, um, public safety.

This is, like I said, it was part of the logic communications project.

We're constructing 2 towers in the city.

One was at Hathaway Road and the second one was at Duchesne Boulevard.

So those were 2 separate asks for increases for— so those are just basically for the tower and the shelter increase in cost.

So Kings Highway, you gave me last year, I believe it was around $200,000.

But because Duchesne was further along, you decided to break these 2 up, and, and I could come back and ask for the second amount.

Um, Hathaway Road tower, we just signed the license agreement with MassDOT, so that project now we're ready to construct.

That one's moving forward.

Duchesne Boulevard is right behind it now.

We've gone ahead and got our discontinuance with DPI for the roads.

Now we're going to be going in front of Conservation to kind of wrap that up.

So hopefully in the coming months we'll have that wrapped up and be ready to start that additional construction.

So this money, the $250,000, was for the Duchesne portion, which was for a shelter tower and some additional project administration costs because we had to change the location of the site.

We had one location picked out, but we ended up having to move it, so there was some additional project costs for that.

So that's what the ask is for that.

Thank you, John.

And Counselor Royan, you're first.

What's a shelter?

Um, the shelter is basically the enclosure that will house all the, um, the racks and the radio equipment inside that shelter.

Okay, thank you.

Council President Pereira, you're first.

Thank you, um, Mr., uh, Chairman.

So we've had a couple conversations over this.

As you said, this was something you actually requested last year.

Do you feel that this is an adequate amount of money Based on that change order, yes.

Okay, that's an adequate amount of money.

Um, will there still be, as you know, time goes on, will there maybe some additional costs?

I can't guarantee that they will not, but you anticipate that being able to at least— yes, to cover those items.

Fair enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Council President.

Everyone else in the first?

And the second?

Seeing none.

EQ04, computer and switch replacement, $140,000.

Um, yes, so that, that was something that, um, we've always had.

We've had in the past that, um, we've had $140,000 for equipment replacement, which is computers and switches throughout the city, not only just City Hall but for police, fire, emergency management, and all the different satellite offices here.

And that breakdown was $75,000 for the city.

We allocated $25,000 for police for their equipment, for computers and hardware.

And then we had the additional $40,000 for switch replacement.

A lot of our infrastructure is aging and it's just— they're not under warranty anymore.

And we used to— we had like a 5-year plan where we would just start swapping out the oldest ones for us.

Last year that money was taken from us, so this past year has been pretty tough to get any additional equipment.

So we're asking basically to have that program put back in so that we could have that $140,000 a year for, for computers, for switches, for phones, any type of equipment that anyone needs, needs within the city.

Thank you, John.

Anyone, any questions?

Seeing none, we're going to go to EQ05 backup power supply replacement, $100,000.

Oops, sorry.

Yeah, so that is our UPS, or uninterruptible power supply, that's located in the basement here at City Hall in our server room.

It's approximately 13 to 14 years old and is actually failing right now.

The last power outage we had Thankfully, it wasn't during the blizzard.

We didn't have a power outage there.

But prior to that, the last power outage we had, the UPS was not sufficient enough to keep the servers, all the servers, all in all the switches and the radio equipment that we have in there alive long enough for the city hall's generator to kick in.

So all that equipment did fail.

Everything went down.

Fortunately, we were able to get everything back up and running quickly.

But the major concern with that is when you have— with any computer or any server, anytime it abruptly goes down, you have the chance of losing critical data that might be a process that might be running during that.

We could be running water bills in the middle of the night and then this thing goes down.

We've lost that process.

So it's actually a very critical piece of equipment that's located in our basement and it is failing.

There's no— yeah, there's no— it's so aged that we have talked to contractors, try to get battery replacements or what we can do, and they just don't— they don't exist.

We did apply for a grant this year for that, but unfortunately we were denied that grant.

We didn't— we did not receive that grant.

So that's why I was asking for this amount.

Thank you, John.

Council President Pereira, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is the average— what is the expected life of a UPS?

Um, so you said it's about 13 years old?

It's about 13 years old, so you would expect them to last 8 to 10 years.

Okay.

All right, so periodic battery replacements if necessary.

I gotcha, I gotcha.

So if, if this was to be approved, where you, you plan on that being covered for at least 8 years?

Yes, it would be covered for at least 8 years, and with this one, because of the consumption that we have down there, we've added more switches, we add more equipment.

