It is Wednesday, June 17th at 7 01 p.m.

calling the city council committee on finance to order in attendance.

We have Councilor at Lodge Ian Abrew, Councilor Ward 2, Scott Pemberton, Councilor at Lodge and First Vice President Shane Burgo, Councillor of Ward 3, Sean Oliver, Councilor at Lodge Naomi Carney, and Councillor at Large, James Roy.

I'm Joe Lopes.

I'm the counselor of Ward 5, and I'm the Chairman of Finance.

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

We do.

We have three letters to read into the record.

This one's from Councillor Pereira.

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

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

This next one is from Councillor Gomes.

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

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

And this one is from Councillor Choquett.

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

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

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Brefort's homepage under quick links, then meetings.

Second by Council Burgo.

All those in favor, the ayes have it.

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

Bob is here.

Sherry, please.

Good evening.

Good evening, Sherry.

How are you?

Good.

Thank you for coming.

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

Is that is it am I remembering that correctly?

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

Yeah.

Yeah.

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

Is that what I would assume that it would just need a well attorney?

Yeah to be put in front of the council to to be voted on.

Yep.

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

It brings it down.

Correct.

Every other requirement stays the same, income, um assets, all that stuff.

Correct.

So it's just a simple motion from someone, probably myself.

Uh and the council to vote on it.

Correct.

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

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

I mean the exemption period is July one through uh April first.

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

Okay.

That's all I have right now for the first time.

I do have one question for Bob.

Thank you.

James is yours for Sherry?

Thank you.

Um so that's something that this committee can vote on and it will happen right away.

It has to go to council.

Yes.

Okay.

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

Who is it?

He's supposed to?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

That's what Bob's saying.

But the mayor has to approve it for for it to go.

No.

It's just the votes.

Okay.

Yeah.

He can.

Yeah.

So he can't.

He can't be he can't.

Yeah.

Okay.

Right.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Sorry, Councillor.

All right.

You're also council Roy?

Thank you, Council Roy.

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

Seeing none.

Bob, I think uh Council Oliver had a question for you, Bob.

I think I guess it's pushed off so much.

Good evening.

How are you doing, Bob?

Uh thank you.

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

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

Uh I would point out that it is really impossible to cost this out.

Right.

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

We don't know what the what the gap is between sixty-five and seventy.

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

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

You're looking at one.

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

I will tell you that the exemptions so far um for 70 and over of 38,000, we get 155,000 reimbursed by the state.

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

So it's uh it's an amount that we don't know, but I would feel you know, based on my experience, it's a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Maybe you're talking about at the worst.

Even if you were to double it now.

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

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

But it's such a it in uh I had that this conversation with Sherry when I first uh presented this uh that it's such a small piece of the pie that other folks that are taking advantage of it now.

And I think you're 100 percent correct.

People are working to a little later in their years.

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

Right.

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

There will be some beneficiaries, there's no doubt about it, but it's just really hard to say how many um because it's but it wouldn't be in your opinion without getting the hard numbers, it wouldn't be so astronomical that it would be uh your advice to not do it.

That's correct.

Okay.

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

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

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

But why wouldn't he?

Um help to uh a needed tax base residents 65 to 70 who own their own homes, who've um I think they've had to have been in the city, they've had to live in the city for five years, I think.

Five years.

Uh so it it's the right tax payer base that you'd want to help.

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

It's just impossible to cost it out.

So you have to sort of dip your fit foot in the water somewhat.

But we'll be able to tell, obviously, once the first year comes through.

Right.

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

Yeah, okay.

All right, so I'm I'm glad that there's no ultimate you know huge concerns that we're gonna be giving out, you know, you're talking about a tax.

You know, we're talking about a couple hundred, maybe.

Right.

Right.

You talk yeah, you're talking about a tax levy of about 160 million dollars, roughly, 165-ish, somewhere around there.

Uh depending on obviously Monday night coming up, they'll have a lot to say about the tax levy, but that's what you you're generally looking at.

A couple hundred thousand dollars versus on top of a one hundred and sixty million dollar levy.

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

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Again, though, with the caveat that the mayor really couldn't, I couldn't give him a cost.

And Sherry can't really provide a costing either.

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

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman also.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Any other questions for the CFO?

Council Carney on your first.

I just have a quick question.

Um either you or Sherry can answer this.

I would just what what did we issue this past last year?

It was 380,000.

Well, you want to take it?

You have more precise numbers, I believe.

I deal with rounded thousands.

Sherry can give you more.

So uh 309.

390?

No, 309.

Oh, 309.

