Finance Committee — March 30, 2026

All right, everyone, we're gonna set— we're gonna get started.

It is Monday, March 30th, at City Hall at 7:01 PM.

Calling the City Council meeting into order.

In attendance, we have Councilor at Large James Roy, Councilor at Large Naomi Carney, Councilor at Large Ian Abreu, uh, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor at Large Brian K. Gomes, um, Council President Ryan Pereira, who's also Ward 6 Councilor, myself Joseph Lopes, Ward 5 City Councilor.

And we do have, uh, is it one letter to be read into the record?

We have no letters to be read into the records, but I did receive a text message from, uh, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver stating that he would be 10 to 15 minutes late.

You can read.

Okay, item number 1 is a communication.

John Texiaros, uh, Treasurer Collector, to Councilor Joseph P. Lopes, Chair Committee on Finance, requesting a vote of the Finance Committee to permanently finance various projects in the amount of $43, excuse me, $47,340,000, and to issue or renew temporary notes for various projects in the amount of $36,620,169.

This debt was previously authorized by a vote of the Finance Committee, is required to approve the actual sale.

It was received here on March 16, 2026.

Item number 1 is before you.

Made by Councilor Abrams, second by Councilor Chouquette.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

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

That's number 2.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and city councillors.

I would like to request that the Finance Committee approve the sale terms of the bond and note that went to market earlier today.

Before I get into the debt issue, I would like to give you a brief economic overview, if I may.

The current financial markets remain unsettled as escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to drive volatility, support higher oil prices, and keep term interest rates elevated.

With no clear resolution in sight, the risk of a prolonged conflict has increased concerns about upward pressure on inflation and a further weakening in consumer sentiment.

Against this backdrop, several Federal Reserve officials have signaled support for maintaining current interest rates— interest rate levels, and Governor Barr stated that policymakers are in a good place to hold steady while they assess incoming economic data, the broader outlook, and the balance of risks.

He also noted that the ongoing conflict presents additional inflation risks, which may further complicate the Fed's policy path.

Market expectations for monetary easing have shifted.

Investors have previously anticipated more than 2 rate cuts before year-end, and markets are now pricing in no cuts at all.

Term rates have been— have risen sharply during the month as participants adjust to heightened geopolitical uncertainty and reassess the economic and policy implications of a potentially prolonged conflict.

Overall, the current environment reflects a market increasingly focused on geopolitical risk, persistent inflation concerns, and the likelihood that the Federal Reserve will remain cautious for longer than previously expected.

Despite these developments, we received favorable rates on both the bonds and BANs.

The successful bidder of the $42,510,000 general obligation state-qualified municipal bond issue of the city dated April 9th, 2026 was Huntington Securities at a price of $42,689,307.77.

And a true interest cost of 4.02%.

The city received 11 bids on the bonds.

Due to the premium received, the debt was resized to $41,075,000 as shown in the revised letter.

The successful bidder of the $37,448,169 general obligation bond anticipation notes dated April 10th, 2026, was TD Financial Products with a net interest cost of 2.63%.

The city received 4 bids on the bonds.

S&P Global Ratings affirmed the city's AA-minus underlying bond rating and assigned the SP1+ rating to the notes, which is the highest municipal short-term rating attainable.

The rating agency cited the city's expanding and diversifying local economy, stable financial performance, increasing reserves, and forward-looking conservative management with strong financial management policies and practices as positive credit factors.

Furthermore, S&P Global Ratings assigned the AA+ enhanced rating to the bonds as debt services secured by the State Qualified Bond Act.

Thank you for your consideration of my request to approve the sale of the bond and bonds.

Thank you, John.

We do have questions.

Councilor Choquette, on your first.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, John.

Um, again, I'm kind of putting you on the spot here, but I was just looking at the, uh, reports here on the credit highlights.

Do these— does this bond rating— was it— does this reflect, uh, our recent you know, bout with the Snowmageddon blizzard there that we had that depleted quite a bit of the— because, because I'm reading right here where it says, um, I just lost it here.

Okay.

We note that the fiscal 2026 budget included a cut to the snow and ice budget that removed the city's ability to deficit spend in that account and a cut in the police budget by the city council, which was filed by, uh, filled by an allocation of free cash that we view as not sustainable.

I was just curious if this was before any of that.

Okay, so good thing we got that in before the budget classification— I mean, the, uh, the bond classification, the grading, right?

Yeah, so all, all of this debt that we have listed here was part of the '25 CIP, um, and some other pieces for school that were related to those projects, but it did not include anything that was more recent.

Okay, that— yeah, that's— I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Paquette.

Anyone else on the first?

Derek, Councilor of Ward 4, Derek Baptiste, is in attendance.

Mr.

Chair, Councilor Pereira.

Thank you.

So just confirming, um, so first a point of information on the vote sheet.

The corrected information is, is is present?

Is— okay, thank you.

So at this time, I just would like to make a motion to amend the communication that we received, to amend it to $41,075,000 for the bond.

Yes.

And to amend the band to $37,448,169.

Made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

We're going to vote on just the amendment and then we'll do it at the end of time.

Roll call vote on the amended amount.

On amended amounts, Councilor Abram.

Yes.

Councilor Abram.

Councilor Baptiste.

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes.

So the amendment passed 8 to 0.

9 to 0.

9 to 0.

And now we need a motion to approve as amended.

So moved.

Made by Councilor Pereira.

Second by Councilor Abreu.

Roll call vote as amended.

Approving as amended.

Councilor Abrams?

Yes.

Councilor Abrams.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Virgo?

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes, Council Prover.

Council Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 9 to 0.

That passes 9 to 0.

John, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

You need to sign that now?

You want me to sign it later?

You sign it.

Okay, you can have his signature.

Item number 2, communication.

Council Morad submitting a letter from Eric Cohen, Executive Director for the New Bedford Contributory Retirement Board, regarding the fiscal '27 cost of living adjustment COLA base increase for retirees.

The matter was referred here on December 11th 2025.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication made by Councilor Pereira.

Second.

Second by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Can I also get a motion to receive and place on file the communication from Chief Financial Officer Bob Eckstrom?

So moved.

Made by Councilor Pereira.

Seconded by— second— Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 2 is properly in front of us.

Does anyone have any questions for the retirement board?

Councilor Pereira, thank you.

I don't know if, um, Chair Balagueron or Eric wants to answer it.

I just have a— yeah, perfect.

Thank you.

Uh, good evening, uh, uh, councilors and the chair.

Uh, for those that don't know me, my name is Lenny Balagueron.

I'm the I'm a resident of the city of New Bedford.

I've been a resident, with the exception of the 3 years that I was in the United States Army, since, uh, 1955.

So, uh, I'm also a taxpayer.

I've lived in this city and I've paid, you know, excise taxes and property taxes, uh, since, uh, 1976.

So I am also a concerned taxpayer.

Um, with that, um, I am the elected chair of the Retirement Board.

I've served in the Retirement Board, was elected in and began service in July 1st, 2018, and I've been the chair for 5 years.

Prior to that, I was— for people that don't know, I was a— I served the city as a police officer for over 30 years.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you.

So, uh, a couple questions, uh, in regards to the COLA, can— as it relates to the health and status of our funds, what I, I saw the actuarial that you sent out, uh, Eric sent to me, I believe, um, in that it looks like there would be an anticipation of approximately 1.

1 and change, right?

The actuarial study that you received was $1,167,000.

Out of that, New Bedford's responsibility is 88.12%.

Okay.

For $1,028,360.

Understood.

That's the, uh, that would be the New Bedford's cost.

Understood.

So my Based on that, too, in regards to the health of the overall health of the fund, I know that Eric indicated to me earlier that towards the end of this month, beginning of the next month— excuse me, end of April, beginning of May, we'll kind of see where we are in the funding schedule.

Hopefully close to 60%, I think, is the goal to keep on track.

Whether it's you or Eric to answer, the increase in the COLA, what does that mean for the fund?

What it will be, the health, because my concern is making sure the fund stays alive.

Well, let me roll this back.

When I first became— was a member of the board, our fund was $336 million.

As of January, we were at over $600 million.

So that's an increase of $264 million in the 8 years that I've served on the board.

We just— we beat the Prett, which is the public employees— which, I'm sorry, is the pension reserve, Massachusetts Pension Reserve Investment Trust.

We beat that by 2.1%.

We earned 14.7% in investments last year.

That's excellent.

So we're well on our way.

As you know, the system is supposed to be— the can got kicked down the road again by the legislature.

It's got to 2039.

So we have 13 years to make up the difference to get to 100% funded.

Keep in mind, nobody can prepare for what happened in 2008, right?

So we think— but we're well on our way.

We've reduced our cost on our basis points.

We've negotiated.

We're not involved in Prit.

We're doing better than Prit.

We have Segomaco Advisors as our consultant, and with them and us being actively involved, we've reduced our overall cost to the system, and that money is being reinvested into the funds.

So we went from 1% basis point to a half percent basis point on a lot of our fund managers, and that was through negotiations So this board has been working, you know, and it goes back to when I started in 2018.