We've actually sized it up a little more so that we would have more longevity and better, better, you know, performance out of it.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone there second?

Moving on to EQ06, Cisco Call Management System replacement, $462,000.

Yes, John.

Thank you.

Um, so about Again, 13 years ago in 2013, I don't know if anybody remembers, but we went from Verizon analog phone system here at City Hall and all other offices to a VoIP or voice over IP system here.

That system, again, is just 13 years old.

A lot of the switches, a lot of the switches and the, the call manager themselves are now obsolete.

We can't get replacement parts for a lot of it now.

We did have a software upgrade in May of 2022, and right now there are a lot of the features in the software that is failing on that system we can't get support for anymore.

So we can't get those things fixed.

People used to use— I don't know if you remember, but we used to have Jabber, which is basically a system on your computer that would allow you to, to make phone calls and everything We can't use that system anymore.

Also with voice email— I'm sorry, I'm just drawing a blank on that one.

So any type of voice messages you get to your phone would be emailed to you.

That system is no longer working.

We can't get support on it anymore.

So right now, currently, we have 2 call managers.

We have the primaries located here at City Hall with a backup at police headquarters, and we have approximately 32 voice gateways throughout the city, um, and, and our Cisco phones, which are slowly becoming end of life.

The ones we have now would be compatible with the new upgrade, but only for another year or two.

Then we would have to start purchasing new phones after that.

So it's— this is again another critical system that, um, you know, once, once something fails on it We're just down.

We wouldn't— we wouldn't be able to repair any of that or get any support through Cisco for it.

Thank you, John.

Any questions?

Seeing none, John, thank you.

Thank you.

We're moving to EQ14, airport aqueous film forming foam.

Price, $30,000.

Scott.

So our fire truck has the old-style AFFF in it, which has got the PFAS that a lot of the EPA folks and, and everybody is concerned with.

They finally came out with an FAA-approved new foam that we can have the truck then emptied of the old stuff, rid of the old foam.

They have to flush the truck and wash it to get everything out and then run a test on it to make sure the PFAS is out and then resupply the truck with new foam and then dispose of the old stuff.

This was something I've been working on for a few years, but we've been holding off on because the FAA hadn't approved the new foam.

And we're surrounded by wetlands.

Not that I ever want the truck to ever have to go out and spray foam, but if we do, I don't want to create a larger problem than we already have.

Never mind for the fire department and stuff.

You know, if we spray the foam we have on the truck now, you have to do decontamination and everything else, which the new foam alleviates some of that health concern.

Thank you.

Council Oliver, on your first.

Thank you.

This will be brief, Scott.

This isn't a— even though that we know the problems with the current foam that is— that we have, is this a mandate or is it something that we are just looking to change?

Is the EPA making folks change to this new foam?

Or is the old foam still okay to use despite all of its other concerns?

So prior to the last election in November, this was going to be a soon-coming mandate for everybody to change.

The EPA is no longer pushing on this.

I mean, a lot of places are trying to figure out what to do with it.

So this is more of a preemptive thing that we'd like to do.

Was there— do you know, or did you hear of any funding mechanism that was coming prior to that election that you were talking about?

Or is it was just the EPA was going to say it needed to get changed?

The EPA was going to say it needed to get changed.

Okay.

So this is right now I'm not aware of any.

So this was something that was still going to fall on the local ratepayers to do throughout, you know, the various municipalities.

Has there been any talk of possible grants or anything like that from the EPA or whoever, you know, to change all these since we do know of the health concerns of the— what is being used currently?

Currently no grants right now.

I mean, there were talks that the FAA was thinking about doing something, but they haven't come out with a program thinking about that.

And because of the timeline to do it, I elected to keep it on the CIP because I didn't want to wait for a shotgun deadline to come up and then not be in compliance for something.

Yeah.

All right, I just wanted a little bit more clarification on that to see, you know, I, I think we all recognize that it needs to happen.

It's a, you know, small amount of money in the grand scheme of things, but I just wanted a little bit more insight on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

Seeing none, thank you, Scott.

So we can do one of two things.

We can take a line item by vote if anybody wants to amend a number, or we can approve the whole thing if there's no amendments.

Information, Mr. Chairman.

Can— are we going to go over the vehicles?

All I have is up to EQ10— EQ14 on my papers.

Oh, let me see if you don't mind.

Councillor Pemberton.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

It's okay, I stopped at EQ14.

