City of New Bedford Meetings
Search and subscribe to city meeting topics that impact you
Newsletters
Subscribe
← Back to video
Finance Committee — June 11, 2026
−
Fit
+
IN
0:00
OUT
0:00
Length
0:00
▶ Play selection
Export clip
Keyboard:
I
set in,
O
set out,
←
/
→
nudge playhead 5s.
0:44
Check, check, 1, 2.
In
Out
0:56
All right, it is 6:07 PM on Thursday, June 11th.
In
Out
1:02
Calling the Committee on Finance to order.
In
Out
1:04
In attendance is Councilor-at-Large Ian Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, City Council President and Councilor of Ward 6 Ryan Pereira, Councilor-at-Large James Roy, Councilor-at-Large and First Vice President Shane Burgo.
In
Out
1:23
And I'm Joe Lopes, Councilor of Ward 5 and the chair of Committee on Finance.
In
Out
1:28
We do have 2 letters to be read into the record.
In
Out
1:30
The clerk will read the letters.
In
Out
1:33
Mr. President— uh, Mr. Chairman, the first is from Councilor Carney.
In
Out
1:36
Dear Councilor Lopes and honorable members of the council, I am writing this letter to inform you of my possible late arrival to the Committee on Finance on Thursday, June 11th, due to a prior commitment.
In
Out
1:46
I ask that this— you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues, those in attendance, and the public aware the reason for my delayed arrival.
In
Out
1:52
Sincerely, Naomi Carney, Councillor-at-Large.
In
Out
1:55
And the second is from Councillor Gomes.
In
Out
1:57
Dear Chairman Lopes and honorable members of the committee, I am writing to inform you that I'll be unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a personal prior commitment.
In
Out
2:05
Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware the reason for my absence.
In
Out
2:10
Sincerely, Brian K. Gomes, Councillor-at-Large.
In
Out
2:12
Motion to receive them.
In
Out
2:13
Second by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
2:16
All those in favor?
In
Out
2:17
Opposed?
In
Out
2:17
The ayes have it.
In
Out
2:19
Item number 1 is a communication.
In
Out
2:21
Mayor Mitchell, City Council submitting it— oh, sorry.
In
Out
2:23
Note, this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.
In
Out
2:25
City Council committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.
In
Out
2:32
Item number 1 is a communication.
In
Out
2:33
Mayor Mitchell, City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 16, Municipal Utilities and Service, Section 16-94 Rate Charges to Provide the Council and the Administration Greater Flexibility in Setting the Wastewater Rate.
In
Out
2:46
It was referred here on May 12, 2026.
In
Out
2:49
1A is an ordinance.
In
Out
2:51
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
2:55
All those in favor?
In
Out
2:56
Opposed?
In
Out
2:57
The ayes have it.
In
Out
2:57
In attendance, we have Bob Ekstrom, the Chief Financial Officer, Sean Side, the City Engineer, and representative from the Mayor's Office who we do not have.
In
Out
3:08
So I will turn it— oh, Eric Jakes, I apologize.
In
Out
3:11
City Solicitor Eric Jakes is here representing the, the mayor's office.
In
Out
3:15
So Sean, do you want to give us a brief overview on the— on item number 1?
In
Out
3:30
Good evening, everybody.
In
Out
3:31
Thank you very much.
In
Out
3:32
Chairman Lopes, so the city is proposing to make modifications to Section 16, Chapter 94 of the city's Code of Ordinance.
In
Out
3:43
The current code was written around wastewater rates with an interpretation that only one year at a time can be voted through by council.
In
Out
4:00
In 2019, we attempted to put through a 5-year ordinance rate, um, smooth, and that's when that interpretation came out.
In
Out
4:10
So unfortunately, we were only able to move forward with 1 year at a time, and the goal of what we're trying to do here is to allow the council to implement multiple-year rate increases at 1 time.
In
Out
4:25
Up to 5 years, which is directly written into— directly written into the— into the ordinance change.
In
Out
4:34
So what that'll do is it doesn't preclude the council from only allowing 1-year rate increases, but what it does is it allows the council the flexibility to implement up to a 5-year rate increase at one time.
In
Out
4:49
And the driver behind this is that With doing 1-year rate increases, the rates are set based on the budget itself, right?
In
Out
5:00
So 1 year you might end up with a 3%, the next year you might end up with like a 15% rate increase, and the year after that you might end up with an 8% and back down to 3%, and so, so on and so forth as we move throughout implementation of the CIP.
In
Out
5:15
But with a multiple-year rate increase, what it allows us to do it allows us to smooth the rates out.
In
Out
5:22
So by smoothing the rates out and avoiding that sawtooth pattern that I had just talked about, it, it's easier for the ratepayer to be able to budget monthly for their sewer bills annually with knowing what that annual percentage is going to be.
In
Out
5:40
Secondly, the changes that we're making The changes that we're making don't preclude council from making modifications to the rate.
In
Out
5:49
So as an example, DPI comes forth to you, or the wastewater division comes forth to you with a budget.
In
Out
5:58
Council approves a rate modification, um, say it's 2 years, right?
In
Out
6:03
We're allowed to do it 2 years, and it's say 5% both years.
In
Out
6:08
Year 2 comes by, you would expect that the rate would be 5% again.
In
Out
6:13
However, as a result of changes in the budget or council wanting to make modifications to the rate, say the budget comes in lower, the council would still be able to make modifications to that second-year rate even though it was set the year before.
In
Out
6:29
So it's— again, it's not setting it in stone over that multiple-year rate.
In
Out
6:35
Time period.
In
Out
6:36
It's just allowing the council to be able to actually implement that over a multiple-year period.
In
Out
6:42
Again, giving flexibility in terms of creating that smooth pattern while still giving council the changes that if they want to make changes over time, they can do that.
In
Out
6:55
The other change that we made is that it establishes a minimum rate increase of the consumer price index modification.
In
Out
7:02
So, um, if the sewer rate ends up being lower than the CPI, then the CPI index would kick in.
In
Out
7:10
And secondly, if there was no rate increase proposed for that year, then the CPI index would kick in.
In
Out
7:16
This basically eliminates that potential to create a structural deficit by not outpacing inflation.
In
Out
7:23
And as we all know, inflation is certainly rampant right now.
In
Out
7:27
So Um, it avoids— it mitigates that issue as we move forward.
In
Out
7:30
So with that, DPI is proposing that we make modifications as proposed to council for Section 16 of Chapter 94 of the city's Code of Ordinance.
In
Out
7:42
So 2 things.
In
Out
7:44
Welcome, Councilor Carney, Councilor Oliver, Councilor Baptiste.
In
Out
7:47
Can I get a motion to receive and place on file the package that's on your desk?
In
Out
7:50
So moved.
In
Out
7:51
Thank you.
In
Out
7:52
Made by Sean, seconded by Uh, Scott Pemberton.
In
Out
7:55
All those in favor?
In
Out
7:56
Opposed?
In
Out
7:56
The ayes have it.
In
Out
7:58
We have questions for you, Sean.
In
Out
8:00
Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
8:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
8:03
Sean, good evening.