So we have closing the gap.

So I fully expect that we will be funded, uh, if we keep continuing the way we're going.

Um, so I mean, I can answer some of the stuff too.

What I'm— just to let you know Currently, there are 957— 975 retirees that receive pensions of $2,500 a month or less.

That's 57% of the members in the fund are making $200— getting $2,500 a month or less in their pensions.

The poverty level, 287 retirees' pensions for one person are at or below the 2026 poverty level of $15,960.

For 17% of our members, 17% of our members are at or below the poverty level.

The average New Bedford retirement pension is $31,000.

The current New Bedford median salary is $63,411.

You said that average was 30— the average pension is There's 31,000.

And keep in mind, you have some high outliers.

Yeah, fair enough.

That pulled that number higher.

So the average— there's 138 retirees who are at or above the current average median salary, and that's 8% of the total members in the system.

8% are above or at the $63,411, which is the median salary.

For the— for somebody that's living in the city of New Bedford.

Yeah, I, I fully, um, I fully understand the needs of our pensioners.

I think that they did— a COLA base increase is definitely justified here, uh, especially given today's climate with the expenses.

Uh, of an increase here though, um, just to confirm, I just— I'm concerned also about the fund, right?

Making sure this fund lasts, correct?

There is no concern that this increase will negatively affect the fund because the last thing we want to have is a collapse of the fund.

It won't collapse.

Okay.

All right.

Just to make sure that keeps going.

It will not collapse.

Okay.

Thank you.

When it's appropriate, if possible, Mr.

Chair, CFO Ekstrom is here.

Just want to— I fully anticipate an increase in the budget next year.

I'd like to know what that number would be.

We heard it a little bit from Lenny, but I'd like to further expand on that.

Thank you.

If you like to have a copy of this, this is what I've got.

It spells out everything with regards to the— what I've done, the research of our system.

I only made one copy.

It was just— I'll run off copies.

That'd be appreciated.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's good.

Getting a motion to receive and place on file the communication made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Carney.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make run-off copies in a minute and distribute it to my colleagues.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Abreu, on your first.

Thanks a bunch, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, Mr. Belangeron.

Good to see you.

Um, some of the questions I was going to ask my colleague before me had— we've already delved into them, but I just, you know, I'm just curious, what are you hearing, whether it's daily or weekly, from your constituent members and your retirees about this situation, how it all plays out, right, with inflation being skyrocketed, with Medicare, and just property taxes and the cost of living just going through the roof.

And I would assume that you're getting in your offices receiving a lot of calls for things like fuel assistance and benefits.

Multiple calls weekly for people looking for assistance through PACE, fuel assistance.

It's kind of— I spelled it out in that document that I got over there, but it's weekly, multiple And Mr. Cohen, who's our executive director, Attorney Cohen, he can answer that because he's there in the office all the time.

But I know in conversations that we have that that is like multiple times daily we're getting calls from our retirees that just aren't able to manage, you know, and keep up with the current cost of living.

Not— well, not only as the chairman, but as a human being, that must break your heart, doesn't it, to hear that these people, many of whom were your colleagues in government, you worked alongside these folks, and to hear these stories must be heart-wrenching.

Absolutely.

Look, in 1998, the COLA was $12,000.

It took us 25 years in 2023 to raise the COLA.

We came back to the council and The council at the time, and the retirees were very thankful, agreed to raise the COLA.

So they raised the COLA to $14,000.

The average COLA across the 104 systems is $16,000.

That's what we're looking for is the average, is the average COLA through the system.

That's kind of what we're looking for, just to be on average in par with other systems.

Systems.

Thank you very much, Chairman Balazaran.

Appreciate your service to the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Lopes.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Anyone else on the first for the Chair Balazaran?

Seeing none, Lenny, you're all set.

Thank you, sir.

We do have questions for CFO Bob Ekstrom.

Perfect.

Bob, please.

Thank you.

So Bob, you've seen the information.

Can you give an overview from the, the city's perspective of the matter while we wait for Council President Pryor to come back?

Sure.

Thank you.

Well, first of all, I am, uh, I'm going to say that I've been around this current retirement board and I served on and off of most of the last 12 years.

I will be the first to tell you they do a damn good job.

The numbers that Lenny has quoted are certainly well above what the actuarial basis is.

The assumption I think now is at 7%.

I would suggest that going from $300-something million to $600 million is far above that.

So the retirement board is looking out for the interests of the retiree, all beneficiaries.

And in my situation here, I have to look out for the interests of the city as well.

So obviously this has a cost to it, as Mr. Balagueron has, um, has, uh, quoted.

It's, uh, $1,167,000, I think, per year.

Thank you.

So the timing of this is, you know, they— this has been around since December.

Right now we were very close to issuing our, our preliminary budget.

We're only 6 weeks short of being able to release that.

And so I thought, given that situation, uh, and again, the retirement board has, uh, has tasked, uh, KMS Actuaries to come up with the total, uh, cost.

The increase in the liability is $6.5 million right away, uh, $1 point— let's call it $1.2 million in annual assessments after that.

I just want, uh, the, the, uh, the city council and the finance committee here to just to understand this and in conjunction with the budget increase.

So obviously this is a subset of that overall increase.

It's, it's not the fault of the retirement system that we're looking at a lot of other costs, but, but this is another cost that has to be considered.

And I just want full disclosure.

That's all I'm asking for.

So the memo that I had sent out only earlier this morning just kind of gives you the high-level look.

Now granted, we are 6 weeks away.

We still have a lot of work to do in that 6-week period.

The administration— I just met with 3 more departments today.

We've gone through about 10 departments now.

You know, you've heard the CFOs in the past, including myself, say about how bleak things look.

Well, I will tell you, by a factor of about 2 times, this is one of the largest deficits so far in the preliminary stages that I've had to encounter.

And again, it's the non- funded mandates that are driving this.

Okay, so I, I give you some examples right away.

At this point, on the 4th Monday of January— I'm sorry, 4th Wednesday of January— we got the governor's budget, we got the DESE Foundation budget.

DESE Foundation budget, $314 million.

We have to spend that on our education.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

Has to be done.

It's all based on demographics and a formula that's provided for under Chapter 70 of the General Laws.

The Cherry Sheet aid and assessments, although they are subject to some changes, this is the governor's budget, so we have to go with.

We also got all of our assessments in from, I don't know, 5 or 6 different state and county organizations, including refuse disposal, for instance, Bristol Aggie, etc.

And finally, of course, we have our debt service.

Which is already known about well in advance of the budget season starting.

So by January 28th, even before we asked our first department to weigh in, we're looking at $28 million of expenditure increases.

And that's locked except for the changes that the governor's budget might happen to the governor's budget with the House and the Senate and the conference committee changes over the next 3 or 4 months.

So $28 million is a locked-in expenditure.

The revenues to offset that, we have $8.8 million coming in.

Uh, the education aid, treasury sheet aid, is $8 million— I'm sorry, $18 million.

I said it's $18.8.

So they've increased, uh, the total spend in the school department is over $20 million, and they've given us $18.

We have a net shortage of about $3.4 this year, which isn't terribly bad.

They only gave us $800,000 in general government aid.

And again, this is the biggest driver here is UGGA, unrestricted general government aid.

We've been pointing out now for a couple of years that it just doesn't keep pace with anything.

They raised it 2.5% this year.

This used to be the old state lottery distribution back in 2008, and then after 9C cuts in that around that time, and they basically got rid of the the, uh, the lottery formula distribution, but they locked in all the communities in relation to what that formula was back in 2008.

So now we only get a— we get a share of UGGA that's, that's, um, slightly, only slightly higher than Fall River's.

Uh, so we're just not— and I can compare that to other communities too— we're just not keeping pace.

So anyway, with mandatory costs of $28 million, extra revenue of $18.8 million, you can see we're at $9.2 million deficit.

That means that there's no other place to fund that except for the property tax unless local government, local receipts come through.

So I look at that next.

Departments are asking right now for $2.8 million on their so-called baseline budget.

That's the amount to keep existing services intact.

No cuts in services, but no additions, no enhancements, no, no buildup of staff, no extra new initiatives.

It's $2.8 million on about $103 million.

So they've been able to keep their requests to about $2.6 or $2.7.

On top of that, we have a $3.3 million increase in non— really non-discretionary type costs and mostly health insurance, other forms of insurance.

So I got $9.2 million from the mandatory stuff, $2.8 million from departments, $3.3 million from other non-mandatory expenses.

It's a $15.3 million deficit.

I'm going to be able to fund that with 2— pretty much 2 different sources.

Local receipts, right now they look flat, but as I say in the memo, what happens is the 4th quarter in particular tends to really— it's the big month— it's the big quarter, rather, to determine how well we'll do.

We get 2— you typically get 2 different hotel tax receipts come in.

We get 2 meals taxes.

We get the motor vehicle excise tax, which is one of our 2 biggest sources of local income.

That's only going out in the street only recently, so we've yet to see the full collections there.

So I'm optimistic we'll get about $2 million to fund that, and new growth should be about $2.6 million.