You can take mine off my desk.

Oh, Section 3, vehicle acquisition.

That's what's going to be on this.

All right, Section 3 is the vehicle acquisition and replacement.

Is there somebody to speak on the vehicle acquisition?

I think that's gonna— Jen, go right ahead.

What's the figure?

Jen, can you give us the figure too for vehicle replacement?

Um, I can speak on the DFFM portion, but I know there's EMS, police, recreation also.

Start with DFFM.

I believe it's $2.4 million approximately.

Um, yeah, Mr. Chairman.

Yep, $2,420,420.

Um, so I can speak on where it begins, fleet management, and then we have 13 items ending with fleet, so between fire and police.

Um, we do have 13 here.

It seems a little high, but this is a 2-year ask for DFFM.

We didn't have any vehicles in the last CIP ask, so it seems like a little bit more, but it's 2 years worth.

Um, do you want me to go through each one?

No.

Councilor Pereira.

Mr.— thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, uh, I, I just have some general overall comments and questions.

So I know we have spoken before, and I see that there were some upgrades to the pool car program, which I know you have flagged as a dire need.

You know, people trying to go up to Boston or to out of town and not having vehicles that you would trust on the highway.

And so I understand it's a need.

Have we talked any more about expanding the pool program.

And, and I know we've talked about offices that might not need to use a vehicle every day not having a vehicle, a city vehicle.

Yes, yes, we— I have spoken to several department heads.

We do go down the list and do the assessment with the super— the fleet superintendent and the department heads, making sure who has what vehicle, are they in use.

We try to make sure we audit all our vehicles where they're at, and so that none are being underutilized.

Okay, yeah, I definitely think that that's something that should be further expanded.

I know that you've been working on that, so I appreciate that.

My only other comment, and it's going to be to a couple other departments as well, but specifically, you know, DFFM and fire are two really future a projection of what's needed so that when I'm voting on this year's, I can— I have an idea.

And obviously things change, I get it.

A piece of equipment might break and we— that has to get moved up in the schedule, and I understand that, and, and we can be flexible.

But at least when I'm voting, because it is like, as you said, it's 2 years worth of vehicles here, so it is a sizable amount.

So when, when I take that vote, I really would like to see some forecasting so I know how much to expect next year and in the future for 4 or 5 years.

Yes, we're definitely working on that now.

Um, we did have this conversation with, um, CFO Ekstrom, okay, to get that done.

Yeah, I, I definitely think it'd be helpful, uh, uh, in, in making decisions, uh, my decisions a little bit easier.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Mr. Chairman, Councilmember, Councilor Roy.

You can speak to fleet management, right?

Yes.

I see on this list that it says John Deere loader at, um, it looks like $295,000.

Um, are those the front loaders that, like, that, you know, we were— the city was, like, in dire need for?

Correct.

During the blizzard.

And one of them costs about $300 grand?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and that happens to be DFFM's one and only, which we can no longer use.

It's become a safety situation.

Not only has the transmission now blown, but the gas pedal was sticking for years.

It's the one and only loader that DFFM has.

It's a critical piece of equipment to run the recycling center.

It's also the piece of equipment that we use to put the sander inserts into the salter trucks.

We load trucks, salter trucks with it, and we also plow the yard and any other city lots or wherever.

Like this major storm, they were just all over.

Thank you.

So it's, if anything, this is extreme need for us.

Thank you.

I yield.

And you're also on there first for, for Jen Singh Nunn.

Okay, Jen, you're all set.

Thank you.

So also on that, we have EMS.

If anybody has a question for our EMS director— just a comment.

I would like to thank the EMS director for putting out a schedule of vehicles I— that I requested from Jen and a couple other departments.

He did a good job breaking that out, and I would just like to give him credit.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

So that's anybody else?

No one else on EMS?

All right.

Councillor Roy, just one question.

That's, that's at the cost of an ambulance, $425,000?

Let me do the math on this now.

Good evening.

Hi.

Hi.

Yes, that's the cost of the ambulance with, uh, all the accessories, the power load that's in there as well, the stretcher and everything.

And why is it important that your department have it?

Because we, we use them so often and we're so busy.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

I'm fine.

Okay, all set.

Oh nope, Council Oliver.

Well, you dragged them up there, so I have to— uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.

Um, is this a replacement or addition?

It's a replacement.

So we— it's replacing a 2018, uh, Ford 550.

