Quincy City Council: March 23, 2026

Thank you.

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the March 23rd meeting of the Quincy City Council Finance Committee and begin by reading the open meeting notice. 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 acknowledgeable

Ash, DeVona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Walker, Yuen, Chairman Riley.

Present. Thank you. First item on the agenda is order number 2026-038, appropriation for $2,646,730, Fire Department new firefighter turnout gear. To recap on where we were last Monday, this body voted by a majority to keep this matter in committee for further discussion. The vote did not defeat this order. Several members had additional questions and concerns that we will work to address here tonight. We will continue the discussion on this matter so that this body can be confident in the decision to approve the $2.6 million in bond debt to pay for replacement gear. It is unfortunate that the City does not have the means to pay for all a part of this expenditure with cash and or to appropriate it in the 2026-27 budget. We can all agree that our first responders are confronted with dangerous situations and conditions throughout their careers and that cancer rates among them are exceedingly high.

We understand the dangers of the collective chemicals known as PFAS or forever chemicals that are pervasive and persistent. However, we are equally concerned that the new gear will perform with the safety and durability that has made the traditional gear dependable. The materials must hold up to water, heat, chemical exposure, while being extraordinarily flame retardant, relatively lightweight, and allow freedom of movement. It's an exceptionally high bar to meet. In 2018, the City of Quincy appropriated $2.477 million to replace the older dangerous gear with equipment with new clean gear that we are now faced with replacing again. There is still two years remaining on that 10-year bond that was issued at that time.

Thank you.

and just for reference, that order was introduced on May 7th, 2018 and referred to the Finance Committee just as we have done here. The matter was approved on June 18th, a full eight weeks later. This process is not unique or unusual. The difference is no one showed up in mass for the introduction of the order. There was no outrage when the finance committee met on May 21st, May 30th, and June 4th without deliberating or taking action on the equipment order at all. only when it came before the council for the final vote on June 18th did supporters attend the council meeting. We are simply performing the due diligence the residents of Quincy, the voters, the taxpayers overwhelmingly voted us in to do last November. So we will resume our discussions and deliberations here tonight on Council Order 2026-038 with a few ground rules. Please silence your cell phones, and if you need to use your phone, please step out of the room. There will be no shouting, clapping, or talking in the Council Chamber.

If there are disruptions, we will recess until order is restored. and I ask my fellow Councillors to please hold any motions until the questions have been answered and discussions concluded and also please give your full attention to the business here before us tonight. So with that, Mr. Walker, could you introduce the folks that are here tonight to answer questions and provide some additional information for us?

through you Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. And on behalf of the Mayor, appreciate the opportunity to continue discussions about this very important matter. With us tonight to answer any questions this body may have, Interim Fire Chief Gary Smith. Local 792 President Thomas Bose, from the manufacturers Milliken and Company, Brian Hoggis, who will be running lead on any technical equipment issues that this body has. And he's joined by John Sawyer from Fire Dex. We also have from the financial team here tonight, Rick Kosha, who's our Capital Assets Director, Mario Massano from Mirrors & Co., our outside financial advisors, and our treasurer and collector, Molly Soares. With that, Madam Chairwoman, open back up to the body.

Thank you, Mr. Walker. I would like to open it up to my fellow councillors for questions. Councilor Yen.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. So first, First, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Tom Bose and agreed to meeting with me this past Saturday and also bring his fellow Union firefighters, Richie, Richie Bryan, Paul Moody, and Chris Murphy to meet with me Saturday at North Quincy Fire Station. We have a Nice meeting, lasted like a one and a half hour, discuss all the questions and exchange information. They also kindly give me a tour of the fire station.

Powell and Rich kindly to offer another tour of House Necker Fire Station to Councilor Dave Jacobs and Councilor Walker. Virginia, Ryan on Sunday. So it's interesting. When I told my friends I went to North Quincy Fire Station, they were surprised. They said, really? You went to a fire station? That's a lion's den. and I said, yes, they didn't eat me alive. Actually, they treated me very well. They served me coffee loaded with PFAS. Sugars all mixed with PFAS.

and graciously let me sit on the fire truck that loaded contaminated PFAS and take the next picture. I really appreciate it. So we discussed a lot of questions. So today, thanks to Representative from Milliken, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Bryan, and I have a couple of questions.

Good evening, Council.

Hi, Mr. Brown. So, according to International Association of Firefighters, that's the website, they have a document that say what to know before purchasing PFAS-free gear. So I just read one paragraph. They say, ask manufacturers directly whether the gear your department is considering contains PFAS. Hyaluronated flan retardants, organophosphate flan retardants, flan retardants of any type or any other chemical treatments. So we want to have a, and they also recommend to have a full chemical disclosure before buying gears. So I'm wondering if the company have to give a full disclosure of a chemical, and treatment of this tongue out.

Yeah, that's a good question and we have not and we will not. We manufacture our fabrics to meet the stringent requirements of the NFPA 70 that has to go through rigorous underwriters laboratory UL testing to pass certification. And we use our own labs internally for testing. we obviously use UL and we are now using an outside third party source to offer greater reassurance to the market that our products are safe and they don't contain PFAS and they do not contain halogens. As far as what chemistries we use and how we do that, that's IP protected and I'm not able to share that.

Okay, I expect that answer in my follow-up question is, if a full chemical disclosure is not possible, can you clarify whether any treatments are physically added to the fabric or chemically bonded to it. And the reason I ask is, and last year, the city of Quincy turned out the gear to test the brominated flame retardants. and that is because of the rumor coming out to say PFAS-free turnouts actually loaded with BFR, brominated flame retardant. and when we send it out, it's a test, it's true. So, but by that time firefighters already exposed to it. And the flame retardant, brominated flame retardant is physically added to fabric.

That's actually worse than the PFAS ingrained in the fabric through strong chemical bond. Because if PFAS through covalent bond to... Fabric, it's very difficult for them to leach out and to contaminate environment and contaminate the air, the food, the drink. Brominator flame retardant was physically added. It's like a dispersed dye. I confirmed this with Professor Peasley, and he agreed. For that kind of method to just physically add some flame retardants, it greatly increases the risk of exposure. it's much easier to leach out contaminated air and you inhaled it and contaminated water contaminated your food and contact to your skin.

So I'm worried like if the company add some other kind of flame retardant or other kind of chemicals use this method as an additive instead of a chemical bond, then we'll risk our firefighters greater exposure even more than the PFAS ingrained the old legacy turnout, so.

Yeah, I think that's a very fair statement that you bring up. Bromine, brominated flame retardants is a banned, now restrictive substance for the 1970 and Milliken for well over 10 years, we have not used any bromine, any halogens for our chemistries. So we ceased doing that years ago. long before this became part of the requirement of the NFPA 70E standard. Milliken's been around for 161 years. So we don't participate in using any Brominated, any halogens in our flame-resistant chemistries? And we're certainly non-PFAS. We're non-PFAS as an entire company. So we don't add anything that would be halogen-related or PFAS-related.

I'm not asking you, I know your company is turn out of gear, has no PFAS and brominated flame retardant. That's already tested by the third party. My question is, what are the flame retardants you added in the fabric to meet the requirement of NFPA because firefighters turn out the gears designed specifically meet like a use, protect them in that extreme high heat, high moisture. That situation is not a normal jacket, so must have some chemical treatment.

Yeah, and unfortunately, going back to your first question, that's not anything that I'm able to answer here tonight. That's part of the IP umbrella that we're not able to disclose that.

So even you couldn't tell it's additive or it's a chemical bond?

Yeah, I'm not able to answer that.

Okay, because I communicated with the expert in this field. They said, to get some protection customers, you can ask at least if these chemicals is through physical additive or through chemical bond. So you can't...

I can't answer that.

Okay.

So since the purpose of this purchase is to protect firefighters' long-term health, would you company consider added the protection language to protect firefighters if they later found out they do expose some toxic chemical which your company didn't disclose. could your company give some compensation? Ideally, I would like to each firefighters who exposed to those toxic scenes you didn't disclose to get some compensation. Could you add that?

Yeah, we wouldn't be able to add that, but I will tell you that, again, as an enterprise, we are committed to non PFAS. We don't run any PFAS chemistries, any PFAS containing chemistries in any of our textile plants. We don't use halogens in any of our textile plants. So putting anything in writing, if something ever did happen, I can tell you with Milliken's long legacy, and our history of 161 years of being in the textile business, we would, traveled down every avenue to find out where things went wrong, but I do not ever see that being anything that we would ever even have to talk about.

I'm not asking PFAS and the brominated flame retardant. I know this already tested. The reason I ask is before company also didn't disclose they used the brominated flame retardants. it's a rumor coming out to say PFAS-free turn out loaded with this kind of toxic things. Then we go to send a text. So now if you don't tell us what other replacements you used, then later rumor coming out, oh, another one they used to replace PFAS in the brominated retardant. We don't want this kind of thing to happen again and again.

I can't comment on rumors. I can only just speak to facts and how we operate in our facilities and our processes. I can't comment on what rumors may be out there or

but maybe the perception may be.

But that's why we obviously were UL certified to the new standard and we use our own labs, we're doing third party, we're doing everything that we can do to offer reassurance to the market that our products are safe and they do not contain PFAS or halogens. And that's what I'm able to share with you this evening.

Then I will have a question to Mr. Bose.

Councilor, how are we doing? Thanks for coming by, sir. I appreciate it.

Thank you for showing me. So we did talk about that. You said that you can ask a representative of the company. So this is really from your own union.

That's correct.

And you have the press conference last year in August. You and the Mayor both expressed frustration of being lied by company. This clearly said never rely solely on manufacturer claims. This is written on your own union document.

That's correct, Council. We're not. We're relying on third-party testing that's been done Mr. Milliken, Ms. Brian Hodges come up from Milliken. Just to go back, after we knew we were lied to, Brian reached out to us and came up and he wanted to know what happened. We explained the whole story to Brian at a meeting down at St. Mary's at our training center.

I know that.

Brian left. If you could just hear me out, Councilor. Give me a couple minutes. Brian left. He reached out to that third party. Testing Facility.

I'm not questioning third party. My question is your document ask flame retardant of any other type or any other chemical treatment. This is your own union's document requirement.

That's correct. That's why I'm asking. the IAF scientific department has done a great job and they've worked with the NFP on the standard and if you look in this There's a restricted chemical list that was provided by the IAFF. Those chemicals are not in the Gablebine. Those restricted chemicals. That was recommended by the IAFF.

Okay, I'm not questioning their research. I just want to Quincy, City of Quincy have some protection from this purchase because from last year experience, You guys already said that you've been lied by company. You can't just, without any written document, only solely depend on what they say. So I feel like, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. So we should learn from our old lesson.

Councilor, no one's more upset we got lied to than me. I have two members that are really sick. My guys and women go out and get exposed to these chemicals every day. We have incorporated random testing. Milliken has incorporated random testing with two different independent parties. and every set of gear that comes in, we're going to random test as we explain the serial numbers on the roll of material, serial numbers on the gear. We will independently randomly test. We're going to test as much as we can. That's the only way to trust and verify is by testing.

Okay, the reason I ask it is because from your union's document.

Correct, and I'm confident with the NFPA set 1970 standard and what they've put in there in the restricted substance list, and none of those substances are in the gear we're purchasing.

Okay, I just asked any flame retardant. Okay.

If I can, if I can, we would never, Milliken would never achieve UL certification through 1970 if we were using any of those substances. We would never, we would never achieve certification. On top of that, I think it's worth noting, Ethisphere Institute just last week gave Milliken, announced Milliken, gave us an award for one of the world's most ethical companies. That's a great achievement. But what makes it really great is Milliken was awarded that for the 20th year in a row. There's only five other companies on the planet that can say that. We didn't get here this far by doing things that are not above board and completely ethical. So I just want to make sure that the council is aware of who we are and how we operate and what our business platform is founded on.