In
Out
8:04
I have, um, I think when we had met, um, and we— I had been given a brief overview, I had a few questions.
In
Out
8:11
I still have them.
In
Out
8:12
Uh, I'd like to hear what my colleagues think, but first is the, uh, the 5-year allowance.
In
Out
8:19
I think I would feel something more comfortable to start in the 3-year range.
In
Out
8:24
Uh, I have, uh, where this is brand new, I have some, uh, concerns about allowing a 5-year rate set and, and not seeing how it plays out on a shorter term, where I think, I think I'd ultimately be comfortable setting 2-year rates, but I would say allow us to go up to 3, but I would generally want to set 2s.
In
Out
8:46
And then my other concern, and, and This is where, if you could explain to me a little bit better, I do have a concern about the automatic adjustment for the Consumer Price Index.
In
Out
8:59
I have a— I, I just would like to, because my concern is, yes, I, I understand the need to increase the, the rates so that there are no structural deficits built in, but what happens when we have major loans coming off debt service from in the wastewater fund.
In
Out
9:21
And so the rate's not increasing the same, but then we have huge expenses dropping off.
In
Out
9:26
Now that might not happen for a while, but if we have some expenses dropping off and the rate's going to go up, there could actually be huge surpluses now generated.
In
Out
9:35
So I do have some— I would much prefer it trigger an automatic council review or something to that effect where the council would then enact it or be allowed, because as your point, you can still make adjustments.
In
Out
9:48
I just have a concern about that automatic increase.
In
Out
9:51
And then the other— I think we— I asked in the meeting, it don't— but it— the rates only went up— never went up, uh, how do I want to phrase this— in the past like 5 or 6 years, the Consumer Price Index only went higher than the rates one time, correct?
In
Out
10:07
That was last year.
In
Out
10:08
Last year.
In
Out
10:08
But other than that, the rates have always increased on a higher scale than the CPI?
In
Out
10:14
Yes, correct.
In
Out
10:15
Okay.
In
Out
10:15
Um, when, when appropriate, I did have a question for CFO Ekstrom regarding the same principle.
In
Out
10:21
I didn't know if you had anything to add about the CPI portion of my questioning.
In
Out
10:26
Um, no, nothing to add.
In
Out
10:28
I think you articulated it pretty clearly.
In
Out
10:31
Um, I think that again, the basis behind this is we want to give council the opportunity to to provide input into the rates.
In
Out
10:38
And annually we do do a rate impact analysis to assess where we stand in terms of debt service payments required, revenue required to pay the bills, and, and anything else that's impacting the rates, new projects coming up in the CIP.
In
Out
10:54
And if there's ever a time when, when the rates would be lower as a result of, as you suggested, significant debt service coming off the books, I believe that the commissioner would certainly reach out to the council and have that discussion.
In
Out
11:13
And I believe this commissioner would.
In
Out
11:15
Yes.
In
Out
11:15
My concern also was future commissioners who might not, you know.
In
Out
11:18
And I have no doubt Jamie is forthcoming with that and say, hey, look, no, I know he— that no one in that— in this department is trying to get one over on the council or the residents or the ratepayers, but I do have concerns about future, uh, the commissioners of the department and what that would imply, because this as an ordinance is, is unlimited until changed.
In
Out
11:42
Do you know?
In
Out
11:42
So understood.
In
Out
11:43
Okay, I, I— Mr. Chairman, I yield for now, but I would like to speak with CFO Ekstrom at the appropriate time.
In
Out
11:48
Thank you, Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
11:49
Councilor Roy, was your question for, um, Sean, or is it for somebody else?
In
Out
11:54
It's for Sean.
In
Out
11:55
Perfect, go right ahead.
In
Out
11:55
Hi, Sean, how are you?
In
Out
11:57
Good, Councilor.
In
Out
11:57
Nice to see you again.
In
Out
11:58
You too, likewise.
In
Out
11:59
Um, I was wondering if you could explain to me the pros and cons, um, uh, between setting the rates for 2 years like the councilor from Ward 6, um, um, suggested, or between the 5-year rate, setting the rate for 5 years.
In
Out
12:18
Could you just touch on that for a second so, so we can get a good understanding of, you know, the benefits of changing it, perhaps?
In
Out
12:26
Sure.
In
Out
12:27
Um, first off, I, I tend to agree with, uh, Councilor Pereira on the rate setting.
In
Out
12:32
I don't believe that if the council were to set a 5-year rate, I don't believe that we would make that recommendation.
In
Out
12:38
The language in the ordinance just provides the flexibility to, to do that, okay?
In
Out
12:43
And understanding the Councilor Pereira's point about if it's written into the ordinance, then it can happen.
In
Out
12:49
With the current leadership at DPI, we would not make a recommendation to ever make a 5-year.
In
Out
12:54
That's not something that we would recommend.
In
Out
12:56
There's too many potentials for changes over time, changes with regulations, changes with the agencies that could impact your plan.
In
Out
13:04
If something breaks out in the system, you know, you have to be able to make those changes and modifications.
In
Out
13:11
In terms of a 2-year rate increase, that would be more in line of where where we as a department and our financial team would be comfortable with, that 2 to 3 year range is where we're kind of the sweet spot as to what we, what we'd really like to target.
In
Out
13:25
And you'll see that as we progress forward with future discussions.
In
Out
13:28
But between— what about between a 2 and a 3 year or a 2 and a 4 year?
In
Out
13:34
I'm so sorry, James.
In
Out
13:36
What about between a 2 and a 3 year and a 2 and a 4 year?
In
Out
13:38
Like, what, what are the, what are the benefits of, of setting a rate for 4 years versus setting a rate for 2 years or 3 even?
In
Out
13:45
Um, it's just additional smoothing, right?
In
Out
13:48
So it allows you to spread your costs out over a longer duration.
In
Out
13:53
All right, can you— smoothing, I get it.
In
Out
13:56
Can you just go into it a little bit more?
In
Out
13:58
Sure.
In
Out
13:58
So when we, when we implement a CIP, right, there's various costs on an annual basis, and the same thing with the budget, right?
In
Out
14:07
Those costs require revenues, which then dictate a rate modification potentially.
In
Out
14:13
So one year you may end up with a rate increase of 3%, the next year you may end up with a rate increase of 15%, and then following year 8%, and then back up to 16% and down to 2%.
In
Out
14:24
It's, it's all over the place, right?
In
Out
14:27
By doing that smooth option, it allows the council to set a consistent rate increase over that time.
In
Out
14:34
Where when you take the average, it may end up being like a 5% rate increase over time.
In
Out
14:39
So what you do is you build up surpluses and you use retained earnings to offset that delta between, you know, the rate that you need versus the rate that you actually have.
In
Out
14:50
And it just— it provides the department with greater flexibility as well in terms of managing its program.
In
Out
14:54
All right.
In
Out
14:55
Thank you.
In
Out
14:55
I yield, Mr.
In
Out
14:56
Chair.
In
Out
14:56
Thank you, Councilor Roy.
In
Out
14:58
Anybody else have a question for Sean?