That has, uh, 170,000 miles on it.

Is that going to be used down the fleet, or is we— are we getting rid of that?

Well, ideally we probably get rid of the 2018.

It's, you know, it's 8 years old, but we'll probably keep it for a little bit.

So we'll be replacing.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

So that's anyone on EMS?

Seeing none, we've already had fleet management from TFFM Police Chief Toti.

Good evening.

Councilor Gomes, on your first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Chief.

Good evening.

Need all cars?

What's that?

Need all those cars?

Uh, we need more than that, but I know that 4 will get us started, I guess.

I was just asked by a colleague, why do we hold on to all the old cars?

I tell her we're not really holding on to them.

They're used in details and other things, and we— I, I think we've done a good job of some of which you— if you would have been disgusted with some of what you would have seen out there before you got here, that your man in charge has done a good job of rotating these cars where we look presentable on 195 and throughout the city doing details.

I just wanted you to explain the significance of these cars and what they mean to the department.

Yeah, no doubt this isn't unique.

Where I came from, Our fleet saw some good years and some bad years.

And I think, you know, it's one of the areas that folks try to save money, but then it kind of puts you behind the 8-ball.

And now you're, you know, now you're in trouble.

And before you know it, your cars are in tough shape.

So, you know, these 4 will be the hybrid police interceptor utilities.

They'll be frontline patrol cars.

These cars run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Just, you know, quick stats.

10 of our vehicles are older than 12 years old.

We've got 22 vehicles that are between 7 and 10 years old.

9 of those vehicles have over 140,000 miles on them, and another 9 have between 100,000 and 140,000.

Generally speaking, your service life on a patrol car is about 4 years to— and 80,000 miles.

That's what you're looking to try to get out of them to keep the cost, the maintenance cost down, to keep them on on the road.

Like everyone else in the city, the snowstorm doesn't help.

You know, they're, they're not made for 37 inches of snow.

They're made for 6 inches of snow.

So, you know, Officer DeSantis does a great job of keeping the fleet up, keeping it looking sharp.

I put together a committee with him, and he selected 6 other officers to look at the fleet and see if there's any changes they want to make.

And markings and things like that.

I think the vehicle is a good representation of the department and it's good for morale.

So those are some other things that we're kind of looking at.

I just wanted you to explain to the people what the significance are to these cruisers and how important they are.

I know how important they are to the department, but how important they are to the men and women of your department and getting to the emergency calls as they should be and not having something out there breaking down as we once had.

And on your, your staff, as, as I said, has done a great job in, um, recircling these cars and making everything look presentable that we have out there.

Not hoods on cars with paint gone and things like that that we had.

And, uh, we'll keep supporting you, um, because of the significance of these vehicles and what they mean to the men and women and the people of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Also a shout out to those that are that are keeping the maintenance up.

So also, yes.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Abramowicz, you first.

Thanks a bunch.

Chief, thanks for coming in.

I think you may have touched upon it briefly if I heard you correctly, but these types of investments in your department, the small working subcommittee you spoke about with Brian Dos Anjos, it's a morale booster.

Tell me, I mean, I'm correct in saying that, correct?

Yeah, I mean, officers You know, equipment's a big thing.

You know, these, these police officers are in these cars, you know, for 8, sometimes 16 hours a day.

And, and, you know, things like uniform and the cars they drive in are a sense of pride.

I was impressed to come here and see that Officer DeSanjos puts a, puts a good light package in the cars.

You know, that's important to make sure that, you know, even with those light packages, we had a cruiser struck while it was on the side side of the road helping someone else, and that resulted in a fatality this year.

So those, those lights, those markings that you see on there that are reflective, they all mean something.

And the way those cruisers look mean a great deal to the morale of the officers.

They've got to get in and out of them dozens of times a day.

I agree, it's important.

It shows that you care, we care, we're investing in them.

They're human beings, they're not machines.

So they, they all, they all go home at night to families.

So I appreciate your advocacy for this, and I feel the same way.

So thank you, Chief.

Mr. Chairman, I'm all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in there first for the police chief?

Seeing none, fire chief.

Thank you, Chief Medeiros.

Fire department has a request for 2-piece— 2 vehicles.

Yep.

Does anyone have any questions for the fire chief?

Hello, Council President Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just, uh, um, with these 2 command vehicles, um, we'll be cycling out some of the older SUVs like that were down in like fire protection and everything like that.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, since, uh, roughly 2013, we started on a, uh, a 3-year replacement cycle where we'll, we'll bring in 2 new command unit vehicles.

