Quasi Committee of the Whole - Budget Hearings — June 8, 2026

Actually, out of all the nights that we've had the briefings, you know, this was the one that I hated the most.

Hated the most because this is my closest, you know what I mean?

Yeah, interactively.

Yeah, I'm interested in mostly everybody that's here on this agenda and all these other agendas, so this was Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We will begin our budget hearings.

Today is Monday, June 8th, and I welcome everyone to the City Council Chambers.

I would like to just say I have a few letters to quickly read.

Uh, the first is from Councilor Lopes.

Dear Council President Pereira, honorable members of the City Council, I'm writing to inform you that I'll be unable to attend the budget hearing on Monday, June 8th, 2026 due to a work-related commitment.

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

Sincerely, Joseph P. Lopes.

I have another letter from Councilor Choquette.

Dear Council President Pereira and honorable members of the City Council, I am writing to inform you that I'll— that I will be unable to attend the budget hearing on Monday, June 8th, 2026, due to a previously scheduled medical procedure.

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

Thank you sincerely, Leo Choquette, Ward 1 Councilor.

All right, so first up tonight we have MIS, which is on pages 93 through 97.

In our budget books.

Good evening, councilors.

For anyone that does not know me, my name is Jonathan Nunes and I am the current assistant IT director.

During the creation of this budget, I was the acting director and that's why I'm speaking today.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the FY27 budget for the MIS department.

I first would like to talk about some highlights from FY26.

The city has expanded the use of its permitting and licensing software, OpenGov, to additional departments.

This expansion has continued to enhance the use of OpenGov by adding more departments' permits and workflows into the system, allowing the residents of the city to use one system.

We also, in collaboration with the CFO's office, created the first online budget book last fiscal year, which allowed for greater transparency for everyone.

The MIS department continues to expand our knowledge and uses of ArcGIS.

A comprehensive geospatial mapping solution.

With the help of ARPA funding, we were able to contract with Esri to be part of their Advantage Program to help the city get more value from their GIS investment.

This includes the design and implementation of a new ArcGIS Enterprise portal environment, which serves as the authoritative source for all city GIS data, services, and applications.

City staff across multiple departments were trained in various aspects of new GIS projects, and additionally, a solution was developed in collaboration with the planning department— I'm sorry, the purchasing department— to manage and share city capital projects, which I know Molly spoke about in earlier budget hearings.

Another important function within the MIS department is the communication division, which supports all city departments and the public by processing internal mail and overseeing the city's main switchboard.

In addition, the communication division oversees all city communications, including the administration support of the internal VoIP systems and all city-issued cell phones.

The MIS department has successfully secured several key grants to support and enhance our budget.

Among them is a collaborative award with the Community Services Department, the COA department, to offer weekly classes for the adult community during the last fiscal year.

These classes have become a valuable addition, providing meaningful learning opportunities and rewarding experience for all departments.

Additionally, we were also awarded the Connect and Online Program grant through the Mass Broadband Institute, which will fund new computer equipment at multiple parks and recreation sites across the city.

The MIS department also received the Cyber Awareness Grant, which provides cybersecurity education and professional development opportunities for all city employees, along with targeting phishing campaigns that will help strengthen our defenses against ongoing cyber threats.

The city has been recognized at the state level for achieving one of the highest participation rates in the training during the last fiscal year.

Now, looking forward to FY27, the MIS budget is primarily influenced by the need of hardware and software acquisitions, maintenance contracts, license compliance, security measures, and human resource development.

MIS has helped city departments enhance their efficiencies and enhance costs by offering a range of technology services tailored to support their current needs and future goals.

The primary driver of the current budget increases continues to be the rising cost of software, which represents the largest portion of of IT's operating budget.

Despite ongoing efforts to manage expenses through vendor negotiations and software evaluations, many software providers have implemented annual increases sometimes exceeding 10%.

At the same time, maintaining and continuing to invest in technology is essential to ensure operational efficiency and security.

Over the past year, the IT department has actively evaluated both existing systems and new solutions to confirm that our current software remains cost-efficient aligned with the organization needs and positioned to support long-term growth in the city.

Regarding the MIS's hardware expenditures, under the city's current budget constraints, the capital outlay budget has been reduced by 50% for the upcoming fiscal year.

Historically, historically, we have tried to take a proactive approach in maintaining our network infrastructure and computer replacement program to make sure all systems are replaced before they reach end of life.

This reduction will likely extend the lifecycle of that equipment and increase the time in between upgrades, thus requiring the MIS department to continue to support this aging equipment for longer periods of time.

In conclusion, software development, network enhancements, and security updates will extend into FY27.

By upgrading outdated software, replacing and refreshing end-user computers, and investing in employee development, we ensure the continued provision of essential tools to enhance the city's operations.

The MIS staff continues to undertake immense amounts of work, often exceeding expectation, and sometimes goes unnoticed being a supporting office for the rest of the city.

I again would like to extend my appreciation for all of their outstanding work this fiscal year.

Again, thank you, councillors, for your consideration for the FY27 budget, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Chair recognizes Councilor Abreu.

Thank you, uh, Jonathan.

I appreciate it.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Good evening, Jonathan.

Good to see you again.

Um, so that was my first question I was going to ask about how every other department, for the most part, it's been tightening the belt and really watching the purse strings, but your department ballooned a little bit in the proposal anyway, about $421,000 extra from where you were at last year that we had adopted.

But that's linked into service contracts is what you're saying, mostly in subscriptions?

Yeah, we do try on the software contracts to get 3-year contracts, which help at least budget for the cost.

But there are a lot of softwares that won't take those 3-year contracts.

So it's year to year.

And when I call them, they're talking sometimes 10% increases that they kind of know that that software is difficult to switch into a different software.

So they have— they kind of have us at that point.

But we do continue to evaluate those options.

And understanding that, I'll speak for myself, but I think most of us, our knowledge of IT and MIS work is veneer thin.

So given the fact that it's about a half a million dollar increase, right, which isn't small chump change, what's some of the rationale behind some of these upgrades or subscriptions?

And, you know, maybe at least a Cliff Notes version of why some of these things might be important and why you would advise against maybe cutting or trying to cut.

Yeah, on the software side, we take an interesting approach that's been changing over the last couple of years.

For everyone that knows, the cloud infrastructure is something that we're really trying to take advantage of.

Some of the benefits of that are security.

They're responsible for the security of their software once it's cloud-based, and also for upgrades.

We do continue to support on-premise software, which typically is cheaper, but in the long run, there's a lot of other costs involved in keeping the infrastructure up.

Up to date and also upgrades that we have to do internally.

So we try to do a mix of both.

We don't do all cloud.

Cloud is expensive, but we do do on-prem software in addition to cloud.

Okay.

And the last question for me, travel's gone up quite a bit, $10,600.

What's going on there?

Yeah.

Last year, the travel budget got cut completely and that goes to a lot of our conferences.

So we try to keep up to date with the latest technology information.

And what happened last year on the cybersecurity insurance, it came in a lot cheaper.

So we were able to still continue to go to those conferences even with the cut that this— that I sustained in that line.

Okay.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Councilor Burgos.

Yeah, you want to do that now?

Oh, based off of Councilor Abreu?

Okay, sure.

Yep.

Uh, thank you for the, uh, the interruption here.

Uh, the one thing that I would also point out with the MIS budget is we did a transfer from police last year for the cybersecurity system, the Palo Alto system.

I'm not sure, I tried to find the amount but I can't.

It's about $160,000, I believe.

Roughly.

So that was in police's budget, and we transferred it from police to IT during the year because it's— because Jonathan and John Costa are responsible for all cybersecurity, so we moved it in there.

So it's purely a geographical change there, but that will account for part of that increase too.

Councillor Burgo.

Yes, I had a question in regards to it.

Just, you were talking about your travel budget was cut last year.

Was that something that was done by the administration?

No, that was done at your level, the council level.

I believe it was a little over a $10,000 cut to that.

Um, dues and subscriptions, cybersecurity insurance, and training all kind of go into— I'm sorry, uh, conferences all go into those lines.

So it was a $10,000 cut, which essentially cut the, um, travel budget to zero.

Okay, is that something that's like— because I'm seeing here that you're getting a transfer from that same account to fund your personnel, your 100 account that's coming to the council on Thursday.

So you had about $7,850 left over in that account.

Yeah, our cyber security insurance, we budgeted at $98,000 and it came in closer to like $78,000.

So we did go on some conferences, but we still had a surplus, and that surplus is going to cover the increase in our 100 lines with the transfer that you're speaking of.

Okay, and FY25, the— you had a similar travel budget?

Yeah, the travel budget's been level funded at $10,000 for the last couple years, and we did travel all 3 years because of— we were able to recoup some of that money.

Okay, okay, just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Jonathan?

Sorry, sorry, one last thing.

I did notice that you had— it looks like a position swap.

Well, that's how I'm clarifying.

You have the same number of employees, 15.

Uh, you had a senior IT analyst, used to have 4 of them, now you have 3.

But then the IT analyst that was an M10, you now have 7 where last year you had 6.

Uh, did someone leave and then instead of hiring the senior IT analyst, you hired just an IT analyst instead?

Yeah, there was a longtime senior analyst that left last fiscal year.

At the time of the budget, that role was unfilled.

We ended up moving a regular analyst into the senior role.

So that number now is 4 senior analysts and 6 IT analysts, regular IT analysts.

So that number is 4 and 6.

So the budget that we have is incorrect.

A typo here.

Correct, based off of the timing of when it— when the budget happened and when everyone left.

And yeah, it's, it's 4 and 6.

Okay, so you had someone move up and go into that senior role, and then it's— so it should still be 4 and 6, 4 senior, 6 regular IT analysts?

Correct, there was no change from last fiscal year.

Okay.

All right, so I guess we didn't have time to update the budget book for that.

All right, thank you so much.

Anyone else?

From the chair.

So in your 200 account, Jonathan, there's a few— I see 2 different amounts for the firewall for police.

Yeah, the way our contract is built out is Um, there's different line items based off of what the firewall does.

So there's some on the server level and there's some on like the, uh, the regular level.

Okay.

In terms of each computer.

So it's just 2 separate lines.

They get merged together.

That's just how we broke it up.

Okay.

And then what is, uh, the— there's a repair and maintenance.

It says core infrastructure and it's like for $25,000, but it's unspecified.

It got cut off just because of the table.

Yeah, that $25,000, we budget for that annually.

We, a couple years ago, built a municipal fiber ring that's run throughout the city.

It's IT's responsibility if that infrastructure breaks to fix it.

Sometimes there's accidents that happen and we have to cover that.

So that's a contingency just to make sure if something goes wrong through the fiscal year that we can repair that fiber.

OK. Now my only question on that is, and if that's fine if you want to get back to me, I just want to make sure that's being budgeted properly.

Because if it's like for an emergency or if something breaks, that seems like it should come from somewhere else.

Like, that might be a question for Bob.

I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, the only thing I will say is that has been budgeted the past couple of years.

Again, it is to your point, it is only if something fails.

But we don't have a large budget to put any sort of contingency.

So that's really my only contingency if the fiber fails.

And that affects public safety, affects the whole city.

But I don't know from the budgeting perspective, that's— I'm not sure about.

Sorry, I'm just scribbling my notes here.

Okay, and, um, thank you, Jonathan.

I appreciate it.

Anybody else have any other questions?

Councilor Carney?

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is for Bob or not, but it's just throughout the, um, the 200 accounts and some of the accounts, it does say the vendor's not provided.

Um, why is that?

Oh, okay, you've got it several places.

Um, you got EMS support stuff that's, uh, no.

Yeah, most— but you get a lot of not provided there.

Yeah, I'm noticing that too.

Most of those vendors are, um, known.

Um, the only one that really isn't known is what, uh, Councilor Pereira mentioned about the, um, repairs.

But, um, like the police firewall, if you look at the bottom, it says police firewall Apex Palo Alto.

The vendor's Apex.

It just didn't get into that column.

It didn't get moved all the way.

That's what I'm thinking.

Yeah.

Okay, same thing with like if you go up Exagrid that's the vendor that should be in that column.

Okay, so it's because it didn't get transferred over into the right column.

That's what it looks like.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Chair.

Anybody else?

Okay, Jonathan, thank you very much.

Thank you, John.

Thank you for coming.

John, the director is here, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, uh, John Costa of MIS.

So I just wanted to make that known.

All right, next up we have Police Department.

That's on page 111 in our budget books, and Chief Thode is here for his first budget presentation before this body.

Yes, thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

So I'll go over some summary really quick, but we'll be— we'll pass out a couple slides that are just going to focus on some of the things that obviously this budget year is about, what we're going to potentially do without and So I'm sure there'll be some questions about that.

So just so people can follow along, we've got some slides.

So the fiscal year 2027 proposed budget for the police department is $29,677,507.

That's a 3.3% increase over fiscal year 2026.

That breaks down into $27 million in personnel, $1.6 million purchases of service, $271,000 supplies, $411,000 other charges and expenses, $76,000 roughly in capital, which is actually 2 more payments on that.

We'll have 1 payment this year, 1 payment next year, and then that capital outlay will be gone.

The, the increases are from a $679,000 increase in the 100 account, which is generally your step increases, your promotions, your education stipends, and things along those lines.

Obviously, no, there's no contractual increases in there.

$108,000 increase in the 200 account, a $27,000 increase in the 400 account, and a $58,000 increase in the 700 account.

So this budget will bring us from 312 full-time headcount employees in last year's budget to 287 full-time headcount in this year's budget.

That's 24 officers down and 1 civilian intern coordinator down.

As you go into the, the packet, one of the things I just put a couple slides in here on some of the highlights over the last few years, as we did get the— we saw the request from council looking for some of this stuff that, that we wanted to make sure we highlighted.

So, you know, one of the, one of the key things is rebuilding the the police department from the COVID police reform murder of George Floyd era, where we saw some significant reductions in staffing that we've been battling with, not just here but across the country in law enforcement in the last few years.

Last year was a success.

This fiscal year, this past year has been a success story for us, going from 79% staffed to 88% staffed in just one year.

We were sub 200 officers and sitting at 230 right now.

Prioritizing our operational needs is using basically the Jensen and Hughes report and the CP21 report to implement some of those changes that were, that were recommended in those, in those reports, making structural and personnel adjustments, prioritizing our operational needs, including filling the the deputy chief position, Derek Belong, and filling the deputy director of administrative operations position, Deb Peel, who's here tonight as well, and training that we'll go into a little bit further as we go.

Enhancing our community engagement.

We lost— we've talked about this.

We launched the, the CERTA substation here, added a downtown community service officer.

Implemented a crime reduction team that dealt a lot with some of these issues that pop up.

Last year it was the mopeds and dirt bikes and things that were floating around here at the end of the fall.

This year we've dealt with a couple of the pop-up flash mobs from social media, one at West Beach, a couple places like that.

These types of teams we put in place to be nimble to deal with issues that arise, and they seem to change from the Kia Hyundai issue to the to the moped issue to now flash mobs.

So we've got to be able to kind of adjust to deal with, with that stuff.

Bicycle training— we had 15 officers that were certified in, in mountain bikes, and we used a grant to purchase 8 of those.

So we'll start seeing those now that the weather's a little bit better out and about, especially at our special events.

ICAT de-escalation training, which, which stands for Integrating Communications Assessment and Tactics This is basically your de-escalation training.

This is why I think everyone can join me in saying that we see our New Bedford officers tend to deal with some of these situations that involve mental health and other things much more effectively than, than we tend to see when we turn on the TV.

Executive leadership— we've really started to invest in kind of the future leadership of the New Bedford Police Department, sending some of our senior level leaders to classes like PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum in Boston, the Administrative Officers Course at the Southern Police Institute in Louisville.

And we were just selected to send one of our officers to the Police Leadership Academy at the University of Chicago Crime Lab, which is a free leadership training program that you have to be selected for.

And we have to do interviews and all kinds of stuff.

So we just found out last week that we were selected to send someone to that.

Next page is on crime scene processing.

This was something that I was interested in when I got here, but it kind of got forced on us quicker.

This was the Plymouth County Sheriff's Department stopping the services of crime scene processing.

So we have 6 of our detectives now fully trained in processing crime scenes so we can do all that in-house, everything that falls under the district attorney and the Mass State Police coming in.

We'll be able to do full-service crime scene processing ourselves.

We have 2 more detectives going tomorrow to a free training that I was able to arrange with District Attorney Quinn up at Taunton PD.

Expanded our camera program, expanded analytics to include updating our CompStat and, and how we look at crime and how we deploy our research— deploy our resources.

We expanded our traffic safety efforts.

There's 2 additional officers in traffic now, so now there's 4 sergeant— 4 officers and 1 sergeant in the traffic division.

We saw really an increase in in my kind of experience, I think an unusual number of pedestrians struck by motor vehicles.

So I think traffic, traffic enforcement is going to be key to try to keep our folks a lot safer.

Our expanded our school presence, we added an SRO to the New Bedford High School.

And as I said, the crime reduction team, which last year targeted illegal mopeds, and that was successful for us as well.

Going into kind of what this budget doesn't C, our proposed— the proposed cuts: $150,000 in the sign-on bonus.

So that's the, the $5,000 sign-on bonus for everyone that's, that's coming in, for the new officers that are coming in.

Reduction of 25 positions, 24 sworn and 1 non-classified position.

And, and there are, there are totals here of, of what those cuts look like budgetarily.

The Unit C COLA And the Unit C step increases are not in this budget.

The 911 grant reimbursement, which is usually supplemental grant for us, we're going to use it— we're going to use it to fund those positions in the, in the budget this year.

A vacancy reserve.

And as we know, the ShotSpotter program contract being eliminated, which equates to $3,542,748 in cuts.

The remaining slides go through kind of what each one of those cuts look like, what we use the sign-on bonuses for.

There were 63 basically given out since the program started in fiscal year '23.

Each— it shows each year how much of the sign-on bonuses were given out.

6 of those officers are no longer working here.

5 were resigned and 1 was terminated.

So there's about a 90% success rate in retention on those sign-on bonuses.

So that'll be a $150,000 reduction.

The key one that I get a lot of questions on is the next slide, which is the ShotSpotter.

So this is some information about kind of how ShotSpotter works differently in different communities.

It worked differently in Hartford where I came from than it, than it did here.

And this was a conversation that, that, that we were kind of having here before, before any cuts were discussed at the, at the mayor's office or here.

So from January 1st, 2021 to May 17th, 2026.

So this is pretty up to date here.

We had a total of 73 shooting incidents here that were confirmed, 228 shots fired incidents that were confirmed.

