Public Safety & Neighborhoods Committee — March 9, 2026

Good evening, everyone.

Like to call this meeting of Public Safety and Neighborhoods for March 9th, 2026, meeting at 7 o'clock in City Council Chambers, Room 214.

This meeting is being live streamed and recorded on City Council, and committee meetings can be reviewed on the city's New Bedford homepage under the quick links, then meetings.

Sir Clerk, is there anything to be read into the record?

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from Councilor Abreu.

Dear Chairman Gomes 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 prior commitment.

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

Sincerely, Ian Abreu, Councilor at Large.

Motion received and placed on file by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

In attendance for tonight's public safety meeting is Ward 2 Councilor Scott Pemberton, Ward 1 Councilor Leo Chiquette, Ward 5 Councilor Joe Lopes, Ward 6 Council and City Council President Ryan Pereira, Councillor at Large James Roy, Councillor at Large Naomi Carney, and just walked into the room, Councillor at Large Shane Berrigal.

Mr.

Clerk, could you read item number 1?

Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Item 1 is written motion from Councillors Gomes, Lopes, Abreu, Carney, and Giesta requesting once again that Mary Raposa, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Beaches, Install 4 by 8 plywood signage at East Beach, West Beach, Hazelwood Park, and Fort Tabor.

This signage would welcome visitors to these areas and also provide instruction on the laws, rules, and regulations of the parks and beaches within the city of New Bedford, including the noise ordinance, no public drinking, parking, and the hours that these spaces are open to the public.

Motion to receive and place on file.

Councilor Burgos.

Second.

Pereira.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Question?

Yes, Councilor.

Uh, so on this, uh, motion, I was just wondering, for some reason the Brooklawn Park is not included.

If I can make an amendment to include— all parks have been included.

This, this kind of was for down the south end, but all parks have been included for that signage.

Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, and I'm getting a nod from Mary.

Our intentions were from this gap was for every park across the city.

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I don't know if you've already received this handout from— No, I, I've received it.

I haven't had a chance to go through it, but you want— So motion to receive and place on file the handout.

Motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mary.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, no objection from the chair.

This is something we've been working on for a long time.

Mary has something to show us this evening, and I hope it's what I've been asking for.

Yep.

So we, um, as you mentioned, we've been working on a citywide signage project for a number of years now.

I think it's 5 years.

And we did receive CPA funding to do phase 1.

So phase 1 is going to be all the major parks And all of the beaches as well.

So really all of the parks except some of the smaller neighborhood parks.

We just didn't have it in our budget, but those will be phase 2.

But so I did give you a handout, and on the handout you can see the timeline.

We're working with a signage company out of Texas that's going to be fabricating and installing.

They're working with a local contractor to install.

So these are the— what I've handed out to you are the major signs.

So all of the locations, all of the major parks, parks as well as the beaches will be getting one of these major signs.

And I do have a sample here of the material, the colors.

The only difference at the beach is we're going to go with that like teal blue here instead of the yellow.

Otherwise they're the same signage.

And I can— I don't know if anyone wants to see that.

I could pass it around.

So the signs are— they're pretty good size, as you can see from the handout.

They will have all of the parks rules and regulations, both in English and Spanish.

They'll have some visual icons for folks who are, you know, not reading.

And they'll also have a QR code that'll take them to the city website, to our site, so that they can get more information about the parks, but also any additional information about renting, renting anything, additional rules and regulations, that sort of thing.

The company has told us that they intend to have all of these signs installed by the end of June.

I think personally that's a little ambitious, but I do expect that they will all be in and installed by the end of the summer.

And we did give them the list of parks that were in the order, and so those will be prioritized for installation.

And the major parks and, and also West Beach are going to be getting more than one sign because they're, they're large parks.

We need to be able to orient people who are coming in from different directions.

The, uh, some of the major parks will also be getting finger posts.

So for instance, if you come in on West Rodney French into Fort Tabor, it'd be nice to have a finger post to show you, hey, this is the way to the community center, this is the way to the beach.

So some of the larger parks will also have finger posts that will direct people.

The parking lot on Hawthorne Street at Buttonwood will have finger posts showing them how to get to different amenities in the parks.

Is that the presentation?

Yes.

Thank you, Mary.

I'm going to call on Ward 6 Councilor Ryan Pereira.

Thank you, uh, Councilor Gomes.

Mary, when you can, can you provide a list?

You said the major parks, but can you provide a listing of the parks?

I imagine— sure.

Yeah, Hazelwoods, Buttonwood, Hazelwood, Buttonwood, Brooklawn.

Okay.

Riverside.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, if you don't mind providing a list of what was included in this CPA round.

So some of the smaller parks like Roberto Clemente and St. Teresa's are getting signs because they're we're doing construction there, so they're going to get signs as well.

All right.

Yeah, if you wouldn't mind providing a full list to the committee, um, through the clerk's office, that would be appreciative.

Also, can you provide the, um, RFP that went out for the signs?

Yes, I can.

Yep.

Perfect.

And then, so the timeline that's been provided from the, uh, the sign company Uh, that you put here on the front page.

Yes.

In your— so they're, they're still, uh, um, maintaining that they're maintaining the schedule?

Yes.

And we just— I know you were saying you think it's a little ambitious, but I do.

I mean, we're meeting with them biweekly at this point because we're really getting— I mean, we're almost, you know, well into the construction of the signage.

And so we've been meeting with them biweekly, but, um, they, they're confident they can still complete this on this timeline.

Okay, that's awesome.

If you wouldn't mind providing updates to the committee, uh, if there's any delays or anything, uh, as far as the schedule goes, if that— if you could do that.