Uh, those will get trickled down to staff positions, whether it's training, fire prevention, wherever we, we have the need for them.

Uh, some of those vehicles are, are aged out, um, repurposed, uh, to other uses— towing the Marine units, um, Marine 11 down the South Station, uh, that, that type of thing.

So we We try to maximize the cost that the taxpayers are putting into these vehicles.

We try to maximize that, the life expectancy of them, by taking them out of the emergency response into other less critical roles.

And where are we on that replacement?

Because, like, some of those older white Explorers are, like, in rough shape.

Yes.

Where are we?

How much longer do we anticipate?

They should be out of service as it is now.

I know 2 of them, 2 of the Explorers that we have are actually— one of them I believe is used for parts.

If the other one breaks down, it's going to be coming from that vehicle.

So those are needed to work there.

When do you anticipate being able to cycle those out?

The hope with these 2 command unit vehicles going online, one of these becomes the Unit 3, we call it, becomes a reserve for the district chiefs.

If we have a second alarm or greater, somebody comes in on recall and they'll man that so they can still cover the city.

Or when one goes into service, they'll have that frontline vehicle ready to go.

So once we can pull these in, we can take the other ones offline, trickle them down to where, where the need is, is most.

But those, those 2 Explorers will definitely be scrapped.

Good.

All right.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Anyone, anyone else first?

Anyone there second?

Seeing none, Chief, you're all set.

Okay, thank you.

And then the last item for— on this item is the school department for $220,000.

Does anyone have any questions in regards to that vehicle?

Just a comment, uh, he doesn't have to approach if there's no question, but again, I know the school department has a lot of vehicles.

If we could see a breakout and a projection of a replacement program for them for the next few years as well, that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Mr. Flynn, you're getting up.

A few people have questions.

Councilor Roy, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi again.

I, I just wanted to know what the, uh, truck— truck, it's 3 vehicles.

3 vehicles.

Okay.

What the— oh yeah.

What the 3 vehicles are going to be used for and what, what are they used for?

Just— sure.

So 2 of them, probably a Ford Explorer type vehicle, those would be for our custodial supervisors.

Quite honestly, it'd be a trickle-down effect that right now they're in very small vehicles which do not suit their need.

Yeah, we do not keep every piece of equipment that we use at every school, such as floor scrubbers, carpet extractors, things like that.

So the custodial supervisors are constantly moving equipment from one building to the next.

We're finding the vehicles that there are now are just too small.

So we would rarely take 2 old, old vehicles off the list, take what they're driving now, push them down to them, give them the Explorers for being able to get around the city better and moving some equipment.

And then also one F-350 type vehicle, whether it's a Ford or GMC, whatever, with a plow, you know, one-ton truck with a plow to replace an approximately 20-year-old pickup truck and a rotted plow.

These employees are in these cars a lot.

Like during the day?

All day, every day.

Yeah, it's fair to assume that, you know, having a nicer vehicle, you know, would make them feel a little bit, you know, would boost morale as councillor from the south of the city?

Well, definitely can.

We certainly have a couple that, not that they leave the city much, but we have some vehicles that were like, don't even go over the bridge, just stay within the city.

Great, thank you so much.

Mr. Chairman, it isn't a question, but it was brought up about the preventative maintenance by the good council president to my left.

And I think it's something that we should strongly consider in this city, is that while we're spending money on these vehicles, is that we maintain them and we keep them as good as we can for not only the people that are using them, but for the life expectancy of these things.

If something needs something to be done, that we get it done.

For a long time, we just let things kind of rot away.

And I would hope— and I'm not talking strategically to you, I'm talking in general to the whole fleet of vehicles that are here in the city— that we try to maintain them and keep the life of them going as long as we can.

And that we're just spending money wisely and not just letting things rot away, because I feel that we've done that in the pass.

It's like roofs and things like that that we don't attend to right away, and then it's costing us millions to fix it, or it's costing us hundreds of thousands to replace vehicles.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on the— on a first or a second?

Seeing none, you're all set.

So now we can take this in one lump sum, or we can take it as a line by line if anybody wants to amend any of the numbers.

What is the will of the body?

Um, can we talk to, um, Mr. Ekstrom before we go into that?

Bob, they have some questions for you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Just a quick question.