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

Oh, so yeah, so it's not we have to do that.

No, and we can we can track it and do maybe a metrics on it to see how many for 65, 66 through 70 are qualifying.

Right.

Like um the CFO said, most people are working at 65 these days anyway, so they wouldn't qualify.

Yeah, I think there is a high chip for some people that are just relying on the Social Security.

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

Correct.

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

Right.

And then, you know, because it is publicly out there.

So people are going to come in and it'll just be an educational experience for them to be like.

No, I'm sorry.

Unfortunately, you don't qualify because of your income.

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

Right.

Excellent.

So it's not that big of a chunk coming out at what was standing at 78 now.

So it's even if it doubles, it's still at 600,000.

So it's not that major.

Right.

So right now it's at 308, like Brooke said.

And then we get 155 back, roughly half.

Excellent.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Council Carnival.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first or their second?

Seeing none, what's the pleasure?

Uh motion to uh refer out to the full city council and to um direct the council to change the uh eligibility age from 70 years of age to 65 years of age.

Motion to refer what a positive recommendation for the age change made by Council Oliver, second by Council Abrew.

Anyone on the question?

Was it was it Council Burger?

It was Burgo, sorry.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

Thank you, Council Burgo, for the second.

Item number two.

Communication Mim Mitch City Council submitting an order for the transfer of two million ninety-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-five dollars from general stabilization to snow removal, purchase of services in the amount of one million nine hundred and thirty-three thousand four hundred and four dollars.

Public infrastructure purchase service in the amount of one million, sorry, one hundred and one thousand three hundred and sixteen dollars.

Facilities of fleet managed purchase of services, the amount of sixty-four thousand eight hundred and fifteen dollars.

This item was referred on May twelfth, twenty twenty-six.

2A is the order.

Also referred out on May 12th, 2026.

Most who received in place from five.

Made by Council Kearney, second by Council Oliver.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

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

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

Oh certainly.

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

Record setting.

Uh we spent uh in our in our Department 423, which is the pure snow and ice deficit account, where we can only spend on uh direct charges that relate to removal of snow, clearing and removal of snow.

We spent uh about two um it was uh $2.5 million, right?

And that was the $300,000 budget.

So you'll remember that the council has already um approved the transfer for $368,000.

So that brought our entire budget up to $718.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So they came up with about another couple hundred thousand dollars.

There was a list provided to you.

Yeah, it's a hundred and one thousand dollars from facilities uh I mean from DPI and uh sixty-four thousand dollars from facilities.

The letter that I had sent had a listing.

Each department provided.

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

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

Uh a c matter of um uh four figures, like something under $10,000.

We were able just to manage to that.

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

They they man most of the snow plowing equipment.

Uh they uh in Jen's case, she handles all the repairs to the vehicles.

Well, Jamie does too, for his equipment.

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

So we uh we went to them and asked them to provide a direct listing, and we looked it over and it all made sense.

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

Thank you, Bob.

Council Carney on your first.

Yes, thank you.

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

I think it was like a Bristol County thing, so it was Fall River, Taunt, all of us there was a chunk of money that was supposed to be split amongst us.

Well, there is uh so Brian Norbrega, he's done, he's gone through and and uh applied for uh relief under the um under the s for the under the snowstorm.

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

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

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

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

Right.

I thought there was a lot more that the state was going to give us relief on the emergency something.

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

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

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

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

Right.

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

Not to my knowledge.

Oh, okay.

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

Thank you.

DW White.

So we got some uh some serious equipment that came from the State.

But uh the cost of that equipment is about six hundred, I think it was six hundred and eighteen thousand dollars.

State.

State of Connecticut.

Oh, from the state of Connecting.

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

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

Right.

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

Um, but didn't Fall River get the National Guard.

I believe they had a lot of help.

They had a lot of National Guard in there, which was provided.

Right.

Yeah, but I'm saying but it was provided for the State.

So I think it was.

Yeah, so we didn't get any help from the State.

I don't know about any.

Uh but the help we are getting is through um, I think it's through uh indirectly through MEMA.

Uh Ryan's applied for it, but again, it's some it can take one or two years before we get reimbursement from that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, other than some other than $15,000 to $20,000, I I know there's still some discrepancy about the official snowfall.

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

Yeah.

Um there's not much coming in in terms of help.

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

I mean, I'm sure Brian Brian is probably all over it.

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

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

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

Okay.

So I wouldn't have been able to do that.

Well, yeah, no, I'm not I'm not looking for the next 15 days, but you know, I was just looking at the reports and stuff that were coming.