In
Out
15:01
Seeing none, Councillor Pereira has a question for CFO Ekstrom.
In
Out
15:04
Bob, if you wouldn't mind going to the podium.
In
Out
15:08
Councillor Pereira, the floor is yours.
In
Out
15:10
Thank you.
In
Out
15:13
So Bob, when we are— when we're seeing obviously in the wastewater department large loan orders, sure, and for dealing with our, uh, uh, man, uh, administrative order from EPA.
In
Out
15:28
My question is, in years where major debt service is coming off and, and new service isn't increasing at the same rate, or there's big decreases in loans coming off, and this ordinance mandating that the rates rise at least the height of the Consumer Price Index, what happens when The rate doesn't increase the same as the CPI, but they have a lot more room in that budget now because loans are coming off.
In
Out
16:01
Now, I understand to his point, we have good leadership right now— Sean's point, excuse me— we have good leadership.
In
Out
16:06
That's not a concern right now, but it is a concern for the future.
In
Out
16:10
How would that look from a budgeting standpoint?
In
Out
16:14
Well, obviously, with the certainty of a rate in effect for the next 2, 3, or 5 years.
In
Out
16:20
That makes it easier to budget, to tell you the truth.
In
Out
16:23
We do look at debt service.
In
Out
16:24
I don't have the numbers now because I didn't anticipate that you would go into the specifics, but we have a model that forecasts debt until maturity for water, wastewater, airport, downtown parking, and general fund, including the school.
In
Out
16:38
So we, we know what those numbers will be for the next 5, 10, 15 years.
In
Out
16:42
One of the things you could consider with and marrying to this ordinance change is perhaps setting up a— whether it's just wastewater or other funds too— setting up a debt service sinking fund or debt service stabilization fund.
In
Out
16:58
So you could then take years where you have excess because of the, the down— because of the debt service being lower, we'd fund debt— we'd fund the stabilization fund, and then we would draw on the stabilization fund in years where the spike goes higher.
In
Out
17:13
Because it isn't very smooth, right?
In
Out
17:14
We've got a lot of issues going on, and some, some have 30-year lives, some have 20-year lives.
In
Out
17:20
So it's not just a steady trend on debt service going down.
In
Out
17:24
It spikes up and down, as Sean alluded to.
In
Out
17:27
Oh, actually, he said it with the rates, but it applies to wastewater.
In
Out
17:30
It applies to debt as well.
In
Out
17:32
So coupled with a stabilization commitment, that would alleviate any concerns.
In
Out
17:38
Yeah, something to think about that, that would alleviate a lot of issues with then in the future if that fund builds up spikes in debt service to help smooth that out on top of the ability to forecast out longer rates.
In
Out
17:51
Just my concern is the automatic increases.
In
Out
17:54
Sure.
In
Out
17:54
Based on CPI when, when, you know, if the council enacted a 4-year rate and a huge piece of debt service comes offline and now not only is there a $10 million budget decrease from last year because of that, but now the rate has to increase, you have huge surplus there.
In
Out
18:12
So that all just turns into free cash for that fund.
In
Out
18:15
Yes, then it would do that too, right?
In
Out
18:17
Right.
In
Out
18:17
It's— but, or allow the department to, to make improvements or something with all of that.
In
Out
18:23
But I just have concerns just with the, that notion, and maybe the state— some sort of stable debt service stabilization fund would assist.
In
Out
18:32
I, I was looking for the reference too, but currently in the ordinances, that cost of living increase is already built in.
In
Out
18:40
So there is a minimum cost of COLA increase for wastewater rates right now.
In
Out
18:47
But a lot of times the— it's set by the council annually, so normally that doesn't come into it.
In
Out
18:54
My concern is, right, it's automatic because the rate has— that's right, 3 years ago.
In
Out
18:58
Yes, yes.
In
Out
19:00
Okay, sure.
In
Out
19:04
So, Councilor Pereira, I think this doesn't get to your point about the automatic increases, but I think it will get to your point about what happens if significant debt service falls off.
In
Out
19:13
So our financial team, when we look at the rates, we don't just look at them one year at a time.
In
Out
19:18
We actually look at them on a 20-year basis, focusing on 5 years at a time.
In
Out
19:22
So we know what the city's debt service schedule is for those 5 years based on when they come on the books.
In
Out
19:28
We get the information from either MassDEP through their Schedule Cs or working with Bob's department on any generally obligated money.
In
Out
19:36
And we run that through our model.
In
Out
19:38
So we know exactly when debt service is coming on and off.
In
Out
19:41
So if there's a huge chunk of debt service that's coming on, that would then be realized in the projected rate that would be needed for that year.
In
Out
19:51
Got it.
In
Out
19:58
Thank you.
In
Out
19:59
Um, I'm good.
In
Out
20:00
Thanks, Bob.
In
Out
20:00
Thank you.
In
Out
20:00
Councilor Pereira, are you all set?
In
Out
20:01
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
20:02
Thank you.
In
Out
20:03
Do we have any other questions for either CFO Ekstrom or City Engineer Sean Syd?
In
Out
20:10
Seeing none, I need the pleasure of the— I make a motion to amend, Mr. Chairman.
In
Out
20:14
Make a motion to amend the ordinance has been made by Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
20:18
I make a motion to amend Section 1, the second paragraph, where it says for multiple periods of up to 5 years, striking the word 5 and replacing it herein with 3.
In
Out
20:31
Made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
20:33
Before I take a vote on that, Councilor Pereira, can you provide the clerk with the verbiage, if you don't mind?
In
Out
20:38
Yep.
In
Out
20:38
Thank you.
In
Out
20:40
Now that we're there with that, it's been seconded.
In
Out
20:42
Just on a point of information, can Attorney Jakes just verify that that would be sufficient to doing what I would want to do.
In
Out
20:52
I don't have the ordinance.
In
Out
21:00
I just don't want any ambiguity, Solicitor, and just want to— if I understand you correctly, all you're going to do is strike the word 3— I'm— the word 5 and substitute the word 3 by amendment and then move it forward.
In
Out
21:12
Correct.
In
Out
21:13
And that would just allow us to set rates for up to 3 years?
In
Out
21:17
Correct.
In
Out
21:17
Okay, very good.
In
Out
21:19
Thank you.
In
Out
21:19
Just want to make sure I understood the question.
In
Out
21:21
Okay, thank you, Attorney Jake.
In
Out
21:23
So now that we have clarification, anyone have any discussion on the question?
In
Out
21:27
Councilor Carney, on the question?
In
Out
21:29
Yes, thank you, Mr.
In
Out
21:30
Chair.
In
Out
21:31
So this has come before us on numerous occasions since I've been sitting on council, and we have always reverted back, Stan, to the 1 year.
In
Out
21:40
Um, I'm opposed to going anything but the 1 year.
In
Out
21:45
Um, this is our way to just keep an eye on things and for our, our taxpayers and our ratepayers.
In
Out
21:51
The city council doesn't have a lot of say on a lot of stuff that goes on, on in the city, but it does here.
In
Out
21:57
So for that reason, I, I oppose.