So what are we looking at in our general funds as a loan?

Are we balancing it out with our CIPs?

What are we paid off and what's coming back?

And what are we— are we keeping steady on what we're hitting the taxpayers?

We're sort of keeping steady with the CIP portion.

Okay, we're not keeping steady with debt.

You know, we have school debt that's going coming on the books, uh, loan orders, uh, right.

I, I'm just, I'm just looking right now.

I'm— we're just on the CIP right now.

Okay, sure.

I'm looking— I mean, the other debts are the other debts that we have.

I'm just looking at what we're doing with our critical improvements and how we're keeping up.

So, you know, we had a proposal last year, we cut it down, and we have $7 million that we were spending last year, and you look for $12 million.

So I'm looking— these are all bonds that we're taking out.

Where are we averaging out on our CIP?

Yes, so we've, uh, we probably at this particular time probably have debt service on— I have to— I'm just speaking off the top of my head— about the last 6 CIPs roughly.

Because you have to remember, the— we have to get a useful life certificate, uh, from our bond counsel.

So when we go for the each one of these pieces of debt, we can only fund them for as long as the useful life of the asset will go for.

So what's happening is that you've got an average probably about 10 years on each CIP.

So we're losing a prorated share of the last 5 or 6 issues that is approximately equal to the 12.6 that's here, if I'm answering your question.

Let me put it to you this way then.

If you aggregated all of our CIP debt, the outstanding principal still owed is about the same every year.

Okay, so we're not— I mean, so we're maintaining— okay, so out of our general funds, yeah, we're spending X amount that we're paying back this debt on our CIP.

So I'm just saying, are we averaging out on taking that money?

So if we go $12 million this year and we still have quite a bit, what do we— I mean, so I don't have the exact amount of the principal payoffs of previous CIPs, but they're in the neighborhood of about $10 million or so.

Okay, and they're staying a minimum at the neighborhood of $10 million, right, right, every year as we, we're retiring some of our CIP now, haven't we?

I'm sorry, retiring some of that debt.

Oh yeah, well, every year we retire it.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, so as we're retiring the debt from the previous CIPs, are we maintaining the same amount of money that we owe on more or less a steady basis?

Yes, uh, and I have a, I have a table in the front of the CIP that shows you the, um, the awards over the last few years, right?

I know some of them are pretty— like, one of them was only like $5 million, right?

But I mean, but we still have a substantial amount of money that we have in our CIP.

Millions.

Millions.

Oh yes, yes, millions outstanding.

Yes, I'm just— but the outstanding amount stays around the same.

That's what I'm saying.

So we're not adding any of the more— the burden on the taxpayer by asking them for more money.

We're just keeping it maintained what we're asking now and keeping a steady balance.

Correct.

Yes.

And as a matter of fact, our overall debt service has been hanging around the $10 million mark every year.

That's pretty low, uh, right, on a $500 million budget, more or less.

Right.

So in our, in our general funds here, in our $5 million budget, we're staying at that $10 million debt service that's in that budget.

Yeah, we're not looking at $12 or $14 or going up this year or whatever.

We're maintaining at that $10 million.

Yes, I— yes, the debt service, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, it's about 2% of our budget, which is extremely low, right?

Yeah.

Okay, that's— and if I, if I may, I just would want to point out, I'm just trying to understand that, that's all.

There is one more vehicle that airport is asking for.

2 is vehicle number VH24.

I just wanted to make the council aware just in case, uh, so it doesn't slip through for fiscal year '26.

It's in here.

Um, so we subtotal after the general fund.

We show enterprise funds separately, and that's the only— that's the only one on the enterprise fund.

Um, and it's, uh Yes, for $60,000.

Okay, I just wanted to point that out so, so you have a chance to ask if you want.

Anyone have any questions in regards to the $60,000 vehicle for the airport?

I'm seeing none.

Okay, anyone have any questions for CFO Ekstrom?

I'm seeing none.

Okay, Bob, thank you.

What's the— thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make a motion at this time to refer the entire loan order to the full City Council for approval in the amount of $12,610,194.

Made by Councilor Abru.

It was seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone want to question?

Seeing none, roll call vote on referral.

Councilor Avril?

Yes.

Councilor Avril.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgos?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgos.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes, yes, that passes 10 to 0.

Item number 3, communication, Mid-Michigan City Council submitting the attachment, updated city's fund balance management policy.

Invitees are Robert Ekstrom.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Roy.