But all in all, I'm looking at— without new growth, I'm looking at a $13.3 million deficit.

Now we have to do some work here, as I said, over the next 6 weeks, but that's a pretty big gap.

By contrast, I never— I'm never more than $10 million.

And the kicker here is that this doesn't include any increase for any of the 3 collective bargaining units that we're currently negotiating with.

Police, Fire, and AFSCME.

The only one that's settled is the AFSCME Unit B, which is the EMS.

Okay, based on the numbers that we've proposed so far to the 3 unions, we're going to be looking at $4 to $4.2 million in all likelihood of increases in 2027.

Now the reason that's so big is you have to remember that AFSCME and, and Fire would jump into the second year of this contract because this contract is '26, '27, '28.

So the first— what tends to happen on these increases is, say you have a $500,000 increase, that $500,000 in year 1 is also payable in years 2 and 3.

In year 2, you have another $500,000, which is also payable in year 3.

And finally, in year 3, you have another $500,000.

So it's kind of like a step— one step, two step, three step kind of thing.

We're on the second step.

In fire and AFSCME.

We're on the 3rd step in police.

We are going to be settling a contract and going into the final year of that 3-year contract when we do finally settle police.

So I say all that, just— I have to keep all of this in mind.

So I've got a deficit right now that I have to contend with in the budget, and I'm looking at about $4 million just past the budget season in all probability that we're going to have to ask for a supplemental for.

So I just ask you to consider all of this when you do weigh your decisions tonight.

I don't know how the health of the, of the retirement board is.

I, I think with the, the capable hands it's in, I'm sure it's pretty good.

The 60% that Councilor Pereira had indicated, that's kind of like my own estimate.

We were at 54.5% 2 years ago, and my goal is to is to hopefully see this get to at least 60% by this valuation period because we're on that ramp now.

So between now and 2035, we're going up about 6.2% a year.

So I need to start seeing this pick up about 2 to 3 percentage points each year to tell me that we're on track.

We don't have that right now, which is why I respectfully request that you maybe consider waiting until we get that report before you make your decision.

But again, I'm only— that's only my recommendation.

I'm just here to try to give you as much information, background, as I can.

Thank you.

Councilor Pereira, on your first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Not that it has anything to do with you, but I just— since you brought it up, I do want to just say I think it's atrocious that police are in a 3rd year of a contract that they don't even have yet.

I think that's, that's horrible, horrible management.

And it's nothing to do with you, but just wanted to state that for the record again.

And even to be in year 2 of AFSCME and fire, that's, that's not, that's not good management.

That's not, it's not capable for us to make financial decisions.

It's difficult.

And I can only imagine the position you are in as financial officer of the city trying to budget and take that into account when we're looking at stuff like this.

I will say that there have been talks all through this period and you know, the unions will come back with requests and the city will counter and vice versa.

And I get it.

And it hasn't— like, it hasn't— we haven't gone from no activity into this situation.

But understood.

Yeah, understood.

I just— it needs to just be more proactive, I think, and just, uh, needs to be nailed down quicker.

Um, the— in regards to your letter, the one other aspect of income that I did not see here is new growth.

I mentioned that in my— oh, I'm sorry.

Yes, the reason I didn't put it in the letter is because whether it's new growth or tax increase is coming out of the tax levy.

So my letter was kind of focused on all non-tax levy— understood— items.

So where I quote in my letter here, 13.3, that would have to theoretically be funded if we make no other adjustments.

It'd have to be funded from the tax levy.

$2.6 million of that would be from new growth, brand new customers, brand new taxpayers.

Doesn't affect any of the existing base, right?

So, so the, the number that would be affecting the raised amongst existing, the stuff that would feel would be that final number, in this case 13.3, subtracting new growth.

Correct.

So let's say roughly $10 million.

$10 million.

Okay.

Uh, you know, we've, we've discussed it, Bob, and, and I'll say it publicly here.

I, um, based on these numbers of, of $1 million, I think it's justifiable.

Um, I know it's, it's, it's a lot to, to put on, but I, I stand, I stand by that.

Um, to the taxpayers of the city, many of whom are retirees, you know, a COLA increase, I think, is— it's needed.

I would basically be in agreement to— basically, if we were to take that $16,000 COLA, we would effectively be adding $1 million to the tax roll.

That's correct.

And I, as always, I respect the council's decisions.

I just want to make sure that— Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

And I'm fine owning that.

It's just the timing, you know.

So like, if this was 6 weeks later, you'd see all this.

I just want to make sure you're on with that, because regardless of what happens here tonight, that budget, proposed budget, will be hitting you on thereabouts somewhere around May 15th.

And I don't want any surprises at this stage.

Okay, thank you very much, Bob.

I just, I just wanted that for the record.

I, I don't have that as an issue.

Okay, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Anyone else on the first?

Any— no additional questions?

Seeing Councilor Gomes, did you have a question?

Councilor Gomes?

Yes, just a little bit more on, on these mandates.

Sure, the $28 million that I had referred to.

Okay, so the biggest one is obviously education.

So the, uh, DESE comes up with a foundation budget coincidental with the governor's budget.

It's formula-driven.

Part of the formula is based on the attendance at each grade from kindergarten to grade 12, and then there's another formula based on needs.

I think it has to do with English as a, as a second language.

It's low income, that sort of thing.

It all goes into a giant— How much is all of that, Bob?

So the grand total is going to be $314 million this year.

And it's also— I understand.

I, I was asking about this language.

Uh, I'm sorry, you were just telling us about the cost for, um, a language class or whatever.

Oh, I don't know the specific individual.

It goes into a formula, and, and DESE puts it out on their websites, and I can certainly get you that.

So can, so can the school department.

But they take your edu— they take your enrollments by grade, and they price out each student.

Like, a kindergartner is worth X thousand dollars a year.

And the 12th grader might be worth Y thousand dollars a year.

If they have other modifications such as low income, it's worth extra money.

So it's just a— it's like a giant algorithm and they put in your enrollment data and some of your demographic data and it comes out with the calculation.

And there's certain minimums that it has to go up.

It's kind of a convoluted formula.

It's all in Chapter 70.

But it comes out, you know, every year on the 4th Wednesday of January.

So that's the biggest driver.

The other things are pension assessments and Bristol Aggie, I mentioned, New Bedford Refuse Management.

You mentioned the insurance earlier.

Yes.

How much of an increase you see in there?

So the health insurance itself is going to go up by almost $3 million.

Now, one of the reasons it's going up by that much is if you recall recall, the council did make a cut last year of $750,000.

Now, we price out health insurance on a zero-base budget method, so we'll tell you the exact enrollments by individual and by family plan for each of the— well, it's mostly in HMO plans.

And then we'll also do the same for Medicare and the Medics premiums as well.

So we lay it all out based on existing enrollment at the time.

And we, we use the current existing rates that the city pays, a 75% portion, and then we bump it up.

I bumped it up by 10% each of the last 2 years, and that's been very close.

So we have a pretty good idea exactly what our insurance bill will be.

In the pre— prior to 2024, we had to kind of guess what medical expenses were going to be, but we pushed all that risk to the Medical Claims Trust Fund now.

So the Medical Claims Trust Fund takes our premiums and and it pays out the medical providers.

And the, and the risk is, is in that fund, and fund balance could go up some years, it could go down some years.

But we eliminated the risk from the general fund by doing that, and we also complied with state law by doing that.

So I'm looking at about a $3 million increase there.

That's most of that $3.3 that I quoted.

General liability insurance is going up in there as well.

You're positive?

Um, I'm, I'm positive that it's going up.

Everything is.

That's pretty easy.

You're positive of that, that $3 million?

Oh, uh, yeah.

So, so actually, our HR department has already priced that out.

Now what we do is we use the— we use recent enrollments.

So those enrollments could change by June 30th, but not likely that much.

Um, you know, we've, we've run into vacancies from time to time, and, uh, we have new hires.

That'll change those numbers, but not, not by any significant degree.

We have something like, um, across the city and school, we have, we have 2,800 to 3,200 lives under, um, under insurance.

And of course, school pays its own share directly, but on this, on the city side, I think we have about 1,100 or 1,200.

Just one more question.

You talked about lottery money.

Yes.

Yeah, it's the last— what's the last, um, amount that the city received for the lottery distribution?

Um, I mean, I can tell you that we haven't gone up by much since 2008.

We, uh, I want to say, and I can, and I can follow up later on, but it was approximately in the $27-$28 million range.

And this year for UGGA, we've got, um, I think we got $29 million and change.

So it took us It took us nearly, what, 15, 17 years just to get back to where we used to be because the big thing was those 9-seat cuts that the state enacted.

So that knocked everybody down across the state from— I think it went into effect in 2010.

And after that, the state has done nothing but build it up on a— not even a COLA basis.

They don't even keep track with the CPI-W or the CPI-U indexes.

So they, they'll give you anything.

They'll give you 2, 2.5, 3%, whatever, whatever can be afforded out of the state budget.

So the delta is pretty big.