So a total of 301 total shooting and shots fired incidents during that same date range.

ShotSpotter issued 791 alerts, of which only 171 or 24% were confirmed as shooting or shots fired.

Despite our investigations, we were unable to confirm 620 or 76% of ShotSpotter alerts despite our law enforcement personnel being dispatched to all those as though they were shots fired calls.

In total, including all the calls that don't qualify for an activation— so there are shots fired and shootings that happen indoors, that happen with a.22 caliber handgun or.22 caliber firearm or lower.

That ShotSpotter is not expected to work on.

They activated for 65% of our shots fired and 32% of our shootings.

So in 7 of the 73 shootings, or 10%, and in 54 of the 228 shootings, or 24% of the shots fired incidents, there was an activation and no 911 call.

So what that tells us is generally we're getting a 911 call that accompanies our shots fired calls.

And the next 2 show how many were accompanied by 911 calls.

So 90% of the reported shootings, there was at least one 911 call to the New Bedford Police Department.

And in 76% of the shots fired incidents, there was at least one 911 call to New Bedford PD.

So based on all this data, what does that tell us?

It tells us that The cost per confirmed incident was about $4,700 based on our contract.

Next slide is crime rates.

Basically, if you slide all the way to the right, it shows that for the full calendar year of 2025, which is the last complete set of information that was reported to the FBI, we've had the lowest violent crime rate since at least 2018 and possibly before that.

Full— the full calendar year of 2025 also ended with a slight increase in property crime over 2024, but still at the second lowest rate since 2018.

So that's kind of the presentation, and I'll be glad to entertain any questions.

Chair, thank you very much, Chief Thodey.

Chair recognizes Councillor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

How you doing, Chief?

Good, how are you?

Good, good.

Uh, welcome to your first budget hearing.

Thank you.

It's my first as well.

So, uh, just a couple of questions.

Uh, I noticed with, uh, on the— with the units, uh, before COVID we used to have, uh, 2 men or 2 personal vehicles.

Uh, now I know they're all singles.

Um, now that COVID is over and stuff, don't you think we can probably go back to double up some of the units.

I know we have 31C, 31A, 32C, 32A, 38C, 38A, 21C, 21A, 11C, and 11A.

If we went probably back to going with the 2-person cars, we could probably on the low end between maintenance and fuel and wear and tear probably another $109,000 on a low end, maybe high end $182,000.

What would you say to that?

Or what would you— those numbers are calculated in vehicle costs, is that what you're saying?

Basically, wear and tear, fuel.

You know, I'm looking at like maybe $10, $20 a day maintaining the vehicles, maybe another $10 a day on fuel.

So, so I'll start with the thought behind 2-person patrol cars.

There, there are studies that date back to 1977 on 2-person versus 1-person patrol cars.

In general, there are no departments left that I know of that run 2-person cars across the board.

There's a lot of reasons for that.

The studies you can, you can look up.

There was one in in 1977, like I said.

There was another one maybe in like the mid-'80s, and I have the names of them if you want to— if you want to take a look at them.

But they have— they found things like the obvious things like coverage.

Having an officer in each car gives you more coverage across the city because you, you have one officer assigned to one car.

So when you— when you have a call for service that only requires one officer, you're only sending one and you're leaving one available.

So in a city like New Bedford that runs on average 20 patrol units out there, if you run 2-person cars, you're running 10 units that can answer the call volume of 10 units versus 20 units.

You can double the number of calls that you respond to because not every call— in fact, many calls don't require 2 officers.

When you do get situations where you need a backup officer, we'll say a 3rd backup officer, if you have a 2-person unit and they're dedicated to a call, that 3rd officer can't go and back up the 2 that are already at a call because they're stuck at a call that might only be a 1-person call.

There's, there's a lot of reasons.

There's also studies that show that excessive use of force increases in 2-person cars.

So I don't— it would not be my recommendation to go back to 2-person cars as a, as a policy across the board.

You know, the, the fleet savings would not be— the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.

Um, and, uh, you know, as of right now, the, the, you know, the fleet has, has moved towards hybrids and things like that, uh, that I think would mitigate a lot of those costs.

Uh, that, that being said, there are, um, there are other studies out there that, that say that there are, uh, effective uses for 2-person cars, you know, running like a, um, a DPU, a a dual police unit, one north and one south, that jump the hotter calls, the more dangerous calls, and, and they go there and they stabilize a situation, and then the individual officer comes and takes the report, and then they, they kind of jump to the next call.

That would be something that, that would be more in line with modern practice.

Okay, right.

I mean, I just know from past practice myself, you know, the difference between the 2 cars, but we're talking about back in the '80s compared to now too, you know.

I know times change too.

But, you know, I was just talking to, you know, with my experience as well.

But I thank you for that.

The other question I do have is I notice we have positions for 2 assistant deputies, but my understanding is we only have one.

Do we plan on promoting another one or having another one?

Yes.

So Derek Belong was the other assistant deputy.

Right.

And so we He— we promoted him to deputy chief, and so the plan is to post and fill that position.

Yes.

Right.

And that's the same thing with a— with captain.

I know she had 4, but we currently just have 3, right?

Am I understanding?

We have 3.

Yes.

Right.

There's budget for 4.

There's 4.

There are 4 vacancies.

So we have one in each— we have one in each station, and we have one in— one in detectives, and there's one position for an admin captain.

And that we can promote, yes.

All right.

One of my other last questions is, you got a chief of staff.

Can we explain the chief of staff, what she does?

I haven't been able— have not been able to get a clear answer, to be honest with you.

But I know with that salary, it's probably 2 other positions we can fill.

But if you want to just— And that is under Chief of Staff, please.

So, so that's something that's become more and more popular in law enforcement, um, something that I talked about when I interviewed for this position, um, something that we heard from CP21, and, and some— and a recommendation that came out of, uh, both of the, uh, both of the folks that, that came here and evaluated the PD.

Basically what that is, it's a Chief of Staff position because there's no other position that exists really in the, in the city of New Bedford to have to house this, this position.

But the, you know, the working title of the position is Deputy Director of Administrative Operations.

And what that does is it divides the department into a police operations deputy chief and an administrative kind of behind-the-scenes deputy director.

So a number 2, somebody that's right behind me.

And that individual does everything that law law enforcement has pretended to be good at for the last 100 years, including budgeting and HR and grants and everything that we have really wasted time and effort and money teaching cops that have arrest powers and firearms and can be doing cop-related things.

We have wasted people on figuring out these other things that the private sector has been better at for many, many years.

The position posts out at $130,000.

A deputy chief is, is $200,000.

So having law enforcement officers, it's really a matter of a square peg in a round hole.

This is an individual that comes into the department with extensive experience in accreditation management and HR, ComStat, you know, reporting crime stats to the feds, all of the things that don't require a law enforcement officer to do are quarterbacked by that position.

It's, it's a position that is now really in most midsize and large cities.

And it, and it takes the burden of, of non-police-related activities off of the police side and puts them under a civilian.

Well, I thank you, Chief.

And that I yield.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Abram.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good evening, Chief.

Thanks for coming in.

Thank you for the presentation.

So I guess my question is, given the budget increase on your end, the staffing reductions through attrition, and the evolving public safety demands that we talked about quite often, what would you say over the next fiscal year would be the 2 or 3 of the biggest risks facing the department and how can us as a council— and I'll speak for us, not the administration— but how can us as the council help you in that mission?

So a couple of, you know, concerns that you have going into the new year based on some of the points I just raised.

Sure.

So my number one, my number one concern is losing the progress that we've made in recruitment.

Being, you know, coming from from Hartford, where we were significantly down, almost 30% down in officers, and coming here when we— when I started just about a year ago, it'd be 11 months ago or so.

Staffing, it gets dangerous when you're ordering cops in and they're working doubles and there's not enough cops to fill the vacancies and things like that.

The department, to their credit, started before I got here, but we've been able to really kind of rebuild those ranks.

So while, you know, we're in a safe place right now at 230 officers, I do think that, you know, in— I just had a chiefs meeting for Bristol County Chiefs last week where a couple of chiefs said that some of our younger officers were calling and inquiring about jumping ship for concerns of layoffs and things like that.

So my— I think our number one vulnerability and my number one concern is that we lose some of the— all of, all of, or some of the, the gains that we made in recruitment and retention.

You know, there's, there's a lot of information out there that shows that, you know, you— that when you, you know, when cops get benefits, they stick around.

So, so that's concerning.

And it doesn't always have to be a reality.

It could just be a whisper or a rumor.

And, and so that's probably my number one.

Concern.

You know, also, I think my next concern, which doesn't have anything to do with really the budget, with the exception of potentially building a police department with a jail, is how many of our, of our prisoners are being refused at the Sheriff's Department when we arrest somebody.

I don't think a lot of people realize it, but, you know, there's, there's a lot of new constraints there.

And when an officer arrests somebody, especially somebody that's under the influence of alcohol or drugs or has a mental health issue or, or or has a history of suicide or whatever it might be, the sheriff's department, which we rely on to hold those individuals, refuses them at an alarming rate right now.

And that means that they say, okay, you know, this officer— this prisoner needs to be cleared by the hospital.

So the officer has to put them back in the car, drive them from Ash Street over to the hospital, sit there with them not answering calls for service.

Wait for them to get medically cleared.

And a lot of times they're getting medically cleared, we'll bring them back to Ash Street and they'll say, well, it's not a medical issue, it's a mental health issue.

You got to bring them to a clinician and have them cleared there.

So some of these prisoners are clocking 5, 6, 8 miles.

You talk about wear and tear on a vehicle in the back of the cruiser.

A lot of things can happen in that.

We can get into a car accident.

They can slip their cuffs.

And, you know, we've seen videos of them crawling out of of, of windows.

So I think my next probably biggest vulnerability is, is having a place to house these folks that Ash Street doesn't take.

We've got a deal right now with the Mass State Police, and they let us use their lockup in Dartmouth.

But again, the officer has to drive now from here to Dartmouth, sit with that individual.

So those are my top 2, I'd say.

Yeah, that's incredible.

Thank you for that.

Certainly we need to work on that for sure.

That's, that's alarming.

On page 113, capital outlay is remaining flat from last year to this year.

Can you explain what specific types of capital purchases are included in this?

So the capital outlay— let me get this page.

I've got too many pieces of paper here.

The capital outlay that's on 113 is this— you're talking about the $76,000?

That's correct, yes.

So there's— that's the one I mentioned quickly.

There's 2 payments left on that.

Bob, you can throw up a flag if I'm— if I'm— but those are 2 remaining payments on a large vehicle purchase that dates back a little ways.

I'm getting nods over here.

So we have we have to make that $76,000 payment this year, I think in July, and then we have one more in next year in July, and then that'll be gone.

Okay, thank you for the further explanation on that.

And last question I have for now: violent crimes cleared through camera evidence increased, I see here, from 16 in FY FY25 to a projected '24 and FY27.

Does your department plan additional camera investments or partnerships given that information?

Yes.

So the short answer is yes.

You know, I will say that with, I think, 1,500 camera views that we had in Hartford by the time I left, the investment in cameras is, is a pretty good one for us in in law enforcement.

There's so many crimes now that are solved that just wouldn't have been years ago.

So that is, I think, as the, as the mayor said, and I fully support, I think, you know, using the money that we use for something like ShotSpotter where, you know, no pun intended, but we're not getting our bang for our buck really, and investing that in cameras or some or other real-time crime.

The departments that you see that are really really successful in these technology endeavors are doing things that are focused on preventing crime or responding to it immediately as it happens and trying to step away from the reactive— kind of the old reactive role of a police department.

So absolutely, investments in any kind of technology like that would be great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for being here, Chief.

Thank you.

Thanks for your presentation, but I have some questions.

I'm going to start with Spot Shot.

I'm in support of it.

I've seen it work here in the city of New Bedford.

I want to ask you, you took the dates of 1/1/21 to 5/17/21.

1926 and use those numbers to come to your final conclusion that $4,700 for every call?

Yeah, we did about a 5-year look back.

During that time of '21, how many shots did we have fired during the COVID situation in the city?

And you're not even here, so I'm not understanding these numbers.

I, I don't like taking those numbers, putting them all together to confirm what is trying to be done here, which again, I'm going to tell you, I support, um, shots water.

I've been— I've supported it ever since it came here.

I've been here a long time, and I think it does work.

But I don't like how we've come to the conclusion with the numbers that we have, and especially when we had the COVID situation during that time.

Um, it's something— it's just not making sense.

Maybe you can make some sense of it to me.

I mean, the numbers are— again, a lot of these numbers come from before I was here as well.

I've been here for the last year.

But these are the numbers.

If you would like to look at numbers that go back further, you know, I think for us anyway, in Hartford, I think around January 2021 was the peak of some of the COVID-related crime issues that we saw increase.

So I think this is capturing that, that time.

But, you know, we have data that we can provide from further back.

But I think there's also something to be said for, you know, a technology like ShotSpotter being useful at, at a given time when the shots fired calls and when the shootings are at a certain level.

And then over time, as efforts including ShotSpotter reduce those, we get to a point where it— again, I said that the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

Um, ShotSpotter is, is a great technology for a lot of things.

One thing I noticed here versus where I came from, it doesn't work as well.

And if you, if you, if you, if you Google it or if you, if you look at it, it's sometimes it's infrastructure related, sometimes it's building related.

Remember, it uses sound and how that kind of how how that bounces around, whether your community sees a lot of shots fired that are indoors versus outdoors.

A lot of the shootings that we had in Hartford were drive-by shootings, and, and as long as the gun was either in an open window or outside of the window, we, we captured them a lot.

But the accuracy rate is not good here, and, and this is one of the few communities where ShotSpotter actually provided a refund because the, the fine men and women of the New Bedford Police Department were able to prove that the accuracy didn't meet a certain level.

So I'm always open to discussions, and I think if, if there weren't budget constraints and if we had— if I had the ability to buy all the, all the law enforcement technology that money could buy, I would include ShotSpotter.

I understand about the budget constraints, but people pay taxes in this city and pay some high taxes, and I have always said and I always will, there is no price tag on public safety.

Police, fire, EMS— no price tag you can put on that because we don't know what's going to happen in the next hour.

We don't know what's going to happen in the next week.

You have no control of that.

All we can do is provide that service to the people of this city.

And I don't think you should be— I honestly don't like the cuts.

I don't like the cuts in ShotSpotter.

I don't like the 24 officers that you're losing, those men and women were ready to go to the academy, I understand.

I've talked to some of their parents, and it's really been a letdown when you're going to do a job such as this, because the job that you do and many of the men and women of the department, they're a special breed.

Not everybody can be a cop.

You know that.

And that's why the training is what it is.

And how it is.

But I don't support that, and I wish you had somewhat gone to battle, but maybe the gun was against you, you know, to fight that knowing that you need them 24 bodies.

We've continued to lose officers by retirement.

We lose officers by what you said earlier, looking to other places to go.

It didn't have to be this budget crisis for them to be jumping ship.

They've been jumping ship.

And going to other places.

Um, I just don't think that this budget should have messed around with anything to do with public safety, the main thing that the taxpayers— for— maybe my words were a statement just now.

It's a statement of supporting your department.

I've always supported the police department.

Many things you have within your department, I'm the one that came up with it, and, um, finally we implemented it.

Some things like even from the body I asked 2, 3 years before for body cameras.

Told we couldn't do it.

I asked to use COVID money.

We were told we couldn't do it.

We end up using the money after.

A lot of things that could have been addressed with the department that was being an attack on the department as far as the public or the criminal public of wrongdoing or whatever, that seems to have gone away since we've got the cameras.

The whole thing is I I don't understand how this administration could even think that this is the right thing to do or how anyone could agree to do it under the circumstances, under the times when we need those bodies out there.

And you need those bodies out there.

And them 24 new police officers would have brought us up to a complement of, I think, about 255.

Still short of what some numbers that I remember when we were up around 280, 300 officers.

Maybe even more.

The consultant— unless you wanted to tell me something.

No, I mean, it's hard-pressed to disagree with anything that you said.

Like I said, I'd love to have all, you know, all 260, 256 sworn officers.

I'd love to have all that stuff.

But, you know, one of the things that is, is kind of my responsibility— it was where I came from, and it is here, is to be, you know, a steward of that money that we do end up with, whether the council, you know, what, whether the, what, what the council gives us, what the mayor gives us, the best use of that.

So while I'm not against ShotSpotter technology, and while I'd love to have those 24 officers back, in the world of taking the, you know, the budget that I'm given and making the best use of it, that's what I pledge to do.

I understand that.

And again, I just think it It's just the wrong approach.

I understand the budget crisis, but I understand also that we had a deficit, and all these things were in play just a month and a half ago.

None of this stuff was in play.

Everything was fine.

Then all of a sudden, everything hit the wire, and now the people of the city have to suffer, the department has to suffer, some others have to suffer, the fire department, and This councilor is not a happy camper, and I'm not a happy camper because, again, I believe that most people in this city pay taxes, especially our seniors and them.

What do they get out of it?

They get their garbage picked up.

They want a police cruiser when they can.

They want a firefighter or an EMS.

That's what they're getting out of their tax dollars and paying some high taxes.

And then you got all kinds of other things falling on the backs of them.

I'm not happy, okay?

And I'm just venting.

I mean, you're the vent person that I can talk to this evening.

And, um, I want to talk about the consultant because, um, who was doing that job before you hired this consultant?

Which consultant are we talking about?

Um, uh, assistant to the staff.

Oh, she's not a consultant, she's an employee.

So that job was divided up between a lot of different places, between ADC Belong and at the time ADC Belong, ADC Corolla.

There was, again, there was a captain in administrative services that did some of this.

It was pretty clear to me when I got here that a lot of those, look at the CAD RMS.

I mean, the CAD RMS has been dragging out now for 3 or 4 years.

It's not being implemented yet.

Getting somebody that can kind of focus on that, that doesn't have law enforcement responsibilities to focus on, was a clear— was a clear need and something that I brought to the table early on.

But the consultant— the consultants that came in, Jensen and Hughes and CP21, saw that inefficiency as well.

They recommended it.

But Jensen and Hughes recommended a lot.

Now that I'm thinking about it, they recommended exactly, I think, what the administration wants.

That's why we hire people like that to come in, and I'm well aware of them.

That's my opinion.

You don't have to say anything.

Jensen Anyews, as far as I'm concerned, made this recommendation, but didn't she come from that group?

She did work on the contract, period.

That's right.

So I'm looking at this as somewhat of a payoff because who was doing this, whether it was a Captain Deputy Chief Belong or whatever.

