Council committee reviews BPD forensic unit contract, seeks $128,700 from collective-bargaining reserve

The Boston City Council Committee on Ways and Means held a Feb. 24 hearing on two appropriation orders that would transfer $128,700 from the FY2025 collective-bargaining reserve to the Boston Police Department to cover cost items in a collective bargaining agreement for the department's forensic unit.

The matter — listed in committee documents as Docket Nos. 0237 and 0238 and sponsored by Councilor Brian Worrell and Michelle Wu — would fund pay adjustments and related contract changes for roughly 33 professional, non‑sworn forensic employees. Committee Chair Brian Worrell opened the hearing and described the documents' purpose and timeline.

Why it matters: City staff said the contract aims to make forensic-science positions more competitive and to address recruitment and retention in technically demanding roles. Budget testimony also laid out the modest near-term fiscal impact to the city's FY2025 collective-bargaining reserve.

Achim Williamson, the city budget director, told the committee the FY2025 budget included about $96.8 million in aggregate for the collective-bargaining reserve and that, after accounting for 15 agreements this fiscal year and the reduction tied to the forensic unit, the reserve balance would change. "The transactions basically move $128,700 from the collective-bargaining reserve into the Police Department's budget," Williamson said, describing the paperwork before the committee and the contract term spanning Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2027.

Renee Bushey, director of labor relations for the City of Boston, said the agreement differs from many recent pacts because it establishes a new, benchmarked salary scale that will take effect 30 days after funding. "Each of the employees in the unit — I think the average increase for the step placements was $4,700 — that they will be placed on as soon as ... 30 days after this agreement is approved," Bushey said. She added the new scale raises long-term top salary levels as well as immediate step placements.

John Wilton, listed as assistant corporation counsel, characterized the employees as "professional employees" with advanced degrees and described the department's satisfaction with the agreement. Deputy Superintendent Richard Dayhill described the composition of the forensic division and some operational changes: latent prints and footwear impressions; a crime lab that handles serology and DNA testing; a firearms analysis unit; and a quality assurance unit. Dayhill said DNA processing has lengthened because of extra confirmatory and reporting checks, which has affected throughput times.

Committee members pressed staff on specific contract provisions. Councilor Murphy asked whether probationary employees would be allowed to use sick leave and bereavement; Bushey said the contract permits probationary employees to use those benefits and that change is consistent with recent city contracts. Council President Louie Jen sought a clearer percentage picture of the increases; Williamson said the average step-placement increase equated to about 2.8 percent for the contract but that lower-salaried steps receive a larger proportional benefit.

Salary ranges included in the contract appendix were read into the record by staff: CRM I positions roughly $67,000 to $92,000; CRM II roughly $89,000 to $108,000; CRM III roughly $100,000 to $122,000; CRM IV roughly $108,000 to $131,000; and a new CRM V roughly $112,000 to $137,000, as presented by labor-relations staff. Bushey said the new top ranges were intended to help recruit and retain "highly skilled employees, scientific skills, and there was demand to get these positions filled."

Councilor Weber asked whether phone-forensics work (data extraction from devices) fell to this unit; Dayhill said that capability was not part of the forensic unit's core responsibilities described in the memorandum. The committee also confirmed the forensic employees do not pick up paid police details and are non‑sworn professionals.

No committee vote was recorded at the Feb. 24 hearing. The documents remain under committee consideration; staff described the mechanics if and when the committee advances the appropriation orders to the full council.

The chief contract provisions discussed at the hearing include the new salary scale and step placements effective 30 days after funding, a market adjustment to base wages in FY2025, a scheduled base wage increase of 2 percent in January 2027, and flat additions of $900 and $800 to annual salaries in January 2027, with an overall contract term of Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2027. Committee members asked staff for further percentage calculations and copies of the appendix-level salary schedules for subsequent review.

The hearing record includes written comment instructions and the committee's stated procedure for public testimony; the hearing was recorded and live-streamed by the city. The committee adjourned consideration of Docket Nos. 0237 and 0238 at the close of the session.