Okay. All I want to say is I want some protection to the city of Quincy and to the firefighters in Quincy. Okay, so my another concern is to, oh, okay, I can talk to you. So, and Since the PFAS-free turn-out gear has a significant performance trade-off compared to the old PFAS-ingredited gear, and legacy turn out, especially severe compromises, oil repellent performance. This also confirmed with Professor Peasley and also Dr. Ormond from North Carolina State University have a publication to showing

So the side-by-side experiment, this is PFAS-treated fabric, and this is So since now company couldn't use PFAS on the turn-out-out gear, so they use the wax or silicone-based treatment. to provide oil repellent function. And that severely compromises the oil repellent function. So this is experiment professor at North Carolina University, Dr. Almond. So this is a PFAS treated fabric, and this is wax. Hydrocarbon Wax Treated Fabric, when you light it, this one doesn't burn, this one burned like hell.

So the concern is in a situation like when firefighters go to rescue people from the fire. You have an open flame and you also have flammable fluid spilling. In that situation, if firefighters will turn out a gear, couldn't repair oil and get it spilled on, and the meat open flame, it can burn. So that's actually... Great increases the risk of a physical burn to our firefighters. So even though this situation is not most often, most frequent, but it is still among the more often cases. I actually talked to Mr. Bose and other firefighters. Their attitude is very heroic.

They said, oh, because that does not happen so often, so even if it happens, it's like our job. but I just feel if I'm a wife of a firefighter and I know my husband go to work and go to those extreme dangerous situation and wear the gear couldn't protect them

Thank you.

as well as the old legacy one and can risk them having physical burns, I will be really worried. Because it's not just about the firefighter, also about the firefighter's family members.

Yeah, and I agree with you. And if I was a firefighter's wife, I would not want PFAS or halogens in my turnout gear either. and I think that this lends to what you just showed, that visual, this lends to the cultural shift that we're seeing in the market at the fire department level all across the country where departments are going to have two sets of turnout gear and one set of alternative PPE. so that that gear can be properly cleaned and hopefully with the intent to extend the life of that turnout gear. So there is a reason why, departments are going to two sets of gear and there's a reason why they're using alternative PPE when they don't go to a structural fire. If they're going to a car accident or various things that don't involve running into a burning building, they can wear alternative PPE.

So what you said, alternative PPE means one set is the old legacy one, which have excellent protection performance, and another set is the PFS-free gear. So if not so dangerous situation or other situation, they wear the PFS-free gear. And when it's in the... . Is that what you mean?

No, I mean that what I'm saying is that a firefighter, if they are called to a car accident on Main Street out here, they don't have to wear turnout gear. Being smart about what they're actually wearing for the incident that they're called to. but that gear does not contain PFAS. We don't manufacture anything at Milliken that contains PFAS.

Please. I've been on almost 26 years. I respectfully disagree with that research from Professor Ullman. Have you talked to him at all? Can I ask you that?

You have had a conversation with him?

And you know Dr. Peasley respectfully disagrees with him as well, correct? Did he mention where a lot of his funding comes from for his research? Because I think you'd know that in 2017, he received a $28 million grant from a graduate down there. And the graduate is a CEO of a chemical company. So...

But I think this we should...

Thank you, Tom. This isn't about that. Knock it off. We brought in a top 10 expert in the country on PFAS last week, Professor Peasley. You can look up both of their credentials. Since 2021, Professor Peasley, his work has been cited 4,400 times. You're referencing a report from a professor, his work's been cited 320 times in that same time.

It's not my professor. He is the director of Minican Textile Center, right? This, I think, a representative of Minican can say.

North Carolina State University is in close geographic area to Spartanburg, South Carolina, where Milliken's headquarters is today. We fund the building that Dr. Orman works in. Our name is on the building, and we have a close tie to the university. But Dr. Orman is not employed by Milliken in any way.

I'd like to recognize Councilor McKee.

Yeah, so I just want to say that I also have spoken with Professors Peasley and Ormond. Okay, I have also spoken with Professors Peasley and Ormond and both of them have respectfully talked about the other's research and both of them seem to care very much about Yuan, the other day, that this funding concerns. So I raised it because it's a valid point. So I asked Dr. Ormond about this and I just want to read what he said. He said, first I want to address directly the concern expressed at the station about my being paid by companies that produce PFAS treated gear. That statement is unequivocally false. I have never accepted any industry funding for my research on PFAS and firefighter turnout gear, and I've been very deliberate from the beginning about not taking industry support for this specific line of work.

My research on PFAS and GEAR is supported by federal agencies, including FEMA's Assistant to Firefighters Grants Program and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and by the state of North Carolina through the NC Collaboratory. These projects are awarded through competitive peer-reviewed processes and the funding is administered through NC State University under standard conflict of interest and research integrity policies. I have not received nor will I ever accept personal consulting income from gear manufacturers for this work. The only financial support I have received from fire service organizations or PPE manufacturers has been limited reimbursement for travel expenses to present and share our research with firefighters. Most of the time, I cover those costs from university or research project funds, if possible. So that's just, I don't want to... I think we should respect both of them.

In science there's many different perspectives and that's the joy and beauty of science is that people will test each other's work, come up with different techniques. They both do use different techniques. So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Councilor McKee. So, yes, I just want to first state that I have heard everyone who's reached out and expressed, you know, really moving stories about how scary it is to live with the fear of cancer hanging over. and everyone. And I just want to emphasize that we at the council want firefighters to have safe gear. We also are charged with responsible, making sure that we buy them in a responsible way and ask all of our due diligence questions just as you did. spent time doing due diligence. We also spent time doing due diligence. I just want to put that out there.

I did want to ask, so from the conversation with Dr. Peasley, he told me that after the initial testing came back last June, that the president of the textile manufacturing company came to Quincy, apologized, and offered to replace the PFAS gear at no cost. Why didn't Quincy accept the offer and get PFAS-free replacement gear last summer when the offer was made?

through you, Madam Chairwoman, Councilor, due respect, I will defer to Solicitor Timmons, but I think that gets into some of the discussion around the legal ends that we do not want to be speaking about. as part of this discussion.

And just to confirm that, you're getting into the litigation issues. Someone made a representation that you're recounting here, but there was no follow up. Nothing came of that. There were questions posed to our office. And I'm not going to discuss the back and forth. because that's all part of the developing litigation. I'm pretty sure I made that clear last week. So that's one of those off-limits questions for that reason.

I guess many people have reached out to me to ask about this question because if it was you know marketed as PFAS free and then it had PFAS the natural question is wouldn't the company you know offer to refund or replace So anyway, that's something I'm asking on behalf of the people.

Keep in mind, this is the company that made the fraudulent representation, or what we're concerned to be fraudulent representations. it's the company that put us in the position we're in today. So we're working through all that and you're questioning tonight our reliance on this company and now you're bringing up a company that actually lied to us, we believe and we allege and we're looking further into to make sure we confirm discussions like that. So whoever it is who has reached out to you, you could refer them to the fact either to my office or to the fact that we can trust

the hard work of these two gentlemen right here, who have since the day those people were in our city and then left, never to return. they have been working very diligently on this. And I'm trusting these two, not a manufacturer who said, hey, we'll give you some free stuff. We're sorry we screwed up before. Not gonna happen. So you can tell. folks that that's our position or refer them to me and I'll discuss in a in a more refined manner and a certainly less public one. Because we can't do this.

We've bought gear since then.

Pardon me?

We've bought gear since then, since the testing and I just wondered did we buy the same gear from the same company? Or some of it I think was from Milliken. After we got that result, the testing shows that some of their same gear was PFAS-free, in fact. It seems like it was an issue of the changeover batch. but did we actually buy more gear from the same company that sold us this gear?

All right, well, that's a different question that I'm less comfortable answering. I want to keep the two folks who know the most in this room as far as I'm concerned about this issue. I'll keep them up at the podium, but again, keep in mind that the letter you have before you sent by Chief Smith is dated February 17th, 2026. I tried to discuss this fact last week, with one of your colleagues who brushed it off. But we confirmed independently all the testing that President Bose has spoken about. All of that testing was concluded and done, and we finally had a comfort level to move forward on February 17th, 2026. The window that you are talking about, I may ask one of these gentlemen to address.

Good evening. Good evening, Councilor Riley, members of the Council. On that, here's what I can tell you. I was appointed August 27th. gear had been purchased prior to that, in my understanding, prior to testing. The nine firefighters went into the academy. Literally, I think it was my fifth or sixth day, we sat down with first, the first companies, the manufacturers. I was getting briefed and updated. I walked into this, so I was getting briefed and updated. I stopped. I stopped. There wasn't an order yet, but I would have had to purchase a second set for the nine. I didn't do that. So we halted all purchases. After that, just to give you a quick timeline.

After that, we started hosting vendors, manufacturers coming to us, showing us their product, showing us their sampling. We did testing. We agreed to get trial sets to test. We narrowed it down to a couple that we liked. Now, in order to do that, companies have to come. These are all custom made individually. So they have to come and size up the firefighters, go back and literally make it to fit. That takes up to, I think, eight weeks in some instances. So we need to get gear till... I think the first set we got was the end of the year and we got the second set after the first of the year. But what we did is we didn't open it. We got them in sealed boxes

we sent them to Professor Peasley and we had those tested. So that took a couple weeks. From that point, we got the test results back, we narrowed down to the one that we got and I believe the second week in February, we met with the mayor, we presented the test results, we presented what we wanted to go forward with, and he told me to write the request for proposal. I hand delivered that within a day or two to the mayor's office, and I believe it's dated February 17th. That was the first purchase that was made since I have been interim chief.

I think there's a purchase order for $60,000 or something in October. And I just wonder what kind of gear that was.

I'm going to keep it simple, Councilor. So until February 17th of this year, we didn't know there was any clean gear available to us. None. Obviously, we talked to San Francisco. They were testing some gear. But you got to understand, as we just said earlier tonight, test and verify, that's the process moving forward, because as we explained the last meeting, these sets of gear are coming off different rolls of material. So every set of gear off each role should be tested. Test and verify. That's what we're going to do moving forward. That said, we had nine new recruits coming on. they had no choice. We had to buy them something because they were going to the Mass State Fire Academy. The Mass State Fire Academy requires a newer set of gear for these recruits moving forward. As the Chief said, he only bought one set because we knew what we were getting into. No one's happy about this. No one wants to continue to keep wearing this gear. And as I said, February 17th, we knew we finally had a solution. That's where we are and we want to get this done.

And then I guess I just have another question because based on the press conference last August, Mr. Bose, you said that you thought that kind of this experience with finding out there was PFAS and the non-PFAS supposedly gear, that it seemed to make sense to buy future sets of gear in smaller batches and then test randomly?

Just moving forward, Councilor, the testing's become a lot easier even since that time. I was going up to UPS and literally shipping a set of gear in a box, it seemed like, every other week. There's a new test available that's going to be a swab test. They can send it out. and as I said each different roll of material is going to identify a different coat and there's going to be a serial number so what we can do is take the different serial numbers test each one, send it out, get the test results back a couple weeks later. That's the plan. We will test. Every piece of material coming in in this gear will be tested and verified. That's the plan. And I'm not asking the city to pay for it. Our cancer foundation has stepped up and paid for it. We're going to make sure our members are protected one way or the other.

So I just want to tell you, I know I said last time that, you know, I had I had spoken with Brian Ormond and, you know, there was this idea of like washing could potentially reduce some of that.

Understandable concept.

Don't worry about it. But anyway, I just wanted to, that was not about the legacy gear that Professor Peasley was talking about. It was the non-PFAS gear that he was saying if there's contamination in the non-PFAS gear, just because there's some amount on everything. So, you know, he said maybe washing it a few times. So I need to clarify.

I understand. I mean, obviously you saw some of those totals. I mean, we were looking at Gale that had 500,000 parts per million that we were told had no PFAS in it. That's a big difference between washing it out and not washing it out.

