Finance Committee — June 17, 2026

It is Wednesday, June 17th at 7:01 PM.

Calling the city Council Committee on Finance to order.

In attendance, we have Councilor-at-Large Ian Abreu, Councilor of Ward 2 Scott Pemberton, Councilor-at-Large and First Vice President Shane Burgo, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver, Councilor-at-Large Naomi Carney, and Councilor-at-Large James Roy.

I'm Joe Lopes, I'm the Councilor of Ward 5, and I'm the Chairman of Finance.

Do we have any letters to be read into the record?

We do.

We have 3 letters to read into the record.

This one's from Councilor Pereira.

I'm writing to inform you that I expect to be late for tonight's committee meeting due to a prior personal commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my delayed arrival.

This next one is from Councilor Gomes.

I'm writing to inform you that I've been unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a personal commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

And this one is from Councilor Choquette.

I am writing to inform you that I am unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a personal commitment.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Motion received and placed all 3 committees.

Made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Note, this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

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

Item number 1, written motion.

Councilor Oliver requests that the Committee on Finance meet with the Chief Financial Officer Bob Ekstrom and MMA Administrative Assistant to the Board of Assessors Sherry Pinzo to review the current criteria for tax exemption eligibility at age 70 and to consider taking the necessary actions to lower the eligibility age to 65.

And further, that the Committee on Finance discuss any other exemptions that the city may implement in an effort to assist the city's senior property owners.

The matter was referred here on September 11th, 2025, and it was tabled on March 16th, 2026.

So we would need a motion to remove from the table and receive and place on file.

Made by Council Oliver.

Second.

Taken by Councilor Burgo.

All those in favor?

The ayes have it.

Um, Councilor Oliver, who would you like first to the podium?

Bob is here.

All right, I'll, I'll talk to— with Sherry, please.

Sherry, please.

Good evening.

Good evening, Sherry.

How are you?

Good.

Thank you for coming.

Um, I think the last time that we, uh, convened, we were kind of, uh, we kind of left it to work on the language.

Is that— is it— am I remembering that correctly?

Or you, um— it was mentioned to me about an ordinance, which I don't believe we need.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So in your— to have it written, is it, is it something that the council will just have to adopt?

Is Is that what— Yes.

Okay.

And so I would assume that it would just need a— well, it should be with attorney.

Just needs votes.

And it just needs to be put in front of the council to be voted on.

Yep.

And all it does is it change— it leaves everything exactly the way it is except for the age.

The age is down, correct?

Every other requirement stays the same.

Income, assets, all that stuff.

Yep.

Correct.

So it's just a simple motion from someone, probably myself, uh, and the council to vote on it?

Correct.

And it'll— and how long will it take to take to go into effect, I guess?

Is it a full calendar year or a fiscal year, or do we know?

I mean, the exemption period is July 1st through April 1st.

So if you put it on record for fiscal '27, once it's voted on, I'm assuming you could do it right away.

Okay, that's all I have right now.

So I have this through April.

Any of my colleagues have anything?

Do you have one question for Bob?

Thank you.

James, is yours for Sherry?

Thank you.

Uh, so that's something that this committee can vote on and it'll happen right away?

It has to go to council.

Full council?

Yes.

Okay.

And, and the mayor has nothing to do with, um, this operation?

What is it he's supposed to?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

That's what Bob's saying.

But the mayor has to approve it for, for it to go?

No, it's just votes.

Okay.

Yeah, he can.

Yeah.

So he can, he can, he can.

Yeah.

Okay.

Right, okay, great.

Thank you.

Sorry, Councilor.

All right, I'm good.

You'll say, Councilor Roy?

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anybody else have any questions for, uh, the assistant city assessor?

Seeing none, Bob, I think, uh, Councilor Oliver had a question for you.

Bob, I think it's pushed off so much.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening.

How you doing, Bob?

Uh, thank you.

Um, is there any housekeeping that needs to be done on your end, or— uh, no, there's not.

This— I know this issue has been around a couple of times now with the council.

Uh, I would point out that it's really impossible to cost this out, right?

We have no idea how, um, how old our taxpayers are.

We don't know what the, what the gap is between 65 and 70.

More importantly, we don't know what their incomes are.

And as Sherry had pointed out to me when we discussed this, Sherry's feeling, and I'm sure it's shared by the Board of Assessors, is that so many people now are working beyond 65.

You're looking at one.

You know, it's just the incomes are going to be high.

So this is probably not going to have a lot of impact.

I will tell you that the exemptions so far for 70 and over of $308,000 get $155,000 reimbursed by the state.

So the only housekeeping really is that we would be— it would be built into the overlay, which means we'd have to raise it in the tax rates.

So it's an amount that we don't know, but I would feel, you know, based on my experience, it would be very minimal.

It's a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Maybe you're talking about at the worst, even if you were to double it now.

If you double it now, you'd— the net effect after state reimbursements would be about $150,000.

Would be put onto the— that would have to be built into the tax levy though, so that it can turn around and be funded to the overlay.

But it's such a— and I had that— this conversation with Sherry when I first presented this, that it's such a small piece of the pie that folks that are taking advantage of it now— I think you're 100% correct.

People are working a little later in their years.

The income level is is relatively low per the way that it's written.

Right.

So it is somewhat difficult to obtain, but there should be some people that would probably benefit from it, I would assume.

There will be some beneficiaries.

There's no doubt about it.

But it's just really hard to say how many because it wouldn't be, in your opinion, without getting the hard numbers, it wouldn't be so astronomical that it would be your advice to not do it?

That's correct.

Okay.

And because you also have to realize there's a cap on this as well, so they can only get so much.

It's $1,000 on this one here.

So, uh, it's just the exposure seems so light.

So the mayor asked me about it, uh, and, um, and from everything I was able to tell him, he supports it, obviously.

But why wouldn't he?

It's, it's to bring some help to a needed tax base residents 65 to 70 who own their own homes, who've— I think they've had to have been in the city, they've had to live in the city 5 years.

So it's the right taxpayer base that you'd want to help.

It's just that his only pause is the same as mine.

It's just impossible to cost it out.

So you have to sort of dip your foot in the water somewhat by We'll be able to tell obviously once the first year comes through, right?

We can compare the, um, what we're paying now to what we're, what we're issuing now in exemptions to, uh, what we will be.

Yeah.

And the delta will be the cost.

But all right, so I'm glad that there's no ultimate, you know, huge concerns that we're going to be giving out, you know, because you're talking about millions of dollars here, you know, we're talking about a couple hundred, maybe, right?

Right.

You talk— yeah, you're talking about a tax levy of about $160 million roughly.

$165-ish, somewhere around there, uh, depending on obviously Monday night coming up.

They'll have a lot to say about the tax levy, but that's what you, you're generally looking at— a couple hundred thousand dollars versus on top of a $160 million levy.

And it's your understanding that the administration for the most part supports it?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Again though, with the caveat that the mayor really couldn't— I couldn't give him a costing, tangible, and Jerry can't really provide a costing either.

It's just But like I said, I think in our conversation with the chair, like I said, even if we were to double it, it still wouldn't be— it wouldn't put us so far out of whack that it would, right?

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman.

Also, thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Any other questions for the CFO?

Councilor Carney, on your first— I just have a quick question.

Um, either you or Sherry can answer this.

I'm just— what, what did we issue, um, this past— last year?

It was $308,000.

Well, you want to take it?

You have more precise numbers, I believe.

I deal with rounded thousands.

Sherry can give you more.