Uh, we, we didn't update the charts this year yet, but had we still been under the same methodology, still got the same basis that we had in 2010, and had that basis just gone up by the CPI-W, we would have had $43 million in UGGA last year.

We only collected $29 million.

In.

And the same is true this year.

It only went up by— I think it only went up by $300,000 this year.

So it's, uh, it's one of those situations where the state aid is just not keeping up with the realities of running a municipality, especially one the size of New Bedford.

Where do you see the reason for that?

And I'll stop asking.

Yeah, pretty much the, the same pressures on the state level that we all face on the municipal level, you know, rising costs and, uh, just you know, not, not a huge appetite for tax increases.

And I'm sure that whereas I'm sitting here complaining about state aid, I'm sure that my peers on the state level are probably complaining about federal aid.

So it's just kind of, uh, just different layers of the same argument.

The clock keeps ticking.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

In attendance, we have First Vice President, Councilor at Large Shane Burgo.

Does anyone have any additional questions?

Without objection from the chair.

Thank you.

So, Bob, one quick question.

Once you get the budget set, understanding that, you know, you're going to be in a tight situation, can you provide us— if the mayor got his budget without a single cut, it has happened— what the potential tax increase would be when we set the tax rate in December?

So, yes.

So that's a hypothetical question.

It's 100% hypothetical.

No, I'd be happy to provide that.

Um, you will know what the tax levy is, and we'd have to make a few assumptions, um, but we could, we could work up a, uh, preliminary, a preliminary.

We also don't know what the split will be either, but we could assume the same split as well, just to give an understanding of what it potentially looked like when we're looking at the budget.

It's a good, it's a fair question during the budget hearing process, um, and, uh, we'll have 5 or 6 nights of that, and one councilor could request that, or I can just provide it at that time.

If you could provide— I'm going to ask now, so if you could provide it then, it'd be perfect.

The official first question then of the '27 budget season.

Thank you, Bob.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

We need a motion on the floor.

I move to refer to the full City Council adoption of a $16,000 COLA.

Second.

Made by Councilor, uh, Pereira, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing no one on the question, roll call vote.

It's a motion to refer to the full City Council for approval.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Trickett?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Trickett.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes, sir.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 10 to 0.

Item passes 10 to 0.

Thank you everyone for being in attendance.

Item number 3 is a communication from Jan DeSilva, chairperson of the Community Preservation Committee, submitting the Community Preservation Committee fiscal year '26 project funding recommendations.

The matter was referred here on March 12th, 2026.

I left my CPA at home.

Made by Councilor Abreu.

Oh good.

Second by Councilor Chouquette.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We'll keep the same format as last year.

We'll get an overview from either Jan or Jessica or both, and then we will vote on each project one at a time, and then at the end we'll do a roll-up for the final numerical number.

Thank you, Chairman Lopes.

Hi, I'm back again.

So thank you for having us come up today and kind of explain the CPA process and go over our recommendations for FY26.

Thank you for having us.

I also wanted to extend condolences to Clerk Lawrence on behalf of the entire CPC on the passing of your mom.

So I just wanted to make you aware that we offer our condolences.

Okay, where do we start?

So this year we initially had 28 projects that we received applications for in November.

We actually reviewed 20 of them because 2 withdrew from consideration.

That was the Congdon Lucas.

They did not get the grant that the CPA funds would match.

Schooner Ernest Christina received funding from the state for the total amount of their ask, so they received state money for that.

6 were not recommended forward.

19397 Union Street, they had received $250,000 in FY25, and we did not refer them because we're trying to make sure that affordable housing goes for all the projects, and right now that project it was $27,000 per unit, and another $250,000 would have made it over $50,000 per unit when our normal amount is kind of like $20,000 per unit.

So it's a very expensive project.

Capitol Theater has 2 open grants.

The Green Door Klasky Common project was not referred because the applicant prioritized the Russell Howland House as their primary application.

The James Arnold Mansion, they changed their project lead and there were— there was uncertainty to us about what their next steps were, so we asked them to resubmit an application next year.

The New Bedford Superior Courthouse, we asked them to try and find funding from other places for their projects because we have given them quite a bit of funds and it is a county courthouse, and we do feel like they should ask other communities within the county.

And then Siemens Bethel, that project was actually maintenance.

It included power washing, and we do focus on restoration and rehabilitation.

So those were the projects that we did not recommend.

13 received full funding requests, 7 received partial funding.

Housing, we had 4 projects that included a housing component, and 3 are 105 Ashley Boulevard, Russell Hallen House, and Habitat for Humanity.

We have one— we have one project that we're— the Friends— the former Friends Meeting House, they asked for rehab and restoration of existing housing, and we recommended them for an assessment.

And then we have our usual roofs, so we always do a lot of roofs.

So whenever you're ready.

All right, so project number 1 is 105 Ashley Boulevard redevelopment.

The funding amount is $100,000.

It is CPA category community housing, and it is in Ward 2.

Does anyone have any questions on 105 Ashley Boulevard?

Seeing none, we'll— oh, Councilor Roy.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Oh my God, good evening.

It's been a long day.

Let me check my watch.

Totally understand.

Do you— there's— there are 9 units going in.

Yes, into this property.

Um, do you know how many of those will be, um, um, at the 60% of AMI?

All of them.

Okay, all of them, right?

Oh, okay.

Yep.

Yeah, this was one of the more affordable projects that we have.

The units are— it's $22,000 per unit if they received this extra $100,000.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, moving to project number 2, the Cape Verdean Veteran Artifacts and Documentation.

The funding amount is $35,000.

CPA category is historic resources, and it benefits the entire city.

Anyone have any questions on the Cape Verdean veterans artifacts and documents?

Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi ladies, how you doing today?

Good, hope everything's well.

Good.

Um, I just wanted to know if that was the highest amount they asked for.

Yes, that was the highest amount they asked for.

All right, and, and do they plan on coming back?

Yes, they do.

I know, I know the history, the restoration of Cape Verdean veterans artifacts is going to be very— it's very important to a lot of people in the city, especially to the people of Cape Verdean heritage.

So that's all I have to ask.

And, you know, hopefully everything goes well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgum, on your first, did they outline how many phases they plan on I think it's 5.

It was about $150,000 for the whole project.

This phase will inform it.

So this particular phase, they're bringing in the expert who will look at the archive, categorize, clean, put some of the pieces into productive archival materials, and it will provide them with a timeline and a budget for moving forward.

So this is just the first phase.

So once they have that, I think they'll be able to address how many phases they will need to do, and also how much they as volunteers can also handle at a time, you know, their capacity.

So I think that that will, once they work with their consultant, that'll inform how many phases, if you will, that they'll put into place.

So because they have, they have such a wide range of materials, they have uniforms and medals and documents and photographs and video, It's an extraordinary collection, so they may have to get other consultants in who can do this work, because to have that scope of work, it's very unusual to have one archivist who can do all of that.

And some of that may also need to have some conservation work.

So, this is really their first step to inform what they need to do in future— for future steps.

So, it could be longer.

It could be more than 5 years.

Be shorter.

It depends on their capacity, um, and their ability to get the particular vendors in place.

So this— excuse me— this initial envelope assessment of $35,000 will help?

Oh no, no, this is not a building.

It's not the— it's not the building.

Sorry.

Yes, so I'm using wrong terminology.

I apologize.

It's their collection.

This initial $35,000 though will help them assess whether or not the actual project will result in costing potentially $150,000, how many phases it will take.

Yes.

Okay.

And you've had— and also training.

They're going to be training their volunteers too.

So hopefully they'll be able to do some of the work themselves.

Okay.

And we've had the conversation with them about the fact that if it does result in multiple phases, that the CPA may not approve them potentially if it is 5 phases, 3rd, 4th phases.

Down the line and what they would potentially have to do, uh, in terms of, uh, money sources if that is the case?

We haven't started that conversation yet, but I'm sure it will come up.

Perfect.

Okay, thank you.

If I could, Councilor, I would remind the council that because of the amount that the CPC in New Bedford has every year, it is very unusual for them to do a, a project like this that's going to have phases in one lump sum, um, you know, both buildings or conservation work, we have to kind of fund phases so that the capacity of the recipient organization, but also the amount that we can provide to these organizations so they can continue to move forward.

So it would probably not be unusual for the CPC to see this project 4 or 5 times before them.

So I don't think that the CPC has made a decision about that because every year is different, obviously, with what— how the ask is versus what the projects are and the urgency of those.

For this particular project, there is some sense of urgency because of the condition of a number of the pieces.

So the CPC felt very strongly about fully funding this first phase to allow the Gordian Vets to be able to assess the collection with the consultant, get a little bit of training, and also to put those materials into archival boxes and such so that it'll protect until they could be fully conserved.

So it's just that first step.

It could be that they— you only see them once a year for the next 5 or 6 years, but it'll probably be asks that are like this size.

I don't think that they're going to come back and say we need $250,000, because I just don't think that as an organization they have that capacity.

They don't have professional staff, they have volunteers.