So I think that's just another thing that the parts per million, what was said in the press conferences, not parts per million. I think it's like the kind of raw data from Professor Peasley. I was looking at all the results and very confused because they're different amounts in the three different tests. used a surface technique and then a liquid solvent technique and then a combustion technique, and they all had very different amounts. So as I understand it, the National Fire Protection Agents Association to quantify the amount of fluorine in something uses the combustion method and so that's 449 and I was told that the typical amount, 449 parts per million and the typical amount was in legacy gear like 2,000 to 10,000 parts per million.

So it's like maybe a quarter or 30%, which is what Dr. Peasley said last time. So it's not trace by any means. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that.

Trust is a big thing, Councilor. Even with the NFPA, who's located right here in Quincy, a lot of those boards that make the decisions for the NFPA do have industry experts as well as firefighters. So you have to be careful of that stuff too. Trust and verify. That's going to be the policy moving forward.

That makes sense. Oh, I realize now what I was before I got off topic with the washing. Dr. Orman said that PFAS is really the only class of chemicals known to significantly Repel Oil. So that's what Councilor Yuan was talking about. But just in case it helps you, He actually said that's a helpful way of, it won't tell you how much PFAS is in something, but it could be a free way to sort of just test to make people feel a little bit better. He said if you put a little droplet of mineral oil or diesel on something, if it beads, it's likely got enough PFAS in it to confer use. I just want to throw this out there because I actually do really want to share information that I've learned in case it's helpful. So that's it for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, so we're going to stick with the science. Go ahead, Councilor Yuan.

Okay, I have a question. since we have this significant trade-off of performance and the long-term risk, like you trade off the immediately physical bone and the on long-term health risk. So we have to balance it. When I talk to firefighters, I can, I can feel their sincere concern about PFAS. They are not afraid of fire, which I'm afraid of, but they really, fear this invisible and PFS seems everywhere and in their gears that they have to wear every day. They call it a boogeyman.

I just want to maybe share some scientific information to let them give them a little bit of peace of mind. So as Professor Peasley mentioned at last Monday City Council meeting, The major source of PFAS exposure is from the aqueous film forming foam which firefighters use to distinguish fires. and also the research from professor at Duke University, Professor Heather Stapleton

and her research is testing PFAS level in the blood of 1,000 firefighters across North Carolina and comparing them to the PFAS levels in the general non-firefighter populations. where they live. So, so far her team has tested, so this is report from last last year April NFPA meeting. So at that time her team has tested 175 fighters. and the preliminary data suggests that PFAS in firefighters is not higher than the PFAS levels found in non-firefighters who live in the same community. but there is one long exception, she said, firefighters work at the one fire station which historically used as a training site to use that

AQS, AFF, that form. And firefighters working in that station has one kind of cancer-related PFAS. elevated in their blood compared to the local population. And that kind of PFAS is not found in their gears, it's only found in the form. So her research, From my communication with her, now she has tested 700 firefighters, and the data pointed the same conclusion. So it means that for cancer-related PFAS in firefighters' blood, actually mainly from those forms they used. I know in Quincy, already banned to use that phone four years ago.

But you know the cancer developer need like 20 years, so So it means that you're exposed before those chemicals get into your blood, they accumulate. not meaning from your fears. So this is another research just published on March 12th and also point out used turn-out gear during training, not a source of PFAS forever chemicals. So, also, Research from Dr. Ormond also shows the skin absorption of PFAS level is very low. Professor Peasley also said, meaning from the drinking water, the contaminated drinking water. So from all this, I'm just wondering,

The PFAS in your gear will not immediately give you cancer. Not like you exposure for one day or two day. I just want to give you a peace of mind. but I know, I do agree for long-term, I do agree for long-term exposure like 20 years, 10 years, that can accumulate because your gear get worn out and it can come out. So what I want to say is My suggestion is we talked about using old legacy gear to deal with to deal with those dangerous situation because according to the national fire incident statistic

65% of course, fire department received medical assistant course. Another around 22% of calls are good intention calls or false alarm. And another 7% to 8% of calls are service calls, like you help lifting something. and only 3% to 7% of course are fire related course. But I want to say exactly this 3% to 5% of course, fire related, It's a crucial time. We need our firefighters to protect us because in that extremely dangerous situation, everyone run away. Only firefighters push in. So we need to give them the best protect, best gear. can protect them best. So in that situation, I really concerned about compromises of safety

increased risk for them to get a physical fund.

I respectfully disagree. I don't want PFAS in my gear. I don't want PFAS in my members' gear. Going back to what you're trying to say, and I respectfully disagree with you, Councilor, You mentioned the 20% false alarms. We don't have false alarms. When we go out the door and roll a little call for an alarm going off, we just assume it's a fire, it's an active fire. We don't know that until we get on scene. any exposure is too much. And as we explained to you when you came back, I do appreciate you coming by the station the other day and taking a look at the decon room with the extractor. We come back from a fire just in group three, was it a month ago? We had two fires. We had California RAV at about 8 a.m. right at shift change. And on Newcomb Street, about six hours later, we had a fire. The members at headquarters first in Newcomb Street, their gear from California RAV wasn't clean, wasn't dry. Obviously, if they put wet gear on, go to a fire, they're risking themselves with some serious steam burns, which has been proven in the past. We need two sets of gear. I know.

You guys already convinced me.

Going back to the legacy gear, that's not an option, Council. What I'm trying to say is if we come back from a fire, would you like us to put on the gear that's filled with PFAS? I don't think anyone wants that, right?

I want to say after the tour, after discussing with you and Paul, Chris, Rich, I think you guys convinced me you do need two sets because you showed me the fire truck is very Very compact. There is no place to put two sets.

Correct, Councilor. We don't have the room to put two sets on the trucks. That's correct.

because you are afraid of cross-contamination, like one side has PFAS, one side PFAS-free. If you put it together, it has cross-contamination. So I read your purchase. So you are going to buy three sets. Two sets are regular, heavy one, and one set are the light one. They are all PFAS and the BFR-free. I'm wondering if we can consider by one heavy set, one lighter set, use this bond We issue now to get your, so these are both, these two sides are all clean, so you don't need to worry about cross-contamination. and then since the budget season is coming in the 2027 budget start July 1st,

So we can budget to buy in the second heavy set for you guys. So it means that you get two sets now, and then July 1st, when the budget start to take effect, you get a second heavy set, so total three sets.

There's a few issues with that, Councilor, the first being that not having two clean heavy sets of gear limits us if we do get a fire in the morning. We get a second fire during that shift, now we're gonna be, we have to wear that second heavy set of gear which would be contaminated with either PFAS or brominated flame retardants because that would be our other set. If you only buy one set of heavy gear, that's our only option. The other thing we have to talk about is cost. Supply and Demand. The Chief had negotiated a pretty good package with the distributor. We saved a lot of money. As you all know and you're aware, the law changes in Massachusetts starting January 1st, thanks to the PFFM and the state legislature. You will not be able to purchase gear with PFAS in the state of Massachusetts, which is a really good thing. The price is going to go up. The demand is going to go up. Supply-demand. I think you're saving some money. What you have right now, the package in front of you, I think is the right package to move forward for the safety of the men and women that protect the city. And I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you. As I know, in the nation, there is no other city or town has immediately purchased two sets PFAS-free gear for each firefighter. We are the first one jump into this. I just want to be prudent to see if if the product is really safe. It has a significant trade-off of the performance.

The Chief's going to answer, but the industry standard, Councilor, is two sets of gear for members. That's the industry standard.

The Chief will touch on that. So we just say three months difference.

Good evening, Councilor.

Chief, if I could just interrupt for just a moment, please. Sure. I think we were trying to exhaust all the science questions so that we could then move on, and we've started to delve into some of the finance questions, you know, is two sets, and we're coming up on our hour. does anyone else have any strict straight up science questions for our vendors or McGee.

Can you speak in the microphone?

Just a really quick one. Does the fire department or the union through the Cancer Foundation or anything do blood tests for PFAS?

obviously there's an expense to that. The Cancer Foundation has done an enormous great job trying to help the two families and the two firefighters that are sick right now. That's their goal, eventually, but obviously with 280 members, that test can get expensive. There's been legislation in the State House for probably the past three terms trying to get early cancer screenings for firefighters. I think that would be a good start for the state where firefighters would go to the doctor and they'd have to give us a test. The insurance industry couldn't deny it. I think that's a big deal as well. But there's an expense with that, Councilor. Obviously, that would be the goal. I'd encourage if you want to add something to the budget council next budget and we'd be all for it.

And also on that, Councilor McKee, the Department of Fire Services, different medical providers offer cancer screenings to our members. It's voluntary, they pay out of pocket. I was at the Metro Chiefs meeting a few weeks ago. Company came in, it's about $1,000 per person. It's out of pocket. but it's for screening and imaging. So there is more and more that we're starting to see in terms of the medical side of testing. So those are coming, but there's an expense that goes with them. So nothing's done right now, but if... No, no, everything, there's nothing mandatory. Nothing mandatory. Again, voluntary, and there are members who volunteer, obviously. they don't disclose to us for obvious reasons.

Please. If I could just try to summarize where we're at here. I think at the end of the day, we are all extremely concerned. Just one moment, please. We are all, at the end of the day, very concerned for your health and safety, and that is really the bottom line. And these questions are in line with that. We want to make sure we get this right. We are concerned, I think, you know, I hear the concerns that Some other new chemical product will be in gear, and no offense to the manufacturer, but that will be the new PFAS. We tried to exhaust all of our science questions so that we could move on and talk about the finance in the finance committee meeting. Councilor Yuen, I will entertain one more comment for you, and then I think we're going to have to recess for a few minutes and go into our...

This is actually related to finance.

If it's related to finance, could we hold off? Because we need to recess and go into the regular meeting.

I just finished my comment, then I'm done. So the reason I suggest we issue bonds to purchase one heavy set, one light set now, and then in three months the budget will budget your second set is because I would like to Cut, like when we're doing budget, we can cut those non-urgent expanding, like in the each department, they all support five departments, they can prioritize their spending, cutting some non-essential spending, and they use that money to buy your second set, then we can borrow less money, so less interest

and that will help tax payers because we can't just keep issuing bonds like even though this one is not so big but then we will have like Eastern Netherland College that estimate 30 to 40 million and then performance center. I mean, I didn't ask, I still agree to three sets. I just say could you, second set, could you wait just three months? I don't think I ask too much. And I do,

I can answer that for you. No. No, respectfully, and if you want to recess, I will explain why we should be buying two sets of gear, and I will give you the financial reasoning behind it. I understand you want to be financially cautious, but I will discuss that after recess and we can have a discussion on why I think it's important to buy all this right now.

Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Mr. Walker, did you want to add anything? We're going to recess. We will open up with regular council business and we will come back into the finance committee meeting.

Before we open the meeting, we're going to go to recess and go right back into the finance meeting. We'll open forum after the finance meeting. So I know you're all lining up, but we want to keep the conversation going. Okay. Is there a sign-up sheet up there? There's no sign-up. Don't worry about it. There's no sign-up sheet, so don't worry about it. We'll stay as late as you need us to stay. All right?

Okay.

All right, we're going to call the meeting to order for the March 23rd, 2026, 7 p.m. for the City Council meeting. Could you call the roll?

Sure. Councilor Ash. DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, McKee, Riley, Ryan, Yuan, Mahoney.

Can we stand and have a moment of silence? And please turn and pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God.

So we're going to recess back into the finance meeting.

Okay. Good day, Mr. Newton. I would like to try to make our focus on the financial questions. I hope that we have exhausted the strict science questions. We've had a number of experts. We've been able to certainly exhaust our questions here tonight. So I would like to open it up to whoever may have a financial related question that they would like to pose.

Ryan. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Riley. So this is a question to finance, and I was just wondering if there is any way possible to create a specialized account for future purchases of firefighters gear. Like a reserve account for specific purchases of firefighter gear.

I got it.

I'll recognize Mr. Walker.