I thought these men and women, whoever it is, was handling that part of the operations just fine.

And we did.

Well, I can tell you, because that process was not done by an outside firm like the chief process was, that process to hire Deb was done by me.

So I can tell you that it wasn't a payoff.

I can tell you the administration had no meddling in it.

They didn't talk to me about it.

I put the posting out.

I got some very good qualified individuals, including one from Connecticut that I think, you know, folks thought I was gonna take just because they were from Connecticut.

Well, it's just the way it looks, because she was the best.

It's the way it looks, Chief.

It's the way it looks to me.

It was somewhat of a payoff or whatever.

And I assure you that wasn't the case.

This is the same group that wants to come in and take your captains away and take them, your chiefs, and make everybody whatever, which I'm not— I don't totally agree.

If you have a Department of men and women that come up in the ranks or whatever, they should have that opportunity, whether it's sergeant, lieutenant, captain, right to the chief's position.

That should not be taken away so it's controlled on the top.

You want to— this administration wants to take them men and women out of Unit C or whatever.

I'm not into it.

I like the way this department has ran, and I know this department, and I've been through so many chiefs and been through the everything.

And I just don't— I just don't like where we're going with some of these things, and I don't think it would be benefited to the department or benefit to the people of the city.

Again, I'm going to sit here and I'm going to state my case, and I'm going to fight for you because I'm going to continue to fight for them 24 officers.

I'm going to continue to fight for Spot Shotter, and I'm going to continue to fight for the public safety in this city, which these people— what the people of this city rightfully deserve, and it shouldn't have been taken away.

And it better be considered to be brought back, or somebody better have their butt up in Boston fighting for monies or fighting on the federal level to make sure that this department functions, the fire department and EMS, as it's always had without being shot in any way or being cut in any way.

This was the wrong cut.

I'm talking to you.

I'm sorry, you're the man standing there, sir.

I've been dying to talk to you.

To you and vent my position.

You may not agree, but that's okay because we don't always agree around here.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One other thing, I'm sorry.

How many other consultants do you have within the department?

Are you being consulted by any other— are you bringing any other consultants in on your budget?

Since I got here, the only consultant that was here was the CP21 group that was hired before I was here, and that was specifically to look at OCIB and professional standards, they completed their work and they— I think they published their findings in like August, but there's been no consultants since then.

I didn't hire any consultants.

And you don't plan on bringing any on?

I can't say I'm not going to plan on bringing in any.

There is, you know, there are some things that I've laid out that I'd like to do, like a complete property and evidence room audit.

I think it's important as new leadership comes in to do that.

We have a new room that we're gonna move all the evidence to, and when you do that, it's a perfect time to audit it.

The only reason that I would go outside is that when you're auditing things like money and jewelry and drugs and guns, it is not a good idea to do that with your own personnel.

It's a good idea to have an outside agency do it.

Now, sometimes you can— is there a state agency or federal agency that could assist us sometimes without state agency to do it, but again, that comes down to personnel.

It's a big ask.

So that might be something, you know, that might be a consultant that I may look to go to the outside for.

You wouldn't consider using the state or feds?

No, no, I just said I would consider using them, but you have to get— that's a serious commitment.

You have to go through every piece of evidence, every court document, and try to find what's missing.

I don't— in in Connecticut, they did not have the personnel or the time to do that kind of audit.

Thank you very much, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief Doty.

How are you doing tonight?

Good.

How are you?

Wonderful.

Thank you.

So the first thing I wanted to address was the positions that you were talking about.

I wanted to clarify the one non-classified position, that's the intern coordinator?

Yes.

Okay, because I noted obviously last year's budget when you weren't here, there was an associate solicitor position that was randomly added to the police department.

The council cut it out, it's not there.

So that's also not in this year's budget either?

It is not there.

You weren't aware of that, but I just wanted to make note of that as well, that that's a another position that was in the police department budget last year.

It is not in this year's.

So 24 sworn police officers, 1 non-classified, which is that intern coordinator position, is not in here, and that associate solicitor position that was thrown in there last year that the council got rid of.

I did note in here it looks like there's another position that was there last year that isn't in here, which was the communications Communications Officer, which was a Unit C M8 position.

That— it is in there.

Um, it is the— it's not titled that anymore.

No, it's not titled that because again they had to fit it into like a Unit C position.

Well, it was a Unit C position, it was an M8.

So what Unit C position is it now?

Um, it is— is it the Administrative Manager?

That's an M9, a pay grade above.

Yes.

Okay, because that's the Let me just double-check.

Let me get to that page.

But that is the public, uh, information that the, the, uh, FOI we call in Connecticut, Freedom of Information, um, public records position.

Okay, so they are now administrative manager and that is an M9.

Okay, and then Jumping off of my colleague from Ward 2 who asked a very valid question about our assistant deputy chief, you mentioned you're going to post the position.

I guess my question is why?

Mainly because obviously I'm sure you're aware we went without a deputy chief for a very long time before— obviously we didn't go without a chief for a very long time.

We had 2 very great ADCs.

Obviously one filled the deputy chief position.

They're both serving, obviously one deputy chief, one ADC, in a time when obviously we're in this budget crunch.

Is that a position at the top that we can go without during this time frame since we went almost over a year without a deputy chief?

The deputy chief position is the number 2.

I mean, that Derek is now doing a job very different from the job that, that he was doing before.

The assistant deputy chief positions here— and the titles are different in different places that you go— really kind of do the same division of labor that I talked about between the deputy chief and the deputy director of administrative operations, where one of your assistant deputies oversees your investigative side, your special, your special units, your, your— that kind of support, but investigative side of the department, and one oversees patrol operations, which is the deployment of your officers, deciding whether you need to order in, what the, what the minimums are every day, planning for special events.

So those 2 positions are key.

Again, you know, what we did as, as staffing was really plummeted— where I wasn't here when it happened here— but we did look at how many supervisory positions we needed to oversee reduced staffing.

Now we're sitting at 230 versus, you know, versus our around 200, just short of 200 that we were right before I got here.

You know, you do need staff to make sure that you're deploying those people correctly, to make sure you're— that you're investigating things correctly and things aren't falling through the cracks.

I think all of those positions are important, you know, from a— from an operational standpoint.

You know, that, that just— they oversee different parts in, in the department.

As we— as every— as every city department knows, if you start dividing that work too much and if you start not minding what's going on in those divisions, you start to have cracks.

And what we— where we don't want them is in investigations or in the patrol side.

So I do think it's an important position.

You know, and, and my plan is to post it.

Um, that's, that's the plan as of now.

Okay.

And again, it's a conversation we've been having with all department heads, and a speech I keep giving is all of these positions are important positions, uh, you know, police, fire, all of these.

And I, I don't want to take away from that when we're having these conversations.

And so, uh, you know, very valid point, but it's just, again, as we're trying to make these tough decisions Is it crucial in this moment, especially when a lot of times, as we've seen even again with the deputy position, which I— the number 2 in this case, we can post it, it takes forever to fill.

So in a time right now where— is it necessary to put it in the budget, tax the, you know, the ratepayers for a position that might not even get filled for a year or so?

Or can we wait until maybe the next fiscal year?

That's why I'm, you know, asking.

That's not to say that it's not an important position, but that's why I raised the question.

The other— the other part too, I do appreciate obviously putting together the slide sheets here with figures here and to try to put into perspective of the cuts that the police department have already faced with a grand total this year of $3.5 million.

But for us here that have been doing this for a while, I look back to FY25.

Your vacancy savings, for example, this year only $136,000.

And compare that to just FY25 where vacancy savings alone, not compared to what typically happens to the police department with other cuts, as you pointed out, other reductions, was $3.8 million.

So really not a lot of cuts when you compare to FY25 or even to last year's vacancy savings of around $2.9 million, which is unlike other departments.

For some reason, they put— do 5% vacancy, uh, savings for the police department as opposed to the typical 3% for other departments.

Bob can probably speak to that more closely, but I think when we're cutting 24 positions, that's $2.4 million.

That's before that vacancy savings.

So once you kind of calculate that secondary vacancy savings, you've kind of already got that pound of flesh.

I think that's why it's so much lower, because you're eliminating— I think the slide says $2.4 million in those vacancies.

If those were there, then that vacancy savings might be higher.

It's not— you know, I used to deal with a CFO in Hartford that was always excited about vacancy savings.

It's not exciting for us because it means people that aren't there doing the work.

Correct.

So, well, and in this case, case, we're not hiring those officers at all, right?

And that's the point.

So unlike past budgets where we were intentionally trying to fill those positions, and obviously we're not accounting for potential retirements and things like that.

So that's just trying to put that perspective out there.

That leads me to my next question about the 911 grant reimbursement.

I'm not familiar with, I guess, that particular grant reimbursement for the police department because I haven't seen it in past budget presentations, and I'm just curious why it's a reduction now in this year's budget of half a million.

So there— and Bob may have a better explanation, but it is— that is a reimbursement grant for 911 dispatchers that reimbursed the salaries of our dispatchers.

And why aren't we eligible for it now?

Why are we eligible for it?

Are not, I'm assuming, if it's being— Well, we are.

It's gonna go— it's going to go to pay those.

Oh, okay.

So that's why you're saying it's coming off of the general fund cost?

Correct.

Okay.

It's gonna be— it's gonna be managed by a grant.

So in this case, that reduction is a good thing?

That is a rare— it is a rare case for this year.

Okay.

All right.

It's only a reduction in our pocket, not in people, which is good.

Okay.

Sorry, I misread it as a bad thing where you're like, these are all these cuts to us.

And I'm like, well, why are we subtracting this?

In fairness, it's in the bad section.

Yeah.

So that's why I was like, wait a minute, I haven't seen this cut before.

So, okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I think that was it that I had for— sorry, I'm just looking over my mess here.

Yes, that's it for me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good evening, Chief.

How are you?

Good.

How are you?

Good.

Thank you for coming in tonight.

Thank you for this presentation.

I have a question.

I noticed that in your FY26 highlights that there was an SRO added, a school resource officer added at New Bedford High School.

Yes.

Is— are the school resource resource officers something that, uh, the district, the school district pays for, or does that come out of our budget?

That comes out of our budget.

It's all our budget, but it comes out of the— yeah, your budget.

All right.

So, um, did the school district request another SRO?

So, I mean, the SRO program here, uh, is, is great.

I think they're— they were down from 7 to 3, Derek, 3 or 4.

Yeah, so they had 3 at the high school previously.

They were down to 1.

I think our total was at like 7 school resource officers that were divided across the, you know, the schools.

And they had— after, you know, when, when you can't fill cruisers, you've got to, you got to start cutting things, right?

That's when community service officer positions went down.

That's when SRO positions went down.

We dealt with the same thing where I came from.

We were able to add one back despite requests to add many more back.

But I think the high school, given how much more of the crime is driven by young people today— has there been a rise in crime at the high school?

Not at the— not, not a rise in crime.

But what I'm saying is that, that the, the crime today is driven by young people more so than it was, say, 10 years ago.

And I think engaging with those students young is important.

So I refilled the one position.

All right.

So you're saying there wasn't like a specific, like, you got a call up from the superintendent?

No.

Like we need more or community outcry?

It is my understanding that people have, you know, whenever you lose SROs or community service officers, there is a public outcry.

So I know that, you know, it was unpopular when we would— when the police department before my time reduced those numbers.

But it was not a specific request from— it was unpopular.

The community was outcry from the community that was unpopular, right?

When you, when you reduce community service officers, yeah, I mean, they— SROs in particular?

SROs and community service officers, 2 different positions but both very coveted by the people that they serve.

Okay.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anyone?

Council Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you Chief Thody, most of the questions have been answered around the, I guess, the administrative side.

I mean, I'm hearing a lot of this one manages this, this one manages that, and that's— what does the management analysts do?

If one of them was the public relations, which has moved to the administrative manager, what do the other management analysts do?

If we have a direct, you know, a chief of staff, which is a manager, and then oversees some of the finances, as you alluded to, but then we have a finance operator, operations specialist.

Can you just talk about the management analyst position?

So the management analyst position, there's 3.

There are 2 are crime analysts, which are the folks that are creating those CompStat packages and that entire slide on crime year over year.

And one is the NIBRS analyst that is directly responsible for that— the information gets— that gets mandated reporting to the FBI.

So those are— those analysts are crime analysts that look at all of the trends, build the CompStat packages, put out intelligence bulletins.

They're the ones that are driving driving behind the real-time crime efforts that I spoke to earlier, that those, those 3 positions are all crime analyst positions.

Okay, so non-civilian.

Those are civilian.

Yep.

Okay.

And then to jump back on the ShotSpotter, the unable to confirm doesn't mean that It didn't happen.

It does not mean that.

It means that based on everything that we were able to find when we went out there, you know, and that could mean that there was a shot fired and it was in a revolver and it left no evidence and nothing got struck, right?

There is a variance for those types of incidents.

That is a pretty significant number to, to, for that variance to to cover, I would— in my, in my opinion, in my, you know, experience.

Did, did you come— when you— from Hartford, did they have a similar— did they have ShotSpotter as well?

They had ShotSpotter.

We had ShotSpotter in Hartford in 2 phases.

One, I think, covered like 6 or 7 square miles as a kind of a beta test, and then the second phase covered the rest of the city minus the parks.

So we covered the majority of the city, you know.

Hartford is a city that has 200, you know, people shot in a year.

So when— if you ask me, is the juice worth the squeeze there?

Yes.

When we did our original analytics, when we were looking at ShotSpotter and we brought ShotSpotter in, we found that only about 18% of shots fired were being called in by the community, which is almost the inverse number than here.

Here there's a community that when they hear a gunshot, they call the police.

In Hartford, I'm sad to say that it was, it was such a common occurrence that, that we didn't get the calls, which made ShotSpotter different in Hartford than it is here.

Is there a metric that you can point to from ShotSpotter detection to the 911 call, the time difference between— is it instantaneous?

Is it— so ShotSpotter is not instantaneous in the sense that it has to be routed out, verified, as you know, they try to verify it there as like non-firework, non, you know, construction-related, and then sent back.

I don't have that metric.

It's something that we could look at.

There are certainly times where picking up the phone and dialing 911 would be quicker just because the, the initial activation has to go for, for verification and then come back to us, and then it comes in through dispatch and is dispatched out the same way that a 911 call would be.

How long is that whole timeframe, would you say?

It varies depending on how, you know, there are some that are very clear shots fired and they're able to get them back to us quickly.

I can get you some of that kind of analytical data.

I wouldn't want to— I wouldn't want to venture a guess, but, you know, both, both methods of getting shots fired information to the police department tend to be pretty quick.

And the elimination of that, was that something that, that you feel comfortable with here?

Yeah, you know, like I said, any technology that is related to crime detection and solving crime, I'll take and I'll advocate for.

But knowing, you know, kind of the fiscal constraints that we're in and knowing the effectiveness of this particular technology here, I am comfortable with it as long as, you know, that there's a commitment to continue to grow our technology in ways that service and make the community safer.

And The rebate or refund from ShotSpotter, what was that?

Do you know what that was?

It was before my time.

As you talk to the folks that, you know, Mike Sloan, who is one of the analysts that you referred to earlier, who really was keeping an eye on this, you know, they fell so far below the thresholds of accuracy that they say they can meet that we got, I think, I think 1 month or 2 months reimbursed to us, which I've never heard of before or since.

So, you know, there had to be at least some acknowledgment that the accuracy level wasn't there.

Has there— is there something that's different here?

Because you said it kind of sounds like New Bedford.

Is there something that alluded to being an outlier here?

That's because the way that you're just describing it is that New Bedford is something of an anomaly with shotguns.

No, no, I wouldn't say it's an anomaly.

It happens in other places too.

We had issues with like downtown in Hartford where the buildings were tall enough to impact the way the sound bounced around.

They were able to kind of mitigate that with changing— ShotSpotter is very, you know, rightfully so, it's proprietary.

They're very secretive about how they do their, their, you know, where they put their listening devices and things like that.

So I don't have the answer to that question.

I don't know that ShotSpotter would give you an answer to that question.

You know, based on the volume of shots fired incidents that we can confirm, and based on the accuracy number here versus other places, I suggest that potentially some of those environmental causes could be at play here.

I don't know specifically what they are.

The, the other thing when it comes to it also is obviously you had mentioned firework— it'll rule out fireworks versus versus backfire and things like that.

Does— do they get a conclusion as to— do they give you it, or they just— if they verify it as a firework, you don't even hear a peep from ShotSpotter?

Yeah, if they verify it as a non-shot fired, we wouldn't get it as a, as a, as a notification.

What you can do is if we then find out that that was a shot fired, we go out there and there's casings, the calls us, we can go back and have them look at it again, and we can listen to the audio and find out why they ruled it as a firework or as construction or as a backfire or whatever.

And they, they use that data, according to ShotSpotter, to make their system more accurate.

Okay.

And then your department, aside from future employees, no layoffs, no No, not that I'm aware of.

The vacant positions that we're not gonna fill are the ones that are here.

Is there someone you'd be willing to let go to get ShotSpotter back?

Not for ShotSpotter, but we can talk.

We can talk about other stuff.

So no layoffs?

Derek's on light duty.

Can I get rid of him for like 6 months?

So no layoffs like we're seeing in the fire department, just future employees.

Correct.

Which is not good either.

And then you're not closing any stations down either, right?

No, not that I know of.

Just double-checking.

And that's all I have right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Counselor Abram.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Chief, I know we've discussed ShotSpotter at length.

I know you have your chief of staff that you said handles grants or looks into grants.

Is that correct?

Grants, that's one of the things.

Yep.

Maybe you're not aware, you might be, but there are ShotSpotter grants available for the Department of Justice, the DOJ federal government, and through the Department of Homeland Man Security, DHS, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, JAG program, the Gun Crime Gun Intelligence Center Integration Grant, Strategies for Policing Grant, Urban Area Security Initiative Grant, and private and corporate— never mind.

But anyway, so those 3 are through DHS and through the DOJ.

Were you aware of that?

I'm just curious.

Yeah, most of those grants are to implement ShotSpotter.

And like body-worn camera grants and other grants where you have to be careful in that trap is that when they— when you implement it, they will fund it for a period of time and then it falls into the general fund.

We already have it.

And so most of those grants, I don't know of a single grant that would— that would— that would continue it once you already implement.

So these grants are all for onboarding.

They're not for retention.

Correct.

And then with everything I just said, I think we would have a hard time laying out a competitive grant, you know, to kind of keep it.

Okay.

I mean, kind of outside the box, but you ever thought about— I'd have to go through legal on this, through the solicitors— but like some type of private or corporate philanthropic drive?

We have like the Carney Foundation, you have, you know, all these different foundations.

I'm just throwing them out there.

Just to name a few.

I don't know, I'm just spitballing here because I know it has a 24% success rate per what you said.

I'll take 24% still given, you know, over zero, over not having it at all.

I know what you said about 76% of it was kind of in error, but I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, it's generally, that technology has a place.

I think here it's not as effective as I'd like it to be.

Sure.

And from the chair that I sit in, I'm more concerned about the cops going lights and sirens to 76 of those calls that we're not able to find any evidence of shots fired.

Now, to the point made earlier, some of those could be because it was in a car or something like that.

But, you know, that's a That's a priority one emergency response a lot of times to something that we're not verifying.

Those grants that you speak of, I think we might be able to get technology that, that's better suited to, to keep New Bedford safe.

You know, there's all kinds of— there's technology out there right now from drones to you name it that, that these, that these technology grants can fund, you know, that can that can work really well in this community.

Well, if you find some technology that you think that could work better, more effectively, would you mind letting us know?

And just— we'll see what we can do.

And I'm sure— well, it'd have to come from upstairs, but I don't think we would have a problem with that appropriation if you saw that there was a real tangible return on the investment for that to keep the community safe.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

While we're on ShotSpotter, the effectiveness is often an argument as to why ShotSpotter might not be worth it.

Are there any other social— I mean, there are other social issues, overpolicing, racial bias, that often get brought up when talking about ShotSpotter.

Can you speak to any of that?

I mean, it certainly has nothing to do with the decision that, you know, that was made here that I know of.

You know, Cambridge just, just eliminated ShotSpotter for, for some of the reasons that you speak of.

In my experience, both in Hartford and here, I do think that it's a scientific approach to where, you know, to where to put the sensors.

Now, one of the ways that a lot of communities have mitigated that very thing is to cover the whole city.

You know, we went from, I think, 3 or 4 square miles to, I think, about 14 or 15 square miles where we covered everything but the parks where there was no, you know, racial implications of what's covered because we covered all residential areas of the city.

That was close to $1 million a year to do that.

So would I be able to sit here and say that those, you know, that the usefulness of ShotSpotter is worth $1 million a year?

I wouldn't.

So while there are those issues out there, in my experience, I have not I certainly didn't where I came from or here see those issues at play.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you, Mr. President.

How you doing, Chief?

How's it going today?

Good.

I had a quick question about just about the budget.

Your travel went from $8,000 to $30,000.

Yeah, that, that's just— that's putting back in what was cut from the budget last year.

But that was cutting back in.

Adding that back in?

Yep.

You didn't go far enough for $8,000.

You need $30,000.

Yeah.

I mean, there's a lot of, you know, much like I heard, you know, MIS as well.

I mean, there is, there is something to be said for keeping people up to speed on, on what's going on in law enforcement before, before you have something that where you said I should have known better.

All right.

And you was talking with your chief of staff and all the, the the hats that they hold.

So are you getting rid of all the other people that hold them hats since they— No, we're reappropriating them to police-related functions because it made it sound like they was— they wasn't— it was an act, you know, they, they couldn't do their job, so you had to find somebody with a superpower to come in and save their job.

Well, quite, quite the opposite.

I think they can do their job.

I think they can't do a job that you know, that we're trying to— you know, you go to the academy and every ounce of recertification training— we're in the middle of it right now, it's due in July— is on changing in laws, changing in firearm laws, in domestic violence laws, in juvenile laws.

Those are the things that these people are trained on, and those are the things that they're expected to do well.

They're not expected to do budgeting, grants, HR, When you get round peg, square hole, you get problems.

Was there a big hole to dig out of?

Is what?

Was there a big hole to dig out of when you got in there?

A big hole?

Is that what you said?

Yeah, because you said once, once if you can't fit a, you know, square peg in a— Oh yeah, there's definitely— Was there a big deficit?

Not unique to New Bedford.

A lot of inefficiencies in folks that signed on to be cops that are doing budgeting and doing technology projects and doing things like that.

And what they're not doing is running station, you know, Station 2, Station 3.

They're not, they're not doing the police function.

And, um, just getting back what you talked about, the Shaw Sparta, what do you plan on— do you just plan on just the people calling up and saying there was somebody was shooting up over here, or is there any alternative to that?

Well, no, I think number one, I think, you know, all the efforts combined with a technology like ShotSpotter and the cameras, you know, the other technologies have grown up, like, like the cameras, like, you know, LPR technology.

We've also reduced the number of shots fired incidents in the city, reduced the violent crime in the city.

So I don't think we're trying to pick up slack that's— that still exists.

I think some of that— I think some of that has decreased to a point where we can be comfortable saying, yeah, the 911 calls are giving us the information that we need.

So, like, and how the violent crime gets, like, reported.

This is just a question from me.

So, like, if there's a group of people and somebody starts shooting at a group of people, do you put somebody was shot at or do you just put shots fired?

Like, is there a difference between how it's worded?

Shots fired is, is no one struck.

A shooting is when someone is hit.

All right, so just, you can just put shots fired even if they shoot at a crowd in attempt and assault?

If they don't hit anyone, generally that's a shots fired incident.

Property damage, if you, if you know somebody, if a car gets hit, that's a shots fired incident.

If it's a shooting, even with intent, I'm just asking for— yeah, it's, it's something that, um, that I've always been perplexed by is how like a homicide is treated very seriously and that makes sense, a life was lost.

But if somebody shot in the leg when the intent was probably still to kill them, the same level of intensity does not tend to go into those investigations.

And I've tried to bring parity to that both, you know, both in Hartford and, and here, because I think to your point, if you're willing to take out a gun— now if you're shooting a gun in the air and we have video of that, I guess that's different, but you're still— it's still an illegal discharge of a firearm.

So I do think there's differences, there's varying degrees, just like there is, you know, it's a difference if you steal a $20 item from a store versus a, you know, $100,000 car.

But all of it is important.

What we've seen, though, is a significant reduction over the years with the efforts that happened before I got here.

And my intent is to, is to continue those efforts to try to drive violent crime and shootings and gun crime down as low as we can get it.

No, because just, it just sounds crazy, you know, when you hear somebody say, oh, there was shots fired, right?

And then you go on the scene, there was like, no, they were shooting at people, you know?

And it can be labeled as just shots fired, so it looks like a minor incident where it looks like the crime could be down, where if it was a major incident, it'll look worse.

That's just my perspective anyway, so that's neither here nor there.

So I, you know, I just— I'm happy with what the guys in uniform are doing.

I have a lot of friends and family that serve and protect the city, so, you know, anything that we can do to keep on, you know, making their job easier is, you know, first and foremost, as well as making sure the taxpayers of the city are getting what they deserve as well.

So, you know, good luck.

Thank you so much for coming here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for the Chief?

Councillor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chief, I understand getting rid of spot shotter, we're getting into the cameras.

What is the cost per camera?

Depends on the camera.

There's 5 packs that are 4 stationary, 1 mobile.

You know, it depends on the camera.

A lot of times, you know, the cost too is infrastructure.

You've got to connect that camera somehow, whether you're daisy-chaining Wi-Fi or whether you're running, you know, fiber to it.

There's a lot of variables.

How many— how much of the city is being covered by a camera right now?

Oh, I don't know.

I think there's, there's 48, I believe, that are under one of the project codes, and then there's another 9 downtown.

I don't know what the total number is.

Who's paying for this mobile unit that you put out here since the incident last weekend?

That came out of the budget, that the $100,000 transfer that we were here for a couple of months ago.

That's part of the downtown, that $100,000 in downtown, that's coming along with the blue light, blue light security stations, and, and that's part of that infrastructure.

So that camera wasn't put there because of the situation?

It's been put there— it was pure coincidence that that's when it came in.

That was the $100,000 that, again, that we transferred a couple months ago.

And that was the— it was, it was quicker to be able to get that than it was the blue light stations, but they're still on the way.

So that will move around based on where— your opinion, do we have enough cameras throughout the city to watch every neighborhood?

No.

No.

SpotShotter would listen in every neighborhood, correct?

No.

ShotSpotter covers in this city.

It's 20— this city's 20, 20, a little over 20 square miles.

I think ShotSpotter's 3.

So ShotSpotter, what we're paying that amount of money for is to cover about 3 square miles of this city, not the entire city.

Why would the former mayor of the city of New Bedford talk about how important this ShotSpotter was if that's all it's covering?

That I can't answer that question, but I can tell you that what our contract is for is to cover— I think it's just about 3 square miles.

Again, in Hartford we covered 15 square miles.

We just subtracted out the parks, but that came at a much higher cost.

So I don't have a comparison.

Are you aware that SpotShotter did assist in an officer's house being shot at and some others?

Yeah, again, the tech— the technology has benefits.

There's no question about it.

The question is, are those benefits— is that money better spent on different benefits?

I would probably argue, and this is a reach, but I'd have to do some research on it, that we probably have more space covered by cameras than we do ShotSpotter.

But I would have to— last question, what do fireworks have effect on the spot shotter.

Does that set shots fired when they're setting off fireworks in different neighborhoods?

The technology is supposed to weed that out.

I, I don't— but it doesn't, especially around the 4th of July.

We, we— there were times where we had to shut it off, um, because they were— not because they were misclassifying, but because so many calls were coming into the station to be classified and to be verified that it overwhelmed their call center.

So the technology boasts that it can separate it.

How effective it is on that, some of these could be fireworks that were mislabeled as shots fired.

So the call could come in, shots fired in a certain section of the city, we dispatch units there, and then it comes to the conclusion that there was no shots fired, fireworks shots being fired in the neighborhood, correct?

Well, they're supposed to come to that conclusion in real time.

The listening— the listening devices for ShotSpotter hear the sound that it thinks is shots fired.

It sends it to a call station immediately where it's verified by a human that listens to it.

They're supposed to weed that out and only call us for the ones that they verify as shots fired.

They're supposed to weed out backfiring cars, construction noises, fireworks, things like that.

That accuracy kind of waxes and wanes a little bit, but that's, that's the intent of the soft— of the, of the technology.

This isn't coming from you, it's coming— or maybe it did— and somewhere in the numbers, the mayor says that he finds that more people are dialing 911 when they hear shots fired.

I'll differ with that.

More people differ with that because of of my knowledge of the system and what's been going on in the city for a long time.

That is not a true statement, that more people are calling 911 when shots are fired.

I have heard calls come in where the Spot Shot is notifying that there's a shot's been fired at 287 Cushioned Avenue, and not a call.

Not a call is received.

And you hear the unit get there and find shells or whatever on the ground and no one has— those numbers are in, especially when it's in that hour of 1, 2, 3 o'clock in the morning.

Most people are sleeping.

Those numbers are in here.

Those numbers— the correlation between shots fired calls where, where 911 calls were made and ShotSpotter notification was made, and when ShotSpotter was what gave a notification and there was no 911 call.

Those numbers are in there.

Those numbers are greater than the ShotSpotter.

The calls greater than the shots, meaning you receive more calls that shots have been fired than SpotShotter telling you?

No.

No.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Councillor Roy.

Hi again.

You piqued my interest when you were talking about the cameras.

You said there are 48 cameras.

One of the line items in here is a management of 48 cameras.

One is— I think there's 9 for downtown.

I don't know the total number of cameras.

I can certainly get that.

I would love to know that information.

And generally, like, where they're located in the city, is that something that you can provide?

I was always reluctant on providing exactly where they are.

I'm just wondering like some of them, they're in, and if we're surveilling a lot of them more than others is all.

A lot of the, of the where the camera is, is infrastructure related.

There's a lot of cameras again that, you know, a good cam, good quality camera that's going to give you a good feed relies on fiber.

One of the issues that we had in Hartford was not having a lot of fiber, and the city invested in putting fiber in, and that gave us speed.

When you start— think about your, you know, your internet at home.

When you start daisy-chaining these cameras so one is Wi-Fi connected to another that's Wi-Fi connected to another, when this router goes down and you have to reset it like we have to in our house, all of those cameras go down.

So with that technology, the camera technology is really not the most important part of it.

It's really the connectivity back to the police department so we can see the cameras so that we can record it to a, you know, a DVR.

So when an incident happens, we can go back and review that.

So a lot of it where they— I don't know what the logic was of where they put them in New Bedford because I wasn't here.

But that's why it's nice to have a portable unit, which is the one that's out here that we bought, because we can kind of move that around.

Based on the need.

You know, that will come in handy for the Feast.

It will come in handy for a lot of different things where it will only be absent from here for a day or two, but that will move around.

Those portable cameras are very useful, especially as we see, you know, patterns in car breaks and things, things like that that tend to be neighborhood-based.

Those, those— but, but as far as where all the cameras are, I'd have to look at how many portable cameras Do we have?

That's— well, that, that van, that trailer is the first of that one's type.

And so the rest of these 48 cameras are permanent cameras?

There are a couple portable cameras that they have that are like that, that they can use for like surveillance if they're doing a search warrant and things like that, but nothing like that one.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Okay, just one, one comment, one question from the chair.

The chief of staff position, I don't doubt the need for it, but could you provide the job description to the body?

Yeah, in email form.

And I, I just want to know the rationale behind making it an M-20.

Making what?

Pardon?

To the clerk's office.

Oh yeah, Bob's team supplies it all to the clerk's office.

I would ask that and the justification of making it an M-20 and not its own unique position, because I feel like it might make sense to be its own unique position.

And I, I do question the, the responsibility versus the pay, and if that could be kind of the rationale be— yeah, I mean, in, in developing the position and talking about bringing the position here, um, that, you know, know, a deputy director of administrative operations position, you know, kind of globally is like a 150, 160 position in the research that I did.

That was the position that we were able to kind of fit it into that made the most sense.

But that, you know, making it its own, I wouldn't care as long as the position is filled with Somebody that can do the work.

That's the key.

Okay.

Just to make sure that the legislative oversight is still there, I am concerned about the blanket, you know, well, pretty soon every department will have a chief of staff, is my caution.

I'm not saying that that was an intention.

I'm just saying that could become a reality.

So I just think to maintain that legislative oversight and authority, I would love to see that become an ordinance position where it's a permanent member of the police department via ordinance and solidified on our, uh, grades, uh, table of grades for Unit C employees.

But if you could provide, like I said, that job description, I, I'd greatly appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Chief Thody?

Yes, Councilor.

It's not for Chief Thody, it's for Bob.

Okay, anyone else for Chief Thody?

Great, thank you.

Very much, Chief, for being here with us.

Thank you.

CFO Ekstrom.

Bob.

Bob, sorry.

Yeah, CFO Ekstrom.

Is there a reason why we do typically— well, obviously not this year.

This year we've all— we— I guess I understand the rationale for doing a 0.5% vacancy reserve for across the board, but I am interested if you could give insight on why the police typically in past years had the high reserve of 5% in their budget compared to other departments?

The— because, like, for example, fire is about to come up, and last year, like, their reserve was only 2% compared to other departments that were 3%.

I'm just— I want to know the rationale behind how you all decide the vacancy reserves for each department.

Is there a calculation this year?

Say that again.

No, that's this year, but I'm just saying in a normal year when there isn't mass layoffs, that's why I understand the 0.5 across the board this year.

But I'm just trying to understand in previous fiscal years why the varying percentages.

How is that factored?

How is that decided?

So we use historical trends, but before For the most part, it's not that scientific.

We start off with about a 3% reserve.

In case of fire, we hardly get anyone leaving fire, so there's just no way to hit 3% reserves for fire.

On the other hand, I think police may have had— did you allude to the fact that police may have had a higher reserve last year?

Yeah, we had a lot of troubles with retention, as the chief spoke to, and he was just starting to lick that problem now.

Obviously you can't predict what, what attrition is going to be like.

Are the historical trends based off of New Bedford or are you basing it off of other cities?

New Bedford.

Okay.

Yeah.

And the only reason why I'm asking, and that's why I called you up now, is because before fire comes and does their presentation, I'm just curious because I— it's my understanding that the fire department rarely ever has vacancies.

That's true.

And so I'm just curious why we would bank in even a 2% vacancy when they typically have a new fire academy come in right away for retirements and what have you.

Obviously this year that's not the case because the administration has decided to do what they've done, but I was just looking at the percentages the way that they have.

I was just curious.

Um, I believe that— I believe, and Sharon, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but 3% was the default, including small departments.

In the past, we never used to budget any vacancy reserves in small departments, such as my office has 3.

Some, some places like licensing has 2.

So those— it's very difficult to get vacancy reserves.

But when you combine all the small ones together, it's the same as a big one.

And so we applied 3% across the board, and then we made exceptions for police and for fire.

And with fire, you were able to reduce it to 2% because it made sense.

Exactly.

Okay.

Yeah, I just, I just wanted that information.

Say, before we started with fire?

Not a lot of science, but there was some— some expect it's 3% with some trending historical trends that suggested lower or higher in a couple of cases.

But so we recognize that there is hardly ever any vacancies, if any, in fire?

Yes, we have had a lot of troubles hitting the fire budget because of vacancies.

They just don't turn over very often.

Okay, that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Bob.

All right, next up we have the fire department on page 65 in our budget book, and we have Chief Brian Medeiros here.

Chief, thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to, uh, discuss the FY27 budget with you tonight.

I'll start by saying the New Bedford Fire Department remains committed to providing the highest level of service possible while being responsible stewards of taxpayer resources.

Last year, the men and women of the New Bedford Fire Department responded to more than 12,000 calls for service, providing fire suppression, emergency medical response, technical rescue, hazardous materials response, marine operations, fire prevention services, and emergency management support throughout our community.

Over the past several years, we focused on controlling costs, improving operational efficiency, and utilizing data-driven decision-making to guide our efforts.

We have aggressively pursued state and federal grant opportunities, leveraging outside funding to improve firefighter safety, enhance training, and acquire equipment.

These investments have allowed us to improve significantly our service and training, and firefighter safety, safety while reducing the financial burden to the taxpayer.

Another major area of focus is community risk reduction.

We are expanding our inspections, code enforcement efforts, and public fire safety education programs while implementing a revised false alarm ordinance aimed at reducing unnecessary emergency responses and improving operational efficiency as well.

These proactive efforts have contributed to sustained reductions in structure fires, and improve life safety outcomes throughout our community.

Every fire that's prevented, every hazard that's corrected, every false alarm eliminated helps protect lives and preserve property while reducing the demand placed on our emergency resources.

I'd also like to briefly highlight the work of our Emergency Management Division.