So I think they have to be realistic about what they can achieve and also not tie up funds that they know they can't spend in any given year.

I think they're very aware of that.

I've had a couple conversation with Mr. Carrera about the, the whole process of this before he even applied, and he understands and, and found a great consultant that I think is going to help them move this project forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo.

Anyone else have any questions on this project?

Seeing none, moving to project number 3, former Friends Meeting House restoration.

Funding amount is $15,000.

Category is historic resources, and it's located in Ward 4.

Questions?

Councilor Abril, you're first.

Thanks a bunch, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening, ladies.

I'm just curious, how does one find a historic window preservation specialist, and what exactly do they do?

Can you explain that a little bit?

Boy, here we go.

Oh, so there are organizations in Massachusetts like Preservation Mass that has a directory on all kinds of services that are— that can be given to— that can be given to people who preserve houses.

Plus they might be able to talk to people at the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

There's a Massachusetts listserv.

They can ask questions there.

There are people who do this kind of work.

There are people in the city of New Bedford who do this kind of work.

I was noticing, I mean, it's pretty straightforward.

It's not a lot.

It's not a big ask.

I support it.

Just wondering, Unlike every other vote by your committee, this one was not unanimous.

It was 7 to 1.

Any insight as to why the one individual voted against?

They speak as to why.

I'm just curious.

That's a fun question.

How do I answer that one?

Do you want to try first?

I mean, we don't have to name names.

We don't have to get— sorry, Councilor, not naming names.

Yeah, no.

Okay.

It just— this is a national historic landmark.

It is one of 6 in the city of New Bedford.

So as a city, we have an obligation to preserve these National Historic Landmarks.

The company that purchased this building, which is really working hard to do right by this building, understanding that it's a National Historic Landmark, that it is in the Abolition Road District, is a for-profit organization.

I think this particular member felt that we should not give funding to a nonprofit organization— a for-profit organization.

However, the other members felt that because it is a National Historic Landmark, a window assessment would allow this organization to fulfill its obligation to this particular building.

Because it's a National Historic Landmark, they will have to go through— MHC will have to review it, the Historical Commission.

So we're helping them take the step to get the information that they need in order to execute execute the project.

That being said does not mean that they are going to get funding recommendations in the next year or coming years.

And I can— now I can say a little bit more because, yes, it's a for-profit organization, but we're saying because of the importance of the building itself that it needs to be treated well.

And we do— one of our tenets for the CPA is that we always want to provide assessments money for everybody, no matter who they are, because you have to understand what the priorities are for your building before you can move forward to the next step.

And if we want to try and make sure that this— these windows are replaced, restored, rehabbed, we don't want vinyl windows in the building.

So we want to make sure that the person has enough information to be able to do right by the building.

Okay, just you.

I would also like to add, Councillor, that this particular organization has made a very significant investment in a building that has been neglected for many years, and it is a very prominent building in the abolition road district, and it also currently is housing as well.

So that was another reason why the CPC felt strongly about providing this because windows are part of the building envelope and the windows are failing because of the previous owner's lack of care to the building.

So the CPC felt strongly because it was an LHD, because it was Abolition Row, because it was the former Friends Meeting House, it's a local historic— a local historic landmark— National Historic Landmark, sorry, that there was all those reasons why that over that tipped the scales versus that it's a for-profit, but it tipped the scales that we— that the city, the CPC, felt strongly that if this organization is putting that kind of, um, what's that called, um, investment into the city, that the least that the CPC could do is to help provide them with the documentation that they needed because they have done other historic projects in the city But this one's just a little bit different because it's a National Historic Landmark.

So there's a few more steps that they have to take.

And this window assessment will inform those steps for the— for that organization so that they can go out.

And they have been looking for other funding sources.

So to do the work once they know what they need to do.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I have on this one.

I'll yield for now.

Anyone else on this?

Item.

Councilor Roy, on your first.

Hi.

So you said that the former Friends Meeting House is, is used for housing right now?

That's— yes, that's, that's the full property for years, for more than 30 years, I'm sure.

Yeah, it's like almost like a studio single room occupancy, 14 units.

Great, thanks.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else?

Councilor Leo Cherket, on your first.

Thank you.

Hey, good evening.

Um, just curious, any chance we could maybe get in there and look at the tunnels?

Oh, there are no tunnels in New Bedford.

No tunnels under there?

No tunnels.

There's no tunnels.

There wouldn't— there's no need for tunnels in New Bedford because people were— once they came to New Bedford, they were actually considered free, so they weren't hiding from anyone.

Oh no, I know that, but I mean, are you being tongue-in-cheek?

They— I think they were used for moving like pirated goods and stuff, but right.

Yeah.

Yeah, but you guys, you guys have no knowledge of any of that stuff under there.

There's some springs over there.

That's why it's Spring Street, but yeah, not for— well, there actually is an underground river right along the side of Unitarian Church.

If you go into the Masonic Lodge and go down, there's a river in under there.

Yeah, anyway.

All right, I yield.

Seeing any— seeing no further questions, moving on to project number 4, Gallery X system modernization of the roof.

The requested amount is $55,000.

It is a historic resource and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on this question?

Councilor Baptiste, you're first.

Thank you.

Is this the only monies that they're coming for, or are they doing more restorations to their building?

They've already received money from us.

They did the roof, they did exterior painting and restoration.

Uh, that's not— okay, their total— this budget is $88,500, but they received money from us in previous years.

All right, I can't tell you exactly how much, but right Gallery X has received $176,000.

It was 2 separate grants.

Both were for exterior preservation work.

So this is for a roof, which, as you all know, CBC and roofs, it's building envelope is the first.

It's kind of critical.

They, um, the budget is $88,000.

They're asking for $55,000.

And for a small nonprofit to come up with $33,000, it's a very significant portion of the project budget for them.

That's actually amazing.

So, um, no, I'm happy to see that.

I didn't know how much— you know, I know they've come before, but I didn't know if they had more work to do.

You know, we want to see some of these buildings down here, make sure that they keep their aesthetics and, you know, stay around.

So this is important.

Thank you.

Yeah, we never mind seeing anybody more than one time.

Because they sometimes don't even have the capacity to do a bigger project.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else on that first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 5, Russell Howland House.

Funding amount is $288,835.

Category is community housing, and it's located in Ward 4.

Councilor Pereira, on your first.

Thank you.

This might not be the best example, but my question is, I know they requested, I think, $300,000, and the funding was like $12,000 less.

So it's not that— what was recommended was $12,000 less or so.

So it's not a huge difference.

But what does the CPC utilize to gauge— because you want the project to be completed, right?

So you don't want those money, you know, that's committed being not wasted but not utilized because they can't complete the project.

I don't see that being a problem in this because it's a small amount, but what is that thought process across the board in like reducing some of the requests so you could fund more projects, spread it out more, but making sure that they still get done?

Is that something— how does that work?

Well, usually as we interview the applicants, we ask them if they can move forward even if we do not fully fund them, and most of them assure us that they can.

And then we also look at the smaller projects and just fully fund them just to make sure that there's, you know, the money gets out to people.

Some of the larger projects, especially something like this, they can probably apply for affordable housing tax credits.

I don't know if they're applying for historical tax credits, and all of that will give them a little bit extra money.

So they have other options to get money where some people have none.

Fair enough.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely.

And then the leverage on this is incredible, too, on this project in particular.

The other thing that the CPC does is that you see this very small booklet, the applications when they are together.

This is my binder.

Exactly.

This is only the applications and a little bit of the backup material.

It is thousands of pages depending on the construction project.

In that case, the CPC looks at the budgets.

And looks at any contingency that might be built in.

They take— then, and if they can fund everything but the contingency, that sometimes will inform the number that they come up with, or close to the number, so that we keep our fingers crossed that they don't open up something and it's a big problem.

But we've given them enough that they can move forward, they can find other sources in the span of doing the work.

So yeah, and in this case, like, like $12,000 on a $14 million project much.

Some— they should be able to find that money.

So, okay, very good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Welcome, Councilmember.

Anyone else on the first?

Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

Thank you.

Um, I have no problem with housing projects.

Um, I want to see, you know, development in the area, especially if it's going to be affordable.

Um, I think the only— the only one thing I have with this project is there's a lot of pushback from the neighbors on how high the apartment's going to be, where it's going to be pushed back against people's houses, how garbage cans are going to be placed in certain places, and the parking problem that we have at one car per unit with 16 to 20 units in a small neighborhood without parking already.

So like I said, I'm all for building houses and, and putting, putting apartments in, in the city, but, you know, I still worry about how changing the aesthetic and, you know, you know, with the zoning changes now you can build a little bit higher, which takes away from other people that have been living there for 25 years and it takes their whole neighborhood away and it takes their whole view and some of the things that they have to deal with.

So those are the only things I worry about with projects like this, you know, especially when you look at, you know, all the funding that's coming in here and 10 out of 20 projects are from Ward for, you know, we— and we have significant growth in the, in the ward where they're trying to pack in apartments and buildings in small spaces and taking up, you know, the aesthetic of neighborhoods and, and, um, no parking, high buildings, poor planning.