Through you Madam Chairwoman, that would be, and we certainly understand the premise behind that question, Councilor, but that would be highly unusual and something we could certainly look at, but I wouldn't, I wouldn't bank on something like that because it would be very different than the way capital investment is made over the course of many years. But if the Chief has anything to add on that,

I agree with you. You know, I want to answer the question you asked prior to recess, and this goes into finance. the question basically is about waiting and buying this in pieces. Historically, we buy protective equipment in bundles. That way we don't have this kind of a financial burden. I want all these residents to know and all of you to know this is really an emergency appropriation. This is a completely different circumstance. I inventoried all of our Protective Equipment. This budget season, I would come before you and let you know that we have 190 sets that need to be replaced. Think of it in that 10-year NFPA window. That's how we operate. So in 19, when they bought about 180 sets, it was replacing gear from 19 back to 09.

And then, you know, subsequently there was gear purchased 19 through 25, there were different batches, all under the impression that they were PFAS-free, and we were misled, but we've already discussed that. So that's normally how we want to do it, in batches. Then we found out what the issue was. So now here's what I have. 270 members, 190 sets of gear that's coming up on expiration, and 350 sets that we purchased in the last six or seven years that we were misled on. So we need new gear across the board, two sets. That's why I'm... I'm standing firm on we should do the two sets and then the alternative gear.

It's also a bundle package. I negotiated a bundle package. If we buy this separately, it's gonna cost more to our residents. if we buy one set now, we buy a set after the first of the year, given what Governor Haley, the law that's been acted that January 1st of 2027, no one in the state, no fire department, no municipality can buy gear with any additional intentionally added PFAS. So we all know what's gonna happen, right? What's gonna happen with prices? they're going to rise. Production costs are going to rise. The demand is going to rise. We're going to be like apparatus right now. We're going to be waiting forever for gear. So we want, you want me to stop?

I think we've satisfied the question.

Ryan. I just want to say thank you to everybody for coming here tonight, both residents, firefighters, and representatives of the companies that are making the material. for the firefighters. I want to thank you to Ward 1 Fire Station for inviting us, or actually for Yuan reaching out to the team so that we can go and understand the whole process from beginning to end of what it's like to be a firefighter. I understand completely that there are two sets that are needed. and I understand that the men and women of the Quincy Fire Department have served this city with distinction for well over 100 years. Their courage is not abstract. It is seen in every rescue, every fire contained, and every life saved across every neighborhood in this city for generations.

That is a legacy this council takes seriously. And it is precisely because of that bravery and sacrifice that we have taken the time to get this decision right. We are committed to getting our firefighters into clean, safe, verified gear as quickly and responsibly as possible and in doing so in a way that does not further compromise the financial stability of the city. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Ryan. And I do think we're going to try to move on to some bond questions, which I'm not sure that's your wheelhouse.

I'd be happy to sit down, Councillor.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Councilor Jacobs.

I have a question. You know, this is the second time in two weeks I've had a situation that is not clear. So last week we were presented with a 10-year bond with nothing to say about a five-year bond or a 15-year bond. We're just supposed to... It is, it is, it's gonna circle back to that. You just said a minute ago that this was a bundle package deal. and that's great, and I'm glad it's gonna be a bundle package deal, but could you tell us how much we're saving by doing this bundle package deal? Because we didn't get presented with those numbers.

Well, you can... speak to, well, they're not here, but when you buy things in bulk.

No, I understand that, but you're over here telling the residents of Quincy and the taxpayers and the elected representatives of the city that we are saving money and I would like to know how much money it is that we're saving.

I said it last week.

By doing a bundle package.

I said it last week. Originally, the original was for 280. I brought it down to 271. I looked at retirements in the foreseeable future. So that saved $80,630. Then in the bundle, I made a reduction in the harnesses, say $57,510. I did a full inventory of our gloves and our hoods. We saved $59,400. And then buying all this together, I asked, if there could be a reduction anywhere in this where we're buying a large package. They took off an additional amount of money on the bunker coats and the bunker pants. And that saved us $51,100. So yes, some of that was inventorying and looking at manpower, which made reductions.

And then in the end, I negotiated an additional $51,100 off the top. just in normal circumstances, Councilor, when you're buying in bulk like that, they're gonna give you bulk rate, you know, bulk rate. So that's what I mean by that. Okay?

McGee.

So I just, sorry, Chief Smith, I won't take long. This purchase, when is the next time? I don't know if we've hired a lot of firefighters. Are you planning to hire any more? I'm just trying to get a sense of when we might need to buy gear again.

When we may have to. Yeah. Again, with this package, with the alternative set, which is the trend that the fire service is going in for several reasons. the NFPA standard is 10 years and I want to get 10 years out of this gear. We're gonna be starting fresh and then will have a plan. I won't be here. But when you have to start replacing that gear years from now, you want to have a bundle package plan. You don't want to have to come in here and put this burden of 540 sets on the city and to put you in this position, all of us in this position. But this is an emergency.

Yeah, I understand. I appreciate that.

So we're going to have everyone in two sets that with... these strides we've made in the cleaning and the decon and all the things we've already discussed, I'm confident this is the best package to get us the 10 years.

Yeah, thank you so much. I actually went back and listened to everything from last week, did more research, and I actually think, I thought initially three sets of gear, that seems extreme. it now makes sense to me and it also makes sense just from even though the science may not be clear yet on PFAS and gear and how much it affects, you know, I think just the peace of mind is significant because it's already a scary enough job. I think it makes sense to cycle through these different sets of gear. I think that makes good sense. I guess I'm wondering one thing. Oh.

I've been trying to get to Councilor Mahoney.

Oh, I'm sorry. Just one last thing for me. So I guess from the fire department budget this year, It looks like there's a little bit less than $300,000 kind of There's $9.3 million left over for the three months of the rest of this fiscal year. And there's $9 million of sort of personal services So there's about $300,000 of other stuff. And I'm just wondering, could we slightly reduce the bond by using that money?

Our budget is 98%. and personnel. I couldn't make that prediction right now three months out. I just can't. I would really have to scrutinize the budget as well. I couldn't give you an answer to that tonight.

Mahoney. Thank you very much. Well, I'd like to thank everybody that's in the room tonight. It's nice to see so many friendly faces. For the Milliken representative, I just have a quick question about durability, if we could. Yeah. and Durability does go into the essence of finances. So Durability, we're saying we wanna get 10 years out of this and everything I've read says that Sometimes the durability doesn't last as long, but we'll have two sets. Is the idea with two sets you'll be able to stretch it out a little bit longer?

That's correct. And the fabrics are designed Keep in mind, the NFPA 70 standard still requires the fabrics to last that 10-year lifespan. So that's the goal. And that's why the dual sets... really plays a big important piece to this.

Because they can be rotated out.

That's correct.

And they can be washed, and they're not being washed multiple times. It's being washed once every time they have to use them within a fire that they are exposed to. potential PFAS or any other chemicals that they would get on their uniforms.

That's correct. That's correct.

Because some of the dangers, and I think this was said too, and I just like to restate it, that the uniforms protect you. And that's, I think I just want to restate what some of our counselors said here tonight. their fear is that by not having the things that are causing cancer and those chemicals that are causing cancer are also protecting you and we won't have as much protection potentially so there might need to be different training for how to use this equipment. But I do believe that the fire departments are going to be adaptable to that, obviously, because then they won't be wearing materials that could cause cancer. But on the other side of it, there are also The materials that we're using, it does say that it'll break down a little bit faster, but you're saying two sets will last us those 10 years?

That is the goal. And there is also an emphasis on NFPA 1851, the cleaning, care, and maintenance of the gear. that is really starting to have a big impact on departments across the country as well.

That's why we have those washers.

That's exactly right. And following those wash processes, the wash formulas, Heat, water, temperature, all of those things can extend the life of the fabric.

and then also for the times that we go out on calls and they make it sound like I'm riding with you, which I'm not because I would not make a good firefighter. I would run the other way. But when you go out on those calls and they are medical and you know they're medical, you'd be able to wear the lighter weight uniforms, is that correct?

I'll let them answer how they process calls as they come in.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here tonight.

Good evening, Councilor Mahoney. Yes, so I'm going to be coming out with a new policy on the lightweight gear.

How do you know what to wear, though, when you get that call? What's that? How do you know which one to wear when you get that call?

Well, the two sets of the structural are just for that. That's really for structural firefighting. But we go on medicals, public assist, elevators, auto accidents, lockouts, things like that. That's the lighter weight.

So you'll know when you get that 911 call.

It's going to make such a difference. And just back to that 1851 on the cleaning and maintenance, we have an SOG that mirrors that. So we've done SOGs on decontamination and cleaning. and that's going to help us extend the life.

So one of the questions I want to ask is when you were just talking about how we're going to rotate it out in 10 years and we're going to buy it in bulk again I think that would be the concern I have because we don't know where the city of Quincy is going to be in 10 years and as you just said you probably won't be here, correct? And I don't know who will be here. We don't know what our finances will be, but we do know that we'll have a fire department and we'll still probably have to deal with these things. So staggering is actually the best, protocol for financial ways to be able to invest in these things. But we don't know what the chemicals that we're putting into the gear now. They could also potentially five or 10 years down the road we could be in the same boat, because we don't know. That's the fear of this. We're buying this equipment, and I know Milliken's saying that it's the best of the best, and he can't give us the secret sauce, and I understand that as well, but as we know, things tend to evolve and something else that we might be using today could also prove to be dangerous tomorrow. So I just want to make sure that we're taking that into consideration too as we're

you know people are retiring and we have new people coming in we always have a little bit of money in the budget to be able to go out and get those new sets of gear for new recruits that we're bringing in and maybe in 10 years we don't need quite Full extensive 10 years worth of equipment because you might have somebody starting in year 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or newer equipment. So you can stagger those in that situation.

I'm going to stick to the plan that I put in place, having the two sets. But as you said, you won't be here. We don't have a crystal ball.

You don't?

Here's what I know today.

That's why I'm pointing it out, that we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know what the materials that we're using. We don't know if we'll be back here in a couple years doing the same thing.

What we know today is the majority of our sets are saturated in PFAS. We all know that. And it's an emergency. It's a crisis. and we need to replace it all.

And this is the way to go. We are well aware of that. So we're gonna, so moving on to that, the city council is being asked to bond $2.6 million. And as Councilor Jacobs has just mentioned, I think the city has gone out to price out a 5, 10, or 15-year bond. I think, is that Mr. Kosher? Would you like to come up? Is that what you're saying?

Nice to see you. Nice to see you as well, Councilor.

So I'm just looking for you to give us your rundown of what we did to come up with the bond number.

So yes, we did. We bonded, or I should say we ran the assimilation for a five, a 10, and a 15 year. I think you have the numbers on the five and the ten year.

If you could share the five and ten. We're not going to go to 15 because we're not going to get 15 years out of this.

Sure. So the five year number, in terms of the overall debt service costs. I assume that's what you're interested in. The five-year would be $3,111,832, $812.52. That's principal and interest. The 10-year would be $335,625. So it's a difference of about $220,000. over the course of 10 years. Bear in mind on that number, though. So these are simulations. That's just if you're running your principal and interest, what the power is going to be. That doesn't take into consideration kind of what the market demand is going to be for a five-year versus a 10-year. and if you'll indulge me and I'm going to nerd out on you for a little bit here on the 10-year is kind of the benchmark on the municipal bond spectrum. There's a lot more demand, but institutional investors,

brings in more bidders, more competitive bids, more potential offers. So what that does, and as you probably know this, we do a negotiated bond sale. And so what that does, that allows our underwriters to kind of take a second bite of the apple when they go out and sell these bonds.

They're allowed, what that allows them to do- So this is after we bond and we can go out and sell the bond?

No, no, as they're making the offers, DiBona, when they go out to market. Okay, go out to market. So the underwriters do a great job of working with the investors to kind of squeeze the yield on each one of those maturities. So what typically happens is, you know, you can look at a static number and say, you know, the interest is this, and on the 10-year it's this, but after you're in the market and you've kind of taken the temperature and you've gotten bids, you're able to squeeze the yields on those so that the difference between the five and the 10-year bond in terms of overall cost is fairly marginal because like I said, you're going to get a lot more, you're going to get a lot more demand for the 10 year than you will the five year because it's an unusual maturity.