In
Out
22:01
I'm sticking with the 1 year, and that's my feelings on that.
In
Out
22:05
Thank you.
In
Out
22:05
Thank you, Councilor Carney.
In
Out
22:07
Seeing no further discussion, roll call vote on the amendment, and then if that goes, we'll do on an amended ordinance.
In
Out
22:17
Councilor Abreu?
In
Out
22:19
Yes.
In
Out
22:19
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
22:20
Yes.
In
Out
22:21
Yes.
In
Out
22:21
Councilor Brigo?
In
Out
22:23
Yes.
In
Out
22:23
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
22:24
No.
In
Out
22:24
No.
In
Out
22:25
Councilor Choquette?
In
Out
22:26
Yes.
In
Out
22:27
Yes.
In
Out
22:27
Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
22:28
Yes.
In
Out
22:29
Yes.
In
Out
22:29
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
22:30
Yes.
In
Out
22:31
Yes, Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
22:32
Yes.
In
Out
22:33
Yes, Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
22:34
Yes.
In
Out
22:35
Yes, Councilor Roy.
In
Out
22:37
Yes.
In
Out
22:38
Yes, passes 9 to 1.
In
Out
22:40
I need an ordinance— I need a motion to— motion to refer to the full City Council as amended.
In
Out
22:45
As amended, made by Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
22:47
Seconded by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
22:49
Roll— anyone on the question?
In
Out
22:51
Seeing none, roll call vote on the ordinance as amended.
In
Out
22:57
Councilor Abreu?
In
Out
22:58
Yes.
In
Out
22:58
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
22:59
Yes.
In
Out
23:00
Yes.
In
Out
23:00
Councilor Burgos?
In
Out
23:02
Yes.
In
Out
23:02
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
23:03
No.
In
Out
23:04
No.
In
Out
23:04
Councilor Chauquette?
In
Out
23:05
Yes.
In
Out
23:06
Yes.
In
Out
23:06
Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
23:08
Yes.
In
Out
23:08
Yes.
In
Out
23:09
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
23:09
Yes.
In
Out
23:10
Yes.
In
Out
23:10
Councilor Pimpton?
In
Out
23:11
Yes.
In
Out
23:12
Yes.
In
Out
23:13
Councilor Pereira?
In
Out
23:13
Yes.
In
Out
23:14
Yes.
In
Out
23:14
Councilor Roy?
In
Out
23:15
Yes.
In
Out
23:16
Yes.
In
Out
23:16
Item passes 9 to 1.
In
Out
23:18
Number 2 is a communication, Mimic City Council submitting an order for the proposed wastewater rates for fiscal year '27 and fiscal year '28 and the proposed wastewater annual base charge for fiscal year '27 to take effect on July 1st, 2026.
In
Out
23:35
The item was referred to the Committee on Finance on May 12th, 2026.
In
Out
23:39
2A is the order.
In
Out
23:40
Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor Roy, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.
In
Out
23:45
All those in favor?
In
Out
23:46
Opposed?
In
Out
23:46
The ayes have it.
In
Out
23:47
Anyone on the question or would like to speak to anyone that's in attendance.
In
Out
23:52
Councillor Pereira.
In
Out
23:55
Sean, if you wouldn't mind going to the podium.
In
Out
23:57
Thank you, Sean.
In
Out
24:16
Thank you, Chairman Lopes.
In
Out
24:17
Again, good evening, everybody.
In
Out
24:19
Uh, so tonight I'm going to, uh, talk about the proposed wastewater rate increase as a result of implementation of our administrative order, 2017 integrated plan, and our upcoming 2026 integrated capital plan modifications.
In
Out
24:35
Unfortunately, the commissioner could not be here tonight, so as a result of a medical emergency.
In
Out
24:42
So I'm going to be doing the presentation for him.
In
Out
24:48
So an overview of the capital plan.
In
Out
24:51
As I just mentioned, the city's been working through implementation of a 20-year capital improvements plan that was developed under a report that was submitted as part of a 2012 administrative order by the EPA called a Long-Term CSO Control and Integrated Capital Improvements Plan.
In
Out
25:13
Now that's a mouthful.
In
Out
25:15
We simply call it an integrated plan.
In
Out
25:18
And basically what it is, is it's a large document— it's about that thick— that outlines all of the city's Clean Water Act obligations for addressing regulatory compliance, ensuring that our infrastructure is properly maintained, It makes sure that we continue with our combined sewer overflow reduction process, ensuring that our beaches are clean, we can swim and fish in our receiving waters.
In
Out
25:45
So it's a very important plan that we work through.
In
Out
25:48
And in 2019, EPA codified the first 7 years of that plan in a new administrative order.
In
Out
25:59
And since then, we have been working off of our CIP to implement, implement those projects.
In
Out
26:09
And one of the key aspects that I like to always talk about as part of this plan is that the plan focuses on using existing systems that we have.
In
Out
26:18
We don't like to build new facilities that we have to take care of.
In
Out
26:21
We want to take care of what we have and build on that and make changes to those things.
In
Out
26:27
Basically reinforcing the backbone of the system and coming up and identifying high-value, lower-cost, low-hanging fruit projects to address the needs and issues and public health issues that we have out in our collection system.
In
Out
26:43
Unfortunately, and as I mentioned, 2019, shortly thereafter in 2020, COVID-19 pandemic struck.
In
Out
26:52
What happened was, as we were working to move the program forward, we missed some MassDEP deadlines.
In
Out
27:02
Funding was a challenge.
In
Out
27:04
Revenue was decreasing.
In
Out
27:05
People were out of work.
In
Out
27:07
Totally understood.
In
Out
27:07
But what happened when we missed that MassDEP deadline and it caused us a 2-year delay in our implementing our AO projects?
In
Out
27:18
And what that did was it basically pushed all of our projects out 2 years, compounding projects that were supposed to be implemented during that timeframe with projects that should have been implemented 2 years prior.
In
Out
27:33
And we call this basically a snow pile.
In
Out
27:36
It created this mound of projects that needed to get implemented all simultaneously, which becomes a challenge, one, to manage all of those projects, but secondly, to financially pay for them.
In
Out
27:46
Because now you're paying for all of these projects all at the same time.
In
Out
27:54
Next slide, Adam.
In
Out
27:59
In addition to that, we've also been managing challenging funding issues with the SRF program.
In
Out
28:06
MassDEP recently enacted a cap on wastewater funding.
In
Out
28:10
Of $50 million annually by communities.
In
Out
28:14
And in addition to that, they've eliminated the potential for having carryover projects, so spreading costs of a project over multiple years.
In
Out
28:21
So what this is doing is it's forcing us to do even smaller-scale projects than what we have now, and it's limiting the funding that's available to communities within the Commonwealth.
In
Out
28:31
So it's becoming much more challenging for us to be able to obtain SRF funding.
In
Out
28:37
We have used generally obligated funding in the past.
In
Out
28:40
We will continue to use generally obligated funding in the past— in the future, supplemented by SRF funding.
In
Out
28:45
But that mix may change, and we have to monitor our budget and work very closely with the MassDEP to ensure that we can continue to receive those low-interest loans, which are important to our program.