So I guess we'll just have to get in touch with a state delegation to find out if there was any money that was going out.

Because I thought it was a big chunk coming to like Southeastern area that New Bedford Fall River in this area was going to split the chunk of money.

So I could be wrong.

I'm not aware of it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

You welcome Council Carney.

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

Council Abrew on your first.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, through you to the my esteemed colleague who spoke before me.

Um Counselor, you're not incorrect.

I'm looking here from the Mass Municipal Association.

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

So, Bob, it was a hundred million dollars of supplemental budget that was passed by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor.

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

I don't know.

100 million, that's a lot of money.

So I don't know if we can check into that.

I understand it's too late or too quick now for this fiscal year as we we try to tidy things up, but and I understand it would be become free cash at this point.

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

Do you know anything about that at all?

Uh through the Feds?

That's the what I was referring to before.

Brian has um has opened up.

Well, go ahead.

Sorry.

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

I I believe he's already got his response in.

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

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

Um, because we are around $20,000 somewhere.

Okay.

All right.

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

I know there are monthly calls, per my understanding.

Maybe we can call um you know Senator Montigny's office, who is the dean of the Senate.

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

So something to check into for sure.

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

Sure.

But to clarify one point, though, it won't be free cash either, uh, unless we were to somehow get a grant in that comes in in the next 15 days, it's going to become next year's revenue.

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

There's no way.

So yeah.

In the meantime, though, um I know we have got the budget coming upon us right now, so over the next couple of weeks, if we wouldn't mind just maybe doing a little homework and seeing, you know, where our appropriation should have been or where it could be or where things are at with this.

Um I don't even know.

I mean I mean when municipalities have made aware about this supplemental budget.

I mean, I don't even know how it seems like you're not too aware of this.

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

No.

No, that's what I'm saying.

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

I mean, you don't have VSP either.

So I don't know.

But if we could check into that, that would be great.

I I certainly will.

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

They have um the weekly or a bi-weekly DS DLS alert, and they keep ever they keep the financial community uh apprised of things such as this.

Okay.

They've been very informative on most issues, sir.

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

It's dated June twelfth.

So this is pretty new.

So again, you know, but all right, so thank you very much.

If you wouldn't mind.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll yield.

Thank you, Council Abreu.

Council Oliver on your first, unless you want to give it to the yield.

He's such a gentleman.

So yeah, uh Council Abrew is right.

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

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

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

But I guess my question is when you are notified of this that the governor just signed on Friday of that over $700,000 that New Bedford has been appropriated from this fund, which was from the fair share amendment.

I just want to add, which people are trying to undermine certain conservative people.

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

We can definitely make that uh uh uh we can have make that happen.

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

No, it's all last minute like it's it's not something I I would expect you to know right away, especially if you haven't been notified the city hasn't been notified of it.

But uh my concern is this funding is coming out of the general uh stabilization fund to right now this two million dollars.

Right.

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

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

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

But this is on the June 24th.

It's gonna make June 25.

Oh, it will you're right.

Yeah.

I apologize.

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

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

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

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

What I will say is obviously the the winter recovery assistance program wrap, that's what this uh that my colleague uh Councilor Abra was referring to where this appropriation is coming from.

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

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

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

So I uh I'm I don't know.

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

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

So I'm touring here.

But I just wanted to give that information that the again the amount that we're uh we have been appropriated, which is on the state website uh public record is $713,441.90.

So uh just for anyone that wanted that information.

It's on the if it helps if it helps too, I can also point out that uh if we don't use it for stabilization, it's gonna go into free cash, right?

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

So there's a few safety nets.

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

Um so I don't think that scenario that you laid out would uh happen.

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

Um so in those two scenarios, which I would be happy with either or I think the people in New Bedford would be happier with uh the the former of road repairs, but I just don't know if one we have the manpower to do it, and two the will to do it.

So but I just wanted to put that information up there.

Thank you, Council Burgo.

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

Council Oliver on your first.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

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

Yes.

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

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

Well, it's hard to you are you saying for the the appropriation.

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

I feel it's a de minimis amount.

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

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

I think it's tripled over the last five years.

And labor costs goes up all the time.

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

And then when we have that protection of mass general law, we we can run a deficit or we can seek uh transfers to fund it first, but we at least have the protection that it is what they would call a legal deficit.

And in your um in your experience too, is is I know that the um Healy Driscoll administration um was looking towards the Federal administration for uh some relief with this.

It was basically uh, in my opinion, their failure to act declaring a state of emergency.

In your um experience, if a state of emergency was declared, would we get that funding faster?

Well, I don't think so.

Uh to tell you the truth, because what happens then, we we have gone through this with the several large storms so far.

Um it takes two and two to three years somehow to get money back.

Because we get it, we we run those through MIMA, but that they get their funding from FEMA, and uh it's it's usually a good, I'd say best case 18-month turnaround, yeah, if not longer.

All right, well, thank you very much.

This one here, we would get this these funds uh fairly quickly, I would think.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

And it would also in the first.

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

Oh, it's okay.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Bob, um hundred thousand dollars is going to um facilities and fleet management.

And I'm sorry, 100,000 is going to DPI.

And $65,000 is going to um facilities and fleet management.

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

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

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

So all related to the snow removal.

Yes.

You said mostly before.

I'm sorry, that's the I just wanted to.

My poor choice of language.

No, it was it was very explicit to departments because it's not something we have ever done before.

Uh but we know that uh that the actual snow removal account is very limited, and we know that equipment had had gotten damaged during the storm.

So we were pretty specific.

Had to relate directly to the snow event, but that wouldn't be allowed under mass general law.

Thank you, Bob.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Council Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none.

Motion to refer out to the full city council for uh approval.

Second with a favorable recommendation.

Motion to adopt the order as presented and referral to the full city council, made by Council Burgo, second by Council Abreu.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number three.

Communication amendment for City Council submitting an order for the transfer of 43,000 from public infrastructure personnel services to mayoral personnel services.

The matter was referred on May 28, 2026.

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

Made by Council Burgo.

Second by Council Royal.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

Um Bob?

Oh, Neil, sorry.

Whoever, if you I saw you got up first.

Neil?

The podium is yours.

Thank you.

Good evening.

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

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

And that reflects uh two issues.

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

I think it's roughly split.

Uh it's about half and half of the 43,000.

Uh we would be happy to implement uh that reduction if we had a vacancy we had none as a small staff of six uh folks uh you know the vacancy assumptions are a good best practice uh that we would like to honor it's a little more difficult um as the council is aware among smaller departments if you don't have uh vacancy savings uh and so uh that's that's what's left us with our our deficit and again we'd be happy to cure it uh if we could but it wasn't something that was implementable.

Council Burgo on your first thank you.

Um you're absolutely right Neil uh they I I say they it was the council obviously voted.

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

So the exact number was 46,000 so I'm actually impressed that you all were able to somehow uh consolidate and make it work and only need 43,000 for transfer so the really great job with that.

The reason why I transferred this here to finance I I made the motion to have it come here to have this conversation with you is because come this cut night and we've already had this conversation during uh the budget uh discussion uh so I again want to be clear here obviously as you know you didn't have any vacancies last year which is why I plan on referring this out to the full city council for approval to pay this you had staff it shouldn't we shouldn't have increased those vacancies.

I voted no for that and I think we should fund this but be prepared to understand that I'm supporting and I believe a number of my colleagues here will be cutting one of the chief of staff positions from the mayor's office.

So I don't want you or the mayor's office to act surprised when that position is cut amongst maybe others in and I don't want you to come and say oh we're still keeping it the this is a legislative function.

We have control over finances here and we're telling you now and we'll tell you again on cut night and in subsequent meetings after I believe I have a meeting set up with you all tomorrow as well and we'll have another conversation about it then.

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

The council blah blah blah this is I think the third time now I've uh explained this to you and to the the CFO we will be cutting one of the chief of staff positions from the mayor's office.

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

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

Sure.

So a couple a couple points on that uh counselor and I won't restate that I appreciate the time that was allotted to me last time I be uh appeared before the council to talk about uh the structure of the mayor's office I do want you know I uh if it's incumbent on me to clarify again the mayor does not have two chiefs of staff we have two different people playing two different roles fine you know that in the budget it's listed as the position titles our chief of staff and then two FTEs.

Yeah and that is already clarified that.

Yes and that's a function of 197 of the uh section 197 of the code in which uh statutory titles are ref referenced uh prior to that it said chief of staff AA which is which is another title used in congressional offices and elsewhere uh right so I I spoke at length at the differences in the in the roles uh I also indicated that the working titles which is common throughout city government those are the titles that appear on people's business cards and how they represent themselves uh on behalf of the city those working titles are very different.

I'm a chief of staff we also have a chief operating officer that is very common in other cities where that's those roles are formalized in the code as we talked as we talked about where if you have a city manager or a chief operating officer or director of operations and so forth.

The police department has a director of administrative operations at that same grade level we all have different titles and different roles but that is a level of responsibility that's ref that's reflected in the compensation in the structure of the these offices.

So there is no redundancy there is no overlap.

Now on your on your other point as far as the reductions to the mayor's office I do want to make clear to the council that the way the mayor's office functions is not the same as the way other departments functions within city government right other departments provide services to residents our office is charged with overseeing the entirety of city government in providing effective management and leadership to the entirety of city government all departments right so we are unique among departments in the city in that in that capacity.

This would be very ill-advised to cut the mayor's office when the work that the COO and myself and the other members of the staff do to make sure that departments are supported.

These I I don't want to reiterate remarks I've made uh recently in the past, but it is important that the mayor's office be in a position uh to support departments in this trans in this transition.

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

The city is moving in the right direction.

Um we have the highest barn rating that we've had.

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

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

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

Um to be so to to uh you know to to to be uh frank, the mayor has uh in this proceeds your time, counselor, and but the mayor has had cuts to the mayor's office in in uh in the past.

Um, and he has been uh very frank in the way we've handled those uh cuts.

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

Um I I think the standard for other departments is different.

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

In the past we filed restoration of funds.

Uh but we're gonna we're gonna treat the way the council approaches cuts to the rest of city government uh differently.

Uh and so there is room for discussion.

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

Is that it?

Good.

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

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

There's less oversight needed.

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

That is why this is not a retaliatory effort towards the mayor's office.

And just in the past, I have never voted in my tenure.

Go look back at my cut night votes, never voted for a cut to the mayor's office.

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

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

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

And in this particular fiscal year, where we are slashing and destroying these departments, and again, as we're pointing out, the fire department, where the mayor has no problem saying, let's take away one man, uh go from four to three in a ladder.

Why are we reducing the workload?

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

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

The mayor's office is unique and certainly.

Gentlemen, gentlemen, hold on.

Yeah.

Two people will not speak at the same time.

I apologize.

No, no, yeah.

Two people will not speak at the same time.

The floor is yours.

You can answer after his comment or question.

Two people will not speak at the same time.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

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

But the mayor's office needs that because they need to support those departments.

That's how I'm hearing.

And you can clarify that afterwards.

But that doesn't make any sense to me.

And so when you did point out in great detail, which I do appreciate on Cut Night, the role of what the COO does and what the role of the chief of staff does, to me and all of my colleagues, which we all unfortunately chuckled because we sat there listening to the role that you play, the role that the COO plays.

Why in that function can't some consolidation happen in a in a fiscal year where other areas we have done some consolidation when we need in this moment to save some tax dollars.

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

But I I don't want to see people lose their jobs.

I wish we could everyone could keep their jobs.

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

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

That's the point that I'm making.

And it's not retaliatory.

It is not a direct attack against the mayor.

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

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

So, counselor, a couple points I would share with the uh with yourself and your your colleagues.

Uh first, um, the mayor's office did implement cuts in our budget.

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

I think there were in the it was in the range of sixty, seventy thousand dollars in reductions that we made uh across the mayor's office uh uh budget.

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

Are you referring to the cola in unit C the cumulative effect of all of the reductions in the mayor's office uh to both the 200 account for um uh and the 100 account, uh yeah, I think it added to in the range of sixty to seventy thousand dollars.

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

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

The number of positions in city government is decline has been declining uh for several years.

Uh that said, and we do have an consolidation which I would uh I would recognize that we're proposing.

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

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

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

We're taking the same approach uh to health and human services uh in this year's budget.

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

So the responsibility of providing guidance and effective management to 20 department heads is not something that is reasonable to expect a single, however superhuman their leadership capabilities are, to expect the CEO of an organization of a thousand municipal employees and 2500 or so school department employees as well to expect that of someone.

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

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

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

The mayor is the CEO of the city, but so then the one extra person that you're referring to, then you have a COO.

So that's two people.

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

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

And then you reference the school the school committee.

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

So I wouldn't even bring them into that uh because they are completely fine, their structure of uh their hierarchy.

We won't even get into the that uh top structure.

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

He doesn't need another uh person, two people by his side.

If I'm understanding, yeah.

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

No manager uh ought to have more than seven or eight direct reports.

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

Uh what happens to the case.

If the business is bleeding the way that I've been very polite to him the whole time.

It's just like I know.

Well, that's because I let him speak for an hour and a half, Mr.

Chairman.

But uh it's just going round and round.

Okay.

If we could do it quickly.

Mr.

Chair, we'll we'll figure this out certainly.

Um I think that the um the way to think about uh this issue uh is also to draw on uh the structure and the experience of other city governments in our our Pierre Gateway uh cities.

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

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

New Bedford, uh given the complexity of city operations, right?

Other cities typically don't have zoos, they don't have airports, uh, they don't have ports, uh and as far as the school department, our office, you know, just so you are aware, we're in daily communication uh with the central office of the school department, our our our staff.

So there's uh that's unavoidable that we need to coordinate both on the finance side and operationally and on the policy side with with the school department.

So I appreciate that they have a school committee, and the mayor chairs that.

Uh but in terms of operating city government, uh that that that's a piece of the equation that we uh have to take seriously given the importance of our uh our schools in the mayor's office.

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

Um that is a long-standing rec record with the existing staff.

We've had very little turnover, right?

Our team is executing well.

We want to preserve that right now.

Uh we don't want to undermine that or reduce that capacity.

That will only come back uh to hurt the city, and the mayor believes it is not in the interests of both city government and residents to see that happen, especially now.

Well, that's the opinion of the mayor.

It's not the opinion of the uh this city council.

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

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

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

We're obviously not going to agree on it.

I appreciate you publicly stating that the mayor is not going to honor any of the cuts uh that he chooses not to, um, and that he is on an island of one and deciding how to uh run the city on his own into the ground apparently.

Um I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

So these direct reports, and everybody has all these positions, you get it in the police department, whatever, you get administrative assistance, you got this and this, you get all this hierarchy there.

Why aren't these departments generating reports and submitting them to one person versus somebody in the mayor's office generating reports for these departments?

So I'm just getting kind of confused.

We you know, we hire all these department heads for their expertise, and then we are we're top having with somebody else that they're reporting to, and ultimately the mayor has a say over these department heads.

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

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

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

I don't see that at all.

Um, at the risk of reiterating.

I I I guess the way to think about this is what do our directors do in the middle of the case.

Think about the the shape of the pyramid of city government.

Okay.

So the mayor's offices is the is the top that the the point about what you really want to have an effective organization is a pyramid and the other.

I'm working it.

I work in organizations with that.

But they have a chief of staff.

Yeah.

So you'll appreciate that.

Well so uh one one thing that I didn't make clear when we spoke uh last time is that um I I talked a little bit about the scope of um my duties and the COO's duties.

Um and and I neglected to talk about the the how we interact with departments, right?

Um the the lion share of departments, uh our COO acts as the liaison to those.

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

I talked about that aspect.

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

Uh so amongst the 20 odd departments, there are direct reports to the mayor.

The CO handles uh a number of them.

I handle uh also a number of them.

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

It's not quite that.

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

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

Uh what you want to think about again is the the slope of the pyramid here.

If you have the mayor, you have a couple folks who are uh effectively in a corporate structure, okay, a couple of vice presidents, they handle two divisions, they have um uh uh vice pres uh uh corporate executives that may report up to them.

Again, I the ideal structure in any large organization is to have seven or eight direct reports on the management level uh reporting up.

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

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

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

There are only so many hours in the day for the mayor, myself, Christina, we put I'll put in, I talked about this in it.

It's not to pat myself on the shoulder.

We put on a lot of hours to make sure that we act uh in a timely way regarding the issues that are brought up from uh from departments, and also uh the decision making the mayor's um his decision making needs to get filtered down to departments.

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

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

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

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

This is not the time to be doing that.

Right.

But my point is too that we have commissioners and we have directors of all these departments that are supposed to be running their departments and they get paid pretty hefty for that.

So I'm saying that you see in all these report generating things that you guys have to do, why aren't these departments re doing their own reports and just submitting their reports?

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

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

It's not so much the reports in the legal sense you're saying.

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

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

Okay.

And then my second question.

Yeah.

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

If there are two distinctive titles, why are they not separated in the budget as that?

Why are they under one title with two people?

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

So you're telling me there's she's got a specific title, and you have got a specific title.

But instead, it's two under one title in the budget book.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, Neil.

Listen, counselor.

I I was gonna ask him a question about something you said about not honoring city council cuts, it being in the whether it's in the public interest of the city of New Bedford.

But I'm not sure it's very germane to this 41,000 dollar question.

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

So I feel like it is germane.

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

What I'm saying is he made a statement in regards to the upcoming fiscal year's cost.

We're focusing on the current fiscal year's $43,000 deficit amount of tax, right?

His statement was not germane technically to this discussion.

But their philosophy of why that's what the I think that's what his question is about, though, is like why are we here is because they're not going to honor the cut.

And I think if uh correct Council Royce it's similar, it's similar to the government.

And that's why it's germane to it.

It's like we don't want to be back here with that transfer because they're not going to honor these cuts.

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

I understand.

I would say it was made.

I was saying something very similar.

I can see it's going to be government suspending next year, but that's just me and how I was saying.

Now it's going to be that about the $23,000 or left.

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

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

And you could just say veto.

You could just say veto.

Very good question.

We're actually going in the same direction.

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

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

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

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

That's why I'm here tonight.

So we have a 43,000 dollar deficit.

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

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

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

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

And so in this case, we're doing the transfer option at year end to uh cure uh the personnel deficit uh that we have this year, uh and all those options would remain to address any uh deficit that transpires in the mayor's office uh next year.

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

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

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

Uh these deficits get dress uh will get addressed um by either of those those mechanisms.

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

It kind of so uh uh number two, you said if there is a deficit, it has to be um added to the tax levy, right?

That's part of the recap process.

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

That's one of the cures.

Legislative cure is you're talking about.

Yes.

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

Uh that's the only difference.

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

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

That's all.

Listen, you made the comment.

All right, you're not speaking.

Listen, Leo, recess.

Um Council Roy, did you have the floor?

Please continue.

Neil.

You were saying, I'm sorry.

Can you finish what you were saying?

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

Um ways the the administration can cure.

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

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

And what's um do I have that right?

Sorry.

Okay, I just want to confirm with Bob.

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

In the mayor's office.

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

It's not going to affect a particular service.

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

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

Uh you know, to play to play out.

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

Uh in fact, on I I actually uh it might be every occasion, there may have been a year in which it fell to the recap, uh, some minor minor deficit.

Uh, but uh I I think in almost every occasion the council has re reserves reversed itself and then allowed for a year-end transfer like we're requesting this year, and then funds are restored either in the supplemental or at year end.

I'm not that's happened a number of times since I've been here.

Um, you know, we're we're we're in taking the historical experience and the way things have operated here also into account.

Where this is a very small department with a small deficit relative to city government.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Council Roy.

Anyone else on the first?

Anyone on the second?

Seeing none.

Motion motion to refer out to the full city council for the Virgo.

Second by Council Roy on the question, Council Burgo, yes, on the question.

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

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

Um that is why it was important to me to have this conversation, because I wanted to be very clear.

This is the same body that will be here next year, Mr.

Chairman, uh, when those uh scenarios that uh the chief um uh chief of staff pointed out would come before us, and I wanted to be very clear that although in the past that is how this body is operated, this is not like any other previous year.

As the mayor has uh in his budget presentation explained, we're in a very different uh operating time, which is what has resulted in the layoffs that we have.

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

Oh, this came out of nowhere.

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

This is just again, and this is why I wanted to make sure Neil understands and that the mayor understands.

When we make this cut to the mayor's office, and this is the first time in my hit my tenure on the council that I will be making this significant of a cut to the mayor's 100 account, that I'm doing so because not because I want to, but because I feel that it is in the best interest for the people of New Bedford to receive the services that they need.

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

So I just wanted to say that as we refer this out and again as historically as we have done, approved that transfer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Burgo.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number four communication Mim Mitch City Council submitting an order for the transfer of 750,000 from inspectional services to personnel services, the amount of 110,000.

Facilities and fleet personal services and the amount of 236,000.

Recreation and park personal services, the amount of 80,000.

Elections, personal services in the amount of 88,000, health personal services amount of 120,000, solicitors, personal services, the amount of 28,000.

Zoo, personal services, the amount of 43,000, and police personal services in the amount of 45,000 to city utilities, purchases of services.

This item was referred on June 11, 2026.

4A is the order, and it was also referred on June 11, 2026.

Well, made by Council Burgo, second by Council Oliver.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

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

Good evening once again.

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

Sure.

Well, this is the normal process that we go through every year, of course.

Uh and we basically looking to move surpluses from uh from various departments and budget line items uh to those that have deficits to reduce the deficit spending.

Last year, of course, as I've um touted several times now.

We've uh had 173 budget line items.

Now one of them uh went over budget.

First time to my knowledge it's ever happened, and it takes besides good management all year long on the department on the on the uh by at the department level, it also takes this transfer process because it's just things that are inevitably are gonna happen.

And you know, personal services is one of those because the vacancy reserves are set with um no known uh vacancies that are gonna quantify to the amount of the reserves you sort of staking and staking a best estimate on June 25th, June 23rd last year, I think it was staking a best estimate of where vacancies might end up.

And they never hit.

Obviously, budgeting is an estimating process.

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

Thank you, Bob.

Anyone have any questions?

Wow, that was loud, sorry.