So here's the problem that I have, and this is the problem when we get elected into office and we look at the budgets and we question these things. We're a city of, we'll just say 110, maybe 103, 110,000 people. We have a half a billion dollar budget, annual budget, operation budget for the city. That's a lot of money. And we have $1.6 billion worth of debt. You do not have to go and explain how it all adds up. I know how it all adds up.

And we'll do the log presentation in April, of course.

Absolutely. So, and I requested that, too. So one of the concerns we have, as we always have, is $2.6 million in a city the size that we are is not a lot of money. And we should have some place that we should be able to potentially pay for it without bonding. And we should not really be bonding gear. That's just a statement. And I think that's one of the problems that some of the councilors are having is that we're bonding gear. And the taxpayers of the city of Quincy are looking for, some relief. We have a lot of growth happening in the city and a lot of things that are happening and seniors are looking for tax relief and everybody's looking for something. So we have to be responsible as we sit at this chamber to make these decisions. And by no means does that mean that we're not gonna put firefighters in the gear. It just means we have, and this is a finance committee meeting, it means now we're not talking about science. Now we're talking about finance. And when we're looking at these things, we're questioning it.

So last fall, you dropped the taxes. you know a one-time drop in our taxes by 35 million dollars and you know that's a concern for that because we're using all our reserves to drop the taxes and some of it had to do with the pension, the unfunded pension portion. And I know that's in, you know, we're gonna get big, we're gonna get that presented to us next month. But we do have some stabilization money in the city right now. How much do we have for stabilization money?

Stabilization is approximately, I think it's about $2.6 million right now.

So it's 2.6, but it's 9.8, which is it? Because you're saying 2.6 and he's saying 9.8.

I'm sorry, for all the stabilization, 9.8, I'm sorry.

Is it for all the stabilization accounts or is it?

There's $9.8 million in stabilization. All right.

That's okay. I just want to make sure because you both, I could, he's talking in one ear. So we have 9.8 and it sounds like it's going to stay 9.8 from the conversations I was having. Right. and, you know, one might say, why aren't we using stabilization? So, what would you say for that?

I would say, you know, it's a policy decision that the city makes. And one thing you have to keep in mind, so this is a capital purchase, correct? I know what you're saying, you know, why don't we make a one-time purchase of $2.6 million?

It's typically bought staggered, but in this particular case, typically gear is bought staggered. In this particular case, because it's an emergency appropriation, as Chief Smith has approached us with, what we're saying is it's a $2.6 million bond. and if we didn't have to lower our taxes last year to make it more palatable, which I don't know if it was that palatable for the taxpayers, $35 million and we used, Proceeds from Pensions. We used the sale of a building that we purchased for $10 million, but we only sold it for seven, but then we used $3.5 million to lower the taxes for this. So I'm painting a picture that's very uncomfortable for the taxpayers out there. And now we're going to bond for $2.6 million for fire gear. And I'm asking, if we have a stabilization account that we could have lowered taxes for a one-time thing, why we wouldn't come back and say, we need this gear. We need it now. We're going to take $2.6 million out of a stabilization account and purchase it. And when we get free cash next fall, we'll replenish our stabilization account. Just a question.

Then we don't have to bond anything. And you have your gear. See? I think Mr. Walker would like to field this question. Oh, I'm sorry. I was ignoring him. Aren't you liking sitting next to me?

Through you, Madam Chairwoman. Councilor, you raised a number of policy questions.

Of course I did.

And our policies dictate how we handle each individual issue at that given time. In the fall, we did a number of things. to reduce the tax levy to benefit our taxpayers. At that time, free cash was certified relatively low as it has been in other years. And at that point, we made the determination that free cash toward the tax rate in this particular year was the right decision. And I want to take a step back a little bit because this is a good conversation to have because quite frankly, in a lot of places, we're talking about the how we do this. I think everybody here wants to do this. We're talking about the how. In a lot of other places, maybe most other places, the question is if we could do it. The fact is we can't afford this. it's well within our means and we should be moving forward on this. It's not a question of of IF. It's a question of how. And I understand that.

But when you look at the big picture, it's because of these issues that you raise that we have some of the flexibility that a lot of places don't have. we've taken the time to use some of our reserves to, not reserves necessarily, but revenues that are drawing down the debt service. The bond premium draws down the debt service. Some of this outside grant money draws down. it's less grant money than we have to pay. If we had used ARPA money, the federal grant money for this, if that question were to come up, well, we've used ARPA for other things like the Rick DeChristopher Early Education Center. We've used it for other means. So it opens up the flexibility for us to do this. This is not a major investment in terms of the overall capabilities of the city. It's one where we're faced with doing it now. And quite frankly, I heard the question about, well, other cities are only buying one set of gear at a time.

I venture to guess almost all of those is because if you ask them, they said of course we would buy two, but we can't. We can here in Quincy. This is the proposal that the mayor feels comfortable with. Our bond capacity, which we're gonna get into in April, is fine. our finances are good. We're in great shape. I would say the proof of the city's finances, it's all around us. outside, it's in the new school buildings, it's in the parks and the playgrounds, it's outside this building, it's inside this building, it's in the amount of staffing we have in our fire departments, the amount of staffing we have in our police department. It's about our school department that has the highest teacher retention rate out of any school district in Massachusetts. Folks, we are in good shape. We can afford to do this. This is not going to put a strain on the city's debt capabilities.

Okay, well, I appreciate that. However, East Providence, Rhode Island was the first group of firefighters to get this equipment from Milliman, and it was paid for by ARPA funds. San Francisco was next and they put a policy together in San Francisco saying that by July 1st of 2027 they would have all PFAS-free gear. And they bought the first set with the second set being planned to purchase very fast after that. But if they needed to take some time to raise that money, they were looking for grants, they were looking for other things that they could put towards that. were not there. And they also used free cash. In Newton, they used free cash. So there are priorities for those. And those are the towns that they use. We have taxpayers that live here in the city of Quincy that are having a hard time with every time we do something and bonding it.

I understand you have policies, but your policies are a little bit backwards when you're finding all the free cash that you can find in the buckets of money to lower the tax as a one-time shot when you should be actually using those one-time shots for this gear when we do that, and that's just how it should be. However, I'm gonna go back to the five or the 10 year. This equipment, and we're buying two sets, should last us 10 years. but we don't have a crystal ball and we don't know. So I do think that the five-year makes more sense. I also think that we have to wrap a few more things around the disclosure of this bond to make sure we safeguard the taxpayers. Chief Smith mentioned the fact that he brought in a lot of grants and we do appreciate that. Almost every fire department in the state of Massachusetts has an opportunity for many grants. what we can do is we can earmark any of the new grants that are coming in to go right into paying off this bond so the taxpayers are not having to fund this for five to 10 years. We should get this paid off as soon as possible. I was happy to hear, though, Mr. Kosher,

We did use the pension, the Discount, right, not the discounts. We used the, when we sold the bonds for our proceeds, we used the proceeds. I was like, I'm gonna get to the word. I'm getting old, everybody, I'm getting old. So we use the proceeds from the bonds to pay off, I believe, the bond that we took out in 2018-19 for the equipment, the washers, and the gear we bought in 2018. Is that correct?

I think there was a tiller as well that was in that.

Yeah, so I believe that bond has already been paid off.

That's correct.

So that's good news tonight, because one of the concerns I had was that we purchased, I think that was a 10-year bond back then, and we purchased this, and do we still have to pay for a bond that we... and so forth. So I'm really happy to hear that. But what I will say is that what we can do and I think we have to do tonight is we have to move on to funding the GEER, and then also finding ways that we can pay down the bond as fast as possible so that it's not impacting the taxpayers and we're not paying a long-term interest on GEER, because GEER is typically not considered Capital Investments, typically. Typically we don't talk about the outerwear of what we're wearing for the fire department as capital investments. Anything under Ten years typically you don't want to bond and anything this low, 2.6, doesn't really make a lot of sense. That's just where I stand.

I don't know where my fellow colleagues stand, but I know I am ready. and I think we would have got there last time and it's okay because the week that we had allowed many of us to go and visit the fire department, to talk to, no, I didn't get to go because I was not able to come visit with you, but many, Councilor Yuan, Councilor Ryan, Councilor Jacobs. So taking time to actually make decisions in the city of Quincy is not, are worried about. the potential danger you'll be in with the new equipment because there could potentially be dangers in it. That's sincerely the way they were looking at this.

and it's not to say that we don't trust, but it was very clearly stated in that press release last August that we shouldn't trust anybody, but I'm glad Milliken came tonight and basically told us, I mean, hearing that you've been awarded the most ethical company for the last 20 years helps set my mind at ease a little bit, but that's one thing that we can go with. Anyone else?

DiBona, did you want to speak? Are there any more questions? Councilor Hubley.

Sure. All right. So I was a little surprised to see a switch from the 10-year bond to the five-year bond, but I decided over the weekend to explore it a little bit and ran some numbers and one of the things that when I looked at what was proposed, one of the things I feel like we didn't necessarily take into account was inflation. and so the big difference is if you're gonna spend a dollar today or spend a dollar 10 years from now or five years from now, it's a different value, right? We don't value money for the picture of George Washington, it's buying power, the effect of buying power. So when you're doing an analysis of whether you're getting a certain rate over a certain term,

that's great and you can look at that and see and if money exchanged on one day that would be apples for apples, right? However, the value of money changes over time so this sort of 300,000 ish potential savings going from 10 to five years when you factor in inflation. And that is only if you assume standard inflation of 3% over each year, which has been sort of the historical through line When you factor in inflation, that 300 something, I ran a bunch of different scenarios, and then you and I had a conversation earlier today to verify my math, because I'm a comp sci guy, so bear with me. and when you run it through, when you factor in inflation assuming 3% year over year, you end up with an effective savings of about $75,000 in buying policy. Sort of right about? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Now it sounds, okay, great. We'll take the 75,000 that's at the surface, right? but you also have to look at market conditions.

And what you do when you go from 10 years to five years is you compress your inflationary exposure and that's a risk. whereas if you go 10 years, you have a better blended average of inflation and so you're sort of doing better in terms of your risk factor. So I modeled it out a couple of different ways. and I'm happy to share these numbers and you can make sure I got all the math right or so forth. But if we assume potentially 3.5% inflation, your savings now goes down to effectively $42,000. if we see 4% inflation, you're down to 10,000. And it kind of goes from there. But if we hit a 5% inflation average year over year over the course of five years, were now in the red in terms of effective savings and effective spending power as compared from the five to the 10-year term. it starts to go up.

And then once you hit 5.5% inflation, now you've just flipped the entire equation and you're now at 73,000 loss as compared, when you compare the 10 to the five. And so, The other impact that creates is budgetary stress for the organization, right? So by flipping that and increasing your short-term debt services, I almost say we're doubling them, right? What I'm saying is that affects your liquidity. doing things for schools, doing things for other important things that come up, that becomes more challenging, could actually lead to more bonding effectively. So I'm a little less comfortable with the five-year. I like the fact that it says recommended term. And I guess my question maybe to you and maybe Mr. Timmons,

The language that says recommended five-year, does that mean that the body is saying we think this is a good idea? However, if the financial analysts determine otherwise, you can make a different decision. Yes, sir.

So just to clarify, the way the order is written, what is before us for consideration right now does not constrain the administration. It gives them the authority to go out and get the best terms. I think what you're alluding to, Councilor Hubley, is there have been I think some motions that may be put forth to try to restrict that a little bit but right now that there's been no no one's entertained that or introduced that okay all right to this body so I think if I could jump in, I did have just one question because I'm kind of quiet here. Will going out to market for this bond, will that trigger a bond rating review from the bond industry?

Every time we go out to market, substantially, yes. We would have to get a rating from S&T.

