City Council
City Council
lun, 16 de marzo de 2026
Puntos de agenda
Registros de votación
Resumen del debate
Transcripción
RESUMEN DE REUNIÓNGenerado por IA
Concejo Municipal de Quincy — 16 de marzo de 2026
Esta fue una sesión prolongada que combinó seis audiencias públicas sobre reubicaciones de postes de servicios públicos, una reunión del comité de ordenanzas sobre aumentos salariales del concejo y la alcaldía, una audiencia extendida del Comité de Finanzas sobre equipos de protección para bomberos, y la reunión ordinaria del Concejo Municipal. La votación del Comité de Finanzas sobre el bono para el equipo fue el punto más controvertido de la noche.
Audiencias Públicas: Concesiones de Ubicación para Servicios Públicos (Órdenes 2026-020 a 2026-025)
El Concejo celebró seis audiencias públicas consecutivas sobre trabajos en postes y líneas de servicios públicos en toda la ciudad.
58 Taylor Street (2026-023) — Impugnada: Esta audiencia generó la mayor cantidad de comentarios públicos. El propietario del inmueble en 58 Taylor Street (representado por su hijo, Daniel Lynn) solicitó que se reubicara un poste de servicios públicos para ampliar el acceso al camino de entrada, señalando que su familia de seis conductores ya había chocado con el poste en reversa en la oscuridad. Los vecinos se opusieron firmemente. Un residente de 62 Taylor Street presentó una petición firmada por diez personas de nueve hogares, argumentando que el traslado eliminaría al menos un espacio crítico de estacionamiento en la vía pública en una cuadra ya congestionada. Se citó la oposición de varios vecinos de 53–67 Taylor Street. El concejal Hubley declaró haber recibido cartas mayoritariamente contrarias al cambio, señalando que reduciría el estacionamiento sin ninguna ganancia fuera de la vía pública, y anunció que votaría en contra. Votación: Moción para denegar — aprobada 9-0.
137 Sagamore Street (2026-025) — En disputa, retenida en comité: Un representante del desarrollador (Ethan/Gui Ming Hong) explicó que el poste debía moverse porque se encontraba dentro del área de construcción de un edificio de apartamentos de 18 unidades ya aprobado. Los vecinos colindantes de 131 Sagamore Street (Ivan Chung y su esposa) se opusieron, manifestando preocupaciones sobre: la colocación del poste en el borde de su camino de entrada abierto, una acera instalada durante el repavimentado de la calle sin su conocimiento, y una tubería de gas de National Grid que, según ellos, fue colocada bajo su propiedad sin previo aviso. Un representante de National Grid confirmó que el traslado del poste fue solicitado por el desarrollador y no estaba contemplado en el plano del sitio original aprobado por la junta de planificación. La concejala Riley indicó que no tenía conocimiento de la disputa y sugirió votar en contra sin contar con más información. Resultado: Retenida en comité.
Audiencias restantes (2026-020, 021, 022, 024): No se recibieron comentarios públicos sobre ninguna de estas. Todas fueron sacadas del comité más adelante en la reunión y aprobadas por unanimidad (9-0 cada una).
Comité de Ordenanzas: Aumentos Salariales del Concejo y la Alcaldía (2026-016)
La presidenta del Concejo, Mahoney, convocó al comité de ordenanzas para interrogar al procurador municipal Timmins sobre el proceso administrativo utilizado en 2024–25 para diferir los aumentos salariales del concejo y la alcaldía tras las preocupaciones de conflicto de intereses planteadas por la State Ethics Commission. Mahoney resumió los antecedentes: el concejo anterior votó aumentos salariales del 79% y el 50% para la alcaldía y el concejo, respectivamente, con entrada en vigor el 1.º de enero de 2025 —el mismo período en que ambos fueron electos—, lo cual entraba en conflicto con la ley de ética estatal (Ch. 268A).
El procurador Timmins explicó que la solución era sencilla: cada concejal y la alcaldesa enviaron individualmente una carta al administrador de finanzas rechazando el aumento para el período actual, manteniéndose sus salarios en los niveles anteriores hasta el inicio del próximo período. Proporcionó copias de dichas cartas. Advirtió con firmeza al concejo contra el uso de la palabra "derogar" en cualquier ordenanza, explicando que, conforme al General Law Ch. 4, la derogación elimina no solo la disposición actual sino también todo el lenguaje predecesor, lo que podría dejar a los concejales y a la alcaldesa sin salario autorizado alguno. En su lugar, recomendó el uso de la palabra "eliminar", o simplemente replicar el enfoque de las cartas individuales.
Mahoney preguntó si una votación mayoritaria o de supermayoría podría colectivamente devolver a todos los concejales al salario anterior al aumento para el período actual. Timmins indicó que las cartas individuales siguen siendo el mecanismo más seguro; cualquier ordenanza que afecte la remuneración no puede entrar en vigor durante el período actual conforme al Ch. 268A. La discusión no llegó a una conclusión sobre si era posible una votación colectiva, y el asunto fue remitido al Comité de Finanzas para su revisión adicional.
Comité de Finanzas: Bono para Equipos de Protección de Bomberos — $2,646,730 (Orden 2026-038)
Este fue el punto central y más controvertido de la noche. La administración solicitó autorización para emitir un bono de $2,646,730 destinado a adquirir nuevos equipos de protección personal (EPP/equipos de turno) libres de PFAS para los aproximadamente 270 bomberos activos del Quincy Fire Department.
El problema: Las pruebas realizadas por el profesor Graham Peasley de la University of Notre Dame, confirmadas de manera independiente por Duke University y NC State, encontraron que todos los conjuntos de equipos de turno del Quincy Fire Department analizados —de los años de compra 2019, 2023, 2024 y 2025— contenían altos niveles de PFAS (sustancias per- y polifluoroalquílicas, conocidas como "químicos eternos") y/o retardadores de llama bromados (BFRs, por sus siglas en inglés), a pesar de las garantías escritas de los fabricantes de que el equipo era libre de PFAS. El presidente del Local 792, Thomas Bose, presentó una cronología detallada que mostraba que la ciudad había solicitado expresamente documentación libre de PFAS desde 2019, había recibido garantías escritas que resultaron falsas, y solo descubrió el engaño mediante pruebas independientes a mediados de 2025. La alcaldesa Koch celebró una conferencia de prensa en agosto de 2025 para anunciar los hallazgos; el departamento pasó varios meses adicionales identificando, probando y evaluando un producto de reemplazo seguro antes de que la orden del bono fuera presentada a finales de febrero de 2026.
La ciencia: El profesor Peasley explicó que los PFAS se añaden intencionalmente al equipo para conferirle resistencia al agua y se transfieren a la piel mediante el contacto. Señaló que el 80% de los aproximadamente 70 conjuntos de equipo que ha analizado a nivel nacional en los últimos meses son libres de PFAS, pero que los equipos de Quincy se encontraban entre los primeros que analizó y no cumplían ese criterio. Confirmó que se hallaron BFRs en equipos comercializados como libres de PFAS porque los fabricantes sustituyeron un químico peligroso nuevo al eliminar los PFAS, fenómeno conocido como "sustitución lamentable". Declaró que el cáncer representa actualmente aproximadamente el 80% de las muertes de bomberos en acto de servicio a nivel nacional, y respaldó firmemente la sustitución del equipo. El director municipal de finanzas, Paul DeLabbio, testificó que el bono a 10 años tendría un costo aproximado de $785,625 en intereses, con un servicio de deuda anual de aproximadamente $325,000, lo que equivale a alrededor de $7.97 por año por contribuyente residencial promedio, o aproximadamente $80 a lo largo de la vida del bono.
Las preguntas de los concejales fueron extensas. La concejala Yuan (quien posee un doctorado en ciencias) realizó preguntas detalladas sobre qué lotes de compra fueron analizados, si se habían analizado múltiples conjuntos del lote de marzo de 2025, y por qué un conjunto del equipo de 2024 parecía libre de PFAS mientras que un lote de marzo de 2025 del mismo fabricante no lo era. Bose y Peasley explicaron que las inconsistencias en la fabricación probablemente se deben a la transición que atraviesa toda la industria. La concejala Mahoney planteó preocupaciones más amplias: los PFAS están presentes en numerosos productos de consumo y suministros de agua; el nuevo equipo también será sintético y puede contener peligros desconocidos en el futuro; y el concejo debería entender qué ocurrirá con los 188 conjuntos contaminados que serán descartados. También cuestionó por qué, si la administración sabía que esta compra era inminente, no se reservaron $2.6 millones en efectivo libre durante la fijación de la tasa impositiva en lugar de recurrir al financiamiento mediante bonos. DeLabbio respondió que la diferencia neta de costo para los contribuyentes entre ambos enfoques sería de aproximadamente $15–20 en 10 años. El concejal Jacobs preguntó sobre la vida útil del equipo y cómo el propuesto "equipo alternativo de menor exigencia" encaja en el paquete general. El jefe Smith y Bose explicaron que la estrategia de dos conjuntos más el equipo más ligero está diseñada para extender la vida útil del equipo estructural a los 10 años completos.
Los comentarios públicos fueron apasionados. Varios bomberos y sus familias hablaron a favor, entre ellos un bombero cuyo padre —un subjefe jubilado— fue diagnosticado recientemente con un tipo raro de cáncer en la sangre, y la esposa de un bombero quien dijo que ya no puede aceptar que el propio equipo de su esposo pueda estar causándole daño lentamente. Varios residentes expresaron su apoyo, aunque también manifestaron frustración por los niveles de deuda de la ciudad y las decisiones de gasto pasadas. Un residente leyó una carta cuestionando por qué la administración esperó seis meses entre la identificación del problema (conferencia de prensa de agosto de 2025) y la presentación de la orden del bono (febrero de 2026), y rechazando la narrativa de que plantear preguntas fiscales equivale a oponerse a los bomberos.
Votación (Comité de Finanzas — moción para aprobar y sacar del comité): Presentada por el concejal DiBona; no se requiere una segunda formal en comité.
A favor: Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Riley (4)
En contra: Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan (5)
La moción falló 4–5. La orden del bono permanece en el Comité de Finanzas. La concejala Riley anunció que el Comité de Finanzas volverá a reunirse el lunes 23 de marzo a las 6:00 p.m. para continuar las deliberaciones, limitadas a este tema.
Ordenanza sobre Kratom y Drogas Sintéticas (2026-047)
La alcaldesa Koch presentó una ordenanza que modifica el Capítulo 134 del código municipal para añadir el kratom —una sustancia de origen vegetal que produce efectos estimulantes en dosis bajas y efectos similares a los opioides en dosis altas— a la prohibición vigente en la ciudad sobre la marihuana sintética y sustancias relacionadas. La ordenanza prohibiría la fabricación, venta, distribución y posesión de kratom, con multas de $150 por una primera infracción y $300 por cada infracción posterior. Remitida al Comité de Ordenanzas por unanimidad.
Solicitud de Resumen Financiero y de Deuda (2026-048)
La presidenta del Concejo, Mahoney, y cinco copatrocinadores presentaron una resolución solicitando que el CFO, el asesor financiero municipal de la ciudad y el asesor legal de bonos comparezcan ante el Comité de Finanzas a más tardar el 6 de abril de 2026 para proporcionar un panorama integral de la situación financiera de la ciudad antes del inicio de las deliberaciones del presupuesto para el año fiscal 27 (FY27). La resolución citó: aproximadamente $1,600 millones en deuda pendiente; el bono de obligación pensional de $475 millones emitido en 2021 (con un costo de aproximadamente $37 millones anuales hasta 2040); una reciente rebaja en la calificación de bonos; el uso de aproximadamente $35 millones en efectivo libre y reservas en la última fijación de la tasa impositiva; aproximadamente $15 millones en ingresos de bonos cuyo uso el concejo buscaba entender; y una propiedad adquirida con fondos de District Improvement Financing por aproximadamente $10 millones y vendida por aproximadamente $7 millones. La resolución solicita que los calendarios de deuda, los saldos de reservas, los informes actuariales y los pronósticos financieros sean proporcionados con anticipación. Aprobada y remitida al Comité de Finanzas, 9-0.
Norma de Calificación de Discapacidad para Asuntos de Veteranos (2026-049)
El concejal Hubley, con copatrocinadores, presentó una resolución oponiéndose a una norma final provisional del VA (RIN 2900-AS49) emitida el 17 de febrero de 2026 que habría exigido que las calificaciones de discapacidad reflejaran la condición del veterano bajo tratamiento médico en lugar del deterioro subyacente sin tratamiento, lo que potencialmente reduciría los beneficios para veteranos cuyas condiciones están controladas con medicamentos. Hubley señaló que, en el momento de la reunión, el VA ya había suspendido la aplicación de la norma y estaba en proceso de revocarla formalmente, supuestamente en respuesta a una oposición generalizada que incluía al comandante nacional de la American Legion. La resolución se mantuvo en el orden del día para destacar los asuntos de defensa de los veteranos y la labor de la directora de Servicios para Veteranos de Quincy, Christine Cugini. No se realizó votación (la norma ya estaba siendo revocada); la discusión quedó asentada en el registro.
Donaciones Aceptadas
ECO Muffler — $250 para el Programa D.A.R.E. (2026-050): Aprobada 9-0.
State Street Bank — camioneta Ford F-250 del año 2012 con arado Fisher para el Quincy Fire Department (2026-051): Aprobada 9-0.
Órdenes de Tráfico y Otros Asuntos
Dos restricciones de prohibición de giro a la izquierda en 839 Hancock Street (en un autolavado cerca de Central Middle School) fueron aprobadas por unanimidad tras las recomendaciones favorables del Comité de Ordenanzas (Órdenes 2026-045 y 2026-046). Una nueva solicitud de tráfico para una prohibición de giro a la izquierda en 147 Codington Street fue remitida al Comité de Ordenanzas para su publicación.
Una queja presentada sobre la ley de reuniones abiertas respecto a la reunión del Concejo del 2 de marzo fue incorporada al registro. El Concejo votó 9-0 para autorizar a la presidenta del Concejo, Mahoney, a revisar y responder a la queja junto con el procurador Timmins dentro del plazo estatutario de 14 días. Mahoney declaró para el registro que no mantuvo comunicaciones externas con concejales ni con el público sobre asuntos del concejo el 2 de marzo.
Puntos Clave
Bono para el equipo de bomberos paralizado: El bono de $2.6 millones para equipos de turno libres de PFAS no logró salir del Comité de Finanzas con una votación de 4–5, con cinco concejales citando preguntas no resueltas sobre la estrategia de deuda, la exhaustividad de las pruebas y las alternativas fiscales. Una audiencia de seguimiento del Comité de Finanzas está programada para el 23 de marzo — mientras tanto, los bomberos continúan usando equipos contaminados.
Ordenada una audiencia de supervisión de deuda mayor: El Concejo aprobó por unanimidad una resolución que exige al CFO, al asesor financiero y al asesor legal de bonos informar al Comité de Finanzas antes de las deliberaciones del presupuesto FY27, citando $1,600 millones en deuda, una rebaja en la calificación de bonos, y preguntas sobre el uso de reservas e ingresos de bonos.
Propuesta de prohibición de kratom: La alcaldesa presentó una ordenanza que convertiría a Quincy en uno de los municipios que prohíben explícitamente la venta y posesión de kratom, remitida al Comité de Ordenanzas.
Revocada la norma del VA sobre discapacidad para veteranos: Una resolución del concejo oponiéndose a una norma que habría reducido los beneficios para veteranos bajo tratamiento médico quedó sin efecto cuando el VA suspendió su aplicación, aunque la discusión puso de relieve la labor local de defensa de los veteranos.
Denegada la reubicación del poste en 58 Taylor Street; retenida la de 137 Sagamore: El concejo respaldó a los vecinos que se oponían al traslado de un poste que habría eliminado estacionamiento en la vía pública en Taylor Street (denegación 9-0), mientras que una disputada reubicación de poste en Sagamore Street con preguntas no resueltas sobre propiedad y servidumbres fue retenida en comité.
Resumen generado por IA a partir de una transcripción de voz a texto. No es el registro oficial. Verifique los detalles importantes con los documentos fuente vinculados arriba.
Qué ocurrió en esta reunión
Un panorama detallado de la deuda total pendiente de la Ciudad y el calendario de reembolso;
# Summary: Residents Open Forum and Public Comment
During Open Forum, Quincy residents addressed the proposed firefighter safety gear bond measure (Order 2026-38) containing PFAS chemicals, presenting diverse perspectives. Supporters of expedited approval included a firefighter's wife emphasizing health risks, Firefighter Jeff Baldock (23 Heath Street) who received contaminated gear in 2004, and Lieutenant Sean Dossi (31 years service) arguing that public safety investment attracts residents and businesses. Critics of a hasty decision included Joanne Collins of 88 Hillside and Mary Viselli, who supported Councilor Susan Yuen's scientific questioning as responsible governance rather than anti-firefighter opposition, while Andrew Fam (154 Summoner Street) raised broader budget concerns about the city's depleted reserves and additional debt interest. In separate comments, resident Leah Dloria from Weymouth criticized city councilors for accepting raises they had campaigned against, and Mimi Balsamo (27 Post Island Road) expressed appreciation for the council's careful deliberation rather than hasty decision-making.
During Open Forum, Quincy residents addressed the proposed firefighter safety gear bond measure (Order 2026-38) containing PFAS chemicals, presenting diverse perspectives. Supporters of expedited approval included a firefighter's wife emphasizing health risks, Firefighter Jeff Baldock (23 Heath Street) who received contaminated gear in 2004, and Lieutenant Sean Dossi (31 years service) arguing that public safety investment attracts residents and businesses. Critics of a hasty decision included Joanne Collins of 88 Hillside and Mary Viselli, who supported Councilor Susan Yuen's scientific questioning as responsible governance rather than anti-firefighter opposition, while Andrew Fam (154 Summoner Street) raised broader budget concerns about the city's depleted reserves and additional debt interest. In separate comments, resident Leah Dloria from Weymouth criticized city councilors for accepting raises they had campaigned against, and Mimi Balsamo (27 Post Island Road) expressed appreciation for the council's careful deliberation rather than hasty decision-making.
Los índices de deuda actuales de la Ciudad y comparaciones con municipios de tamaño similar;
# Summary: 2026-047 - Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Chapter 134 – Drugs
Local 792 President Tom Bose presented findings from a firefighters' investigation revealing that protective gear across the city contains dangerously high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), despite manufacturers falsely claiming the gear was PFAS-free—testing by Notre Dame Professor Grant Peasley and verified by Duke and NC State universities showed manufacturers made "regrettable substitutions" by switching to undisclosed dangerous chemicals without notification. Mayor Koch previously announced potential legal action against companies responsible for this fraud, and a $2.6 million bond request was discussed to replace all contaminated gear, with Councilor Delabara questioning why the administration hadn't reserved funds from prior free cash allocations to reduce interest costs. Council members expressed concern about unknown future chemical hazards in newly purchased equipment and learned that while new gear meets NFPA 1971 standards with PFAS levels at or below 100 parts per million (though manufacturers cannot guarantee 100% PFAS-free status), other communities like San Francisco and East Providence are cautiously purchasing only single sets of gear due to these evolving health risks. Lieutenant Murphy reported positive field performance of the new test gear in recent fires. The ordinance was ultimately referred to the ordinance committee by unanimous vote.
Local 792 President Tom Bose presented findings from a firefighters' investigation revealing that protective gear across the city contains dangerously high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), despite manufacturers falsely claiming the gear was PFAS-free—testing by Notre Dame Professor Grant Peasley and verified by Duke and NC State universities showed manufacturers made "regrettable substitutions" by switching to undisclosed dangerous chemicals without notification. Mayor Koch previously announced potential legal action against companies responsible for this fraud, and a $2.6 million bond request was discussed to replace all contaminated gear, with Councilor Delabara questioning why the administration hadn't reserved funds from prior free cash allocations to reduce interest costs. Council members expressed concern about unknown future chemical hazards in newly purchased equipment and learned that while new gear meets NFPA 1971 standards with PFAS levels at or below 100 parts per million (though manufacturers cannot guarantee 100% PFAS-free status), other communities like San Francisco and East Providence are cautiously purchasing only single sets of gear due to these evolving health risks. Lieutenant Murphy reported positive field performance of the new test gear in recent fires. The ordinance was ultimately referred to the ordinance committee by unanimous vote.
La capacidad de endeudamiento general de la Ciudad y los límites legales de deuda aplicables;
# Summary of 2026-048 - Comprehensive Financial and Debt Overview
Councilor Mahoney introduced resolve 2026-048, requesting a comprehensive financial and debt overview prior to FY2027 budget deliberations, noting that Quincy carries approximately $1.6 billion in outstanding debt, issued a $475 million bond in 2021 with $37 million in annual payments, and maintains PERAC-certified pension contributions of approximately $16 million for FY2026. The resolve requests the CFO, municipal finance officer, and bond counsel present detailed information on debt obligations, reserve levels, debt ratios, credit rating impacts, debt service percentages, borrowing capacity, capital improvement plans, and municipal borrowing best practices before the mayor presents the FY2027 budget on May 7th. The City Council voted unanimously (9-0) to approve and refer the resolve to the finance committee.
Councilor Mahoney introduced resolve 2026-048, requesting a comprehensive financial and debt overview prior to FY2027 budget deliberations, noting that Quincy carries approximately $1.6 billion in outstanding debt, issued a $475 million bond in 2021 with $37 million in annual payments, and maintains PERAC-certified pension contributions of approximately $16 million for FY2026. The resolve requests the CFO, municipal finance officer, and bond counsel present detailed information on debt obligations, reserve levels, debt ratios, credit rating impacts, debt service percentages, borrowing capacity, capital improvement plans, and municipal borrowing best practices before the mayor presents the FY2027 budget on May 7th. The City Council voted unanimously (9-0) to approve and refer the resolve to the finance committee.
Desarrollos recientes que afectan la calificación crediticia de la Ciudad, incluyendo los factores asociados con la reciente rebaja en la calificación de bonos;
Councilor Hubley presented resolution 2026-049 urging the Department of Veterans Affairs to withdraw or revise an interim final rule affecting disability benefit evaluations. Hubley explained that the rule, which would have allowed VA to reduce veteran benefits based on medication efficacy, was initially of concern but has since been suspended and is being formally rescinded by the VA. Councilor McKe discovered the suspension during due diligence. Hubley detailed the resolution's importance as an example of veteran services advocacy, emphasizing that veterans should not have to choose between treatment and financial support for their families. No vote was taken as the matter was presented for awareness purposes only.
