Finance Committee

Meeting Minutes of the Finance Committee of the Somerville City Council

Meeting Date: June 24, 2025 Governing Body: Finance Committee of the Somerville City Council (Committee of the Whole) Type of Meeting: Special Meeting (Cut Night on the Proposed FY2026 Budget)

Attendees:

• Councilor Jake Wilson (Chair)
• Councilor Will Mbah
• Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen
• Councilor J.T. Scott
• Councilor Matt McLaughlin
• Councilor Willie Burnley
• Councilor Naima Sait
• Councilor Kristen Strezo
• Councilor Jesse Clingan
• Councilor Lance Davis
• President Pineda-Newfeld

Executive Summary: The Finance Committee convened for its "Cut Night" to discuss and vote on proposed amendments to the FY2026 budget. Key discussions included motions to reduce funding for the Chief Administrative Officer position and the Police Department's salaries line, both of which ultimately failed. The committee also addressed the Public Safety for All Project Manager position, clarifying its funding source. Several end-of-year appropriation items were discharged without recommendation, to be considered as part of the overall FY2026 budget vote at a subsequent meeting.

---

Agenda Item: Call to Order and Roll Call

• Action: Meeting called to order by Chair Jake Wilson at 6:00 p.m.
• Roll Call:
  • Councilor Mbah: Present
  • Councilor Wilson: Present
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Present
  • Councilor Scott: Present
  • Councilor McLaughlin: Present
  • Councilor Burnley: Present
  • Councilor Sait: Present
  • Councilor Strezo: Present
  • Councilor Clingan: Present
  • Councilor Davis: Present
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: Present
• Outcome: Quorum established with all members present.

Agenda Item: Proposed FY2026 Budget Amendments (Cut Night)

• Discussion: Chair Wilson outlined the process for "Cut Night," emphasizing conciseness and the need for line account and number for any motions. Administration and department heads would be allowed brief comments on new information after council discussion.

Motion 1: Reduction in Executive Administration Personal Services

• Motion: Councilor Scott moved to reduce the Executive Administration Personal Services line by $186,744, representing the salary for the Chief Administrative Officer.
  • Rationale (Councilor Scott): This position's creation was previously opposed, and its necessity should be re-evaluated.
• Discussion:
  • IGA Director Singh: Highlighted that the City's pending charter, supported by the Council, codifies this position. Noted that a similar cut was proposed last year but not ultimately adopted in the final budget. Warned of serious impacts on existing programs and initiatives.
  • Councilor McLaughlin: Stated he would vote "No" on this cut, reversing his previous stance. Cited the pending charter, settled union contracts, and improved communication from the IGA's office as reasons for his change of position.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Wilson: No
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: No
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Councilor McLaughlin: No (recorded after initial vote, but stated intention)
  • Councilor Burnley: Aye
  • Councilor Sait: No
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Clingan: Yes
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: No
  • Outcome: 6 votes in favor, 4 votes against, 1 abstention. Motion passed. (Note: Councilor McLaughlin's stated "No" would change the outcome to 5 in favor, 5 against, 1 abstention, resulting in a tie and failure of the motion if his vote was officially recorded at the time. Procedurally, the Chair noted the vote had been taken and further discussion would be on Thursday.)

Motion 2: Reduction in Police Department Salaries

• Motion: Councilor Scott moved to reduce the Police Department Salaries line by $496,370.34.
  • Recusal: Councilor McLaughlin recused himself from this vote.
  • Rationale (Councilor Scott): Based on the 2024 departmental staffing study (completed March 2024, presented November 2024), which recommended reductions in patrol staff. This cut targets six currently vacant patrol officer positions, not impacting current employees.
• Discussion:
  • Chief Benford: Vigorously opposed the cut, advocating for maintaining current funding and staffing. Emphasized the need for staffing to respond to changing circumstances, community events (e.g., Haunt Fest, Porch Fest, fireworks), and potential expansions of departmental capabilities. Highlighted the strain on officers due to forced holdovers. Stated that reducing below 88 officers would significantly hamper the department's ability to respond.
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Opposed the cut. Noted that 88 patrol positions represent a reduction from previous years and that vacancies exist despite recruitment efforts. Stated that the increase in funding is due to collective bargaining, which he supported. Unwilling to reduce staffing levels by six positions without understanding the full consequences.
  • Councilor Davis: Acknowledged the changing circumstances since the staffing study. Agreed that reallocating sworn positions to civilian roles makes sense. Expressed gratitude for officers' work and the Chief's efforts. Believes the current position count (88) is appropriate and wants to see those positions filled. Hopes for future efficiencies but does not support this cut now.
  • Councilor Clingan: Opposed the cut. Stated that current staffing is the "bare minimum." Highlighted the density of Somerville and the rapid escalation of situations requiring multiple officers. Believes it would be irresponsible to cut patrol officers and that alternative responses require separate funding.
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: Opposed the cut. Emphasized constituents' desire for more community policing and trust-building. Noted receiving requests for greater police presence (traffic enforcement, public safety in Davis Square). Praised Chief Benford's leadership and partnership in the Davis Square Public Safety Working Group. Expressed concern that proposed cuts make it harder to recruit quality police officers.
  • Councilor Mbah: Opposed the cut. Understood the intention but noted the budget increase is due to collective bargaining. Stated that public housing residents often request resources, not necessarily more policing. Hopeful for future reallocation of resources to reduce the police's load.
  • Chair Wilson: Referenced the police staffing operations report, noting that it recommended 43 patrol officers performing the role of patrol officer (down from 46, a reduction of 3), and reallocation of those positions, not elimination. Stated that the report does not support reducing overall numbers. Mentioned imminent hirings for vacant positions.
  • Director Gill (Human Resources): Reported that six conditional offers have been extended to police officers. Three are academy-trained and will start within a month; the other three will attend the academy in October. This leaves only two technically open positions, as the six offers are in the pipeline.
  • Councilor Sait: Opposed the cut. Expressed frustration with the lack of an alternative emergency response but believes this cut will not help achieve that goal. Stated, "We don't support a cut without a plan." Noted the funding increase is due to collective bargaining.
  • Councilor Scott (Second Round): Acknowledged the motion would likely not pass. Argued that recommendations for police staffing changes have been consistent for over 20 years, suggesting the situation has not changed dramatically. Stated the cut aimed to free up $500,000 for an unarmed, unsworn alternative emergency response, a goal supported by the staffing study (page 26, recommendation five). Contrasted police department's lack of hiring freezes with those in DPW.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Wilson: No
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: No
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Councilor McLaughlin: Recused
  • Councilor Burnley: No
  • Councilor Sait: No
  • Councilor Strezo: No
  • Councilor Clingan: No
  • Councilor Davis: No
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: No
  • Outcome: 2 votes in favor, 8 votes against, 1 recusal. Motion failed.