Anyone have any questions for the CFO?

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

Oh, Council Carney?

Uh yeah.

Um, so my question is okay.

So the 750,000 is coming from the special inspectional services.

Um is that from the fines and the permits that we re that we I charged that department?

Right?

It's from inspectional services.

Right.

Right.

So I'm saying $750,000 inspectional services had in their account.

Right.

Almost a million dollars.

Right.

So that is.

Danny ran huge uh vag uh variances all year.

Is that just from his vacancies from his for the most part, it's it's well there there would be a full listing.

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

Um so could you just break down again for us?

Could you break that 750,000 down?

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

Yeah, I don't I don't have to.

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

Okay.

Because that that's what you know.

That department has been lacking build-in inspectors, and we're looking to raise the fees.

I know he's come to us on a couple of occasions saying that they need to bump up their salaries so we can fill those departments, and yet he hasn't been able to do that because he's been turned down on that.

Yes.

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

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

Council Kearney, $110 is coming from um Commissioner Manuel's office.

So out of that $750.

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

For a total of 750, not 750 from Commissioner Manowitz's office.

Okay.

It's going to silly utilities, and those are the amount that equal 750,000.

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

I mean on these transfer orders.

Okay.

We had we had to pool a number of different departmental surpluses in order to address um uh these city utilities.

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

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

Okay.

So but as far as Danny's if I could speak to your comment on uh so I think there's two different things going on.

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

He just he we do projections every two weeks when payroll comes out.

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

It's not because he didn't have enough money in his budget, the rates were too low.

We fixed that with the ASME contract.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

Um the other question I had also is of not mistaken there that a lot of these are going to the um coming from the personnel from their 100 accounts?

Yes.

Didn't we transfer money into a lot of these 100 accounts from we did a transfer to cover the ASME settlement?

You're right.

Right.

So that's what I'm saying.

I'm looking that we transferred other other places to put into some of these accounts in their personnel.

Yes, so there were two different things though, right?

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

Right.

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

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

So if a department needed funds because they would for instance, I mentioned the 93 positions.

Right, and then you transferred it back out of the 100 accounts.

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

There could be some overlap.

I'm not sure, but there are two different transactions, though.

We refunding the ASME contract long before departments declared surpluses.

So we have to give a department the money that it needs to be able to uh fund the retro pay for the surplus and then the surplus came out again.

Yeah, surplus and it came out.

In some cases, I'm not sure.

I don't have it matched up here.

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

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

And now we're putting it back in their personnel.

That was my confusion.

Thank you.

You welcome Council Kern.

Council Oliver on your first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Bob, did I hear you correctly that we overshot and we only need 500?

And you want to I'm sorry?

Did you say that you only needed 500 for the city utilities?

Well, so we so for utilities we've refined the projections since we submitted this uh two weeks ago, and we think we have 200,000 more than we will need.

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

Okay, from city utilities to death debt service.

Yes, that'll be part of it, yes.

Okay.

So actually, we kind of ran a little low on time last week, so we couldn't perfect the projection of utilities because billings with Eversource or NSTAR are a little bit difficult.

Uh the in terms of the timing and the bulk that they come in at time you it it takes a lot of work to figure out uh to get all the bills into the system because they bill us for 400 or 500 different accounts, and we put them all into the system.

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

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

And what are we saying?

What what did you say that what's the uh that amount gonna be around 200,000?

About 200,000 dollars.

I believe that's what Cullen told me today.

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

This transfer will put 750 in.

Yes, this council, this is still put in the uh three quarters, right?

Yes, and then you're gonna come back and ask to move it from city utilities to debt service.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Council Oliver.

Council Roy on your first.

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

Chair.

Maybe if we understood uh this $700,000 for utilities, that was an estimate for that was the fiscal 26 total estimate.

Fiscal 26.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Council Roy.

And also on the first.

Seeing none, and on the second.

Seeing none, all those in favor?

I mean, sorry, we need a motion.

You would start it.

Made by Councilor Burgo, second by Council Abreu.

All those in favor?

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number five, communication Mim Mitchells, the City Council submitting an order for the transfer of 85,000 from stabilization funds to facilities and fleet purchase of services.

Item was referred on June 11th.

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

Made by Council Burgo, second by Council Pemberton.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

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

Seeing none.

Motion to me, motion to referral by Council Abrew.

Second by Council Burgo.

All those in favor, opposed, the ayes have it.

Made by Council Burgo.

Second by Council Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Made by Council Burgo, second by Council Abreu.

We are adjourned at 825 p.m.

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

Wednesday.

That's okay.

CIS.