So when the New Bedford way— when Green Door came before us, they are not the first.

The first project proponent was Wind River, who Green Door is purchasing the, the building from.

Yeah, and that was terrible.

That was terrible.

I agree with you, Councilor, 100%.

I don't even live in the neighborhood.

Um, Green Door is part of the neighborhood.

He lives there, um, in that larger area, and he is— he came— he lived there.

He lives in Mattapoisett.

He don't live there now.

He lived in Airbnb's apartment up over there.

Now he's very sensitive to the impact of the project.

And those are questions that the CPC did ask.

I would point out that there's going to be 16 units.

There will be 2 ADA units.

There will be 2 that are for AV, so audiovisual.

So if someone's deaf, the lights will flash.

If they're blind, there will be different accommodations.

They're also partnering with the Veterans Transition House.

One of the units will be specifically for a veteran and his or her family.

And he has— he did talk about parking.

I believe you all questioned him about that.

That's the beauty about having like planning and historic and housing and ConCom, um, and all on the CPC is because he's gone before a lot of them, so they already know the, the backstory.

So I know that they questioned him about the parking, how sensitive he was, trash cans, things like that, how he was going to impact the neighborhood because they knew It was a project that had been a little controversial when it was first presented.

And even when he put it back on, I'm just speaking because I still get calls over this.

Oh, I'm sure you do, Councilman.

From multiple neighbors in the area that are just worried about the— basically the 2 things, how high the building is going to be and the parking in the area, which takes away a lot in the area.

And, you know, they're worried.

They're not worried about you know, the building going in there because they want to see it occupied.

But how they plan to build up around and near people's dwellings that have been there already is kind of— it's just unfair.

And I know the guy— I know everybody knows the neighborhoods, but everybody is coming in here to make money.

Like, let's be 100% real.

Like, nobody would care if they couldn't make money out here.

And this is the place where they want to make money.

So everybody's going to give it a the biggest BS role that they can give you anytime.

So I yield with that.

Thank you, Councilor Ortiz.

If I could, Chairman, I would just like to also say, Councilor Ortiz, that this particular funding is to specifically address the roof because this is, again, another historic building that is a very visually prominent building that we don't want to lose.

This will specifically address the roof.

The CPC can't say what you can and can't do.

That is not under their purview.

But what they can do is protect the building by addressing the roof with providing this funding so the work can be done immediately so that as it's hashed out what the final project will look at, the roof, the building itself will not incur any more damage.

So that's part of the reason why the CPC said let's do this is because it's a roof and it's a very historically significant building.

And it's everybody else's roles to figure out how everything else matches.

I don't, I don't mean to be a buzzkill.

I just worry about things that, you know, my constituents— I work, I do work for them.

So I have to listen to what they say and advocate for them.

So that's my thing.

And no, nothing against him.

Like, I'm making this as a general statement with everybody coming into the city and trying to take over some historic neighborhoods by pushing people out.

But anyway, Thank you for— thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Roy, you're first.

Hi again.

Good evening.

I— it's just 16 units of low to moderate income and 4 market rate units.

Do you— can you— do you know about the makeup of those 16 low to moderate income units?

Would there be more moderate income units, more low income units?

So I don't have it right off the bat.

16 of the 22 will be low to moderate income, and I stand corrected, it was 2 fully accessible ADAs and 2 AV-equipped units for priority veteran units and services from VTH, not one.

Let me see if I wrote that down.

Did I write that down?

Oh, here we go.

12 will be below 60 AMI, 60%, and 4 will be below 80% AMI.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 6, Habitat for Humanity Affordable Community Housing Build The funding amount is $150,000.

The CPA category is community housing, and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on the— Councilor Baptiste, then Councilor Abram.

Thank you.

Um, is this just for the, the Pleasant Street lot?

Because I know they bought one on Pleasant Street and one on Merrimack Street, and I don't know where the other one is.

I don't know if it's still in that area.

2 on Merrimack and one on Pleasant.

Did they put in for any other funds with them?

This is just the one house on Pleasant Street.

I'm not even sure they purchased the other.

Did they purchase it?

Okay, I think they purchased all 3.

They're going to do one house a year.

All right, all right, all right.

And it's good too because they're depleted lots, um, housing needed in that area, and it's affordable for homeowners.

And, you know, they buy it back if they have to sell it, and then they try to sell it back to people that can, you know, low income and, you know, amazing, amazing stuff.

So this is— these are projects that we like.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Abril, you first.

Thank you, ladies.

Just wondering, I'm looking and reading the notes here.

How will the 60% AMI buyer be selected?

Like, do you know?

Did they explain that?

Will there be a local preference?

Well, they had We asked them that, and what they do is a family selection before the project starts.

There was an article in the Standard Times today, so I guess they're already taking people's names so they can get together a list of people who they're going to interview for this project.

It's from the entire area.

It's a lottery, too.

They have the family selection.

People put in an application.

They have to prove their income and that they're eligible under the 60% AMI, and then they're put into a lottery and then they're selected, and then they have to have so many hours of sweat equity that they put into the home.

Very typical model that Habitat for Humanity does across the Commonwealth, I think across the nation.

I'm not sure if that's the 60% is the standard, but I think— I believe in this area that is a standard.

And that's the same model that they'll use for the other 2 lots over the next 2 years.

Okay.

I can tell you it's 300 hours of sweat equity.

Okay.

All right, good.

How do you think this aligns with the city's housing initiatives as far as priority housing as identified by the needs of the city?

Do you think this kind of is right in the wheelhouse of where we want to be?

Well, I would say yes, because you need all different types of housing.

You know, you need more than apartments.

You need houses.

You need Duplexes, triplexes, single-family homes.

Everybody needs to have the opportunity to have a house in whatever format they want to have a house.

Okay.

And if you refer to the Build New Bedford report that was put out, is that 2 years ago now?

Maybe, maybe a year.

I don't know if they all run together at this point.

2 things that are the priority is affordable housing at all income levels, not just, you know, market rate and also increasing homeownership opportunities, which this one is the very first homeownership opportunity the CPC has seen.

All of the other affordable housing opportunities that they have provided funding for have all been apartments.

So this is the first opportunity for a family to build that generational wealth by being selected for this homeownership opportunity.

So that was the CPC, I have to say, was very excited about this one.

Because it was a box we hadn't checked yet because there hadn't ever been an application like this before.

So, and it's also activating, um, it'll eventually activate those 3 vacant lots, which I have to say, they pulled a boat, um, construction material.

What else did you say they pulled out?

There was a lot in those weeds, let's just put it that way.

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll yield for now.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Anyone else in their first first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 7, the historic Bourne Building roof replacement.

Uh, the funding amount is $150,000, historic resources is the category, and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 8, historical documents, Fort Tabor, Fort Rodman Military Museum.

The Funding amount is $8,950.

Category is historic, and it benefits the entire city.

Questions?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 9, the New Bedford Art Museum window restoration.

Funding amount is $215,000.

CPA category is historic resources, and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 10.

I like this.

Oh, Councilor Gomes.

Thank you.

$215,000 to take care of— I'm sorry, they're doing all the windows.

Well, they asked— what did they ask for?

$250,000?

They asked for $250,000.

They said it would take care of all the windows.

Asked them if they would be able to accept partial funding.

They said yes.

So as far as we know, they're supposed to be able to do all the windows.

And to— and when it comes to all the windows, Councilor, to be clear, it's the very tall ones that arch like that that are on the Williams side and Pleasant side.

So specifically those windows that they'll be addressing from first floor to second floor on the front and the side to side.

The thing is, is that time does pass in this building and in this community.

I can remember when the art museum opens and it's sealed tight.

Rosemary Tierney, you're shaking your head saying yes or no.

That 30 years has gone by or so and it has started to deteriorate.

We can't see it, you know, because I tried looking at it and can't really see it, but something's happening there.

Absolutely.

And, um, the city has done a good job of helping to, to slow that deterioration.

That's right.

Um, but they, uh, it's now to the point where it needs to be professionally restored.

What it'll do is also allow the art museum to expand into the space on the second floor, which will allow more gallery, more meeting space, to bring maybe some of the library collection over.

And it'll, um, provide more climate control for the museum.

Right now it doesn't, those windows just don't.

So they had a window assessment completed January.

It was during, yeah, it was during the presentations and they provided it to us.

So it was a historic window consultant who came in and did the work and provided them with the numbers.

So this number is not exactly what they need, but it's pretty close.

They will have to do a little fundraising.

Okay, thank you very much.

Believe me, we asked them a lot of questions too.

No, just wanted to make sure it covered all windows.

That's what we asked.

Yeah, just because they're the larger surface area, and then— and they also are, um, both on the first floor and the second floor.

So, and then the smaller windows I think will be the next phase.

It's one of those projects that you don't want to do half now, half later, we accomplish nothing.

It has to be done all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Seeing no additional questions, moving on to project number 10, the New Bedford Fishing Heritage Center Archives Phase 4.

Funding amount is $35,000.