Second by Councilor Baptiste.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Bob, you want to give an overview?

Well, good evening again.

Uh, would you like me to just make a few comments and then open— give an overview of it, Bob?

Sure.

So we are in our fund balance management policy.

Uh, the current policy as it exists, we We reserve 35% for reserve funds.

That's 25% to stabilization and it's 10% to the OPEB trust fund.

Well, our stabilization fund is now built up to 5.7% of next year's budget.

The fund balance management policy called for a targeted range of 2 to 6%.

So we're still going to propose to make annual payments to keep that more or less in the high 5s to 6%.

But this right now allows us to, uh, to kind of switch gears a little bit and go after something that's even more pressing.

That's the pension assessment.

So what we're proposing is to take that 25%, uh, break it down, keep 10% in stabilization, put the other 15 percentage points against our pension assessment every year, and we'd still keep the OPEB trust fund.

Again, stabilization's gotten to a point where it's not that much of an issue any longer, and we are in the ramp-up stages of the pension assessment.

I think many of you can remember some of those charts that I used to present, and they would stay.

It's like one of those graphs you see in algebra or geometry in school.

It just starts off slow and it just ramps.

And that's because of the funding schedule.

The state allows us to go up to, I think, 8% year over year in terms of increasing our contributions.

So our actuaries have helped us to do that over the years.

But what you're doing is you're pushing a bigger obligation over a shorter period of time to fund.

So this ramp has gotten steeper and steeper every year.

Administration's been very concerned about it.

I'll tell you, in 2035, the last year that we're going to have an unfunded liability, we have to make a $78 million payment.

And that's as of right now.

We're still waiting on the new actuarial reports.

And by comparison, this year our ask is about $48 million.

So think about going from $48 million now to $78 million dollars in just 7 years.

This is going to help immensely because what it'll do is obviously the, the New Bedford Retirement Board can do more with the money than we are allowed to do by state law.

They can get into different tranches that we're not allowed to get into.

They have a— they have a targeted investment rate of 7%, and they've been outperforming that over the last few years.

It's what they call an actuarial gain.

They've been— I don't know what the rates are this year, the year-to-date returns this year, but the last time I saw a report, they were over 10%.

And we, you know, as good as John may be in his job, I think he may have left, but, you know, we're earning 3.25%.

The other John, John Taxiakos.

We're earning about 3.25%, 3.5% on our short-term money.

Money.

They can earn 10%.

So this will allow us to get that money into the system faster, and it takes away the obligation we have to make over the last 7 years.

So we propose doing that all the way to 2035.

And that's the highlight.

Thank you, Bob.

Councilor Pereira, you first.

So just to recap a couple things, free cash, which is not free, it's either higher receipts than expected in certain departments' revenues or surplus budgets that weren't used from the budget that was adopted.

Exactly.

And when we put that all together, Bob, we're saying the major change here is allocating 15% to the pension fund above our required contribution.

That's correct.

So it's almost— we're where the more money we put in early, the better we're going to be 2034, 2035 when we have to be fully funded.

That's correct.

And you'll remember we did that last year actually, off our free cash.

I think we put $271,000 away above and beyond the pension schedule.

And then if that's earning more than 7%, you do that math all the way down, it's going to make a dent.

Yes, it will.

But actually, if it earns more than 3.25%, quarter or so percent, we're still making— we're still making out because more than— yes, they, they can earn more than we can, right, legally.

Gotcha.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Council President Pereira.

Anyone else in the first?

Seeing none, a motion would be to accept the proposed changes to the city's fund balance policy, made by Councilor Burgos.

Second.

Second, Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 4, communication image City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $5,037,282 from free cash to cable access stabilization fund.

The matter was was referred on February 12th, 2026.

Made by Councilor Virgo.

Second.

Second by Councilor Pepperton.

All those in favor oppose the eyes have it.

Does anybody want to hear from Jim Marshall or from Bob Ekstrom on the matter?

Nope.

Anyone have any questions?

Motion to refer out— oh, motion to refer out to the full City Council.

Made by Councilor Burgo.

Second.

Second by Councilor Carney.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 5, communication.

Mid-Mich City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $60,386 from free cash to public infrastructure purchase of services.

The matter was referred on February 12th, 2026.

Motion to receive the order.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Made by Councilor Pereira.

Second by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Pereira on the question.