Throughout FY26, EMA responded to emergencies, assisted residents displaced by fires and other incidents.

They supported our events, updated critical emergency plans, and continued preparedness and outreach efforts to help ensure New Bedford is ready to respond to and recover from emergencies.

As everyone is aware, the proposed budget includes the elimination of 26 fire department positions and planned decommissioning of a frontline fire company.

I recognize and appreciate the efforts of Senator Mark Montigny in securing $500,000 state earmarked funding that is allowed the department to maintain current services and keep that company in service.

The New Bedford Fire Department will continue to respond to emergencies with the professionalism and dedication of our residents— that our residents expect.

However, the loss of 26 positions in frontline company ultimately results in fewer resources available when emergencies do occur.

The demands placed upon this department continue to grow.

New Bedford remains one of the most complex fire protection environments in Commonwealth, with densely populated neighborhoods, aging housing stock, high-rise buildings, nursing homes, a Level 2 trauma center, regional airport, the commuter rail, some major fishing port, significant industrial occupancies, and ongoing residential and economic development.

We remain committed to meeting those challenges while utilizing every resource available to us as efficiently as possible.

I'd like to close by saying I'm extremely proud of the men and women of the Bedford Fire Department and the Emergency Management Division.

As we move into FY27, our priorities remain clear: maintaining emergency response capabilities, investing in firefighter training and safety, pursuing every available grant opportunity, expanding inspections and public education efforts while strengthening emergency preparedness, and continuing to improve efficiency wherever possible.

I thank you all for your continued support for the New Bedford Fire Department and the Emergency Management vision, and we remain committed to delivering the highest level of service possible to the residents of New Bedford under our guiding principle: service above self.

Happy to take any questions.

Colleagues, questions?

Councilor Burgo.

I just want to thank you for being here, Chief.

I guess not really a question, just a reminder to my colleagues.

Hopefully, obviously this year, given what's happening, you won't face any cuts.

Obviously last year I was really disappointed that some here cut your overtime budget by $300,000.

I do see that there is a transfer coming.

I was disappointed that we made that reduction, and thankfully there are some reserves to fund that to your 100 account.

I do see it looks like we need to fund outside of that fire watch detail.

We're not counting that because hopefully there'll be a reimbursement, but it looks about $304,000 deficit in the 100 account.

Does that sound about right?

Correct.

So yeah, so it looks like that cut to the overtime.

And again, as we mentioned before, fire— as I was talking to CFO Ekstrom, no vacancies to the fire department.

It's, again, layoffs.

Unlike we've seen the police department, 24 positions were lost, but those aren't actual people because we haven't hired any police officers.

In this case, these are actual firefighters that will be losing their jobs.

So I just wanted to make that real for people because oftentimes we're hearing, oh, well, these people lost their jobs too.

And it's like, well, no, those are just positions lost.

So I just wanted to make that statement for people that are talking a lot about numbers and money, but these are actual real-life humans that will be affected by this.

So again, thank you for the work that you all do, and that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Baptiste.

Thank you, Council President.

Chief, how you doing?

Good.

Um, I, I just wanted to say personally, um, I'm just— I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry the shitstorm that you walked into and how you have to deal with the loss of 26 firefighters.

I'm sorry for your departments.

I'm sorry for the people that live in them neighborhoods that are going to be affected, right?

And it's just hard to sit up here and look at you and know that we're not going to cut anything, knowing that we should be adding it, and that's how it should be.

So with all the stuff that you go through with all your guys and the support that you have from your houses and your brothers, I just wanted to say sorry from me personally.

You know what I'm saying?

I know a lot of other people feel that way, but— Thank you.

I appreciate it.

You know what I'm saying?

It's a shitty feeling.

So, you know, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hiya, Chief.

Basically, the colleague before me said exactly what I wanted to say.

I do, myself, do apologize.

Sorry that you're going through this.

But I just want you to know that this council will do everything, and this councilor will do everything in his power to try to save Station 9.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

People's house, don't forget, okay?

Chief, thanks for being here tonight.

There's no questions about your budget.

If, as you notice, what you have here tonight is support, and the fight continues.

You can bring me $500,000, that's not enough to keep Station 9 open the way it properly should be open.

So the fight will continue from this floor on behalf of the New Bedford Fire Department to make sure that we find that money in somehow, some way to keep that station open.

Closing that station open doesn't only play jeopardy with the fire department, it plays jeopardy with the people that they serve all throughout that area and the departments that will have to be assisted, whether it's 5, 8, or coming as far as south depending on what's happening in this city.

The city of New Bedford deserves to have that station open, and we will continue to fight on your behalf and your department's behalf.

And that's the statement that I have to you.

And that's not grandstanding.

That's what I mean.

I've always meant it.

I've always supported the fire department.

I've supported public safety because I just know how important it is to the functioning of a city and keeping its city safe, whether it's you, your department, police, or EMS.

You can take that back with you.

And thanks for being here tonight, Chief, and a nice job on your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Councilor Carney.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to reiterate my colleague's statement.

It's really a travesty that was going on with the station.

Public safety needs to be first and foremost in the city of New Bedford.

I know my colleagues feel the same way.

By closing down that fire station, it's going to hurt a lot of people.

Does he realize also by closing down, our insurance rates will go up because they're going to see that we're not going to have the coverage that we have in the city?

It's just going to be a trickle-down effect, economic effect, on the residents of the city of New Bedford by not having that fire station there.

Not only the public safety— if something happens and we can't get there.

This affects the entire city.

If my fire department happens to be— I mean, my station has to be covering the North End, then it leaves the other parts of the city vulnerable.

And that's what scares me, is the other parts of the city when they're covering other stations.

So it's just crazy.

It shouldn't happen.

And I know we're all fighting very hard for it.

I'm hoping that we can find enough budget cuts in here to support that.

Whether or not the mayor— if we do that, find $1 million to support that— whether the mayor transfers it over to you, I don't know.

But I know we're going to work hard to see if we can keep that fire station open.

Anything we can do and any help we can do, just, you know, you don't have to hesitate to ask this council because we're behind you 100%.

So thank you for what you do, and thank you for protecting this community.

Thank you.

And all your men and women.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Chief.

When was the first time that the idea was presented to you?

Do you know about— for the closure— budgetary restraints?

I don't have an exact date, but shortly before— a month?

Yeah, roughly within the month prior to— before we did the budget presentation with enhancements and whatnot, I think, or just after that, maybe.

Yeah.

And were, were there any other budgetary, um, ideas that were floated before that, or was it just this is what's happening, or how did it kind of go?

Just, um, just because we weren't, we weren't in that room, obviously.

Yeah, just, just, uh, that had come up.

Um, initially it was 28 positions, I believe, uh, with dispatch positions going away mid-year, and that changed to 26 total.

5 vacancies, a 6th vacancy coming up.

We thought was gonna be July, it's actually August 8th.

And then the 20 for the company.

And aside from any— aside from the deal the discussion of going to 3 men per apparatus, there's been no other talks in an effort to try to keep that fire station open between you and the administration?

No, that discussion came up briefly with the manning issue.

The union met with the mayor's office and discussed some of that too, but there's no movement on that at this point.

And just for the record, if that were an option, right, the 3-man, not to say that it is, it would keep that station open, but people would still lose their jobs, correct?

Correct.

Running 9 companies, reducing 3 per company would still result in layoffs.

In the same amount of layoffs, or?

Roughly.

I have to do quick math here.

So the idea is to weaken the entire city to keep that open.

Is that the administration's stance?

I can't answer that.

I'd say— I can't say that.

Do you see it as that?

I don't know that he's trying to weaken the entire city, but that's it.

By going from 4 men everywhere to 3 men everywhere to keep that one station open, does it not make us vulnerable in a bigger sense?

In my opinion, it does.

Okay.

But I believe that's being looked at as the budgetary issue to try to save the funding.

Yeah.

I mean, at the end of the day, it looks like we're about $1 million.

The council's going to cut a few million from this budget.

It's going to be up to the administration to, to see if that money goes your way.

As you heard today, the council's going to— we're cutting this budget with that in mind.

What they do with it is up to them, but you have the full support of this council.

Understood.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Abril.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good evening, Chief.

Good to see you.

I know Councilor Gomes had asked you prior about where the state delegation is in the state aid.

I just want to take it one step further.

We started the conversation and I just want to expand.

This is a problem throughout the entire Commonwealth, okay?

We all know that the state aid formula has not been fixed since 2008.

It has not kept up with inflation, the whole myriad of problems and issues.

What I'm wondering is, what's the conversations you're having or hearing amongst your colleagues throughout the state, especially in gateway cities or mini metro cities like New Bedford, we're all feeling the pinch.

There are cuts happening all over the place, all throughout this state.

I'm seeing reports about other fire companies and stations closing.

I see teachers being let go and laid off.

I'm seeing all kinds of stuff happening all throughout the state.

What are you hearing, and do you buy into the mantra of strength in numbers, meaning, okay, if 80, 90, 100 of you go up on Beacon Hill as a consortium of colleagues, hey, you know, you know, members of our elected delegation, this is not working.

We are not keeping our communities safe.

Have you had those conversations?

Because we're either going to be serious about public safety or we're not.

It's one or the other, okay?

And if we're not, just tell us.

Tell us up in Boston.

Tell us the deal so we know we can pack up our toys and go home, okay?

But if we're going to be serious, we're going to talk the talk.

It's an election year.

What's going on?

So I don't know.

I just— you must be getting— you must be having conversations both on and off the record with other chiefs who are very frustrated as well.

Yeah, it is.

It's a common theme throughout the Commonwealth where they're hurting for state aid.

Quite a few other towns looking at the 2.5 overrides for funding for their manpower.

It's Not everybody is feeling it.

Some definitely feeling it more than others, but it's definitely concerning for all chiefs.

So, I mean, would you— you know, I don't want to get you jammed up, okay?

You're a good man.

I, you know, I consider you a friend.

I respect the heck out of you.

But I mean, and you can tell me I'm not comfortable answering this question, but Would you be interested in getting involved in like a consortium of other chiefs to go up on the Hill and say, hey guys, like, this isn't working, we need help?

Yeah, yeah, it can be.

You would be— so we can, we can discuss it and see what can be done.

Obviously something has to be done.

So I mean, because we can go to rallies all day long, right?

I've been with you and I file a bill every 2 years to fix the state aid formula.

I know, you know, I file a bill every 2 years.

All right, you know, I mean, we're answerable to the people of this city.

We're boots on the ground.

We did— in our case, wouldn't be file a bill, it'd be file a motion or an ordinance.

We don't just do that and it goes in committee and we blow hot air.

And we're on the ground here, Chief, like you are, and all these men and women for your department.

We have to answer these residents each and every day, and we're answerable to them.

You know, we don't have administrative assistants.

This is our administrative assistant right here.

They call us direct.

So I'm just frustrated because I think you're doing a bang-up job.

I think you're great at what you do.

I think your department is top-notch.

You know how I feel about your department and the rank and file.

It's just, it's heartbreaking for us to be in this, in this unfortunate dichotomy that we find ourselves in.

So like Councilor Oliver said, we'll find the money.

We'll find the money to cut to give Station 9 that stay of execution to stay open.

But again, I just want to be clear for the record, it's all about upstairs, what they want to do.

We'll find the money, but again, they have to make the appropriation to which we approve.

So we'll see where the chips fall on this, but I'm frustrated.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilor Gomes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Chief, can you— I don't mean to put you on the spot, Who came to the conclusion that Station 9 would be the station that we would close?

Where did that come from?

I know darn well, I know darn well it didn't come from you.

No, I was asked for a recommendation, and I've had the discussion with the mayor that I feel that we're adequately staffed with the deployment method that we have, deployment model.

But when asking for a recommendation, The only thing I could do in good conscience was refer to the studies that were done for the merger of 5 and 9 for a new station to be built up in the North End.

I'm hearing my other colleagues speak about on the state level.

I'm going to repeat it again.

And it's not a question to you.

It's basically a statement.

And I'll keep making these statements until somebody starts asking some questions.

Because if you notice, and everybody that's here, my colleagues and everything, every time we say something in this room, whether it pertains to the state or whatever, you notice how it's shh, shh, not a sound, not a sound coming from Boston, not nothing.

But you know what?

Boston had $5 billion, not million, $5 billion to spend on things that didn't affect affect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or possibly this fire department in getting me some money.

The Commonwealth has money, and we just got to get somebody to recognize how important the fire departments are and the police departments are to the communities which they serve, which they shouldn't be begging for anything, and we shouldn't be closing down anything.

So I'm making the statement again, $5 billion, you know all what I'm talking about, But they want us to be quiet.

Shh, keep your mouth shut, or we'll keep our mouth shut.

We won't even talk about it because you should be talking about it.

You should be questioning where all that damn money went and why we don't have the $32 million to close the gap on our budget here in the city, even though since 2008 this has been escalating, but we ain't had nobody fighting for it.

But nobody else, on the same token, nobody fought when we've seen our money being spent elsewhere and we couldn't help our cities and towns in the Commonwealth to survive and keep all them services and everything, not only the fire department.

I'm mad, just as upset as many people are in this room, and it's hard to keep your composure when you just want to blow it off, you know what I mean?

Because you're sick and tired— I'm sick and tired of the circle jerks, whether it comes from Boston, from Washington down.

It's all a game, you know what I mean?

Stand, take pictures, haha, look at me.

At the same time, the people of the Commonwealth or the people of the city are suffering.

Nobody's here trying to assist.

Nobody's knocking on the door.

We've been told that the administration's been going up.

When did they start going up to Boston?

2008?

Because I would have been there every week if I seen this escalation coming, or this decline in revenues that we're blaming this all on.

Okay, it's just so damn frustrating, Mr. President, and I thank you for allowing me the time to speak, and I'm going to continue to speak in the manner that I'm speaking because no one's going to shut me up.

And I hope others will join in trying to figure out what the hell is going on here and why so many people are quiet about the billions of dollars that this Commonwealth— and we have a surplus right now in this Commonwealth, we have surplus.

Healey could respond to this tomorrow and she could be a real big hero.

Why not?

Why not?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Anybody else?

Councilor Abram.

Just a statement.

Remember, state money is not a bailout.

It's not a handout.

It's our money, okay?

We all put into the system, every one of us, through income tax, sales tax, occupancy hotel tax.

It just goes on and on and on.

We're taxed to death here in the Commonwealth, and we expect a return on that investment, okay?

I.e., public safety.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Chief?

Okay.

Thank you, Chief, very much.

Thank you all.

Uh, Bob, can you take the podium, please?

Chair recognizes Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Good evening, Bob.

Good evening.

How are you tonight?

Excellent.

Good.

I have a question about the $500,000 earmark in the Senate to the Senate's budget, the amendment to the Senate's budget.

How long will that keep Fire Station 9 open for?

3.5 to 4 months.

3.5, 3.5 to 4 months.

I, you know, I've had conversations with some of the members of our state delegation, and, uh, they have the belief that since there was an UGA increase— how much was that increase, by the way?

$600,000, $700,000?

The $500,000 got restored, I think, back from the, from the, um, the House version to the Senate version, but that's all just work in progress.

Nothing set on.

Yeah, yeah, it hasn't been passed yet, but there was another Senate amendment to increase local aid, correct?

Yes, about— yes.

So is that being— maybe $600,000.

Is that included in the 3.5 months, or is that 3.5 months just the $500,000?

So this other $500,000, this other— what was it, $500,000, $600,000?

So they're picking and choosing one line item.

This is the Cherry Sheet aid program also has a substance with it as well.

There's, there's a lot of things that go up and a lot of things that go down.

Yeah, well, I mean, there was an increase.

I mean, besides, besides the, besides the $500,000 amendment specifically for fire, there was an increase in, in our, our UGA.

Yes, there was.

Right, right.

How was that calculated?

I mean, there's yet to be an increase, but we're predicting an increase, right?

How is that money being spent in the proposed budget?

Where was that money?

Have you, have you allocated that money?

Yeah, it's all in the general fund.

All in the general fund.

You'll see it on— so none of it went to the fire department?

So the fire department, the only extra money we're getting is that $500,000?

The money that flows into the general fund doesn't exactly get earmarked for every specific department.

So it's just general fund receipts that we use to balance the budget.

Right.

So what you have before you is a balanced budget, of course, and it's balanced with the help of that $500,000 in UGA.

I see.

But not with the $500,000.

I mean, I guess like, was, was the balanced budget balanced before that increase in UGA aid was, was presented?

Well, we were working towards it, right?

So we started with a gap of $32 million, as the mayor had said, that constitutes every single possible demand or request on behalf of city finances for fiscal '27.

So the process from January until May 15th just works to get that into balance.

So somewhere along that process, the House budget— House Cherry Sheet 80 came out with the House budget, then the Senate Ways and Means budget came out with the Senate.

So we just keep up.

I mean, with all this talk about local aid and like not keeping up with inflation for the last— since 2008, aid, like you as CFO, you get this information like, oh, we're getting more local aid this year.

What— where does that go?

What is— where does your head go?

Do you go, oh, that we need that money for X, Y, and Z?

I'm just wondering your thoughts.

I don't really get overwhelmed with that other aid because it only is up 2.5% a year.

I get it.

But I mean, we have a so-called $32 million deficit and we have about half a million dollars coming in.

I know.

I'm just wondering like where you think that money was going.

When you, when you heard about it coming in?

I mean, was it— it's— this is all part— this is normal activity, right?

So you have the governor's budget comes out the 4th Wednesday of January, and then we go through the House versions.

Sometimes some certain aid goes up and goes— some goes down.

Assessments go up and down.

This process goes through the House, then the Senate, then the Reconciliation Committee, and then the final budget.

So I don't get overly moved by any of this stuff.

I mean, they're celebrating, they're celebrating this local aid statewide increase.

I'm just wondering, are we celebrating it?

I'm not celebrating it.

No, no.

Even though, you know, I have a huge problem here, and it's like throwing $500,000 to a problem where we could have had as much as $43 million in UGA.

How much is— again, what's the cost of the fire station to keep open for a year?

Again, $1.8 million.

Yeah, $1.8 million.

So that's— so we get a $500,000 $100,000 amendment from Senator Montigny and this— the other increase in UGRA aid.

That's over $1 million more than we thought we were gonna get just a couple weeks before our budget was presented, right?

Again, that's just UGRA though, right?

You'd have to take a look at all aid and all assessments.

Okay, we have veterans benefits assessments, we have Cherry Sheet aid, Cherry Sheet reimbursements, we have school choice sending, we have a lot of things.

This, this is probably about 15 or 20 line items in Cherry Sheet 8 in assessments.

So handpicking one item that goes up is— it's just— it's general fund for a reason, because it's not earmarked for specific purposes.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Bob?

All right, thank you very much.

All right, moving on to the Department of Public infrastructure.

We have with us Commissioner Ponte.

No one wants to stay for Commissioner Ponte?

He wanted to perform for all of you.

Poor Director Vieira is going to be talking, and even the councilors are all going to leave.

I'm only kidding.

Jamie, we're on page 117 in our budget books, so that's the, uh, highway portion.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, good evening.

The Highway Division budget supports many of the services that residents see and interact with every day.

Through this budget, we maintain roads, sidewalks, traffic signals, streetlights, pavement markings, permitting, parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, beaches, public monuments, city-owned trash receptacles, and our urban forestry program.

It also provides much of the staffing and equipment necessary to support winter operations and emergency response activities throughout the year.

As you are aware, the city is facing a financial challenge.

In response, several vacant positions have been removed from this budget.

While this action will help address the fiscal constraints, it also reduces operational capacity in areas that directly support support daily services and seasonal operations such as snow and ice control.

The budget before you represents a balanced approach that prioritizes the maintenance of essential public services while recognizing the city's financial realities.

Our goal remains to deliver the highest level of service possible with the resources available and continue responding to the needs needs and expectations of our residents.

I appreciate your consideration of this budget, and I'm prepared to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Councilor Burgo.

Hello, Commissioner Ponte.

How are you?

I'm all right.

How are you?

Wonderful.

Um, I am— I'll start off with the positions that were eliminated.

So in particular, there were 4 special motor equipment operators, the SMEO positions, which differentiate between the one that remained was an ASME G. These 4 were ASME F, as in Frank.

Those 4 that were eliminated, were they all vacant positions?

They were.

Okay, so no actual human beings were laid off, so they were all vacant.

And although they were vacant, is it a duty that still needs to be done?

There's a lot of things obviously that we know because it's one of the fights, uh, not literal fights that you and I have, but, uh, the arguments that we have when we we're talking about cutting in the past, when City Council is talking about ways to save, increasing your vacancies, things like that, we talk about oftentimes although the position's vacant, the job still needs to be done.

So of those 4 positions that were cut, is that still a function that someone else is going to be doing but in a different capacity?

Yes and no.

It puts a demand on more of the licensed staff.

So somebody else can't just do that job.

Those are CDL-required positions and with hoisting licenses.

So in those positions also drive like the biggest snow removal equipment that we have.

So in the case of a snowstorm like this year, while we were vacant, we had to rely on the staff that we did have to pull double duty at times to try to make sure that we could keep the roads clear.

Okay, that brings me to some of the new positions that I'm seeing in your budget.

For the biggest one that I'm confused about is the community relations specialist position that is now a Unit C M8.

Position.

What is that in regards to?

Why was that created for this department?

I don't, I don't think that's in this budget.

That's in the water budget or wastewater budget.

It's listed under here, public infrastructure.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, that's a transfer from, uh, Parks and Rec that's coming to— I'm taking 2 people from Parks and Rec and taking on some of the responsibility of that department.

Okay, but Parks and Recreation never had a community relations specialist.

The only— we've had this conversation before.

I'm looking at the CFO's table.

The only people that were community relations specialists before, 2 in Community Services 2 in the police department.

So for a total of 4 people.

Now, this budget season, I think there's a total of 6 or 8 that have been titled.

So these positions are brand new.

They're not transferred from Health and Human Services or Parks and Rec or Community Services.

And I know it's not a transfer from Community Services because the community relations specialist person was one of the people that remained with the mass layoffs.

So I'll give you all time to— no, I'll let you wait, Bob.

We'll come back to you on that one.

Administrative assistant, Unit C M2 position.

That's also a new position under public infrastructure that was not there previously.

Do we know why that was created under this particular department?

That's from the Parks and Rec as well.

Okay, so Parks and— I'll follow up on that.

Parks and Rec, they did have an M2, so that's good.

At least that one tracks.

Maybe I'll follow up on that.

Um, I think that is all I wanted to clarify.

Thank you.

I've requested an electrician.

That, that should be in here.

An electrician?

Yeah, we have one electrician for everything we do in the city, and, uh, it was cut last year, so I requested it back this year.

I see.

Yeah, we— that was a— it was in your actual proposed budget from last year.

The council cut it.

They cut the funding for it.

Yes, the FTE was dropped, and I wanted it reinstated this year.

Now that AFSCME contract has gone through, you know, the struggle that we've had recruiting and maintaining help, we had hoped would, you know, that would help, right?

We'd be able to attract more staff now.

Why didn't the administration just let you hire an electrician and, and run the deficit like he does for every other department?

We've— that was a rhetorical question.

I apologize.

Well, for years we did.

I'll let Bob answer that later on.

So I'll let him squirm up there.

But no, I'm kidding.

It's fine, Commissioner.

For years we did advertise and try to recruit for all of our vacancies, including the electrician.

No, I know you.

I understand that.

And I know we've had this conversation with you, with DFFM.

We've had it even with Veteran Services.

Oftentimes what we find is we don't— even when we do get applicants, they don't have the certifications.

They don't have the— they don't meet the requirements.

Requirements, and that's the challenge.

Or if they do meet all the requirements, they look at the pay and they're like, well, I don't want to work here for that amount of pay.

And then even when the council did try to look at reclassifications at the time, back in 2023, the coroner office crucified us for it.

And then now it looks like they're doing these reclassifications in the middle of the night and not even putting it in the budget analysis.

But, um, I'm just concerned, obviously, for a department like yours, we already know, as I pointed out, you know, sure, you cut those special motor equipment operator positions that were vacant, but we know the water still has to run.

The, you know, these plants still need people pushing buttons.

And not to simplify it that way, we know it's a more important job than that, but someone still needs to be there to man these facilities.

And so even though these vacant positions are being cut, a body is still there doing these jobs.

Unlike obviously here at City Hall, when you like cut a position here, you have one more less person at the desk or what have you.

I just— I get nervous about cutting DPI positions because of the fact that the work that you do— oftentimes I joke about under the ground and above the ground.

We don't see oftentimes the work that your department is doing.

You and also Director Vieira that will be coming up next, the work that you all do oftentimes is not quantified or seen by everyone, but it will be felt if it goes undone or not done effectively.

So that's why I get worried when I see 4 special motor equipment operators cut from the budget, and I just want to sure that that is an appropriate, uh, you know, reduction in that, in that regard, especially if we're not— even though they haven't been filled now, we're not actively seeking them.

That's my concern.

I share the concern that, like, we're short-staffed in this budget typically anyway, so to reduce positions doesn't help.

All right, that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for questions for Commissioner Ponte?

All right, Bob, if you don't mind just taking the podium really quick.

Want me to remove this?

We're gonna go— Councilor Burgoff for Bob, and Oh, me?

Oh, you were asking the question about the electrician.

I didn't let that go through.

It was not budgeted, so I denied it.

You did?

I told you there's been no— there's no net position increases here in 2 years.

That's wild.

Net position for DPI.

There's a schedule for DPI.

Well, I'm just saying, because I, I have a— I could pull out my transfers for other 100 accounts that faced reductions.

Obviously, in our cut list, I, I, I just— like, I think I've mentioned before, I brought my cut list, uh, to verify every time a department comes up.

I want to see, uh, what was actually reduced.

Oftentimes, uh, a council, when they propose a cut they oftentimes will maybe list like reduce one electrician, which in this case, as he pointed out, that was one of the reasons they pointed out.

But as you are aware, we can say it's a reduction for one electrician.

In this case, for DPI, it wasn't just one reduction for electrician.

It was an electrician and a project coordinator and a supervising engineer.

FICA and 7% vacancy, totaling $284,517.

That was the reduction to their entire 100 account for salaries and wages.

But again, the point I'm trying to make here, we made reductions to the mayor's 100 account that continued going funded.

We've made reductions to other 100 accounts and the department continued funding it without any issue.

But it's the cherry-picking of, oh yeah, we're just going to ignore that council's cut here, but then here we're going to point and say, oh, it's because of the council cut that we decided not to fund that.

But that's the only reason why I pointed that out, but I appreciate your position on that.

The other thing that I was hoping that you'd maybe speak on is why we're creating the community relations position— well, not that we created it, obviously the community relations specialist position did exist.

It's in our code of ordinances, but there were not as many.

I think it was— again, as I pointed out, I have to check back.

Oh, hold on.

I have it right here.

Give me one moment, Bob.

4 is what we had previously.

4.

Come on, Shane.

Drum roll, please.

We had— son of a gun.

I thought it was on this sheet here.

We had 4 in the previous budget, and I just can't see what we have.

I want to say it's 6 or 8 this budget.

We'll go with 6 because I'm not sure if it's 8, but at least 6 in this one.

So at least 2 new community relations specialists have been added to this budget.

So you can't say it was a transfer from this one to that one.

That's not the case.

And again, even if it were a transfer from another— in this case you're saying from Parks and Rec, which we know Parks and Rec never had a community relations specialist.

And even if you said it was a transfer from community relations, community relations— sorry, community services community relations specialist position, that person wasn't laid off.

I know that they were one of the people that remained.

So they couldn't have been transferred to DPI because they're still under the umbrella of the new Health and Human services.

So it doesn't make sense.

And I'm frustrated because, again, these are the kind of things that are happening where when I talk about this budget book being lighter, not having a lot of information, it feels as though things are being hidden.

I'm not saying you, as in CFO Ekstrom, or anyone else from the finance department.

I just don't trust this administration, and they don't discuss things with us.

They love to go on the radio and say, oh, they refuse to meet with us.

We try to have these conversations.

It's a waste of our time.

That's why I did not meet with the administration, because had I met with the administration like some of my colleagues proudly did, they'll tell you they learned nothing.

They learned nothing.

They wouldn't have learned anything about these brand new positions or reclassifications that occurred.

And so I appreciate you coming up to try to explain these random transfers that didn't actually happen.

But the— I would love to know the creation of that community relations specialist position and why we went from 4 to 6.

Yeah, we'll have to look at that one.

So we gave you a schedule, I think maybe on Friday.

It was labeled, I think, Request 2-13, something like that.

We try to list out every single one of these issues that you're finding with the SMEOs for public infrastructure, for instance.

I believe a project coordinator took the place of one of the SMEOs, and the others I believe were left— went vacant.

But anyways, we can look at the specific compliance office— I'm sorry, community relations specialist.

We tried to find it real quick, but my phone, I, I just couldn't pull it up quick enough.

But we can find what that position was in Parks and Rec before it got moved to community relations.

Yeah, I think the Parks Parks and Rec transfer was the administrative assistant, the M2, because that one, right, they did have an administrative, um, assistant M2 position in Parks and Rec, which I do have here.

Yeah, so that makes sense as the transfer from Parks and Rec.

All in all, there were 24 instances of, um, positions being upgraded, or in 2 cases, 2 of those 24, there was swaps, right?

So that the chief of staff the police department was created simultaneous with the elimination of the associate solicitor, I believe it was, that they had on their staff.

And then you'll find in treasurer's, there was an elimination of a part-time position— I forget which one that was, compliance officer or something— and a full-time position was created.

So there's 24 in total, a total of $114,000.

The schedule is attached to your responses from last Friday.

And speaking of the cuts, I, I will stress that wording is very important.

So when you specifically say eliminate electrician, that's what we did.

There have been cases where dollars are lessened but no specific instructions.

I can think of 2 years ago, it was when we tried to add 6 EMT dispatchers.

The wording of the order was to reduce the $200,000 $100,000 request to $100,000.

So we kept with the letter of the cuts, and we tried to phase them in over, over 3 periods during the fiscal year.

I can't speak to the mayor's office because that predated me.

The last time this administration increased positions— I'm not asking you to speak to the mayor's.

I'm just trying to highlight the point of the fact that the mayor's office— and I know it's not just you, it I mean, we've had this argument before when Neil was here and we were asking him who makes the ultimate decision.

We know who the boss is here, Mayor Mitchell.

He will pick and choose where he wants to break the rules and break the law ultimately and decide to overspend and do transfers at the end of the year.

That's the point I wanted to make.

You don't need to explain further.

But I just— I take exception to the fact when we're looking at the budget analysis, when I'm reading the presentations here, and it says here, uh, this is being eliminated and election positions being restored, and a community relations specialist and administrative assistant was funded in Parks and Rec.

But we know that's not true because I can point to here the previous positions of Parks and Rec, and community relations specialist is not there.

You can't show me it because it did not exist in Parks and Recreation before.

We'll look into— yeah, you can't Go look at it.

It shouldn't be here in our budget books.

And I'm just— I'm pointing it out because it's a recurring theme of the administration of falsehoods.

That's all.

But I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I'm Rob, but I'm just curious of why— well, actually, So Parks and Rec is— how should I say this?

Actually, Health and Human Services is going to be taking over Parks and Rec, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Why didn't we have DPI take that over?

In other words, like, so we have the cemetery that the Parks and Rec has.

I think the cemetery department should have went under Health and Human Services, and Parks and Rec should have went under the DPI.

I mean, they're already doing park maintenance, and usually when we need anything or have anything with parks, it always goes through DPI anyways.

So, well, why didn't we— why wasn't that made?

Well, there's 2 positions.

I think they both relate to the parks aspect.

Aspects of Parks and Rec when they were moved over to— which Councilor Berger was disputing, but I'll try to find the answer for you on that one.

But those 2 positions were brought over to DPI, correct?

But I'm just saying, why didn't the whole division go over to— I mean, the recreational aspect, I, I guess the administration kind of felt it was Health and Human Services.

Because it is servicing— Yeah, I'm just curious.

I think it should have been the other way around.

Yeah, you know, I think it makes more sense that way.

Sure.

So, all right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Bob?

All right, thanks, Bob.

Anyone else for Jamie on Highways, Department of Public Infrastructure?

All right, let's go on to Sullivan's Ledge, page 178 in our budget books.

Sullivan's Ledge is a city-owned Superfund site, and, uh, the Sullivan's Ledge site operations and maintenance budget supports the continued operation of a critical environmental remediation facility.

The funding provided allows staff to conduct the monitoring, maintenance, testing, and reporting necessary to meet state and federal requirements, protect public health and the environment, and preserve the long-term reliability of this important infrastructure asset.

I'll answer any questions you might have.

Councilor April.

Just very briefly, thank you, Jamie.

Because this is an EPA Superfund site, just for the record again and for some of our newer colleagues or for the people listening and watching at home, are there any federal monies or supplements coming in to help us?

No, there's no grant or anything that I see.

There is a Superfund group associated with it that does pay for portions of it that they're tasked with.

The city's responsibility is the operation and maintenance of the plant.

Because it's looked as though by the feds you created the problem, meaning the municipality, it's your problem, you have to deal with it basically, right?

In so many words.

Correct.

It was a judgment against the city.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just for the record, thank you, Jamie.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Counselor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Jamie.

Jamie Sullivan's Ledge site, it was offline for how many years?

Did we stop the monitoring there?

Do you remember what it was?

Yeah, 3, 3 or 4 years.

I can get you the exact information.

And in that time, There was nothing going on other than cutting the grass, making sure that the building was sealed up, buttoned up, and monitoring.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are we any— is there a perspective?

Obviously, this is something that we're gonna have to continue for quite some time.

But there was— we were at a level that we were able to shut it down for about 3 years.

Are we— do we see that in the future?

Are we we're close to that since we shut it down for 3 or 4 years.

Now the levels have risen.

That's why we're turning it back on or turned it back on.

Do we say— is there— do we see ourselves in 2 or 3 more years being able to maybe turn it off again?

I don't see that as a possibility based on the trends.

Okay.

So the site had met milestones per the consent order and was able to go into a suspended operation for several years with enhanced monitoring to make sure that there were no rebound of contaminants.

And at the first sight of any potential of rebound, it was ordered back on by the EPA and the DEP.

So since then, Well, we've been working with attorneys and consultants to look at the— what the long-term strategy would be for the plant, being that it's over 20 years old.

Technology has improved, and there's emerging contaminants that the federal government would like for us to potentially address.

And of the total allotment here, when it says, you know, the monitoring, maintenance, and operations of the site for the general public, what does that look like?

Because most people just zoom right by it, have no idea what's going on there.

So just a quick overview as to what is going on for the money that we're spending at that site.

There's about half a dozen extraction extraction wells.

It pulls water into the facility.

It gets treated throughout the facility.

There's a disposal cost of sludge or byproduct that's associated with that.

It's a pretty high electrical cost.

The upkeep and maintenance with, you know, pumps and electronic devices.

There's a SCADA system.

HVAC, like anything that would— you'd have to update, maintain a standard facility and lab testing also.

And just with the electricity costs, right?

Because a lot of people will drive by there and say, oh, it's a— there's tons of solar there.

You know, that solar does not directly power that facility, correct?

Correct.

All right.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Councillor Roy.

Thanks, Mr. President.

I don't think we mentioned it, but I think we're getting there.

Sullivan's Ledge, where is it?

On Hathaway Road.

Hathaway Road, like which— like, can you— could you just— right when you get off the off-ramp.

All right, Hathaway Road from 140.

All right, the big solar array that's over there.

That's what happened years ago.

Why is it so polluted?

Years ago there was a ledge there and a lot of waste was dumped into the ledge, just disappeared.

But it didn't really disappear, right?

All right.

So that now the site's been remediated— well, it's being remediated.

It's the city's responsibility.

The city and the Superfund group of polluters, if you would.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thanks, Mr. Rizzo.

Thank you.

Anyone else for Sullivan's ledge.

All right, we'll move to the Wastewater Enterprise Fund on page 205 in our budget books.

So, uh, the wastewater budget supports the systems infrastructure, and the personnel responsible for collecting, treating, and safely managing wastewater and stormwater throughout our community.

This budget funds the operation and maintenance of our wastewater treatment facility, 29 pump stations, and stormwater infrastructure that protects public health, the environment, and our waterways every day.

The division is responsible for implementing critical capital improvements that maintain system reliability, ensure regulatory compliance, reduce combined sewer overflow events, and address localized flooding concerns throughout the city.

In addition, the division administers the Industrial Pretreatment Program, the Fats, Oils, and Grease, or FOG, program, both of which essential to protecting our collection system treatment facilities, and compliance with federal and state environmental regulations.

The division also oversees street sweeping operations, which play an important role in protecting water quality as well as providing litter and debris control.

Unlike the general fund, the wastewater budget is supported by revenues generated directly by the utility itself.

This budget ensures those revenues are reinvested into the infrastructure, personnel, and programs necessary to provide reliable service, protect public health, safeguard the environment, and meet extensive regulatory requirements placed upon the utility.

This proposed budget reflects the resources needed to operate a complex and highly regulated utility while continuing to make strategic investments that protect the city today and support its long-term resilience.

Anyone for the wastewater budget?

Councilor Burgo.

What, what's the justification for adding a compliance officer position?

The compliance officer, and I would say slash public information officer, so to speak.

We have a ton of reporting and public outreach that's mandated by the utility, all of the utilities, the road work and everything.

So DPI doesn't and cannot do the amount of public outreach that we should do regarding our So being able to have somebody in-house that sort of speaks the language of DPI and can take the technical pieces of the projects and turn that into public outreach, help with the reporting, and get all that stuff streamlined so we can be more transparent and effective, that's, that's the goal.

Sorry, I just am looking for my wastewater.

Okay, that's it for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for the Wastewater Department?

All right, moving on to the Water Enterprise Fund, page 211 in our budget books.

All right, so the Water Enterprise Fund supports one of the most critical services the city provides: the delivery of safe, reliable drinking water to our residents, businesses, schools, and public safety facilities every day of the year.

This division operates and maintains our water treatment facility, transmission and distribution system, fire hydrants, valves, water meters, and associated infrastructure.

Our staff responds to water main breaks and service emergencies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, while also carrying out preventative maintenance programs including fire hydrant flushing and maintenance, valve exercising, backflow prevention testing, meter maintenance, and routine system inspections.

Water operations are among the most heavily regulated functions in municipal government.

Our team is responsible for continuous water quality monitoring, treatment plant operations, laboratory testing, regulatory reporting, consumer confidence reports, routine sampling, and maintaining compliance with state and federal drinking water standards.

In addition to the daily operations, this budget supports a significant capital improvement program focused on maintaining system reliability and protecting public health.

This includes ongoing efforts to replace aging infrastructure and manage projects such as removing lead service lines throughout the community.

As with our wastewater enterprise fund, the Water Enterprise Fund is self-supporting and funded entirely through water revenues generated by the system.

I also want to recognize the importance of maintaining an appropriate management structure within this operation.

Regulatory compliance, emergency response coordination, capital project delivery, asset management, budgeting, customer service, billing, and staff oversight require experienced leadership.

The department's management team ensures that these responsibilities are carried out efficiently while allowing field and treatment plant personnel to remain focused on operating and maintaining the system.

This budget represents our commitment to providing safe drinking water, fire protection, maintaining regulatory compliance, protecting public health, preserving critical infrastructure, and delivering reliable service to our customers today and for generations to come.

I'll take any questions.

Thank you.

Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hi, Jamie.

When we met, when I first took office this year, you gave me— you gave me a tour of our treatment facility.

Yep.

And you were pretty proud of the quality of the drinking water in New Bedford.

I am.

You still are?

I am.

So can you tell us, you know, how this budget, you know, reflects— first of all, tell us, like, you know, how clean is our water?

What is the quality of our water and how does this budget get you there?

Well, the water is extremely clean, award-winning.

A couple years ago, we won a distribution system award.

Everything's highly regulated, as I said.

The water's tested every 3 hours.

It's sampled throughout the system.

The reservoir is sampled.

A lot of these projects and some of the cost in this budget goes to debt service for the investment that we've made in the water system over the last decade or so.

The High Hill Reservoir hadn't been addressed in 50 years or more.

And we took control of it.

All the valves are good.

It's in— it'll be good for generations to come.

Quiddicus hadn't seen an upgrade in over 50 years.

So we've done 2 projects there where we had to replace basically the whole electrical backbone to the plant because it was so outdated.

The new equipment wouldn't interface with the old system.

It would have been more expensive to do that.

And then we started replacing a lot of the treatment mechanical part of the plant.

And we're in pretty good shape right now.

That's where most of the additional cost comes from here, is the, um, the payment on, on those projects.

Thank you, Jamie.

Thanks, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Anyone else for water?

Uh, oh, sorry.

Oh, Councillor Burgos.

Sorry, I raised my hand.

The supervising civil engineer position went from part-time to full-time.

That's, that's my hope.

We've had— we had a part-time position for a while and that part-time person left.

And instead of creating a new position, the hope was to convert it to full-time.

We have somebody from another community that's interested in that.

And their background is heavy in permitting and, and road construction.

So hoping to get that full time, if it's full time, they said they'd be willing to come over.

And it would be a valuable addition to the team.

Okay.

And then I assume this is just a typo.

'Cause that's in the program director position.

It's a— I'm assuming it's supposed to be Unit C. In the book they are sharing, it says AFSCME.

Is that just a typo?

'Cause then it says M9.

Typo.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry, that wasn't a good— Sorry, just wanted to point out another typo in there.

Thank you, Sharon.

All right.

I think that was all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Thank you all.

And with no disrespect to Commissioner Ponte, we saved the best for last.

Director Vieira, the Department of Facilities and Fleet Management.

And I've been last ever since I got here, so this was the— that was the plan.

As Director Vieira makes her way up to the podium, we are on page 59 9 in our budget books.

Good.

Ready?

Good.

Oh, go ahead.

Okay, good evening, Mr. President, members of City Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of Facilities and Fleet Management.

Tonight I'd like to ask that when you look at this budget, you look beyond the numbers on the page.

Behind every line item is service.

Behind every service is a responsibility.

And behind every responsibility is a dedicated employee who shows up every day to make sure the city continues to function.

The Department of Facilities and Fleet Management is a multifaceted organization made up of 70 committed professionals across facilities management, custodial and grounds, fleet management, refuse and recycling, code enforcement, capital projects, and administration.

Administration and Finance.

We're responsible for maintaining and supporting the facilities, fleet equipment, public spaces, and operational systems that allow every other department to do their jobs.

We support police, fire, EMS, administrative offices, public buildings, recreation facilities, and countless other operations throughout the city.

The work we do behind the scenes, which can easily go unnoticed allows other departments to perform their missions.

Quite simply, if our department stops functioning, every department feels the impact.

I know these are difficult financial times.

I understand the challenges facing this city.

I understand that difficult decisions have to be made.

I understand that sacrifices are being asked of everyone.

But I want council to know that those sacrifices have already begun within DFFM.

The budget before you tonight is not the budget I originally submitted.

Prior to reaching the council, this department absorbed nearly $947,000 in reductions.

We've lost 8 positions, reducing our staffing from 78 employees to 70.

We've absorbed cuts to personnel, overtime, services, supplies, materials, in capital funding.

Critical enhancements— critical enhancement requests were not funded, including additional pedestrian bridge maintenance funding and mobile lifts that would allow us to safely perform more fire department apparatus repairs in-house.

We have already tightened our belt.

What concerns me tonight is not just the budget itself, it's the people.

I feel the uncertainty that exists right now, and I know many others do as well.

This is not simply a concern for the administration.

It's not simply a concern for the department heads.

It is something every one of us feels.

Over the past month, members of my staff have quietly come to us one at a time asking questions about the future.

They're concerned.

They're worried.

They want to know whether their jobs are secure and whether the work they do is valued.

And quite honestly, I worry too.

I worry about losing good people because right now I have an exceptional team.

I have mechanics, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, custodians, grounds personnel, inspectors, project managers, administrative staff, and supervisors who work incredibly hard every single day.

They care about this city.

They care about the work they do.

They take pride in it.

I've watched these employees respond after hours, on weekends, and during emergencies without hesitation.

Every single position in the department serves a purpose.

Every single employee contributes value.

And every single employee is needed.

When positions disappear, the work doesn't disappear.

The responsibilities remain.

The repairs still need to be made.

The buildings still need to be maintained.

The vehicles still need to be repaired.

The emergencies still happen.

The projects still need to be managed, and the residents still expect services.

The difference is that fewer people are left to carry the load.

The reality is that our department has become one of the city's greatest sources of cost avoidance.

Our Trades Division maintains 93 municipal buildings and completes nearly 1,000 work orders annually while generating approximately $180,000 in annual savings through in-house electrical, plumbing, and carpentry work alone.

That figure doesn't include larger renovations and remodels completed by our staff.

Our Fleet Division maintains more than 800 vehicles and pieces of equipment and completes approximately 2,300 work orders annually.

Our mechanics provide roughly 16,800 labor hours.

If that work were outsourced, the city would spend approximately $2.9 million.

By performing that work in-house, the labor cost is approximately $514,000.

That is an annual savings of roughly $2.4 million.

Those savings are only possible because of the talented mechanics we have on staff.

These are the employees who keep police cruisers on the road, fire apparatus ready for response, EMS vehicles operational, heavy equipment working, and several departments supplied with safe and reliable vehicles and equipment.

Their work directly impacts public safety.

Their work directly impacts service delivery.

Their work directly impacts the ability of city employees to do their jobs safely and effectively.

And when funding becomes unavailable, we begin to see the consequences.

Because we are self-insured, DFFM has historically covered the cost of vehicle accident repairs.

Due to reductions over several years, we have already reached points where we simply do not have the funding available to complete every repair.

That means vehicles sit.

That means police cruisers remain out of service longer.

That means departments wait.

And that means services are impacted.

Any additional reduction will only increase those delays and create larger backlogs.

Our Custodial and Grounds Division services 34 buildings, daily, maintains 60 properties across the city, performs approximately 40 clean and lien actions annually, and handles hundreds of bulky item removals, surplus moves, and facility relocations each year.

Our code enforcement staff issues nearly 4,900 violations annually and help maintain new neighborhood standards that protect property values, public health, and quality of life.

Our recycling center serves approximately 1,840 residents every month and accepts 21 different material streams.

Recycling is not optional, it is mandatory in New Bedford.

It is a critical component of preserving landfill capacity, controlling disposal costs, and supporting the Greater New Bedford Regional Refuse Management District.

Because of reductions already made, we are now evaluating whether the recycle center may need to operate at reduced hours in the future.

I know that will not be popular with residents, but it reflects the difficult realities we are facing.

Our Capital Projects Division manages approximately 29 projects annually.

While many of these projects are funded through the Capital Improvement Plan, the management of those projects is not automatic.

There are architects, owners, project managers, contractors, change orders, pay apps, big documents, contract reviews, inspections, meetings, and ongoing oversight.

Someone must ensure the city receives what it pays for.

Someone must verify the work.

Someone must hold contractors accountable.

Someone must coordinate with purchasing, the solicitor's office, architects, engineers, and project managers.

That responsibility falls on DFFM.

Without that oversight, the city risks delays, cost overruns, mistakes, and projects that fail to meet expectations.

I am incredibly proud of what this department accomplished this year.

We installed a new generator at the Buttonwood Zoo complex.

We completed roof and window replacements at the South Public Safety Annex building.

We renovated the former Fire Station 6 into the new Emergency Management Agency headquarters.

We restored and reinstalled the historic cupola at the Buttonwood Senior Center.

We've completed improvements at Cable Access Building.

We expanded recycling initiatives through new programs and the Swap Shop.

And we continue to support every department across this organization every single day.

These accomplishments, just to name a few, were not achieved by outside contractors alone.

They were achieved because of the employees represented in this budget.

I understand that every department is being asked to do more with less.

I understand that difficult choices must be made.

But I must be honest when I say that any reductions to this budget will have consequences.

At some point, cuts stop being efficiencies and become service reductions.

Buildings will wait longer for repairs.

Vehicles will remain out of service longer.

Preventative maintenance will be deferred.

Projects will take longer.

Services will diminish.

And every department that relies on us, including police, fire, and EMS, will feel the effects.

The budget before you tonight reflects what I believe is the minimum necessary to continue providing the level of service that our department and residents have come to expect and deserve.

I respectfully ask that you consider not only the cost of this budget but also the value it provides, because what you see before you tonight is not simply a collection of line items.

It is a team, a team that saves the the city millions of dollars, a team that protects the city's assets, a team that supports public safety, a team that keeps this organization running, and a team that I am incredibly proud to lead.

I thank you for your time, your consideration, and your support.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great, thank you very much, Jen.

Councillor Pemberton.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hi, Jen.

Uh, just a quick question.

Uh, the recycle center at Sharp Avenue, can you tell us where, where we're at on that?

I know it's still closed, but where are we at that— where we're at with the recycling center?

Yes.

Um, our recycling center is open 4 days a week.

Uh, when you say where we're at, I don't want to not answer.

I thought— I was under the impression that was still closed.

Wasn't it that when they caught on fire Maybe I said the wrong— oh no, so the transfer— transfer— I'm sorry, caught on fire.

That is not in use.

The recycling center is located in the same area right below the transfer station building.

All right, all right.

So where are we at with the transfer station then?

Right now it needs to be repaired.

Okay.

We are contemplating putting a proposal proposal out to see if anybody wants to offer to fix, use.

But at this point, it's, it's hard.

The, the building is— was left by our last contractor after the fire, um, and not repaired.

All right, uh, just my other question.

I noticed that we— you have, uh, park maintenance workers, 3.

Um, what are the— what are the parks that they do?

I, I just assumed that that was under DPI or Parks and Rec.

So our park maintenance workers are our grounds crew.

They just have the same title, but that's the grounds crew that's doing all the maintenance on city facilities, the clean and leans, the surplus properties, the bulkies, everything.

Our grounds crew, that's what they're called, park maintenance workers.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else for— Councillor Carney?

Yes, thank you for coming.

I just have a real quick question.

Um, you mentioned about the cleaning liens.

Does your department get any reimbursements for that?

Because isn't that taxed on the taxpayer, the, the person you clean liens on their property taxes at the end of the year?

So do you get any of that money back to support your 3 workers that do the clean and lien?

We do see some of that revenue, but not all.

So how much revenue does that— I know I've called, I know there's been a couple of cleans and liens that I've spoken to a department over the years.

Do you know how much we get back from that?

It's not a lot.

Well, it's about a little over $100,000.

Is what we've brought in so far for fiscal '26.

Okay.

Sometimes it takes years, you know, we're receiving liens for something that it's been a long time, you know.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, whatever you want to be called tonight.

Anyone else for Jen?

Councilor Burgo.

Hi, Director Vera, how you doing?

Hello, good, how are you?

Thanks for hanging out with us all night.

Um, I appreciate your presentation tonight, um, and your impassioned speech.

Um, it's important, I think, as I talked about, uh, to recognize obviously the work that, um, our municipal employees do.

And I think I touched on with Commissioner, uh, Ponte, uh, work that DPI and I think DFM— DFFM particularly do often goes unnoticed, as you pointed out, because oftentimes it's work that either underground or above ground or in these buildings, it's often a thankless job.

So allow me to thank you in this time and through you to your staff, the work that you all do.

And with that, I wanted to ask, similar to with Jamie, with some of his positions that were reduced, there were 2 welder positions that you had previously that were eliminated.

Were those vacant positions?

Yes, they have been vacant for some time.

Okay.

And mainly because at one point the welders' positions required required a CDL license.

It's kind of odd to be a welder with a CDL license, so it was hard.

But now it's— we've removed that, but it's still an issue regarding the salary.

So they've been vacant for a while.

And this CDL requirement, because this comes up a lot, I feel, and does that have to do with the fact that if they're working on something, they have to hop in a truck to transport?

Correct.

Okay.

I was going to say that.

And there's nothing we can do about changing that, right?

If you don't— if we can look at— because if we need a welder just to weld something, and then if we have someone who's a CDL driver on staff can transport it for them and drive them in the car.

And we do that now because not all our staff has the CDL.

Yeah.

So that happens now.

We do our best with that because it's just that part to me is just so frustrating if we have someone who's willing to work as a welder but they just don't have the CDL.

And, you know, if we're able to do that, that's great.

And often lots of mechanics will do their own welding.

We just used to do more welding outside of vehicles, like, you know, fabricating a planter or, you know, railings, fencing outside of the garage.

I see.

So we're not able to do that.

There was also a maintenance person position that was eliminated as well.

Was that also vacant?

Yes.

Yeah, that would be somebody that works alongside the carpenters, does more of the smaller items, but we're able to manage with the carpenters doing it.

Okay.

And it looks like with the carpenters, there was only one carpenter position eliminated out of the— you were previously that 11 now budgeted for 10?

Yes.

And we're okay with— yeah, that one's been vacant for some time.

Okay, that as well.

Okay.

And then while on maintenance as well, we have 16 custodians.

That's still the same from previous years.

What I didn't know, are all custodians full-time with 40 hours?

Yes.

Okay.

And let me see here.

The park maintenance worker position, you had 4 previously reduced by 1.

Did you touch on that already?

Yes, that is correct.

And that was a vacant position or?

Promotion.

Promotion.

Okay.

And the only other reductions I see here are diesel engineer repair.

I don't know why I said said it like that, sorry.

There was 9 previously, now 7.

Yes, that's another position that was very difficult to fill.

One, because of the CDL requirement, but also the fact that it's called diesel engine repairman.

In the latest AFSCME contract, I requested that that title be changed to fleet technician because I had interviewed people who, although had mechanic experience, hesitated to apply for that position because it specified diesel.

And you can be a mechanic and not be a diesel mechanic.

So it was deterring people from applying.

So although we are cutting a couple, I'm looking forward to the fleet technician being posted to see the applicants come in.

So we might see that in FY28.

All right.

I wrote it down just in case.

So when I do my compare and contrast, I won't be freaking out about these new positions.

But I assume that has to go through a bargaining agreement with AFSCME is what you're— That was improved with the last contract.

Oh, okay.

All right.

So we'll see that in FY20.

Okay.

And then I just see, I think if I'm following the lines correctly, in just one reduction in the plumber, one less plumber this year.

Yes.

Okay.

Unfortunately.

I— we're not getting any applicants.

It's very difficult.

Okay.

With the new AFSCME contract that was just ratified, we do have new levels and it can— it'll help, but, um, unfortunately we have to cut that one.

Okay.

And then— okay, that's it for DFFM.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Hello, Director Viera.

Hi, I was hoping that you could let us know about some of the enhancements that you requested that obviously are not in your budget.

You just tell, tell us like what some of those might have been like and, and if you know like the dollar amount from your department.

Yes.

So one of the enhancements was for The pedestrian bridge maintenance costs that we are now responsible for now that we've taken complete ownership of the bridge.

We've taken complete ownership of the bridge?

I don't think— has that happened yet?

Well, for us, for maintaining it, we have.

I think that's a separate topic.

Maybe I said something too technical, but yeah, for us, we have to maintain.

And no, not yet.

That was $41,600.

$41,000?

$41,600.

That was an enhancement, but it's— it was an enhancement that I requested to support the cleaning, the operation and maintenance of the NBTA bridge.