So, uh, 309.

390?

No, 309.

Oh, 309.

And then for '25 it was 337, and then for '24 it was 321.

Oh, so yeah, so it's not— we— no, and we can, we can track it and do maybe a metrics on it to see how many for '65, '66, 70 are qualifying.

And right, because I, you know, like, um, the CFO said, most people are working right to 65 these days anyway, so they wouldn't qualify.

Yeah, there is a hardship for some people that are just relying on the Social Security.

And right now with the utilities and everything going up and the water bill and taxes, this is going to be a nice break for the people that just can't make ends meet at this particular point.

Correct.

And I anticipate there's probably going to be a larger influx of applications coming in once it does pass.

And then, you know, because it is publicly out there, so people are going to come in and it'll just be an educational experience for them to be like, no, I'm sorry, unfortunately you don't qualify because of your income.

But, you know, they'll have that in mind and they can follow up in 2 years.

Right.

Excellent.

So it's not that big of a chunk coming out at what we stand at, $70 million right now.

So it's Even if it doubles, it's still at $600,000, so it's not that major, right?

So right now it's at $308,000 like Bob said, and then we get $155,000 back, roughly half.

Excellent.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Councilor.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first or their second?

Seeing none, what's the pleasure?

Uh, motion to refer out to the full City Council into direct the council to change the eligibility age from 70 years of age to 65 years of age.

Motion to refer with a positive recommendation for the age change made by Councilor Oliver, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

Anyone on the question?

Was it— was it— it was Burgo.

Sorry.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo, for the second.

Item number 2, communication, Mid-Michigan City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $2,099,535 from general stabilization to snow removal purchase of services in the amount of $1,933,404.

Public infrastructure purchase of services in the amount of $1 million— sorry, $101,316.

Facilities and fleet managed purchase of services in the amount of $64,815.

This item was referred on May 12th, 2026.

2A is the order, also referred out on May 12th, 2026.

Motion received and placed on file.

Made by Councilor Carney, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Bob, if you wouldn't mind coming up to the podium.

Bob, could you— before we ask questions, could you give an overview of the transfer?

Oh, certainly.

So we all know what kind of a winter we had this year.

Record-setting.

Uh, we spent, uh, in our, in our Department 423, which is the pure snow and ice deficit account where we can only spend on, uh, direct charges that relate to removal of snow, clearing and removal of snow, we spent about 2, um, it was, uh, $2.5 million, right?

And that was a $300,000 budget.

So you'll remember that the council has already approved the transfer for $368,000, so that brought our entire budget up to $718,000.

We need another $1.9 million to cover all of the bills that came in.

And they, again, they are just the pure snow and ice deficit accounts under Mass 40 I think it's 4453D.

I think it is.

That's the account that would allow us to go into deficit had we— it doesn't apply to us this year, but it would.

The rules are still the same.

It only can be used for, again, direct costs associated with snow and ice.

Now, on top of that, we recognize due to the extraordinary winter and some of the pressures on some of the facilities and DPIs 200 accounts for vehicle repairs.

We asked them to go through and find out what other costs were incurred directly from snow removal, but that would not be part of the Mass General Law that would allow us to have gotten rebates through this— I should say budget treatment under Mass 44-53D.

So they came up with about another couple hundred thousand dollars There was a list provided to you.

Yeah, it's $101,000 from facilities— I mean, from DPI, and $64,000 from facilities.

The letter that I had sent had a listing each department provided.

There were a couple of other departments that we asked, and they didn't really have very much at all.

I think Zoo had a little bit, but we could handle that.

A matter of— 4 figures, like something under $10,000.

We were able just to manage to that.

But these are the frontliners right here, as we all know, right?

They man most of the snowplowing equipment.

They— in Jen's case, she handles all the repairs to vehicles.

Well, Jamie does too for his equipment.

So they're the 2 departments that repair vehicles and man snow removal.

So we went to them and asked them to provide a direct listing.

And we looked it over and it all made sense.

It's mostly repairs that were caused by actively removing snow from the streets and sidewalks.

Thank you, Bob.

Councilor Carney, on your first.

Yes, thank you, Bob.

Um, weren't we supposed to get some reimbursement money from the state with the snow removal?

I think it was like a Bristol County thing, so it was Fall River, Taunton, all of us.

There was a chunk of money that was supposed to be split amongst us.

Well, there's— so Brian Nobrega, he's done— he's gone through and applied for relief under the— under this— for the— under the snowstorm.

And it's not very much, and that won't come in for a while.

We can't rely on it for this budget year.

And I don't think— I don't have the figure in front of me offhand, but I remembered it was only a matter of tens of thousands of dollars.

And then we have— of course, we have snow removal insurance, but that again is very underwhelming too.

Right.

I thought there was a lot more that the state was going to give us relief on the emergencies, something?

Uh, yeah, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

It's a better question for possibly for Jen or Brian, but I'm not aware of it.

I know that a lot of communities were helped out quite a bit by the state this year, and, uh, New Bedford sort of stood alone.

They— we handled our own streets and sidewalks, uh, because of the emergency conditions, and we were Um, you know, we got the roads done first and then we're looking for whatever, right?

We didn't get any state help with the bulldozers and the equipment that came down?

Not to my knowledge.

Oh, okay.

But again, I mean, it's like, I know we— most of our equipment came from the state of Connecticut and through, uh, through, um, um, I forget the vendor that supplied most— White Construction.

Thank you, D.W. White.

So we got some, uh, some serious equipment that came from the state, but, uh, The cost of that equipment is about $600,000.

I think it was $618,000.

From the state?

State of Connecticut.

Oh, from the state of Connecticut.

I was talking about— Oh, no, no, we got our— No, so we basically provided, I think it was Brian, Jamie, Jen, the mayor's office.

I think— I'm sure Neil and Christina were quite instrumental in orchestrating all of that, but they secured all this equipment themselves.

Right.

I didn't— because I was, you know, over the news, whatever, when I got my electricity back.

But didn't Fall River get the National Guard?

I believe they had a lot of help.

They had a lot of National Guard in there, which was— their roads were open after ours, right?

Yeah, but I'm saying, but it was provided for the state, so I think it was.

Yeah, so we didn't get any help from the state?

I don't know about any, but the help we're getting is through— I think it's through indirectly through MEMA.

Ryan's applied for it, but again, it's something— it can take 1 or 2 years before we get reimbursement from that.

Okay, thank you.

Other than, other than $15,000 to $20,000, I, I know there's still some discrepancy about the official snowfall, uh, so there's still some discrepancy about the policy return, but other than $10,000 to $15,000, $20,000 of reimbursements Um, which would be turned into free cash basically at this point.

Yeah.

Yeah, I— well, I, I heard on the news and stuff, I— it was a lot more than that that this area was supposed to get from the state to help us out with the snow removal.

But it could have been— I mean, I'm sure Brian— Brian's probably all over it.

If there's money to be had, he will find it.

When he does though, we'll take it into revenue the year we get it.

But it's nothing that I— this nothing that's going to hit us in the next 15 days.

Okay, so I wouldn't have been able to count it anyway.

I'm not looking for the next 15 days, but you know, I was just looking at the reports and stuff that were coming.

So I guess we'll just have to get in touch with a state delegation to find out if there was any money that was going out, because I thought it was a big chunk coming to like southeastern area that New Bedford, Fall River, Taunton, this area was going to split.

The chunk of money.

So I could be wrong.

I'm not aware of it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

You're welcome, Councilor Carney.