Just if the commissioner wouldn't mind just giving a brief overview of what this money will be going towards, please.

Uh, this funding will be going back into, uh, my, my, uh, services line to, uh, kind of backfill some services that have taken a big hit for, uh, snow operations equipment, um, fuel costs, some things like that.

Okay.

Perfect.

So just nothing major being expended, just some operating costs?

Yeah, this was like from the, from the first storm.

Gotcha.

So that's, that's where this, uh, dated from.

All right.

Yeah.

Okay, more to come.

More, more, more transfers needed in the future.

So I understand.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Jamie.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Anyone else on the first?

Nope.

Anyone there second?

Refer to the full City Council for adoption.

Second.

Made by Council President Ferreira.

Second by Council Carney.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 6, communication, Mimic City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $175,000 from free cash to waste collection disposal purchase of services, referred here on February 12th.

6A is the order.

Same course of action.

Made by Councilor Baptiste.

Second by Councilor Burgo.

All those in favor?

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Any questions on the matter?

Seeing none, motion to refer to the full city council is in order, made by Councilor Abreu.

Second.

Second by Councilor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number 7, communication.

Mitchells.

So, so would it just be motion received and placed on file and Number 7, communication, Mimmich City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $84,700 from free cash to tourism purchase of services.

February 12th, it was referred.

7A is the order made by Councilor Burgo.

Second by Councilor Baptiste.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Anyone on the question made by Councilor Abreu?

Second by Councilor Burgill.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item 8, communication, Mayor Mitch City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $70,000 from free cash to recreation and parks purchase.

Of services referred on February 12, 2026.

8A is the order.

Motion to be received and placed on file.

Seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

Seconded by Councilor Pepton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Anyone have any questions on the item?

Councilor Oliver?

Mary?

Yeah.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mary.

Um, the, um, is that going to— the money that's allocated for the demolition, um, is that, um, just— is that just straight— is that— that's not the complete demolition, right?

This is a— no, it is.

Um, is it bringing it down to, to What are we doing?

What's the plan for that area, I guess?

Yeah, so the, um, the $70,000 will be for the demolition as well as the disposal of the debris.

Um, I have spoken with, uh, Jamie Pont about covering some labor costs because we're thinking that we may need some additional help just to get the, um, the basement level filled in and bring it up to grade.

And then the plan for the time being is to do an asphalt pad there.

We have gone out to the public and they'd like to see a pergola on that spot at some point, or a pavilion, so that they could do outdoor events there.

Outdoor events?

Yeah, so with like a pavilion cover over it, something like that.

Okay.

But that does not— the $70,000 is just for the demolition and removal of debris.

And this isn't something that we're doing— we're subbing this out to somebody to do the demolition, correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

And I think— I know this is— this is the yellow house, correct?

This is— yeah, the yellow cottage, the Coffin-Holland house.

Okay, that's all.

I just wanted to make sure that it was going to cover— it was going to be enough.

I know that disposal costs for some of that stuff may— may get up there, but it looks like you guys— you have a plan with Jamie to try to cover, absorb some of that.

So, okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Welcome, Councilor Oliver.

Anyone else on that first?

Anyone there second?

Made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Burgo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And somebody sneezed.

God bless you.

Number 9, communication, Mayor Mitch City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $63,600 $662 from free cash to MIS purchase of services.

It's referred here on February 12th, 2026, and 9A is the order.

Motion made by Councilor Ferreira.

Second.

Second by Councilor Baptiste.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

You guys have it.

Anyone have any questions on the matter?

Seeing none, what should— motion made by Councilor Ferreira.

Second.

Second by Councilor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 10.

You ready?

Okay.

Communication, Mid-Michigan City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $17,610 from free cash to audit purchase of services.

The matter was referred on February 12th.

10A is the order.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Made by Councilor Baptiste.

Second by Councilor Burga.

Council Roy, seconded by Council Bergo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

What is your pleasure?

Made by Council Abreu, seconded by Council Bergo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman, motion to follow the suggestions of the chair, waive the readings on items 11 and 12, report out to the full City Council for no further action.

Made by Councilor Pereira.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman, motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Roy.

We— at 9:48 PM.

Have a good night, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me duck down.

Put my head there.

Say we see the face of Father T too.

I'll hear it in stereo.

I'll hear it in stereo.

Yo, so I said, so he said, Council Baptism appointment.

I was like, yo, I was like, you got black real quick.

My mic was off.