I can do that.

Okay, thank you, Mary.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilor.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman Gomes.

So, Mary, taking it a little step further, can you give us not only the number of signs but the number— the number of signs per location, as well as a map of where they're going to be at each one of the parks?

So Do you have that already predetermined?

I do.

It's GIS, so I might have to— I'll probably have to give you a link to it.

That's fine, because it's quite a, quite a big document.

Just because I know, like, at Buttonwood Park, there's ample places for the main sign and additional, like, the fingering signs.

And I just want to make sure that as we have the locations idea— I know you probably do— I just want to make sure of that.

And then on that material, how do we handle graffiti?

It's supposed— so this, the company we're working with, this is what they do is park signage.

So they're telling us that it's either graffiti-proof or easily, um, cleaned with graffiti.

Okay.

And then we've done signage at different parks before.

They fade and we don't replace them.

Not knowing that material, how long is it projected that it will be resistant to the, the weather?

Yeah, so they, they tell us 25 years is what they're telling us for these signets.

And then the The post— that— not worried about the footing.

The post, you know, this— that storm, we saw a lot of things destroyed by some heavy equipment.

Yeah.

What is the, the warranty on the signage, the posts?

Because they're installing it, so I'm assuming they're warrantying it.

Yeah, that's a good question.

I'm not— I know what the warranty on the signs are, but I don't know specifically about the installation, so I'll have to check on that.

Did you find that out and share that information with the clerk?

Yep.

I think right now that's all I have, Councilor.

Chairman Gomes, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Anyone else on a question?

Seeing none, no objection from the chair.

Mary, how big are these signs?

So, um, let's see, it says there— oh boy, I gotta take my glasses off to read— uh, 5.5 feet by 3 to 4 feet, uh, 3 feet 4 inches.

That's not quite my 4x8, Mary.

I, I know it's pretty darn big though.

Okay, um, let me ask you about the wording because the wording on these signs are very important for the reason— for many reasons— for to notify the public of what the rules and regulations are.

But I also, um, have been notified and I have Deputy Chief here, uh, Belong, tonight.

Um, this will help the police department if, if this information is on it.

It's so imperative that we get that information on there that will be able to help them, that when they want to clear the beach at night, when we say 9 o'clock the beach is done, it'll be on that sign, 9 o'clock.

So there'll be no question when they pull up and try to clear the beach.

When they— yeah, we're not using dawn to dusk anymore.

And we did, we did send the rules and regulations to the police department before we sent it out to the signage company, so they have had eyes on it.

I don't know if it was Deputy Chief I can't recall either.

That was quite a— okay, if, if, if not, could you forward that to the deputy, um, as, as soon as this tomorrow morning so that he can go over it?

Yep, absolutely.

As I said, Mary, I don't mean to be a pain.

We've been going at this for a few years now, uh, myself, um, Councilor Pereira, um, leading with me and the council's support.

I— it's important that these signs are up so that the law enforcement can enforce the law, we can keep the parks safe, we can keep the people safe, and have a nice summer.

And with the right information being put out there, and I appreciate it.

I can't wait to see the sign.

I know, me too.

Mary, I'm gonna— I'm gonna be following you around.

Just one other thing, Mary.

Could you— I think one of the councilors asked for the locations of them signs.

Could we make sure that we get that?

Have you scoped out every area to make sure that we pick the right place place for the visibility and everything?

So the— right now what we have is GIS maps indicating exactly where all the signs go, are going, the type of sign, and all the finger posts.

So, but once— so what we've been— what we were told by the signage company is that before the signs get installed, we're going to meet with the contractor on site and actually put markers on the ground specifically.

This is where the sign is exactly going, and this is the orientation.

Would you mind if the— when you did that, if it's possible, and some— I don't care what councilor from whatever area is available for, um, just so that we get a visual and, and make sure they're located in the most visible spot?

Yeah, what I could do is, um, I can, I can share that information with the body at large or just with the, um, the ward councilors for their parks, and then they can let folks know.

How would you like me to do that?

Um, I think the body at large, and, and, um, you can still go with individual councilors to make sure that they're in the appropriate place.

All right, any questions for Mary?

Seeing none, um, the chair would be in, uh, light of a motion to table for the time being, just to make sure that everything works out.

And if it doesn't, then we're going to bring you back, Mary.

Yeah.

Make a motion that we table the item for 90 days, which would get us past the project closeout.

Seconded by Councilor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Roy, what we did was, uh, Councilor Lopez made a motion to table for 90 days, which will go past the time that these things should be installed.

The reason why we're keeping it here is just in case it doesn't work out.

We've been working at this for a long time, the entire council.

Mr. Chairman, item 2 is written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting an amendment to Section 1 of the home rule petition with the state regarding the appointment of special police officers in the city of New Bedford.

The change of wording is Chapter 32 of the general law and it should read, no retired police, police officer shall be eligible for an appointment of a special police officer if the applicant has attained the age of 70, and any officer so appointed shall be terminated upon attaining the age of 70.

This is a home rule petition amendment to enable New Bedford police officers over the age of 65 the ability to be assigned to detail work in the city of New Bedford.

This was last heard by the committee on August 19th, and it was tabled for 45 days.

Make a motion to receive and place on file and remove from the table.

Motion by Councilor Loeb, seconded by Councilor Carney.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, Deputy Chief Belong, welcome.

Good evening, everyone.

Again, congratulations in your new position.

Uh, thank you, sir.

Where are we at with this?

Last time we had, at least we had a brief discussion with the chief about this, and he was in support of it.

But this is something been in the workings, you know that, for a while.

Yes.

I— there was some negotiation going on with the union and everything.

What can you tell me today that we can do?

Yes.

So first off, the chief sends his regards and apologizes for not being able to be here.

He's out of state until tomorrow, pre-planned trip.

But you He sends his regards to everybody.

So speaking with Chief Thody, I know he spoke to the union about this.

It seems like everyone's in favor internally.

Chief Thody's biggest concern is to make sure that officers who work beyond 65 are fit for duty, because obviously they represent police officers out on the street.

So you work in a paid detail, they want to make sure they can— if they have to provide medical care to somebody in an emergency, arrest somebody, there's an emergency— that they are fit enough to complete that work.

And he's requesting that they would have to conduct a, um, you know, see a physician and have a physical on a yearly basis to maintain that status as a special police officer.

But it— from what I was, uh, what was communicated to me, the union and the chief are both in favor of allowing it with some restrictions in place, such as the yearly physical.

Okay, so one of them restrictions would be that every year after 65, you would take a physical, and a physician would give you a letter of good to give to the department, and, and that's how you would follow up on it on a yearly basis?

Correct.

So as of now, the special police officers, they, they are considered fit for duty.

They go through specialized in-service every year, just like our sworn officers do.

Um, that would continue as well through 70, but 65 to 70, they would have to provide documentation from a physician that clears them and says this person is fit for full duty as a police officer.

Okay, any questions of the deputy on this matter?

Um, I'm really happy to hear this, uh, Deputy, that we've come to some conclusion and both sides are okay with this.

Yes.

Uh, when can, when can we see this being implemented?

I would hope, uh, some point in the near future.

I mean, that's going to require obviously with, um, the union and the chiefs to sit down and work out the parameters of how, you know, the logistics of when do those officers over that age get called for details, because obviously the active officers get first crack at the detail list.

Then we have the retiree list.

So that would be a system that would have to be kind of negotiated between the union leadership and the chief.

But I know they're both eager to take a crack at it.

So hopefully soon.

Do you need— does the department— do you need just a little bit more time to give us a conclusion on this, Deputy?

Yes, that'd be great.

Okay.

What do you need?

60 days?

Put the chief on the hot seat here.

Yeah.

Give it 60 days.

60 days?

Yeah, absolutely.

I can bring you back and— Yeah, I'll put it down.

I'll make a note of it.

60 days.

Okay, Councilor Roy, table the item for 60 days.

Oh, sorry, I'll still go to Councilor Roy.

Go ahead, Councilor Ferrer.

I just didn't know if we could hear from Attorney Gorotowski for a quick second, if that's okay.

Sorry, that's okay.

Yes, thank you, David.

Thank you, David.

So David, is there a home rule petition written already?

Well, that's, that's what I wasn't sure if we had had one before, because the way the motion was saying to amend Section 1 of the home rule petition, but the home rule petition wasn't attached to this, this particular motion.

So I don't know if there was one that somehow maybe didn't go anywhere because there was this issue about this.

Sure.

I looked through my my files and I couldn't find such a home rule petition.

So I'm not sure if there was one drafted somewhere and it's in the can somewhere or— and then the other question I had was it's talking about changing the wording of Chapter 32.

Chapter 32 is the retirement section of the state law.

So I'm— there's like 106 sections or something in that, so I'd have to look through through whether it addresses special police officers in this regard.

I don't, I don't know if that might have been just a misprint somewhere else, but Chapter 32, this doesn't seem to affect the— I guess it says retired police officers, but I don't think that would affect how you define a special police officer's age.

So I'm not sure what the home rule petition is But it may require it if there's a state law saying that home special police officers can't be special police officers if they're over the age of 65.

Then it would need to be a home rule petition to change it.

But I don't know if there was one.

It appears here, the way this is written, that there was one at some point.

And because it even says in the, in the language that the mayor returned it unsigned, I don't know if he returned the motion unsigned or there was actually a home rule petition that passed that got returned Unsigned.

I don't, I don't know for sure.

So that's some of the things that were a little confusing about it.

But, um, it appears somewhere there's something that's prohibiting retired police officers from serving as special police officers after the age of 65.

Just, it appears that this has support from this body, from the chief.

So, Mr. Chairman, just in those 60 days when we table this item, uh, maybe, uh, as well as working— the chief working with the union— if Attorney Garatowski, uh, and, and whether it's the clerk's office, our office, to make sure if we have a HOMO petition.

If not, maybe Attorney Garatowski could begin the process of drafting one or something.

Yeah, because special police officers have a different meaning also.

For example, a company can have someone designated by the city as a special police officer to operate in their grounds.

So this is speaking to detail work, which I think means out on the streets and doing police details and traffic details.

Now, special police officers as we know it, like some company might have somebody on their grounds as a special police officer that can do things to people that are on their property, but they can't be out on the streets doing traffic details, for example.

So there's some, there's some difference between a special police officer, as with, as we're thinking about it, the council appoints them, um, for, for private, uh, companies, for example, will have a lot of those.

Um, but certainly it would be different if we're talking about police officers that can be out on the street doing traffic details.

So I, I got to figure out the, you know, how that's differentiates from regular special police officers.

It just— so my only comment is just that it seems like we're moving in direction and wanting to take action on this.

So, well, yeah, because there are some union rules that the first step obviously is the union is— has in their contract that, you know, that police officers do the details.

So until that gets amended, we can't really go forward because the contract would, would, would prevail, the rules of the contract.

So Um, we need to change that and then go forward and then make whatever changes in the law to identify how we're going to do this.

But I'm not sure where in the law it says that, because I know Chapter 32 is the retirement section of the state law.

Just, just so that we, you know, like I said, again, it's, um, just to keep things moving along, as, as the chair has said, uh, with this motion, uh, just that it seems like we made a lot of progress with the chief and the union, so we just want to keep that moving along.

So if you next time we bring this up to hear from the chief regarding that, we'd like— I would like to see some sort of idea of where we stand on the legal side of things too.

So, okay.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilor Lopes.

My question is for Attorney Grotowski.

So, Attorney Grotowski, as you hit it on in your discussion with the council president, special police officers is more than just the retired police officers.

We do have the authority that we grant special police officer licenses to those that work in private practice.

Correct.

Will this affect their retirement age if we go from 65 to 70, or would it only be subject to New Bedford police officers that retired and are going to be active as special police officers?

Yeah, I think what this is talking about is— this, I think, is— for example, a special police officer that works for a company isn't in the pension system.

They don't— they're not considered public employees.

They're private employees that have special police powers, okay?

This is talking about, I think, police officers that are already retired and then just want to make some additional money for their— to do details and make additional money in their retirement.

They may not want to be, you know, doing a regular shift as a police officer chasing people out on the streets, but they'll do a detail and they can do it once in a while and sort of it's flexible if If they feel tired, they don't have to do one the next day.

They don't have to show up for their shift.

So I don't think it would affect their pension because they have their pension locked in once they retire.

So I don't think this will add— what's that?

I can interject.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I don't think it adds anything to their pension because their pension is already done.

They don't— unless they unretire or something like that.

They can make a certain amount of money.

So, Councilor, in the union contract, there's language that says they must be retired and receiving their pension, and it's only special police work for details.

And just to clarify something, in order to be a special police officer in Massachusetts now, you need to be POST-certified.

So we used to give out permits for like St. Luke's Hospital.

They weren't always cops.

They hadn't gone to academies.

When POST came around, Chapter 6 in Mass General Law requires them now to have a full academy under their belt.

So the only people that can get permits as special police officers anywhere in the Commonwealth are required to have a full police academy.

So we can't give out to private businesses anymore.

So you're not going to see that.

So everyone that is a special police officer falls usually under— like St. Luke's now is putting a whole police program together.

They fall under Mass State Police and they all have to be sworn with a full post academy, just to clarify that.

And then there is language about receiving the pension already.

In order to be considered for special details as a special police officer while maintaining your post certification within service yearly after you retire.

Thank you for the clarification, Deputy.

Thank you, Attorney Grotowski, and thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Roy.

Deputy, are these special police officers— are they limited to how much they can make?

Do you know what the limit is?

Maybe the attorneys will let me answer better.

There's a percentage after the first year.

There's a percentage.

Yeah.

And then after the first year, there's a percentage.

We have a— our payroll keeps track of that through like a Google Sheet.

That way we can let them know if they're getting close.

We can call them and say, hey, you're almost maxed out on what you can make this year.

But there is a limit for sure.

Yes.

All set, Councilor.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Anyone else?

No objection from the chair.

Deputy, how are we handling the retirees right now?

I know there's retirees out there working details and market baskets.

And yes, how is that being dealt with?

So they, when they retire, if they retire in good standing, they can take the application for the details to be a special police officer.

They fill it out, they process it, they come in, they redo payroll paperwork as if they're a new employee because they're no longer on the pension side of the house.

Once that's all established and they get all their gear, they have to buy their own firearm, they buy a special police patch, badge.

We give them the patch, but they have to get a badge.

Once they have all their equipment, they then go on a rotating list with the active officers for details, but they go into a tier below them.

So once they're on the job, they have to— our training division keeps track of their in-service yearly, just like our active officers have to go through in-service.

They got to complete the same in-service, CPR, firearms, everything's the same on a yearly basis, just like the active officers.

That's the post standard.

And then they go on the active rotating list.

So if there's an Eversource job today that is out for bid, All the active officers that are in the union can bid on those jobs.

If nobody bids on that, it goes to the second tier, which is the retirees, and it goes by hour.

So then the retirees can bid on that job through the automated system, and that's how they get the details.

And we have supervisors, as well as Scott Alves, the detail officer, who call in, check in with those guys, check in on the jobs to make sure, just like our active officers, that they're fit, they're active, they're out there, they're not sitting in their car.

Because again, they're wearing the uniform and representing the city.

So at this point, is there any reason to amend any chapter or anything, or does this work for the department exactly the way you're working it out right now?

You understand what I'm saying?

So yeah, so I think the concern has always been, especially from the union perspective, is that we can't fill all the jobs, right?

The officers are sometimes overworked.

It gets busy.

They work a lot themselves.

As we get back to full complement, there's more officers to do the work, but I find the younger generations are more work-life balanced, so there tends to be a lot of open jobs.

So the retirees pick them up.

A lot of the retirees like to work, some of them don't.

The idea was we have some retirees who are reaching that age of 65 who have requested the union and the chief, hey, I'd like to keep working.

I'm fit, I'm healthy, why can't I?

That's how this all came up to begin with.

Um, would that be an easier, um, plate to put into, um, with, with the officers than going through all of this?

Well, without speaking on the attorney's behalf, I'm not sure how the rules work in the state regarding how you would change the petition, but I think internally, if we're talking about— I mean, real life, it's a small handful of people that would fall into this group.

It would be something that collectively the union and the chief, if they agreed on the language, again Is there a third tier where now that group fall underneath the retirees?

Do they get mixed into the retirees, right?

We want to make sure that the officers that are active still get the first chance to work the shifts because they are the ones active, you know, protecting the city currently.

And then the retirees, and where do they fall?

So that's just all like small things that can be worked out if there is potential to change the language and do it, you know, in a productive way.

I think that we could probably figure that out for sure.

I mean, it's about a small handful of people, so it's not really a big change.

Okay, anything else?

Councilor Roy.

Councilor Roy has made a motion to table item 2 for 60 days.

Second.

Second by Councilor Lopes.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Deputy, that's enough time.

We kind of get this off.

Yeah, we didn't Absolutely.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, if I might, um, would it be— would you be opposed to moving to, uh, taking item 4 out of order?

Councilor Oliver had texted me, he's almost here.

No problem.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 4.

Mr. Chairman, item 4 is a written motion from Councilor Gomes requesting that Mayor Mitchell and Chief Police Chief Thody consider immediately filling vacant positions within the department, including the deputy chief position, the North End captain position, and several sergeant positions.

These leadership positions are needed for the successful operation of the New Bedford Police Department.

Receive and place on file.

Second motion, receive and place on file by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Roy.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Deputy.

Your position got filled.

Just get my steps in.

Uh, can you give me an update?

Um, yes, I know, I know the captain from the North End, his position has been filled.

Are we, um, completing this list?

Yes.

So Chief Doty, uh, his vision when he came in was to take some time to obviously survey the landscape and see for himself what he was kind of operating with.

He knew there were promotions need to be made.

So he wanted to start like most places, top down.

He wanted to fill his chief's office leadership, and then he obviously, he asked Captain DaCosta to go to the North End.

Captain DaCosta is doing an amazing job up there to fill that vacancy.

What the chief has expressed to me to share with the body here is that, um, we had 3 sergeants in the last month that abruptly left without giving much notice.

So we're now up to, we believe, 7 vacancies.

So now he's making that the next move instead of going top down.

He filled the deputy chief position.

Deborah Peel's coming in.

He's now going to go to the sergeants and do a requisition for some sergeants to get some of those spots filled and then go back to the top and start working on the lieutenants list, etc.

So he does have plans on probably as early as tomorrow doing a requisition for sergeant positions.

How detrimental is this to the department with that much leadership leaving all at the same time?

You know, 2 of them were out long-term sick, so instrumental.

They had been out for a while, so they weren't directly involved in the day-to-day for a long time.

So, you know, our younger officers and sergeants have done a great job of kind of stepping up and leading.

Um, but obviously whenever you lose people, it's always instrumental to fill them, and the chief recognizes that.

So he's, he's made it a priority to do that next, to fill— you know, he's looking at— he doesn't have an exact number, but it could be 4, could be 7, like immediately sergeant positions.

I think we have 7 vacancies as of Saturday when the guy left abruptly.

Okay.

So, okay.

And then obviously he's got some, some potential lieutenant positions he may be filling as well, but he'll go do the sergeants first because of the need for that lower first-line leadership level, how important it is to have, you know, people that are willing to go out there and do the work and help the officers that need, especially with the younger officers that we have.

And as we get more recruits out of the academy, which we're looking at being greatly staffed by the end of summer, he'll be able to promote even more backfill positions that have been closed for years, like the traffic division having a sergeant, things like that.

So, okay, so the main, the main positions have been filled where it was needed, like the captain of the north end and everything?

The captain was filled.

That was probably one of the biggest ones because obviously that leadership is so important for the entire station and district.

And now he's recognizing how important it will be to get to the sergeants first, get that lower-level leadership filled, and then he'll start working on the other positions.

And as we get more staff, he will then start filling some of the auxiliary secondary positions that have been kind of vacant because of, you know, the crisis with staffing for a long time.

Okay, any questions of the deputy?

Seeing none, I'll be in receipt of a motion of no further action.

Take no further action.

Motion to take no further action, seconded by Councilor Roy.

And the reason for that motion As I've requested that motion, as we've been updated, and I think the positions are being filled, and the deputy has said that chief is trying to take care of this as fast as he can.

I just think it's important that the leadership is out there on the streets with the officers on a daily basis.

And thank you, Deputy, for that information.

Motion to— for no further action.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

Chair, M3 is a written motion from Councillors Oliver, Morad, Abreu, Lopes, Baptiste, Giesta, Carney, and Gomes requesting that Police Chief Paul Oliveira, Executive Secretary to the Traffic Commission Lori Alfonso, City Solicitor Eric Jakes, Chief Financial Officer Robert Ekstrom, and a representative from the Traffic Division meet with the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods to discuss current policies, procedures, and ordinances surrounding campers, RVs, boats, and trailers that are left unregistered and abandoned throughout the various streets and neighborhoods within the city of New Bedford, and further to discuss improvements and initiatives to address these matters in a timelier manner so as not to pose significant safety risks and eyesores and to the— and to improve the overall cleanliness within the city.

This was last before you on August 19th, and there was a vote to refer to legal counsel.

And the city solicitor to draft an ordinance.

Motion to move from the table.

Second.

Motion to take from the table by Councilor Berg.

Second by Councilor Arlo.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor, uh, I guess speak to, um, Deputy B.

Long.

B.

Long is here.

Thank you, Deputy.

Um, As you can see, the former police chief's name is on here, so it's been in here for a little bit.

Yes.

Has this been something that you've been briefed on at all or no?

Yes.

Okay.

So, so with the ongoing concern with trailers that we have in the city, right, the first concern that we have to identify is that they are motor vehicles.

So most of the time what we first run into when they're reported to the city is that they're registered.

They're insured, they're lawfully on the public way.

We cannot tow a lawful motor vehicle that's registered and insured on a public way without either it being abandoned or being hazardous or doing something that causes us to take the vehicle, right?

So we run into that off the— right from the beginning for some of these.

I know there are a list of trailers and campers that have been towed.

So now what's happening is we kind of go hand in hand with the HOT protocol, right?

Because most of the time, as we know, The trailers are used by folks that are living, that are houseless, right?

They're living in some capacity and they're using these places as their homes.

So number one, when it's a home, we're talking about we can't just barge into somebody's home without consent, warrant, exigency.

So we can normally go knock.

We offer services through the HOT protocol.

Hey, you're living in this trailer.

We understand that the plates are now unregistered.

You know, it can't stay here.

Do you have a way to get it out of here?

Sometimes they're cooperative, most of the time they are not.

So we have to look at alternatives on how do we get the persons that are in there away from there and then get them wraparound services.

Obviously, because the last thing we want to do is pull them out of a camper, kick them to the curb, and then tow their camper, which is their home.

They have a lot of items that are in there.

They've made it their residence.

So that's another tricky piece of the puzzle.

If you have somebody who's willing to get help, in all perfect circumstances, and you have this shell of a camper sitting on the side of the road, The problem now is how do we get rid of it, right?

As you all aware that have been in the council chambers and been in this meeting before talking about these, most of the tow companies don't want them.

Why?

It's more expensive to take it and they don't get anything from it.

They have to have it scrapped, right?

They might sell some of the metal off it, but it doesn't make up for the cost of the laws.

So you have to advertise it, I believe, right?

You have to say you have it, hold it for so many days.

This is all cost on the private company.

So the city, I believe last year, began to have a protocol where traffic will identify the ones that we can tow.

So we keep track of when they're registered.

The minute they go unregistered, they get flagged.

So now we know— gotcha moment— this one is now fair game.

We can go start trying to get it off the public way if it's not abandoned already.

So we go there, we identify the individuals that are living in it, offer them services, and then we have to find ways to try to get them out so we can now remove that trailer from public property.

Once it's removed from public property, it goes over to, I believe, Shawmut Avenue near the landfill where they sit until we can get funds enough to give them to some company to destroy them, which I believe is DFFM's house.

I think that's what DFFM handles that.

JJ is the one who kind of oversees that piece, so I can't speak too much to that piece of that.

But that's the process that we go through, and, you know, it's, it's, um, it's challenging because of all the variables I just mentioned along the way.

Does that make sense?

That's the process.

Yeah, and I thank you for that, and, and Although that's one aspect of it, I'm not— although it's— I don't want to say that I'm not concerned with that.

Like, I get it.

Those folks are unhoused right now.

They're using that.

But there is this, like, sometimes in the spring or we see a little influx of, like, abandoned boats, some especially like in the Hicks-Logan area around Korea's Auto Body and things like that, that those neighborhoods that that aren't as well trafficked.

They're good little dumping grounds for that.

And, um, although the, the folks that are living in trailers is a, another part of this, my concern is how we're handling the ones that are abandoned.

Yes.

Uh, just regular trailers and/or the boats that are left.

I think I even in my ward, I had a boat that was just left with no trailer.

It was just on the ground.

Yeah.

And that was the scenario that we had spoken before, is tow companies don't want to store them.

They don't want to— they don't want to tow them because they take up space that's more valuable to them for other purposes.

And they do cost a lot to dispose of, you know, a couple hundred bucks per foot or whatever it is, especially the fiberglass stuff.

Yes.

There's no real money in that except for the skeleton of the trailer itself.

Um, when you— we run into those situations, you spoke about, um, them sitting in, um, the, the yard at, uh, over on Shawmut Ave. Um, are those— are the tow companies doing that, or are we pull— are we more or less getting these off the road?

Or— yes, so we use— companies still don't want to touch them at all, but they'll bring them.

They— I mean, I know Sergeant Fonseca doesn't have the capability of towing a boat without a trailer, so we'll use companies.

I believe— I might be wrong, but I think Big Wheels and South Coast are extremely helpful, right?

So the two of them have been the most helpful when it comes to these situations.

For your example, boat, no trailer, road.

If there are no other pieces of equipment at the yard that need to be destroyed and JJ says, hey, I got space, guess what?

Tomorrow we're towing that boat out of there.

What we run into is a backlog because there's so many, and, you know, DFFM only has so much in their budget to afford because it's expensive.

And I don't believe it's like, you know, the coffer's not just overflowing with money to get rid of these things, right?

There's a cost to doing that business that in order for us to bring more to that location, DFFM needs money to get them out of that location and destroyed.

The minute he destroys some and makes space, he calls these guys and says, hey, I just got rid of 3 today, you got 3 more.

And within a day or two, traffic is out there pulling the 3 that have been the most hot commodities, right?

The ones we're getting the most calls about, the ones that are biggest eyesores, the ones that are abandoned.

But we— I mean, I wish we had all the space and all the money to get rid of all of them.

They'd all be— the streets would be clear of boats with no trailers.

But unfortunately, there's a process, and, you know, we're kind of stuck in a holding pattern until we get information that we can bring more to the location where they get stored by the city until the city destroys them.

Okay.

But yes, but if you You know, for all of you in here, when you report those to the police, it doesn't go like unnoticed or not responded.

These guys go right out there, they identify it.

If it's a camper, they find the folks that are living in it.

We notify Sergeant George, he activates the HOT protocol.

If it's just a boat or a trailer, he calls DFFM and says, hey, I got a boat, no trailer, you got any space?

Can we stand it up against a tree?

You got anywhere to put it?

Whatever we can do, because we understand how much of a priority it is for all of you here, especially for your constituents, right?

When they're calling and say there's a boat next to my house for the last 6 weeks.

What do I do about it?

I can promise you that the police are doing our part in trying to make sure we prioritize getting those out of those neighborhoods for sure.

Even on the boat, if I may, even on the boats, I still have to run all the HIN numbers on them.

Paul, sorry, would you speak into the mic, please?

I apologize.

Thank you.

Sergeant Paul Fonseca.

So the boat part of it, I am port security so I can do the boat stuff.

Even with the boats, we still have to run an HIN number.

So where we're running into issues with that is shaving them off.

I buy— I have this vessel, I sell it to you on Facebook, you sell it to Councilor Lopes on Facebook, it comes back to me on Facebook.

So now we're tracking to see where this vessel is coming from.

And a lot of these folks, they're smart about it, they actually cross everything off.

So now we're digging for this information And once we just take it and put it into the yard, JJ now has to still figure out, okay, we have to hold it for the 45 days.

Then we have— it still becomes just like the campers.

So there's a whole process.

I know the deputy was talking about it.

Like, we have a list in front of, in front of me right here where we're going through it.

We know what we've already told.

We know which ones have been sent out.

We have another section where we know we have these 5.

So out of 36 that are in front of me, 5 of them are no good.

They're not active.

So we know that this week and the next coming week, we're going to grab these 5.

But even then, when we get there, we have to check them again, make sure that they're still not active.

And if they are, we start the process again.

You know what I mean?

So there's a big process behind this.

It's not for failure to try to get them out, because trust me, it's, it's, it's a nuisance.

It is.

We get it.

We get it.

Yeah, I don't think, I don't think anybody in this room is, you know, questioning the, the, the way in which you guys are handling it.

I think we're just trying to see if there's a way that we can tighten it up.

Um, you guys spoke about, you know, 30 days, 40.

Is this Mass General law?

Is it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I believe that when it talks about abandoned property and the ability to destroy property, there is— the law does give us time frames that we have to hold on to these things.

That's why I talk about tow companies.

They have to make announcements if they keep them, right?

Yeah, there's even an antiquated law says you must advertise in a newspaper 3 times or something like— so like, there's a lot that goes into taking abandoned property, seizing it as our own, taking custody of it.

And when, and when we cannot get rid of it.

Yep.

Okay.

I think just to touch on, you said streamline the process.

I think this process that they've been working on has been very helpful because I remember prior to this process without the city yard, they were all out there.

There was nowhere for them to go, right?

Um, so this has been a little helpful.

It's a start.

And, and what is, you know, like the sergeant said, is quite the process.

How long have they been doing that?

Is that something new that they like, when we have space, let's go get the other ones that we've been waiting on?

Um, yeah, stand by.

I'll try to get you an answer on that.

So one of them here that I have is 4624.

Yeah, so fairly new.

Yes.

Okay, um, I'll, I'll yield for now in case any of my colleagues have any questions for Deputy.

Thank you.

And let me recognize Councilor— did you, um, arrived, and you're our vice chair of this committee.

Thank you, much appreciated.

Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Councilor Gomes.

So my question would be for somebody from the solicitor— not the, the financial CFO, but since we don't have anyone from that office here, I will ask through you to Solicitor Jakes if you can get me 2 answers.

So Solicitor Jakes, there are 2 items over here, voucher number 77 7488 and voucher number 777483.

Those 2 items make up 22% of the overall expenditures.

So each item on this list, 31 items, we average $951.

These 2 items alone account for almost $7,000 and 22% of the expenditures.

One says miscellaneous, doesn't declare what it is, and the second one is a hookup police.

The average hookup for a police based on this list is $154.37.

This one hookup is $3,937.76.

I'd like to know what was hooked up for $4,000 when every other hookup averages between $133 and $150.

That might have been the one that burned down last summer.

That required the— it was down in the North End, right?

I believe it was a trailer that was a cleanup to get it, to get it cleaned off the street because it was abandoned motorhome that burnt down.

So I think I'm not— I don't have the obviously the invoice in front of me, but I'm guessing that's the outlier in the group because that one did burn.

I remember that fire specifically.

And I appreciate that, Deputy, but through, through the clerk to Solicitor Jakes, those are my 2 items, because even if it is an outlier, there needs to be a little information in regards to the expenditure line item on these— this information, especially when everything else goes for $150 disposal, and this is the most expensive without any information in regards to, to what it is, especially the miscellaneous.

Which doesn't clarify what it is, for $2,500.

Councilor, I'm happy to do that, but can I talk to you after the meeting?

Because the list that I'm looking at doesn't appear to be the list you're looking at.

I think it is the exact same list.

Well, they're confirming that.

Um, anyone else have any questions?

If not, I'd like to ask the deputy a question.

Uh, Paul, Deputy, how costly does this become when we do get one of these campers and it's loaded with everything and anything?

Excuse me.

Do you want to speak to that?

Yeah.

So in regards to that question, sir, um, we need to think about what has to come out of it.

So we have articles of clothing, personal items that now has to be stored.

We have any chemicals that need to be removed— fiberglass, metal, sheetrock, gasoline— all have to be separated.

So The company that takes it, we'll just, we're just going to throw something out there.

Paul Fonseca's Towing takes it to the yard.

The yard takes it, holds it for the 45 days.

The 45 days come, nobody claims it.

It then goes to the facility.

At that point, the facility now breaks everything apart— fiberglass, wood, metal, um, um, what do you call it, uh, gasoline.

Propane tanks, all that have to be stripped.

It doesn't just get crushed in.

That's where that major expense is.

And then you get rid of all that.

So now you have loads of wood you have to get rid of, bedding, plastics, whatever it be.

Plus, if you have any big items in there, because you never know, you have to store that for a period of time hoping that the person comes and picks that up.

Sorry, Sarge.

If this is, um, if one of these trailers are infested with rodents and stuff like that, that's also an added cost that is not picked up by the company that's taking it, that's crushing this thing, am I correct?

That's, that's a separate thing.

So every little thing that happens in there is a separate cost.

Even on a boat, a vessel, say we take a boat, it has diesel fuel in it.

That gets separated from the bilge oil.

That bilge oil goes somewhere.

Then you have fiberglass.

That gets separated.

It gets peeled apart.

You have paint, plastic, everything that's attached to that boat, glass.

It doesn't just get crushed into one.

Everything gets broken up and goes to different locations.

So now you have time of the business breaking it down, disposal, and everything else that comes with with it.

Thank you, Sergeant.

Sir, Councilor Lopes, I'm sorry, I was— while you were conferring with legal counsel, I thought I asked that question.

Okay, anything further, councilors?

Could I speak with Attorney Jakes?

Councilor Jakes, please.

We all want to hear your beautiful voice.

Happy birthday.

Attorney Jakes, thank you.

The— have you gotten an opportunity, or somebody in your office, is there— because obviously this isn't just a New Bedford issue.

To see if other municipalities are handling it differently, if they are handling a lot of it internal, in-house.

I mean, obviously we still have to wait the 30 days, 45 days, whatever it is, because that's— we're governed by law for that, for the abandoned property.

Um, I think there probably should be an expedited or an exemption for this, but that's another conversation.

But how are other municipalities handling this?

Because it's We're not, we're not alone.

It's an excellent question, Councilor, and I don't know.

We haven't reached out to find out what other communities are doing.

And I'm jumping the gun a little bit, but I think Councilor Garrett— Legislative Councilor Garatowski will mention to you at one point that there's a broader look that we're doing beyond this particular thing that's over in the Ordinance Committee that deals with boats, cars, trucks, and trailers.

And Attorney Garatowski had started to, if not completed, a draft of an ordinance for the city.

But that's over in the Ordinance Committee, not Public Safety.

Okay.

So after our last meeting, I have not followed up on any of these items because we had moved over to that other ordinance that's in the Ordinance Committee.

Okay.

Um, so basically the answer to your question is no, but I talked a long time to say no.

Um, it looks like there was a vote here to ask department heads if they had storage space and things like that.

Um, do you know if that has happened?

That did go out and the responses did come back, and there was virtually nothing other than, I think, DFFM that has any space at all.

That's, that's it.

Just basically the city yard.

Most departments, you know, we have parking lots, some of them even Yeah, um, okay, that's all I have right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor.

Any other questions for attorney or the chief or the sergeant?

What's your pleasure?

Uh, motion to table for 60 days as we're working through this in the ordinance committee.

Motion to table for 60 days.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilor Lopes.

On the question.

Seeing no one on the question, all in favor?

Or hold on, Councillor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah, on the question, if I could just bring up, uh, Councillor, uh, Attorney Juratowski, please.

Yes.

Yeah, David, so, uh, you and I actually been working on, on an audience, right?

Um, so is that audience in— and is there an audience that's in place now?

Um, yeah, so, so the, the request in this committee is about— it's sort of specific to, um, campers.

Um, however, you, you've sent me some drafts of some parking ordinances, and I've sent you some different things.

And, um, as you're working on not just a problem with campers, but I know your concern to me has been problems with trucks and other trailers and all kinds of things that are parking on the streets, blocking the streets, taking up parking spaces.

And so, um, what I've— what we've shared with each other, and I know that you have that, um, that draft that, that was sent that I believe is pending in Ordinance Committee, um, is more comprehensive than just trailer, uh, just campers.

It has all different types of vehicles that your concerns brought to me are all in that ordinance, and it's a little more comprehensive, but it includes those campers that, that, um, that is in— is before you tonight.

So I think, um, to address just campers, maybe the best bet is to see if we can get that ordinance that, um, that you have before the— in front of the ordinance committee and maybe take it up as a more comprehensive package in parking that will not only address what this committee is talking about tonight but all those other problems that you've been addressing as well, if that makes sense.

Okay, is that it, Councillor Pemberton?

Can you put your mic on?

Hello?

Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Attorney Jaroszewski.

So, uh, if I could— I just want everybody to know that I do have, uh, a copy of this if anybody wants to look at it before we go around, or if we want to just make it put on file as well.

You want to receive and place on file, and we'll, we'll get a copy to every councillor.

Yeah.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication that the Council of Pemberton has, seconded by Councillor Chiquette.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We've, um, we had a vote on tabling, um, that item for 60 days.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um, let me remind the general public that while we've had this meeting this evening and you've heard that phrase tabled, the action continues to be worked on these items, and this is how we do it sometimes as the police Department and government work together to solve neighborhood and safety issues within the neighborhoods.

With that said, I'll recognize Councilor Burgos.

Mr. Chairman, motion to waive the reading of items 5 through 7, report out to the full City Council for no further action.

Is there a second?

Motion by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none.

All in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

A motion to adjourn by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

All in favor?

The ayes have it.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

This meeting is a— it's, uh, this meeting is concluding at 7:59.

Thank you for being here.

Have a great night.