Motion 3: Reduction in Senior Officer Positions (Withdrawn)

• Motion: Councilor Scott indicated an additional motion to reduce senior officer positions (sergeant and lieutenant ranks) by approximately $680,000, based on staffing study recommendations for supervisory officer ratios.
• Action: Councilor Scott withdrew the motion due to lack of support demonstrated in the previous vote.

Motion 4: Cut to Public Safety for All Project Manager Position

• Motion: Councilor Burnley moved to cut $90,000 from the personnel line of the Executive Office Administration, specifically targeting the Public Safety for All Project Manager position.
  • Rationale (Councilor Burnley): This position was created to implement recommendations for alternative emergency response. Argued that the administration's current approach (doubling down on existing practices) is not aligned with Council and public desires. Believes the money could be better used elsewhere and advocates for refocusing this position or a similar one towards building a true alternative emergency response program.
• Discussion:
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: Opposed the cut. Reminded colleagues that the Public Safety for All report was the result of a 16-person task force, including councilors and community members, and a comprehensive survey in seven languages. Stated it was a representative process, not just city staff decisions.
  • Councilor Davis: Acknowledged the task force's work but stated he joined late and did not agree with many recommendations, particularly the focus on co-response rather than a true alternative response. Expressed disappointment that a different approach hasn't been taken. Questioned creating a new position when other departments face hiring freezes and educators seek pay increases. Shared concern that the administration's vision for this position might not align with his long-term goals.
  • Director Mastroboni (Budget Director): Clarified that the Public Safety for All Manager position is not a general fund budget position for FY26. It was appropriated last June from the Racial and Social Justice Fund. Therefore, a cut to the general fund would not impact this specific position.
  • Councilor Scott: Supported the motion despite the funding clarification. Argued that the Racial and Social Justice Fund was intended for community benefit and positive change, which has not yet materialized for this position (authorized a year ago, no hiring yet). Believes the Council can use cuts to express its desires and encourage the administration to change course, as seen with previous mayoral administrations.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Wilson: No
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: No
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Councilor McLaughlin: No
  • Councilor Burnley: No
  • Councilor Sait: No
  • Councilor Strezo: No
  • Councilor Clingan: No
  • Councilor Davis: No
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: No
  • Outcome: 2 votes in favor, 9 votes against. Motion failed.

Agenda Item: End-of-Year Appropriation Items

• Action: Chair Wilson waived the reading of agenda items 4 to 14.
• Administration Update: Hunter, Legislative Liaison, requested to withdraw ID number 25-1027 and ID number 25-1030, as corrected versions were before the full Council.
• Outcome: Clerk marked ID numbers 25-1027 and 25-1030 as withdrawn.
• Action: The remaining items (agenda items 4, 6, and 8 through 14) were discharged without a recommendation.
• Decision: These items will be reported out and taken up as part of a vote on the FY26 budget as a whole at the regular meeting on Thursday.
• Note: A reminder was issued that end-of-year appropriation, transfer, repurposing, and expenditure limit items (agenda items 5-2 to 5-23 on the Thursday night agenda) are part of the budget process and will be taken up on Thursday.

Agenda Item: Adjournment

• Motion: Councilor Ewen-Campen moved to adjourn.
• Vote:
  • Councilor Mbah: Yes
  • Councilor Wilson: Yes
  • Councilor Ewen-Campen: Yes
  • Councilor Scott: Yes
  • Councilor McLaughlin: Yes
  • Councilor Burnley: Nay
  • Councilor Sait: Yes
  • Councilor Strezo: Yes
  • Councilor Clingan: Yes
  • Councilor Davis: Yes
  • President Pineda-Newfeld: Yes
• Outcome: All but one vote in favor. Motion passed.
• Action: Meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.