Category is historic resources, and it benefits the entire city of New Bedford.

Questions?

Seeing none, we'll move on to Project 11, Library Hall Playbill Conservation Phase 2.

Funding amount is $45,000, category is historic resources, and it benefits the city as a whole.

Questions?

Seeing none, Project 12, Dias Field.

The funding amount is $62,550.

Category is recreation, and it's Ward 3.

Councilor Gomes, on your first.

Will this complete everything over at that field with this amount of money that we're helping to put these lights and security?

According to their cost estimate, yes.

Okay, so they won't be coming back for any more.

And I, I think the investment that the city has put into this field and the reconstruction and everything, um, deserves to be looked over and for us to keep it in the best condition that we possibly can.

So I'm going to support this project, and I support them cameras being put up there.

Thank you.

Thank you for the committee's choice to support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

Anyone else on there first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 13, which is the Riverside Park playground replacement.

Park grant match for $245,000.

Category is recreation.

Ward 2 is the location.

Questions?

Councilor Pemberton, on your first.

Hi, how you doing?

Thanks for being here.

Uh, I just want to just, uh, just to say I, I support this as well.

It's in my area, uh, and you know, it's a long time coming for that park.

I know they had that splash park The splash pad has been down a few times, so they can definitely use a new one.

Uh, as far as— I know we're putting all this money into it.

Is there any like maintenance contracts or anything that they maintain once the playground is put in?

That's up to the Parks and Beaches to maintain it.

We just provide the funding to help bring it up to the point where it's maintainable, right?

So that part of the city budget.

Okay, all right, thanks.

Thank you.

I, I owe— thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone else on that first?

Chair, if I could, to follow up on the councilor's question, uh, in their application it will be maintained by Parks and Rec as well as DPI, and it'll be part of their maintenance timeline schedule.

So in the splash pad and the the playground will be moved upland because right now it floods, and it'll be a brand new— everything will be brand new.

So, which is— it's been— that was the original, uh, equipment put in when the, uh, like, the park opened back in, uh, Fred Kalis's time, maybe.

So, yeah.

All right, good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sounds great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon.

Thank you, Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 14, which is the Roach Jones Duff House Access for All.

The funding amount is $42,000, category is historic, and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, we will move on to project 15, the Ron Polo Film Collection.

The funding amount is $40,000, the category is Historic resources, and it benefits the city as a whole.

Questions?

Councilor Pemberton, and then Pereira.

I'll try that again.

Councilor Roy, sorry.

Who's Ron Polo?

Sorry, I'm—I don't know really.

He's—he's—he's—he's Marco's brother.

Now I feel old because I.

So he was a Standard Times photographer from 1985 to 1999, which is how I know his name because I read the Standard Times every day since 5th grade.

So he left a collection to Spinner.

It's approximately 100,000 35mm negatives and slides as well as some photos.

And so what they're doing is they're cleaning, they're scanning, they're archiving, they're cataloging to make these publicly accessible.

So it's a— and unfortunately, this is a long time ago now, um, 1985.

So what this is, is on historic so that we have access to this, which is part of our history.

That's fine, thanks.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

I will add one thing which they mentioned during their presentation, which is Mr. Polo is still alive, and so they are going to take advantage of this opportunity to have him work with the collection so they can get even further information and knowledge and things like that from the actual maker of the collection.

I guess so.

Councilor Pereira, on you first.

Thank you.

Just from my, um, knowledge, because I'm just not concerned, but, um, I have a question.

Soft cost, that's just everything?

Yeah, because there's no construction or like that, because it's— so soft cost in this case is for them to complete this preservation, right?

It's archival materials, it's Um, staff time, it's, um, digitization.

So it's— yeah, there's no construction, right?

And this is half of their anticipated cost.

Yeah, I saw we're doing that.

So it's a 50%, um, ask.

But this completes like the digitization and should complete everything unless, um, he comes up with more stuff in his attic, which, you know, photographers like to.

But just in general, my point is like this isn't like a phase.

What they've received received.

Yes, this should cover everything.

Very good.

From what we understand from Spinner.

Awesome.

Very good.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Mr.— Thank you, Council Prior.

Council Abramowicz, you first.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, just one quick question.

Um, so the restoration of these prints, of these negatives, would be made to be made publicly available.

By publicly available, what does that mean exactly?

Does it mean on the web it's free, or by publicly, does it mean it's in his books and he sells them for profit?

Like, what does that mean?

Well, usually Spinner takes all of their portfolio and puts it on Digital Commonwealth, and that's a free database.

Good.

Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

Okay.

Yeah, because when I see available to the public, I'm thinking free for the public domain, for the public good.

So I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none.

Oh, Councilor, go ahead.

I just want to go back to Ron for a minute.

We say that Ron is still alive.

Is this Ron Rolloff that had the nickname from the Standard Times?

I don't know.

They say he's 90-something years old.

He's still alive.

No one can answer that.

Councilor Lawrence and I thought he passed away.

We were talking about it.

We thought he passed away.

Jay from Spinner said that he is in his '90s, and he is still alive.

And, um, we are very eager to work with him to capture as much of— if it is who I'm thinking it is, uh, Ron worked for the Standard Times for a long time.

Yeah, it is that.

Yeah, it is Tim with the mustache, the black hair.

It's Ron.

Okay.

Um, this— huh?

Hey man, there's a wealth of history up here.

Don't mess with me, counselor.

He has all the institutional knowledge.

The institutional knowledge that that man has and the amount of film and pictures that he has taken of this entire city and everybody, that is amazing.

I'm just amazed that he's still alive.

His collection is something that I think everyone should get a look at.

This was at the top of my list for us to try and fund because once you lose those human resources, you cannot get them back.

No, you can't.

No, you can't.

I think that when he had heard about the Milton Sylvia collection that you all have funded being digitized, he was like, oh, that's what I can do with my stuff.

So I think that's how they made the connection with Spinner.

So it's, it's pretty amazing that we're not going to lose this information.

You know, there's various organizations across the city who are doing this kind of work, you know, like the Fish and Heritage Center, the Whaling Museum.

The Veridian Vets, you know, this— there's a lot of that are doing this work that are capturing our history, which is so important because otherwise it's going to end up in a dumpster.

I think it's fantastic.

And for— through you, Councilor Chairman, to Councilor Roy, I am from the '90s and I'm loving it.

We were debating if Councilor Ray was born before 1999, you know.

Uh, 18.

You get your butt home, young man.

Seeing no additional questions or insults to Councilor Roy.

Sorry, ladies.

No, no, don't be sorry.

No, no, no, I— it— you know, project number 16 is the Strand Theater exterior.

The funding amount is $100,000.

It's historic resources is the category, and it's located in Ward 2.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Pepitone, on your first.

Yeah, I just, I just wanted— this should be the, the last one, right?

And after this, they should be like ready to go and open, shouldn't they?

Um, we always think it's going to be people's last one, and then something happens.

So they should finish the exterior.

Yeah, this should finish the exterior.

Okay.

And they have begun the— they have begun the interior work with other funding sources, right?

Um, and the work that is being done on the interior, some of it is CPA eligible, but I think a lot of it they're covering through other funding sources.

So I don't know that they will come back, but funding has been drying up that people have received, right?

And they've had to come to us, unfortunately.

So, um, you know, that's why the Whaling Museum's before you tonight.

Their federal grant was— would just disappear last summer, or else this project would have already been done in the fall and they would not have come to us.

So, um, can I say that for sure?

I think the Strand is— they're, um, planning on not potentially coming back in the fall.

But you open a wall, you find asbestos, you find rot, you know, you never know.

So I never say never, but I think their plan is to use these other funding sources because, um, the CPC has done a lot for their exterior preservation.

All right.

Okay.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

You're welcome, Councilor Pemberton.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none, project number 17 is the Taylor School Playground.

The funding amount is $200,000.

Category is recreation, and it's located in Ward 6.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 18, which is the Verdian Vet Hall restoration.

Funding amount is $160,000.

Category is historic resources, and it is located in Ward 4.

Questions?

Seeing none.

Oh, this is ongoing project.

3rd.

We provided them money for a roof.

We provided them money for the exterior assessment.

And this work is coming directly out of the exterior assessment where we gave them the $12,000 to do that.

So this is the next phase, which is why we like to do assessments, because then they can actually figure out what the phasing of the work is going to be.

Yes.

And here comes that kid from the '90s and the '80s, Mr. Roy.

The Vets Hall was a beacon within the community and provided so much to the community.

There wouldn't be nothing better than seeing that building restored to its fullest, not only to help the organization itself.

As you know, we've lost a lot of some of them veteran halls, but this being the Cape Verdean one, I want to say one of the oldest halls in the country or whatever, you're preserving history.

In preserving a good beacon within the community.

Well, I'll say that I'm very excited because you will all be amazed because they are actually going to open up the windows and the Gothic windows will be shown again.

So it's going to look totally different than it looks now.

That's a long time.

This is an example of the CPC when they first came to us for the roof.

That was an emergency.

The roof was done.

City Council, you all approved it thankfully, and they were able to do that.

And then they built capacity.

They found— they came back for the envelope assessment, and they have a great group of people over there that are working towards moving forward with the identified needs.

And this particular phase is going to address HVAC, insulation, structural windows.

And they're also leveraging $103,000 from Eversource.

So, you know, they're asking for that $150,000, but there's $103,000 behind it.

So it's one of the examples of the CPC providing that seed money to help these organizations gain their capacity so that they can move forward and get— be more comfortable with some of these, because it can be very daunting for volunteers to be like, let's do this building.

But they are moving forward with the help of Studio Sustain, and it's, it's going to be really— it's beautiful, and it's going to reduce their energy costs.

It's going to allow them to use that second floor, um, and so it's not too hot, not too cold, and it's also going to make the exterior of the building look that much better.

It goes along— excuse me— with some of the, um, stuff that we've done privately.

We don't toot our horns.

We don't, um, put it on Facebook, but my cousin David Gomes, who is the regional manager of Lowe's, I originally gone to him asking him for a portion of money to help the vets or whatever.

And it was very interesting, and I hope he wouldn't be mad at me, and I don't think he would be, to publicly say that he went back to his organization where every regional store said, take the money and give it to the vets hall in it because of that, knowing the significance.

That they not only bring the new flooring that we put in downstairs, they brought in that kitchen stuff, the stoves and all that, because we wanted to see the vets prosperous.

Again, we don't toot our horns and tell everybody what we do, but this all fits in with what has been going on there that will— is going to make that building vital again to not only be somewhat good for the community, but them themselves to profit in a little way, to make money not only on food, anything else they can.

And as you said, using that hall upstairs, which is a beautiful building, a beautiful room, that's going to be fantastic.

And I thank you very much for the board's continuing help on this one because this one we'll all be very proud of when I think it's completed.

And to hear that those windows that I haven't seen those windows since I know the kid.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Don't be mad, Mr. Chairman.

I've seen that look, you know.

I was giving him— I just gotta— I just gotta tease the council.

I'm sorry.

Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

Thank you.

Um, this is— this is good to see because this came a long way.

I remember the first time they came, you know, they got the roof and then they had to go back for the envelope and there was a a big discussion around finding out what the issues were.

And I think that that was the proper way to do it because I think that they found more problems going forward and they got to actually use this grant money and leverage different things so that they can get actually what they need done, done.

And they keep on moving forward doing that.

I just wanted to make it clear that people should know that the veterans, the Verdun Vets Hall and the committee that is doing the restoration for the, for the veterans is 2 separate committees as well, you know, because when people see the Verdean Vets, they think that everything is all connected and don't understand the different entities up in there.

So I don't want people to think that they're getting double the money and just putting their name on 2 things because they're 2 completely separate entities.

But thank you for everything that you've done.

And like the councilor from Clara Street said, you know, everybody putting into our community.

And I think that That's how we continue to build community in this city.

So thank you so much.

I yield.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none, moving on to project number 19, which is the William H. Kearney Lodge.

Funding amount is $155,000, category is historic resources, and it's located in Ward 4.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

Thank you.

Um, from the money that they got last year, are they building from what they got last year on to this year's funding?

What are they looking for for this year's funding that they— this is exterior work.

This is exterior work.

The last time they got money for a roof, the roof, and they got some other money for interiors, interior stuff, right?

Um, and this is exterior, the handicapped ramp and, um, handicapped bathrooms.

So And that's, and that's what that's going to cover.

And will that— and they're actually moving the entrance from Cottage Street to Mill Street, right?

Yeah.

So is that going to complete what they need to for that project?

Bless you.

That's eligible.

That's eligible for us.

That's eligible.

But they've also been doing fundraising, and they— this is another example of an organization that came and has built capacity.

Sorry.

So this is another example of an organization that came before you all that has built capacity over the last few years and has reenergized not only their members but also brought in new members.

So I know this particular hall has a lot of memories for people in this chamber as well as in our community.

And that, I think, has energized people to see the work.

You can't really see on the outside yet.

Majority of it's been other than the roof.

Um, and some other buttoning up that they've done.

But the inside, I get the progress photos because part of their funding is ARPA, part of it CPA, and it's moving along and it's, it's going to be beautiful.

So, um, this is all exterior work for the most part, though some of it they did, um, ask if it could go towards ADA, the ADA bathrooms.

I think it was more just a just in case they didn't get the other funding, so it was All ADA access was what they were asking for.

So, but we'll see.

They're still fundraising.

All right, thank you.

And I will say this is another project where they received some matching from Eversource, you know, where they got some HVAC stuff, mechanicals.

So they're getting insulation from Eversource, so they're, they've, they're getting a match.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Batiste.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none, item number 20 is the YWCA historical stone wall, $125,000.

Category is historic resources, and it's located in Ward 4.

Any questions on the item?

Councilor Ryan, you're first.

Uh, what, what's, what's the, what's the historic nature of the stone wall?

Can you talk a little bit about— well, the stone wall was constructed at the time the house was constructed, so it dates back to the early 1800s.

It is a contributing feature of the house.

The house, it has a preservation restriction with the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and it is identified in that, in that restriction.

Plus, it's also identified in the County Street National Register District.

And it's, it's a safety issue right now?

It's— is it right now?

It's a safety issue with Nativity Prep because they're afraid it's going to fall into the, uh, what, the parking for Nativity Park?

Nativity Prep, it's parking and part of their outdoor recreation space for the students, but it also is adjacent to the YW's outdoor space as well.

So they've had to fence off the areas in all 3 of those areas.

So, and it, because it's that defining feature, it has to be restored According to MHC.

So thank you.

They are also doing additional fundraising and reaching out to other grantors to see if they can get other funding as well.

And this is actually just partial funding because the budget's $188,000 or $180,000.

So $183,000.

I'm looking for it.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

We will take each one.

Can I get a motion to approve approved project number 1, which is for $100,000.

We'll do a voice vote.

Point of order.

And listen, we're going to take them individually.

Individually, yes, Councilor Gomes.

So it was made by Councilor Gomes, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adopt project 2.

Project number 2 made by Councilor, uh, Pereira, seconded by Councilor Burgos, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adopt Project 3 made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Choquette.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 4 made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Burgo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 6, made by Councilor Abrams, second by Councilor Burgo.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Project number 9, same course, second by Councilor Gold.

Project 7.

We're on 7.

7.

7.

This is like an auction.

We were, we were going.

Come on, Jess.

I cannot write.

Same course of action.

Number 7 was Councilor Burgos, second by Councilor Roy.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Same course of action.

Project number 8 is Councilor Carney, second by Councilor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

I'm going to make my check mark a little slower.

Project number 9, made by Councilor Abram, second by Councillor Pepperton.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 10 is made by Councillor Carney, second by Councillor Burgo.

All those in favor?

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Project number 11, made by Councillor— second by Councillor Carney.

All those in favor?

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Project number 12, made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 13, same course of action.

Who, who is that?

Councilor Pemberton on the first, Councilor Leo Choquette on the second.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 14, We got to slow— hold on.

Yeah, I want my turn.

14, Councilor Gomes, made by Councilor Gomes, second by Councilor Abreu.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 15, same course of action, made by Councilor Gomes, second by Councilor Carney.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Same course of action.

16 was made by Councilor Baptiste, second by— say again, you want a roll call?

Okay, roll call vote as requested.

It was made by Councilor Baptiste, second by Councilor Burgo.

Roll call vote.

Roll call on the project.

Yes, yes, I'm sorry.

Yes, yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Chauquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Chiquette.

Councilor Gomes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes, yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Pemberton.

Yes, yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira.

Yes, yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy.

Yes, yes.

That passes 10 to 0.

That passes 10 to 0.

Project number 17 is the Taylor School playground, made by Councilor Abrams.

Second by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Project number 18 is the Verdian Vet Hall.

Second.

Made by Councilor Choquette.

Seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Roll call vote was requested.

Verdian Vets.

Councilor Abril?

Yes.

Councilor Abril.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Councillor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Pemberton.

Councillor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Pereira.

Councillor Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 10 to 0.

Item passes 10 to 0.

Number 19 is the William Kearney Lodge, made by Councillor Jones, seconded by Councillor Choquette.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Last project is the YWCA, same course of action, made by Councillor Kearney, seconded by Councillor Baptiste, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Jesus Christ.

Jess or Jan, do you have the, the total amount, or do I need to take a recess?

Yes, $2,227,341.

Okay, so hold on, wait a minute.

$2,227,341.

Yeah, $2,227,341.

Yep, $2,227,341.

$2,227,341.

Correct.

Motion to make a motion.

Hold on, Councilor Berger was making the motion.

Councilor Berger, motion to refer out the full, uh, project funding recommendation in the amount of $2,227,341.

Second.

Made by Councilor Berger.

Roll call vote on referral for approval of $2,227,341.

Councilor Abram.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Virgo?

Yes.

Councilor Virgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

Yes.

Yes, that passes 10 to 0.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn was made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

We are adjourned at— can I just say thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

On the question, 8:45.