Okay. So that could potentially... affect our bond rating with this next issuance? The next time we go out to the market, this could affect our bond rating. It will be reviewed, is what you're saying. Our bond rating will be reviewed by the sheer fact that we're going out to market.

Yes, every time we go out to market.

Okay. It's unlikely it would raise our bond rating.

I mean, for $2.6 million, probably not. It's probably not gonna move the needle that much.

But I mean, hopefully it would just remain the same.

Stable, sure.

Okay. Sure. Thank you. Okay, did you have a financial question? I don't know. Go ahead, Councilor Hubley.

All right. Yeah, so one of the reasons why I raised that concern is that's all around our current, the numbers I said modeled a couple of different scenarios inflationary factors. The challenge we have right now is we're starting to see oil prices go up, the per barrel prices are going up. Strong correlation between oil prices going up, price per barrel, and inflationary factors. When you look back, right now we're in a conflict with a country that controls 20% of the world's oil. and the Strait of Bermuda. So that's gonna have a factor on oil prices, which is gonna cause an inflationary factor that we're gonna have to deal with. And so we're in a highly volatile inflationary market, and we're compressing the window in which inflation will affect us. And so that factor concerns me.

And so as long as we have the flexibility to go either direction, which the experts think that I'm good with,

Your larger point is well taken. Your larger point is that when there's volatility in the market, when there's inflation, there's a term called flight to safety, right? So usually when there's volatile times, investors will go to more the more safer Investment, which is typically bonds. That can affect the pricing as well, which over a longer period of time, because they'll want to go out longer on the yield curve to get that yield, to lock in that yield. you know it's kind of it may seem kind of counterintuitive but it's actually it's it's almost favorable to the pricing of a bond when there is when there is volatility and just another point that you made in terms of you know the five and ten year bond what are you giving up what do you what are the about the advantages and disadvantages. I mean, one of the costs is, like I think you mentioned it, is the liquidity, the flexibility. You're giving that up now. You're spending that money now.

that opportunity cost, that liquidity and the flexibility in your budget, it's kind of removed. So your point is well taken. Okay.

All right, let's see. Yeah, I think that covers it. The bottom line is I think it's, to look at the numbers and what we're gonna save, I don't want anyone to be misled about the actual effective money that we're going to save by switching from 5 to 10. I think lining it up with the lifetime of the asset makes complete sense. So that favors the 10-year. I think compressing our inflationary risk doesn't make sense so expanding it which will give us a better average year-over-year inflation number to work with. So I would be definitely in favor of the 10-year term. But as long as you guys have the flexibility to switch from 5 to 10, I'm

We do. And I think I mentioned this earlier, that none of these decisions are made in a vacuum. We have really great consultants, Hilltop Securities, our financial advisor, Bond Council, Trump and Pepper Lock. our underwriters, Ramirez and company. I mean, it's ultimately the city's decision, obviously, but they give guidance on these terms.

and the bond would be closeable so that down the line you can restructure things. Is that fair?

That's a great point. Callable. Callable.

Sorry, that's what I meant to say.

Yeah, that's one thing. When you go to a shorter term, you kind of remove that callable feature. Now, this is short term, so I mean... just to kind of give a little bit. If you issue the bond today, and this is a callable feature on the bond, Some people are calling for two to three rate cuts this year. After a certain number of years, you can refund that bond, refinance that bond for more favorable interest rates so you can ultimately save money. That happens quite a lot. OK. Thank you.

I do have, I think we're going to be introducing something soon and I will have, I want to do this as clean as we possibly can so I would be entertaining a couple of additional amendments to when we actually go forward. But I also want to make sure people understand. So again, the gear is physical gear that we're wearing. It's not a capital investment, first off. Secondly, we do have $1.6 billion worth of debt. S&P has downgraded us. when we go out and bond, whether it's 2.6 for 10 years or 2.6 for five years, if we show the S&P market that we're doing it in a financial Thank you very much.

but what we should be doing is we should be looking at this as a temporary loan that we're giving ourselves to purchase this equipment for the men and women on the fire department and the city of Quincy is going to do their best to pay down this loan much faster than five years and certainly 10 years is probably not the direction we want to go in because we want this to be paid off as soon as possible so that we can get on to the business of taking care of everybody in the city and hopefully increasing our S&P rating because they are telling us that we're using our stabilization accounts way too much to lower our taxes, that we're spending too much even though we're growing tremendously around the city, that our debt has grown and we're not keeping up with growth to be able to sustain that. That is what S&P is saying. I'm not looking for a comment back. I'm just trying to stabilize what we're about to do so that people understand we're doing it in the most fiscally responsible way that we possibly can and we're working with the administration to do that.

Wouldn't you agree with that, Mr. Walker?

That last sentence, yes. Everything else, no.

So what I'd like to say, though, is that we have been working pretty well this week. So I think what we're trying to work on is to make sure that we're working for everybody. And I don't expect any of you to applaud me. I get that. The reality of it is is that there's nobody up here who does not care about the firefighters. And I do think there was a lot of misinformation being sent out. There was no time that we voted against against anything for the firefighters. That was completely misconstrued through social media and it was like wildfire. We voted to continue. The vote was four yeses to five nos to keep it in committee. When we vote for this, it will be to take it out of committee. At the end of the day, that's what we need to do, and then we will vote on it in our council meeting. so I just wanted to set that straight too. Thank you very much. Mahoney.

Councilor Jacobs.

I'd like to make a motion that we recommend on 20-26-038 that we put in with the terminology we recommend, a recommended term of five years.

We have some language for that, Mr. Walker, that's agreeable?

Through you, Madam. Through you, Madam Chairman. As Councilor Hubley suggested, that would be acceptable language based upon the term recommended.

Okay. Thank you.

Motion.

Is that a motion? That was a motion. Motion to amend.

on the motion I'd like to add at the bottom, be it further ordained that the amounts the city may recover from any of the providers of the fire equipment and safety gear previously purchased by the city that was contaminated per the PFAS shall be applied in this instance to pay down the debt service for the outstanding bonds or notes issued pursuant to this order. I have four of them, so I'm gonna read all four of them in. The second one is to be further ordained that any grant funds or reimbursements received by the city City for Fire Department equipment and safety gear shall be applied to offset the cost of this appropriation to reduce the outstanding principle of any bonds or notes issued pursuant to this order. the third one, be it further ordained, that it's the intent of the City Council to the extent free cash is available in the fall that the administration shall prioritize the application of the amount

no less than, I have 311,000, but it's actually $311,850 towards the cost of lighter duty uniforms or towards the reduction of outstanding the principle of any bonds or notes issued pursuant to this order. and the final one, be it furthered or ordained, that any premiums received on the sale of the bonds or notes approved by this vote such premium applied to the payments and cost for issuance of such bonds or notes will be applied for payments of cost approved by the vote in accordance with the general laws, chapter 44, section 20 thereby reducing the amount authorized to be borrowed on such purposes for any remaining premium that can be applied to this debt service in reduction of the outstanding principle of this note with the goal that we will pay this off as soon as we possibly can. And you, all the firefighters, will have your equipment in six to eight weeks.

Okay, so I think we first need to vote on Councilor Jacobs would like to amend the order as it's been presented to us. Is that what you're asking for?

including, you're accepting her?

Yeah, I'm accepting that. So we're gonna vote on all as one. Okay, works for me. Roll call vote.

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, and Riley. The amendment is approved.

DiBona.

Thank you Madam Chairwoman for conducting this tonight. I want to thank everybody for coming in tonight. It's been a long little night with the questions. Thank you Chief Smith, President Bose, and Professor Peasley for your outstanding presentation last meeting and tonight. Your due diligence, and extensive product knowledge is evident and your sincere message has made a significant impact both within the city of Quincy and across the Commonwealth. I have received feedback from many firefighters, their families, and individuals personally affected by cancer. Your presentation resonated deeply, reinforcing the principle that we cannot put a price tag on a person's health. Thank you Quincy firefighters for your dedication and your powerful contributions to saving lives. I'm in full support for the firefighters safety turnout gear. I'd like to formally make a motion to approve the full amount as amended. I would like to put that in the form of a motion, thank you.

for that, Councilor DiBona. We have a motion. We do not need a second for committee work. Roll call.

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Riley.

All righty. Does that conclude our business, or does anyone else have anything else they need to cover tonight? Okay. Motion to adjourn the committee. Anyone? Thank you, Councilor Ash. We are adjourned. Thank you.

We're going to reconvene the council meeting and we are going to proceed into the open meeting.

Pursuant to the opening meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit this meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived. by those present in a deemed acknowledged and permissible form.

Thank you very much. So at this point, we do not have a sign-up sheet, but we will open the floor to open forum and public comment. So just to reinstate this, please keep your comments to three minutes. You can certainly do it less than three minutes. And if we could be respectful. And please state your name and address when you come to the microphone.

Hi, my name is Heather Dhoni, and I live at 912 Southern Artery. What I want to talk about today is the tone of community involvement, which tonight it was honestly wonderful. So enough of what I say. Take it with a grain of salt. I think it's important that in this city we try to have standards of political and social behavior. Last week's city council meeting was upsetting to me and I could tell it was full of miscommunication. The optics were bad. The fuel was all wrong. The new city council was also not being painted, or they're being painted as something they're not. And that was anti-firefighter. I had a small electrical fire in my own kitchen ceiling a couple years ago. I'm grateful that the Quincy Fire Department showed up quickly, figured out what was wrong, and made sure we were safe. I'm also originally from New Orleans and was there for Hurricane Katrina. I was cleaning buckets of mud out of my mom's house when firefighters arrived in full gear

in the August heat to check the flooded neighborhood for bodies and spray paint those red Xs everyone else saw on the news. A month later, I saw a house on my street burn down because the fire station nearby had flooded out in the storm and people had to wait for help from further away. You'll never have me say one thing against the important work of firefighters or the need to keep them properly equipped and healthy, so thank you tonight for all of this, you guys. However, what happened last Monday, it was a setup, a political gotcha game where the fire department got politicized and used as a pawn by a loud but small group that would like to see our city council fail. and I didn't like to see that one bit. As disrespectful as some people seem to think it was for the City Council not to immediately say yes to $3 million in gear, no questions asked,

I think it was disrespectful to use this forum to drag our firefighters into a power struggle between the mayor and the leadership in the new city council and their two very different visions for not just what the city of Quincy can be, but what it already is. The new city council questioned things. The new city council considered the budget. This is the exact job they were elected to do. I think a lot about what it means, especially as the mother of daughters, one of them here with me tonight, to have so many women in these important roles. I also think about what it means as someone in a mixed family for there to be Asian representation in our local government. I also consider what it means to have too many people in paid city roles belonging to a Facebook group, you all know which one I mean, and if you don't, you're lucky, that openly disparages and bullies Asian people and women city councilors and especially Asian women city councilors.

This is an amazing diverse city, a place where you can get an excellent bowl of pho or great Irish pub food and expect to find Jamaican, Filipino, anything you want, Although, unfortunately, we don't have too much in the way of Cajun food just yet, but I bet somebody's working on it. Anyway, I've lived other places and not everywhere is like this. I think we need to value this place, respect it, and also accept the way it has grown. I think we owe it to the new City Council to speak out when we see gotchas, when outside bad faith actors spread misinformation, sow false dichotomies, Thank you all for your time and your service. Thank you.

State your name and your address, please.