El servicio de deuda como porcentaje del presupuesto operativo de la Ciudad y las obligaciones proyectadas de servicio de deuda durante los próximos cinco años;
# Summary: Gift – $250.00 from ECO Muffler to D.A.R.E.
Councilor Dabona motioned to accept a $250 gift from ECO Muffler to the D.A.R.E. program, and Councilor Hubley seconded the motion. The council approved sending a letter of thanks along with the gift acceptance. All nine council members voted unanimously in favor of the proposal.
Councilor Dabona motioned to accept a $250 gift from ECO Muffler to the D.A.R.E. program, and Councilor Hubley seconded the motion. The council approved sending a letter of thanks along with the gift acceptance. All nine council members voted unanimously in favor of the proposal.
Puntos de agenda (12)
Public Hearing
1Public HearingUn panorama detallado de la deuda total pendiente de la Ciudad y el calendario de reembolso;
A public hearing to review all money Quincy currently owes and the schedule for paying it back.
Qué ocurrió
# Summary: Residents Open Forum and Public CommentDuring Open Forum, Quincy residents addressed the proposed firefighter safety gear bond measure (Order 2026-38) containing PFAS chemicals, presenting diverse perspectives. Supporters of expedited approval included a firefighter's wife emphasizing health risks, Firefighter Jeff Baldock (23 Heath Street) who received contaminated gear in 2004, and Lieutenant Sean Dossi (31 years service) arguing that public safety investment attracts residents and businesses. Critics of a hasty decision included Joanne Collins of 88 Hillside and Mary Viselli, who supported Councilor Susan Yuen's scientific questioning as responsible governance rather than anti-firefighter opposition, while Andrew Fam (154 Summoner Street) raised broader budget concerns about the city's depleted reserves and additional debt interest. In separate comments, resident Leah Dloria from Weymouth criticized city councilors for accepting raises they had campaigned against, and Mimi Balsamo (27 Post Island Road) expressed appreciation for the council's careful deliberation rather than hasty decision-making.
2Public HearingLos índices de deuda actuales de la Ciudad y comparaciones con municipios de tamaño similar;
A public hearing comparing Quincy's current debt levels to other cities of similar size.
Qué ocurrió
# Summary: 2026-047 - Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Chapter 134 – DrugsLocal 792 President Tom Bose presented findings from a firefighters' investigation revealing that protective gear across the city contains dangerously high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), despite manufacturers falsely claiming the gear was PFAS-free—testing by Notre Dame Professor Grant Peasley and verified by Duke and NC State universities showed manufacturers made "regrettable substitutions" by switching to undisclosed dangerous chemicals without notification. Mayor Koch previously announced potential legal action against companies responsible for this fraud, and a $2.6 million bond request was discussed to replace all contaminated gear, with Councilor Delabara questioning why the administration hadn't reserved funds from prior free cash allocations to reduce interest costs. Council members expressed concern about unknown future chemical hazards in newly purchased equipment and learned that while new gear meets NFPA 1971 standards with PFAS levels at or below 100 parts per million (though manufacturers cannot guarantee 100% PFAS-free status), other communities like San Francisco and East Providence are cautiously purchasing only single sets of gear due to these evolving health risks. Lieutenant Murphy reported positive field performance of the new test gear in recent fires. The ordinance was ultimately referred to the ordinance committee by unanimous vote.
3Public HearingLa capacidad de endeudamiento general de la Ciudad y los límites legales de deuda aplicables;
A public hearing explaining how much money Quincy is legally allowed to borrow and what limits apply.
Qué ocurrió
# Summary of 2026-048 - Comprehensive Financial and Debt OverviewCouncilor Mahoney introduced resolve 2026-048, requesting a comprehensive financial and debt overview prior to FY2027 budget deliberations, noting that Quincy carries approximately $1.6 billion in outstanding debt, issued a $475 million bond in 2021 with $37 million in annual payments, and maintains PERAC-certified pension contributions of approximately $16 million for FY2026. The resolve requests the CFO, municipal finance officer, and bond counsel present detailed information on debt obligations, reserve levels, debt ratios, credit rating impacts, debt service percentages, borrowing capacity, capital improvement plans, and municipal borrowing best practices before the mayor presents the FY2027 budget on May 7th. The City Council voted unanimously (9-0) to approve and refer the resolve to the finance committee.
4Public HearingDesarrollos recientes que afectan la calificación crediticia de la Ciudad, incluyendo los factores asociados con la reciente rebaja en la calificación de bonos;
A public hearing discussing recent events that affected Quincy's credit rating, including a recent downgrade.
Qué ocurrió
Councilor Hubley presented resolution 2026-049 urging the Department of Veterans Affairs to withdraw or revise an interim final rule affecting disability benefit evaluations. Hubley explained that the rule, which would have allowed VA to reduce veteran benefits based on medication efficacy, was initially of concern but has since been suspended and is being formally rescinded by the VA. Councilor McKe discovered the suspension during due diligence. Hubley detailed the resolution's importance as an example of veteran services advocacy, emphasizing that veterans should not have to choose between treatment and financial support for their families. No vote was taken as the matter was presented for awareness purposes only.5Public HearingEl servicio de deuda como porcentaje del presupuesto operativo de la Ciudad y las obligaciones proyectadas de servicio de deuda durante los próximos cinco años;
A public hearing showing what percentage of Quincy's operating budget goes to paying off debt and what debt payments are expected over the next five years.
Qué ocurrió
# Summary: Gift – $250.00 from ECO Muffler to D.A.R.E.Councilor Dabona motioned to accept a $250 gift from ECO Muffler to the D.A.R.E. program, and Councilor Hubley seconded the motion. The council approved sending a letter of thanks along with the gift acceptance. All nine council members voted unanimously in favor of the proposal.
6Public HearingUna revisión del uso de Free Cash, fondos de Stabilization, fondos de Bond Stabilization y otras reservas utilizadas en el proceso de fijación de la tasa impositiva más reciente;
A public hearing reviewing how Quincy used its emergency savings and other financial reserves when setting this year's tax rate.
Qué ocurrió
A gift of $250.00 from State Street Bank to the Quincy Fire Department (2026-051) was presented for approval. Council members voted unanimously to accept the gift, with a 9-0 roll call vote including affirmative votes from Councilors Ash, Deona, Hubley, Jacobs, McKe, Riley, Ryan, Yen, and President Mahoney. No questions or public comments were raised regarding this agenda item.7Public HearingUna explicación del uso reportado de aproximadamente $15 million en ingresos de bonos; ORDEN N.º 2026 – 048 Página 3 de 3
A public hearing explaining how approximately $15 million in borrowed money was spent.
Qué ocurrió
Staff presented an order dated February 23rd, 2026 appropriating $2,646,730 to purchase fire department equipment and safety gear, with authorization for the treasurer to borrow funds under Chapter 44 Section 71 and issue bonds or notes. Chief of Staff Walker emphasized that this approval authorizes the bond debt only, not the purchase itself, which remains under administration and department control. The presentation included Interim Fire Chief Gary Smith, Local 792 President Thomas Bose, Professor Graham Peasley (PAS expert), Municipal Finance Director Paul Delabber, and Solicitor Timonss, with Chief Smith providing context on firefighter cancer risks from toxic smoke exposure and the need for modern protective equipment compliant with NFPA 1971 standards.8Public HearingUna revisión de los impactos financieros de la transacción de propiedad de District Improvement Financing mencionada anteriormente;
A public hearing examining the financial effects of a property transaction involving District Improvement Financing.
9Public HearingUn panorama del Capital Improvement Plan de la Ciudad y cualquier endeudamiento anticipado asociado con proyectos próximos;
A public hearing presenting Quincy's plan for upcoming capital projects and any planned borrowing needed to pay for them.
10Public HearingEl impacto proyectado que el endeudamiento futuro podría tener en la tasa impositiva de la Ciudad;
A public hearing on how future borrowing could raise property tax rates for Quincy residents.
11Public HearingUna actualización sobre la revisión actuarial de los pasivos de pensiones no financiados de la Ciudad y las obligaciones con PERAC; y
A public hearing with an update on unfunded pension liabilities—money owed to retired city employees—and state pension obligations.
12Public HearingMejores prácticas y consideraciones legales en materia de endeudamiento municipal, incluidas las pautas sobre el uso del endeudamiento a largo plazo frente al financiamiento sobre la marcha para equipos municipales y activos de capital. SE RESUELVE ADEMÁS que los documentos financieros de respaldo, incluyendo cronogramas de deuda, saldos de reservas, informes actuariales y proyecciones financieras, sean proporcionados al Concejo Municipal con anticipación a la presentación para permitir una revisión adecuada. PRESENTADO POR: CONCEJAL DEL TERCER DISTRITO – WALTER HUBLEY CONCEJAL DEL PRIMER DISTRITO – DAVID A. JACOBS CONCEJAL DEL SEGUNDO DISTRITO – RICHARD C. ASH CONCEJALA DEL CUARTO DISTRITO – VIRGINIA M. RYAN CONCEJALA DEL SEXTO DISTRITO – DEBORAH A. RILEY CIUDAD DE QUINCY EN EL CONCEJO ORDEN N.º 2026-049 ORDENADO: 16 de marzo de 2026 RESOLUCIÓN INSTANDO AL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS A RETIRAR O REVISAR LA REGLA FINAL PROVISIONAL SOBRE EL IMPACTO DE LOS MEDICAMENTOS EN LA EVALUACIÓN DE LAS CALIFICACIONES DE DISCAPACIDAD CONSIDERANDO QUE la Ciudad de Quincy alberga una población veterana de 2,746 individuos, de los cuales 1,326 reciben actualmente compensación a través del Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) por discapacidades relacionadas con el servicio; y CONSIDERANDO QUE estos veteranos han servido con honor a nuestra nación y dependen de la compensación por discapacidad del VA para apoyar su salud, bienestar, estabilidad económica y calidad de vida; y CONSIDERANDO QUE el 17 de febrero de 2026, el VA emitió una regla final provisional (RIN 2900-AS49) que enmienda 38 CFR § 4.10, la cual requiere que las calificaciones de discapacidad reflejen el deterioro funcional real del veterano en condiciones diarias ordinarias, incluyendo cualquier mejora derivada de medicamentos o tratamiento, en lugar de estados hipotéticos sin tratamiento; y CONSIDERANDO QUE esta regla revierte precedentes de larga data establecidos por el U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims en casos como JONES V. SHINSEKI (2012), MCCARROLL V. MCDONALD (2016) e INGRAM V. COLLINS (2025), lo que podría resultar en calificaciones de discapacidad más bajas y una compensación reducida para los veteranos cuyas condiciones son gestionadas eficazmente mediante medicamentos o tratamiento; y CONSIDERANDO QUE este cambio podría afectar negativamente a miles de veteranos en todo el país, incluyendo un número significativo en Quincy, al subvalorar los desafíos continuos de las discapacidades relacionadas con el servicio incluso cuando son mitigadas por intervenciones médicas necesarias, y al introducir inconsistencias en el proceso de evaluación; y CONSIDERANDO QUE la regla entró en vigor de inmediato como medida provisional, con un período de comentarios públicos abierto hasta el 20 de abril de 2026, a través de www.regulations.gov (Docket No. VA-2026-VBA-0067); y ORDEN N.º 2026 – 049 Página 2 de 2 CONSIDERANDO QUE el Quincy City Council reconoce los profundos sacrificios de nuestros veteranos locales y cree que las evaluaciones de discapacidad del VA deben honrar su servicio manteniendo estándares justos y protectores que no penalicen el acceso a la atención médica moderna; y CONSIDERANDO QUE Christine Cugini, Directora del Department of Veterans' Services de la Ciudad de Quincy, está alentando a los veteranos a expresar su oposición a este cambio de regla, y que el American Legion National Commander Dan K. Wiley ha emitido una declaración en desacuerdo con la regla, enfatizando que los veteranos no deben ser penalizados por cumplir con el tratamiento, que el manejo funcional no constituye una cura total, y que la comunidad veterana tiene derecho a ser escuchada (véase los detalles en: https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/veterans-benefits/2026/february/legion-disagrees-with-new-va-rule-on-medication); AHORA, POR LO TANTO, SE RESUELVE que el Quincy City Council se opone a la regla final provisional del VA (RIN 2900-AS49) e insta al Department of Veterans Affairs a retirarla o revisarla sustancialmente para preservar las protecciones a los veteranos conforme a interpretaciones judiciales anteriores y garantizar que las calificaciones reflejen el impacto total de las discapacidades relacionadas con el servicio; y SE RESUELVE ADEMÁS que el City Clerk queda instruido para remitir una copia de esta resolución, junto con una carta de presentación que exprese la oposición del Concejo, al Department of Veterans Affairs a través del portal oficial de comentarios en www.regulations.gov (Docket No. VA-2026-VBA-0067), a Ethan Kalett, Executive Director, Office of Regulatory Oversight and Management (teléfono: 202-461-9700), nuestros Senadores de los EE. UU., nuestro Representante de los EE. UU. y la delegación congressional de Massachusetts, antes de la fecha límite de comentarios del 20 de abril de 2026; y SE RESUELVE ADEMÁS que una copia de esta resolución sea remitida al Gobernador de la Commonwealth of Massachusetts y a la delegación legislativa estatal de Quincy para su conocimiento y apoyo en la defensa de los beneficios para veteranos. PRESENTADO POR: ALCALDE THOMAS P. KOCH CIUDAD DE QUINCY EN EL CONCEJO ORDEN N.º 2026-050 ORDENADO: 16 de marzo de 2026 POR LO TANTO, SE ORDENA que la Ciudad de Quincy acepte la siguiente donación bajo las condiciones adjuntas y aquí establecidas: DONANTE DONACIÓN PROPÓSITO ECO Muffler $250.00 Programa D.A.R.E. Depósito en: 31194 – 484000 PRESENTADO POR: ALCALDE THOMAS P. KOCH CIUDAD DE QUINCY EN EL CONCEJO ORDEN N.º 2026-051 ORDENADO: 16 de marzo de 2026 POR LO TANTO, SE ORDENA que la Ciudad de Quincy acepte la donación de una camioneta pickup de cabina regular 2012 Ford F-250 Super Duty con caja de 8 pies y un arado Fisher Minute Mount 2, donada generosamente al Quincy Fire Department por State Street Bank.
A public hearing on best practices and legal rules for city borrowing, including when to use long-term loans versus paying upfront for equipment and infrastructure.
Votos adicionales registrados en actas
Move 2026-038 Fire Department Turnout Gear Bond Appropriation out of Finance Committee
nay 5 · aye 4
Anne Mahoneynay
David Jacobsnay
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeenay
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryannay
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuannay
Approve and refer 2026-047 Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Chapter 134 Synthetic Drugs to Ordinance Committee
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve and refer 2026-048 Resolve Requesting Comprehensive Fiscal and Debt Overview to Finance Committee
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-050 Gift of $250 from Echo Muffler to DPW
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-051 Gift from State Street Bank to Quincy Fire Department
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve Minutes of March 2, 2026 Meeting
aye 1
voice voteaye
Refer traffic request for no left turn at 147 Codington Street to Ordinance Committee
aye 1
voice voteaye
Authorize Council President to respond to Open Meeting Law complaint
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-045 No Left Turn Northbound at 839 Hancock Street
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve 2026-046 No Left Turn Eastbound at 839 Hancock Street Car Wash
aye 1
voice voteaye
Approve 2026-020 Utility Grant of Location Mass Electric 100 Codington Street
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-021 Utility Grant of Location National Grid Gas 587 C Street
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-022 Utility Grant of Location Mass Electric/Verizon 10 Independence Avenue
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Deny 2026-023 Utility Grant of Location Mass Electric/Verizon 58 Taylor Street
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Approve 2026-024 Utility Grant of Location Mass Electric/Verizon Willard Street
aye 9
Anne Mahoneyaye
David Jacobsaye
Deborah Rileyaye
Maggie McKeeaye
Noel DiBonaaye
Richard Ashaye
Virginia Ryanaye
Walter Hubleyaye
Ziqiang Yuanaye
Transcripción literal disponible
699 segmentos de transcripción indexados
I would like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:00 public hearing to order. This public hearing is for council order 2026-020, utility grant of location, Mass Electric, 100 Cington Street. Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, please come to the podium, state your name and address.
If you do not wish to speak, but would like your support or opposition recorded, please sign in on the sheet at the table at the back of the chamber. Anybody here on 100 Cington Street? Um, my name is Ivan Chung.
I'm with my wife Liechow. We live on 131 Sagmore Street, Ward 6. Um there's one of the electrical poles I think from National Grid that's being proposed being moved to Southern. This particular address sir is 100 Cington Street I believe.
Okay. I'll thought you were just you just call you'll be referring to uh 2026-025. That's the last one at 625. Got it. Thank you. Anybody here on 100 Cington Street? Seeing no further public comment, I'll close this public hearing at 6:01 and at 6:05 we will open up the next one.
I'd like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:05 p.m. public hearing to order. This public hearing is for council order 2026-021, grant of location, National Grid Gas, 587C Street. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of opposition, please come up to the podium, state your name and address.
If you would like to speak, if you do not wish to speak, but would like your support or opposition recorded, please sign it on the sheet at the table in the back of the chamber. Once again, this is for council order 2026-021, National Grid Gas, 587C Street.
Seeing no further public comment, I will close this public hearing at 6:05 p.m. and we will uh resume the next public hearing at 6:10. Would like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:10 p.m. public hearing to order.
This is a public hearing for council order 2026-022 grant of location Mass electric/izon for 10 Independence Avenue. Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, please come to the podium, state your name and address.
If you do not wish to speak but would like your support or opposition recorded, please sign in on the sheet at the table at the back of the chamber. Once again, this is for public hearing uh 2026 for council order 2026-022, utility grant of location 10 independence.
A seeing no public comment, I will close this public hearing at 6:10 p.m. and we will resume at 6:15 for the next public hearing. like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:15 p.m. public hearing to order.
This is a public hearing for council order 2026-023, grant of location Mass Electric/Verizon for 58 Taylor Street. Um, communications have been received from the following residents um in opposition to this order.
Um, all have been opposed to the pole being moved into the curb cut. These communications have been received from Diane Salvone, 76 Taylor Street, Sage Lewis and Caitlyn Goff, 66 Taylor Street, My Zoo, Taylor Street, and Ziao Kevin Dy, 62 Taylor Street.
Um, anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, please come to the podium, state your name and address. If you do not wish to uh speak, but would like to to but would like your support or opposition recorded, please sign it on the sheet at the back of the chamber.
Yeah. You want to just come up right to the to the favor? No. No. If anybody in favor or opposed who would like to speak on it or in or without um uh necessarily a vote, but would like to give their opinion is welcome to come up to the podium, state your name and address.
I can speak first. Uh my name is Daniel Lynn. Uh I live at 58 Taylor Street. I'm the son of uh Jin Kuan Chen and Mailin who own the house. Uh the pole is right uh where the sidewalk ends and it's about 5 ft in the middle of our about 10 ft driveway uh area.
Um I don't know if I can pass this to you, but that's just an image of the pole. And you can see the newly paved uh driveway is where our property is and it's right in the middle of it. Uh our household has about what six people.
Five of them are able to drive now. Uh two of them are high schoolers. Uh one of them is about to be of driving age. So it's quite inconvenient to have that pole there. Um, if we were to move it over the 8 ft and cut the curb about 5 ft, I have an image here where it shows two rather large cars parked on the street here in front of the pole.
And in the same image has that van, the back of the van that shows a lot of room. Uh, that's about a 5t gap between the end of the pole by where the driveway uh ramp is to the edge of our fence. Um, if we were to move the pole further in and cut right where the fence is, we'll have full unfettered access to our driveway.
We won't obscure any of the parking spots and uh it'll be easier to drive into our driveway without hitting the pole. We actually um reversed into the uh electrical pole um maybe like a month and a half ago um just cuz it's dark um and we have to go in at an angle with all the snow.
So it was not pleasant. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak uh in favor of opposition 2026-023? Uh good evening councilors. My name is uh Sha. I live at 62 Taylor Street. I have been living there for 10 years.
And I had a neighborhood petition that's signed by 10 people from nine different household. They don't want the utupo to move and kirk because we don't have enough parking space on this this part of the Taylor Street and and some of the people cannot come here tonight because they're working taking care of their children, elderly parents and I represent my family and the community to oppose moving the utility pole that was request by 58 Taylor Street home owner.
I have spoken to many neighbors including 53, 56, 57, 59, 63, 66,67 Taylor Street, home owner and resident and uh no one wants the utilo to be moved and the cur to happen. There's no reason and no game to relocating the utility pole and allow the circ.
Okay. And uh there's a negative consequences of moving the utility pole and allowing the cur. These action will affect the quality of life. For example, there's a lady who has a disability and she cannot walk far.
She often has to park her car far away when there's no nearby on street parking space. In addition, she doesn't feel safe walking far from home in the evening. And more important, the two major snowstorm that happened in January and February demonstrate just how valuable each and every street parking space is.
I saw many residents had to park their cars on the side street and use controversy space saver and in addition rewiring the power lines, internet lines, city fire alarm on the utility pole and guire under the sidewalk will cause a lot inconvenient and disruption particularly for those at home retired working care for their elderly parents.
children while going without power and moving the utility pole is different from replacing the utility pole. Moving the pole is a lot of disruption and a lot of work. replacing the utility. That is a normal maintenance.
And on the public hearing notice, the 58 Taylor Street owners request to relocate the utility pole for new driveway widening. But there's already the new driveway is misleading and incorat is used by 58 and 62 Taylor Street for lean 100 years.
It is unnecessary to move the util pole in order to wid Taylor Street size of the share driveway. The share driveway has a 15 ft opening and it's even wide enough for a large truck to get in and out. Moreover, moving the utilo will not create more land and parking space, but it will eliminate at least one critical on street parking space that everyone desperately need.
And the share driveway used by 58 and 62 Taylor Street is more than sufficient for vehicles to enter and exit. 58 Taylor Street also has sufficient parking spaces at their side of the driveway. And lady and gentlemen, the city of Quincy ordinant clear on utility permits is state the following.
The permit system is intended to achieve an efficient use of public rights or way consistent with the prison and future service demands and protection of public interest are related to safety, health and quality of life.
The city permit ordin also say that the pole spacing shall be the meimment allowed under the code consistent with the location and criteria state in this utility permit chapter. No one benefit from moving the utility pole because everyone had to sacrifice their own street parking spaces.