So the order is going to be Councilor Abreu, Councilor Oliver, Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Abreu, on your first.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, Mr. Chairman, through you to the— my esteemed colleague who spoke before me, um, Councilor, you're not incorrect.

Um, I'm looking here from the Mass Municipal Association.

The state passed a supplemental budget providing $100 million to municipalities to get through the winter.

So Bob, it was $100 million, a supplemental budget that was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the governor.

So I think it might be a little more than $10,000 or $15,000.

I don't know.

$100 million.

That's a lot of money.

So if we can check into that, I understand it's too late or too quick now for this fiscal year as we, we try to tidy things up.

But, and I understand it'd be become free cash at this point.

But the other thing too I noticed is that Governor Healey did request major disaster declarations to be unlocked through FEMA to assist with financial assistance for snow removal.

Do you know anything about that at all through the feds?

That's what I was referring to before, right?

Brian has, has opened up— well, go ahead, sorry.

I was gonna say he's, he's, he's opened up a cost call for all the departments to Um, uh, to, uh, respond.

I believe he's already got his response.

And I said there's only— there was only a— I don't have the number in front of me.

I didn't think that was going to come up as a question.

Um, but because we're around $20,000 somewhere.

Okay.

All right.

But, um, just so you know, I mean, so I don't know if we want to check with— through the administration or with our delegation.

I know there are monthly calls per my understanding, maybe we can call, you know, Senator Montigny's office, who is the dean of the Senate.

I mean, but the House and Senate did pass a $100 million supplemental to assist with municipalities as it relates to snow-related costs.

So something to check into for sure.

So if you wouldn't mind checking in and maybe getting back to us, I'm just curious on where that could be.

Sure.

But to clarify one point, though, it won't be free cash either.

Unless we were to somehow get a grant in that comes in in the next 15 days, it's going to become next year's revenue.

Yeah, because I don't think it's— we're not going to— we're not going to get this buttoned up between now and July 1st.

There's no way.

So yeah, in the meantime though, I know we've got the budget coming upon us right now.

So over the next couple of weeks, if we wouldn't mind just maybe doing a little homework and seeing, you know, where our appropriation should have been or where it could be or where things are at with this.

Um, I, I don't even know.

I mean, I mean, when municipalities have made aware about this supplemental budget, I mean, I don't even know how— seems like you're not too aware of this.

Well, because it didn't come to my office.

No, no, that's what I'm saying.

So like, how would we know if we're not told, hey, there's a tranche of money through a supplemental to assist with municipalities who have been socked by this snow event, which was Herculean and a once-in-a-lifetime thing?

So I don't know.

I mean, you don't have ESP either, so Yes.

I don't know.

But if we could check into that, that'd be great.

I certainly will.

We get most of our information comes directly from the Division of Local Services.

They have a weekly or biweekly DLS alert, and they keep— they keep the financial community apprised of things such as this.

Okay.

And they've been very informative on most issues.

I mean, this is sort of breaking news, too, because I'm looking here at the Mass Municipal Association that talks about the supplemental budget that the governor signed.

It's dated June 12th.

So this is pretty new.

So again, yeah, you know, but all right.

So thank you very much.

If you wouldn't mind.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll yield.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Councilor Oliver, on your first, unless you want to give it to— Thank you so much.

You're going to yield?

He's such a gentleman.

So, yeah, Councilor Abreu is right.

It was just signed by the governor on this Friday, which is why it's, as you pointed out, probably hasn't gotten to us.

New Bedford's appropriation is documented as $713,441.90.

So I just don't know if we just haven't gotten that.

But I guess my question is, when you are notified of this that the governor just signed on Friday, of that over $700,000 that New Bedford has been appropriated from this fund, which was from the Fair Share Amendment, I just want to add, which people are trying to undermine, certain conservative people.

I just— I'm curious if when we get that funding, will it go back into our stabilization fund if we approve this right now?

We can definitely make that— we can make that happen.

I have to apologize because I've been out of the office for about a week because I'm on vacation.

I came in for tonight.

It's all last minute.

Like, it's not something I would expect you to know right away, especially if you haven't been notified, the city hasn't been notified of it.

But my concern is this funding is coming out of the general stabilization fund to— right now, this $2 million.

And if we're going to get this infusion, this appropriation to help with this exact cause, I don't want to take $2 million out if I know or if I don't know that this administration, what they're going to do with that $713,000 that I know is coming from the state.

Um, so I just don't know if we should wait to approve this, um, until we get that fact.

Um, I guess at the same time too, by the time we refer this out, it's— it won't be until July's meeting anyway, which by then you'll probably have communication.

But no, this is on the June 24th.

Oh, it's our June 25th meeting.

It's going to make June 20th.

Oh, it will.

You're right.

Yeah, I apologize.

So the risk, obviously, if you want to reduce the $700,000 from this appropriation is that if it doesn't come in, uh, by technically July 15th, then we would have to declare a deficit.

So if you, if you fund it based on what's been asked here, I certainly would make the recommendation to the mayor that we put it back into stabilization.

I have no reason to believe he would not want to do that because we both share the, um, the desire to keep stabilization, you know, up as much as possible.

It's, it's, it's had to do, uh, yeoman's work this year, what, top of this with the snow removal and a few other things we had to come before the council for.

What I will say is obviously the, the Winter Recovery Assistance Program, WRAP, that's what this, uh, that my colleague, uh, Councilor Abreu was referring to where this appropriation is coming from.

It's the, the use of the $100 million, the appropriations that were given, they can be used for this situation.

But beyond that, obviously we've seen through our city, my colleagues have gotten the phone calls from the potholes and terrible streets.

So I guess in some ways some of the allocation can be used to fund this $1.9 million, but also if we could use some of it for road repairs, I guess that would also be helpful.

I'm, I know I'm just mentioning this as a way to say I don't know if I want to go the route of saying subtract the, you know, amount of, uh, the allocation, $713,000, because in some ways I would like it to go towards road repairs if we could because we know the cost.

But at the same time too, I don't trust the administration to do what's right by the people of New Bedford.

So I'm torn here, but I just wanted to give that information, um, that the— again, the amount that we're we have been appropriated, which is on the state website, uh, public record, is $713,441.90.

So, uh, just for anyone that wanted that information.

If it helps, if it helps too, I can also point out that, uh, if we don't use it for stabilization, it's going to go into free cash, right?

And then it'll, it'll— as a free cash, it can be then appropriated back to stabilization at that time or the policy that we have for funding our stabilization fund will also kick in as well.

So there's a few safety nets.

Well, I think in this— well, with this particular appropriation, the program that we're receiving this funding states what you can and cannot spend this funding on.

So I don't think that scenario that you laid out would happen.

You can either spend it on the roads to repair due to the winter storm that we just had, or to plug up any— in this scenario, the money that was spent on snow removal.

So in those 2 scenarios, which I would be happy with either or, I think the people in New Bedford would be happier with the former of road repairs.

But I just don't know if, one, we have the manpower to do it, and 2, the will to do it.

So, but I just wanted to put that information out there.

Thank you, Councilor Burgos.

We do have a rep from the mayor's office if anybody has questions for him after Bob as well.

Councilor Oliver, on your first.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

I think most of my questions were asked and answered, but I'm gonna, um, this— I know that there was concern about the snow, uh, budget because there was a, a cut from the— in the snow budget.

Yes.

Would— so it would have to be used for repair, like road repair or expenses?

We wouldn't be able to park some of that money into the snow budget to get it back up to an amount that you may feel more comfortable with?

Well, it's hard to— you're saying for the appropriation?

To tell you the truth, I, I, my recommendation to the council when I did the budget kickoff was to, was to let's, let's agree to leave it at $300,000.

I feel it's a de minimis amount.

I can't foresee another winter coming up unless, like I said at the time, when Florida moves north, that's about the only way I can see us not spending $300,000.

The cost of salt has just gone literally through the roof.

It's— I think it's tripled over the last 5 years.

And labor cost goes up all the time.

So it's even just to pretreat roads for a big storm that may never come, still going to take, take that all into consideration.

And then when we have that protection of Mass General Law, we we can run a deficit or we can seek transfers to fund it first, but we at least have the protection that it's what they call a legal deficit.

In your experience too, I know that the Healey-Driscoll administration was looking towards the federal administration for some relief with this.

It was basically, in my opinion, their failure to act in declaring a state of emergency In your experience, if a state of emergency was declared, would we get that funding faster?

Well, I don't think so, to tell you the truth, because what happens then— we've gone through this with several large storms so far.

It takes 2 to 3 years sometimes to get money back because we get— we run those through MEMA, but that they get their funding from FEMA, and it's usually a good— I'd say at best case, 18-month turnaround, if not longer.

OK. All right.

Well, thank you very much.

This one here, we'd get these funds fairly quickly, I would think.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Anybody else on the first?

Councilor Roy, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

Oh, it's OK.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Bob, $100,000 is going to facilities and fleet management, and I'm sorry, $100,000 is going to DPI and $65,000 is going to facilities and fleet management.

Um, you gave us a listing of, of what, um, what you called mostly mostly repairs due to, due to snow removal.

I was wondering if you knew what was listed that wasn't due to snow removal.

No, everything had to be related to the snow removal.

So all related to the snow removal?

Yes.

You said mostly before.

I'm sorry, my poor choice of language.

No, it was, it was very explicit to departments because it's not something we've ever done before, uh, but we know that, uh, that but the actual snow removal account is very limited, and we know that equipment had gotten damaged during the storm.

So we were pretty specific— had to relate directly to the snow event.

But that wouldn't be allowed under Mass General Law.

Thank you, Bob.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, Motion to refer out to the full City Council for approval with a favorable recommendation.

Motion to adopt the order as presented and refer to the full City Council, made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 3, communication amendment to City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $43,000 from Public Infrastructure Personnel Services to mayoral personnel services.

The matter was referred on May 28, 2026.

3A is the order, and it was also referred on May 28, 2026.

Made by Councilor Burgos.

Second by Councilor Royer.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, Bob— oh, Neil, sorry.

Whoever, if I saw you get up first.

Neil, the podium is yours.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'll take the load off Bob tonight on this item.

So you have before you a $43,000, uh, transfer that would rectify a deficit in the mayor's office personnel account, and that reflects, uh, 2 issues.

Um, the, uh, as I, as I had mentioned that when I appeared before the council a few weeks, uh, back, we had, uh, vacancy savings taken from our personnel budget, uh, by the CFO's office and then subsequently by the council as well.

I think it's roughly split, uh, it's about half and half of the 43,000.

Essentially the council doubled the vacancy assumption.

Uh, we would be happy to implement, uh, that reduction if we had a vacancy.

Uh, we had none.

It's a small staff of 6 folks.

Uh, you know, the vacancy assumptions are a good best practice, uh, that we would like to honor.

It's a little more difficult, um, as the council is aware, among smaller departments if you don't have vacancy savings.

And so that's, that's what's left us with our, our deficit.

And again, we'd be happy to cure it, uh, if we could, but it wasn't something that was implementable.

Councilor Bergo, when you're first.

Thank you.

Um, you're absolutely right, Neil.

Uh, they— I say they, it was the council obviously voted.

I, I didn't support the increase to vacancy because you're absolutely right, it's an argument that I have with my colleagues often about smaller departments that we know historically do not have vacancies.

So the exact number was $46,000.

So I'm actually impressed that you all were able to somehow consolidate and make it work and only need $43,000 for transfers.

So really great job with that.

The reason why I transferred this here to finance, I made the motion to have it come here to to have this conversation with you, um, is because come this cut night— and we've already had this conversation during, uh, the budget, uh, discussion, uh, so I again want to be clear here.

Obviously, as you know, you didn't have any vacancies last year, which is why I plan on referring this out to the full city council for approval to pay this.

You had staff.

It shouldn't— we shouldn't have increased those vacancies.

I voted no for that, and I think we should fund this.

But be prepared to understand that I'm supporting, and I believe a number of my colleagues here will be cutting one of the chief of staff positions from the mayor's office.

So I don't want you or the mayor's office to act surprised when that position is cut amongst maybe others.

And I don't want you to come and say, oh, we're still keeping it.

This is a legislative function.

We have control over finances here, and we're telling you now, and we'll tell you again on cut night and in subsequent meetings after.

I believe I have a meeting set up with you all tomorrow as well, and we'll have another conversation about it then.

I don't want the fanfare of, oh, the council doesn't discuss this, the council has no debate over it, the council blah blah blah.

This is, I think, the 3rd time now I've explained this to you and to the CFO.

We will be cutting one of the chief of staff positions from the mayor's office.

And although this one will be funded because, again, as I— as you pointed out, the vacancy savings shouldn't have been increased, and it will— I will be supporting funding it.

But when that position is cut, if it continues to be funded throughout FY27, this council will not approve any transfer to your 100 account next year if you decide not to heed what the council has cut from that office.

Sure.

So a couple, a couple points on that, uh, Councilor, and I won't restate that.

I appreciate the time that was allotted to me last time I appeared before the council to talk about, uh, the structure of the mayor's office.

I do want, you know, I, I, if it's incumbent on me to clarify again, the mayor does not have 2 chiefs of staff.

We have 2 different people playing 2 different roles.

You know that in the budget it's listed as the position titles are Chief of Staff and then 2 FTEs.

Yeah.

And we've already clarified that.

And that's a function of 19.7 of the Section 19.7 of the code in which statutory titles are referenced.

Prior to that, it said Chief of Staff AA, which is, which is another title used in congressional offices and elsewhere.

Right.

So I spoke at length at the differences in the roles.

I also indicated that the working titles, which is common throughout city government, Those are the titles that appear on people's business cards and how they represent themselves on behalf of the city.

Those working titles are very different.

I'm a chief of staff.

We also have a chief operating officer.

That is very common in other cities where that's— those roles are formalized in the code, as we talked, as we talked about, where if you have a city manager or a chief operating officer, a director of operations and so forth, the police department has a director of administrative operations at that same grade level.

We all have different titles and different roles, but that is a level of responsibility that's that's reflected in the compensation and the structure of these offices.

So there is no redundancy, there's no overlap.

Now, on your, on your other point, as far as the reductions to the mayor's office, I do want to make clear to the council that the way the mayor's office functions is not the same as the way other departments function within city government, right?

Other departments provide services to residents.

Our office is charged with overseeing the entirety of city government and providing effective management and leadership to the entirety of city government, all departments.

Right.

So we are unique among departments in the city in that, in that capacity.

So it is especially in a time of budget challenges and a transition to a significantly smaller city government, it is important to have effective management to support the transition to a smaller government.

This would be very ill-advised to cut the mayor's office when the work that the COO and myself and the other members of the staff do to make sure that departments are supported— these— I don't want to reiterate remarks I've made recently in the past, but it is important that the mayor's office be in a position to support departments in this transition.

The other thing I would say is that, you know, without repeating myself too much, the way we are structured in the mayor's office, it has a demonstrated track record, right?

The city is moving in the right direction.

We have the highest bond rating that we've had.

We have a national and state-level reputation amongst municipalities that is widely recognized.

So the notion that we are structured in a way in which there is excess capacity, I I think doesn't have any support for that, right?

We are right-sized for the needs of New Bedford, and the city is moving in, in the right direction because of the structure that the mayor has created in the mayor's office to drive his agenda and to support departments.

Um, I, I— to, to be so— to, to, to, uh, you know, to, to, to be, uh, frank, the mayor has— in this procedure, time, Councilor— and but the mayor has had cuts to the mayor's office in the past, and he has been very frank in the way we've handled those cuts.

He has said in the past, and this applies to this budget season as well, he does not intend to honor cuts that are politically motivated and arbitrary and subjective and that are not in the interest of the residents of the city and the rest of city government.

To his office.

I think the standard for other departments is different.

The mayor has said as recently as today, with other conversations with the council, that we're going to look at cuts that the council does for other— and we're going to evaluate them on their merits, and we'll proceed from there.

In the past, we filed restoration of funds, but we're going to treat the way the council approaches cuts to the rest of city government differently.

And so there is room for discussion.

I don't want to belabor it, but as far as reductions to the mayor's office, the mayor is not going to implement reductions that he believes are politically motivated, retaliatory, or otherwise are not in the city's interest.

Is that it?

Good.

So to be clear, as I also explained to you on budget night, this is not a retaliation.

As you pointed out, It's a smaller government.

There's less oversight needed.

As I pointed out on budget night as well, you took 5 departments and got rid of those department heads because smaller government, less oversight needed, which is why I pointed out the fact that there is no need for those 2 individuals at the top, yourself and the COO.

That is why.

This is not a retaliatory effort towards the the mayor's office.

And just in the past, I have never voted in my tenure— go look back at my cut night votes— never voted for a cut to the mayor's office.

As much as I might oppose the mayor, this is not a retaliatory effort towards him.

My issue here is I do not believe that this office is effective.

I do not believe you're supportive towards those lower departments that you're pointing out.

And in this particular fiscal year where we are slashing and destroying these departments.

And again, as we're pointing out, the fire department, where the mayor has no problem saying let's take away one man, go from 4 to 3 in a ladder.

Why are we reducing the workload?

And then you point out the fact that I wrote down here the standard is different for other departments.

So for your— the mayor's office, precisely because they're all— sorry to interrupt, Councilor, but precisely my earlier point, because the role of other departments is different.

The mayor's office is unique.

The role of the other departments are— gentlemen, gentlemen, hold on.

Yeah, 2 people will not speak at the same time.

No, no, 2 people will not speak at the same time.

The floor is yours.

You can answer after his comment or question.

2 people will not speak at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, so as you pointed out, the other departments service the people of New Bedford, so they don't need as much support.

Support, but the mayor's office needs that because they need to support those departments.

That's how I'm hearing, and you can clarify that afterwards, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

And so when you did point out in great detail, which I do appreciate, on cut night the role of what the COO does and what the role of the chief of staff does, to me and all of my colleagues, which we all unfortunately chuckled because we sat there listening to the role that you play, the role that the COO plays, why in that function can't some consolidation happen in a fiscal year where other areas we have done some consolidation when we need in this moment to save some tax dollars.

So again, I don't want it to be played as though there is a retaliatory effort towards the mayor's office because we may disagree on many issues, but I don't want to see people lose their jobs.

I wish we could— everyone could keep their jobs, but in a time when we're looking at priorities, I don't feel that it is in the best interest of the people of New Bedford that the people at the very top keep their high-paying jobs while those who are doing the real work, as you're pointing out, in these other departments, the real work of keeping the city running, are being laid off while those at the very, very top are getting to remain in office.

And what are they really overseeing if everything else is being dismantled.

That's the point that I'm making.

And it's not retaliatory.

It is not a direct attack against the mayor.

It's just, to me, what is a real priority to us?

And to me, the priority is for the people of New Bedford and to those other departments that do the real work.

So, Councilor, a couple points I would share with yourself and your colleagues.

First, the mayor's office did implement cuts in our budget.

As I discussed earlier, we implemented the equivalent of the reduction of a a full-time position.

I think there were— it was in the range of $60,000, $70,000 in reductions that we made across the mayor's office budget.

So while we didn't eliminate a position, we took savings out of our budget, you know, the equivalent to a position.

Are you referring to the COLA and Unit C?

The cumulative effect of all of the reductions in the mayor's office to both the 200 account for Um, uh, and the 100 account, uh, yeah, I think it added to in the range of $60,000 to $70,000.

Uh, so that's the equivalent of a, of a salary.

The, the second point I would make is that, uh, the notion that city government, uh, is, uh, smaller is fair insofar as, you know, we're— we are losing a significant number of positions this year.

The number of positions in city government has declined, has been declining for several years.

That said, and we do have a consolidation which I would recognize that we're proposing.

That said, there is, and this is a point I made earlier as well, no private organization would structure, a corporation would not structure itself such that the CEO had upwards of 2 dozen direct reports, right?

The city charter is a function of additions that had been made since the 1940s in which new departments are created and they're all reporting directly to the CEO of the organization, in this case the mayor.

We have made attempts first with the back office operations related to finance to rationalize that by creating a CFO and establishing reporting relationships from the finance departments to the CFO.

We're taking the same approach to Health and Human Services in this year's budget.

All that said, the CEO still has, I'll estimate, 20-odd direct reports.

So the responsibility of providing guidance and effective management to 20 department heads is not something that is reasonable to expect a single, however superhuman their leadership capabilities, are, to expect a CEO of an organization of 1,000 municipal employees and 2,500 or so school department employees as well, to expect that of someone.

And that's why the mayor has structured our office the way we have, so that we have capable management in the form of myself, Christina Connolly, the COO, and other members of the staff to give the departments the guidance they need when they seek direction from our office.

In the absence of that, city government is not going to perform well, and that's why we exist.

But who— again, using your analogy in this case, wouldn't the mayor be the CEO of our city?

The mayor is the CEO.

Correct.

But then the one extra person that you're referring to, then you have a COO.

So that's 2 people.

So I'm not asking him to operate just by himself and getting rid of both of you.

I'm asking him to— him as the CEO and one additional person to help run it.

And then you reference the school committee.

The school committee has a superintendent, a deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, and then a whole other, uh, organizational structure which we haven't— that helps run it.

So I wouldn't even bring them into that because they're completely fine.

Their structure of, uh, their hierarchy, we won't even get into that, uh, top structure.

But here, based on your analogy that you just used, the business structure Our CEO at the top, our mayor is there, and we're recommending that he has just a COO by his side.

He doesn't need another person, 2 people by his side, if I'm understanding.

Yeah.

So maybe another way to think about the structure is that as a best practice in corporate management, this is the way I understand it.

No manager ought to have more than 7 or 8 direct reports.

Again, to my point, with one manager having one CEO having 20 direct reports from department heads makes it unwieldy and ineffective and frankly borderline dysfunctional to allow that in place.

And what happens if that business is bleeding the way— Yeah.

Yeah.

And I've been very polite to him the whole time.

It's just like, I know.

Well, that's because I let him speak for an hour and a half, Mr. Chairman, but it's just going round and round.

Okay, if we could do it quickly.

Mr.

Chair, we'll figure this out.

Yeah, certainly.

Um, um, you know, I, I think that the, um, the way to think about, uh, this issue, uh, is also to draw on, uh, the structure and the experience of other city governments in our peer gateway cities.

I think if you look to, you know, the comparisons have been made, the mayor's office in New Bedford is somehow larger relative to other mayor's offices.

I think you'll want to take into account that a number of the smaller-sized mayor's offices function with a mayor— with not a strong mayor, the charter model that we have, but function with a dedicated city manager and the mayor performing different functions with a city government.

New Bedford, given the complexity of city operations, right, other cities typically don't have zoos, they don't have airports, they don't have ports.

And as far as the school department, our office, you know, just so you're aware, we're in daily communication with the central office of the school department, our staff.

So there's— that's unavoidable that we need to coordinate both on the finance side and operationally and on the policy side.

With, with the school department.

So I appreciate that they have a school committee and the mayor chairs that, uh, but in terms of operating city government, uh, that, that, that's a piece of the equation that we, uh, have to take seriously given the importance of our, our schools in the mayor's office.

So, um, yeah, my, my point, you know, to summarize is simply that the mayor's office, uh, has a track record here of performing well in providing leadership to city government.

And that is a longstanding record with the existing staff.

We've had very little turnover.

Right.

Our team is executing well.

We want to preserve that right now.

We don't want to undermine that or reduce that capacity.

That will only come back to hurt the city.

And the mayor believes it is not in the interests of both city government and residents to see that happen, especially now.

Well, that's the opinion of the mayor.

It's not the opinion of this city council.

And unfortunately, the rest of his city is not operating well.

I don't know why he's choosing to ignore that.

And I guess I'll just leave it at that.

We're obviously not going to agree on it.

I appreciate you publicly stating that the mayor is not going to honor any of the cuts that he chooses not to, and that he is on an island of one.

And deciding how to run the city on his own into the ground, apparently.

And I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so, Neil, um, I'm just a little confused here because you— I mean, if you're running a smaller government, then you don't need as much oversight, number one.

And we pay our directors and our commissioners in the city, they, they get paid a good salary.

So these direct reports— and everybody has all these positions, you got in the police department, whatever, you got administrative assistants, you got this and this, you got all this hierarchy there— why aren't these departments generating reports and submitting them to one person versus somebody in the mayor's office generating reports for these departments?

So I'm just getting confused.

We, you know, we hire all these department heads for their expertise, and then we're, we're top-heavy with somebody else that they're reporting to.

And ultimately, the mayor has a say over these department heads.

So, and we're not, we're not foolish.

We know that the mayor can tell any of the department heads or any of the commissioners out there what to do.

So I'm still kind of confused on, by eliminating a position, the, the overburden of the mayor's office.

I don't see that at all.

Um, well, at the risk of reiterating, I, I guess the way to think about this is— what do our directors do?

Think about the shape of the pyramid of city government.

Okay, so the mayor's office is, is the, is the top, the, the point of that, right?

What you really want to have an effective organization is a pyramid in which you have— I've worked in organizations with that, where you have a chief of staff.

So you'll appreciate— well, so one thing that I didn't make clear when we spoke last time is that I talked a little bit about the scope of my duties and the COO's duties, and I neglected to talk about how we interact with departments, right?

The, the lion's share of departments, our COO acts as the liaison to those.

So if you think about the mayor at the top, we have a COO that handles a number of departments.

I talked about that aspect.

I can tell you with respect to my role, the thing that I didn't really get into any detail on is that I have a portfolio of departments as well.

So amongst the 20-odd departments that are direct reports to the mayor, The CEO handles a number of them.

I handle also a number of them.

And so what you want to think about— and so that's, call it, 10 apiece.

It's not quite that.

I talked about some of the departments I'm involved with, principally public safety— police, fire, EMS, emergency management, economic development, the airport, the port.

Those are things that I— those are departments that I spend my time with.

What you want to think about, again, is the slope of the pyramid here.

If you have the mayor, You have a couple folks effectively in a corporate structure, okay, a couple vice presidents, they handle 2 divisions, they have corporate executives that may report up to them.

Again, the ideal structure in any large organization is to have 7 or 8 direct reports on the management level reporting up.

So the slope of that pyramid ought to be like this.

What we have in New Bedford Right, is a very different looking pyramid in which we have a pyramid this wide and they all report to one guy or two, two or three people.

And what I'm— the point I'm trying to emphasize is that is not an effective model for timely decision-making.

There are only so many hours in the day for the mayor, myself, Christina.

We put— I'll put in— I talked about this and it's not to pat myself on the shoulder.

We put in a lot of hours to make sure that we act in a timely way regarding the issues that are brought up from, from, from departments.

And also, uh, the decision-making— the mayor's, um, his decision-making needs to get filtered down to departments.

There are only so many phone calls.

There are so— there are only so much time in the day where the management team in this— in, in the mayor's office, um, can provide that, that, that guidance.

Uh, I'm not arguing that we need a larger staff.

I think we've performed under challenging circumstances quite well.

But what I'm— again, what my point is, is that this is not the time to further reduce the mayor's office and make the challenges of both filtering up information and issues from below, from departments, or from the mayor down to departments, impeding that exchange.

This is not the time to be doing that.

Right.

But my point is, too, that we have commissioners.

And we have directors of all these departments that are supposed to be running their departments, and they get paid pretty hefty for that.

So I'm saying that you're seeing all these report-generating things that you guys have to do.

Why aren't these departments doing their own reports and just submitting their reports?

Why does somebody have to generate the reports for those departments?

Yeah, I think we're talking past each other a bit.

It's not so much the Reports in the physical sense, you're saying?

That's what I said.

Yeah, what I'm trying to refer to is not so much reports, but the reporting, the discussion, the dialogue, the communication back and forth.

And it doesn't take paper form, that kind of exercise.

Okay.

And then my second, my second question.

Yeah, am I okay?

Right.

And my, and my second question going right to the budget.

If they're 2 distinctive titles, why are they not separated in the budget as that?

Why are they under one title with 2 people?

So, you know, that's another thing is that, you know, a lot of stuff within the budget that we're looking at, it's, it's not clarified.

So you're telling me there's— she's got a specific title and you've got a specific title, but instead it's 2 under one title in the budget book.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Neil.

Listen, Councillor, I was going to ask him a question about something you said about not honoring city council cuts, it being in the— whether it's in the public interest of the city of New Bedford, but I'm not sure it's very germane to this $41,000 question.

Um, but, but really quickly, I think it is germane because this— the whole point of this transfer is it was a cut of the council that they need to fill.

So I feel like it is germane.

Yes, but the— but you are the chair and you have discretion.

Deficit of that account.

His statement was not germane technically to this discussion, but their philosophy of why— that's what the— I think that's what his question's about though, is like, why are we here?

Is because they're not going to honor the cut.

And I think if I'm correct, Councilor Roy, it's similar.

It's similar.

And that's why it's germane to it, is like, we don't want to be back here with that transfer because they're not going to honor these cuts.

So why do we even cut anything from the budget if the mayor is going to ignore it?

I was thinking something similar in my head.

I 100%.

But I understand.

I— when the statement was made, I was thinking something very similar.

I can see us going into deficit spending next year, but that's just me, how I was thinking.

Now, Mr. Roy, if you can make that about the $43,000, I'm glad.

And I will make my answer germane as well, to the best I can.

Neil, I, I just want to know, like, What do you know of any procedure, whether, whether it's in the city charter or in state law, that allows the city's chief executive to not honor the will of its legislative branch?

And you can just say veto.

You could just say veto.

Very good question.

We're actually going in the same direction.

The way I want to address it to make the this discussion more, more germane is to point a couple, um, uh, a couple things, things out.

So the council has, um, the authority, uh, to place reductions, um, on, uh, the budget proposal, uh, of the mayor.

Um, if those, uh, reductions are not implemented, um, the, uh, state law— and I will defer to Bob, you know, at some point, who is more knowledgeable than this— but state law provides a couple different sort of procedural mechanisms.

The first is, uh, the administration is obligated to attempt to cure all deficits.

That's why I'm here tonight.

So we have a $43,000 deficit.

We are obligated under state law to, to cure that, to make, uh, to address that before the close of the fiscal year.

So that can take a number of different forms, as councilors know.

We can file a supplemental appropriation, which is essentially a restoration of the initial cut.

We could file a free cash administration later on appropriation for the council later in the year, or we could file a year-end transfer, or any combination of that.

And so in this case, we're doing the transfer option at year-end to, to cure the personnel deficit that we have this year.

And all those options would remain to address any deficit that transpires in the mayor's office next year.

The second mechanism I would point out is that in the absence— now the council will have a decision before it whether to approve any of those appropriation requests.

Under the scenario where the council chooses not to vote to approve any of those cures, the state law requires that any deficit be rectified in the fall, in November and December, as part of the recap process.

So there is no scenario— and state law is, you know, was created with a view to these issues— but there is no scenario where any department in the city in New Bedford creates an unresolved deficit.

These deficits get addressed— will get addressed by either of those, those mechanisms.

I don't know if that's helpful to you.

Kind of.

So, uh, number 2, you said if there is a deficit, it has to be, um, added to the tax levy, right?

That's part of the recap process, part of the recap process.

So if, if, if the council did cut the mayor's office's budget and he, and he ran with it and a deficit was created, then it would just be added to the tax.

That's one of the cures, legislative cures you're talking about?

Yes.

As a practical matter, um, you know, I think it's, it's, it's more, um, you know, those 2 different scenarios play out, uh, as to whether or not the cost of whatever that deficit might be would be applied to, uh, um, the— which fiscal year, uh, if we address something at year-end, uh, in FY27, or we ultimately address it in the subsequent fiscal year for the recap process for the next budget.

That's the only difference.

Either way, the tax levy is supporting the operations of the mayor's office and every other department.

So it's really a question of the timing of when those costs are borne by the tax levy.

That's all.

To our meeting.

Um, Councilor Roy, did you have the floor?

Please continue.

Neil, you were saying something.

I'm sorry, can you finish what you were saying?

Were we done?

Oh, you know, I was interrupted, so I'm not quite sure where I left off.

Ways the administration can cure it.

Yeah, I was trying to make the point that the way state law municipal finance functions is that if there are deficits, they are cured.

If the initial appropriation is not made, the appropriation request, obviously that would accrue to the current, the, the current fiscal year, uh, if there a deficit transpires, it's made up in the subsequent, subsequent fiscal year's, um, tax recap process in the fall.

And what's, um, do I have that right?

Yeah, right.

Sorry.

Okay, I just want to confirm with Bob.

What is the difference between running a deficit in the other departments versus running a deficit in the mayor's department?

So it's not so much running the deficit, it's the question of— yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it comes back to my, uh, my general point that the mayor's office, as the executive office for city government, functions very differently than other city departments.

So the lens with which the mayor thinks about, uh, the impact of reductions in our office is just going to be different because the impacts will will be different, right?

And so that's why it's important to think about the resources and the capacity for our office differently than, than, than other departments, because, you know, a reduction in capacity in the mayor's office is going to have citywide effects.

It's not going to affect a particular service.

And that's just something that folks, you know, we would encourage folks to take into account.

Part of the issue I have is purposely running a deficit it to bypass the council's legislative duty, you know, and, and it just gives me pause.

We would all prefer not for the first scenario to play out.

But I will tell you, there have been any number of years in this administration and prior administrations where councils have reduced the mayor's office and the mayor's office has not honored those cuts.

In fact, on Actually, it might be every occasion.

There may have been a year in which it fell to the recap, uh, some minor deficit, but, uh, I think in almost every occasion the council has reversed itself and then allowed for a year-end transfer like we're requesting this year, and then funds are restored either in the supplemental or at year-end.

I'm not— that's happened a number of times since I've been here, so Uh, you know, we're, we're taking the historical experience and the way things have operated here also into account.

This is a very small department with a small deficit relative to city government, right?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone on the second?

Seeing none, motion.

Motion to refer out to the full city council.

Second by Councilor Roy.

On the question, Councilor Burgum?

Yes, on the question.

Um, as I already stated, uh, during my line of questioning, I am approving this transfer because our chief of staff is absolutely correct.

Historically, the council has transferred or approved, uh, funding this, uh, because they are fully staffed.

Um, that is why it was important to me to have this conversation because I wanted to be very clear, this is the same body that will be here next year, Mr. Chairman, when those scenarios that the chief, chief of staff pointed out would come before us.

And I wanted to be very clear that although in the past that is how this body has operated, this is not like any other previous year, as the mayor has in his budget presentation explained.

We're in a very different operating time, which is what has resulted in the layoffs that we have.

So I wanted again to go on the record because I know the mayor oftentimes says the council never told me anything.

Oh, this came out of nowhere.

So I just again want to reiterate, this is not a retaliation.

This is just again— and this is why I wanted to make sure Neil understands and that the mayor understands— when we make this cut to the mayor's office, and this is the first time in my, my tenure on the council that I will be making this significant of a cut to the Mayor's 100 account, that I'm doing so because— not because I want to, but because I feel that it is in the best interest for the people of New Bedford to receive the services that they need.

And I don't want to see a transfer because of deficit spending that we just heard is going to take place.

So I just wanted to say that as we refer this out.

And again, as historically, as we have done, approve that transfer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Bergo.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 4, communication, Minn-Mich City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $750,000 from inspectional services to personnel services in the amount of $110,000, facilities and fleet personnel services in the amount of $236,000, recreation and park personnel services in the amount of $80,000.

Elections personal services in the amount of $88,000.

Health personal service in the amount of $120,000.

Solicitors personal services in the amount of $28,000.

Zoo personal services in the amount of $43,000.

And police personal services in the amount of $45,000 to City Utilities purchases of services.

This item was referred on June 11th, 2026.

4A is the order.

And it was also referred on June 11th, 2026.

Made by Councilor Burgos, second by Councilor Oliver.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Bob, would you like to go to the podium for item number 4?

Good evening once again.

I— if you want my— can you give an overview of the transfer?

Sure.

Well, this is the normal process that we go through every year, of course, uh, and we basically looking to move surpluses from, uh, from various departments and budget line items, uh, to those that have deficits to reduce the deficit spending.

Last year, of course, as I've, um, touted several times now, we've had $173 3 budget line items, not one of them went over budget.

First time, to my knowledge, it's ever happened.

And it takes— besides good management all year long on the department— at the department level, it also takes this transfer process, because there are just things that inevitably are going to happen.

And, you know, personal services is one of those, because the vacancy reserves are set with no known vacancies that are going to quantify to the amount of the reserves.

You're sort of staking in— staking a best estimate on June 25th, June 23rd last year, I think it was, staking a best estimate of where vacancies might end up, and they never hit.

Obviously, budgeting is an estimating process.

So some departments, about half our departments, departments had surpluses and half of our departments had deficits.

Thank you, Bob.

Anyone have any questions?

Wow, that was loud.

Sorry.

Anybody have any questions for the CFO?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure on, on 4A, the order?

Oh, Councilor Carney.

Uh, yeah, um, so my question is, okay, so the $750,000 is coming from the special inspectional services.

Um, is that from the fines in the permits that we re— that we are charged that department?

Can you repeat that question?

$750,000, right?

It's from Inspectional Services, right?

Right.

So I'm saying $750,000 Inspectional Services had in their account, right?

Almost a million dollars, right?

So that is— and even huge variances all year.

So variances, is that just from his vacancies?

From his— oh, for the most part it's, it's— well, there would be a full listing.

I'm sorry, I don't have all the backup in front of me, but like, so Denny's declaration of surplus would be attached stuff down there.

Um, so could you just break down again for us?

Could you break that $750,000 down?

Uh, I can't do any better than Danny did on this.

Yeah, I don't, I don't have— I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me either.

Okay, because that, that's what, you know, that department has been lacking building inspectors, and we're looking to raise the fees.

I know he's come to us on a couple occasions saying that they need to bump up their salaries so we can fill those departments.

And yet he hasn't been able to do that because he's been turned down on that.

Yes.

And, and then we're seeing all this money in this account where he could have expended it on the building inspectors that he needs so we can keep the city moving.

And so it's just baffling to me that we have $750,000 and he's still lacking building inspectors because he can't pay them.

With this supposed— Councilor Carney, $110,000 is coming from, um, Commissioner Romanowicz's office.

So out of that $750,000, $110,000 is coming out of personal service amount of $110,000 facilities and fleet, personal services recreation and parks, $80,000 elections, $80,000 health, $120,000 solicitors, $28,000 Zeus personal services, and $43,000 police to the city utilities for a total of $750,000.

Not $750,000 from Commissioner Romanowicz's office.

Okay, it's going to city utilities, and those are the amounts that equal $750,000.

Okay, in the amount of— the wording is tricky on these, on these, on these loan orders.

I mean, on these transfer orders.

Okay, we had to pull a number of different departmental surpluses, okay, in order to address, um, electric, uh, these city utilities.

Now I will tell you that we overshot that by about $200,000, but we're coming back for a transfer on this, on this budget round, right, based, uh, for next, for the June 23rd meeting.

So in the end, we're only going to need $550,000, but I'd ask you to approve this intact And then we're gonna— we have paperwork that's gonna move $200,000 over to debt service.

Okay, so, but, but as far as Danny's— if I could speak to your comment on, uh, so, so I think there's 2 different things going on.

One is, um, he, he certainly had the budget in his 100 account, and that's why there's not much more detail I can provide.

He just— we do projections every 2 weeks when payroll comes out.

He just can't— he couldn't fill those positions because the rates were too low.

It's not because he didn't have enough money in his budget.

The rates were too low.

We fixed that with the AFSCME contract.

There were 93 positions, I believe, that were upgraded, and local building inspectors were one of the— one of those positions that were upgraded.

But I'm still hearing from Danny that it's not enough money in there, and we still had $110,000 in his account, that there's still not enough money there to pay comparable building inspectors from the other towns because we lost one.

What year?

Another town, because they got paid more.

All that budgeting doesn't help if you can't fill the jobs.

So you, you approved— the council approved last year a budget that would have given him the ability to, to fully staff his department.

So you put the ads out and no one's interested in being a local building inspector for the kind of money that he could pay, so therefore you can't spend it.

Okay, um, the other question I had also If I'm not mistaken, there— that a lot of these are going to be, um, coming from the personnel, from their 100 accounts.

Yes.

Didn't we transfer money into a lot of these 100 accounts from— we transferred money.

We did, we did a transfer to cover the AFSCME settlement.

You're right.

Right.

So that's what I'm saying.

I'm looking that we transfer from other, other places to put into some of these accounts.

In their personnel.

Yes.

So there were 2 different things though, right?

So the, the surpluses that are generated during the year for the most part are because departments were able to achieve the vacancy savings that were budgeted for, right?

I'm just— just that's why I'm confused on this, because when we got all those stacks of transfers in the last 3 meetings, there were transfers from different areas, 100 accounts to other departments or whatever.

And if I'm recalling, some of these departments were the same ones that we transferred out some money to put in their money, and yet we're taking it out again and putting it— well, we would have done the transfer for the AFSCME contracts based on the costing of the AFSCME contract.

So if a department needed funds, uh, because they— for instance, I mentioned the 93 positions Right, and then you transferred it back out.

Yes.

Out of that 100 account.

Right.

So that's, that's what my confusion is, because we put money into the 100 account and these same departments are transferring out into utilities.

There could be some overlap, I'm not sure, but there are 2 different transactions though.

We're funding the ASME contract long before departments declared surpluses, so we have to give a department the money that it needs to be able to fund the retro pay for those departments.

And then the surplus came out again.

Yes, surplus.

And it came out in some case.

I'm not sure, I don't have it matched up here.

I, I would not— I would stipulate that there may be, there may be overlap.

Yeah, but I'm saying that was my confusion because I remember— that's why I'm confused at this, you know, putting it back into personnel when we had transferred from their personnel to something else, and now we're putting it back in their personnel.

That was my confusion.

Thank you.

You're welcome, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Oliver, on your first Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Bob, did I hear you correctly that we overshot and we only need $500,000 and you want to— I'm sorry, did you say that you only needed $500,000 for the city utilities?

Well, so we— so for utilities, we've refined the projections since we submitted this 2 weeks ago, and we think we have $200,000 more than we want to use the rest for debt services.

Yes, we're gonna have to come to you for another transfer.

Okay.

From city utilities to debt service?

Yes, that will be part of it.

Yes.

Okay.

So, so actually, we kind of ran a little low on time last week, so we couldn't perfect the projection of utilities because billings with Eversource or NSTAR are, are a little bit difficult, uh, in terms of the timing and the bulk that they come in at.

It's time— it takes a lot of work to figure out to get all the bills into the system because they bill us for 400 or 500 different accounts and we put them all into the system.

So it tends to be, uh, the process tends to take a couple of weeks.

So we weren't able to get the May bills in.

And what are we saying?

What did you say that— what's the, uh, that amount going to be around?

$200,000?

About $200,000.

I believe that's what Quillen told me today.

So in other words, we'll, we'll, in the end, we'll need $550,000 to cover utilities.

This transfer will put $750,000 in.

This council, this, but then we will put in the 3/4, right?

And then you're going to come back and ask to move it from city utilities to debt service?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Councilor Royan, you're first.

I'm sorry, I may— I'm— thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I may have misunderstood, uh, this $700,000 for utilities.

That was an estimate for— that was the fiscal '26 total estimate.

Fiscal '26?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Seeing none.

Anyone on the second?

Seeing none.

All those in favor?

I mean, sorry, we need a motion.

You would start it.

Made by Councilor Burgo.

Seconded by Councilor Abreu.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 5, communication, Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $85,000 from stabilization funds to facilities and fleet purchase of services.

Item was referred on June 11th.

5A is the order, and it was also referred on June 11th.

Made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Does anybody have any questions for Bob on the transfer from stabilization to facilities and fleet?

Seeing none, motion to— motion to refer by Councilor Abreu, second by Councilor Burga.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The chair is going to waive the reading for item 6 and refer to the facility council for no further action.

Made by Councilor Burga, second by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Abril.

We are adjourned at 8:25 PM.

Everyone, the next meeting of Finance is on June 24th at 6:30.