Good evening. My name is Sue Dard and I live on C Street. I want to first take this opportunity to publicly thank the Quincy Fire Department for the way they treated my brother Rob when he lived here. As a result of a bad car accident, he was in a wheelchair and he would call the Quincy Fire Department from time to time when he fell out of the chair while he was living alone. they would come over and help him get up and back into his chair. He told me that the firefighters who came were always kind and would joke with him and tell him not to worry about Colin if you needed help. Rob was a proud man, and I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to call for help like that. The fact that the firefighters showed him that kindness meant a lot to my family. Tragically, on March 30, 2002, Rob died in a fire in Quincy that my family has been told was intentionally set. But the fire was so bad that there was no final determination as to the cause. but what we do know is that some of the firefighters who showed up that day went into the burning building to try to save him. We know because the Quincy firefighters who responded that day came to a meeting with my family

and the Attorney General when we were pushing for an investigation. They helped us better understand what happened that day and they showed much empathy to my mother. I tell this story because I want all the firefighters here tonight to understand that residents have great appreciation for the work firefighters do, especially residents who have been impacted by fire and who have benefited from their service. I also want to thank the councilors for the work they have done to try to figure out the best way to get the safest gear for the firefighters and to do it in the most fiscally responsible way. It's been disconcerting to hear councilors and residents who have been asking questions and seeking a collaborative approach to problems with PFAS and other chemicals in the gear to be accused of wanting firefighters to die of cancer. I recently read about San Francisco, which we've heard about. They passed an ordinance in 2024. They had a two year timeline for implementation. They procured grant money.

I'm not going to go through all that because we've already passed this ordinance but and I'm not saying that we should only get one but they did that and like people said most cities did do just one set to you know test it and all that I'm glad the city I think firefighters are going to get the two. I think that's great. But I think that given the council is weak to think it over and talk through it was not unreasonable. and I want to thank my Board Councilor David Jacobs for looking ways to reduce the interest on the bond. It's pretty shocking that a city this size only has $55,000 in reserves. That's what I read recently. So I'm glad Council is looking for ways to do what needs to be done for city employees while also trying to reduce the debt and tax burden on homeowners and residents. We all want the firefighters to have the safest gear possible. As a homeowner, I'm happy to help fund it through my real estate taxes. I'm glad that this is settled and the gear can be ordered.

I'm also glad to know the City Council is going to be trying to figure out how to fund what we need to fund in the city while putting as little debt as possible on the residents. As I hope you can see, that doesn't mean people like me don't care about firefighters. Thank you.

Thank you. So before we start, I just want to clarify something. It's $55,000 in free cash, not just $55,000, because I just saw the treasurer's head kind of look up. So I just wanted to make sure you got that taken care of. Okay, so please state your name and address for the record, please.

Hello, Madam President and fellow city councilors. My name is Kai Lee from 42 Presidents Ave and Ward 5. thank you all for delivering your campaign promise and making open forum available to us. I want to thank Interim Chief Smith, Union President Bose, Professor Peasley and Mr. Della Barber for the presentation last week. Between the presentation and the questions asked by the Councilors, I felt I had a decent understanding of the dangers of PFAS and BFRs. and the urgency of why we must delay no more and move to approve the bond request so that our firefighters can get the gear they can be safe in. I appreciate the responsiveness in calling this additional city council meeting instead of waiting for the normally scheduled meeting.

I'm part of a youth organization where we visit firehouses and also had firefighter Mike come by to give our kids demonstrations on what to do in an event of an emergency. approving this bond not only makes our firefighters safer, it also makes us safer. Thank you and delay no more.

Thank you.

My name's Ernie Ariente, 30 Springfield Street. I'm a retired firefighter, retired past president of the Quincy Firefighters Association. I've worked with many councils up here and many different administrations up here. What happened last week, I was out of country and I watched it from out of country and I was sick from seeing what happened here last week. I think it was a disgrace on how things went from the very first question that was asked of these men and also of Mr. Peasley, I could tell that that vote was going nowhere. I could tell that it wasn't coming out just by the questions that were being asked up there. and what's happening is the same thing that's happening down in Washington is where the two sides can't come together. Well up here what happened was because these men, the Quincy Fire Department, were being used as pawns for political purposes here. And that's what I believe.

There was questions that was asked on why, if, What if there's new chemicals that come under this new gear down the line? Well, are we working with what ifs? What if we get bombed and there's nothing here? Then you have to worry about it. also a question was asked about the PFAS and it's in the water we drink and also it's in the, if you buy rain gear and stuff. Well, you know what, you have a choice. You have a choice to buy rain gear with it or whatever. You have a choice to drink water. I, myself, purchase my bottled water and drink the bottled water, okay? These men don't have a choice. they don't have a choice in what they wear. They're looking, they've never come in front of us, they've never come in front of this council, as far back as I can remember, they asked for anything for themselves.

They've always been here for what's good for the citizens of this city, okay? They're looking, they don't, when they come up here, they ask for equipment, they ask for whatever, that's to help the citizens of this Quincy. And you were voted in here to protect and serve the citizens of this Quincy and the employees of this Quincy. That's all I have to say.

in case anybody forgets who I am. My name is Veronica Bertrand. I live at 195 Copeland Street. First of all, I'd like to thank the Council for moving forward tonight to make the vote to give the firefighters this gear. I think nobody heard me last week when I said I want the gear for the firefighters. and I was called scum, POS if I need to say it, I will but I don't want to because I hate the firefighters. I was astonished because I don't hate anyone. I dislike a lot of people, but I hate no one. and to say that I am not worth to walk on this earth because I had the audacity to speak as a free citizen of this country made my blood boil. More than normal.

So, I just want to say that speaking as my alternate ego, which I was called on Facebook, Victor, he, with my regular boy's haircut, I just want to add to the vitriol, I don't want to add to the vitriol, I want to talk about the vitriol of discrimination, racist remarks, homophobic remarks, remarks against women in general, because that's what I think the bottom line is here. I think most of you are pissed that we have five women on the council for the first time in history. and they need to be honored because this is Women's History Month. And we always talk about Abigail Adams, remember the ladies? We're not gonna have to remember them because they're here right in front of us, thank you.

Can you keep your comments down? Next. Mr. Devine?

James Devine, 117 Cross Street, Ariente, Bayless, Robert Campbell, Malvesti, Nardone, and Matthew Troy. If you don't know who these people are, you should. these are West Quincy people that are firefighters, Boston firefighters, Quincy firefighters, generational. and the Arientes, I believe have two brothers and a father. Scribys, can't forget the Scribys. Right there, a whole family, all right here in West Quincy. You need to show these people respect and I hope that tonight you got all the information you need I know some people think that I'm a rubber-stamper but I'm not.

When I voted for fire engines, I didn't question whether or not it had the right size tire because that's not for me to ask. That's for these gentlemen to do, the fire department's chief and the union. I'm not saying that you're not allowed to ask these questions and you've been answered now. So you have them. So tonight is your opportunity to do what's right. And I hope we have a unanimous vote to move this forward. Thank you very much.

My name is Brandon Lamb. I live on Martinson Street. When this new council was elected last November, it was with a mandate to run things differently than previous councils. We as voters didn't want a council that rubber stamped everything. We wanted a council that would thoughtfully debate and deliberate pertinent issues. To me, the five to four vote last week is better than a nine to zero vote in either direction. it shows that you're thoughtfully considering an issue, you're making sure that you thoroughly understand it, and you're forming your own views based on available information. So I'd like to thank you for doing what you were elected to do. all the science and stuff of PFAS and BFRs that's been talked about a lot. But the way it works is like it does, and I've worked in this stuff in my career, It does leach into you over time and it has been linked to causing cancer, but that leaching is a very gradual mechanism that happens.

So with that in mind, it's completely reasonable for our counselors to take a week or so to deliberate the new gear purchase, particularly when it's over $2.5 million. and particularly when other municipalities have done more gradual replacements and when there's a trade-off between the Savings of Bundling versus all the interests and what kind of bond we do. I think those are all valid concerns and these are all valid questions that you guys are bringing up. I'm sorry that many of you have faced targeted spiteful comments over the past week. thoughtful consideration of an issue does not mean that you are against firefighters and we should not approach complex topics with a good versus bad, us versus them mentality or booing other people or anything like that. So thank you for doing what you were elected to do.

Ethan, N95 West Quantum Street. Wow, it's a lot more nerve wracking being up here. But I felt compelled to come up here because I think like many people in the audience, I'm mad, I'm angry. This is an insane situation. This corporation, which has been killing our firefighters for years, now expects us to foot the bill, the $2.6 million bill to fix the situation they caused. but this is nothing new. Corporations around the US are constantly adding toxic preservatives to our food, poisoning our drinking water, and using cheap harmful material to design our clothes. They sacrifice our health all to save a few dollars. Then when we get sick from them, from their poisons, they turn around and sell us the cure acting like they are our savior.

but what's worse is our government, who is in theory supposed to protect us from this abuse, who are supposed to use our tax dollars responsibly, investing back into our communities, Instead, they scheme behind closed doors, letting greedy banks and corporations use our tax dollars as their own personal piggy bank. These corrupt politicians have plundered our tax dollars, letting the banks make a fortune off interest and loans that our government should be using to invest in schools, hospitals, and roads. and then any money that's left over that they haven't taken, they give themselves a 72% raise as a job well done. The situation is dire, but there is hope. For once, we have representatives who are actually asking questions and making sure that we aren't again being robbed blind.

like Anne Mahoney, Maggie McKee, and Susan Yuan who are taking the time to actually ask questions and find a reasonable way to fit this purchase in the budget. they are asking important questions like, will these suits be as fire retardant? Is there another way we can do this purchase without taking out a giant bond? These are things that we should ask. Let me be clear. I'm not saying that this purchase of the new suits is the wrong choice. But it's my fear that in five years we'll be back in this room having the same conversation over if we can afford a new batch of suits if we can afford the cure to the poison that we've been sold. We have to stop letting corporate interests run the show because they have been destroying the city We need to focus on who the real villains are in this story. It's not the newly elected city councilors who quite frankly are just doing their job and making sure we are spending our money responsibly.

It is the corporations and the corrupt city officials who put us in this situation to begin with. That is all. Thank you so much.

My name is Melissa Jankowski, and I'm at 139 East Elm Avenue. Good evening, all. I was born, I grew up in Quincy, I live in Quincy. I've been a Quincy City employee for just over 30 years. I'm here tonight to support the firefighters and to support the securement of the bond that is needed to provide these Quincy heroes with safer protective gear. We as a city must do everything within our power to protect these first responders who keep us safe on a daily basis. Their lives and their safety must come first above all else. It is our number one priority in this matter. All other details of this issue, financial or otherwise, are secondary. We have heard the relevant information pertaining to this purchase and we've heard it from experts. It is my understanding that ward and city councilors are the direct link between the residents of our city and the local government. You act as our voice.

You represent us. Please listen to all of the residents who are telling you how we feel. Moreton, City Councilors, all council members, please vote yes to make certain that the firefighters get this protection as soon as possible. We can't lose sight of the fact that this gear is for the very people who would literally risk their lives for any one of us. and I think it's really important for all the firefighters and their families that are here tonight or are watching this that so many Quincy residents understand the importance of getting this equipment as soon as possible and that we are in support of you. Thank you.

I'm waiting for you to tell me it's okay. I have to say, my name is Alan Yacoubian. I live at 58 The Strand. I'm a lifelong I'm a lifelong citizen of Quincy. I love the city and I love its people. It's a great city and I love the firefighters. We have a great fire department. They're there for us to serve and protect. the fire department when they get the call, the bell goes off, they don't know where they're going and they don't know what they're gonna find when they get there. they are the very best and they come in and they can help in medical problems and any other, they don't do dental, but they do all sorts of things like that. They're on top of everything.

The men and women on the Quincy Fire Department are second to no one. They deserve the very best from this city. and I've always said I don't care how much it costs, give them the best equipment that's out there because it could be my house that's on fire. and they come out there, I don't want them to get hurt because it's faulty equipment. They got the best equipment. But now we got something with a carcinogen in the jacket, that is wrong. and they found it out and they're going and dilly dally, dilly dally. This meeting here, let me just, I'm gonna, let me say one more, oh, where's my, you know what this is? It's my cell phone. there's nothing that was discussed here tonight that you couldn't have called up any one of these individuals and gotten your information from there.

and I'll just say one more thing. This city is where it is today because of Mayor Thomas Koch and there is no one any better than that.