So elevators, that's how much it costs a year to maintain, right?

The elevator inspections, fire inspections, inspections, custodial services, elevator repairs.

So what happens now that— what happens now that that's not in the budget?

I have to find it.

You have to find it.

Okay.

Any other enhancements?

Um, what the other enhancement were for mobile lifts, which were $64,254, and that was, um, to purchase lifts, mobile lifts for the garage, mainly due to performing maintenance and repairs on fire trucks because of the multiple wheelbase that they are.

It's not just your average lift and pick up a fire truck.

So having the mobile lifts helps us to repair those fire trucks more efficiently.

And we have a few, but not enough.

So this was going to close that gap for us a little bit.

And do you know that— I mean, Those are about $100,000 in enhancements.

Do you know, like, the total, total amount of enhancements that you requested offhand?

If, if you don't right now, that's fine, I'm sure.

Uh, it was for those 2, so those are my 2 enhancements.

Okay.

Um, also, you mentioned something earlier about possible reduction of hours at the recycling center.

You said it's open 4 days a week now.

Um, what does the reduction look like?

Well, um, it's, it's hard because all the days are very busy— Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturdays.

Um, but we'd probably have to, uh, pick a day during the week, uh, because the Saturdays are busy.

We've got to try to be accommodating to the residents.

The Saturday is a busy day, so we're, um, we're actually ticking right now to make to get an idea of the busiest days.

Hopefully we don't have to do it, but it is— it's a possibility.

Okay, thank you so much.

That's all I have, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Anyone else for DFFM?

Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Council President Perrotto.

Hi, Jen.

Um, thank you for bearing with us.

The pedestrian bridge, that's a bridge, to my knowledge, that the city hasn't adopted fully yet, correct?

Well, I don't want to speak out of line, but I— If it is, it's a vote that I wasn't here for.

So we've been— the department has been tasked with the maintenance.

With the— I was under the impression that the first year or so that maintenance would be done through MassDOT?

That was last fiscal year.

That's why that was in the answer.

So a brand new bridge that just— MBTA has just been a year now.

I think we just hit on a year now.

What maintenance were they doing over that course of that year for a brand new bridge?

The— it's a brand new elevator, so it was already inspected.

And all that stuff.

So what maintenance were they doing?

We've had problems with the elevator already.

They're very costly.

The inspections are very costly as well.

You know, you have the public that causes damage, doesn't, you know, mistreats the facility.

So we have to make those repairs.

The cleanliness of the elevators and stairwells and that have, you know, been a mess and we have to tend to them.

The fire inspections, the mechanicals, we have to tend to all that.

Not the infrastructure of the bridge.

I don't do that in my department.

And there's no way to— that anybody could gauge the usage of that bridge either, right?

Like, how many people actually use it?

There's no way to do it, right?

There's no turnstiles, there's no toll, there's no— none of that stuff.

It's because I drive by it pretty often.

I don't see too many people really utilizing it, not to the tune of what I'm hearing for maintenance.

I think that was one of the big concerns that the council had in the adoption or the possible adoption of the bridge.

Without a formal agreement in place— and maybe this is a question for Bob— how is it that it's the city's responsibility if MassDOT technically still owns the bridge?

I couldn't answer that for you other than we've been tasked to maintain it.

OK.

There's camera systems in there.

Mini splits for the electronic equipment.

So it— all that stuff needs to be maintained annually.

And the— since the beginning, there's almost not a time that I drive by that there's not a light that's out or something is noticeably off with that bridge.

It's a— if I'm It's a $20— let's call it $22 million bridge.

I think right around the scope of the project.

And it seems like in its first year, we're already being put on the hook for something that's going to be a longstanding problem for your department and the city of New Bedford.

Right.

This is preventative maintenance costs.

OK. Bob, uh, maybe if I'll yield for now.

I just wanted to see if Bob has an answer for the ownership of the bridge.

Okay, anyone else for Director Vieira for DFFM?

All right, Bob, is that something you can speak to?

No.

Okay, we do have the solicitor here.

Did you want to hear?

Um, no, I can, I can ask.

Okay, off out of these chambers.

Sounds good, Councilor.

Thank you.

All right, anyone else for DFFM's budget?

All right, moving on to, uh, Waste Collection Disposal on page 180 in our budget books.

That is also with Director Vieira.

So the West— this cost center is for waste collection and disposal.

It consists of the trash and recycling contract expenses along with removal of abandoned boats, campers, and trailers off of city streets and to purchase new carts and parts for trash carts.

Any questions on waste collection?

Yes, Councillor Virgo.

Um, so this contract, is this another 3-year contract?

Yes.

Okay.

And are you a part of the negotiating?

Uh, yes.

Is there a reason why we only do 3 years?

It's a 3-year with 2 1-year options.

Okay, but I just wonder if we would get a better rate.

Like, so my thought process is 3 years ago, if we had done a 5-year option, would we have gotten a better rate at this?

Like, we wouldn't have been renewing right now.

We would have been that 5-year rate at that point.

I just wonder.

Normally it's not a fixed rate.

It's based on the CPI.

So yeah, a projection of what the cost will be.

But just because I'm worried about obviously this $4 million increase, but even with the $4 million increase, there's a huge reduction in services.

I think again, as we talk about rising costs for individuals, when I talk to residents and they talk about rising taxes, a majority of residents are understanding of rising costs, but they want to see the services.

And so in this case, they're saying, okay, $4 million increase to trash collection, but then the trash isn't actually being collected.

We're seeing— it looks like 21 weekly pickups.

And so is that every other week that it's going to be going to?

So far, that's one of the reductions is the yard waste pickup, which we normally would do 36 to 37 weeks and reducing it to the 20 to 21 weeks has a cost savings for us.

And do we know what the exact price difference between doing if we kept the same pickup schedule?

How much should we actually save?

I don't have that savings with me here, but we could provide that.

Yeah, if we could, because again, I, I understand obviously the, the costs have risen, and again, I, I get, I get the point that the projections, uh, that they do if we had done a 5-year, but I just wonder if they would have been the astronomical numbers that we're seeing now if we had locked that in.

I think the reason why I'm asking you this question specifically is really because I— what I'm alluding to here is that I believe oftentimes that the administration does the 3-year contract because anything 3 years or below does not require a council approval.

Anything over 3 years requires us to review and approve.

And as we know, the administration does not like to play in the sandbox, as the saying goes.

He likes to do everything himself.

He does not like to include anyone.

He does not like to discuss things with anyone.

He likes to do it all by himself and then make it look terrible and destroy it and then cause it where we're only doing trash pickup every other week.

So this is what that has brought to us.

That's why I'm highlighting the fact that why didn't we do a 5-year contract?

I think that Councilor Lopes and Gomes have a motion regarding the how that negotiation had started out.

But, um, I would be curious, just in case they— that motion doesn't come to fruition in time, what the cost-effectiveness, or the cost difference I should say, uh, would be if we had our regular funding— um, not funding schedule, our regular trash schedule pickups.

Because I'll tell you, in my neighborhood neighborhood, I have— I see when I'm driving down my street barrels overflowing, and that's with the schedule we have now every single week.

I can't imagine a situation where we're doing it every other week or whatever.

So there's no change to trash pickup.

This is just yard waste, which is seasonal.

It's the day after your trash pickup for your yard waste, grass clippings It's not trash.

That's not changing.

Okay.

No, that would be terrible.

That would be terrible.

And I'm so glad that you caught me before I blew up.

Look at that.

Now we can all take a deep breath.

All right.

So just yard waste, which is just grass clippings.

And we— yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And we do see a completely different type of waste.

All right.

That's perfect.

You know, we see a large increase from the last contract.

But it is in line with market, as we've seen with Fall River.

You know, we— and we came under Fall River because we have the district that saves us a lot of money in our MSW.

Okay, that's good.

All right, so I apologize, I thought this was our regular trash pickup, and I was like, that is not going to work for a city like New Bedford because, as I was— the point that I was making And I'm sure you know this, people are trash, which we're trying to get people to recycle more.

We've tried to give out more recycling bins and it's just not working.

Hopefully we'll get to a place where people are doing composting and other avenues that way.

But right now I couldn't imagine a situation where we're doing less trash pickups.

But I read this wrong.

I apologize.

And I thought we were reducing our waste pickup to 21 a week.

Weekly pickups.

So I apologize for that.

Okay, thank you.

All set, Councilor?

Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Janet, again.

As the good councilor who spoke before me was alluding to, I also believe that the 3-year contract with 2 options, yearly options afterward, is an attempt to circumvent this council's role in appropriating a— or coming to a, a, um, an agreement with a trash recycling contractor.

Um, the cans that you speak of, right now we have— we've gotten years and years of life out of the ones that we have.

And the new ones, are they Is there any— has there been any discussion as to what they're going to look like?

Because if I'm on the hook for them, are they going to say Capital Waste all over them?

And we're going to have— we're going to— our trash and recycling carts, the new ones that you'll look at, what, what's in this budget, the $47,516, is to replace broken ones and parts.

Our carts, remember, are over 10 years.

They've well surpassed their life expectancy.

So right now we're just replacing those that break as they break.

With what?

I haven't seen a new one yet.

Are they looking exactly the same?

Yes, they say the City of New Bedford on them, exactly the same.

They're not going to say Capital Waste on them or anything like that?

No, they don't.

Okay.

And whenever we can replace the parts, we do.

Even the trash carts or recycling carts that we take in, because there might be, you know, a bar broken.

We still will save the wheels.

We save as much as we possibly can to reuse.

I, I, and I, and I get that, and I appreciate that, um, in, in a way to keep down costs instead of just blanketly replacing them all.

Um, I just didn't want there to be— if we're paying for them and, and we're marketing for another company who may be here for 3 years, maybe here for 5, I don't know.

Our carts have always just said City of New Bedford, even the prior hauler.

Yeah, I'm just, I'm just asking if these would be the same.

The other thing, one of the, one of the big concerns— I know it's been brought up before in this council— is no footprint in the City of New Bedford for this company, Capital Waste.

Are they opening a facility here?

Are they opening an office staffed with somebody that we can physically talk to?

Yes, they have one here downtown.

Okay, because when did that open?

It's not officially open.

They are hiring, but they've remodeled, painted, refreshed the office, and they're in the process of hiring.

Okay, so they're in the process of hiring, they're in the process of opening this, yes, 3 years into their contract.

They're looking to— is this— is that part of this new contract?

Do you know?

Because we don't— we haven't seen it.

We don't know what it looks like.

So do you know if having the offices— no, they had it already during this contract that we're in now.

Okay.

But you know, as you come to the end of a 3-year contract and you don't know if you're going to get the next, it's difficult to then hire someone.

It was in the contract that they had prior, right?

So they had 3 years to do it.

Correct.

Waited to the end of their contract to perhaps get the next.

Well, it's okay.

Sometimes it's difficult to get the commitment with 3 years.

So you're under the impression that a longer term may benefit the city of New Bedford with problems?

Sometimes.

Yeah.

Okay, good.

I don't know if you find yourself on the 3rd floor, if you could reiterate that to the gentleman that's up there.

We do have a work, you know, a consultant that worked with this on us and with us on this— excuse me— um, and, you know, we take his recommendations into consideration.

I am not aware of any intent that it was done the way it was to keep it from council.

Okay, you'll have your opinion, I have mine.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Roy.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Some of the confusion about trash pickup has been cleared up.

I do have a question about our yard waste right now.

How many weeks does our yard waste get picked up in the city?

36, 37.

And we're reducing it with this new contract to what?

2021.

2021.

Do you know the dates?

So yard waste can run between around May and November, so we're going to strategically pick the weeks for the busier months.

So it ends in November, like at the end of the year.

So what is it gonna end before that?

I mean, how many— we're talking about how many weeks we're gonna reduce it again?

So we're reducing 17-ish weeks.

That's a lot of weeks.

Well, we, we pick up a lot.

Most communities do not pick up every week.

We pick up every single week.

So, and so what are the options for residents on those weeks where we're not picking up yard waste anymore?

They can come to the recycling center during their reduced hours.

What other reductions are we going to see?

Of services with this new contract besides the, the, the yard waste pickup?

Well, you know, we have the amount appropriated here in the budget, and if this gets reduced in any way, then we're going to have to look at other ways to make up that budget.

Like what?

It could be, um, fees, implementing fees for for certain services that we provide.

Um, at this— I don't know, there's a lot of variables that we'll have to look at to see where the best that we can make those savings.

It's, it's going to be difficult if the budget is cut.

Yeah, no, I think those, I think those options are important to this body when figuring out like what we're going to cut, how much we're going to cut.

So if some of those options, you know, you have available and you'd like to share with us, I'd like to, to look maybe if not tonight, you know, at another time.

Thanks.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else for Director Vieira?

From the chair, uh, and this is just a formal request, if could I receive the, um, bids that we received for the trash contracts?

Sure.

The, uh, so all the received bids, the criteria used to evaluate them by the team, and then obviously the winning bid, the contract that's been executed with Capital.

Sure.

If I could see that contract.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else for, uh, waste collection?

Sure.

Yes.

Hi.

While you have the opportunity, uh, just before we say goodbye to this budget season of hearings, uh, Councilor Roy, uh, quick answer.

Um, first, there have been some fees that we are planning to enact.

$25 mattress pickup, an increase over $10 presently, and I believe we have high 5 figures, maybe about low 6-figure type savings there.

Capital would do the monitoring for us, so they'll actually give it back to us in the form of a credit on our invoice.

And there's also some bulkies.

There's a price difference in bulkies now too, I think.

Never mind, but okay, I'm sorry if I spoke out of turn here, but I just want to point out that we are looking at alternative fees to help with these costs.

As far as the other question about what kind of services can we expect, well, there's a base fee in this contract, and I'm not sure what the amount is off the top of my head, but it's probably north of $11 million.

Yeah, I'll have that for you in a second.

$11,285,000.

So there are some à la carte pricing.

If we get cut from the $13,052,000, we would have to start stripping away some of these à la carte items.

For instance, they gave us a price of eliminating yard waste completely.

That's about $400,000.

I think we're saving about— I know Jen took it as an action item, but I believe it's $316,000 was the savings to go from 37 weeks to 21 weeks.

But if you cut it all together, it'd be another $400,000.

So obviously these are the kind of drastic actions we're gonna have to take.

We cannot sign a contract for more than the appropriation that you give us.

This is similar to the problems we've had in the past, but in those cases the contract had already been signed with capital.

So we were looking at, for instance, a couple years ago, solid waste reduction of— geez, I forget the amount off the top of my head, but we were looking at having to suspend services late in the year, like May or something like that, something fairly drastic.

But we were able to get that rectified with transfers.

If we don't get an appropriation to start, we cannot enter a contract.

It's a non-appropriation clause.

The state requires you to have the first year appropriated before the contract can be executed.

Very similar to the CBAs that we sign.

So we get cut below base, I think what's going to— I don't know what will happen.

They'll have to go back and rebid.

We'll probably have to get emergency services.

We will eventually have to pay.

Municipal solid waste is a municipal service that will win in the court of contract law.

Will not win in appropriation law, which means we can't We, uh, we cannot override our budget that you give to us.

However, contractor is required to pick up and we are required to pay.

They can sue us in contract law.

We haven't seen this proposed contract, right?

No, the city council— no, but the solid waste fee— solid waste services are a generally accepted service that a municipality will provide.

So we're going to be required to have solid waste picked up on July 1st.

I don't know how that, that arrangement would work, but we are going to be required to have trash picked up and we are going to be required to pay for it.

We have to enter into the agreement before the first of the year?

Yes.

Yes.

Or you have to work out a transitional period.

I know 3 years ago we had a transition, but I think it went the other way around.

I think the contractor then left a few days early.

Yes.

And Capital stepped in and did the last 20 days of the last contractor's fee and then took over their 3-year period.

This would be the opposite situation.

So I have to— I asked for the podium only to stress how important it is.

We need this appropriation.

We cannot enter a contract without it.

And the contract is there to provide us with protections now, okay?

If you go to market rates, if somebody has to pick up trash knowing that they don't have a guarantee of picking your trash up the following week or the following month, the prices are going to go through the roof.

Thanks, Bob.

Mr. President, we can see this contract, right?

We requested it.

I just requested it.

Great, thank you.

Awesome.

Thanks, Bob.

Councilor Burgill.

Why wasn't this discussed in those private meetings with the, with the councilors?

I'm sorry?

Why wasn't this discussed in the private meetings with the councilors?

I know Councilor Roy was there.

I know Councilor Carney was there.

I believe we mentioned the— these are all rhetorical questions, uh, Councilor.

Actually, we picked up on the, on the big items, and even on my slide.

I know, but well, just to be— just for the point of information, Bob, uh, I did request in one of my meetings with the administration to participate in the trash collection negotiations or to be made aware of it, and this is the first time I'm seeing the number for trash collection.

Yeah, I understand.

So, and then again, as I pointed out, Councilor Roy was there.

I know Councilor Carney was there.

None of this was, was supplied.

And the fact that they have to ask again— again, not a dig at you, CFO Ekstrom.

I don't want you to feel attacked, although it can feel that way because I'm lobbing it at you.

Please take the hit and throw it to where it belongs.

I just, I want to emphasize again, I appreciate you explaining to us why, oh, please don't cut this.

This is why you shouldn't cut this.

Then why weren't we included in the discussion?

The same person who's complaining about it— be careful of my words— is the same person who doesn't want to include us in the conversation.

And I appreciate how sweet Director Vieira will kindly put, I don't believe it has anything to do with keeping you guys out of the— but I'll tell you right now, Director Vera, it's not all sunshine and rainbows up there in the corner office.

I know that's your boss and you have to, you know, tote the party line there, but that is not the case.

This is exactly why the budget was— I mean, the contract was negotiated that way.

But that's the point I wanted to make.

I don't want a comment from you, Bob, at all.

I just wanted to use you in this moment to emphasize that.

So thank you very much.

That's all.

Anything else for waste collection?

Okay, um, just, uh, Sharon and Bob, we could— the— my request I made for those items, you think that could be within the 2— you'll be able to get that over pretty quickly, or— I know I asked for a lot of information.

Yeah.

I don't think anybody— we'll talk offline to just make sure the time— yes, Councilor.

I just don't think anybody could hear what was going on.

I had a question.

If the contract isn't finalized, are we not allowed to see it?

Like, it's not been officially awarded.

We've reviewed proposals.

We've created the budget but not officially been awarded.

So, but you've based the budget off of the awarded contract, of a plan to award to?

Yes.

So I believe all these contracts are public information.