Future power and internet outage will cause loss of inconvenience for resident. As a result, it will impact our in enjoyment of quality of life. In conclusion, there's already a driveway available that has been shared by respective neighbors for nearly 100 years without interference.
The size is adequate and the assets is more than sufficient while each neighbor is respectful for one another. Imply easement allow each neighbor to temporarily cross over the other land while entering and exiting the property and may not be a struck by either party.
The two major stone demonstrate how valuable even a single street parking space is. the s and we cannot justify moving the pole for one home owner and affecting so many people live on that part of the street.
The city council members had asked to deny this permit for pole number 23 relocate relocation and expansion of the curve cut which in the end deliver no value to any individual and the community. Thank you councelor for your time.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone um else here wishing to speak on 2026-023 utility grant of location mass electric Verizon 58 Taylor Street. Uh am I allowed to comment again? No. Sorry. Do you want Yeah. Okay.
Chair recognizes councelor Hubley. Thank you, Council Ash. Yeah. I've heard from a number of the different residents received letters, all of which have been furnished to all of my colleagues here on the committee and the overwhelming uh sentiment is that this change uh represents a redu reduction in parking with no increase in off- streetet parking and um so when this comes out of committee, I will be voting no on this.
Thank you. Seeing no further public comment, I will close this public hearing at 6:25. Yep. Like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:20 p.m. public hearing to order. This public hearing is for council order 2026-024, utility grant of location, Mass Electric, Verizon, Willard Street.
Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, please come to the podium. State your name and address. If you do not wish to speak but would like to have your support or opposition recorded, please sign in um on the sheet at the table at the back of the chamber.
Once again, this is for 2026-024 utility grant of location Mass Electric Verizon Willard Street. The Monday, March 16th, 6:20 p.m. public hearing. It is currently 6:26 p.m. Seeing no uh public comment, I will close this public hearing at 6:26 p.m.
I'd like to call the Monday, March 16th, 6:25 p.m. public hearing to order. This public hearing is for council order 2026-025, grant of location, Mass Electric, Verizon, 137 Sagamore Street. Anyone wishing to speak in favor or opposition, please come to the podium, state your name and address.
If you do not wish to speak, but would like your support or opposition recorded, please sign in on the sheet at the at the table at the back of the chamber. Once again, this is for 2026-025 utility grant of location, Mass Electric, 137 Sagamore Street.
How are you? My name is Ethan. Uh, so I am the son of the developer for 137 Sagamore. Ethan, just your full name and address, please. My full legal name is Gui Ming Hong. Uh, at 69 Appleton Street, Unit One, Quinsey, Mass, 02171.
Yep. Uh, so I see our neighbors are here as well. Um, I'm not sure if they're here to oppose the case, but for us, uh, we have a settlement agreement with our neighbors. We had a land court with them.
uh since 2019 that got settled in um 2024. Jim Timman's planning board and us and their party, we all signed a settlement agreement for the construction easement during and then the settlement agreement also has the purchase of their property.
Um we were supposed to close on their property uh November of this of last year. Um but due to some delays, uh it got delayed. We're waiting on them to submit their survey to the planning board um to get a ANR uh plot plan done.
Um but uh their earliest vacate date for the property is supposed so once we take over possession of the property um they can live there um and then they don't pay rent they just pay the expenses and then their earliest vacate date is December 2027 and then the latest being December 2029.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on 2026-025 utility grant of location Mass Electric Verizon 137 Sagmore Street. Good evening. Uh my name is Ivan Chung. My name is Lra. We both live on 131 Sagamore Street.
And uh so as Ethan just mentioned that settlement agreement has contingencies and is confidential. I yeah should not be spoken out on but it has irrelevant to the basis of what I'm asking because we look at the P plans.
I'm not sure if anyone here has seen what that plan is cuz I just see a dot. I see it being moved 56 feet southwest right to a corner of our property right and on the both a budding sides if you could show them the picture it's a open driveway on both sides but we noticed as of July and this past July when they were redoing the streets and kind of digging it all up to repave the street they put in a weird curb that we didn't notice because it was on top it was kind of on their construction site so it was kind blocked off so we didn't see it.
Then when we kind of asked Ethan today, where approximately are you moving it? They're moving it right on top of that curb that's blocked off that we didn't see, but that curb never existed. It's a open driveway.
It's a open driveway. So I guess that's legacy driveway opening that somehow during the I guess during the paving of the street, it got inserted in without our knowledge. Right. So, I guess if it's a legacy opening on both sides, why did the city put the curb in when they were redoing the street, right?
Cuz it was like open on both sides. One. Two, at the same time, we don't have any record of a notification in July 1st of 2025 where National Grit inserted a gas pipe into our driveway at the same time they were redoing the street.
So it looked like they were just repaving the street, but instead they were putting in gas pipe for their project without our permission. It's very close to the pole as well that you guys are moving to.
Exactly. So as Ethan also mentioned, Mr. Solicitor Tims knows about this. He could you can ask him if that deal is contingent on certain parameters. At this point in time, we own the property. Period.
So we have a right to oppose it. We just want to understand if you're going to move a pole, they own both property. They own the property that's being constructed that used to be a business 1371 13900 ft² that was utilized about 7,500 ft for a business.
Now they've been approved by this board previously. I don't know if the same members or not to build a 18 unit apartment there. And now they want to move a pole that's probably I don't know two and a half feet wide diameter right into the corner of our property for a driveway for their benefit when they own the building next to it.
They could put it they could put that pole right next to theirs, right? They own that property 77 and the property number right next to it. What is it? 77 Newberry. So if you're familiar with that, that's what they own.
They could feel free to put a poll over there all day to suffice their project. Why would it have to continue to encumber our property use? Again, it's a open driveway. Um, outside of that, it just, you know, again, I have those questions about why there was a gas pipe approved by this board.
If not, then I would ask this board to investigate why was a gas pipe inserted under our property. I'm assuming I talked to I talked to National Grid individual here earlier and he said he he wants to know why cuz he said he wasn't notified.
So, he's gonna have a conversation with us, too. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else here wishing to speak on um 2026-025 utility granted location Mass Electric, 137 Sagamore Street? Chair recognizes councelor Riley.
Thank you. Um thank you, Councelor Ash. I This is the first I'm hearing of it. I did not know there was any contention with this. I likewise could not make out much from the plan. Um, so I would suggest voting this down unless we have more information to understand better why there's dispute.
Yes, councelor McKe. Um, if there is someone here from National Grid, could they come to speak uh for a minute on this issue? Uh, Jim Pierce and National Grid uh senior designer. What can I help you with?
Um so can you just tell us a little bit about um what this what this is actually uh this is a movement of a a utility pole. We were asked by the developer to move it to where he wants it now which as he stated I guess it's a very it's between I guess what two driveways the entrance into their property and then the property they own next door they want to move it there cuz right now the pole is the middle of the new building that's going up.
They don't want it there. They want it moved down. So, they request us to put it at that location. The pole itself is about 18 inches in diameter. Mhm. That we're going to move, but we were requested by the developer to move that pole.
That's why we're here tonight. Mhm. Have you Mr. Have Have you reviewed the the plans as approved? I'm I'm assuming by the planning board. I don't know if you've seen those and if this The only plan that I saw is what Ethan had, which it looked like it was approved by the planner board.
Okay. And did that did those plans contemplate moving this pole? The poll itself wasn't on there. The developer himself requested it. There was no mention of a pole in those plans. It just basically showed the sidewalk in the building foundation.
That's what they had basically like a site plan basically. Thank you. Yep. Did you have more questions for Not not maybe for tonight. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. Um, anybody else here on 2026-025 utility grant of location 137 Sagamore Street?
Okay, seeing no further public comment, I will close this public hearing at 6:34 p.m. Hello. Um, good evening. This is the March 16th um, meeting of the ordinance committee. Um, I will read the open meeting law right now.
Uh, pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived, by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.
Madam clerk, please call the role. Council Ash, present. Council Debon, Council Hubley, Council Jacobs, present. Council Mahoney, present. Council Riley present. Council Ryan present. Coun Council Yuan.
Uh Jay present. Nine members you have a quum. All right. Thank you. Um okay. So I'm going to go ahead and just read the order um which is something that I put forward um and then we'll invite uh solicitors Shimmens up to um answer the questions.
So, um this concerns the the raises um uh that were um voted in for the um council and the mayor and um how they were deferred. So whereas in October 2024, the mayor and city council president announced that the state ethics commission had brought forward conflict of interest concerns about the mayors and council's 79% and 50% raises taking effect on January 1st, 2025 in the same term as the mayor and council were voted in.
And whereas the mayor and city council said they would delay taking the raises until their next terms in order to comply with state conflict of interest law. And whereas the city of Quinsey handled those deferments administratively, never amending the raise ordinances 2024055 and 2024056 to alter their January 1st, 2025 effective date.
And whereas a majority of the newly elected city council campaigned on a platform of transparency and accountability and criticized the lack of community input and rigor involved in the raise process.
And whereas a super majority of the newly elected city council would like to undo the raises and start the raise calculation process over this time with community input and a salary salary review of comparable positions.
Be it ordered that the Quinsey city solicitor appear before the city council to answer the following questions. What process did the city undertake to defer the raises administratively in 2025? And if a majority or a supermajority of the current city council were to vote to administratively defer the council's raise ordinance 2024056 for the current term 2026 and 2027 returning the council's salary to $29,12865 would the city administratively defer the raises for all counselors as it did in 2025?
And just a note, um I did this in January and got that figure from the um city um list of salaries. So what's in the actual budget is $29,700. So that amount would return to the previous amount, $ 29,700.
So solicitor Timmons, can we have you come up? Uh, good evening, Madame Chair and members of the council. Shall I make a brief presentation? Okay. At the um time that this became an issue for the last c the prior council um what occurred was we followed um to the letter of the law the particular statute and the general laws for payraises to a mayor and city council.
um that statute and I had shared copies of it at the time. Um chapter 43 section 17A prescribed what exactly a council had to do when voting a pay raise. And that is precisely what was done um for both the mayor's office, the office of the mayor and the uh city council.
What happened was um the state ethics commission was contacted or saw news in the newspaper or whatever. They reached out to me about the fact that they had a concern um primarily with the mayor's raise because of the timing.
Uh the city council was on a two-year term and about to cycle out. Uh the mayor's term however was for four years. So uh we had a discussion because there is an issue under a different statute. As I mentioned we were following um chapter 43 section 17A to do the raise.
The state ethics statute is chapter 268A and it addresses just one particular issue and that is ethics among state, county and municipal employees. So the council, the general counsel for the state ethics commission said that while we may have done what we were supposed to do under the statute regarding the raise, um we were not correct in allowing the mayor to take the raise in accordance with 4317.
So they advised that there was a problem and we talked with the um general counsel about how to deal with it. Now you folks at the first or second meeting introduced an order. I was I kind of gave a shot to councelor Rash after the meeting saying you know I was sitting right behind you.
You could have just brought me up at the time but I would have happily just shared with you. Um, all we did was, and I'm sure that councelor Deoneru will remember this and councelor Ash, and I'm hopeful you don't mind.
I think the copies I brought down were your letter. Um, but what each counselor did was they sent a letter to uh Lisa Curtain, who's the business manager in municipal finance, and just said simply, um, I write to advise that I am declining the recently voted salary increase for city councilors.
I ask that you maintain my salary at the rate of 298 annually. It's a little more in the sentence I'm skipping. Uh, my salary should not increase until after the next city council term commencing at January of 26.
So, that's where we sit now. And, um, that's really all they did. And I have copies of this letter. I can I'll circulate them. But, um, that's really all you need to do. The issue when it comes to payraises is not so much the language of an ordinance or whatever.
It's whether you take the money or not. And uh what happened in this case and um the this was something I worked on with the general counsel of the state ethics commission. They said that had we not done this, they would have opened an investigation into the matter, but there was no investigation open.
And frankly, I'm probably going well beyond what I should because uh state ethics is, you know, they maintain confidentiality. They won't even acknowledge whether they've um they're conducting an investigation or not.
So, but um at the time, the counselors and the mayor agreed given what was going on that we just disclose what was going on um and happening and it was a pretty easy fix. So my recommendation to you folks is if you want to just replicate this letter that can eliminate all the you know concerns and heartache about what you might go through in order to adjust uh the rates.
So you can just simply um advise municipal finance as your predecessors did um that you are declining the race and then your check will be based on a $29,800 annual salary, whatever that works out to weekly.
So um thank you Solicitor Timmons. Um we uh wanted to do this in public um hence you know talking to you right now. Um I did ask for that letter earlier and you told me that you had decided not to share it.
So this is nice to actually have the letter no shared. I I'll wait till you I'm sorry. Okay. You can finish. Okay. So I um I am um it's true that what what you're saying that there's two state laws and they seem to actually be in direct conflict with each other.
So, um, one of them says that, you know, councils can, um, put in ordinances for the next calendar year, but the state conflict of interest law says you cannot, uh, change raising or lowering uh, your salary in the current term.
It has to be for the next term because you may or may not be there based on election results, right? So those are two two state laws that are just in in conflict. Um I guess um was there any um push back from uh any members of the council um when this was raised as a possible raised as a solution to this issue of the two to two um state laws being in conflict.
I I'm not sure what you mean. What what do you mean by push back? So I guess what I'm saying is when you suggested this as a solution, did everyone um agree wholeheartedly and immediately or was there some discussion about that?
I I'm not quite sure about what constitutes wholehearted agreement. So but I will tell you I I I just don't understand the question. They were told by the state ethics commission acting through me. I told the counselors this is not legal.
Everyone said what do we do? And I it took me about a week working with the general counsel. We came up with this letter and um this all happened in one night. There was to say there was no push back is understating.
It was uh complete cooperation. And I just want to correct something you said which is inaccurate. what you asked me for was the letter from the state ethics commission to the counselors and I asked a couple of counselors how do you feel about sharing that and um they weren't comfortable with that and I agreed like the the letter sets out the specifics of a concern that the state ethics commission had with an individual and they didn't want that shared with the public but I never said I wouldn't share this letter with you I I would have told you that the at the night of the first meeting that that's how we solved it.
But no, there was um I I think I'm understanding your question correctly. I hope I am. But there the your your predecessors completely cooperated because they heard what you're hearing tonight that we couldn't do it.
We couldn't do it. Yeah. Yeah. And one other correction is this. What the state ethics commission is concerned about is money. Money changing hands. So you can take actions on an ordinance that relates to salaries.
Um but they just don't take effect in terms of the effect on the uh the money that changes hands um until a term has completed. Okay. So I think that was a misunderstanding. I intended to ask for you know this this letter that you're talking about um in addition.
So we we just had our wires crossed. Um but um so I reached out to the state ethics commission and they said that we can repeal the council salary for sure starting in 2028 for the next council term. Um, no question if we do it well in advance of papers being taken out for candidates to run for office, which this currently right is for sure.
Um, they said that uh I said, "Well, what if we wanted to um take a vote because um you know, we want we want to be sure that we're all on the same page." Like this, you know, it seems an equity issue.
um if all of us can do something. So they said that's going to be your decision. So your so the second question um if we were to take a vote on the on this issue whether we can go back to the previous salary um that's the central question I guess and that they said you you have to answer.
Sure. Um, first of all, when you say you talked to the state ethics commission, um, who specifically did you speak with up there? Um, I'm going to forget her name, but it was a a woman. Um, it was not like the general counsel.
Um, it was Was she one of the attorneys or She's one of the attorneys. I called their office and they put me in touch with someone. And I asked because I'm sure that had I been in on that call um I may have been able to clarify for her that we weren't just talking about um whether under the state ethics statute you could take actions.
Um the concern I expressed to you a while back about these ordinances is your use of the word repeal. And I'm I I'm quite certain that if Well, I don't know that a state ethics attorney would understand that um necessarily.
It's a different issue that they don't really deal with. But if you follow what's in the orders that are before the body this evening and repeal the what was done in the prior years, what repeal means is that you completely wipe it off the books, including the predecessor provisions.
So if you were to repeal what was done back in 24, not only would the pay raise go out the window, but specifically referenced in that those ordinances in 24 with the existing salary lines, all we were really doing was amending salary lines and the municipal ordinance.
So, if the body were to vote this evening to repeal, then there's going to be no council salary because you've repealed it and you can't go back to the prior year because that's what repeal means. Um, and there'll be no mayoral salary.
So that's why I was recommending to you that you not use the word repeal, but use the word delete, which was the word that we used when in 2024. It's a little bit of a nu nuance, but these words have meanings.
So repeal it like we used it in the zoning ordinance. It's in like the one of the first sections of the municipal zoning ordinance. That's back in 2011 when we did we redid the entire zoning ordinance and we said the prior zoning ordinance is repealed and then a brand new zoning ordinance follow.
So, you have to be careful with the language here. And um I'm also concerned that in in the environment today where if folks don't accept what goes on, there may be lawsuits or certainly be recriminations.
But I don't know that you'll maintain control over the salary line if you use the word repeal because repeal means it's gone. the whole thing including his predecessor. So, um I did a little bit of research into this um uh just to because you had mentioned um early on in my tenure that you didn't think that the council could repeal things.
Um and from the city charter section five it says the city council may at any time by ordinance increase reduce establish or abolish salaries of heads of departments or members of boards. And so the question is is the mayor the head of a department?
And section 512 of the city code says yes. The office of the mayor shall be known for administrative and budgetary purposes as the executive department. And then I looked into whether the council can repeal things and it said as section 21 of the city charter says no ordinance shall be amended or repealed except by an ordinance adopted in accordance with this chapter.
So we can repeal things. That's also um chapter 43 section 21 of mass state law. And then um state law chapter 43b uh section 13 says any city may by the adoption amendment or repeal of local ordinances or bylaws exercise any power or function which the general court has power to confer upon it.
So I think um on that question it seems clear to me that we can repeal things. I guess what I'm asking you, I don't think we could repeal our current um salary because of this not being able to take legislative, you know, ordinances on our own salary, but they said you could decide whether or not we could take a vote and whether or not a supermajority could decide to go back to the old salary.
So my question is, could we take a vote and a supermaajority or a majority of people um voting to go back to the old salary would um take us back to the old salary? Well, I'm sorry it wasn't clear. Um and and I want to explain that we're we're all on the same team here.
I hope that's understood. like you folks are now the legislative body of the city of Quinsey and I know at least a few folks cuz I've worked with them over the past several years understand this but we're supposed to be working together to move things forward and frankly I I'm not sure what your background is and I won't challenge it but uh generally speaking city councilors don't challenge when a city solicitor gives an opinion.
I mean I've been around doing this. I'm trained in municipal law. I know exactly what the state ethics lawyer said to you because they say that in the first instance, all state ethics related questions are to be answered by the city attorney or the town council.
So that's what she said to you. But we're not dealing with ethics issues here. We're dealing with uh a different matter. And you know, I suppose, you know, the council's going to do what it's going to do, but I am publicly advising you that you're going to be creating a real problem because of what the word repeal means.
Yes, it shows up in the general laws. You didn't mention general law chapter 4 where the word repeal is design is defined. It's in there. is defined and it says it wipes out not only what is currently in place but all predecessors and generally you use repeal.
I use the example of when we redid the zoning ordinance. We did a brand new rewrite of the entire zoning ordinance. So we said the prior ordinance is totally out the door so there'd be no conflict. Have you looked I'm not certain why you're so committed to the word repeal, but you could if you use the word delete, everything's fine.
You get the outcome you want. Um the the number the salary number is off the books and you replace it with whatever number the body votes for. So that's my strong recommendation we do. We're going to avoid a lot of problems.
So, I understand I understand what you're saying and I think um in the ordinances that I subsequently wrote once I realized that we do have to repeal things with an ordinance um I've written it so that it talks specifically about going back to the prior salary.
So, it's we wouldn't end up with a situation where no one's getting paid in the the city. The mayor's getting zero. We're getting zero. Um, I guess we're still not we're still not getting to the question here because because what I'm trying to find out is we can't repeal our current salary, but can we take a vote and the city would allow us if we all, you know, or most of us voted to do this.
Um they said you would have to weigh in on this. Um could we take a vote and the supermajority of us could take our salaries back to the original level? It wouldn't be called a repeal in this case for our current term.
So that's issues off the table. Okay. Well then are you going to be rewriting these orders? This this order um doesn't this order 2026 016 does not talk about um repeal it. It's just saying if a majority or a supermajority of the current city council were to vote to administratively defer so similar to what you did before the council's raise for the current term returning the council's salary to blah blah blah would the city administratively defer raises for all counselors as it did in 2025?
Okay. Well, that's yeah, that question we talked about and I believe I answered. I don't think you need to do it with an ordinance. I think you should do it in the manner you're doing because if you do vote an ordinance that either increases or decreases your pay raise, I rather your pay.
Either an increase or decrease falls under 268A and it can have no effect until the next term. But if you want to make a change now, you can simply the term that was used and it was approved by uh the general counsel when we worked together is that you decline payment.
And I think that's the safest way. I'm trying to be helpful. You said we're not getting to the question. I think we're not getting to the answer. And I'm honestly trying to be helpful because I think you've you're just um not fully comprehending and it gets very confusing.
It did for the prior council and I understand that. But because there's a couple of laws that conflict, you have to be very careful about what you do and the words are important. So, um I if you want to do letters like the ones I passed out, you could address things for the balance of the year.
um or balance of the term and then go to work on the type of salary study that you folks have expressed interest in pursuing. And you could do that in a very peaceful way without having to say something's repealed or not.
Because the fact of the matter is right now the mayor the mayor is on record in municipal finance and it has been the case since he filed his letter that he declines payment on the salary. Um and the increase level will not take effect until the beginning of the next mayoral term.
So the mayoral salary is right now fixed and um you folks could do the same with the council salary and and do so without creating problems. Otherwise I'm concerned what we talk about here is one thing but in the same manner you've kind of question what I'm saying.
Um, there are folks out there who may file a lawsuit or may press this issue and then the word repeal means no one gets anything. So, I guess just to go back, I'm I'm not talking about an ordinance. I'm just saying like in a kind of vote, we would vote here.
Um, and would we be allowed to then have a supermajority of us do this? So, it sounds like the answer is no. based on what you're saying that that the only way that you're saying this can happen is is not through a vote of the majority where we would act as a you know be able to do something for all of us so that it's kind of more equitable but you're saying how it was done before was this individual letter whereby everyone sent a letter individually that's the way you're saying so basically the answer to this question is no.
Is that Well, I don't know about that. Like, you're asking me questions and and they're not necessarily yes or no questions. I don't know what you mean. Can we just vote? Resolution order. Like, what what would it be?
I don't know what you mean. It could be a resolution. Could be an order. Like either one of those. Okay. It's not an ordinance. Well, um I I'm not sure why I need to if uh the council I I I suppose members can chime in.
I I hope I've been clear with what I'm saying, but I don't know what mechanism you could introduce this under this general equity theory. Um I think talk to your colleagues and see you can talk among yourselves what because I I know that my experience with councelor Deona councelor Rash and their colleagues on the prior council everyone was cooperative and I'm certain that this group could be as well if you talked about this.
Okay, thank you very much. Um uh councelor Riley and you were just saying that we have to go to finance. Okay, sorry about that. Thank you very much. Okay. Um so um the March 16th ordinance committee will recess then good evening.
I would like to call to order the March 16, 2026 meeting of the Quinsey City Council Finance Committee and begin reading the open meeting law. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.
Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unpersceived, by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Um, I'd like to state for the record.
Oh, do you want to take a call real quick? Okay. Councelor Ash, President. Council Deona. Council Hubley. Council Hubley. Walter. Council Hub. Council Hub. Council Jacobs. Council Mahoney. Council McKe Council Ryan Council Yuan Chairman Riley present.
Nine members. Okay. The first item on the agenda is order number 2026-038, appropriation for 2,646,730 fire department new firefighter turnout gear. And I would like to read that order into the record.
Uh the order is dated February 23rd, 2026. Be it ordained that $2,646,730 is appropriated to purchase fire department equipment and safety gear and to pay all of the costs incidental and related there too.
To meet this appropriation, the treasurer collector with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow $2,646,730 under general law chapter 44 section 71 or any other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the city.
Therefore, the treasurer collector is authorized to file an application with the municipal finance oversight board to qualify under chapter 44A of the general laws any or all of the bonds authorized to be issued by this order and to provide such information and execute such documents as the board may require for these purposes.
Um, I'd like to note that accompanying this original order when it was introduced on March 2nd was a letter dated February 17, 2026 from interim fire chief Gary Smith to Mayor Thomas P. Ko and a one-page cost estimate for the items to be covered by the appropriation.
The supplemental materials that were delivered to the counselors on March 12th and will be presented this evening has been posted to the city's website on on the homepage. as legally required. This matter was referred to this committee on March 2nd and was advertised in the March 4th edition of the Patriot Ledger satisfying the 10-day public notice requirement.
I would also like to add that although there are other matters that have been referred to the finance committee for discussion, as the chair, I wanted to make this the only business discussed here tonight in committee.
I along with my fellow counselors recognize the importance of this request. And just to be clear, the request is to approve the $2.6 6 million bond debt to pay for the emergency gear for our first responders.
It is not to approve the purchase itself. That lies solely within the control of the administration and the department. So with that, I'd like to turn this over to Chief of Staff Walker to begin the presentation.
We will hold questions from the counselors until all presenters have presented. And under rule 10, we will limit the initial comment period for each counselor to 15 minutes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman through through you. Thank you very much. It is a great honor tonight on behalf of Mayor Ko to introduce tonight's presentation on a proposal that will continue to make the city of Quinsey not just a regional model, not just the statewide model, but a national model when it comes to protecting those who protect us, our firefighters, and their families.
You've all received the relevant material, and it has been posted publicly to the city's website. The team is here this evening and ready to answer every single question this body may have. Leading the presentation this evening will be interim fire chief Gary Smith who provide a brief overview and be able to answer any questions you have relative to the new gear we expect to purchase with approval of this authorization.
Uh he will be followed by Quinsey firefighters local president local 792 President Thomas Bose who has really put in an incredible amount of work. he and his group over the last number of years relative to firefighter safety and specifically uh on this issue.
He'll walk through a timeline on how we got to where we are this evening. Uh I also want to acknowledge we have with us tonight the president of the professional firefighters of Massachusetts Trish McKinnon and Bill Cabraw also from Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts.
Uh following them we'll have Notre Dame Professor Graham Peasley. uh he is an expert on PAS and you have a good amount of material from him. A lot of his work is is based off of some of is is the the nucleus of the work that we've performed um and the union has performed over this past year.
Um municipal finance director Paul Delabber will then review the debt schedule and the financing of the purchase. with us tonight from the finance team. We also have uh strategic assets director Rick Kosha and from Ramirez and Co, the managing partner of Ramirez and Co.
uh Mario Marsano uh one of our fin outside financial adviserss. Uh lastly and not leastly, Solicitor Timonss will touch on the legal issues related uh to this matter. Uh with that, with the body's permission, I would turn it over to Chief Smith.
Good evening, Council Riley, members of the council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening on behalf of the Quinsey Fire Department regarding our proposal to purchase new personal protective equipment for our members.
We present this evening in honor of all of our active and retired Quinsey firefighters and families suffering from cancer and those that we've lost. and to all firefighters suffering from cancer, including my own brother Paul, a lieutenant on the Brainree Fire Department with 32 years service who's been diagnosed with brain cancer.
May we keep all of them in our thoughts and prayers this evening. Firefighting has always involved risk and all of us are aware of it. While flames are the most visible danger, the greatest long-term threat often comes from toxic smoke in the byproducts of combustion.
These contain a mix of toxic gases and carcinogens that firefighters inhale and absorb through their skin repeatedly throughout their careers. Years ago, protective equipment consisted of simple rubber boots and single layer coats that protect protected protected little against heat and flame and provided no protection from toxic exposure.
In the 1990s, the fire service, including the Quinsey Fire Department, began a major shift toward modern protective equipment in accordance with NFPA 1971, introducing fully encapsulated protective equipment that included multi-layer turnout coats and pants, protective hoods, fireresistant gloves and boots, and self-contained breathing apparatus.
These advancements significantly improve firefighter safety by reducing exposure to heat, flame, and harmful contaminants. During the same period, we also began addressing another major exposure risk, diesel exhaust inside our firehouses.
Historically, apparatus bays were open to living quarters, allowing diesel fumes to circulate through the areas where firefighters lived and slept. To address this, the city installed separation doors and primo vent exhaust extraction systems in accordance with NFPA 1500, capturing diesel fumes directly at the tailpipe in reducing carcin carcinogen exposure risk.
Over the last decade, Quinsey has continued to be proactive in protecting firefighters health given that today, modern buildings and furnishings now contain large amounts of synthetic materials that produce extremely toxic smoke when they burn.
As a result, cancer rates in the fire service have increased dramatically. In response to this and with the support of our mayor, our elected officials, and our membership, we've taken several important steps here in Quinsey.
Our firehouses now include dedicated decontamination facilities in accordance with NFPA 1585, allowing firefighters to shower immediately after incidents and clean their protective equipment using specialized extractor machines.
We conduct gross decontamination on scene whenever possible to remove a high percentage of contaminants before entering apparatus and returning to firehouses. Each firefighter is issued two sets of protective equipment to ensure that contaminated gear can be properly cleaned without compromising operational readiness in accordance with NF 1851 standards of the NFPA.
Firefighters are also encouraged to keep their uniforms at the station and launder them on site to reduce risk of bringing contaminants home to their families. In partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services, medical providers, and our local, state, and international fire unions, our firefighters are offered the opportunity to participate in cancer screening programs to detect illnesses as early as possible.
cancer awareness courses available through the department of fire services and we have cancer prevention standard operating guidelines within our own department. Members of our department have also created the Quinsey Fire Cancer Foundation, a nonprofit that raises funds to support our firefighters and their families who are suffering from cancer and to help provide screening opportunities for our members.
Thank you to all who've donated to this foundation and I'm extremely proud and grateful for the work of our foundation. Cancer prevention is at the forefront of the fire service. Yet despite all these efforts, cancer continues to rise within the fire service.
National data shows firefighters have approximately a 9% higher risk of developing cancer and a 14% higher risk of dying from it. Most staggering of all and maybe one of the most important things that I share with you this evening is cancer is now the leading cause of line of duty deaths among firefighters at an alarming rate of up to almost 80% of those deaths.
I'm going to repeat that. 80% of line of duty deaths in the fire service today are from occupational cancer. Think about that for a moment. Our city has taken every possible step to safeguard the health and wellness of our firefighters by reducing their exposure to dangerous toxins and carcinogens at every opportunity.
Now, I stand before you this evening to report that research and testing have proven that the personal protective equipment our firefighters are currently wearing, our first line of defense against toxins and carcinogens, contains dangerous levels of chemicals known as PAS.
Most concerning, they've been intentionally added. These compounds have been used in protective equipment for their moisture repellent and thermalresistant properties known as forever chemicals. They're persistent.
They do not break down readily in the environment nor in the human body and are increasingly linked to cancer and other serious illness. Research and testing conducted by Professor Graeme Peasley of the University of Notre Dame has brought national attention to this issue and it's what prompted us here in Quinsey to begin testing our own equipment.
I welcome Professor Peasley to our city for his extraordinary work and thank him for being here this evening. Working collaborative collaboratively with Mayor Ko and our union leadership, particularly local 792 President Tom Bose, we began researching, testing, and evaluating PAS-free alternatives.
President Bose has spent an extraordinary amount of time working with testing institutions and fire departments across the country to identify safer options for our members. After extensive research, testing, and evaluation, we selected protective equipment that's been independently tested by both our department and the manufacturers and confirmed it to be PAS-free.
We did our due diligence and we stand before you confident in our decision. It's one that protects the health and wellness of our firefighters, their families, and the citizens we serve. Let me be clear.
This is not a Quinzy issue. It's an issue that spans fire departments and communities across the nation. Governor Mara Haley has already taken action in Massachusetts by signing legislation that bans the sale of personal protective equipment containing intentionally added PAS effective January 1st of 2027.
In addition, the proposed PAS Alternatives Act is expected to be introduced into the United States Senate, which re would require PAS-free firefighter protective equipment nationwide. The World Health Organization, it classifies firefighting now as a class one carcinogen.
These actions at both the state and federal levels reflect the growing recognition of the risk associated with PAS and the urgent need to transition to safer alternatives. Counselors, I have the responsibility to protect the health and wellness of our firefighters, their families, and the community we serve.
We have a duty to act in the positions we hold to provide the safest available personal protective equipment for the men and women who risk their lives every day to protect the lives and property of this city.
Together, let's do what's right for our firefighters, for their families, and for our great city. Thank you. At this time, councelor, I'd like to introduce local 792 president Tom Bose, who's going to come up and discuss the testing portion of the presentation.
Thank you. Good evening, councils. I'm just going to go over a timeline. Uh my name is Tom Bose. I'm a lifetime uh Quinsey resident, president of the Quinsey Firefighters Association, Local 792. I represent 280 sworn members of the department.
Uh it's my 26th year as a firefighter, almost 25 of them being the principal officer of Local 792. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and discuss with the council the process we've undertaken over the last year and longer on behalf of our members and their families to provide the safest care possible.
As the chief mentioned, occupational cancer is the leading cause of death of of active duty firefighters. I personally seen far too many of my colleagues who have succumbed. We've been working on this issue for years.
It is absolutely critical for the members of the department we get it right. The best firefighters in the country that I took an old to protect. You have before you a full narrative timeline of the events of the last year that have led us to here tonight.
I'm not going to go through the entire timeline, but I will discuss the highlights. One thing I want to stress to the council before I get started in this. We do not believe based on the work we have done to date that we have any clean sets of gear in the department in the city.
That's an important point as the council deliberates deliberates this matter this evening. After working to find the cleanest gear possible for a class of recruits last year, we began hearing reports that while the new gear was guaranteed to be free of intentionally added levels of PAS, it may still have cont uh contained an equally dangerous group of chemicals called brominated flame retardants or BFRs.
Specifically, our concern was related to the moisture barrier. There's three layers to the gear. There's a moisture barrier, an outer shell, and a thermal layer. The moisture barrier is in the middle.
That's what we were going to have tested for BFRs. This this originally had nothing to do with PAS. Research into these chemicals is very new and we were so frustrated by what we were hearing. At that time around April of last year, I was approached by Jason Burns, district vice president with the professional firefighters of Massachusetts who had been a leading advocate in the gear on the PAS issue for many years.
Jason also helped us with the PAS firefighting foam a few years back. We replaced all our foam in the city and get rid of the alef. And that was thanks to Jason's help. And if he's watching tonight, we appreciate it.
Jason was going to try to uh be with us tonight. He had a family commitment. Uh, firefighter Burns introduced us to Notre Dame professor uh, Grant Peasley, whose scientific expertise and work on the PAS issue over the last number of years actually helped guide us to seek out gear that was explicitly sold as PAS-free, some of which was even made using PF0.
Professor Peasley agreed to test the sample from the new gear. A short time later, he called us to let us know the initial testing showed suspected BFRs in the moisture barrier of the gear, which we assumed, but also showed troubling indications of PAS in a different component of the gear, the outer shell.
PAS that we were told in writing is not supposed to be there. Professor Peasley agreed to a full test of the outer shell for the PAS, as well as the original request relative to the moisture barrier. On June 23rd, 2025, we received the full report from Professor Peasley and our worst concerns were confirmed.
The test results with Professor Peasley will discuss tonight showed high levels of BFRs and levels of PAS so high they indicated they were intentionally added. We informed Mayor Ko of the test results and we began a broader investigation into exactly what happened and to determine how deep the issue may actually go.
In August, Mayor Ko held a press conference with our members and the president of the International Association of Firefighters, Ed Kelly, to release the test results and announce potential action against the companies that defrauded the city.
Prior to the announcement, we' become we had begun working with the IAFF scientific department, who's also been amazing. They sent the same original sample tested by Professor Peasley to both Duke University and NC State University.
Both Duke and NC State verified Professor Peasley's findings and you have the material with you tonight as well. You have the reports from Duke and NC State. Broadening our investigation, we sent additional sets of gear purchased in 2019, 2023, 2024, and July of 2025 to Professor Peasley for testing.
The results we received in September were devastating to hear. Multiple batches of gear promised to be PASF- free going back to 2019 were loaded with it as well as unacceptable levels of BFRs. Frustrating news as we specifically asked the manufacturers to produce documents back in 2019 stating the gear was PAS-free which they did and we kept.
Our gear committee took that step back then because of what Professor Peasley had started to say in the late two 2018 and early 2019 after he tested a set of gear from Worester about the concern of high level of PAS in the gear.
We kept multiple documents and emails. One specifically stating that our laminates do not contain PAS chemicals. Another stating a line we've got to know over the years and we laughed about it earlier.
It said uh it may contain trace amounts from the production process. and then went on to say the trace amounts would be removed by June of 2018. The test results show that what they said and gave us in writing was a lie.
It appears they made it appears they made the gear in 2019 using the same fabrics they were using for years, which is considered legacy gear. They knew it. They just thought we would never figure it out.
I spoke to Mayor Ko the same night we received the report. He immediately told us and the department to begin looking for new gear. The written timeline the council has has goes into great detail about the process we went through.
In short, it included multiple conversations with departments locally and around the country. Confirmation that the products we were looking to buy were reported as tested tested as safe and multiple meetings and trust building sessions with Milikin and company, the manufacturer of the products and the gear that we are proposing to buy.
All this culminated in January with a site visit to the Milicanin facility in South Carolina and samples of the fabric to be used in our gear was sent to Professor Peasley to be tested. We received the results of this testing on February 17th of this year also in new material and it confirmed the fabrics to be safe.
Chief Smith advised Mayor Ko the next day that the problem was ready to proceed with a proposed purchase and the order was introduced to the council the following week. I think all the information you have is very important as there have been a lot of misinformation the last couple weeks.
There was no intentional delay at all to get this done. Back at the end of September when we got the other test results of the batch gear testing, we knew we had a major issue throughout every set of gear in the department and we didn't even know if there was a solution or what the cost would be.
When you buy gear, you don't just go down the store and pick it off the rack. You don't go to Amazon and click a button and it shows up the next day. There's a full process as every vendor has a different product even though they're made with the same fabrics.
Just to get a couple sets of test gear, it takes up to eight weeks after a member is sized. There is field testing, homework on thermal ratings, and now thanks to Professor Peasley and Forever Analytical, we have an avenue to test the gear for PAS and BFRs.
After the work and time we have put into this, it was disappointing to hear people actually saying we're delaying this because of politics, especially after two of our members are currently fighting occupational cancer.
Guys with wives and children to put it on the line every day for the city. Not a day goes by we don't think about those guys and the fights they're going through. This isn't about politics. This is about doing the right thing and trying to make sure that maybe no one else has to go through what they're going and their families are going through.
It's been a long year that has featured hundreds of hours of research and homework to make sure we have this right. Right down to finding language that can be used in regards to testing and safeguarding the purchase of the gear.
We can't thank Mayor Ko and his administration enough for the efforts they have put into this effort. It's a monumental effort. Also a big thanks to IFFF President Ed Kelly, IFFF President Third District Vice President Jay Colbert, PFFM President Rich McKinnon, Secretary Treasurer Billy Cabraw, Vice President Jay Burns, San Francisco Battalion Chief Matt Alba who has been a wealth of information for us, Brian Hajes from Milikin, John Sawyer from Fireex, Danielle from IPS, and Professor Graham Peasley and Hunter McMillan forever anal an analytical for all they have done with the testing program.
Also, I'd be remissed if I didn't thank the Quinsey Fire Cancer Foundation. Um, those guys paid for the testing. Um, God bless the foundation and the work they've done. The collaborative effort over the past year has literally changed the industry and how departments across the country now going about purchasing PPE.
None of this happens without Jason Burns and Professor Graham Peasley. We thank Professor Peasley for taking time out of his busy schedule and traveling to Massachusetts to discuss this very important issue tonight.
Thank you. Thank you. One moment. One moment. If we could please. Um, we'll have to recess this hearing briefly. We'll start the city council meeting and then we'll come back in in uh committee. We're going to call the city council meeting Monday, March 16th, 2026, 7:30 to order.
Um, madame clerk, could you call the call the role, please? Councelor Ash. Councelor Deona, Councelor Hubley, present. Councelor Jacobs, present. Council McKe, present. Council Riley, present. Council Ryan, Council Yen, President Mahoney, present.
Nine members here. If we could all stand for a moment of silence. And if we could turn to pledge our allegiance to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
So now we're going to recess the um the city council meeting and we're going to go right back into the finance meeting. Jump around a little and we'll have open forum after. Thank you. We'll call this back to order.
Professor Peasley, thank you very much for your patience. No, no problem. Uh, I'd like to thank the council for allowing me to speak. It's a privilege to be here in Quincy and I'd like to thank the Quincy Fire Department for inviting me.
I'm coming on my own dime because I think it's important to show that uh this is a personal passion of mine and the Quincy Fire Department is ahead of about 95% of the fire departments in the country.
And I should mention that they do that out of their own interest in getting safe gear. Uh I'm also partly responsible for the mess we're in now in the sense that there are 27,000 fire departments in the United States of America and they are all searching for new gear because of a discovery that we made back in about 2017 2018.
Uh when I tested the gear and we found staggering levels of PAS in it beyond anything I'd seen in any other commercial textile and it took me about 3 years to publish that. We had to get the gear first.
I I asked the firefighter in Worcester who sent me the gear, was did anybody not like him or did somebody anybody else wear this gear? And I was amazed to find out that was not only a common occurrence to put PP PAS in PPE, it was required by the then current NFPA 1971 standard.
And they couldn't meet it without PAS, they said. Well, that turned out not to be true. It just happened to be a company spokesman that put that in. And so we did research into it. We published it in 2021 and I'm proud to say that's a peer-reviewed scientific article saying there's PAS in the gear and it could harm the firefighter.
It was followed up by an IIAFF, the National International Union of Firefighters that asked to do an independent research study. They called me up and said, "Who's the best PAS expert in the country to do that?" I said, "Jennifer Fields, number one in the world." And so they went to Oregon State and they offered her money to do a study.
And to her credit, she also invited me to contribute to her study. But she did an independent study and uh not only confirmed the results I had published the year before, but she found another source of them.
There were gaseous ones as well as uh solid ones and they were in fact much even worse than what I had predicted. Uh and it represents both papers were published and said it represents a risk to the firefighter to wear this gear.
Uh that was enough for the IIAFF and they did an immediate about face to their credit. uh the new union president came in and he said we're going to be behind this and within a year resolutions had been passed by IFFF saying that we want PAS free gear and without it the manufacturers aren't allowed to attend their conferences that's their sales route uh the manufacturers of course were not without some foresense they had I told them about my work when I was doing it and I said do you guys know how much PAS are in here and again there was plausible deniability they weren't sure they hadn't heard this um but at the moment Uh, we went ahead and proved that it's there.
And not only that, it comes off. I have pictures of my students holding the gear. And no sooner than we got the gear in our lab that we discovered it transferred to hands. All my students have to handle the gear with nitrial gloves because of personal safety risks.
The university won't allow us to handle hazardous chemicals like that without gear on. They have to have eyewear and nitrial gloves. And when the firefighters saw my students holding the gear up for a photograph, hiding behind the gear, they noticed the nitral gloves and said, "Why don't I wear gloves when I wear my gear?" And of course, they're putting it on their entire body.
I'm not a environmental toxicologist. I can't tell you what the transfer rate is between, but I know it's not zero. There's a lot of published studies now. A published study came out in 2024 saying there's dermal absorption of these very same PAS chemicals.
And the number of adverse uh health effects from PAS are very well known in this country and around the world. And it's scary. Uh and while we do not know that any set of gear could cause anyone cancer, we know that it's not necessary.
There was at the time I published my first paper a company that came up and said, "Could you test this gear for us?" And I did uh free of charge. And I looked at it and I said, "It's got no PAS in it.
Is it 1971 uh compliant?" They said, "Yes." And I said, "Well, aren't you clever? I'm publishing a paper next week about how this is uh what we need to do. And they had thought about it and they spent six months beating their competitors to something that was PAS-free.
And this was in 19 uh 2021. And by 2023, every major manufacturer was now offering pas gear or at least they said so. And I thought my job was over. We had done an amazing thing. Everything had turned around in three or four years, which is pretty fast for an industry.
uh until I got a call from Jason Burns who then put me in touch with Tom here in Quincy and one other firefighter in San Francisco and uh they said, "How do we know our gear has is now PASF free? They're supposed to have a label." I said, "They aren't putting labels in." And that became a little bit of a concern.
So I tested some more gear and most of it, the good news is about 80% of the gear, I've tested about 70 sets in the last 3 months, has been pased. Uh, but Quincy was my very first the second set of gear I tested and it wasn't and that was a mis that was a mistake.
It should have been PAS-free and the manufacturer apologized but they are not producing the gear that they spec and so uh what are we going to do? We're going to trust but verify and we're going to check that they have PAS free gear and they deserve it.
So I'm not here to argue about what all the testing protocols are. I'll be happy to explain that in question time if you have any questions. I'm happy to answer that. Uh what I would like to say is I support fully any fire department that's trying to change out the gear for their members.
They're not doing it for themselves. They're doing it for the future generation of firefighters because they have already been exposed to PAS and the future generation doesn't need to be. And I think it's a it's a a worthy cause.
The issue before you is of course how to fund it and that's uh that's beyond my purview. But I would like to urge support for these firefighters and they are doing a yman's job for the whole city. Uh not for the city but for the state and for the country.
Everybody is looking to Quincy and they've heard about Quincy Fire Department thanks to their press conference when they discovered they weren't getting what they expect. And that's led to a this this city council meeting will be reproduced in dozens of other cities in the next months and in the next coming years.
So I thank you for your time and I'll be happy to answer questions later. Thank you, Professor Mr. Delibber evening council. Okay. Well, I would just like to say if we this council votes and goes forward with this purchase of the firefighter gear for the firefighters, the city was planning on doing a 10-year bond offering.
We reached out to a RAIR company to help us estimate the costs on that and I can go over that with you briefly right now. I believe every council has a copy of this with your package. The interest on a 10-year note for this purchase of the of the gear would be $785,625 um with an annual debt service of roughly $325 um to pay for it.
So that'll be over a 10-year period. The cost increase for the debt service to the average residential taxpayer in Quincy for this purchase would be roughly $7.97 a year for 10 years or $80 over the the life of the bond.
U if you have any questions on the debt schedule, I'd be more than happy to go over that at that time. Thank you. Thank you. Solicitor attendance. Thank you. Madame Chair, uh good evening again, counselors.
Uh there's not much to say on as far as legal in relation to this acquisition cuz we're kind of out in a separate universe. Um the city was involved in a fairly complex um matter involving the Honeywell Corporation when Matt Ko first came in back in 2008 and some of you may be familiar with it but um it went on for about four years.
Uh we involved the attorney general's office um private attorneys and it was a lot of work. Well, we're embarking on that same process now. Um, working with staff from the attorney general's office. Um, I have a another attorney who's working on this with me, but for the most part, we've been waiting for the engineering work to come through.
Um, in addition, PAS, and perhaps someone more qualified with the science of it all would uh be able to explain this better than me, but PAS is in the groundwater supply in a number of areas. And what has happened is there are communities that have filed lawsuits um in relation to the, you know, the liability aspects.
They've raised the liability for um how the water got there. In some instances, there were pipe manufacturers who manufactured using PAS. So, the legal world of PAS claims is an it's evolving and we're at the front end of it right now.
Um, I'm involved with um matters that we're still exploring. There are a number of questions like just by way of example um who would a plaintiff be in this case? Would it be the city? Well, we're about to become a damaged party by virtue of the expenditure of money to buy new turnout gear.
So, that will be damages held by the city, but the individual firefighters in this room and their families, uh, they're plaintiffs as well. So how you parse those claims and um how things are are you know properly brought a claim by a city um it's all still in the very nent stages.
So I don't have much to say other than we're beginning the work but it has nothing to do um or should in any way delay what's going on here tonight. This is very important. It's about the people behind me.
the uh litigation will trail a bit and um we'll certainly keep you updated as developments occur but um we're at the very beginning stages. Okay. Thanks, solicitor. Thank you. Okay. Uh at this time, I would like to open it up to my colleagues.
Council Dana. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just want to thank all the firefighters and their families and I see police officers here as well. any public safety folks that are here in tonight's chambers.
I just want to start off by saying I I expressed my full support for the safety gear proposal for our Quinsey firefighters. This is a critical issue. I attended the Mayor Ko's August 2025 press conference regarding this gear that we have in front of us tonight.
Throughout my 10 years as a city council at large, I've consistently advocated for public safety. Having worked closely with Chief Baron, Chief Jackson, Chief Smith, and Quinsey firefighters Local 2 792, Presidents Bose and Mo Moody, I've supported various um funding appropriations for our firefighters, uh including station revitalizations, new aspirus, specialized washing machines, and essential essential staffing levels.
I believe this new equipment is necessary. Providing this turnout gear ensures our firefighters can safely perform their duties while serving the citizens of Quinsey and all citizens. With that, I'd like to make a motion to approve this measure.
Thank you. Thank you, uh, Council Devana. So, you're making a motion that you would like to move this out of committee to make a motion to approve approve to approve it without further discussion. Discuss on the motion.
Discussion on his motion. Yes. Okay. Um but there would be no further discussion on No, you can discuss and then on the motion you can discuss. Okay. Uh I'll open it up to anyone else who would like to make comment.
Council and then chairwoman are we discuss about his uh councelor Deona's motion? We all we discuss about uh this ordinance this bond. I guess we can we can I guess we can deliberate more broadly. Okay.
So may I ask several questions to Mr. Bow B both s Thank you for for your report. So I just have a couple questions about so in your report item 10 you said we purchased 188 sets of PPE personal protective equipment at the time and I'm wondering this 188 sets you all purchased from one company or from different companies.
You don't have Oh, is I is I speaking to the this. Okay. Uh yeah. Okay. Number 10. Yeah. What was your question? Kasle. Uh so uh number 10 it written we purchased 188 sets of PPE at the time and I'm questioning is that 188 sets all from one company or from different company?
Oh it was actually 171 that that's a misprint. It was 171. Those 171 were bought by the same company. 171 or from the from which company? I I'm not going to say we're not saying company names tonight council.
Okay. And uh this 171 sets purchased through several batches right from 2019, 2023, 2024 and 2025 or you just purchased at one time. Uh the so there were different purchases council. There was a purchase in 2019 and then a new academy come on and uh they purchased in 2023 for a new academy.
Another academy come on in 2024. They purchased more gear in 2024 and then in 2025 there was actually another academy a second academy in 2025. So that was a different purchase as well. And yeah the reason I ask this because the test result of several sets from different years are very uh different.
That's why I want to ask uh you purchase how how many sets you purchase in 2019 and 2023 in 202. Do you have an idea? 2023 23 23 you have the number 23 number. Uh we can get those to you council. Yeah, we don't have them.
Um okay. And uh you said a good estimate is that there are still 150 to 160 sets of this PPE as a first set of PPE for Quincy firefighters. That that's correct. So, just to explain it, counelor, in 2019, um there was a couple academy classes the couple years before that and in 19 we needed gear and we had not no idea about chemicals back then.
We started to learn about it, but we needed gear for thermal protection. After 10 years, your gear starts to wear and and you're not protected for thermal protection. So, the gear was from 20 the older sets of gear at that point were 201 12 2012.
So, we made a major purchase in 2019 and that's why we bought so many sets in 2019. So big purchase is from 2019. Correct. Okay. And then gradually you have a 2023. Correct. That was new new academy classes coming on.
Correct. So those weren't as big cons. So there's probably I'd venture to say maybe 20 sets each year. So what's that mean? Still 150 to 160 sets of PPE as a first set of PP. Does that mean 150 to 165 fighters only have one?
What what I mean by that, counelor, so so some of them might have retired. They got a 2019 set and so that set just sits for you know that's not it's it's for use for like academy purposes and stuff like that.
Um so if if a person retires so so out of 2019 councelor there is without a doubt 150 160 sets still being worn by members including myself my guess is 2019. So and that's your first set of that's my first set my my backup set is 2012 which is expired according to NFA standards.
Okay. So 2012 already expired. Yes ma'am. It's 10 the recommended is 10 years the recommendation. Okay. So my my next question is on the table but audience don't have that. So the question is so the first set you sent to professor uh correct?
Yep. That's is from 2020 manufactured in March 25. March 2025. That's correct. And that's from the same company you purchase all those sets. Yes. Uh can I say that? Yeah. I'm asking. Yeah. Same company.
Yep. Okay. And then in table second table there item one to four like four pairs. That's all test preee both pants and the jacket both outshare and moisture barrier that's from the same company and why that all test pree I'm losing your counsel table two yeah table two y the first one to four items correct what what you don't have in front of your council but it should be in your notes is um the brominated flame retardant test So they were high in broinated flame retatants even though there no PAS in them.
So technically there are very dangerous chemicals in those sets of gear. So does that infer when they manufactured this turn out of it in March they in March 2025 they still have a pas on the out layer and then in July that's the new batch of the That's correct.
You hit it right on the head, council. Okay. They they corrected their action, council, after they were called out on it. Okay. From March to July. Okay. Um my another question is uh the same table two item 9 to 12 that's manufactured in 2024 but also show P3.
That that's correct, council. And as I said, uh there's another shot. I should have it in front of you. Um it's they're filled with brominated flame retardants even though they're PAS free. So they are filled with dangerous chemicals as well.
So I I know that. But uh I'm just wondering if in 2024 the company already stop use PAS as as the data number nine to number 12. Why in 2025 March they start to use Ps again? If I had that answer council, we wouldn't be here right now.
I'm just asking uh have you test the other set from the same batch made in 2025 March is going to come up. Uh I understand the question and it's very confusing why the company that first produced and we won't mention the name of the company first produced pasree gear but then at some point later the gear was no longer psree.
That's because in an enormous effort, 1.2 million firefighters need new sets of gear. They're switching all from PAS filled gear to PAS free gear. They went through some technical issues on the company manufacturing side.
And I know this for certain that this company actually manufactured gear unintentionally putting the P they thought it was PAS free and they they they failed in a to manufacture at Pastry and then they quickly caught that and that's why as little as 3 months later the gear was again Pastry.
It was supposed to be PAS3 all along, but Quincy purchased the gear right in the middle when they didn't have PAS3. And that's that's unfortunate, but it was very lucky we caught that because when it was realized, they realized they had an issue in the manufacturing process.
And my question is, is this information provided by the manufacturer? the B the manufacturer like this process first they go through psy then miss meet some technical problem then they start to add a ps on it then after being caught they go back to ps3 is this information provided by the manufacturer I'm not a member of the quincy so I will say that I spoke with a manufacturer who described such an incident to me I can't say that that that's for their legal case and things like that I don't want to go into detail but I know that's what And so I'll say that, but I I'm I'm saying that as a person, not as a member of Quincy.
And that's that's where I'm trying to work with manufacturers and firefighters to try and achieve the same thing. We want to reestablish trust with the manufacturers. The manufacturers have lost their trust.
And the idea of testing is to get everybody back on the same page. They should be talking to each other. And that batch we purchased 30 pairs right in 2025 in March from the And so in so you just send one of 30 pairs.
That's correct. And and that was actually a brand new set of gear, counselor. Um it was never worn. Um it was get taken from the box it got delivered in and it was sent out to Professor Peasy. That was meant for a recruit that never uh joined the academy.
He he quit before the academy started. Have you sent some other pairs from that batch to professor? From that batch? No, we have not. You haven't. Okay. So because I saw that if you want to litigation only one pair seems not that strong.
We we learned a lot council when we went down to one of the plants and I know professor Peasy can attest to this. When they make gear uh gear is usually between three and five yards to make a set of gear.
I think that's accurate correct. So 3 to 5 yards to make a set of gear. These rolls of material they're about 100 yard rolls. So I'm venture to say that the limited number that we bought in March of 2025 would be from the same roll of material.
So odds are it's all going to be contaminated because they're coming off the same roll of material. And I have another question. So you also test the and high amount of brominate FL retardants in which pairs like this table.
What? I don't have it in front of me. We we have that in report somewhere. Um I can take a look right now. Ma'am. Yeah. Any other questions? One more. Oh, yeah. I have more questions. I saw that she is going to do.
It's got a few more minutes. Okay. I have more questions. What's your question coming? Oh, I I mean because this uh the original pair send to for test is for test brominate flame retardants. Correct. Uh so so console we were that was our intentions.
Um we we thought we had uh accomplished finding a clean outer shell, a P fast free outer shell cuz that's how it was sold to us. It was made with a chemical called PF0. So it's supposed to be clean uh pests free.
Uh so our biggest worry as we're trying to find new gear for guys, clean gear. Uh we were hearing reports that the moisture barrier, which is a very important piece of the gear, uh contained brominated flame retardants were just as bad.
They're very toxic chemicals. Uh so we wanted to see if that was accurate. Um and Jason Burns at the time knew we were frustrated. We put a lot of work into this over the years and that's when he put me in contact with professor Peasley and uh we did some testing and it did confirm the fact that there were high levels of brominated flame retardants.
My question is uh did the company disclose the information about brominate flame retardants? How how did you get the information think oh maybe that turn out will be loaded with I I don't remember off the top of my head council I don't so it it's not in company's disclosure right uh I I don't think I'm going to let the technical expert answer that council uh the company did not voluntarily disclose that but they had to meet what's called the NFPA vertical flame test for the moisture barrier that means it has to be held to a vertical flame and it has to not catch fire and the manufacturing went away from Teflon, which was the the the PAS gear, and they went, unfortunately, to one which was a flammable con constituent, and they added uh something that contained a lot of bromine, which is a brominated flame retardant.
And you don't know which flame retardant it was. We didn't test that. Uh but it's no doubt that it is. There have since that time other manufacturers have come up with the same gear that is not have it's used titanium oxide which is much safer and so it's only the baromeade flame retardant that caught people's attention and only one manufacturer switched that and they have never publicly announced that but they're working very hard to switch it right now and so it's uh it will not be available as brominated flame retardants in the next year I would say but at the moment still one company manufactures it so at that time brominator Flame retardants.
It's the only choice to to add it still meet the requirement of That's correct. It's a separate retirement, but it's a vertical flame test that doesn't catch on fire either. Yeah. Okay. The the PAS are added for water resistance.
Nothing for do with flame retardants so that they can add other things for flame retardants. And that's what the manufacturers did. So, rule 10. Okay. so that we can try to get a few more people to be able to to speak tonight.
Um, Madame President, if that pardon me for now. Um, Madame President, is it okay if I continue? Okay. Uh, anyone else on the council would like to speak? Council McGee. Hi. Um, I just want to um get some um just kind of simple facts.
So, how many how many firefighters does Quincy uh employ now? Good evening, councelor. Uh, currently we have 281. Okay. Um, with this purchase, uh, when I went through the original, um, proposal, we were at 281, but I looked through our entire roster.
um spoke to some members of the fire department and I'm eliminating 10 from this order that are going to be retiring in the very foreseeable future. So, we have it down to for the for the purchase, it'll be for 271, but the trial gear that we got from Fire Decks that we're going with has offered to give us the the two trial sets at no charge.
So, I was able to reduce it by two. So, it's that's where the number uh 270 and 540 come from. Okay. And the on the on the purchase order. Thank you. Um, and then how many sets total were tested, sent out for testing?
Uh, five five total set uh, five sets of Quincy fire gear were tested. One set was tested three times. It was tested by Professor Peasley. And then there's a follow-up test at Duke University and NC State University.
Okay. Which represent all the years of the gear that we have. Uh yeah uh 2019 2023 24 and two sets from 2025 one from March of 25 and uh one from July of 25. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um so and just um you mentioned that you don't think that you have any safe gear.
Are you talking about PAS um or are you talking about um the brminated flame retardants? Both test results show that it's it's either or. Some sets of gear have both. Um but no no set of gear we tested since 2019 is clean food.
Okay. Um for uh just you know um for clarity for people who are not uh in the fire department. Um the the BFRs um is there any kind of regulation on on them? Um you were the professor? Professor. Yeah, there's no regulation on BFRs or on PAS in uh the only rule on PAS is that they are now all being regulated out.
U most of those take effect the end of this year, but there's nothing specific about BFRs. Nothing. Okay. Yeah, because I did most of my research on the PAS element, but um yeah, looks like there's other um so actually, Professor Peasley, we we spoke a little bit before.
Um, thank you for taking the time to to chat. Um, I um I you had said this uh to me it's hard to get a sense of, you know, learning about this, it's made me realize, you know, how very dangerous it is to be a firefighter.
But if we were to try to sort of um understand the gear aspect of this versus I know the firefighting foam that um is going to that that's used to fight fuel fires, right? That tends to have quite a lot of PAS.
Can you help put into context? Absolutely. where the PAS that firefighters might come into contact from is coming from and where the data so far suggests um the risks. Absolutely. Um uh as you'll realize I'm not invited to parties anymore.
This is really doom and doom. But uh four years ago uh there was a phase out of all uh aquous film forming foam. AF is so-called in the industry. That was the firefighting foam we used for class B fires.
Those are petroleum based fires and those are hard to fight. So a jet fuel fire, a overturned tanker truck. Those sort of big fires, sometimes exploding um uh transformers and electrical power stations, those will need a specialized type of you can't put water on them.
You have to use something different. And this foam was developed in 1969 uh and has been used continuously since that until 2019 when it started to phase out. Uh, and that was due to the fact that it was made predominantly from PAS and in a liquid form.
And when you spray a liquid form of PAS onto a a burning vehicle or onto a a burning airplane or to any structure that has this, it is immediately dispersed into the environment. And these are called forever chemicals for a reason.
They'll last for a few thousand years. Which means that foam gets into your water which gets into your drinking water which gets into your irrigation water and into us. All of us know whether you're a firefighter or not.
And everybody in North America, your council included, has five parts per billion of this in their blood right now. And it comes predominantly from the firefighting foam that was used by both the military and the municipal fire departments for the last 60 years.
That's our biggest source of PAS in our body. And that's true for firefighters as well as non-firefighters. The occupational use of PPE that has PAS in it is was even it wasn't even identified as a source of PAS into the body until my papers came out in 202122.
And those uh sources are still not known how extensive that will be. My belief is that most North Americans are getting their their PAS from aquous foam forming foam because we put it in the ground water and we're drinking it.
Almost 40% of the country is drinking it above levels that the EPA recommends just for bad news. Um I haven't tested Quincy's water so I don't know. Um but they will know. Uh the answer is that you are exposed from PAS from a number of different directions.
The risk that firefighters face from the gear is unknown in its magnitude, but there is a safer alternative available. And there is a safer alternative available. They have florine freeo now. Heathrow's used it for 5 years in all sorts of plane crashes and it works just fine.
And so the fire service has switched from that for about four years ago. All of Quincy stopped using it uh four years ago. Um and that's true even in Indiana and uh Florida just decided to ban it last week.
Uh so there everybody's getting there. uh but mainly for environmental reasons rather than personal protective agreements. The gear is very personal because you wear the gear for many hours a day and you're exposed to what comes off it and it comes off readily.
Rubbing it will get it onto your hands uh will get it into your skin. You do decon for for smoke inhalation and all the exposures you get in a in a flame, but you do not know you don't necessarily think about what your gear is giving you.
And that's the risk that that bears. We know it's not zero. We don't know how extensive it is. And in the case of uh turning the gear off, we decided, you know, um if you have a choice of a toxic filled gear or a non-toxic fil gear, which would you prefer?
And it's simply not essential for waterproofing as they found other ingredients. And so there is now PAS-free gear available. And the firefighters have voted overwhelmingly to go to that. Um I still believe and as I told you that I think AF is the biggest source and we're all getting that.
Uh but the firefighters are probably getting an extra burden from their their gear and that's the reason they they're asking for this PAS free. Uh the fact that it became public and became of scrutiny is probably why all the firefighters many seated here today know about it and where nobody knows about AF because it really hasn't been very publicly announced until people started finding it in their water.
Does that explain? Yes. So that so probably the biggest source is from the firefighting foam that found its way into the groundwater sources and we're all drinking that. That's great. Including firefighters.
But firefighters would in addition have uh PE come into contact with PAS I guess in fires just from things that contain PAS that are burning, right? And that um no they're not really exposed very much to that.
That has to be a gaseous form. Okay. And they don't you don't they don't stick to you as a gas very well. I mean so you you don't get much from a fire maybe a teflon factory fire or something but in general they're not going to be consumer um combustion products that contain PAS.
Okay. Only the only the firefighting foam or the gear the gear. And the gear could um as we discussed come into um become a problem potentially because it could go through the skin or it could be ingested.
Yep. Um there's a study in 2024 that shows dermal absorption is is not zero like they claimed 20 years ago. It is actually significant for certain forms of up to 56% of one form. Uh the the longchain ones are only about 1 or 2% that goes through the skin in 36 hours.
Okay. So 1 or 2% could potentially go through according to the science that's been published could go through the skin from the gear and and one or two% of what's the amount on the outside which is part per million.
Yeah. means that you've got part per billion um tens of parts per billion on a source where your body only contains five. So that would increase and in fact since we're getting most of it from the firefighting foam, where's the rest coming from?
And it is from some sort of product that we're being exposed to. Mhm. Um I guess um I spoke with another scientist um uh at North Carolina State um and he said that um that some research indicates that washing gear could actually remove it.
He he gave this very um vivid example. He said, you know, everybody uh at his university is given like a red shirt as a freshman and then you wash it with white clothes and it gets onto the white clothes and everyone's got pink stuff.
And he said that's because the um you know the people who sell that material haven't washed it enough times to kind of get rid of everything that's not really bound closely to the the rest of the fiber.
And um he told me that when he asked these companies that make this if they um wash rinse the gear before they send it out. They all said no. Um and some studies suggest that just washing it three times, one to three times could significantly reduce the amount of PAS because they may be uh the companies don't seem to have realized that it's not bound as tightly as they thought.
So I guess is that in line with what you've read as well? Not at all. Not at all. No. No. Okay. Okay. Um the it does wash off and so when you wash a set of turnout gear you will see it in the water at quite significant levels.
That's another issue because where does that water go? Um but the main problem is that the gear is a heavy NOM mix which is it's a 20 lb set of gear, right? to hold just the the coat by itself. And to wash off that much or to rub off that much would be a significant number.
I tested in the original study gear from 2008 up to 2018 at that point. And all that gear, some of it was only a year or two old. Some of it was new. Some of it was 10 years old and had been washed over 100 times.
And it still shed at just the appropriate I could still rub it and get 20 parts per million on my fingers. And so we didn't see any noticeable decrease in the way that it came off. Uh it the gear lasts for 10 years and that's because it can continue to shed the outer layer of especially the what's called the the the side chain polymers come off but there's enough mass there that the gear is good for 10 years.
It won't have worn through at that point and that means that you haven't washed it all off and it's continuing to come. Uh the teflon moisture barrier lasts even longer but uh it doesn't uh it will have more washed off at the beginning than the end.
That's true because it's less incorporated into that. But um this continues to shed for its entire lifetime. Sorry, I didn't mean to say that there was nothing there, but just that that that it does go down.
Um he cited some studies that that it goes down for the moisture barrier. There's a definite drop off after a couple of years. Uh but the uh the outer shell I saw no drop off. It just continues to shed all its life.
Okay. In fact, some if you wear the crotch, it tends to wear out more and you see larger as it goes longer. Okay. I think that might be, unless I misunderstood, a little bit different from what he said because he said abrasion wasn't helping, but putting it in water and shaking it um as you would like in a washing machine actually showed reduction.
So, um it it showed reduction in what came off. I don't know how he measured what came off. All I do is I measure the water and there's plenty in the water um every time it comes off. And more importantly, if you look at the gear after it's been washed, there's still plenty left.
I mean there's there's yeah some of this gear is up to percent level of PAS on it and it's still percent level after you wash it. Um so the next question I have is um looking at this uh there were three different um places that tested the gear and each one used a different method.
Um, and so yours is like a a surface method. And then there's the method that North Carolina State used, which is to put a little piece of material uh in a container and burn it at 1,000 degrees till it all burns up and then see what's left over.
And then there was another one from Duke University that used kind of what leeches out from the material. Right. So, so there different techniques. Um, do you use the other techniques as well as you do both?
I use the Duke University the the the com combustion ion chromatography. The second method I don't use. Okay. I have some issues with that one because it's uh has a has a couple features that are both expensive and and not reliable.
But the the gold standard is the what Duke does and that's what everybody does. Uh, unfortunately both those testing methods are destructive. you have to cut a hole in the gear which renders it no longer under contract.
It can't be used in firefight NFA rules. You can't you have to patch it and even after that it's not you don't want to wear I think my suit's safe except for this hole. Uh so you don't do that and so the um non-destructive test is what I developed and it's not to use for quantification of which type of chemical just that they're present or not and how much of that total quantity and so that's why it's appropriate for turnout gear.
It's rapid and it's non-destructive and we can do it quickly. Um, and uh, but I do use in my lab the LC masspec because that's the gold standard. Everybody uses that. Okay. The N I'm sorry. Did I already get through 15 minutes?
Oh my gosh. Anyone else? Councelor Ash. Thank you, uh, Madame Chair. I don't, um, have any specific questions. I appreciate the um the timeline provided. I know um some uh emails that I received were with respect to the timeline.
So, President Bose, it's very helpful. Um I am not um going to pretend to be an expert in PIFA. I'm going to withhal um due respect, trust the expert. Um and that's not intended in any u negative way, but I I appreciate Professor Peasley's um report.
Uh we have a long history of of supporting our uh first responders in this city. I look forward to supporting this this initiative. Um, I will say that if there is a resolution from a from a a suit in the future, uh, it would be, you know, it would behoove me not to say like we would like to see that money come back to pay this bond off, but I understand depending on who the parties are, what the damages are, the resolution of that, um, that may not that's impossible, I think, at this point to be able to tell, nor should we be conditioning um, the bond on that.
So, um I would just um suggest and uh hope that my fellow counselors will feel the same. And um I certainly don't believe that $80, uh per resident for for the next 10 years is is worth any of our 280 um first responders um health and wellness.
So, thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? Council Hubley. Yeah. So, if there aren't any additional questions from my colleagues, I would like to second Mr. Dono's motion if I can. We actually don't need a second, I think, in committee.
But I do want to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard at least once. Did Do you have any other comments or questions that you wanted to add? Yeah, I mean we're you stated it quite well um councelor Ash in terms of the financial implications of the city as well as the um the impact on on health.
And I I do want to say thank you to those who traveled in from out of town. Thank you to those who have done such diligent work and brought this to the council as quickly as they could. Um really appreciate that.
I mean, these are the these are the city employees who are running towards danger to make sure that we can run away from danger and I I don't want to lose sight of that. So, um that's all I have. Thank you.
Thank you, Council Mahoney. I want to make sure everybody else was able to speak. So, I'm not going to argue about PAS either because PAS is in everything. It's in our water and it's in your jackets that you wear out to um when you buy a jacket that's water repellent.
So when you're out running and you have a water repellent jacket, we're wearing that as well. It's in your kids snowsuits. So when you're buying your baby a snowsuit, it's in your snowsuits. It's um and when you when you discard of this, it will be in our it will be our forever chemical.
So that would be a question is what do we do with 188 pieces that we have to safely discard of it? um many people who are dealing with water in water is really the the biggest issue that most people are getting PAS um so there's a lot of cancer that's happening it's not just in the police in the fire it's it's in the every bay everyday people it's it's you're drinking water and I know that um in the town I work in that we're working on a tri town um water treatment facility and we're trying to figure out how we can prevent PAS from being in that water system.
So, I am familiar with PAS. Um, and I'm I'm sad to say that I am familiar with it. And I think it's in the it's in the news a lot, too. And it's at the federal government. PAS is something that we're talking about at the federal government.
One of the concerns we have at the federal government is whether or not the funding to remove it is going to stay. That's a big concern, right? Because it's a health risk for everybody, not just what we're here to talk about tonight.
Although I appreciate what we're here to talk about tonight, I wanted to make sure that people understood that. So, um, so I'm very sensitive to that. So, one of the questions that I did have though is, um, we we're I'm I'm just I just want to make sure I'm understanding this.
PASF free gear was what we were promised, but BR I'm not going to say that I never say the technical terms, but the the fire retardant piece was not promised to be in the gear. Is that correct? Is that correct?
That's correct. That was a that was a bonus. Yeah. What do you mean? I'm sorry. I think I have to go up to the microphone. Sorry. It's okay. Yes. BP fast free and nobody thought to ask about the brminade flame retardants.
So when you say nobody thought to ask, who is the nobody that thought to ask? I'm just I just want to clarify that. Um when we were purchasing it or just in general, people didn't know to ask this. Nobody thought that they would switch to a brominated flame retardant a after uh they had removed one dangerous chemical.
It's what's called a regrettable substitution. in the industry. They put this other one in and they didn't tell anybody about it and that was that was so nobody knew that was in there until after we started testing.
So, one of the questions that I do have is because the Oh, sure. Sure. Sure. Councelor, I can't get into it tonight, but um I'm sure at some point we will back to 2019. I actually have documentation that says there's no Romanated flame retention.
I do. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean that would be great for us to have tonight, but that's fine. Um, and the only reason why I bring it up is because we were only talking about PAS and now we're talking about a different chemical.
Like we're testing PAS and finding out there's another chemical there. And one of the other things when we're talking about PAS, when PAS was probably created several years ago, we were thinking this was the next best thing.
It was going to keep us all very safe. And and this is synthetic. This is what we're talking about. This is not natural. It's synthetic. It's man-made. Just like the next set of gear that we're going to be buying is going to be man-made.
And in 10 years there could be something in that set that could potentially be also health risk. I just want to set the I just need to set that ground set level set because PAS is practically in everything.
It is definitely in because you tested it. It is in your equipment. But the science is changing so fast that we could get two sets of gear and in three years be back here talking about another chemical.
May it not be PAS or the fire retardant chemical that's going to not come out of my mouth correctly. It could be something else. Is that correct? That is correct. And and it's a very good observation.
Um what I'd like to say is that um once burned, you get a little bit shy the second time. And I think the fire services caught the brain flame retardants almost instantly. And uh San Francisco is responsible for most of that.
And thank you to them for noticing it. Yes. Thank you, San Francisco. And they also only bought one set. Then they in their renewal, they didn't buy two sets because they're cautiously moving forward because they don't know what else is in those.
That's correct. And the same with East Providence and the same with Newton and the same with many other communities that are investing and that are all in the same battle that our fire departments in.
So, I just want to make sure we level set that as well because of the concern of investing in those communities for more than one set because we don't know what's coming down the road in two or three years with the chemicals because as you said, they don't have to tell you.
So, we could go and when we buy the equipment, can we ask could you give us a full set of what's in the materials that we know what we're getting? Do we do we get that when we purchase it? I doubt whether the manufacturers disclose all the proprietary secrets.
So, so that is one of the challenges that we have. So, as science evolves and what we realized was going to be the next best thing to keep us safe, we might find just like we were all cooking our grilled cheeses on Teflon not so long ago and if you go to HomeSense, you can still buy Teflon bakeear because Absolutely.
Yep. So, I mean, and that's the thing, right? So, even though it's been, you know, taken out the market and you shouldn't use it because it's very risk adverse for people to use, people are still buying it because they like their eggs to slide around on a plate.
But what what will drive it is in this country litigation and unfortunately Europe regulates but the United States litigates and what will happen is that the personal injury lawsuits will come about from exposure to PAS.
They're already existing now. I mean there's 900 million suit settlements all over the place for this this water water contamination you referred to. That's absolutely true. There's movies out about it now.
Yeah. Um and so as people get more aware, the industry is getting wiser and all the major manufacturers are walking away from now. They're walking. They're going to back it off. And um most industries do check before they create something new.
And they do try to check for the lack of any sort of chemicals of concern, but that of course didn't work in this case. But again, when we go back to the fact that the materials that are being created, they're not they're not natural.
They're synthetically made. That's correct. and and the secret sauce is in the manufacturer's hands and what they're looking for is something that's going to prevent and especially in the fire department because when I think about it and I would never want to do your job because it is terrifying to me when I see firefighters you know any kind of fire terrifying for the families that are in the building but also terrifying for the people who have to go in and put those fires out and you know the same thing with car fires with electric the way the cars are built right now you can't put the fire out because it just automatically keeps turning over I know that that's a challenge for firefighters, too.
So, and the foam is one of the things that does put that out. But I'm just I'm just saying it's not an easy job. But by that same token, we want to make sure we're putting equipment on you that is safe as it possibly can be, but as we're talking about science evolving and not knowing what's going to be going into, we're taking out PAS because it's dangerous.
We don't know what they're putting in next. That could be just as dangerous, if not worse. I think that's a very valid point. I agree with you. Uh what I will say is that they can't go into a fire without gear.
I would that's my whole point. I want to put them in things that are not going to that that will you know that that because one of the one of the tradeoffs though is that some of this equipment that we're talking about that may not be able they might have to have new training as well because if your equipment isn't going to be able to prevent the heat restrictions or certain things it could also cause different things for them to go into the fire.
I refer to them on that, but I don't think they get training on their equipment. Their PPE they're not trained on on the on the equipment they operate the the trucks of course they get a training but on the but the equipment that they the gear that they have now is there's a heat resistant fire retardant and water so water resistant.
So if it's if you have something that's heat resistant that you're going into a flamed you may not feel it immediately. From what I've read it says that you would not feel it necessarily. And if you change that those chemicals out, granted they are dangerous chemicals and I'm not suggesting by any means I'm a scientist.
I'm just saying that the change out of that gear could could prevent you might have overheating and things that are happening in those. Um that's regulated in NFP1 1971. So the gear although it's changed still has to meet the strict standards and those are tested by Underwriters Lab and other laboratories to make sure that they pass the flame test.
They pass all the heat resistance in the steam barrier. All that has to be present in any set of gear manufactured through this NFPA. a non it's a nonprofit advisory organization, but the gear is all adherent to it.
But again, there's trade-offs. That's all I'm saying that there's trade-offs in what we're doing and the chemicals that we're using and you trade off one thing for another. And we're not sure what those things are going to be.
If we get one thing out, they still have to be safe and they're regulated to be and that and that's tested. I mean, that's tested by the manufacturers. They they have to get a stamp that says I just want to make sure we don't have to go out and test that because I don't want any of you guys wearing any equipment that's going to make you No, that's going to not protect you too cuz cuz when I think about it when you think back to like I don't even know what they said when they rubber p rubber rubber boots and a jacket that's all they had.
That's terrifying. That's even more terrifying to me. Y absolutely you want just on that council. Uh I think Lieutenant Murphy's here. He had two fires in the last month with the test set of gear. Um and it held up fine.
He's doing fine. I actually likes it. Thinks it's comfortable. There's actually in terms of heat, this new gear has an aeroflex system in it. It helps the heat release from the gear um better than the old gear we're wearing.
So, so with the new gear that you're getting, does it say that it does it say it's guaranteed 100% guaranteed PAS free or does does I think it's safe to say there's there's really no guarantees of PAS free yet, right?
I mean, we talk about this all the time. It's within the allowable limit of 100 parts per million or less. That's the standard. Um, and as you can see from the test results that we had on this gear, um, with margin of error, it's pretty much zero.
So, it's it says right here for PA fast free. Never rely solely on a manufacturer's claim that it's PAS free. That's why we're testing. Yeah. But that's that's the whole point even though that they said it before.
And it says flame and it says basically ask manufacturers directly whether the gear the department is considering to contain PAS halogened flame retardants um of any type or any other chemical treatments because they they can't promise that.
So right and as you saw council we did um secure some procure uh procurement language from San Francisco that we're going to attempt to use as well and we're going to continue testing and the cancer foundation is going to pay for it.
So absolutely. So which then brings me to the other side because I don't I'm not here. I mean, I just felt like I had to ask those science questions just because, you know, you're you have a scientist in the room, so why not?
Um, but for the financial presentation, I guess I I do have a couple of questions on that as well. And and maybe and maybe before just one other question. What's the lifespan of this new equipment? Yeah.
Yeah. The new the new equipment that we're talking about, the new equipment that we're getting, yep, we we are going I'm confident that we're going to get 10 years under NFPA standards. And that that has to do with a combination of getting that alternative set of gear as well.
Normally our gear a city this size the amount of uh fires that we fight we've been getting six to seven years. Um you know I think with this alternative set which is is what departments are doing now going forward which I can explain more.
Um we're going to get 10 years out of this barring you know we could have god forbid you know some type of incident where the where the gear got destroyed. But um so I know you can get 10. So the recommendation is 10 years.
The recommendation is to change out your gear every 10 years. Is that correct? NFP NFPA standard is 10 years a 10ear life. Yeah, that's the standard. But what I'm asking you from the manufacturer, not from the standards that are set because the standards that are set are one thing.
That's that's that's when you go back to your cities and your towns and you say, "Well, we're at 10 years and we are we're required to do this because that's the standards that are set for National Fire Protection." What I'm asking you is for the manufacturer, they usually will tell you what you they think how long this will last.
I, you know, I think they go with the standard, but also you have to understand is that it depends on your community, depends on the size of your city, the size of your department, the amount of activity.
Some departments buy this gear and they do 300 runs a year. We do we buy it, we do 12,000 a year. You know, we've had nine house fires since August 28th. Um, so it's the life of the gear has to do with the volume that you do and the care you have.
So like in our case, you know, our SOGS reflect NFPA standards. We have the extractors. You know, we we have policies in place to take care of this gear. So, I believe that a city our size, as busy as we are, given the request that I proposed, I believe we can we can reach that 10-year mark.
I really do. So, if I could ask Dr. Peasley that as well because that's a just a question. Council Mahoney, in all fairness, I'm going to have to invoke rule 10 on you as well. Um, Council Jacobs, did you have anything you wanted to add?
No pressure. I just want to Well, I guess, you know, kind of going off what council Mahoney was saying, you know, there's a manufacturer. Just the chief, there's a manufacturer. What does the manufacturer say is the lifespan of that turnout year?
If we're going to spend $2.6 $6 million and we don't get an answer to that question. I would say that would be, you know, us not doing our job. So, we're going to have to have an answer to that. All the manufacturers are going to meet NFPA standards and they will tell you it'll last 10 years, but they will tell you that regardless of whether you're a large city with lots of municipal fires or a a small town with with very few.
And it's much easier to reach the 10 year. I know the 10-year lifetime is met in Southbend, which is a similarly size city, uh, but it doesn't have the municipal buildup this one does, and quite the fire load that these guys are fighting.
And so I know that 10 years is routine, and many of the gear in in that city go uh in Southbend for 12 year. So that's already achievable under the current gear. Uh, the new gear is supposed to last just as long, and it's manufactured to do that.
So the the manufacturer will say 10 years but there are examples of high use areas where it didn't last that way and that's currently but I suspect that under these under management that they will try new techniques to try and preserve the life of the gear.
Um let me ask another question. So, you know, we talked about how some of these other cities, Newton, uh, very similar town, you know, size-wise to Quinsey, um, you know, San Francisco, obviously much larger, are buying one set of gear.
And, uh, Chief Smith had kind of alluded to the fact that, you know, if we do it this way, we'll get 10 years out of it, right? So, when he's, and I guess this is more to, but when when he says that, right, is he saying that we're going to get 10 years because we have two suits?
It's like if we only had one or if the firefighters only had one, would they still would it still go for would they, you know, would it still be 10 years? Uh, no. I I I don't think you'd get that with one set.
They they assume that the firefighter has two because one is in service and one is being laundered or one is being in service, one is being repaired, whatever happens to be, there's always two suits in all major municipal firefighting departments.
And they'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that's that's a sort of an industrywide standard. Uh what they are proposing is to have a set of gear which is lighter that can be used in non-household fires that are not so taxing and that would allow them to preserve the good suit and that's that's not been done widely in the industry up till now.
This is a new fire this is what the firefighters meet every year to discuss new strategies. This is a relatively new strategy and he's proposing to do that which would extend the lifetime of all gear because you you're using one uh there are marsh fires and things that aren't as intensive and that you may not need the heavy gear for and that's new to me.
I had not heard that before recently and that's uh and again the fire services are deciding this amongst themselves how to best meet that and that's why he's predicting that the next set of gear will last longer.
I think it's because of that if I'm not overspeaking. Okay. And so now you're talking about a lighter gear. Yeah. Is this something we already This is gear that we already have or is this additional gear that we're going to be purchasing or is this somehow related to the $2.6 million?
Evening, councelor. Um, this proposal, this is new gear. We've never had it. The light the new light gear, the the alternative. Yes. And we already we already have it. We No, we do not have it. It's it would be new.
It's in combination with the two sets. You know, again, you know, the reason for the two sets is um you know, like January 24th, um we had a major fire on California. You know, it was a one of the coldest days of the winter.
It was like right after that first big snowstorm. Uh we were there all morning about they got back about 2 hours later. Uh they had a house fire in New Street. There's just one example of why you need that second set of gear.
Yeah. their gear. You know, I don't know if you saw pictures in the newspapers, you know, these these firefighters were frozen and um I was at the gear. I'm sorry. I was at the Newm Street one. I was there.
Oh, okay. So, so you knew the conditions that day. So, so you know their gears, they come back from California a those gear that gear gets put into extractors. Now, it's not like home. You do a you know a large load of laundry, throw it in the dryer, and all of a sudden everyone's clothes are clean.
They only they only hold like two at a time. So, like at headquarters alone, there's up to 15 firefighters there. Um, you have to you have to run their sets. There's an air drying system that that that gear is out of service for days.
Actually, that gear does not come back on your same shift once you have a fire. So, that's one of the reasons for that second set of gear in in regards to the lighter gear. Um, you know, this here we the PPE that we wear, we've always been taught and trained in the fire service.
It's our first line of defense and protection. We're wearing this structural firefighting gear to everything, including your homes, you know, with your families. If you're we're extricating someone out of out of a car, we're wearing this gear on everything.
It it only doesn't only protect us from heat and flame and carcinogens and smoke. Uh we've been taught in the fire service historically that it protects you from everything if you get medicals, you know, bodily fluids, fluids from car accidents.
So, we wear this everywhere. Yeah. And with this lighter gear, you know, just some of the things I'll I'll go through very quickly. Counselor, I'm sorry. Can I just Can I just stop right there? just we're going, you know, I appreciate all the things you're saying, but we are on a time limit here.
I'm just looking at the item descriptions here in the document that you gave us. Which one of these item descriptions is the the I don't want to say the lesser gear, but the the alternative gear it's called?
And it's in it's at the bottom. Okay. Okay. So, with this gear, you know, we have several benefits. It's going to decrease the injuries that we get from our firefighters wearing the structural gear. all the time.
Um, it's going to be elimination of wearing structural PP into homes and businesses during non-life uh fire emergencies, limiting exposures to the public. Uh, so there's a reduction in the use of our structural PPE.
Uh, we will preserve the thermal integrity of our structural PPE. Uh, we'll have fewer contamination exposures to our structural PPE. Yeah. And let me a reduction in cleaning cycles which extends the life of the barriers with the PPE.
reduction in replacement frequency and cycle costs and you know we believe that that will contribute to the 10 years on the structural okay and I have another question you know just um like council Mahoney was saying these other towns they're they're buying you're all right that's okay uh they're buying um you know one one set of gear you know we've obviously invested a lots of money um in these extractors they're at all of the stations and you know I support that 100% um but you know let's just say there's only one one set of gear and you washed them in these extractors and you still had the other set of gear.
This I guess this is more for um our scientist guest, but um you know what's the crosscontamination like if you're if you're wa if you if you're washing the gear and the extractors? What what you know what's going to happen?
Um that's another reason why you don't want to wash PAS constructed gear with non-PAS constructed gear because there is crosscontamination. We can measure that with our technique for example and that's why the numbers are not zero on some sets of gear.
If they've been in service, it immediately starts picking it up from others that has been washed with. So there's some transfer to the levels of a few hundred as opposed to many thousands in in the Okay.
And so how do we treat the extractors so that way we're minimizing you know we're you know because I know like you know the there's you know that that's why they're proposing to replace all the gear simultaneously as opposed to phasing it in because if you have one fllorinated and one not florinated they're still florinated right but how do we how do we clear the extractors that have there's water in them.
I mean I I'll make a recommendation that they run them once without gear just to clean them in between. And that's you you think that's enough? Yeah. It's mainly metal and this is like a washing machine.
Uh yes, you can do treatments but those are so the very minimum you should do that before you buy new. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Dela Barbara Council. Good evening Mr. Delabara. How are you?
Good. Good. I just have a question about um the tax levy from a couple months ago. We moved money you know from different accounts like from you know free cash to lower the tax levy. That's correct. for the residents of Quinsey.
And here you are a few months later, not you, but here the city is a few months later asking for us to bond $2.6 million um to buy this turnout gear, which our firefighters need and deserve and should have.
The administration knew that we were going to do this. So, I guess my question is, why wouldn't we have just held back $2.6 6 million from lowering the excess le sorry the levy so that way we could forego paying $800,000 in interest on on this side we could have used that money to pay it down.
So you're ask you're asking the residents to pay $800,000 that you know that if we had just you know not use it to lower the taxes we could have saved we could have saved the residents money. my life.