Zachary Christopher, 67 Montclair Ave, Apartment 2, resident of Ward 3. Pleased to address the council. I have been living in Quincy for just about two years now, moved here from Southern California. If you know anything about there, it's all fire all the time, so I hold a deep respect for firefighters and all the work that they do. And cancer is bad. We can all agree on that at the very least. And I'm not much for finances. I'm still a young college age Walker, not much I can do for these million dollar budgets. That's the job you've been doing for two weeks now, trying to figure that part out.

but anything we need to do to keep our firefighters safe because they keep all of us safe. And that's all we could ask. And If you need to look for money in the budget, maybe start addressing those million dollar statues that keep getting tacked on to public works projects. That's all I've got for you.

Well, my name's Ann Walker, and I'm actually a wife of a firefighter, so I don't live in the city. But I did have a speech ready, and I'm going to tweak it a little bit. Prior to tonight I was super angry and a lot of it was actually with you and your comments that you made on a video and the finances and I really think the lack of understanding you have for the city's finances and where the money actually came from. you were lumping all the finances into one. And that's not how the budget works and I know that. And the only reason I know that is because I used to be involved in town government. So your lack of understanding was a disgrace to your city, honestly. and tonight with you, what is that, Councilor Wu-Anne.

I'm not going to talk to, you can talk to me individually.

Okay, I'll talk to you as a board. You cannot talk to individual councils. As a city council, I can do what I want during the public speaking.

I'm going to ask you to stop. I had you address me. I have no problem with you addressing me.

And I will address it as the board. Last week was a disgrace to your firefighters. They go into buildings, burning buildings. They go into, I have a whole thing here, hold on. They go into burning buildings. The buildings could collapse. There are many things that can happen to your firefighters. Audacity you guys had to even postpone it one week. was awful to your firefighters. You guys had the letter for one month and did nothing with it to look into anything? You had that whole month to investigate things, to get your questions answered, and to come prepared to your meeting last week, you failed all of your firefighters. It looks like you're gonna approve it tonight, so I'm happy with that, but by some small chance you don't, you look into my husband's son's eyes and tell him, I'm sorry, son, your father's not worth it. He's gonna wear the gear that causes cancer.

And for you guys to even contemplate getting one, one uniform for these guys, so that if, God forbid, there's a fire in the morning and one in the afternoon, sorry guys, your gear's wet, it's in the wash, you're going to have to wear the other one that has the carcinogens in it. Disgraceful. You're a disgrace to your city.

Name and address, please. My name is Nina Lam. I live on 82 Martinson Street. So I'm speaking today because I'm a lifelong citizen of Quincy. I'm also a family nurse practitioner who sees patients who are firefighters. So with that being said, I just want to start by speaking directly to the firefighters in this room. You run toward danger when everyone else is running away. You accept risks that most people can never imagine. And you do it for your neighbors, your families, and this community. So when you raise concerns about cancer, about chemical exposure, and about what's in your gear, we need to listen. Those concerns are real, and they're backed by science. PFAS or these forever chemicals have been linked to cancer and other serious health effects. And studies show that firefighters already carry a heavier burden of exposure than the general public. And that's just not acceptable. And that's why this conversation matters so much. But here's the difficult truth.

Wanting a safer solution does not mean that we necessarily have one yet. Right now, the science is still catching up. Federal researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have made it clear that while we can detect PFAS in our turnout gear, we're still working to truly understand what that means for long-term health and what alternatives truly reduce that risk. And even more concerning is that this is coming directly from the International Association of Firefighters. They acknowledge both the health risk that PFAS have, but they also acknowledge the complexity of finding a safe, effective alternative, noting that identifying suitable PFAS-free material is a long and challenging process. and this is again coming from their exact website. There's no protective gear that right now has been proven to be completely hazard free. So at the same time, we can't ignore what this gear is originally designed to do. It's to protect our firefighters in the moment they need it most, on the ground.

and research from the North Carolina State University shows that PFAS free materials can lack important oil repellent properties and that can sound technical but in a fire scene that's the difference between whether gear sheds hazardous Flammable Substances, or whether that gear absorbs them. So the question before this council is not whether to act, it's how to act responsibly. I don't think I've ever heard any one of these counselors say that they do not want to actually help the firefighters. and I wanna say this clearly, taking the time to get this right isn't a failure. It's not ignoring firefighters, it's doing right by them. Because the last thing anyone wants in this room is to rush into a decision, spend significant public funds and put firefighters in gear that compromises their safety on the ground and doesn't actually reduce their overall cancer risk long-term. You deserve better than that.

So a short deliberate pause allows us to actually learn about this, ensure that GEAR complies with the National Fire Protection Association and demand full chemical disclosure from our manufacturers. So we're not dismissing your concerns. We're honoring them. To the council, thank you. Thank you very much. I was just going to say thank you and your caution in this moment isn't weakness, it's leadership. Thank you. Thank you.

name and address, please. Hi, my name is Sherry Manning, 22 Bay State Road. I'm the mother of a firefighter. And I'm going to say a couple of things. One is, I know it's tough being up there and you're being, have a lot of stuff coming at you. But a couple of things I would ask you to think about. You don't have a crystal ball to foresee the future. So I'm assuming each one of you keeps your money under your mattress and you don't invest it because you don't know what the market will do and you can't trust what you can't see. I know there was a question or a comment about, well, it's PFAS today, what will it be tomorrow? Who knows? I'm pretty sure if I ask every one of you to pull out your cell phones, you do, and you could. but you're not worried about the radiation exposure that's going into your head and into your breast as a woman but we're gonna worry about the things that we can't see. All I'm gonna say to you is that there's not a firefighter behind me that I wouldn't put my life on the line for, but I don't, they do. Every single day they leave their homes. They don't know if they're going home.

And the question about can you get a lighter gear and a heavier gear, I don't know. What I want them to do is go home safely. I'd like my son to go home to his new bride. I'd like to be a grandmother someday, and that's only gonna happen if he's protected for the career he's chosen. he's chosen to be a firefighter because he wants to give back to his community. He rushes to events that he has no idea what he's about to walk into, if he will go home, and when he does go home, they don't know, because guess what they don't have, everybody, a crystal ball. So they don't know during any call if they were exposed to anything. and unfortunately they don't find out until it's far too late and something has happened to them down the road and they get diagnosed with cancer or whatnot. So I don't, worry or care that you took your time to ask your questions, good for you. That's what you were here to do. That's what you're supposed to do is ask your questions, do your due diligence. But here's something else I'll say. I work in human resources. You know where I don't go? Into lanes I don't belong.

I don't pretend I'm a scientist. I don't pretend I'm a firefighter. I don't pretend that I know anything about anything that it's not my lane. So while you asked the questions, there were questions that were asked that were condescending and demeaning in my eyes. I'm not saying to everyone. I'm speaking for me. Sometimes when you're standing up at a podium and people are looking at you and it's awkward because it's an hour or more long, I get that you don't kind of know what to do with your facial expressions or your body. but to give off a look of why are we here condescending like we're bothering you to be here you all got to kind of take a little bit of a check on that. I know it's difficult to be up there. because everyone's looking at you and the only place you have to look is out. You can't look aside. You can't look anywhere else. My only comment that I'll end with is this. I know you're gonna do the right thing because I know there's not a person up here who doesn't want a firefighter coming to their home or to their car accident to get them or their families out of that danger and have them be protected.

So do the right thing. Do what you need to do, but know that it's the gentlemen in this room and the ones that are manning the firehouses all around the city right now that have your back.

Name and address, please. Good evening. My name is Kira O'Connor. I'm from Squanam. I've lived in Quincy my whole entire life. I am here to offer a perspective that I would like to share. as many of you have acknowledged, you're not scientists, except for you, Councilor Yuan, who has your PhD, so you fully understand the implications of suiting up our firefighters in PFAS suits. I'm no scientist, nor do I have expertise in finance, but this is what I do know. Many of us have passions. Our firefighters don't risk their lives because it's fun, and I imagine you all didn't go for your careers because you thought wearing a suit and speaking into a microphone was fun. but hopefully because you have a passion to make the world and our city a better place. If not, maybe you should reconsider. As for me, I have a passion for mental health with a degree in psychology and above all else, bringing humanity back to humans. I'm here to represent the perspectives that may be overlooked when denying purchase of safe equipment for firefighters.

You have the ability to make an impact on that and protect your first responders more efficiently by simply putting them in better suits. That's it, and you know that. So if money is a larger issue than the health and wellness of not only first responders but human beings, maybe think of it this way. I'm 22 years old. Some of you have children just about my age. If not, then you will, you may, and at the very least, you were once 22 years old. My boyfriend is a Quincy firefighter. He is 24. He is one of the youngest on the department. And he likely wouldn't be if his father, a retired QFD lieutenant, hadn't set the example and introduced the passion. Firefighter raising firefighters is not foreign to this department, but arguably what makes it as great as it is. With that, remember that the people wearing these suits are parents, brothers, sisters, children, and once again, they're humans.

So not only are firefighters dying from cancer, their parents are losing children, children losing parents, the nation losing heroes, and this number can be potentially lowered by getting safer equipment, a decision which you all can make. Like I said, my passion is mental health. I've seen the impacts of grief and the stress of a loved one being sick, which I bet many of you can relate to as cancer does not discriminate. So to emphasize, the equipment risks don't just stay with the firefighters in the community, but it can and it will impact the mental well-being of every single person who knows a firefighter, now that the safety concerns are more commonly known we have seen the state of the ongoing mental health crisis. High suicide rates, more drug abuse, homelessness, it all ties in together. So this is the future you're creating. So I look you all in the eyes and say, knowing what you know, would you swaddle your baby in a blanket that you knew had PFAS? Would you dress your elderly parents in clothes that you knew had PFAS?

Would you... Feel safe with your doctors and nurses if you knew that their clothes contained PFAS, knowing what you know. Or would you spend a few extra bucks to avoid the risk altogether? give Quincy a healthy and safe future. Make this a place people will want to stay and raise kids in and be proud of all things your choices are potentially diminishing. It's just as easy to do something right as it is to do it wrong. So do your job and do the right thing. Thank you.

Tom Bowes, Quincy, President of the Quincy Firefighters Association. You know, it's funny, Councilors. Anyone that knows me knows I hate doing this. I hate the microphone. It's not my thing. The interviews, it's just, it's been awful. But we had to get the message out. I know what's been awful is what the companies have done to us over the years. And I'm glad we found a company we can trust and we're working with. That said, like I said, Councilor, we're gonna test and verify because you know what? Trust has to be rebuilt because it's been a long road. You know, there's a lot of talk about politics and everything else. At the end of the day, it's about the firefighters and keeping them healthy. We have two men that are very sick and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think about that. you know I've been doing this for 25 years and at night I keep my phone on and you know it's the worst worry is your phone's gonna be in the middle of the night hey someone's dropping a bill now my biggest worry is when's the next call that a guy got sick and we can do something about it tonight and that's what we want to do We got to put all the politics aside.

We got to work together for the health of the men and women that go out and protect the city every day. I respectfully thank you for your opinions. NC State Councilor, they've been great. They really have. They've done a great job. They did the backup testing for that initial test that we did, as did Duke University. You know, we have to work together. I appreciate. Hopefully, you're going to pass this tonight. I really do. That said, I look forward to going after the bastards that lied to us and poisoned us the last seven years. So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so that, I'm just going to ask, we're calling one last time for open forum. Anybody else want to speak? And with that, we're going to close open forum, and we're going to move on to item number two.

Item number two, Madam Clerk, 2026.03.8, Appropriation 2,646,730, Fire Department New Firefighter Turnout Gap.

Riley. I'd like to make a motion that we pass it as amended.

Seconded by Councilor Jacobs. Could you please call the roll call?

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, McKee, Riley, Ryan, Yuan, Mahoney Nine members all in favor.

Nine members to zero. The motion passes. So now I'm looking for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Ryan and seconded by Councilor Jacobs. All those in favor? And we are adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody.