WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=FxLK1yABUDU

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:30.640
This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. >> Good evening. Welcome to the Easthampton City Council special meeting for June 24th, 2026. The meeting tonight is being recorded and broadcast by E Media on

2
00:00:30.640 --> 00:00:46.440
Charter Channel 193 and live streaming on their webpage easthamptonmedia.org. Counselors and participants in this meeting are gathered hybrid on the order extended until June 30th, 2027, allowing us to do so. I remind both the members

3
00:00:46.440 --> 00:01:00.640
of the City Council and the public participating remotely to remain muted until recognized by the City Council President. Also, for the members of the public, please remove your camera for the duration of the meeting unless you are participating in the public speak

4
00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:17.000
out or the public hearing. Thank you. >> This meeting is now called to order. Marianne. >> JP Kuszynski. >> Here. >> Connie Denham. >> Here. >> Tamara Smith. >> Here. >> Felicia Jadzak. >> Here. >> Tom Peake. >> Here. >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Here. >> Amanda Newman. >> Here. >> Kayam Jaramillo MacLeod.

5
00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:31.600
Nathan Marquis. >> Here. >> Thank you. Uh I will take a motion to open the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, uh all those in favor? >> Aye.

6
00:01:31.600 --> 00:01:50.440
>> Uh opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes. Chair Peake. >> All right. [sighs and gasps] Hi everybody. Um we are finally talking about the uh fiscal year 2027 budget. Um so this budget has been

7
00:01:50.440 --> 00:02:05.800
the source of a great deal of deliberation uh over the last few uh months, uh, not just in these chambers, but also in the public sphere as the overall size size of the

8
00:02:05.800 --> 00:02:21.800
budget was largely determined by the success or failure of an override override vote. Um, so upon the passage of that vote, um, and after, I think, I'm going to

9
00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:39.959
guess here about 25 hours of of meetings, um, related to this in one sense or another, um, we, uh, the Finance Committee, uh, did vote to make a few, uh, reductions to, uh, the

10
00:02:39.959 --> 00:02:56.760
proposed budget, um, none of them are are ground breaking, but, you know, I think that they're they're just a few points where we did realize we could potentially, uh, realize some savings, so just to sort of for those who who weren't at that meeting, just sort of briefly summarize

11
00:02:56.760 --> 00:03:13.360
some of the things we reduced, a lot of it came down to, uh, asking, um, department heads to, uh, reduce or eliminate, uh, training or professional development, uh, that was not necessary

12
00:03:13.360 --> 00:03:30.959
for the maintenance of certifications or licenses, um, we did reduce, uh, several thousand dollars from the technology budget asking that the city discontinue our, um, subscription to the

13
00:03:30.959 --> 00:03:48.560
to the flock cameras, uh, and we did, um, reduce, uh, in there was a few other a few other cuts. We we did reduce, uh, or the hours for the sustainability coordinator, um, down from a full-time to basically

14
00:03:48.560 --> 00:04:05.840
part-time position with the idea of the rest of that position being covered with a grant. Um so all told that came out to about $51,000. Um it's a small share of the total budget, but I think that it sort of underscores

15
00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:21.880
at least my opinion and I think the opinion of the rest of the council that while it is very expensive to run a city that there was there's not a tremendous amount of expenditure

16
00:04:21.880 --> 00:04:37.919
within this budget that could be reduced without it leading to a substantial reduction in the services that um members of the uh of the public uh and visitors to the city uh receive.

17
00:04:37.919 --> 00:04:55.440
So um with that in mind um you know, this is the budget that we have to present uh this evening. Um and uh I I I do just want to say that I think that when it comes to being

18
00:04:55.440 --> 00:05:12.400
conscious of the budget and being conscious of the fiscal position of the city that I do I do think that there is work that remains to be done, but I I don't think that all that work necessarily is something that can be done within the confines of a municipal budget, you

19
00:05:12.400 --> 00:05:28.080
know. That I think there's a lot of suggestions that people have made um over the course of this process for um you know, investments that the city could potentially make that could save us money in the long run or ways that the city could partner with other communities

20
00:05:28.080 --> 00:05:43.720
um to or or consolidate services in ways that I think these are all things that we need to continue to look at and find ways to find those ongoing savings, but I do think that in terms of what is in this budget with what we were legally able to do as a council as part of our

21
00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:58.920
review of the budget there isn't much there isn't anything left in here that I would feel very comfortable uh cutting. So, that that's my position on it. Um So, uh

22
00:05:58.920 --> 00:06:14.840
I'm prepared to make the these to start making these motions to approve the budget, but I I assume we'll want to allow the public to speak first and and counselors as well, but uh I don't know that there's much that I can say about this that has not already uh been said.

23
00:06:14.840 --> 00:06:29.560
I I I do just think um one thing I I just want to point out uh Yesterday we met to uh to send this pro to to uh to make these final motions and make these recommendations to the uh

24
00:06:29.560 --> 00:06:45.760
full council. Uh due to sort of an administrative mix-up, uh the m- motions document that uh we usually read from was not available at the time that the meeting began. So, we did vote to basically continue this to move this

25
00:06:45.760 --> 00:07:00.480
to the full council without a recommendation. I can't speak for my colleagues, although I I I hope that they agree with me, but just for what it's worth for myself, that was not in any way a sign of my discomfort with the budget. It was just the

26
00:07:00.480 --> 00:07:16.240
the fact uh the just the a necessity that the actual motions we wanted to move forward um the s- that putting getting all of those calculations into the proper format just wasn't um ready at that time. So, they are now

27
00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:32.480
ready and uh I'm prepared to make those motions as soon as we um you know, hear from everyone that we want to hear from. >> All right. Thank you, Chair Peak. Um before we go through each uh sections,

28
00:07:32.480 --> 00:07:48.600
so our general government, public safety, and schools, etc., uh do any city councilors have any questions at this time or um you all have the right to make amendments that the council would discuss,

29
00:07:48.600 --> 00:08:07.920
but we can talk about those in each of those various sections, but at this time are there any general questions that counselors have? Uh >> First of all, first of all, a process question and that was what what what the

30
00:08:07.920 --> 00:08:23.480
public hear the public the public for for the public hearing, will we be hearing from the public initially and then for each section? Is that your plan? Okay, good. Just so everyone is all on the same page. That that that's basically the process

31
00:08:23.480 --> 00:08:38.240
question I had. >> So, I don't see any questions. In terms of the public, just so you know, you're you're welcome to comment now, but for each section you will have the opportunity

32
00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:54.880
to pose a question, so you're welcome to make comment now. Just so people have that opportunity and you can also make comment in each of the sections. But, are there people who'd like to make comment at this time? Okay.

33
00:08:54.880 --> 00:09:12.160
If so, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. >> John Cooland, I live on Ashley Circle. Um I read in the Gazette this weekend that the mayor does not like to be micromanaged. I don't blame him. Micromanagement is a bad approach. So, I

34
00:09:12.160 --> 00:09:28.760
dug into the macro numbers of the city over the last 5 years. And I'm hoping that this is legible for you all cuz it cost me a little money to get it printed, but this green line that's going up like a hockey stick is 5 years of spending by the city of Easthampton

35
00:09:28.760 --> 00:09:47.320
that has increased 44% in 5 years. 44%. You might ask, "Inflation's been been high over those 5 years. What's inflation been? Inflation's been 22%. So, Councillor Pete, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the city needs double inflation to run.

36
00:09:47.320 --> 00:10:01.800
What's our population been over the last five years? We've actually decreased in our population by 1.1% from 16,000 uh residents to 15,851. And how many children do we educate in this city? Well, if you go back 20

37
00:10:01.800 --> 00:10:18.880
years, we had 1,800 students enrolled. Um going back five years, we had 1,450 students. We now have 1,340 students per DESE, not my numbers. That's a 8.3% reduction. So, double inflation for spending, reduction

38
00:10:18.880 --> 00:10:34.360
in the number of people that we serve, and I will remind this council that 80% of the citizens of Easthampton did not vote for this override. 19% actively voted no. 61% didn't participate. Why do people not participate? Cuz they don't feel

39
00:10:34.360 --> 00:10:49.320
engaged. They don't feel important. 20% of the citizens of Easthampton voted for this override, and your obligation as a council, and your obligation, Mr. Mayor, is to govern for all of the citizens of Easthampton, not the loudest

40
00:10:49.320 --> 00:11:07.520
20% that is backed by outside money. I appreciate you listening to me or considering my comments. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room? Great. Um I forgot to mention uh you'll have 3 minutes

41
00:11:07.520 --> 00:11:22.680
uh for comments. Um when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear an alert. Um and when your time is up, there will be a second alert. So, please wrap up your thoughts at that time. Uh so, please state your name and address for the record.

42
00:11:22.680 --> 00:11:38.920
>> Kathy Wisneski, Overlook Drive. I just want to um make some basic statements about the whole process. Um it has been full of missteps. Um, the budget that was provided to citizens was

43
00:11:38.920 --> 00:11:55.920
full of errors. I do not still see a corrected budget. Um, records that were requested of the city were never provided. And few, if any, suggestions made by citizens were even apparently taken

44
00:11:55.920 --> 00:12:11.440
seriously. The mayor said, "If we don't need to take the whole 6.9 million, we won't." That appears to be an attempt to garner yes votes, um, because there's no reasonable reduction in this budget. And

45
00:12:11.440 --> 00:12:28.800
so, scooping that whole 6.9 million from the citizens of Easthampton who can barely afford it, um, is a tragedy. And you guys, once again, have not done your due diligence and attempted to manage this budget so

46
00:12:28.800 --> 00:12:47.160
it does not go out of control. It continues to be out of control, and we have unfortunately failed the most vulnerable citizens in our community. Thank you. Anyone else?

47
00:12:47.160 --> 00:13:09.160
Great. Great. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Mike Carey, Blue Line Street. Um, in regards to this budget, it's totally, totally, um, inadequate in regards to transparency.

48
00:13:09.160 --> 00:13:25.000
The information in this budget is just smoke and mirrors. The information isn't there. The as was mentioned earlier, the corrections weren't done, weren't done timely,

49
00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:41.320
weren't done so that the information provided to you folks is accurate and up-to-date. I'm hoping in the future that budgets that come before the City Council will be broken to the point where you

50
00:13:41.320 --> 00:13:58.960
can identify every line. So, you can go through that as councilors responsible for the money of the citizens of Easthampton and line veto the line. Remove the people.

51
00:13:58.960 --> 00:14:15.960
Remove the cost. I give them credit for $53,000 approximately was cut at the last finance. So, on a 6.9 million you cut 53. I know you Again, as I said

52
00:14:15.960 --> 00:14:30.960
last night at the meeting there were no personnel except for the one person discussed or removed. And as I said last night, too that the two budgets that were the good

53
00:14:30.960 --> 00:14:46.160
budget, the bad budget both budgets had personnel cuts. I'm hoping to see those tonight because if not, then it was just again smoke and mirrors. You need to have transparency

54
00:14:46.160 --> 00:15:03.839
where the DPW I went to the meeting the other night. Theirs is budget was pretty informative, but again, that too could still be expanded. So, I tell you folks that you need to demand as a City Council the mayor,

55
00:15:03.839 --> 00:15:20.960
everybody works for you folks. And you folks get elected just like he does. So, you need to be responsible for the citizens of this city/town and be due diligent when it comes to spending their money.

56
00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:40.280
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the room like to say anything regarding uh just general comment. Seeing none, anyone online, would you like to uh So, I see Chris. So, please state your name and

57
00:15:40.280 --> 00:15:58.400
uh address for the record. >> Chris O'Connor, uh Ashley Circle. >> Mhm. >> Uh I'd like to just underline what's been shared with you so far is that the expectation should be that you're not just looking at the crumbs of the

58
00:15:58.400 --> 00:16:14.960
budget, but you're looking holistically and thinking holistically and helping obviously the mayor to what the strategy is and how do we how do we downsize this as I obviously our population's going down as well as other things and like how do we

59
00:16:14.960 --> 00:16:30.440
right-size this? That kind of critique and strategic thinking is needed from the whole council members and thinking outside of the box. It's it's just it's just we need more from you. Yeah, and like it's been

60
00:16:30.440 --> 00:16:47.240
stated, you've been elected to represent us and we're expecting you to hear it. If you If you need ideas, there are people coming up here and talking about things that maybe we should be meeting and and giving you ideas if you if they're not available

61
00:16:47.240 --> 00:17:04.520
um in your own minds. And so, I'm just encouraging you is like this is needed going forward. This is not going to be, you know, a walk in the park even with the override passing. So, I encourage you if there's something that these people can help with conversations, please reach

62
00:17:04.520 --> 00:17:24.560
out because we're trying to get everyone to be more participant as well on your side of the fence. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else online have anything they'd like to say? I'm seeing none.