That's That's when we knew that we could. That's okay. Just so you know, order. I will recess. I will recess. I need water. Are you comfortable answering the question, Mr. Delibber? Sure. Councel, thank you.
The determination to use $2 million in free cash to lower the residential levy is a policy decision. It's a decision that we frequently make and have made, the administration has made over the course of the last several years.
It also has been used for one-time purchases. $2 million on the residential levy equals, you know, $50 in tax relief. Mhm. The debt service that we're talking about on on this purchase is $7.97 per year times 10 $80.
So you're talking about a difference of maybe $15 to $20 over a 10ear period. Thank you. That's I'm just saying I I think that that I think that that was shortsighted. That's my That's my opinion on that.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Del. Councelor Ryan, do you have any um input you'd like to make? You're the only one who I've not given an opportunity to speak yet. Well, I have a question for Mr. Bose. I wanted to ask you about your visit down to Milikin.
Absolutely. Okay. Because I noticed that you were quite impressed. I was, ma'am. Yes. Okay. And um when you were down before you went down there, did you start collaborating with other um fire stations throughout the country?
Uh I dealt with um uh Battalion Chief Matt Alba from San Francisco. Okay. Okay. Now, are you going to continue to collaborate with them? Absolutely, ma'am. Uh the goal is um to continue the random testing program and Professor Peasley uh his company's made it even easier to test.
Uh so we'll be able to test using swabs. Now I've uh I've had calls from Canada, Florida, Michigan. Um everyone's kind of working together to try to try to solve this problem. Okay. Okay. One other question.
Uh you had mentioned that PAS was intentionally added to the to the gear. So ma'am, uh I think Professor Peu could answer that better than me, but based on the levels that they found that would consider them intentionally added verse non-intentionally added.
There's a there's a level that professor can answer for you. Okay. Um to impart waterproofness to the gear, they used PAS to a achieve a waterproof gear. Um when we measure it, we measure high levels or low levels or zero um below our detection limit.
And when we see low levels of gear, it's when we've mixed the wash together and you see small amounts come off and therefore the gear is not zero but a little bit elevated. The older gear was more elevated, but it's still uh hundreds versus tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
So, it's quite clear that this wasn't manufactured with it. It had picked it up from a neighboring labor layer or a neighboring wash. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Ryan. Okay. Um I guess this is baptism by fire for me.
Um I guess I'm the last one that gets to speak. However, uh under rule 10, we can allow an additional 5 minutes per um per council member. I do have a couple of questions. Um first is is this new gear available for immediate delivery, all of it, or would it be as soon as we begin sizing?
It's about an 8 day sizing 8 days. Um, we may have a few, you know, may have to get a few a few extra days if if uh firefighters aren't available. Uh, six to eight weeks we're being told right now and we were we were surprised by that to be honest with you because, you know, fire departments across the nation are starting to deal with this.
So we have the opportunity right now in the position we're in by um being one of the early departments to uh tackle this that we can have in 6 to 8 weeks as soon as that our measuring can start and our measuring they're ready to start.
So they're just waiting for me to call them. Okay. Um, so one of the concerns I have is that, you know, if if this is in short supply and we're able to gather, you know, garner two sets for each firefighter, is that going to leave other communities with no opportunity to replace even one set of their gear?
I'm respectfully I'm I'm concerned about Quinsey and and I don't and I mean that respectfully. Um, no, I think I think I mean that with complete respect. I I believe that these companies, they see what's coming around the bend.
Um they're they're manufacturing. And one thing that you should all take into consideration as well is, you know, it's a lot of money. But I think if I was to come back here in 3 months, it could be 3 million because you know what's going to happen?
the demand is starting to take off and the prices are going to increase and the time to getting the gear is going to take longer. And remember what President Bose said, you know, we had the big change in getting everyone updating a second set of gear in 19.
Most of our firefighters second set is older than that. So, we're at we're at expiration dates as well. It's a perfect storm. So, we need we need to get two we need two sets of gear um to move forward.
We need we need everyone in the same gear. It's tested. We're going to continue testing and I think right now it's the right move for this city to move forward with this. I really do. You know, I took my time with this proposal and you know, if I'll just I'll just run through a quick for you, but you know, there's some things you'll see the numbers are different.
It's you know, two sets is 540. For instance, the belt for the uh the escape ropes. Now, the the pants come with a sewn in harness for those. So, we would need two two sewn in harnesses for each each person.
We would need 540 sets of those. We've tested the the belt which is obviously removable. They can use one belt for both sets. So what happens if they use it and they have a fire? We can decon it very quickly and have it returned to service very quickly.
So we've cut that 540 harnesses down to 270. That's a savings of over $50,000. Um, like I said, I did the numbers. Um, from 280 to 270, that saved about $57,000. Let me just pull it up. I have it right here.
Uh, actually, I'm sorry, that was $80,000. $80,630. Um, going to the single rope harness, I was able to save $57,510. Conducted a full inventory of our gloves and our hoods. And I'm comfortable that we can go with one set instead of two sets.
So 270 of each. The savings of $59,400. And um through some other negotiation I did uh with the with the bunker pants and coats, there was another $51,000. So I went from the original down I saved about $248,000.
I I can look at you in the eye and tell you I I did everything as fiscally responsible as I could to get this to where we're at today. And I I truly think if we wait and and we buy, you know, only one set, we're going to pay more money for that second set within months.
And I don't want to do that. I want to get us in in at the best price and get the gear as quickly as we can. It's a crisis for us and that's no exaggeration. This is a crisis for us and I I really hope that all of you see that.
Do you believe that the technology though will continue to evolve? The materials will continue to be fabricated and and you know this this is the solution today based on what's available. But obviously the industry will continue to evolve and bring new materials.
And I mean I don't have a crystal ball. I know what I know now. I know the gear that we have today is very dangerous not only for our firefighters but for the public, our city that we protect because we're bringing it into your homes.
We're bringing it everywhere we go. And I don't want that anymore. I really don't. Can technology evolve? Of course it can. We've done the testing. The manufacturer have done the testing. We're going to continue to test And I I pray to God that everything goes accordingly, but I can't sit and wait cuz what if something else comes in a few years?
So, do we just sit and use the gear we're using? We can't do it. Cancer is up 80% in line of duty deaths. What scares me the most is with everything we've done as a fire service, all of the things I mentioned earlier in preventing cancer.
Doesn't it make you think why is it up 80% with fully encapsulated gear? I spoke to Professor Peasley early and I said my greatest concern is that what we are going to find out in a few years is PAS and our PPE our protective gear is responsible for a high percentage of that 80%.
Think about it. everything that we're doing and it's at 80% of line of duty deaths. What do you usually think of when you hear line of duty deaths? A firefighter got killed in a fire, right? No, it's cancer.
80%. And I'm sorry to repeat it, but it's worth driving at home. I respect that. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, okay. Science is not my superpower. My superpower is more money related and I am very um disappointed that the only way we seem to be able to find our way out of this problem is through bonding the money.
Um can I say can I can I say something on money? We don't we don't come up here often. We normally operate in our budget and that's something that you know you will learn. Um let's talk grants for just a minute.
Okay. In the last 4 months, I've applied, we've applied and gotten grants for $55,000 for hazardous materials equipment, $50,000 for communications equipment, $50,000 for new thermal image cameras. Our thermal image cameras, we we we inventory them, inventory them.
We're starting they're starting to break down. They're not worth fixing anymore. We're not coming to you for $50,000 for new ones. We're doing it in a grant. Um, we have a fire education safety grant we just applied for for $13,000 that we're going to receive.
We're going to start a safe uh we're going to I'm going to revamp the safety education program uh this year for our elderly and our children, our most vulnerable. Um, right now we are starting this month in year two of a three-year grant of $6 million that are paying the salaries and benefits of 16 firefighters.
$6 million. not in the budget. We wrote a grant for it for three years for the city of Quinsey. Um we have a UASI grant that we re we have $375,000 we received to create our dive team. In the past, the assistance to firefighters grant we got rescue one.
We got engine two probably 1.5 million. So, you know, maybe we need a little bit of a maybe I need to do now a little better job promoting the Quinsey Fire Department. We are saving this city millions of dollars on top of the fires that we're fighting right now because of our manning, because of our staffing, because of the equipment that all all of our counselors, our mayor support, we're going into these house fires and knocking them down.
We are saving homes for people, their memories, their treasures. We are saving this city millions of dollars. All we're asking for is let's get us some PASF free gear and let's let's focus on the health and safety of our firefighters.
Thank you. Thank you. And and I and I apologize because I interrupted you. Yes. And I'm going to hold myself to rule 10, chief. So, um if you could please just indulge me for a moment. Um this is obviously not how I expected to start my my term here as the finance chair.
Um I do not for a second um doubt the science. I know that you guys are putting and one woman uh putting themselves out there every day and we want to get this right. We did not we were most of us were not here when these appropriations happened.
Um I do believe that PASES are dangerous. I believe that they are pervasive and we want to get this right. Um I would I would ask of my counselors if we would and and Mr. Walker if we would be willing to recess this um and have recess our cancot.
I believe there's a second. There's no second. And we already have through you, Madam Chairwoman. It is certainly within this council's purview to ask as many questions as it feels appropriate within a reasonable amount of time.
If this party feels that it needs to move to an additional meeting to make that happen, um, don't boo me. um the administration understands and uh will make that work. That being said, I do believe that there's an opportunity here for virtually every question to be answered here, but it is with well within the council's purview to uh hold an additional hearing on this if it feels it's appropriate.
I I personally would like to see us have executive session and get a little bit more information on what the legal action is planned. Um beyond beyond what is being shared with the public, I think the council has a right to some additional information on that.
Council have Okay. Um Council Deon's motion stands. There's no second. We don't need to second it. Call the roll. Council Ash, yes. Council Deona, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, no. Council Mahoney, no.
Council McKe, no. Council Ryan, no. Council Yuan, I still have so many questions. Yay or nay? Yay or nay? No. Chairman Riley. Yes, thanks for your concern. 4 to five. It remains in committee. It just didn't move out.
We will um we will. What are we doing? Are we recessing? So we can go on to adjourn. I'm going to adjourn. I'm going to adjourn and we'll take up the regular council business. Wow. No talking out like that, Please.
Sorry. We're back into the city council March 16th meeting and we're going to turn this over to the city clerk. Madam clerk, could you please read the open meeting law? Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transit transmit the meeting through any medium.
Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Number one. Okay. So the first the first thing on the meeting tonight is open forum and public comment.
I don't have a sign-in sheet up here but if you could step up it's going to be Quinsey residents first followed by any followed by the tab if we have. So Quinsey residents first please state your name and address for the record please.
Hi, I have a comment as myself and then I'm reading something from another resident. Is that allowed? As long as it stays in three minutes. Oh yes, as long as it takes three minutes. Thank you. Um my name is Joanne Collins, 88 Hillside.
I just want to make sure everybody here understands I understand with all due respect that um councelor Ash didn't have the information doesn't have isn't versed in PAFS. I am not either. But I'd like everybody to know that counselor Susan Yuen is versed in this.
She has her PhD in science. So when she asks questions, I think that they're perfectly legitimate to ask questions. That's what democracy is, not rubber stamping things through. That's how we get into the debt we're in.
My other thing that I just wanted to say is tonight on Netflix is the plastic detox um about PAS. So, if anybody's interested in learning more about them, we heard a lot about them tonight. You can watch it on um Netflix.
This is a letter from Mary Viselli, 46 Genesis Street. I was just asked to read this for her. I don't know her. I am writing not in response to any letter campaign, but as a Quinsey resident who cares about how this city spends public money, both for this issue and any others that may come up.
To start, I fully support getting our firefighters safe gear. But I am writing about the police, the process surrounding order 2026-38 and some genuine questions I hope the council will consider asking on behalf of residents like me.
I'm unable to attend in person tonight due to an injury, but I want to ask the questions regardless. I'll start with this weird narrative going around saying that supporting firefighters means approving this bond without questions and that asking questions somehow signals opposition to firefighters.
Making a villain where there is none. Fiscal due diligence is what responsible government looks like and I am grateful to any councelor willing to do that work regardless of the contrived political pressure surrounding it.
Does the city have to fund does the city have fund reserves or free cash for emergencies that could have funded this purchase? If so, why was the bond chosen instead? Bonding 2.6 million means Quinsey taxpayers pay more overtime and interest.
I'm not sure if a potential lawsuit will remedy that, but that's also hard to see since I'm unaware if the mayor's office has shared the test results yet. Um, also I am wondering why Mayor Ko held a press conference about PAFS and firefighter gear in August 2025, but the bond order wasn't introduced until February 2026.
I genuinely do not know how long it takes to test replacement care and confirm it's safe. And I recognize the process may explain the timeline entirely. But if that is the case, it makes the current narrative about stalling and delay all the more frustrating.
If the administration itself if the administration itself needed six months between identifying the problem and introducing a solution, characterizing the council's legally required 10-day process as obstruction seems obviously unfair.
The council cannot move faster than the law allows. The delay is not coming from you. Also, I have seen the union president of IIAFF792 commenting publicly that the council hasn't bothered to reach out to the union to get the test results.
You're at time. Okay. Thank you for telling me. Hi, Leah. Hi. State your name and address for the record, please. Veronica Bertton, 195 Copeland Street. First of all, I want to apologize for my outburst a little while ago because I was being videotaped and the person who videotaped me was all insensed over the last two weeks because she thought she was being videotaped by members of the council.
So why does she feel that she can videotape me without asking me first, but she gets indignant when she feels she's being videotaped by other people? I'd also like to apologize to um firefighter Bose.
He did a wonderful presentation. Uh I want the firefighters to have this gear. I want the firefighters to have safe houses that they live in. I want the firefighters to do what they do best and be safe when they do it.
All of us have used the fire department at one time in our life, maybe even more. It is not a question of supporting not supporting the firefighters. But as a citizen of Quinzy, as a citizen of the United States, we all have our right to to question how our leaders spend our money.
So if they had spent money, if they had been more diligent with how they spent money in the last four, six years, we probably would have had $10 million in free cash and we'd be ordering that equipment today.
But instead, we have to bond something else. And I'm sorry that it it seems like we don't want to bond for the firefighters. Of course we do. But then two months down the road, we could have another emergency in Quinsey and we'll have to bond it again.
We are already $1.6 billion dollar in debt. We're paying interest on that. I'm not talking about $80 for me. I'm talking about the money for the generations that are coming up behind us. We're going to leave them in a mess.
So yes, vote to give the firefighters their money now, but let's really think about the wasteful spending that have been going on by this administration for the last 20 years. Thank you. Name and address, please.
Mike Griffith, 38 Green View Street. Good evening to all the city councilors and everybody here tonight. My name is Mike Griffith. I've been a Quincy firefighter for the past 12 years. I'm here tonight.
Well, you guys already know, so disregard that. But the gear we currently wear contains harmful chemicals that not only put firefighters at risk, but also expose citizens of Quinsey. With our new gear, we are questing we can better protect ourselves with also protecting the people we serve.
When we respond to calls such as carbon monoxide alarms, food on the stove, fire alarms going off into your homes, the chemicals in our gear being brought directly into people's living rooms, dining rooms, and bedrooms.
When we respond to car accidents and crawl into vehicles, stabilizing victims and protect their spines, their career is also making direct contact with those victims. This issue hit very close to home to me.
Tonight in this room, someone who has been my role model for as long as I can remember, he served the Quinsey Fire Department for 34 years and rose to the rank of the deputy chief. That person is my father.
My father was recently diagnosed with a rare form of blood cancer that unfortunately has no cure. Like so many of the firefighters across this country, he has spent decades wearing the same type of gear ready firefighters we brought up, wearing the same type of gear that we now know contains dangerous chemicals.
Firefighter fighters dedicate their lives to protecting others. We accept the risk of the job, but we shouldn't have to wear gear that is slowly harming us while we do it. I want the chance to walk my two beautiful daughters down the aisle someday.
I want to retire, live a long, healthy life with my beautiful wife. I want to be around to watch my grandchildren grow up. Providing firefighters with clean gear is a step towards that. Please consider phoning.
Yes, Leah. Thank you for all your support you've been giving us. And all those who said no, you should be ashamed of yourself. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Christine Green, Tan El Gangquin Road.
Um, Madame President, members of the council, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I'm a resident of Quinsey and have been for 45 years and this is the first time I'm speaking at a council or board meeting in the city and that's because of the importance of this issue.
I'm speaking as both a Quinsey resident and a wife of a Quinsey firefighter. I would respectfully urge you to reconsider your vote and approve the authorization for the turnout gear for the Quinsey firefighters that does not contain the harmful chemicals contained in their existing gear.
I would ask that you do this as expeditiously as possible because this is involving people's health and public safety. When my husband Mike Matano got on the Quinsey Fire Department, I was so proud, but I knew that he was putting his life on the line in certain circumstances.
However, in no event did I think that it was going to be the result of the gear that he had to wear while protecting the public. I understand that there may be an appetite to look back and ask questions and ask how we got here, but I'm not interested in that.
I'm interested in moving forward. We know what we know. You know what you know, and every time my husband goes to work, I need to know that the gear he may have to put on has harmful chemicals that he's being exposed to that could make him sick down the line.
States are banning PAS in consumer products and materials for a reason. And in my opinion, to have this knowledge that we now we now have defi and not do anything or delay action defies common sense and in my opinion is quite frankly negligent.
Remember that while you're looking at the numbers, we're looking at husbands, fathers, sons, daughter, sister, brother, and we really want them around long after they leave their position with the city.
Thank you very much for your time and your consideration. Please state your name and address for the record. Jeff Baldock, 23 Heath Street. Thank you, councilors, officials, colleagues, and citizens. I found a couple pictures the other day.
This is the day when I got my bunker gear in 2004. I was so proud I brought it home to my parents. I brought this chemical aid gear into my house. We didn't know back then. Um, you know, back then guys still smoke cigarettes at fires.
Uh, you were considered tough if you didn't wear go on air at a fire. We we didn't know. Today we do know. Let's do the right thing for the next generation of firefighters. Thank you. Name and address, please.
My name is Andrew Fam. I reside at 154 Summoner Street. Happy partnership and S corporation deadline tax day everybody. I'm here as a property owner, therefore a taxpayer who wants to kind of reshift the discussion on how we allocate our taxes in the city.
Uh we're starting at 2.1 was the bond I think or uh I want to reshift it back to $135,000. Okay. Now I as a working man has made commitments to my wife and my boss that I would show up to work every day 5 days a week at my workplace and work.
I also as a North Quinsey alumni had the honor to plan the reunion to learn that 30% of my classmates were in between jobs not working or not in education. Now you can imagine the working person's frustration to learn that politicians elected the raises just very briefly $135,000 for themselves.
Now the opposition wasn't for the fact of the raises but it was the fact that the old counselors cancelled a meeting a fe one whole meeting of this. We could have had so much discussion in that meeting.
Now the public comment wasn't brought back until after the election and you know damn well I could have benefited from that. But that is not the point. I get to watch this at 2x speed at home. These counselors do not.
So, all of the counselors here deserve that extra $15,000, which divided by 12 months, 2 weeks payroll, 625 in your bank account each payroll. I think you guys deserve that. Now, I want to kind of address bring it back to the the the firefighters here.
Dave Jacobs, you made a a interesting observation that the mayor's office knew that this turnout gear was needed. We we this was going to be expense line item no matter what because we love our firefighters.
Now, there was an annual discussion on whether taxes should be raised for residents not too long ago, and the politicians in this case elected to say, "Hey, no, no, we're not raising taxes for anybody." But at that expense, we wiped out our 2.1 million in reserves.
Now, now we are here. Okay, we have to get $800,000 in extra interest expense. Now, do you know why the Wall Street banks and the banks of this world are so happy? It's because of situations like this.
If if if you we're taking on the debt and we divide it by the the amount of residents in this room right now or in this city, we get that that margin that the gentleman was like, "Oh, my life isn't worth x amount of dollars." That's not what this council was saying at all.
We should have just raised the taxes by that same margin of debt that we are planning to take on except we would have saved $800,000 in interest expense and still have our waste our reserve fund. And that that's all I got.
Thank you. You're very welcome. Name and address, please. Hello everyone. Good evening. My name is Mimi Balsamo. I live at 27 Post Island Road. I wanted to um thank the firefighters, the um scientists, the council for helping us to kind of dive a little bit deeper and learn a little bit more about the u the gear for the firefighters.
In my family, I've had some wonderful personal experience with the assistance of firefighters. um especially very personal with helping my mother who uh struggled living alone and um had occasional falls and she was rescued in the kindest way and possibly by someone who was wearing PAS material but she had lots of exposure to it.
We have tremendous gratitude for our firefighters. For this reason, I'm especially pleased that we now have um counselors who ask interesting, deep, and penetrating questions about the gear and so that a hasty decision would not be made like was done in the past.
Uh however, that ex extensive gear was purchased. So I for one really appreciate having people who want to really know answers to questions, have curiosity and openness to learning and to expressing honest opinions.
I feel very good about that. Another thing I wanted to say that I felt really good about is that in my many years in living in Quinzy, just in the past couple of weeks, I've just felt how fabulous it is that in our community, how much wonderful volunteerism, how many people contribute to making the community rich and um vibrant.
I've had the opportunity to see volunteers in action in so many places specifically I'd say in the library teaching um English as a second language English talk time citizenship the enthusiasm of people who help in that area is tremendous uh in in the um programs um for volunteering in the library and the funding uh to raise funds for the friends of the library.
Generous, kind, and enthusiastic people are working together. You're coming up at the three minute mark. Sorry. And you're at three. I'd like to say I'd like to see that quality and level of u respect and communication that's I've seen carried out in so many places to be restored and maintained for here for our city council.
Thank you. My name is Steven. I grew up here in uh Quinsey. I graduated from North Quincy High. I am a proud Quinsey fireman for the past 40 years. Could you state your address, please? I live in Bradley now.
My parents still live here in Quinsey. Um, but as I said, I grew up here. I'm a Quincy fireman for the past 40 years. Currently assigned to Latitude in Wallist. In the span of my career, I have seen vast improvements in safety and equipment.
From riding the back step and open cab convertibles to fully enclosed apparatus, better self-contained breathing apparatus to the introduction of thermal imaging technology and beyond are just a few. But what has not changed in the last 200 years is a simple fact that it takes brave firemen to put themselves directly in harm's way to get the job done.
And that is true anywhere in this great country. The bottom line is you can do everything right and still get killed doing this job. What is absurd to me is that I am up here debating about if you should approve the expenditure to purchase PAS cancer chemical-free gear.
Your decision here tonight won't affect me since I am near the end of my firefighting career. I would like you to take a long hard look at all the young firemen behind me and tell them that Pete Fast cancer-free gear in your opinion is not for them.
Take a good hard look around. Right? If that is your opinion, I suggest you take my turnout coat and wear it while you are at work, whatever job you have. I will leave it right here for you. You make the call.
Thank you. name and address, please. Hello, John Roofail, 62 Grim Wall Road, Quinsey, Massachusetts. Um, I just want to say I've been coming up to these meetings for a real long time. A lot of times me and Mrs.
Zamzowl would be the only two people sitting in here. So, I mean, I've seen a lot of meetings. I've seen how a lot of things work. It's kind of like politics is sort of like a cross between Game of Thrones, the Sopranos, and Reno 911.
Okay, so the new counselors, you got to learn basically how to pick your battles. Okay, the mayor at his speech gave like five or six new ask. Okay, this is a ask that you should have not put into committee and you should have just approved it cuz the firefighters are always going to come up with.
Okay. So, this is a this is just wasting a lot of people's times. All these fire people got to go home and go to bed and stuff. I am against bonding money and stuff cuz we don't have money. But this is an ask.
We I I've seen so many things that you don't put into committee. We gave them the um tax break um for the Grossman people didn't go into committee. You just gave it to them. So, you shouldn't you should have gave them to them.
Okay. And I want to tell all the people in here, be respectful to who's ever talking. Don't speak when other people are speaking. Have some decorum. Okay, you wasted 15 of my seconds. But anyway, like I said, I you know, I try to take, you know, life with half empty, half full.
I don't know, you know, if this is even reality that we're sitting in sometimes, okay? But the reality is is that, you know, this should have been approved because this is turning into a bad dog and pony show and I'm tired of watching it.
Okay, there's more important things to talk about. If you guys want to make a stand against something, let's talk about, you know, $150$100 million for buying the East Nazarene project that's in again have some decorum.
I don't want anyone clapping. I don't want anyone booing. I just want you to sit there and let me speak. Please, Paul Pavo, I'm going to come up here every week cuz I got three minutes. I wish there was a council meeting every week.
I even though I say 62 Brownall Road, I actually live in Taton. They have a meeting every again I I honestly this is just I'm kind of glad I live in Taton because they have the quorum to people that sit in the audience there.
Okay. So, but the bottom line is this is that, you know, when it comes to the Eastern Naz, that's Fred's B. We're kind of protected by zoning. Okay. Money for the art center. I'm for St. Michael. I love that statue.
I'm not against the statue. I'm against that. We have to borrow $850,000 to pay for it. Okay. Um, you know, I was making a list tonight. And there's 120 bond issuings we done since the mayor has been mayor.
That's more than any other municipality in the Commonwealth. So, we do have to be more fiscally responsible, but this should have been approved already. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please.
Hi. Um, my name is Leah Dloria. I live on Lakeshore Drive in Weimouth. So, I think that um everybody knows that I've been talking about the raises merely because I've saw many of you campaign against them loudly and I think that you forget that there's a lot of footage that are showing how veheminently you protested against the raises.
So, we put it to bed tonight. You could have simply written a letter and refused the raise, but you didn't do that for some reason. And I think it's because you want the money. So, the reality that you're sitting here haggling over a bond for firefighters while you're pocketing a raise that you actively protested against that there's footage everywhere.
Okay. And next time we come to the meeting, maybe I could bring some quotes from all of you. The hypocrisy is just astounding. I don't know how you guys can sit there and haggle and talk about fiscal responsibility when you actively campaigned against the raises and you've been taking that money from this from the residents.
So, I I don't understand any of that. I mean, I don't know how you guys can even sleep at night. But you don't care, do you? Because you you are getting the money. I didn't say anything. You're going to put a curse on anyone.
Order, please. No comments if we can, please. That's it. name and address, please. My name is Sean Dossi. I live at 116 Highland Avenue, Mansfield, Massachusetts. Uh, I'm a lieutenant for the Quincsey Fire Department.
Uh, coming up on 31 years on the job. Um, I would encourage you to reconsider and make sure that we get this gear that we need, not only for our safeties. Like I said, I'm kind of in the same boat as Steve.
My career is behind me. My son's on the job. A lot of other younger firefighters are on the job. They need that. I hear a lot of things about money and being spent. And yes, I don't live in the city anymore.
I grew up here. Bought my first house here and then we moved out. But what I see in the city of Quinzy is a great city. I see a vibrant downtown that wasn't a while ago. I see a place that people want to come to.
People want to buy houses here. People want to live here. And the old adage is if you want you got to spend money to make money and money is being spent and I appreciate everybody has a paycheck and they have to pay taxes but their taxes I believe are going in the right places.
You have great public safety, the police, the fire department, EMS, school systems, DPW. We all do our job and we do it really well because we're well funded and we have a wellunded public safety department.
You have a wellunded city. This is a beautiful city. It's vibrant. There's a lot of stuff good going on in Quinsey. But if you don't want to spend the money, you're not going to have it good. You're going to have a barren downtown.
You're going to have businesses that don't want to come here. Spend the money, you're going to make the money, and you have a beautiful city to show for it. Thank you. Anybody else for open forum? Okay, one more call.
Anybody else for open forum? Okay, we're going to close open forum. Thank you very much. So, we're going to move on. Could you Number two on the agenda 2026 047 ordinance amending municipal code chapter 134 drugs article one synthetic drugsum Motion to ordinance.
Um, did you want to speak? No. Okay. So, we're going to move it to ordinance committee. We have a motion to move it to ordinance committee. Do we have a second? Second by councelor Riley. All those in favor anybody against?
It's going into ordinance number three 2026 048 a resolve requesting a comprehensive fiscal and debt overview prior to the fiscal year 207 budget deliberations. Thank you very much. I'm introducing this and I'm going to be asking for a motion to put it into finance.
Um, this resolve is regarding our financial debt and overview before the fiscal 27 deliberation. Um, the city of Quinsey regularly rep relies on municipal borrowing and bond insurance for finance capital infrastructure improvements and long-term municipal um investments.
The city currently carries about $1.6 6 billion in outstanding debt and is responsible for managing long-term obligations associated with the capital investments and pension liabilities. Fiscal year 27's budget will be coming out.
I believe the mayor said he'll be presenting it to the city council on May 7th. So, I think this is timely. Um, and we would like to take a look at those long-term obligations associated with it. Fiscal year 27's budget process will begin, like I said, and the administration has discussed the potential of adding large-scale capital projects that may require significant borrowing.
Maintaining strong reserve levels, sustainable debt ratios, and stable credit ratings are critical for the city of Quinsey's long-term financial health, and favorable interest rates for future capital projects.
Um, the city issued $475 million bond obligation bond in 2021. Currently pays about $37 million annually. And our pension retirement administration commission, Perrick, has certified required compet contributions of approximately 16 million to the city's retirement system for fiscal year 2026.
And the city council seeks to better understand the city pensions funding obligation for fiscal year 2027. I do know that the Quincy Retirement Board did change their investments from six to 7% which may drop that number for fiscal year 27.
However, we would like to have that ahead of the budget. Um what we're asking for in this is that the city of Quinsey um comes back with the the chief financial officer, the city municipal finance officers, the city bonds council that appear before the city council and the finance to provide a comprehensive overview of the city's financial positions and debt obligations prior to the council deliberation on the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget.
That's both for long-term and short-term um debt. So we want to make sure that we have those those both those. So at this point, I'm just looking for a motion to move this into finance. I have a motion by council ring.
Yes. A motion to 2026-04 to refer to the final pause for one second. We need to approve the result first and refer in one. No, you can do it in one. So we need to we need to approve to approve and then move it into finance.
We can do it in one. I would like to make a motion to approve and refer to finance the resolve 2026-048. So on the motion and we have a second by councelor Ryan and anybody any questions on the motion.
Is this we have to vote on this? So we need a roll call vote on this one. Councelor Ash, yes. Council Debora, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes.
Council Yen, yes. President Mahoney, yes. Nine members. So moving on, I think the um could you go into the next order? Number four, 2026 049, a resolution urging the Department of Veteran Affairs to withdraw or revise the interim final rule in the impact of the medication in evaluating disability ratings.
Council Hubling. Thank you, President Mahoney. So, uh, in the interest of not burying the lead, um, this this issue actually got resolved. However, um, President Mahoney and I spoke Friday and agreed it was a good opportunity to bring some awareness to these types of issues and that veterans face and also the value that our veteran services provides.
So, for some context, back on February 18th, I was at a Quinsey Veterans Council meeting and I learned about a rule change that the VA was putting in place from uh, Veterans Director Christine Kini. Uh, Director Kjini asked those in attendance to submit letters to the Veterans Administration um during their comment period, which would go from when the rule was implemented until April 20th.
Um, and so uh I asked if it would be helpful to have the council put forth a resolution to send a correspondence to the VA as well in representation of all the veterans that we have here in the city. And she agreed.
So the next day I I also got an email the next day from the American Legion um national commander Dan Wy who also had issue with this rule change. So I kind of knew we were on to something that was pretty important.
Um so uh Director Kjini and I collaborated on this resolution and I attempted to get it into the March seg which is evident by how long we were meeting that night. Um, and so that was okay, but we because we had until the 20th of April to get this, uh, comments put in place.
Uh, so that worked out okay. Um, so last week while doing her due diligence, uh, councelor McKe discovered that there was, um, a suspension on the rule. So I reached out to director Kini to confirm this to understand if she still needed us to follow through with the correspondence.
Um and she's you know she confirmed that they had actually halted enforcement and they're moving to formally resend the rule and uh so council uh sorry President Mahoney and I agreed to keep it on the agenda just to bring some awareness.
So the rule uh if it remained would allow the VA to reduce benefits for vet that veterans receive in relation to the efficacy of the medication prescribed to them. So, for example, if a member of our armed services sustained an injury or an exposure that resulted in, let's say, headaches, you know, maybe five times a week, and they sought medical treatment, uh if that treatment had a reduction in occurrence, uh that could result in the reduction of benefits.
Now, while I appreciate any government agency that seeks to reduce costs, um this is no place to find those cost savings. It really isn't. A rule like this reduces people to numbers, overlooks the multi-dimensional impact of service injuries.
It ignores the emotional social impact as well as the cascading effects that reveal themselves over time in different ways. It ignores the fact that this person is now tethered to treatment and any side effects that may result from said treatment.
So my last point on this is just echoing what the national commander said, which was veterans should never have to choose between engaging in treatment and the financial resources for their family. That's not a decision that our veterans should have to make.
And so this is is important because it's just one example of what our veteran services does every day in terms of advocating for our veterans and the challenges that they run into. So, um, you know, my dad was in the military, World War II, and, um, Korea and sustained an injury where he lost part of his hand.
And I know that I know him enough to know that he would have dealt with pain of headaches, for example, if it meant more money coming into the family. So, we should never put any veteran in that position.
So, uh, the good news is they they did they got a lot of feedback, um, and a lot of feedback and and so it led to their, um, rescending of the rule. So, they're suspending enforcement and then moving to get rid of the new rule change.
So, anyway, I just wanted to share that to bring some awareness to what our veterans face. Thank you very much, councel. So, moving on. So, we're not going to take a vote, but thank you very much for explaining that for anybody that was that was interested to learn that at home.
We want next number five. 2026 050. A gift for $250 from Echo Muffler to DF. Motion to approve. Motion by councelor Dabona to approve and sending a letter of recogn letter of thanks. Do I have a second?
Councelor Hubley. And then we need a roll call vote on that. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Dabona. Yes. Councilor Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes.
Council Yen, yes. President Mahoney, yes. Nine members. Next, number 6, 2026 051, a gift from State Street Bank to Quinsey Fire Department. Motion by Councelor Deona, second by Councelor Jacobs. Roll call vote, please.
Councelor Ash, yes. Councelor Deona, yes. Council Hubley. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Yes. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council Yen. Council Mahoney. Yes. Nine members. Okay. Let us conclude.
We're moving on to approval of previous minutes. March 2nd, 2026. Motion to approve by councelor Deona. Second by councelor Riley. All those in favor say yes. Anybody opposed? All right. Moving on to communications and reports from the mayor and other city officers and city boards.
We do have a traffic request to refer to ordinance committee for advertising ward 1. Councelor Jacobs, add no left turn on Cottington Street uh at 170, excuse me, at 147 Codington Street at the car wash driveway.
We'll refer that refer to ordinance committee for advertising. Motion to refer that to. Okay. Okay. Seconded by councelor Ryan. Um, do you need roll call? Clark, do you need roll call? No. Okay. All those in favor?
All those in favor? Any opposed? Any other communications? No. Okay. Any other communications? Chris. None. I'm going to go, but just want to make sure. All right. So, oh, so sorry. I didn't mean to do that.
So, we're gonna from me, I'm going to be introducing a complaint. City Council has received a formal open meeting law complaint regarding the March 2nd, 2026 city council meeting. Copies of the complaint I'll hand out to you after um when we finish because I didn't have them ready for you to pass out.
Um to be entered into the record without objection, the open meeting law complaint dated March 5th will be entered into the meeting record. Um the under Massachusetts open meeting law, the public body must review the complaint and determine how it wishes to respond in the time frame required by law.
We have 14 days and I've talked to the city solicitor and we're going to um we're going to have a motion in a minute. Um just for my statement alone, I'm not asking for anybody else to make a statement.
I'm just going to make my signal. I can state that I've had no communications with members of the council or members of the public regarding council business outside of the public meeting references in this complaint.
So, I did not receive any text messages on on March 2nd. I did not receive any photos on March 2nd. and I'll be happy to give Mr. Timmons my phone. Um, what I'd like to do though at this point is make a motion to actually respond.
So, Council Hubley. Sure. So, motion to authorize the council president to review with the city solicitor, sorry, uh, and respond in accordance to the open meeting law. Do I have a second? Hi. Second by council Dona.
Could we have a roll call vote on that, please? Yes. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Deona. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Yes. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council Yan.
Yes. President Mahoney. Yes. Thank you very much. And members. And that ends our communications. So moving on to unfinished business and proceeding meetings. Do we have nothing? Okay. Council council McGee.
Um yes. So from the ordinance committee um positive recommendation made by ordinance committee um for oh no sorry this is the report I'm sorry this is unfinished business and proceeding meetings. So that you reports of committees are next.
So any unfinished business or proceed from proceeding seeing none moving on to reports of committee now council. Okay, sorry. Um, yes. So, there was a positive recommendation um for uh adding a no left turn on Hancock Street northbound at 839 Hancock Street, the into the car wash driveway.
Um, this this car wash right by Central um Middle School has, if anyone's driven by there, there's been a lot of um you know, cars lined up. And so, um, residents have been contacting me to say, "What can we do?" And so, the traffic department, um, worked on this and and, um, and so 202645 would add a no left turn to try to keep things moving along.
So, motion to approve 202645. Motion on the table, seconded by councelor Dono. Any questions motions? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? anymore? Yeah, there's one more. Um, this is the same actually the same place, but um so eastbound, so you can't go left into or left out of that car wash.
So that is motion to approve uh 2026 046. Okay. So motion to approve, seconded by councelor Jacobs. All those in favor? I any opposed? Okay, both of those will move forward. Um, anything else? No. So, you have a report?
Yeah. Okay. Councelor Hubble. Thank you. Thank you, President Mahoney. Um, so we've had a couple of different um veterans association or veterans council meetings and the reports from we don't have the numbers from uh Q1 this year, but we have them for Q for from last year.
and um compensation benefits increased by 12% from 24 to 25. This increase represents $250,000 in additional federal compensation paid directly to Quinsey veterans, spouses, families, and so forth. Um let's see.
In terms of chapter 115 financial assistance, the department currently administers chapter 115 benefits to 120 veterans and eligible dependents. Um the state funded bel benefits support low-income um surviving spouses and eligible children and enrollment numbers um fluctuate monthly but uh and they're based upon eligibility and financial status change.
Uh the other thing that we covered was um the employment support program. So the department currently manages six active employment plans. Each participant participating vendor is required to attend weekly meetings and submit documentations.
It's all part of the process. And then provide status updates. And the goal is for employment on a long-term self-sufficient and successful work uh status. And then lastly, we got we have some uh events coming up.
I I went to a couple of the St. Patrick's Day gatherings. It was a great time. Unfortunately, I got there late for one. I missed the corn beef. But um up on March 29th, we have the Vietnam Veterans Day uh which we are doing which the veterans are doing at the Clock Tower Marina Bay of Wreath wreath lang ceremony on the 29th at 10:00 a.m.
There's also the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Ceremony that'll be on April 23rd at 11:00 a.m. which is the current tent of time. Stay stay tuned for updates. And it was moved from uh March due to weather considerations that we've been having recently.
Uh then we've also have the Memorial Day parade and ceremony. That's on May 25th. Parade step off is at 10:30 in the morning. We begin over the credit union and then a ceremony to follow. And then lastly, the Veterans Expo on July 18th at 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m. at Pageants Field. So, hope to see everyone there. Thank you. And moving on to public works. Um yes, thank you, Madam President. Uh we had we I held I'm sorry I chaired six public hearings um earlier tonight uh council orders 2026-020 through council order 2026-025.
Um I believe we are prepared to bring um five of them out for a full vote. Um and so that would begin with 2026-020 um utility grant of location Mass Electric 100 Cington Street received a um positive recommendation.
That's a motion to approve um 2026-20 utility mass electric. I council Ash. Yes. Council Debana. Yes. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes.
Council Yen, yes. President Mahoney, yes. Nine members. Um, we also also chaired a public hearing on 2026-021 utility grant of location, Mass Electric, Verizon, 587 C Street. Um, and the we are prepared to take a vote on 2026-021.
Motion motion to uh approve 2026-021587 C Street. Excellent. Second by council Ryan. Vote call vote, please. Council Ash, yes. Council Dona, Council Hubley, Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes.
Council Ryan, yes. Council Yen, President Mahoney, nine members. Um further 2026-022 um at 610 tonight held a public hearing on um the granocation mass electric Verizon 10 Independence A um and prepared to take a vote on 2026-022.
Uh motion to approve. Motion approved by councelor Ash. Seconded by councelor Ryan. Roll call vote. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Deona. Yes. Council Hubley. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Yes. Council Riley.
Yes. Council Ryan, Council Yen, Yen, President Mahoney, yes, nine members. Thank you. Um, and 2026-023 utility grant of location, Mass Electric, Verizon, 58 Taylor Street. Um, and we held a public hearing tonight.
There were a few attendees um that spoke and I'm not sure if um councelor Hubley wanted to reiterate maybe his stance on it before we take the vote or um if if that's appropriate. Madam President, thank you.
Sure. I'm sorry. Um so this is a request to move a Verizon electric company telephone poll. Um there was a number of people who showed up to um talk about it in in opposition. uh only one uh for it and the challenge they had was that this was reducing street parking without adding any off- streetet parking.
So it was uh voted out for negative or however we'd phrase that to Thank you. Um so we will take a a motion. I will make a motion to um approve 2026-0238 Taylor Street. Motion to deny. I'm sorry. Motion to deny.
Okay. All right. Motion to deny. Seconded by Council Hubley. And roll call vote, please. Council Rash, yes. Council Debana, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacob, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes.
Council Ryan, yes. Council Yen, yes. President Mahoney, yes. Uh 2026 D024 utility grant of location Mass Electric Verizon Willard Street held a public hearing tonight on um on this item and prepared to make a motion to approve 2026-024.
Motion to approve Ash, second by Council Jacobs. Roll call vote, please. Councelor Ash, yes. Council Dona, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes.
Council Yen, yes. President Mahoney, yes. And just of note, 2026-025 after speaking with um Council Riley will be leaving um 2026-025 in committee. Yes. All right. Thank you very much, Council Ash. Moving on to presentations, petitions, memorials, and remmonstruses.
Councelor Ash, thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Um over the last um two weeks um there are two and two longtime Quinsey Point individuals um who unfortunately passed away from um very wellrespected um families in the community.
Uh I will start by sending u the Perios family. My condolences on James Jimmy Pertios. Uh Mr. Pertios passed away on March 5th, 2026 at the age of 87. Uh Mr. Pertios was a member of the South Boston High School class of 1955.
He was married, he um was married for 68 years to uh Mary and they um lived on Arnold Street for the majority of their tenure in Quinsey, raised um four boys who have their own families um at this point and uh Mary now she's outside of Quinsey, but u there's one good thing um about the the services.
It was getting to see her certainly um many of you know the Perios family. Um as I said uh Mr. Perios had four boys um all all with families partners of their own. Um he was a local 17 metal worker, skilled craftsman.
Um his obituary noted that he loved gardening and summers on Craigsville Beach. Um and certainly want to wish his his family, his eight grandchildren um the condolences from from myself and and from the body.
Um and um I would also want to uh memorialize and pay my respects to the Travers family. Um Dick Travers, Richard A. Travers passed away on March 7th, 2026 at the age of 91. Um similarly, if there is one silver lining, it's that he's reunited now with his wife Linda, who passed away at the end of 2024.
Um the Travers are a um uh very have been over the years very involved um members of the Quinsey community, namely of the Quinsey Point community. Um Dick was married to Linda for 67 years. Um of note was that their love of travel, uh his love of golf and his involvement in sports.
He was in charge of the St. Joseph CIO basketball league for some some time. um and certainly was memorable in in that post. He was also a member of the Brantry Moose Lodge and uh coached Wallace Legion baseball.
Uh big fan of the Celtics, Red Sox, Pats, and Bruins. Um the Mr. and Mrs. Stravers had five children, six grandchildren, and 10 great grandchildren. So um certainly um want to send condolences to the family of Mr.
and Mrs. Travers as well. Thank you. have anything for motions or um for presentations of petitions, memorials, for monstrouses? No. Moving on to motions, orders, and resolutions. Seeing none, scheduling of committee meetings and public hearings.
Council Riley. Yes. With the um majority of the council available, I'd like to suggest that we continue the um finance committee meeting next Monday, the 23rd, if people are available. uh to continue the conversation about the um the bond.
Um I I would like to do six, but I'm fine if people need a little later time. I would also like to just try to keep it just to that just to the finance committee and just to that topic. Can everybody make Can people make it six o'clock next Monday?
Yes, please. Thank you. Any meetings at this time? Not seeing any. So, do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn by councelor. Second by council and all those in favor. Thanks a lot, everybody.