In
Out
28:56
And then lastly, I want to add that all of the work that the DPI does within the city is coordinated with other activities that are going on.
In
Out
29:04
We work with Eversource, we work with the Water Department, we work with our pavement management plan to make sure that we implement cohesive projects, minimize disturbance to neighborhoods and the residents, get the work done in the street and get out of there so that we can pave it and then move on to the next area.
In
Out
29:21
It's definitely— it takes a little bit longer to implement things, but it's certainly much more coordinated.
In
Out
29:26
Next slide, Adam.
In
Out
29:29
So this slide shows the next 5 years' worth of projects.
In
Out
29:33
And what you see here is you can see sort of that in that '27 and '28 timeline, extremely significantly larger dollar values than what you see in the outer last 2 years.
In
Out
29:44
And that was that snow pile that I talked about.
In
Out
29:47
We're still working through the challenges of trying to manage that snow pile from the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2-year delay.
In
Out
29:57
In addition to that, there's also newer projects that are baked in here.
In
Out
30:03
As we were implementing our capital plan, we did a ton of studies, got out into the field, investigated the treatment plant and our pipes, and we simply know more now.
In
Out
30:12
And new priorities have come up.
In
Out
30:14
And we need to address those priorities as well.
In
Out
30:16
We have failing infrastructure that we need to address.
In
Out
30:19
So this 5-year plan addresses that.
In
Out
30:23
But again, continuing over that 5-year period, we're really working hard to get it down to a manageable amount of funding on an annual basis versus that large, you know, $62 million, which is not sustainable, obviously, over the long term of the plan.
In
Out
30:40
So that's why we wanted to get down to more of that $12 to $14 million per range.
In
Out
30:44
And that also sort of calms the rate increases down as well.
In
Out
30:50
Here's a funding breakdown of our capital plan.
In
Out
30:54
You'll see that the first 5 years, that big yellow chunk is combined sewer overflow or CSO funding.
In
Out
30:59
We really want to focus on trying to reduce combined sewer overflows as much as we can.
In
Out
31:04
The red area is focusing on the treatment plant.
In
Out
31:07
The new treatment plant is now 30 years old.
In
Out
31:12
So it's no longer new.
In
Out
31:14
Although it's been well maintained by our contract operator in the city, equipment just gets tired and it needs to be replaced.
In
Out
31:22
And there's equipment that's becoming end of life.
In
Out
31:23
And you'll see that in the pie chart to the right, the funding that's been dedicated, that red area, has grown.
In
Out
31:30
Because over the 20-year life of the plan, equipment is going to continue to get older and we need to make sure that we invest in one of the city's most valuable pieces of infrastructure.
In
Out
31:41
But then again, that yellow area is really still big because we want to still focus on combined sewer overflows.
In
Out
31:47
And then the other colors are smattering of like other different types of investments within the city's collection system.
In
Out
31:57
So in order to continue to finance that, we're asking— sorry, next slide.
In
Out
32:04
So in order to continue to finance the program, DPI is requesting approval from the council for a $20.4 million appropriation to continue to move forward with projects as being outlined in our update to our 2017 plan, which will be coming out in June of next year.
In
Out
32:22
This funding focuses on treatment plant activities.
In
Out
32:26
As I mentioned, the plant is getting old now and equipment is getting tired, and you'll see that the majority of spending here is focusing on the treatment plant.
In
Out
32:35
We have gravity thickeners which address residuals treatment or sludge treatment at the plant.
In
Out
32:40
There's 4 of them.
In
Out
32:42
2 are non-operational.
In
Out
32:43
They don't function at all.
In
Out
32:44
One is being held together by bubble gum and duct tape, and the other one is, is functioning.
In
Out
32:49
And to operate a facility of that size, if that one goes down, the city is in trouble.
In
Out
32:54
We won't be able to meet our permit.
In
Out
32:55
We won't be able to treat our sludge.
In
Out
32:59
Generators at the plant are in need of some repair.
In
Out
33:02
We have to, um, we have to make sure that we, that we take care of them.
In
Out
33:06
They definitely need some updates.
In
Out
33:07
And thirdly, odors.
In
Out
33:09
I know odor is a big, big thing at the plant.
In
Out
33:11
We want to make sure that we continue to maintain the odor control system so that odors at the plant are contained where they should be.
In
Out
33:18
And then we have a pump station upgrade as well as, and then another project at the plant to begin to optimize the process.
In
Out
33:25
Based on the CIP that I showed you 3 slides ago, this is the spending that's projected on an annual basis, or the revenue requirements, I should say.
In
Out
33:33
It starts at about $3 million this calendar year and then goes to $14 million in— excuse me, fiscal year, and fiscal year '30-'31 grows to $14 million.
In
Out
33:43
So the line, that red line that you see that's cutting across the slide there is the current revenue that DPI is generating based on the existing rates.
In
Out
33:52
So I'm going to take a little step back in time to set some context as to how we ended up with the rates where we're at right now.
In
Out
34:01
Next slide, Adam.
In
Out
34:01
Thank you.
In
Out
34:05
So this is where my previous discussion about smooth rates come in.
In
Out
34:10
So last year we had talked about doing smooth rates potentially for over 2 calendar years at 7.8% and 9.8%.
In
Out
34:20
Ultimately, because of the way that the ordinance is written, we were only able to do that.
In
Out
34:24
And actually, it came in at 3 million— 3%.
In
Out
34:28
And the year before that, we came in at 4.3%.
In
Out
34:31
But the reason that came in that low is because the rate was bought down by cash as well as a reduction in the wastewater budget.
In
Out
34:38
And when you start infusing cash into the rates, what happens is that's revenue that still needs to be generated and continues on in its eternity, essentially.
In
Out
34:51
It comes out eventually.
In
Out
34:52
Like, we have to manage that situation.
In
Out
34:54
And the $3.9 million in cash that was infused over the past 2 years has essentially created a structural deficit that is now sort of coming to roost in 2027, which we're calling a catch-up year.
In
Out
35:07
So we need to address that revenue shortfall of the $3.9 million.
In
Out
35:10
Plus the debt service needed to pay for the projects that are currently ongoing and mandated by our administrative order, in addition to the several— the $20.4 million in wastewater projects at the plant that we need to do to keep that facility up and running.
In
Out
35:30
So to assess those impacts— next slide, Adam, please.
In
Out
35:34
To assess those impacts of how we deal with that shortfall and the new projects and that lump of projects that's still ongoing.
In
Out
35:40
We assessed several alternatives in terms of rate modification.
In
Out
35:45
We looked at what it would be for a single year, no smoothing, obviously it's only a 1-year rate.
In
Out
35:50
We also looked at what it would be for a 5-year, no smoothing, so basically based on the revenue that you need on an annual basis.
In
Out
35:57
We assessed a 5-year smoothing option.
In
Out
36:02
We also assessed a 2-year smooth option.
In
Out
36:06
And I do want to point out that both the 5-year smooth and the 2-year smooth, if you recall in my prior discussion, I talked about how some years we'll have some reserves and other years we're going to have some deficits that we'll need to take out of retained earnings in order to fund that, which would then get basically replenished when a future rate increase provides the revenue to do that with the smoothing option.
In
Out
36:27
The 5-year smooth requires $3.4 million in cash.
In
Out
36:31
And the 2-year increase requires about $150,000 in cash.
In
Out
36:36
So it's not, it's not too bad.
In
Out
36:38
I do want to point out that I believe there's a transfer that's coming forth to council.
In
Out
36:42
And once that transfer happens from, from free cash to retained earnings, it'll put the wastewater retained earnings balance at approximately $4.1 million.
In
Out
36:53
So when you think about using $3.4 out of that $4.1, it's getting us down down really, really low.
In
Out
36:59
Next slide, Adam.
In
Out
37:04
This table outlines the percentage increases needed over time.
In
Out
37:08
I'll get into the weeds a little bit on each of these over the next couple slides.
In
Out
37:11
But you'll see that the 5-year smooth has that significant infusion of cash of like $2.5 million in the 3rd year.
In
Out
37:18
But then you make it up in the outer years.
In
Out
37:21
Similar to the 2-year 2-year smooth, the $150,000 comes out this year but then you make it up next year.
In
Out
37:28
I do want to point out that in the 3rd year of the smooth option for 2 years, there's a projected increase right now of 15.9% required.
In
Out
37:42
We have the opportunity because we continue to assess rates on an annual basis to smooth that out as well.
In
Out
37:50
The lower amounts that I showed you in the CIP in the outer years continue so that when we begin looking at that year, we can then move forward and smooth that 15.9%.
In
Out
38:05
So the— we have an opportunity to address that.
In
Out
38:08
And we will continue to work with council and have discussions about the best path forward for doing that.
In
Out
38:13
But we do have an opportunity to smooth that 15.9%.
In
Out
38:20
Out.
In
Out
38:20
This is a breakdown of the 1-year and— next slide, Adam.
In
Out
38:23
Sorry.
In
Out
38:24
Oh, boy.
In
Out
38:26
There we go.
In
Out
38:28
We do— this is the 1-year and 5-year no smoothing.
In
Out
38:32
You'll see for 1 year it's the 12.1%, and 5 years, again, it fluctuates annually with 12% and then 10.4%, 16.5%, and then it drops down to 3%.
In
Out
38:43
In the 2 outer years.
In
Out
38:45
But again, not really needing any cash to offset budgets.
In
Out
38:53
And rate increases would average between $2 and $11 per month with this alternative.
In
Out
38:58
Next slide, Adam.
In
Out
39:02
Here's the 5-year smoothed option.
In
Out
39:05
Again, I would not recommend doing this because of the prior discussion we talked about.
In
Out
39:09
Too many opportunities for changes in the climate that's out there.
In
Out
39:13
But again, on this, this averages about $6.50 on average.
In
Out
39:18
But as you can see, in the 3rd year, you need that really huge amount of cash, which is going to impact our stabilization.
In
Out
39:24
So again, not recommending this one.
In
Out
39:27
Here's the next slide, Adam.
In
Out
39:29
Thank you.
In
Out
39:32
2-year rate alternative.
In
Out
39:33
Um, this is our recommended alternative.
In
Out
39:40
Um, it averages a little more than $6 per month as an annual increase with a rate increase of 11.5%.
In
Out
39:48
Again, that 15.9% in year 3, we definitely have opportunities to further smooth that out in outer years.
In
Out
39:56
Based on that, we're looking at, again, like I said, between a $6 and $8 per month increase over that time period.
In
Out
40:02
So totaling in 2 years around $14 per month.
In
Out
40:07
So in conclusion, we're requesting a couple of approvals from council tonight.
In
Out
40:13
One being a vote for the $20.4 million appropriation by June 30th to make sure that we meet our MassDEP deadlines.
In
Out
40:22
Secondly, we're looking for a modification of the ordinance which was previously voted to pass to council.
In
Out
40:28
Thank you.
In
Out
40:29
And lastly, we would recommend a 2-year rate increase based on the numbers that were shown here, a 2-year smooth increase at the 11.5% per year increase over time.
In
Out
40:48
And with that, I will turn it over to the council for any further questions.
In
Out
40:51
So, Sean, if the body doesn't mind, I think we should take 2 and 3 together.
In
Out
40:55
As item number 3 is the $20,400,000 that Sean referenced earlier.
In
Out
41:01
So without objection, taking 2 and 3 together and allowing Sean to discuss the loan order for number 3, and then we'll take questions for 2 and 3 if nobody has a problem.
In
Out
41:10
Yeah, he already discussed— that's what I was just going to say, the $20 million that he already did.
In
Out
41:14
Yeah, so without objection, we'll take 2 and 3 together.
In
Out
41:17
Sean, if you want to continue, and we'll do item number 3 is the communication, Mayor Mitchell, City Council.
In
Out
41:22
Submitting a loan order appropriating $20,400,000 for the purpose of financing the cost of projects outlined in the city's long-term CSO controlled and integrated capital improvement plan.
In
Out
41:33
It was referred on May 12, 2026, and the loan order was referred on May 12, 2026.
In
Out
41:39
Motion received and placed on file.
In
Out
41:40
Made by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
41:41
Let's go find me.
In
Out
41:42
Seconded by Councilor Roy.
In
Out
41:43
All those in favor?
In
Out
41:44
Opposed?
In
Out
41:44
The ayes have it.
In
Out
41:45
Sean, you can continue if you'd like.
In
Out
41:50
Right there.
In
Out
41:51
There we go.
In
Out
41:52
So I did touch on this previously in the last present— during the rate presentation.
In
Out
41:58
Again, this is a loan order to continue compliance with our administrative order and begin to implement planned projects that are within our upcoming capital improvements plan that will— it's forthcoming to EPA and MassDEP.
In
Out
42:14
For approval.
In
Out
42:17
Thank you.
In
Out
42:17
Again, focusing on, you know, treatment plan and other things.
In
Out
42:19
Does anybody have any questions for Sean or Bob?
In
Out
42:22
Because Bob is also here.
In
Out
42:24
Councilor Carney?
In
Out
42:25
Yeah, I, I just want to go back when it is— when you're talking about your presentation about the COVID Um, I thought that we got a, an extension, um, during COVID And we were pushed out 2 more years because of the COVID So you're saying we weren't— so those projects had those— that 2 years had to be done before the 4 years had to be done in 2 years?
In
Out
42:50
We did get an extension in 2025, right?
In
Out
42:53
Yes.
In
Out
42:54
And then it pushed— I thought it pushed it out.
In
Out
42:56
So we didn't— you talked about a snow pile of getting everything done in 4 years.
In
Out
43:00
That didn't affect that extension?
In
Out
43:04
We— it's sort of a balancing act, and I, I'm gonna I have Richard Davis here who can also speak to that discussion as well.
In
Out
43:12
Richard, I don't know if you mind talking about that.
In
Out
43:17
Richard, thank you for being here today.
In
Out
43:19
Appreciate you coming down.
In
Out
43:20
The podium is yours.
In
Out
43:22
It's a pleasure.
In
Out
43:23
Thank you.
In
Out
43:24
It's good to see everybody this evening.
In
Out
43:28
The extension in 2025 allowed us through June of 2027.
In
Out
43:34
To finish projects that were in the original AO.
In
Out
43:37
So in that sense, it gave us some grace, and it was mostly COVID-related.
In
Out
43:43
What it doesn't do is cover the aggregation of costs as efficiently.
In
Out
43:51
So those— the costs of those projects built up and needed to be extinguished over time.
In
Out
44:00
Over a longer time than the 2 years really to finish the projects.
In
Out
44:04
So there's, there is, there is that.
In
Out
44:06
But we did get a 2-year grace for a couple of the 3, I guess 3 of the main projects.
In
Out
44:11
And we are on track, I believe, to make good on those.
In
Out
44:15
Right.
In
Out
44:16
I was just confused about the spending in that 4 years if we got extended the extra 2 years.
In
Out
44:25
Then we should have still been on track if we're 2 years out.
In
Out
44:31
That's what I'm just a little confused about.
In
Out
44:34
I think, Councilwoman, I may actually defer to folks who are economic as opposed to legal on this, that, um, the difference between the original deadlines of 2025 and the extended deadlines of '27 did not relieve us of the, the economic burden of having to do all those projects at the front end as we did.
In
Out
44:56
And I believe there may have been some additional— Adam, do you have a thought about how to discuss the delta between when we complete a project and how we pay for a project?
In
Out
45:07
Yeah, thank you.
In
Out
45:08
Yeah, Adam Simonson from CDM Smith.
In
Out
45:11
We've been working with the city on the financial analysis on this.
In
Out
45:15
I think the simplest explanation is, is that the debt service associated with those projects, that is, the payments for that are coming due now, essentially.
In
Out
45:26
So they've been— the completion of those projects has been delayed, but the bills are coming due now to pay for them.
In
Out
45:34
Okay.
In
Out
45:34
So that's been delayed slightly.
In
Out
45:35
And that's when Sean's referring to the snow— that snowpile effect, that snowpile's here now.
In
Out
45:41
Right.
In
Out
45:41
So, okay.
In
Out
45:42
So We got delayed.
In
Out
45:46
We, we got the extensions, so we didn't have to do those, those projects in the first and second year of our instant extensions.
In
Out
45:54
But we still have to do the projects, I get that.
In
Out
45:56
We just were delayed 2 years out.
In
Out
45:59
So you're saying that we did all those 4 projects that we could extended— say, oh, okay, so let's just use numbers.
In
Out
46:07
Say we had 4 projects that to complete And we got the extension for the 2 years, so we pushed the 2 projects out.
In
Out
46:17
So that's what I'm getting at, is that we did them all in those 2 years, the projects.
In
Out
46:27
No, it's just the projects that I just use analogy of like 4 projects, and we got the 2-year extension, so we did those 4 projects within those 2 years?
In
Out
46:40
We did 4.
In
Out
46:43
I would just— it could have been 10, 12, whatever.
In
Out
46:45
I'm just using that for easy math.
In
Out
46:48
If we had to finish 4 projects in that time period and then COVID comes, yep, and then they said, okay, you got 2 more years, and we were doing a project a year, I was wondering why it was Because you have, you have, you also have new projects that were supposed to be starting within the same time period as well.
In
Out
47:10
Right, exactly.
In
Out
47:12
That was my question.
In
Out
47:13
Yes, that was my— that's what I meant.
In
Out
47:16
And every year, projects, those new projects didn't get extended out.
In
Out
47:20
It's just the old projects that were done.
In
Out
47:22
Yes, they didn't go to the end of the pile.
In
Out
47:24
They stayed and started to work with the new projects.
In
Out
47:27
Yes.
In
Out
47:27
Okay.
In
Out
47:28
They only gave us extensions.
In
Out
47:29
Extension on certain projects.
In
Out
47:30
All right, see, that's what it was, it's certain projects.
In
Out
47:32
We didn't get a 2-year extension because I know we had the 20 years to get everything done.
In
Out
47:38
We had under the city 7 years to get everything done under the '19 order.
In
Out
47:42
They gave 2 more years, so that gave us the 9 years.
In
Out
47:44
Okay.
In
Out
47:45
All right, so, all right, so that makes a little more sense.
In
Out
47:48
I was just kind of confused on that.
In
Out
47:49
Okay, thank you, Councilor Lopes.
In
Out
47:55
Thanks, Mr.
In
Out
47:56
Chair.
In
Out
47:57
Sean again.
In
Out
47:58
You know, I'm looking at the screen and I'm looking at the ask.
In
Out
48:02
We need to borrow $20.4 million to do these projects to keep up with our administrative order from EPA.
In
Out
48:09
And by doing this, our rates are going to go up and the regular everyday consumer is going to have to pay more money a month.
In
Out
48:17
So if I'm watching this right now, I'm wondering, what are these projects?
In
Out
48:22
I was wondering if you just can go into a little bit more detail on what a gravity thickener is, or, or, or, or what we're paying $600 grand for nitrogen optimization.
In
Out
48:31
Yes.
In
Out
48:32
Is it not on?
In
Out
48:33
Oh, you need to talk into it.
In
Out
48:35
Oh, I thought it picked me up.
In
Out
48:37
It doesn't pick me up.
In
Out
48:39
Oh no.
In
Out
48:39
Um, all right, I'll go again.
In
Out
48:41
Or, or are we good?
In
Out
48:42
You're going to explain the project, Sean?
In
Out
48:43
Thank you so much.
In
Out
48:44
Explain the project.
In
Out
48:45
Appreciate it.
In
Out
48:46
So like the question by Councilor Roy was to explain the projects if it wasn't heard by everybody.
In
Out
48:51
So there are— there are 4 projects on here that are associated with the city's wastewater treatment plant.
In
Out
48:58
I had mentioned previously that the plant is now 30 years old and some of the equipment is getting tired.
In
Out
49:04
The plant has been well maintained.
In
Out
49:06
That's not the question at hand.
In
Out
49:07
But equipment just gets tired and needs to be replaced over time.
In
Out
49:10
So gravity thickeners are a key process in management of the plant's residuals.
In
Out
49:16
The treatment process generates what's called residuals.
In
Out
49:19
We also call it sludge.
In
Out
49:20
It's not a very nice term.
In
Out
49:25
But in order to manage that, you have to try to get as much water out of that sludge as you can before you dispose of it.
In
Out
49:33
The more water in it, the more expensive it is to dispose.
In
Out
49:35
So we want to get as much water out as we can.
In
Out
49:38
To do that, we basically let it settle.
In
Out
49:40
Okay?
In
Out
49:41
And we let it settle in these things called gravity thickeners.
In
Out
49:45
There are 4 of them at the plant right now.
In
Out
49:47
2 don't work.
In
Out
49:49
Nonfunctioning.
In
Out
49:50
One is held together by bubble gum and duct tape.
In
Out
49:53
And the other one is functioning.
In
Out
49:55
So there's essentially one that's working properly.
In
Out
49:58
If that goes down, the plant can't manage that process.
In
Out
50:02
We will violate our permit and get in trouble by the EPA.
In
Out
50:06
Richard, please come help us.
In
Out
50:10
In addition to that, the tanks are falling apart.
In
Out
50:13
They're concrete.
In
Out
50:14
They're in a corrosive environment.
In
Out
50:16
Literally, we're finding chunks of aggregate in the downstream process of the concrete tanks falling apart.
In
Out
50:21
We have to go and restore those tanks.
In
Out
50:24
So all of that put together, these need some TLC.
In
Out
50:26
They're just getting tired.
In
Out
50:29
Generators at the plant, we have 2 generators at the plant that power the plant in case of a power outage.
In
Out
50:35
Again, those are 30 years old.
In
Out
50:37
They are operated monthly to make sure that they run properly.
In
Out
50:41
But again, there's parts of them that are just getting old and need to be replaced.
In
Out
50:45
We can't get parts for some of them because they're so old.
In
Out
50:48
So it's time that we go through and we start to rehab those.
In
Out
50:52
That's what that $4.8 million is for.
In
Out
50:55
We need to make sure that those function.
In
Out
50:57
We lose power at the plant, no generators, we're in some real trouble.
In
Out
51:01
The nitrogen optimization, that is— right now, the city has really made good progress in terms of improvements to the process to help clean the water that's coming out of the plant.
In
Out
51:13
As part of that, we try to remove as much nitrogen as we can.
In
Out
51:17
Nitrogen in the receiving waters creates algae, it kills eelgrass, it has a lot of environmental detriments.
In
Out
51:25
So we try to take out as much as we can.
In
Out
51:28
This is basically a study and small improvements to the plant that we're going to try to make to even lower that even further, get as much out as we can with what we have, what we're working with.
In
Out
51:39
It's really important, by the way, for the agencies that we continue with this as well.
In
Out
51:43
The agencies love to see us make progress with this, and when it comes time to renegotiate our permit with EPA, they will definitely look favorably upon this type type of work.
In
Out
51:53
The COVID Road Pump Station, we have a leaking force main that's been leaking for more than 10 years.
In
Out
52:00
This is one of the largest pump stations in the entire city, and if that fails, we will end up with a significantly larger emergency repair than $2.8 million.
In
Out
52:08
We need to go and address and repair this leaking force main.
In
Out
52:13
And finally, the solids building odor control.
In
Out
52:18
Wastewater treatment plants are a corrosive environment.
In
Out
52:21
They are odorous.
In
Out
52:21
Our plant does a very good job at maintaining odors because most of it— actually, practically all of it is covered.
In
Out
52:26
There are no open tanks.
In
Out
52:28
Like if you go to Fair Haven, they have all open tanks.
In
Out
52:30
We have none.
In
Out
52:31
They're all covered.
In
Out
52:32
We need to make sure that our odor control system keeps that odorous air, that hydrogen sulfide, within the system and not let it release.
In
Out
52:39
These ducts are corroding.
In
Out
52:40
We need to replace them.
In
Out
52:42
Um, so that's what this project is, is for.
In
Out
52:47
Thank you, Sean.
In
Out
52:49
Thank you, Councilor Roy.
In
Out
52:51
I appreciate— I think, I think these more detailed descriptions will help folks wrap their heads around what we're borrowing money for.
In
Out
52:57
Thank you.
In
Out
52:57
I yield.
In
Out
52:58
You're welcome, Councilor Roy.
In
Out
52:59
Anybody else have any questions?
In
Out
53:01
Seeing none, we're going to take 2 separate votes.
In
Out
53:04
Item number 2 and item number 3 will be voted on separately.
In
Out
53:07
Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
53:08
I make a motion to refer item 2 and 2A out to the full City Council.
In
Out
53:12
Made by Councilor Pereira, second by Councilor Burgo.
In
Out
53:17
Roll call vote on item number 2.
In
Out
53:21
Councilor Pereira?
In
Out
53:22
Yes.
In
Out
53:22
I'm sorry, Councilor Abram.
In
Out
53:26
Yeah, bottom to the top.
In
Out
53:27
Councilor Abram?
In
Out
53:29
Yes.
In
Out
53:30
Yes.
In
Out
53:31
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
53:32
Yes.
In
Out
53:32
Yes.
In
Out
53:33
Councilor Burgo?
In
Out
53:34
Yes.
In
Out
53:35
Councillor Carney.
In
Out
53:36
Councillor Chouquette.
In
Out
53:37
Yes.
In
Out
53:38
Yes.
In
Out
53:38
Councillor Lopes.
In
Out
53:39
Yes.
In
Out
53:40
Yes.
In
Out
53:40
Councillor Oliver.
In
Out
53:41
Yes.
In
Out
53:42
Yes.
In
Out
53:42
Councillor Pemberton.
In
Out
53:43
Yes.
In
Out
53:44
Yes.
In
Out
53:45
Yes.
In
Out
53:48
Councillor Roy.
In
Out
53:49
Yes.
In
Out
53:50
Yes.
In
Out
53:51
Item passes 9 to 0.
In
Out
53:53
Item number— to adopt item number 3, which is the loan order for $20,400,000 made by Councillor Pereira.
In
Out
54:00
Second by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
54:01
Roll call.
In
Out
54:02
Anyone on the question?
In
Out
54:03
Seeing none, roll call vote.
In
Out
54:06
Councilor Abreu, back to lead off again, huh?
In
Out
54:08
Yes.
In
Out
54:08
Yes.
In
Out
54:09
Councilor Baptiste?
In
Out
54:10
Yes.
In
Out
54:10
Yes.
In
Out
54:11
Councilor Burgow?
In
Out
54:15
Yes.
In
Out
54:16
Councilor Choquette?
In
Out
54:17
Yes.
In
Out
54:18
Yes.
In
Out
54:18
Councilor Gomes?
In
Out
54:21
Councilor Lopes?
In
Out
54:22
Yes.
In
Out
54:22
Yes.
In
Out
54:23
Councilor Oliver?
In
Out
54:23
Yes.
In
Out
54:24
Yes.
In
Out
54:24
Councilor Pemberton?
In
Out
54:25
Yes.
In
Out
54:26
Yes.
In
Out
54:26
Councilor Pereira.
In
Out
54:28
Yes.
In
Out
54:28
Yes.
In
Out
54:29
Councilor Roy.
In
Out
54:30
Yes.
In
Out
54:30
Yes.
In
Out
54:30
Item passes 9 to 0.
In
Out
54:32
Seeing no further business in front of us, should we get a motion to adjourn at 7:01?
In
Out
54:36
Made by Councilor Abreu.
In
Out
54:37
Second.
In
Out
54:38
Second by Councilor Chiquette.
In
Out
54:39
All those in favor?
In
Out
54:39
Opposed?
In
Out
54:41
We are adjourned at 7:01.
In
Out
54:43
Thank you, everyone.
In
Out
54:45
Thank you.
In
Out