63
00:17:24.560 --> 00:17:39.800
We'll go ahead and we'll start going through each section. Oh, sorry. >> Just a general question. >> Councilor Kuzinski. >> Uh in review in reviewing the situation, we

64
00:17:39.800 --> 00:17:55.040
had a vote. Yes people won. Uh and the question I have is I mean the policy would be to move forward. The expectation would be I understand that there's a a recount.

65
00:17:55.040 --> 00:18:10.240
And I don't know how that plays into this this whole scenario, how a recount plays in and how the revenue is defined as revenue. And wanted to be sure we were on solid ground

66
00:18:10.240 --> 00:18:28.800
in moving forward. Because revenue and expenditures have to equal. We have to have a balanced budget. So I just was hoping we could get some explanations about that. I don't know if staff is available. But >> Chair Peak.

67
00:18:28.800 --> 00:18:44.360
>> Sure. Here's my understanding of it if anyone wants to correct me. I'm always learning. But no budget is really final until the tax rate recap. In the case that

68
00:18:44.360 --> 00:19:01.840
there were to be some revelation that in fact we needed to reconsider the results of that election, which just to be on the record I do not think is going to happen. Um but in that case then obviously we would

69
00:19:01.840 --> 00:19:18.320
have to then the mayor would then have to address the fact that out of the money that we have authorized him to spend, he will not be receiving all of it and that will require the city to make some cuts.

70
00:19:18.640 --> 00:19:35.280
If I could actually make a more global statement there, I I just think it's important that we you know, because all of this goes We've had so many conversations about this. That we actually discuss what we as a city council are legally doing right now,

71
00:19:35.280 --> 00:19:51.360
because I think that there's a lot of conversations you can have around fiscal policy, and not all of them are precisely what's going on right now. What happens is that the mayor comes to the city council

72
00:19:51.360 --> 00:20:06.080
with their plan for how they intend to spend money by department and by line item each year. And then the city council authorizes those expenditures, or we cut them.

73
00:20:06.080 --> 00:20:23.200
Right? So, what we are saying right now is that we if Should we Should this budget pass, that the department heads are authorized to spend funds up to the amount that's within those line items on those areas because

74
00:20:23.200 --> 00:20:39.320
we've authorized that. Now, if there were some massive revenue shortfall, say, through something like what you the scenario you were describing, then obviously they wouldn't have all that money. They'd have to make those cuts. That doesn't change like that we

75
00:20:39.320 --> 00:20:56.240
authorized it. That doesn't mean If we authorize it, that doesn't mean then that the mayor has the ability Like if if there is something Same with if there was a sudden a sudden cut in state aid. Like the the mayor at that point would be responsible to make the reductions to make sure that

76
00:20:56.240 --> 00:21:12.520
we the budget remained balanced, but I think that it's What we are really talking about is whether we're authorizing people to spend uh a certain amount of money. And to that end, I just one other thing. I do think that one thing that I've

77
00:21:12.520 --> 00:21:29.400
heard from a lot of people, um kind of across the ideological spectrum, um but uh throughout this thing is that there's this desire for more information about um sort of how

78
00:21:29.400 --> 00:21:45.520
our processes work. And I I do broadly sympathize with that, but I do also think that there's a certain level of detail you don't want in a municipal budget. Like, in a municipal budget, I do want to authorize a department head to spend a certain amount on personnel,

79
00:21:45.520 --> 00:22:00.920
right? Because what exactly their personnel needs are might shift throughout the year. I do not want to be responsible for personally authorizing the salary of each municipal employee because it's just too shifting for that. Like, there's a reason why it makes

80
00:22:00.920 --> 00:22:16.480
sense to keep things broad. Now, does that mean that the public should not have other methods of finding that information? Like, no. I I've long been a proponent of something like an open budget, which some communities have implemented and which I hope we can get to someday where or like an open

81
00:22:16.480 --> 00:22:33.800
checkbook type thing where you can actually just log on and and monitor you know, some of these expenditures in in real time. There's technology out there. Not all of it's perfect, but it's something that I hope we do get to someday. I hope that when we update our municipal finance systems this year, that it helps

82
00:22:33.800 --> 00:22:49.560
to make a lot of that information more accessible and it makes and and more easy to do. And and I I am I'm optimistic and hopeful that that is the direction that we're heading in. But in terms of the actual budget, like the as a legal document, I do think that there's a

83
00:22:49.560 --> 00:23:06.400
reason why it's important that we we are careful with the level of detail we go into because I do want to afford the department heads a certain amount of freedom to adjust to the situation and use that money that we provided provided

84
00:23:06.400 --> 00:23:22.400
that's within those parameters to use it in the way that they think is the most appropriate given the changing situations cuz we know that the world is not going to look the same in a year as it does right now. It's not going to look the same in a quarter as it is right now. And so that I just do think that like

85
00:23:22.400 --> 00:23:38.880
there's something like that I I just think it's important like I think that there's a reason why we we talk about this at the level of detail that we do. And I think that there's a reason why um this process is set up like it is because what we're really doing is saying here's how much our mayor, you

86
00:23:38.880 --> 00:23:54.760
know, like it or not, I personally have some challenges with it but we have a strong mayor form of government. Like this is this is our ability to set initial limits is to say within this budget, within these parameters, this is what you can spend.

87
00:23:54.760 --> 00:24:13.880
And then beyond that, if there's anything else, if there's anything that doesn't fit into here, it has to specifically come back to the council. We need to have those conversations. >> Councilor Smith. While I can appreciate Councilor Peak that you think the

88
00:24:13.880 --> 00:24:30.840
recount won't pass, I haven't heard what the plan is if it does. >> I think I >> I did I I didn't hear it in your answer. If I if it was Chair Peak. >> If somehow it were not have to pass,

89
00:24:30.840 --> 00:24:47.880
then the mayor would be forced to make a large amount of cuts in order to make sure that the amount of money that he's spending is equal to the amount that our revenues would be. >> Uh Councilor Smith.

90
00:24:47.880 --> 00:25:05.080
So if that recount happens after June 30th, >> Mhm. >> um what would the timing be? Because I I guess what what I'm having a problem with understanding is if the only

91
00:25:05.080 --> 00:25:22.920
if if that recount is not done prior to June 30th, the only official budget that we have the money for would be the limited budget. And so I'm having a hard time understanding what would be the ramifications for City Council if we say

92
00:25:22.920 --> 00:25:39.680
let's pass the big budget when it actually ends up being the little budget. I would just like to understand those parameters better. >> Um, Chair Peak? >> Yes, so the mayor's under no obligation to spend the entirety of the amount that we appropriate. >> Mhm. >> So, if we spend this, which to the best

93
00:25:39.680 --> 00:25:56.640
of our knowledge right now is a balanced budget, and then in the future, due to the circumstances you're describing or any other circumstance, let's just say for example, I was saying a a massive cut in state aid could be another one or a global economic crisis or, you know, there there's any number

94
00:25:56.640 --> 00:26:12.720
of things. If for if for whatever reason there were a shift, that would mean that the city comes to a position where they feel like they are not going to get the level of revenue that they initially forecast, then it would be the mayor's duty to make the cuts that would need to

95
00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:28.840
be made to make sure that he only spends up to the amount of money that he believes he's going to have, but it's not it wouldn't require anything of us. We are just authorizing spending up to this amount. If you know, and that's that's not true just for this scenario, that's

96
00:26:28.840 --> 00:26:45.680
for any scenario. If there was a sense that there was a going to be a big revenue shortfall, that doesn't require the City Council to come in and and then reduce the spending that we authorize. It It's it would just you know, there's there's an obligation on the city's part to to do that. And

97
00:26:45.680 --> 00:27:02.680
just one other point that as I stated, like no the budget isn't really like we have to submit a a budget a balanced budget per state requirements this week. But the budget is never really truly final until the tax rate recap which occurs in

98
00:27:02.680 --> 00:27:19.000
the fall. So like >> November >> And yeah, usually November. So that there there's like it's like we would submit this and then if some exogenous circumstance were to force the city to

99
00:27:19.000 --> 00:27:34.320
massively recalibrate the amount of spending that it's doing for any reason, that would then be something that the mayor's office would be required to figure out. And I'm sure we would be welcome to you know, give our thoughts on that but in a strong mayor form of government, this is

100
00:27:34.320 --> 00:27:51.760
in terms of this money, this is really our last uh say on it. >> Councilor Wisinski >> Just to follow up along that line for one second and then I have another question. The for Councilor Peak or for anyone

101
00:27:51.760 --> 00:28:11.600
uh if the we were to pass a budget based on the presumption that the override is not challenged or that the challenge will fail or the recount will fail then

102
00:28:12.120 --> 00:28:27.480
and then we were to find out that the opposite were the case then we will have abdicated as a council. My guess is all of our ability to make any changes to that budget directly. Is that

103
00:28:27.480 --> 00:28:44.760
that would that would seem to be a reasonable conclusion. We will have handed it over to the mayor and said, "Well, you are authorized to this level." And I guess if you find out that its level is here, then you'll make all the decisions and changes. So just as long

104
00:28:44.760 --> 00:29:01.280
as we all recognize that we are handing over and abdicating, I think, our responsibility to come up with a balanced budget that may or may not be in question depending on [clears throat] who you talk to or what perspective.

105
00:29:01.280 --> 00:29:17.560
And I think that's that's an accurate statement. I would like to follow up with Mary Ann as the registrar clerk coordinator to ask when her expectation might be that a recount would be completed so

106
00:29:17.560 --> 00:29:34.880
that those figures would be known. What Is there an approximate date? Is that >> I I believe that um they're meeting on Friday. Is that correct? Do you set the date for the So would you like to expand on that? >> Um Board of Registrars meeting Friday at

107
00:29:34.880 --> 00:29:51.480
4:30 to set the date and time of the recount. Um the state has said that we we have to give 3 days notice in writing by mail and you can follow up with email as well. So we originally were when we thought the Board of Registrars could

108
00:29:51.480 --> 00:30:07.240
meet earlier in the week, I originally thought maybe it would be next Monday or Tuesday, but I think it's looking more toward Wednesday or Thursday now, July 1st or 2nd. Um and I did have the mayor's office reach out to our city solicitor if it's not if um

109
00:30:07.240 --> 00:30:24.080
recount does not take place before June 30th. Um they said try to have it by then, but um trying to get everyone to meet is um yeah. So we'll know when it's going to be >> on Friday. >> On Friday after they meet at 4:30. >> After they meet at 4:30, great.

110
00:30:24.080 --> 00:30:40.080
Chair, do you have another follow-up question, Councilor Quisenberry? >> So it sounds like the rest of this fiscal year is not likely. No one's holding their breath as that is for the recount to be completed by that point. Uh has there been any

111
00:30:40.080 --> 00:30:59.680
consideration of an alternative budget proposal that we do have the authority, I mean in my opinion, to pass that is based on funds like a 1/12 budget or a uh budget that would be uh

112
00:30:59.680 --> 00:31:15.000
without the override and then be would we be able to look back and make any changes upward should the override come through? So, I guess it's a three-part question for you. >> Chair Peak. >> I don't [clears throat] know if my

113
00:31:15.000 --> 00:31:30.120
ability to answer all of those questions, but I just want to because I feel like I've said this like three times now, and so I'm going to say it I think a fourth time, and then after that I think I'm done saying it. Um every single year, the revenue that the

114
00:31:30.120 --> 00:31:46.000
city brings in is an estimate. We do not know what it is going to be. There are a number of factors. We do not know how many people are going to uh pay their bills and their taxes. We do not know

115
00:31:46.000 --> 00:32:01.800
uh what level of taxable spending is going to occur in the city. Every year, we pass our budgets with the state legislature having abdicated their responsibility to pass a balanced budget by the end of the fiscal year as they

116
00:32:01.800 --> 00:32:16.840
have failed to do for many, many, many years, leaving us to essentially guess what they intend to dole out to municipalities. So, in every single sense, the amount of money that we put in as our revenue for the balanced budget is always a guess, and it's never

117
00:32:16.840 --> 00:32:32.720
perfectly accurate. Now, in a good year, and most of the years I've been on the council have been good years, we've collected more revenue than we projected because we tend to be relatively conservative with this. And um you know, in in some years, that has

118
00:32:32.720 --> 00:32:49.640
been easier to do than others. But, like there's the idea to me of saying like you realize that when we're when we make these budgets like there's there's departments that are making important decisions about contracts that they're

119
00:32:49.640 --> 00:33:06.080
going to sign with personnel as a result of these things. Now, yes, if it turns out that for any reason I have to say any reason because I just want to make this clear. I think that the odds that when you actually look at the kind of like

120
00:33:06.080 --> 00:33:21.720
the the the the the this recount just just based on my knowledge of recounts and of voting machines and having done a lot of these things I I I think that there's a lot of other things that are significantly more likely to be sit things that could happen that could

121
00:33:21.720 --> 00:33:36.760
force the city to recalibrate its spending part way through the year than this recount. In terms of the just things that could theoretically happen. There are a lot of more likely things and and there's also things that could end up leading to there being more revenue, but I just

122
00:33:36.760 --> 00:33:53.240
the idea to me like we right now are going what I would like to do is I would like to move forward with the budget that we have based on our current best idea of what we think this revenue picture is going to be and then when things come up

123
00:33:53.240 --> 00:34:09.840
that we did not expect not if when because things will. Some of them will be good, some of them will be bad. If it's anything like [clears throat] you know, the last few years we might get a couple more bad than good, but like this when these things change we will make the adjustments that we have to make like we do every year, but

124
00:34:09.840 --> 00:34:26.919
I just I don't think that the idea of this sort of long shot Hail Mary recount attempt being thrown in here is actually puts us in a different situation than the situation that we have been in every single year since we became a city which

125
00:34:26.919 --> 00:34:43.200
is that at the start of it we make an estimate of the revenue. We talk about it that estimate of the revenue in finance. We then authorize the mayor to spend a certain amount of money based on the mayor's initial recommendations and the reductions that

126
00:34:43.200 --> 00:34:58.720
we see are appropriate. And then as the year goes on and things come up, we remain in a dialogue and we figure out the best way to handle that. >> Madam President, I do respond respond to >> Um Councilman [clears throat] Guzinski. >> Uh

127
00:34:58.720 --> 00:35:15.520
I happen to personally agree that I think your perception of it being a Hail Mary is correct. I think the recount numbers are sufficient enough that it won't be an issue. Uh usually you see recounts much closer, but that is

128
00:35:15.520 --> 00:35:30.360
not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about is a certification of an official vote and we know when that will take place. Uh what I will point out to just make a little bit of a distinction with the with what you've said about the knowledge that we go

129
00:35:30.360 --> 00:35:46.440
into. We've always gone in not knowing how much is is is the state going to give us for this or that or that it's always been extraneous issues that we've had that we don't know.

130
00:35:46.440 --> 00:36:02.720
What we're talking about here I think is different because it's what we raise ourselves. Our fees. Our revenue. Our taxes. That is the difference and that I think is a a difference between the state

131
00:36:02.720 --> 00:36:19.840
not knowing and what we know about our own situation. That being said, I have no further questions. >> Sure, Pete, do you want to say something? >> Agree to disagree. I just think that when it comes down to it in terms of our legal requirement here and in terms of what this actual budget process is

132
00:36:19.840 --> 00:36:36.480
for, I think that you know, that I mean because we also raise from for ourselves from uh you know, our various uh uh like local option taxation when it comes to food and beverage, when it comes to food, cannabis, you know, all of this stuff, parking tickets, like all of

133
00:36:36.480 --> 00:36:52.800
these are also a thing that we raise for ourselves, and those are notoriously difficult to predict. So, I I just don't think that in terms of like what we're what we're here to do, I don't feel that there's actually a meaningful distinction. I think that we should make

134
00:36:52.800 --> 00:37:08.040
our um I think that we should go forward if there's things that people think are inappropriate amounts to spend, we can have those conversations, but past that, like I think that the idea of

135
00:37:08.040 --> 00:37:28.200
of any anything further is is and and it's not something that would get my vote. >> Right. Auditor Patel, are you on the line? >> Yes, I am. >> Auditor, so can you please just provide a little bit more context for the public about the tax rate recap that will

136
00:37:28.200 --> 00:37:45.360
happen in November, and kind of that impact and how that shapes the budget? >> Yeah. Um so, expense side budget gets finalized um by June 30th. Revenue gets finalized during the tax

137
00:37:45.360 --> 00:38:01.360
rate recap. If there any reason that we can't come up with the revenue equivalent to the budget approved before June 30th, either we have to find a funding source, or we have to cut the budget. >> Mhm.

138
00:38:01.360 --> 00:38:16.720
>> And that's when the the budget gets balanced. Both the numbers are estimated numbers. >> Mhm. So, at this time what we are passing or discussing, if it passes, is really an

139
00:38:16.720 --> 00:38:32.440
estimation, and then it will have a full picture of kind of what that looks like in November when the tax rate recap occurs. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Agreed. Thank you. Um Councillor Marquis.

140
00:38:32.440 --> 00:38:47.800
>> Yeah, um I'm learning municipal budgets. I'm a relatively new city council learner, so I'm learning kind of as I go with as much research as I possibly um can get in. And I just want to say that

141
00:38:47.800 --> 00:39:03.160
I agree wholeheartedly with um Councillor Peak's take. Um and I don't believe we would be having this lengthy conversation about this topic if a recount wasn't um on the horizon. That being said, what

142
00:39:03.160 --> 00:39:18.880
knowledge I do have of elections and a 3.7 3.8 percentage gap would be almost unique in the um vote change as far as the override is concerned. So, I agree with Councillor

143
00:39:18.880 --> 00:39:34.800
Peak and moving forward with the budget this evening. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none. Uh Councillor Peak, why don't we go ahead and start with section one, general government? >> Okay.

144
00:39:34.800 --> 00:39:50.160
So, general government. Um I'm going to refrain from just doing too much editorializing between those because we've discussed this all at length and I just think it's best to just

145
00:39:50.160 --> 00:40:06.520
take the motions. Um >> If there's questions, we can ask them when we get to discussion. And also, the public will have um actually uh You might want to provide a little bit

146
00:40:06.520 --> 00:40:22.320
of context before the motion because I have to give the public the opportunity to speak. >> Sure. >> If you could just say a little bit about what they entail, and then we'll have to >> I'll do my best. It's from memory, so if I forget anyone particularly in general government, if I get forget anyone's departments, please forgive me.

147
00:40:22.320 --> 00:40:39.960
Um So, general government um is sort of uh most of the central administrative functions that you uh have you see within this building. So, uh yeah, you have Okay, city council, mayor, city

148
00:40:39.960 --> 00:40:56.920
attorney, licensing, assessor, auditor, treasurer, central purchasing, technology, collector, human resources, city clerk, elections and registrations, planning, and building operations. [snorts] Um so, the appropriation for that comes in

149
00:40:56.920 --> 00:41:20.240
at $3,462,232.44. but there's $725,000 coming from water sewer enterprise, uh $15,000 coming from the parking fund. >> Great. Um any comment from the public

150
00:41:20.240 --> 00:41:38.640
regarding general government? Please state your name and role for the city. >> Uh it's Helen Derby. I'm the mayor. Uh and I wanted to um just address something cuz there was a small cut um in the licensing uh board line, and I just wanted to give some historical

151
00:41:38.640 --> 00:41:53.920
perspective cuz I feel like it's important. Um so, in your 2027 uh budget you have in front of you, um the finance committee recom- recommended reducing the licensing board clerk stipend from $1,500 to $1,200, and I want to make sure you have the full history before

152
00:41:53.920 --> 00:42:10.360
that um reduction stands. The licensing board clerk function has been separately compensated since uh FY2017, when it when it carried its own budget line under department 1220. Over time, it was absorbed into the mayor's administrative salary, mayor's office administrative salary, uh which reached

153
00:42:10.360 --> 00:42:27.000
$92,500 per year Uh with no separate recognition. Uh when the current position was created at $45,000 a year, [music] the stipend became the only mechanism acknowledging this extra work. In 2021, the City Council Finance Committee debated a $10,000 supplemental appropriation for

154
00:42:27.000 --> 00:42:42.200
this function. The debate was not about whether the work warranted compensation because it did. The The debate was about amount. Councilor Wrist proposed $5,000 for the stipend. Councilor Gomez suggested 7,500. And Councilor Conniff uh was

155
00:42:42.200 --> 00:42:57.560
undecided. The matter was continued without resolution and the city um at the time the city auditor had recommended restoring a separate budget line for this function um as opposed to having it built into the position. Uh the current executive assistant job description does not include licensing

156
00:42:57.560 --> 00:43:13.000
board duties. The stipend is the only formal compensation for 18 documented categories of year-round licensing work. Liquor licenses, auto licenses, entertainment licenses, ABCC compliance, after-hours availability to licenses and more. The mayor's office voluntarily reduced

157
00:43:13.000 --> 00:43:29.160
its travel and training budget by 50%, which is significantly more than $300. Uh the one reduction this council made that lands on a specific employee performing documented statutory work is a $300 cut to someone earning $45,000 a year. Um at a time when the council's own

158
00:43:29.160 --> 00:43:44.280
predecessors were debating whether 5,000 or 10,000 was the right figure. I'm asking the council to restore the stipend to $1,500. And to open a proper discussion about what whether that figure established years after the 21 2021 debate concluded without resolution

159
00:43:44.280 --> 00:44:13.120
reflects the actual scope of this work. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other comment? >> Mike Curry, Woodbine Street. Can you explain the $725,000

160
00:44:13.120 --> 00:44:31.440
going from the water and sewer to the general to the mayor's fund? I thought water I thought enterprise was for water and sewer functions and water and sewer functions only. So maybe you can explain how the department of is sending $725,000

161
00:44:31.440 --> 00:44:47.160
to the I'm going to say general fund, but you know what I'm talking about. So if you can explain that as to why that happens. >> Yeah, sure. Um >> Chair, uh speak. >> I can do my best and if the mayor wants to elaborate, I'm sure he's got some things. But essentially there's a charge

162
00:44:47.160 --> 00:45:04.400
back because there's a lot of things to give an idea like the payroll processing, HR, you know, various like central government services that the enterprise

163
00:45:04.400 --> 00:45:19.720
side of the budget relies upon. If there's a similar thing with the school where you know, there's certain and there's actually also a similar thing between state and uh this and the local like local governments on the state where there's these chargebacks where we say this one

164
00:45:19.720 --> 00:45:36.400
part of the government used services um and because they didn't have like like enterprise doesn't have their own HR department. Enterprise doesn't do their own hiring. Enterprise doesn't do their own benefits administration. Enterprise doesn't uh

165
00:45:36.400 --> 00:45:51.280
you know, uh when enterprise has an IT issue, they go to central IT and so on. Um and so the idea is that um there's uh the city um has the the board of uh

166
00:45:51.280 --> 00:46:06.360
uh the board of public works meets with the city and they negotiate a chargeback amount that gets sent to general government basically in compensation for the time and effort uh that goes towards supporting

167
00:46:06.360 --> 00:46:29.880
water and sewer enterprise, but that you know, to to provide services in support of those operations. >> Great. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the >> Don Poland, Ashley Circle. I didn't think I'd say this tonight, but

168
00:46:29.880 --> 00:46:45.040
I agree with everything counselor Peak has said so far with the exception of the size of the overall budget. It's the last time I'll get up tonight. General government, along with every other department, in my eyes, there should be a compromise that brings people together in this town, which

169
00:46:45.040 --> 00:47:00.520
would be the mayor takes 50% of the override amount, and then I see the superintendents here tonight, the mayor and the department heads find the adequate cuts to balance the budget. I can understand that finding that 50 grand was probably painful, but you're not going to get anywhere without

170
00:47:00.520 --> 00:47:17.120
some cuts. And if no one was troubled by the numbers I presented earlier, I think that's a problem in and of itself as to how much this budget has grown. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much. Uh anyone else in the room?

171
00:47:17.200 --> 00:47:34.440
I'm seeing none. Uh Sam Hunter online, please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi all, Sam Hunter, 8 Mayors Street, uh East Hampton. Um I was uh I watched the FinCom um meeting that the mayor was referring to. I was really disturbed by this conversation. This is

172
00:47:34.440 --> 00:47:50.720
a $1,500 stipend for somebody to do work that is not a part of their job description, and I think what the what Evan should have done was to just say, "Okay, I'm not doing that job anymore." It's not in his job description. So, I would also like to see it restored, and also generally, I just want to like remind everybody, you know, in the

173
00:47:50.720 --> 00:48:06.080
school department, we cut $900,000 from our school budget. And if we go go to the non-override amount, that means laying off 45 teachers who just got laid off and then many of them were rehired. So, like this is not I'm just I'm disappointed a little bit in the the

174
00:48:06.080 --> 00:48:22.520
direction of this conversation because I it feels to me like there's a small minority of folks in town who have been kind of giving you all a lot of trouble and I like I get it. You know, I'm on school committee, same thing happens to us sometimes, but like you can't let these folks run these meetings. That's

175
00:48:22.520 --> 00:48:39.720
all. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um anyone else? Uh Counselor Marquis. >> Um >> [clears throat] >> I agree with the mayor and Sam Hunter. I

176
00:48:39.720 --> 00:48:56.480
think that um cutting $300 from the um the stipend for the licensing is wrong and I'd like to see it reinstated as well. I don't know how I exactly I'd make an amendment to add that money back. I know we don't really add money, but I would like to

177
00:48:56.480 --> 00:49:14.760
see it reinstated as well. >> Any other Counselor Peak? >> Uh I've I want to say this first of all. Um that uh in terms of a matter of process

178
00:49:14.760 --> 00:49:32.360
uh I've not yet seen a situation where a cut was made in finance committee and then that funding was restored in the full council, but I don't believe that there's anything preventing us from doing so. Um it's just that this that cut was a

179
00:49:32.360 --> 00:49:48.800
recommendation that came from the full council. So, if the council were to vote that, I assume that I would just add $300 to the amount um it in the final appropriation. Um and just for the record, I I don't know

180
00:49:48.800 --> 00:50:05.440
where everyone else is on this, but just for the matter of transparency, this was the I think the only or uh Well, no, that's not This is one of only a few cuts that wasn't unanimous. I felt that it was not really appropriate. Um

181
00:50:05.440 --> 00:50:20.000
and uh so I I did vote against this one and would if if somebody wanted to make such a motion, I'd I'd probably back it. >> I'd make the motion, but I'm not exactly sure how I should word it. >> I think what you would

182
00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:35.520
>> Sorry for it. Speaking out of turn. >> I think what you would do is you would make a motion to restore the original um a line item to $1,500 and um Yeah.

183
00:50:35.520 --> 00:50:51.720
Uh Counselor Kuzinski, but hang on 1 second before Counselor Kuzinski. >> I had two issues. One, to stay on track with what's being discussed, I think we might have to adjust the revenue section. I'm not sure. We could consult with the auditor about that, about the

184
00:50:51.720 --> 00:51:08.120
technicalities, since I think one change to one section must be balanced on the other side. So, technically, that's I think correct. However, I also wanted, before we came to conclusion on that, wanted to say, in response to the public

185
00:51:08.120 --> 00:51:23.440
speaking, uh it was my point that we follow a procedure that's the legal procedure, that's the procedure that we have established as the right and correct procedure, and

186
00:51:23.440 --> 00:51:39.600
that we dot our eyes and cross all our t's, just like we would dot our eyes and cross our t's with regard to a $300 change, that we dot our eyes and cross our t's with regard to a $6.9 million override, and whether or not that has been certified

187
00:51:39.600 --> 00:51:57.880
or not. That's why I raised those questions, not being driven by any small group or any group or uh any individuals, but to be sure that we do it right. >> Any other comments from counselors? Mayor Derby?

188
00:51:57.880 --> 00:52:13.240
>> I can I can just address the balancing piece. So, since this is not something that is impacted by enterprise, there wouldn't need not need to be any recalculations or anything. It would just be $300 taken out of the

189
00:52:13.240 --> 00:52:33.680
levy cap. Which is If you look at revenue, that's the last number. >> Thank you. Any other comments? Um counselor Newton. >> I don't know if it's on the mic.

190
00:52:33.680 --> 00:52:51.240
>> Counselor Newton, okay. >> Um can I ask the mayor something? >> Uh well, what's the question? >> question is um so, when you say the levy cap, like the last number, are you saying that that that's the amount that is like excess levy right now, right?

191
00:52:51.240 --> 00:53:13.160
>> He did The mayor said yes. >> And we're we're just not like sharing that openly, or >> No, I I don't know that we're >> What's the question? >> I get I guess I just don't understand why that number isn't on this FY2027

192
00:53:13.160 --> 00:53:29.120
budget that the people are seeing. >> The levy limit. >> The amount of the excess levy right now. >> Okay. >> I think it would be reassuring if they knew that amount. >> Thanks. >> Order Chair Peak.

193
00:53:29.120 --> 00:53:44.000
>> Yeah, the what we have out here is the the appropriation motions that we're having and I I don't know that the mayor has the specific document in front of him. This document does not include the the levy cap, but I I think that the

194
00:53:44.000 --> 00:54:02.000
broad point is that that a $300 appropriation like because we're under the the levy cap it wouldn't ultimately need to it wouldn't require it at a change in um in any other item of what we'd be voting

195
00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:17.760
on tonight. >> Great. Madam President. >> Hang on a second. Does that answer your question, Counselor Newton? >> It's fine. >> Yeah. >> May we >> Counselor Kuzinski >> May we ask the auditor that question about process and balancing uh

196
00:54:17.760 --> 00:54:34.680
that would refer to Counselor Newton's question and the mayor's response. >> Auditor Patel, are you on the line? >> Yes, I am. >> Great. So, there's two parts to this. I think one

197
00:54:34.680 --> 00:54:50.880
please remind folks that some of this will not be again decided upon or reconciled until we do the tax rate recap, but do we have or do you have a general idea of what the

198
00:54:50.880 --> 00:55:06.960
uh levy limit or how much we are taking of the 6.9 I think that's the question, the 6.9 million dollars. >> Those question one and question two had to do with $300 transfer. >> And the three and would there be an impact with the $300 transfer?

199
00:55:06.960 --> 00:55:22.040
>> Or addition >> Or increase to the back to the line item. >> Uh expense side, the bottom line budget will increase by $300. It has no impact from on the um on the enterprise charge back

200
00:55:22.040 --> 00:55:37.640
calculation. And 300 can be adjusted into the local receipt and we can call it as a balanced budget. It it's it's just a minor adjustment. >> Mhm. >> And what about the

201
00:55:37.640 --> 00:55:52.200
uh how much of the $6.9 million of the override would be taken? Estimated? >> Uh hold on. I don't have that number

202
00:55:52.200 --> 00:56:14.880
indeed, but I can It would be 5.9 million 18,000 actually 5 million 980,187.44 cents. >> Thank you. >> But I would say again, these are the draft numbers for the revenue. The

203
00:56:14.880 --> 00:56:31.560
biggest player in this number is the new growth and levy limit. Not the levy limit, sorry. Overlay amount is also gets adjusted and so does the state house conference budget is still not out. So all of these

204
00:56:31.560 --> 00:56:50.920
numbers can change one way or the other after the actual numbers are in place. >> Great. Thank you. Does that answer questions? >> Yeah. >> Great. Any other comments?

205
00:56:50.920 --> 00:57:05.200
Councilor Markee? >> Um yeah. I would like to make a motion to restore the $300 to the licensing stipend. >> Second. >> I have a motion I have a motion and a

206
00:57:05.200 --> 00:57:20.840
second to restore $300 to the licensing board stipends. Any further discussion? Councilor Schmidt. >> Thank you, Madam President. >> [clears throat] >> So first off, I'll state by start by saying

207
00:57:20.840 --> 00:57:37.240
open and receptive to making this addition back into the budget. I just wanted to offer a little bit of some of my own thinking as we were having this conversation that I'd like to just take with us moving forward. Um I felt when

208
00:57:37.240 --> 00:57:52.560
this um budget line was originally discussed in finance, there was a conversation that took place essentially presenting the cut to this particular position from

209
00:57:52.560 --> 00:58:08.720
executive assistant to assistant to the mayor was presented as a substantial, you know, reduction to the mayor's office budget line, which certainly it was. Um We've also heard

210
00:58:08.720 --> 00:58:25.600
from the public throughout this process a concern about transparency and the way that this information has been presented. And so when this additional section of the budget was presented as something separate,

211
00:58:25.600 --> 00:58:42.680
um it kind of was I don't know if jarring is quite the right word, but jarring to then kind of make the connection in my head that some of the money had essentially been moved from the mayor's budget to the licensing budget.

212
00:58:42.680 --> 00:58:58.200
All in all, I take no, you know, no issue with that necessarily. It especially is useful to me to hear some of the the context that has played out over the past decade and to hear the auditor's opinion that was

213
00:58:58.200 --> 00:59:15.800
shared with the mayor. I would have liked to have heard some of that at that meeting, but unfortunately the mayor was not present to provide that information to us. And so a part of um part of my issue was feeling like

214
00:59:15.800 --> 00:59:32.640
and and feeling like the money was moved out of the budget to say that money had been saved, but then there was no recognition of the fact that the money was appearing somewhere else in the budget and that didn't sit right with me. I think moving forward if this is work that is being done during the work day by a particular

215
00:59:32.640 --> 00:59:50.040
position it makes sense to me that that is something that um you know, should be included in the the pay that somebody is getting. Uh one of the conversations that came up at our previous finance meeting where this cut was discussed and eventually recommended um was the idea that this work is being

216
00:59:50.040 --> 01:00:07.280
done you know, during the day and there's not a clear distinction of you know, where the money is being um paid from when um especially when uh that individual is you know, is working beyond their allotted hours um and so

217
01:00:07.280 --> 01:00:22.560
I don't think that that is necessarily fair and I don't think that this stipend necessarily fixes that particular issue. Um which is all just to say um I I will likely vote in favor of this amendment um but I think it's something

218
01:00:22.560 --> 01:00:40.240
that we need to continue to to look at moving forward and to consider you know, how people are spending their their time during their work day um and and making sure that if they're getting paid from the general from you know, a particular budget that that is where their time is going and um

219
01:00:40.240 --> 01:00:59.720
that these stipends are for time that is being spent above and beyond the normal schedule. >> Other comments? Uh Council or Vice President Jedzic? >> Thank you. I I appreciate the discussion so far. I get to start by just saying I absolutely

220
01:00:59.720 --> 01:01:16.520
100% believe that people should be compensated fairly for the work that they do. Um just you know, full stop. But I do want to note that attending the meeting at which this particular cut had been discussed. I do recall as Counselor Schmidt just referred to that

221
01:01:16.520 --> 01:01:32.360
there was a lengthy discussion around when is the work getting done. I think it is concerning to me that this work is essentially double [snorts] counting. And my other concern, or maybe not concern is not the right word, but the other point I'd like to just remind

222
01:01:32.360 --> 01:01:49.680
folks is that this licensing stipend work, or the licensing work rather, does not need to be done by the assistant to the mayor. It can be done by anyone. So, in that sense, while it has historically been done by the person in this position, even though the position

223
01:01:49.680 --> 01:02:06.560
itself has changed at various points in time over the last year, I do think and there was a point in time I believe um this year where this this licensing work wasn't done by the assistant to the mayor. So, I think we can think about them separately and not think about it as oh, this is work that the assistant

224
01:02:06.560 --> 01:02:22.120
should have as part of their job. And I do think there's a larger conversation around this that needs to happen, not all tonight, but in the future. So, I'll say that while again, I do think compensation should be paid out fairly, I'm going to probably vote no only from

225
01:02:22.120 --> 01:02:37.480
a matter of principle because I don't think that this was laid out in the correct, or maybe not correct way, that's not the right way to put it, but I just think that it's a little bit messy in my sense, and I think that this was discussed at length previously, and I'm a little bit disappointed that a lot

226
01:02:37.480 --> 01:02:54.440
of these um concerns were not raised initially when the discussion first happened. >> Councilor or Chair Peak. >> Thank you. Uh this is all interesting. Um I just want to say that

227
01:02:54.440 --> 01:03:11.360
it's my understanding that within government, uh local government, but also other parts of the government, including my my own uh day job. Um it's not really particularly unusual for a salaried employee to

228
01:03:11.360 --> 01:03:28.600
receive a stipend for additional work that they are performing outside of what's was in their job description at the time that they were hired. So, I I just like I I think that, you know, we there's all sorts of conversations we could we could have about what's the

229
01:03:28.600 --> 01:03:44.680
best way to set up this position, who should be doing this work, at what times should they be doing this work, what is the actual amount that this work is you know, adequately compensated by, but like I think you know, I think this is even came up you know, to some extent when

230
01:03:44.680 --> 01:04:00.680
you were looking when we were looking when we were having a lot of these conversations that there's like in the schools for instance, there's plenty of positions that exist that are not like a person. It's that there's a person who's a teacher and they also are the something or other coordinator and they might receive a small stipend for taking

231
01:04:00.680 --> 01:04:16.080
on that additional responsibility on top of their teacher responsibilities. I think there's cases like that in public safety as well with the police. There's there's liaisons that that that do these various things and I don't think in every case they receive a stipend, but if they were to if they say, "Hey, on

232
01:04:16.080 --> 01:04:33.000
addition to these responsibilities, I'm going to pick up this project and this project that aren't in my in my job description, I don't think that um it would be seen as unusual just in terms of making sure that people

233
01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:49.160
without it might be in some ways easier in some cases to do that than to renegotiate somebody's job description. It might be easier in some especially if it's something where we don't know that necessarily this is the long-term way that this is going to be structured.

234
01:04:49.160 --> 01:05:04.800
This might sometimes be the easier way to do it. So, I I just um I just don't think that there's anything inherently unusual about this as a process. Whether it's the way that we should do things, I feel like it's not necessarily a question for budget

235
01:05:04.800 --> 01:05:26.160
season in my opinion. >> Councilor Schmidt. >> Um thank you. [clears throat] Um all fair, totally makes sense to me. Um I guess my follow-up question would be, are we speaking about a salary position? I think I may know the answer to that question, but I My understanding is no.

236
01:05:26.200 --> 01:05:41.400
>> Is this a stipend position? >> No, I mean, when we're talking about Counselor Peak reference to a salary position, you >> Oh, I see what you're saying. I was here to say >> I'm just not sure if that is exactly what we're talking about. >> Right. >> I I Right. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Chair Peak.

237
01:05:41.400 --> 01:05:56.320
>> I don't know. And but I I don't think that it would necessarily be unusual to do that for an hourly position. Like I I just think that, you know, if there's if you're picking up a set of responsibilities that are part of the functioning of the city, but are not within your existing

238
01:05:56.320 --> 01:06:13.520
job description, that this is a a thing that happens in government. But if I if my use of the word salary complicated or confused anything, then I apologize. >> Other comments? Chair Kwasinski.

239
01:06:13.520 --> 01:06:30.200
>> Uh it may make sense to get into the weeds just a little more and say, "Look it, if maybe we really do need at some point a policy to look at, are we talking about salaried positions? Are we talking about non-salaried?" I just would like to put a frame to this that

240
01:06:30.200 --> 01:06:47.000
can move us forward. And the frame is I think we do need that that discussion to determine salaried and non-salaried. The example of a of >> Counselor Peak, that's where we're drifting off topic now, so I just want to >> I think we're talking about >> No, you're talking about the policy and

241
01:06:47.000 --> 01:07:02.880
we're talking about the >> So, I think I think we do need to be able to set that in order to make good decisions regarding whether or not someone's work should be raised to compensate them within the hours that they're they're working currently for

242
01:07:02.880 --> 01:07:23.760
the city in another job, in another position. If you're I'm working for the city in another position, should I? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh So, I am not sure exactly which way I will vote on this yet. >> Right. Yeah, that's fair. Any other comment?

243
01:07:23.760 --> 01:07:38.480
>> So, I'm the one who brought up concerns um about the stipend uh specifically um like I said, I'm I'm struggling with the idea of paying someone for work that's being done during the day given

244
01:07:38.480 --> 01:07:54.520
what's going on. Also, in regards to uh Counselor Smith's concern, um I have sat and watched the various um licensing board meetings in part because people expressed concern about uh a

245
01:07:54.520 --> 01:08:15.200
liquor license being um withheld. Um I watched the uh licensing board uh try to navigate that. I think that they were looking for information for various um

246
01:08:15.200 --> 01:08:31.400
items um that had not been included. That was a mistake. Um the licensing board is waiting for meeting minutes. Um and there was one comment that struck me as uh a little bit concerning when

247
01:08:31.400 --> 01:08:46.200
someone was asking about this particular license. The response from the clerk was was related to leadership is basically going in a different direction. Um so, if if that clerk is representing

248
01:08:46.200 --> 01:09:02.279
leadership, which I assume in that particular context was the mayor, then in in my opinion, then that should come from the mayor's budget because the clerk should be working for the licensing board and providing them support. But, what would was that

249
01:09:02.279 --> 01:09:18.799
individual feels like they are actually they are to represent the wishes of the mayor. And if they are there to to represent the wishes of the mayor, then the mayor's office should, in fact, compensate that particular individual. If it's happening during the day when they should be doing their particular

250
01:09:18.799 --> 01:09:34.960
work. Um, so that is my personal opinion on the matter. I think that if that individual is going to represent the mayor, then the mayor, in fact, should uh compensate out of that particular budget, which is for uh the office manager. Uh, so to me it's very

251
01:09:34.960 --> 01:09:51.120
confusing of who's Who was that individual clerking for? The other thing I I do want to address is that I think over the last couple of years, uh I think that uh and I'm not saying that it is in this particular case, um I think that, you

252
01:09:51.120 --> 01:10:06.800
know, compensation is happening. Uh, I think that we have seen compensation come out of grants that has impacted uh people's um uh what's the word I'm looking for? Increases in salary,

253
01:10:06.800 --> 01:10:24.040
um etc. And I think that that's just really concerning to me. And I think that for my particular opinion, I I want people to do their job. I want them to do a good job. I want them to be compensated. Um, but I also want there to be

254
01:10:24.200 --> 01:10:40.000
clear lines in terms of uh uh who they're representing and um them completing the job that is, in fact, laid out and expected of them. Uh, I don't want to give just any amount of money because

255
01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:56.840
that person is going in and doing X, Y, and Z. I want to know and I want to see that that work is actually being completed. Um, I think that that's a a fair request of uh not just this council, but of taxpayers. Um, so that's was my particular position

256
01:10:56.840 --> 01:11:15.640
on that and why I stated what I stated Um, why I I did so I I like the individual I want them to be successful and we have certain delineation of roles that seem to me in that are in conflict.

257
01:11:16.440 --> 01:11:35.400
But we have a motion and a second any further discussion? All right, seeing none all those in favor >> I >> I >> Okay, so I think we need to do a roll call again. >> Um

258
01:11:35.400 --> 01:11:50.960
for the salary for licensing >> Correct, yeah. >> Um Bonnie Denham >> No. >> Felicia Jazik >> No. >> J.P. Kuzinski >> I >> Tom Peak >> I >> Tamara Smith >> No. >> Jonathan Schmidt >> I >> Manda Nguyen

259
01:11:50.960 --> 01:12:11.520
>> No. >> Nathan Markey >> I >> Four eyes. >> Oh, there's four eyes. >> So motion fails. >> Okay. In that case I'm I'm ready to make the >> Yeah. >> Unless there's any other amendments that anyone's going to propose.

260
01:12:11.520 --> 01:12:31.920
>> Any other amendments? Nope, go ahead, please. >> Okay, I move that the city vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $3,462,232.44 for the various departments listed under Section 1 general government and that the amounts listed in the mayor's

261
01:12:31.920 --> 01:12:48.400
printed report unless amended be considered specific appropriations with the following amounts to be transferred as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the city council finance committee without recommendation um water sewer enterprise

262
01:12:48.400 --> 01:13:10.360
$725,393.02 parking fund 15,000 over $0. >> Second? >> So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Uh all those in favor? Oh. >> Point point of order. I I I think it

263
01:13:10.360 --> 01:13:27.920
would be appropriate to do roll call votes on these. I >> Can you help me understand your rationale? >> It may be required for budgets. I'm not quite sure. >> No, it's not required for budgets. I think we've done

264
01:13:27.920 --> 01:13:43.440
um just asking for a vote. >> I won't I won't I I will leave it at that. >> Okay. >> That's fine. >> Um so, all those in favor? >> I. >> I. Opposed? Abstention?

265
01:13:43.440 --> 01:13:58.520
Uh motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Okay, so section two is public safety. Uh that's the police, fire, uh EMT, and uh dispatch. Um and also the building inspection services.

266
01:13:58.520 --> 01:14:24.920
Um that amount the recommended amount is 900 9,285,369.33. Uh and let's pick up. >> Great. Uh any comment from the public? Seeing none. Any comment uh just real

267
01:14:24.920 --> 01:14:38.280
quick from not real quick, you can say as much as you want. Uh any uh from counselors? Before we go to the motion. Seeing none. Uh Chair Peak. >> Okay, I move that the city vote to raise

268
01:14:38.280 --> 01:14:59.080
and appropriate the sum of 9,285,369.33 from the various departments listed under Section 2 Public Safety and the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report unless amended be considered specific appropriations as recommended by the mayor and reviewed

269
01:14:59.080 --> 01:15:15.480
uh by the City Council Finance uh Committee. >> Second. >> Without recommendation. >> Should that without recommendation be there cuz we did or >> We didn't recommend it. >> yeah, that's right cuz we need That's right. So, we need to say without recommendation. Yeah. Okay, so that's what that means is that

270
01:15:15.480 --> 01:15:32.280
>> Yep, great. >> I second. >> Yep, so I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Okay, next up is schools.

271
01:15:32.280 --> 01:15:46.800
Um This is obviously a sort of different uh department from a lot of the others because we do not make line item cuts to the schools. That is the school committee's job. We just tell them the block of money that they have to work

272
01:15:46.800 --> 01:16:05.680
with. Uh in this case, the amount that we were looking at was 24 million and 46 uh thousand dollars and 600 664 dollars and uh 66 cents. >> Great.

273
01:16:06.480 --> 01:16:28.720
Anyone from the public have comments? Any counselors have comments? Seeing none, Counselor Peak or Chair Peak. >> I move that the city vote to raise and appropriate the sum of 24 million 46,664 dollars and 66 cents from the various

274
01:16:28.720 --> 01:16:45.000
departments listed under Section 3 Schools and that the amounts uh listed in the mayor's printed report unless amended be considered specific appropriations as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the City council finance committee without recommendation.

275
01:16:45.000 --> 01:17:02.200
>> I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. >> Okay. Uh next up we have public works which um covers, you know, the Department of

276
01:17:02.200 --> 01:17:17.920
Public Works but not the enterprise side of it. Um so not water, sewer, waste water but everything else public highway and um whatnot. Uh it also uh covers um the cemetery and the tree warden

277
01:17:17.920 --> 01:17:36.960
positions. >> Uh any comment from councilors or questions? >> [clears throat] >> Seeing none, any comment from the public? Seeing none. Chair Peak? >> I move that the city vote to raise and

278
01:17:36.960 --> 01:18:00.720
appropriate the sum of $2,510,779.51 for the various departments listed under section 4 public works and that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report unless amended be considered specific appropriations with the following amounts to be transferred as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by

279
01:18:00.720 --> 01:18:22.800
the city council finance committee without recommendation. Water sewer enterprise $891,090.13. Sale of lots $10,000. Capital stabilization $132,142. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any

280
01:18:22.800 --> 01:18:38.840
further discussion? Uh counselor Marquis? >> Um just uh for clarification, did you mention the general tax station or is that something else? >> You're When you When you read it. >> Oh, I'm just reading the motion language as laid out, okay? Okay, this is just for me. Got

281
01:18:38.840 --> 01:18:55.400
>> Yeah. That That's Yeah. So, that's everything except for the three things that I mentioned. So, it's it's that's general except for these things. >> Okay. >> Um any other questions, comments from council members? Great. Uh all those in favor? >> Aye. Aye. >> Opposed?

282
01:18:55.400 --> 01:19:11.320
Abstention? Motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Okay. Section five is human services. Human services includes >> I'm really helpful to you. >> Cuz there's a bunch of these and I always forget one that I insult somebody. Um human services is the health department, the council on aging,

283
01:19:11.320 --> 01:19:34.760
and veteran services. Uh so uh this all all three of these departments run on uh $786,233.33 coming fiscal year. >> Great. Thank you. Any comment, questions from councilors? Oh. Uh Councilor Smith.

284
01:19:34.760 --> 01:19:50.640
>> Um I just like to make a comment on this one. Um I'm glad we didn't see huge cuts to human services because I think that's going to be very important for a lot of people who are really struggling over these next few years given the general

285
01:19:50.640 --> 01:20:06.520
economy. And it would be really easy to cut that, but it would also really be leaving a lot of people who really rely on them even from SHINE at the senior center, for example. So, I'm grateful for that. I wanted to acknowledge that.

286
01:20:06.520 --> 01:20:24.480
>> Mhm. Great. Any other comment? Yes. >> Similarly, um I think that now more than ever we have vulnerable population, and so we're going to rely very heavily on um the

287
01:20:24.480 --> 01:20:40.600
the departments uh in this area as well as continuing to provide um um, workshops or presentations and things like that so that people know the the available resources out there to them.

288
01:20:40.600 --> 01:20:58.120
So, um, I think it's very important that these were, um, uh, continue to be funded adequately. So, um, counsel or Chair Peak. [clears throat] >> I move the city vote to raise and

289
01:20:58.120 --> 01:21:18.280
appropriate the sum of $786,233.33 for the various departments listed under section five, human services, that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appropriations with the following amounts to be transferred as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by

290
01:21:18.280 --> 01:21:34.000
the city council finance committee without recommendation. Second. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Chair Peak.

291
01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:50.560
>> Okay, next up we have, uh, culture and recreation. So, this is the, uh, parks and recreation department plus our appropriation each year to the Easthampton, uh, public library. And that total comes in at

292
01:21:50.560 --> 01:22:07.800
$835,581.21 25 cents. >> 25 cents. >> Great. Uh, any comment from this counselor counselors? Counselor Schmidt. >> Thank you, Madam President. Um, I'll just state for the record as an employee

293
01:22:07.800 --> 01:22:24.040
of the library, um, I will be abstaining on this vote. If there's any significant deliberation, I will leave the room, but until that point, I'll just take that approach. >> All right. So, stay there for now. Oh, uh, Counselor Schmidt. >> Um,

294
01:22:24.040 --> 01:22:41.480
I'm not abstaining, but I wanted to mention, um, the reason why I'm voting yes for cultural and recreation. I moved to Easthampton in 2007. Directly thereafter was the crash and as a family who had

295
01:22:41.480 --> 01:22:57.680
four children under the age of six, three of them needing daycare and not being eligible for any sort of income relief, I can really appreciate how heavy it is to have to be in a place

296
01:22:57.680 --> 01:23:14.160
like that with your personal budget. And for my family, that's how we got to really know Easthampton by all of the offerings that happened across the city from the library programs that we participated in free free and to the

297
01:23:14.160 --> 01:23:31.600
different movie nights and even Bear Fest that came up during that time. So, I really feel like the amount of culture and recreation we all received during an otherwise really difficult, bleak time period. I really have a lot of respect

298
01:23:31.600 --> 01:23:46.880
for the people who work in these departments and the experiences that they bring. >> Great. Thank you. Any other comments from councilors? Seeing none. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye.

299
01:23:46.880 --> 01:24:03.960
>> Opposed? Oops. Did we not allow >> In fact, I don't think I made an >> Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right. >> [laughter] >> But I guess I should my head. >> Right, right, right. Sorry, that's my uh Any comment from the public?

300
01:24:04.880 --> 01:24:23.480
All right. I've seen none. Councilor Chairpeak, apologies. >> I move that the city vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $835,581.25 for the various departments listed under section six, cultural and recreation,

301
01:24:23.480 --> 01:24:38.880
and that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appropriations as recommended by the mayor and received and reviewed by the city council finance committee without recommendation.

302
01:24:38.880 --> 01:24:54.520
>> Second. Oh. We have I have a motion and a second. Uh any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? >> Abstain. >> One abstention. Motion passes.

303
01:24:54.520 --> 01:25:10.080
Chair Peak. >> Okay. Uh next up is section seven, debt and interest. Um >> We got to pay our debts or we get in trouble. >> Um >> Thank you very much. >> There's uh for our for our debt and interest, we've

304
01:25:10.080 --> 01:25:26.440
got about five and a [snorts] half million dollars uh with uh some of it coming from uh various premiums and stabilization uh and uh and also from uh the the the diff uh debt, so

305
01:25:26.440 --> 01:25:46.600
basically, yeah, good deal. >> Great. Uh any questions, comments from councilors? Seeing none, any comments from the public? Seeing none, Chair Peak. >> I move the city vote to raise and

306
01:25:46.600 --> 01:26:07.440
appropriate the sum of $5,547,923.82 for the various departments listed under section seven, debt and interest, and that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appropriations with the following amounts to be transferred or raised uh

307
01:26:07.440 --> 01:26:27.880
as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the city council finance committee without recommendation. Water sewer enterprise, $300,797.97. Debt exclusion taxation to be reduced by reserves for amortization, $3,310.

308
01:26:27.880 --> 01:26:48.840
dollars. Debt exclusion Maple School K8 K38 premium, $63,469.13. HVAC debt premium, uh $11,000 and $16.93.

309
01:26:49.240 --> 01:27:08.840
Tax rate stabilization, $186,000. District improvement fund debt, $67,666.67. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I think yeah.

310
01:27:08.840 --> 01:27:25.320
Counselor Kuzinski. >> The public? >> Uh We already asked the public. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. >> Between the public and this? Yeah, yeah. I just wanted [clears throat] to be sure. >> Yep. No, I I understand. Uh Any further All those in favor?

311
01:27:25.320 --> 01:27:41.040
Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Okay. Um Next up is section 8 unclassified, which is employee benefits. Um We all know that these have

312
01:27:41.040 --> 01:27:56.440
been a major driver of cost this year. They're coming in and at $14.5 million and of that, uh we part of it's going to come from water sewer enterprises, previously discussed

313
01:27:56.440 --> 01:28:15.720
from chargeback. >> Mhm. Uh any questions from counselors? Uh any questions, comments from the public? Seeing none, Chair Peak.

314
01:28:15.720 --> 01:28:36.440
>> Okay, I move that the city vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $14,502,761.72 for the various departments listed under section 8 employee benefits and that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appropriations

315
01:28:36.440 --> 01:28:50.640
with the following amounts to be transferred as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the city council finance committee without recommendation. Water sewer enterprise $756,279.17.

316
01:28:50.640 --> 01:29:08.720
General stabilization $0. Second. >> It's a race. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes.

317
01:29:08.720 --> 01:29:23.320
Chair Peak. >> Next up we have section 9 community preservation. This is the not that we're appropriating from the CPA surcharge to fund the CPA committee um which does a bunch of great stuff.

318
01:29:23.320 --> 01:29:45.600
Uh this year it would be $854,700. >> Any comments, questions from councilors? Any comments, questions from the public? Seeing none. >> Uh >> Chair Peak. >> I move that the city vote to raise and

319
01:29:45.600 --> 01:30:06.360
appropriate the sum of $854,700 for the various departments listed under section 9 community preservation and that the amounts listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appro- appropriations, excuse me, uh with the fall- the total amount to be

320
01:30:06.360 --> 01:30:21.880
raised and appropriated from the community preservation fund as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the city council finance committee without recommendations. >> Second. >> You have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor?

321
01:30:21.880 --> 01:30:38.040
Any opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Uh section 10 enterprises up next. So, this is all the water, sewer, wastewater work. Again, this is not funded by

322
01:30:38.040 --> 01:30:53.320
um property taxes or the other things that are general government. This is almost like a business run within the city that's funded largely through uh water and sewer rates. Um so, this year it would be

323
01:30:53.320 --> 01:31:16.200
uh 3,465,883.75. >> Great. Uh any questions, comments from councilors? Seeing none, any comments, questions from the public? Um seeing none. Um Chair Peak.

324
01:31:16.200 --> 01:31:35.120
>> Uh I move that the city vote to raise and appropriate the sum of 3,465,883.75 uh for the various departments listed under section 10 enterprise and that the amount listed in the mayor's printed report, unless amended, be considered specific appropriations with the

325
01:31:35.120 --> 01:31:52.720
following amounts to be transferred as recommended by the mayor and reviewed by the city council finance committee uh without recommendation. Water sewer enterprise, 3,465,883.75. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Any further

326
01:31:52.720 --> 01:32:11.480
discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? >> Sorry. >> Abstentions? Motion passes. Chair Peak. >> Okay. And finally, every year as part of the budget we have to put a cap on the

327
01:32:11.480 --> 01:32:27.480
revolving fund uh for the uh electric vehicle charging stations and the bike share program. So, these are revolving funds. We get money in, but we have to put the cap on it for reasons that have been explained to me in the past and I still don't feel like I fully

328
01:32:27.480 --> 01:32:44.440
understand it, but it is something that we have to do as part of this is to basically cap the size of that fund. >> Any questions from counselors, questions, or comments? Seeing none, any comment from the public?

329
01:32:44.440 --> 01:33:00.680
Seeing none, Chair Peak. >> I move the City Council cap the DPW revolving fund spending for electric vehicle charging stations and the bike share programs at $20,000 for fiscal year 2027 as per Mass. General Law

330
01:33:00.680 --> 01:33:18.840
chapter 44 section 53 E and a half. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstentions? Motion passes.

331
01:33:18.840 --> 01:33:35.080
>> Budget. >> That's budgets. Um thank you everybody. Thank you everyone who participated. Um you know, I do want to before I take a motion to close, uh I just want to

332
01:33:35.840 --> 01:33:53.520
acknowledge how challenging this process has been um this year. Obviously, there was a lot of unknowns. Um you know, which led to uh the council receiving the

333
01:33:53.520 --> 01:34:09.800
uh budget um later than usual. Um we've already hashed out why that is, etc. But, you know, I want to you know, acknowledge the the finance committee and all the counselors who participated

334
01:34:09.800 --> 01:34:26.520
in those meetings. They were obviously quite lengthy. Um and so I I appreciate that. I also want to acknowledge the members of the community who participated. Um I think that

335
01:34:26.520 --> 01:34:43.400
you know, just given the nature of what has been going on nationally and certainly what's been going on locally, I have appreciated the level of um participation and certainly the the

336
01:34:43.400 --> 01:35:00.840
questions and the encouragement of this council digging deeper into uh addressing some of these concerns. And so that certainly has not been lost on me. And so certainly I will

337
01:35:00.840 --> 01:35:17.480
as we move forward continue to ask, you know, the important questions that we need to ask in regards to city finances. Um I also want to take a moment to speak to our department heads.

338
01:35:17.480 --> 01:35:32.760
Um I know that this obviously has been incredibly challenging. The fact that you all put in the amount of time to put together three different budgets,

339
01:35:32.760 --> 01:35:47.360
I think is unheard of. I don't know that anyone has had to do that in the past, certainly not within this community. And I also want to acknowledge the amount of care

340
01:35:47.360 --> 01:36:04.080
um that that you took to be be to um continue to do the work that you do for this city uh and be able to provide the uh high level of service that you do to our residents uh and being accessible to

341
01:36:04.080 --> 01:36:19.120
them um and so you know, I also want to acknowledge that. Um I know that um you all did present uh to council uh two budgets um

342
01:36:19.120 --> 01:36:35.000
and obviously, we I don't think are out of the woods yet. Um so, I really encourage uh department heads to uh continue to find ways of saving

343
01:36:35.000 --> 01:36:49.280
saving funds um and figuring out a way for us to continue to move through this particular um financial situation that we are in, but your commitment and your dedication

344
01:36:49.280 --> 01:37:05.480
uh to this community is know that it it is you are all very much appreciated. Um that that's without question. Um I also want to speak directly to the mayor. As I just said, we are not out of the

345
01:37:05.480 --> 01:37:22.880
woods at this particular time and it is incumbent upon you to work closely with your uh department heads to solve the problems that we're in. Um I know that you have had limited uh

346
01:37:22.880 --> 01:37:38.040
department head meetings and I strongly encourage you to have more of those. I hope they are um uh informative. I hope that uh

347
01:37:38.040 --> 01:37:53.320
questions are asked solutions are uh provided, but there is a rich and long dialogue that takes place uh in the conference room that allows department heads to be able to

348
01:37:53.320 --> 01:38:09.440
speak freely, speak openly, uh in a group to be able to bounce ideas off of each other and solve and solve the problems that we are facing within our community. Um I don't think that our problems are solved in a corner office.

349
01:38:09.440 --> 01:38:26.080
Um just like not all of them are solved in this particular room, right? But we do the best that we can. But your department heads are the experts in their fields, they're the experts uh around uh the various issues that we are trying to solve, and we need to come

350
01:38:26.080 --> 01:38:43.480
together to figure out and to brainstorm how we are going to bring some of these costs down. I think what the council did today was an effort to give some breathing room to be able to solve some of those problems. But I also know, right? The

351
01:38:43.480 --> 01:38:59.480
the budget that we are putting forward is going to be challenging for some of our residents, and we have to do everything that we can in order to continue to bring some of those costs down because I am very, very concerned about

352
01:38:59.480 --> 01:39:15.640
our residents and their ability to stay here. There's no There's no other place for people to go, and I think that because this is happening in every community. And so we really have to be able to try to solve those problems to help people to be able to stay here. Um

353
01:39:15.640 --> 01:39:32.120
But we have to do that together. >> Right. >> Um so I appreciate all of you. I appreciate your involvement. Um and I will take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Uh

354
01:39:32.120 --> 01:39:48.400
any further discussion? Seeing none, uh all in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Abstention? [clears throat] Motion passes. Thank you so much. Um I will now open it up to uh public speak. Obviously, we started the public hearing

355
01:39:48.400 --> 01:40:04.840
immediately, but I will take comment from the public for anything that is not related to the budget. You will have 3 minutes. I'm sorry, not related to the public hearing. You will have 3 minutes. Again, just as a reminder,

356
01:40:04.840 --> 01:40:20.400
when there's 30 seconds remaining, you will hear an alert, and when your time is up, you will hear a second alert. And at that time, please kind of wrap up your last thoughts. And so, please state your name and address for the record. And I know you know

357
01:40:20.400 --> 01:40:36.720
the routine, but >> Cathy Wisinski, Overlook Drive. I wanted to highlight for the people watching that was probably not clear from all of the deliberation recently happening that

358
01:40:36.720 --> 01:40:52.880
the city budget is 65 million $350,000 and and more than that. That's a huge amount of money, and I don't think that's made clear to the residents. Um

359
01:40:52.880 --> 01:41:09.320
and I think you noticed the drop-off in the public speak during that hearing. There's no point. No one's really listening. And that's why we are here. Thank you. >> Thank you.

360
01:41:09.360 --> 01:41:32.520
Anyone else for public speak? Again, please state your name and address for the record. >> [clears throat] >> Mike Carroll, Lime Street. As the gentleman who spoke earlier, the city is reducing

361
01:41:32.520 --> 01:41:50.680
people. It's reducing students. And as I said at an earlier council meeting, the only thing growing in the city of East Hampton is the budget.

362
01:41:50.680 --> 01:42:06.200
It's not the revenue. It's not people coming into town. It's not more students. It's government. Your responsibility is to cut

363
01:42:06.200 --> 01:42:21.280
government. Cuz then people look at the property taxes that they have to pay to move here, they're moving somewhere else. They'll go south. Because you know,

364
01:42:21.280 --> 01:42:38.080
Florida does it. There's a lot of states down south that do it. You're talking $65 million in a in a town the size of East Hampton. So again, I reiterate, the only thing

365
01:42:38.080 --> 01:42:54.560
growing in East Hampton is government, and that needs to stop. Because the citizens can't afford to give you any more. >> Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record.

366
01:42:54.560 --> 01:43:15.000
>> Miriam Ansara, 359 Main Street, Unit 2A. I appreciate the job that the mayor has done, all the department heads have done, that the city council has done. I think that there's a reason that East Hampton,

367
01:43:15.000 --> 01:43:33.080
like 57 other cities and towns in this state alone, have had to take on the hard, hard work of coming up with an override. And I would say that it's like watching

368
01:43:33.080 --> 01:43:48.960
people blaming government and blaming us and trying to say where we can take costs and where we can make costs it's like people eating their young. This is not something that we can solve in the city.

369
01:43:48.960 --> 01:44:04.360
All our money is being sucked out of us by those vampires in the corporate dens where our salaries buy less and less. Where cities get less and less money to

370
01:44:04.360 --> 01:44:21.160
have to do more and more. Where cities like ours can rely only on property taxes. That's outrageous that there's nothing other than property taxes for a city to be able to run schools, fix roads, and do everything else it has to

371
01:44:21.160 --> 01:44:39.040
do. And by sitting around and blaming government, local government, over and over and over, we are ignoring the fact of what's really happening in this country at more than the municipal level and more than even the state level. I'm old enough at 82 to remember

372
01:44:39.040 --> 01:44:54.920
when people had secure jobs. When a home was a place to live, not your only asset. Where people had real pensions. Where there were strong unions and where there was government at all levels

373
01:44:54.920 --> 01:45:11.040
that at least 2/3 of it answered to the people. I will just tell you a single fact if I have enough time to. So, the largest single employer in this country is also the largest single employer

374
01:45:11.040 --> 01:45:26.520
of uh uh uh of people who receive food stamps. That's Walmart's. So, in other words, we pay taxes at the federal level that subsidizes Walmart so that they don't have to pay living wage. Now, transpose

375
01:45:26.520 --> 01:45:43.200
that to our situation. We cannot do better than we're doing because we are stuck in a situation where this country is being the people of this country are being bled dry. They're being bled dry by all our money being siphoned off into these stupid

376
01:45:43.200 --> 01:45:58.480
costly wars every place else. They're being bled dry by corporations that put their own profits ahead of their employees and ahead of us. And this has got to stop. And we have to stop just blaming city council, mayor,

377
01:45:58.480 --> 01:46:15.520
departments for doing the very best they can in a terrible, terrible situation. >> Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Yep. Please state your name and address for the record. >> Uh Jess Atkins Weber, 22 Bowdoin Street.

378
01:46:15.520 --> 01:46:31.960
Um I just want to thank all the city council members, all the school committee members, all the city officials, all the um really everyone who's had an involvement in this budget season. It's been a very long and difficult budget season. These meetings have often gone over 4 hours. Um

379
01:46:31.960 --> 01:46:47.920
I mean, I can barely stay like coherent and listening for 4 hours. So, huge applause to y'all for doing that. Um but I mean, I there's a lot of work to come. We've done a lot of work already to get to this point. Um everyone's made themselves incredibly available on

380
01:46:47.920 --> 01:47:04.600
social media or on their email. Um I'm very impressed by that. We're a very small city with a big heart. I think that um I mean, I just want to applaud all the city officials because I think they've done an amazing job through this budget hearing and all of you uh or budget hearing and budget season. Thank

381
01:47:04.600 --> 01:47:25.480
you. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the room who would like to make a comment? Seeing none. Anyone online would they like to make a comment? Seeing none. Um

382
01:47:25.480 --> 01:47:43.000
Uh we have a uh city council resolution opposing a proposed cell to cell phone tower at 1 Cook Road, Southampton. I will turn it over to Councilor Smith. >> [clears throat] >> I will turn it over to

383
01:47:43.000 --> 01:47:57.880
Councilor Kuzinski. >> Thank you. The matter was referred to the Rules and Government Relations Committee, which met on Monday and was joined by Councilor Smith. And we discussed the matter, revised the uh

384
01:47:57.880 --> 01:48:14.520
language, and I think to summarize it, I I as I understand the matter, it's really a an issue of of of equity. Uh it's based on a long hit history of mutual shared concern for one another in times

385
01:48:14.520 --> 01:48:29.840
and in times of political strife and political division. We have before us an opportunity to help, I think, our neighbors and ourselves bring healing and support to one another. Uh the matter is where the

386
01:48:29.840 --> 01:48:48.720
town of Southampton is considering the request of a developer to place a cell tower smack dab on East Hampton's border. That cell tower would be subject to the regulations of the town of Southampton.

387
01:48:48.720 --> 01:49:03.640
And we've noted and at the committee meeting that many times we've helped Southampton. We have a shared mutual respect. And in fact, in the last year

388
01:49:03.640 --> 01:49:20.960
when a 200-MW facility was proposed on Southampton's southern border by a neighboring community, namely Westfield, uh we joined with Southampton and helped to fight, defeat, and defeat that measure. Uh Uh

389
01:49:20.960 --> 01:49:36.800
So, they were threatened. We came to their defense. And I am asking that we ask the town of Southampton to give equal and due consideration regarding their zoning regulations for

390
01:49:36.800 --> 01:49:53.480
the residents not only of their community, but those of the city of Easthampton, those across the border who will look at the cell tower and be impacted by the cell tower, whose investments and homes are next to the cell tower. And I believe the language

391
01:49:53.480 --> 01:50:10.520
that we developed reflects that. This measure was uh recommended two to zero uh by the councilors uh with one member being absent. Uh So, I with that recommendation, I would

392
01:50:10.520 --> 01:50:29.080
like to ask and invite the councilor from Precinct 5 to read the measure and make any comments that she may have. >> Councilor Smith. Okay. This is uh Easthampton City Council resolution opposing the proposed

393
01:50:29.080 --> 01:50:45.080
cell tower at 1 Cook Road, Southampton, Massachusetts. Whereas Easthampton and Southampton have a relationship built on reciprocity and respect, sharing emergency services, mutual aid, water, and sewer resources.

394
01:50:45.080 --> 01:51:01.200
Whereas Easthampton advocated on behalf of Southampton when the city of Westfield proposed erecting a lithium battery energy system on Southampton's border, citing that the facility would lower the value of Southampton homes and put Southampton residents at risk.

395
01:51:01.200 --> 01:51:17.640
Whereas a telecommunications company has proposed the construction of a cellular communications tower at 1 Cook Road in Southampton, Massachusetts, directly on Easthampton's border. And whereas the proposed tower would be located immediately adjacent to established

396
01:51:17.640 --> 01:51:33.440
residential neighborhoods in East Hampton, placing a large industrial telecommunication structure within direct view of numerous homes and families, and whereas the residents most significantly affected by this proposal are not solely Southampton residents,

397
01:51:33.440 --> 01:51:50.160
but also many East Hampton residents, whose homes lie within close proximity to the proposed site, and who would bear the visual, economic, and quality of life impacts of the project despite having no vote in Southampton's municipal decisions, and whereas homeowners in the

398
01:51:50.160 --> 01:52:06.520
surrounding neighborhoods have invested their life savings, time, and labor into purchasing and maintaining their homes with the reasonable expectation that the character of their residential community would be protected from incompatible industrial development, and whereas the proposed tower would

399
01:52:06.520 --> 01:52:25.480
permanently alter the landscape of the area, introducing a highly visible commercial structure that would dominate views from homes, yards, streets, and public spaces throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, whereas studies and market analyses have

400
01:52:25.480 --> 01:52:41.120
documented concerns regarding diminished property desirability and potential reductions in residential property values associated with the proximity of large telecommunications towers, and whereas some residents have raised earnest concerns regarding the long-term

401
01:52:41.120 --> 01:52:57.120
effects of radio frequency emissions, and believe that public officials should exercise caution when approving infrastructure projects located in close proximity to family homes and children, and whereas residents support reliable residents report support reliable

402
01:52:57.120 --> 01:53:13.960
cellular service, and recognize the importance of telecommunications infrastructure, but strongly reject the false choice between improved service and protecting residential neighborhoods, and whereas no compelling evidence has been presented demonstrating that this specific location is the only feasible

403
01:53:13.960 --> 01:53:29.760
location available within Southampton or that less intrusive alternatives have been fully exhausted. And whereas the burden of this project falls overwhelmingly on nearby residents while the financial benefits accrue primarily to private corporations and

404
01:53:29.760 --> 01:53:44.480
property owners involved in the lease arrangement. And whereas the approval of this proposal would create a precedent that places private corporate interests above the preservation of our Easthampton residential charm, property

405
01:53:44.480 --> 01:54:00.240
rights, and community well-being. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Easthampton City Council opposes the construction of the proposed cellular communications tower at 1 Cook Road until additional consideration is made for alternate sites and more information

406
01:54:00.240 --> 01:54:15.920
is made available to the impacted residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. Be it further resolved that the Easthampton City Council respectfully requests that the Southampton Planning Board require the applicant to demonstrate a thorough through this

407
01:54:15.920 --> 01:54:32.200
Sorry. Let me start that over again. Be it further resolved that the Easthampton City Council respectfully requests that the Southampton Planning Board require the applicant to demonstrate through independent and objective analysis that no alternative locations exist and would

408
01:54:32.200 --> 01:54:48.440
result in less harm to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Be it further resolved that the Planning Board give substantial weight to the testimony of affected residents whose homes, property values, daily views, and quality of life would be directly impacted by this proposal.

409
01:54:48.440 --> 01:55:03.440
Be it further resolved that the Easthampton City Councilors publicly advocate for the interests of affected residents and ensure that municipal decisions do not unfairly impose economic and aesthetic burdens on neighboring communities. Be it further resolved that no approval

410
01:55:03.440 --> 01:55:19.200
be granted until a comprehensive review of alternative sites, co-location opportunities, visual impacts, property value impacts, and neighborhood effects have been completed and made available for public review. Be it further resolved that the Easthampton City Council respectfully

411
01:55:19.200 --> 01:55:35.760
urges the Southampton Planning Board to preserve the residential aesthetic of our neighborhoods, protect the value of our homes, respect the voices of affected families, and reject the proposed cell phone tower at 1 Cook Road until all alternatives are considered in good faith.

412
01:55:35.760 --> 01:55:51.920
Be it finally resolved that the Easthampton City Council implores Mayor Derby to contact the town administrator, town clerk, and select board members of Southampton requesting that a different cell tower location be considered. The residents of Easthampton and Southampton

413
01:55:51.920 --> 01:56:08.680
deserve reliable cellular service. They also deserve solutions that do not place massive industrial structure directly across from homes, disrupt the predominant land use of established neighborhoods, or force residents to bear the cost of a project from which they receive little benefit. We

414
01:56:08.680 --> 01:56:25.400
respectfully ask the Southampton Planning Board to deny this proposal and require the exploration of more appropriate alternatives. >> So that was in the form of a motion? >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion and a second. Uh

415
01:56:29.160 --> 01:56:44.320
The motion and a second for the Easthampton City Council resolution opposing the proposed cell tower at 1 Cook Road, Southampton. Any further discussion? Uh Chair Peak or Councillor Peak. >> [laughter] >> I didn't say mayor. >> Yeah. Uh

416
01:56:44.320 --> 01:57:00.760
so first of all, I feel like I owe um uh Councillor uh Smith and and Rules a little bit of an apology because I asked that this go to committee and then was not present at that committee hearing. Uh uh something came up I wasn't able to get out of. Um I'm probably comfortable with this. I I

417
01:57:00.760 --> 01:57:18.240
I think that um I I do think that it's important that we make sure that everyone remember that these things do have impacts that might not affect citizens of that town, but when your place is only right on the border like that, they that these people need to be

418
01:57:18.240 --> 01:57:32.880
uh make sure they're listening how this might affect people across the border. So, we do have our we're our fates are very much intertwined. Um there's one clause from this that uh I'm a bit sensitive to, and um I

419
01:57:32.880 --> 01:57:48.400
think if we would consider striking it, then I could vote for this, but otherwise, I'm I'm not sure. Uh it's the one about um >> Okay, which If you were to count down, where is it? Is it on the first page, second page? >> the second page. Well, so the second side of the first page, I guess.

420
01:57:48.400 --> 01:58:04.600
Uh where it says, "Some residents have raised earnest concerns regarding the long-term effects of radio frequency emissions, and believe that public officials should exercise caution when approving infrastructure projects located in close proximity to family homes and children." Um

421
01:58:04.600 --> 01:58:19.440
my concern is that uh to the best of my knowledge, there really isn't any documented health concerns. I I I did look around for a little while about this, and I did some some reading on this. Um in particular, I I looked over uh one

422
01:58:19.440 --> 01:58:35.120
report from the American Cancer Society uh to that effect that said that there really is no evidence that these sorts of things actually cause cancer or anything like that, or that they're that the the existence of these towers

423
01:58:35.120 --> 01:58:51.480
is really substantially any different from holding your cell phone next to your head all day, and like we all do. Um that doesn't mean that these other questions about who should have a say in uh these sorts of things when something's placed right on the border, or about how these might affect property

424
01:58:51.480 --> 01:59:07.000
value, or not legitimate things that need to be heard. It's just I guess I feel I'm really sensitive to this kind of stuff after COVID. I don't doubt that there are people who have these concerns, but I'm wary about

425
01:59:07.000 --> 01:59:23.800
including them in an official council communication because there's a lot of people who have earnest concerns about things that have no basis in science. And if we start saying that the government should be responsive to that,

426
01:59:23.800 --> 01:59:39.600
I worry about where this that leads us. So, that is I just want to to to say that it it that one clause I think just particularly in in the way that that my mind has been

427
01:59:39.600 --> 01:59:56.360
sort of trained to think about this stuff over the last few years, it kind of troubles me. But, if if this were amended to to strike that one clause, I would I would be willing to support it. >> Uh Counselor Markee?

428
01:59:56.360 --> 02:00:15.840
>> Yeah. Um Counselor Peak raises an interesting point, but that's not the reason I'm to comment. My comment is actually it's more of a question. If City Council does pass this resolution, I believe somebody can correct me. Is

429
02:00:15.840 --> 02:00:32.680
the Southampton meeting is that tomorrow evening? >> No, the discussion for this item on the Southampton Planning Board's agenda is scheduled for July 8th at 7:00 p.m. >> Okay. So, if this

430
02:00:32.680 --> 02:00:47.560
um resolution passes, is are there going to be a city councilor or a couple um willing to go to Southampton and read this document into record?

431
02:00:47.560 --> 02:01:04.000
Okay. I get I got my answer. That's But I do agree with um Tom that perhaps without documented proof that cell towers do cause harm, [snorts] physical harm, I will vote on this regardless, but I do

432
02:01:04.000 --> 02:01:20.960
agree that that is trending into territory that might be That's it. >> Uh Chair Kuzinski? >> Uh I can appreciate Councillor Peak's perspective uh and not being prepared with RF

433
02:01:20.960 --> 02:01:37.600
frequency information and studies. Uh I think we would want to present a stronger case to Southampton as possible, and I think without that information I don't think the balance of our document is reduced significantly in its

434
02:01:37.600 --> 02:01:54.520
impact uh by removing that clause. So, I would be in favor of removing the clause and simply in favor of asking Southampton to give the same due consideration to our citizens that they give to their residents. Uh

435
02:01:54.520 --> 02:02:11.880
and ask that the same level of treatment occur fairly. Uh and I think that's the impact, and they should consider all alternatives uh site locations that make sense near and far. Uh So, with that, I would support an

436
02:02:11.880 --> 02:02:28.000
amendment. >> Uh Councillor Schmidt? >> As you, um I would just echo my the the appreciation for for the perspective that Councillor Peak has brought forward. Um I do fear sort of a a slippery slope sometimes when um we start talking about some of these

437
02:02:28.000 --> 02:02:44.880
things. Um but uh what I did want to say uh that's a little bit different is um that I do feel like the the second half of this particular clause does still stand. When we think about infrastructure projects in general, I can think of a number of instances where those things could

438
02:02:44.880 --> 02:03:00.920
legitimately have a impact on um the well-being of of people nearby, and I do think it um you know, public the the the statement that public officials should exercise caution when approving infrastructure projects located near families and homes,

439
02:03:00.920 --> 02:03:15.880
on its own, um that that I 100% agree with. Um but uh could, you know, for the for the sake of this conversation, um I think I also agree that striking this particular clause doesn't detract from the overall

440
02:03:15.880 --> 02:03:33.440
uh argument and could see that as a as a path forward. >> Any other comments? >> Um Chair or Counselor Peak, um Chair Schmidt has an alternative

441
02:03:33.440 --> 02:03:48.680
proposal. Is that something you're amenable to, or do you have comment about that? >> I'd be comfortable just striking that part. I just was curious if there was a response from yourself or Counselor Schmidt, from you know, the authors. I was just curious if there's a perspective that I was missing.

442
02:03:48.680 --> 02:04:03.520
>> Yeah. Uh Counselor Schmidt? >> I can speak to the perspectives of the families that I spoke to, and their fear that there is something that physically could happen even with those studies, um

443
02:04:03.520 --> 02:04:20.320
is why I included it. But I agree that we have enough other things that would back up our reason for creating um this resolution that I would be okay with not having that part, too. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> And I think in my conversations with

444
02:04:20.320 --> 02:04:36.160
them, I think it was equal that was something not only is it kind of a an ungodly sight, it kind of outside of their uh home, uh I think they have small children, and and obviously, I think there's a lot of unknowns, um

445
02:04:36.160 --> 02:04:53.320
and I think that they just articulated real concern about that. And so, I think the way that it is written here, uh it just acknowledges that concerns are raised, right? But, uh understand the the points. So, if you would like to make an amendment, um we can go ahead

446
02:04:53.320 --> 02:05:10.120
and move forward with that. >> Sure. I would, um I'm I would make a uh motion to amend uh the second clause on page two to read, "Whereas some residents believe that public officials should exercise caution when approving

447
02:05:10.120 --> 02:05:25.800
infrastructure projects located in close proximity to family homes and children semicolon and". >> Second. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to amend uh the second clause in on page two.

448
02:05:25.800 --> 02:05:44.200
Um any further discussion? Uh Counselor Schmidt. >> Thank you. Um I could make this in the uh Basically, I just want to to to see what people think about um I I feel like the I feel like continuing

449
02:05:44.200 --> 02:06:00.240
to say "some residents believe that public officials should do this" actually does kind of undermine it in that particular case. And And I wonder if there would be uh if folks would be receptive to just cutting out from the end of "whereas" to the beginning of "public officials".

450
02:06:00.240 --> 02:06:16.720
Um if that makes sense. >> So, you could sure. >> Um Uh-huh. >> I was just going to ask if the counselor was suggesting an amendment to that effect to the amendment. >> So, you you want to make an amendment? >> an amendment to the amendment? Um I

451
02:06:16.720 --> 02:06:38.760
would like to make a motion to amend the amendment uh to further cut the language um "some residents believe that. Okay. >> Second.

452
02:06:38.760 --> 02:06:54.760
>> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second uh to to make an amendment so that the the it reads public whereas public officials should exercise caution when approving infrastructure projects located in proximity to family homes and children

453
02:06:54.760 --> 02:07:12.440
semicolon and >> Mhm. >> So, we have a motion and a second and a second again. Uh any further discussion on the amendment? Um >> To the amendment. >> So, all right. The second amendment. Uh seeing none, all those in favor?

454
02:07:12.440 --> 02:07:29.600
>> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Back to the other amendments, which is now taken care of. So, now we're back to the main motion. Um so, any other comments or questions

455
02:07:29.600 --> 02:07:46.600
discussion? All right. Uh seeing none, so all those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. So, I know that I intend to uh participate or attend the um

456
02:07:46.600 --> 02:08:02.840
I intend to attend the uh uh uh planning board meeting in Southampton. It looks like Councilwoman Kuzinski is as well and Councilor Smith. So, uh this will be delivered um and

457
02:08:02.840 --> 02:08:18.320
uh I'll work with Mary Ann to make that amendment [clears throat] to this. >> Great. >> Okay. Madam President. >> Um Councilwoman Chair Kuzinski >> planning on voting on the resolution itself? >> We did. >> We voted on the amendments to the resolution and the amendment to the amendment. >> No, we didn't. >> No, we didn't.

458
02:08:18.320 --> 02:08:34.080
>> We voted on the resolution >> We voted. It started with the resolution and then we made >> made the amendments >> in the discussion >> We made a second amendment, but we passed the first >> I I thought I thought that we were voting on the amendments to the amendment and then we would vote on the full resolution.

459
02:08:34.080 --> 02:08:49.120
>> We did. >> I just want to be sure we're all in agreement. >> Yeah. >> Good. Thank you. >> Awesome. >> Yeah. Uh great. So that takes care of that. Thank you so much uh Counselor Smith for um addressing the needs of your

460
02:08:49.120 --> 02:09:04.480
constituents. Um we have a couple of items that need to be moved uh to committees. So I will turn it over to Vice President Jezek. >> Your first item is a request from Eversource to set a public hearing for permission to install one jointly owned

461
02:09:04.480 --> 02:09:21.200
35-ft utility pole which will extend facilities to the new home at 32 Nip for Avenue. And I'd like to make a motion to send this to the property committee and also set a public hearing at 6:15 p.m. on July 15th in these chambers. >> Second.

462
02:09:21.200 --> 02:09:38.000
>> So we have a motion and a second to move the item request from Eversource to set a public hearing and uh public hearing to install one jointly owned 35 utility utility 35-ft utility pole

463
02:09:38.000 --> 02:09:55.880
um and send it uh to property and to set a public hearing on July 15th at 6:15 in these chambers. Um any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes.

464
02:09:55.880 --> 02:10:11.000
>> Second item is another request from Eversource to set a public hearing for permission to install one solely owned pole along Greenwood Court to provide electrical service to 20 Greenwood Court. Um and I'd like to send make a motion to send this to property and at

465
02:10:11.000 --> 02:10:27.440
the same time set a public hearing for July 15th at 6:15 p.m. in these chambers. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second for a request from Eversource to uh install a pole along Green Court Avenue

466
02:10:27.440 --> 02:10:43.800
to property and set a public hearing for July 15th and 16th in these chambers. Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. That's everything on our agenda. I will

467
02:10:43.800 --> 02:11:12.240
take a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Opposed? Abstention? Motion passes. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Do we have to sign anything for the

468
02:11:12.240 --> 02:11:22.880
budget? >> No. >> I just need to sign here. >> I need to take this. >> I need to take this. >> All right.