This far city council committee on finance meeting will be called to order at 6:02 p.m. >> Madame clerk roll call please. >> Council Scadm >> here. >> Camarra >> here. >> Canuel >> here. >> Dion >> here. >> Hart >> here.
>> Heckham >> here. >> Perr >> here. >> Raposo >> here. >> President Ponty >> here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised as such recordings or transmissions are being
made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda is on the committee on finance is citizens input hearing none. Next item is departments that were carried over from June 2nd committee on
finance agenda which there are none. Next item is insurance and other governmental expenditures. >> Motion to lift from the table. >> Motion to lift the item from the table has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Dion. All those in favor? >> Opposed? You guys have it.
>> And if you can just introduce yourself for the record, please. I'm going to try to make sure you got your microphone on. All right, why don't you start M Mr. Malini >> Nick Malini director of human resources
>> Emily Arkkey Emily Arkkey CFO >> and O'Neal Souza interim city administrator >> okay very good council in C4 council vice president >> thank you good evening >> so I guess I'm going to start with
um >> and for the record this is insurance and other governmental expenditures for the record. >> Yeah. Well, we just got some information on our desk, so I'm trying to look at that and >> so we can we can go through that. So, um
what we provided was um it's something that we I started providing last year. So, last year I provided it for the health insurance um amount that was in your budget book. I also had gone back and created one for FY25 um with the same backup documents. So
all it is is a it's a you can see that the first page of that document is what I'm going to say like a screenshot of the top of page 141. So it's it's that same exact page. There's nothing different in it. It's just a screen grab of it. Um and then there's a little red box around it that
kind of walks you through the numbers. So then each additional page you can see in that same box highlighted what number is reflected on that page um that Gallagher provides. So it's it's just a you know very concrete way of showing you exactly where these numbers are
coming from um for your own knowledge and and understanding of what they're sharing with us. So with that, um I know this one sheet here from Gallagher. Um
the first So let me see it be the second page of the handout you gave us. Um I have that same thing right here. Um, this one here shows the increase for this this year, but the the final column is the final column. So, I guess my
let's start out with what do did you determine if you can give me the number as opposed to me figuring it out here. Um, I know that when you start talking the employer trust fund, it it obviously involves a
multitude of of line items, but in the end result, there's a bottom line to it. and dental and life insurance are included in the final numbers. Correct. So, can you tell me what how what dental
and life insurance what that number is in this budget? >> Yep. So, if you um it is on the first page of that handout. It's actually on every page of the handout to be clear in the red box. But um the dental estimate for FY27 is $799,250
and I'm speaking specifically for the employer share on all of this. >> Yep. >> And um >> so the life insurance >> and life insurance is what? So the life insurance is $289,237. >> Okay.
>> So that of all of the numbers that we have that make up that calculation, the life insurance is not provided by Gallagher. >> That right. Correct. So um would you agree that in that top box
for employer trust fund the that is all basic the city's share >> this is just the city share yes right I shouldn't say the city share the employer share >> the employer share >> the employer share >> so this Gallagher is the employer this sheet that you just talked about is the
employer share and so is this first box under expense detail correct Okay. It's all employer share. Okay. So, that totals $1,88,487. Correct. >> Just point of point of >> clarification. I know what you're saying, but when you get to the second
page of the Gallagher, they're giving you the total cost and then they break out the city share. Right. >> Correct. So, if you're looking at that second page, there's a there's a box um a yellow box around it. There's a number that says 62 million. And then below that, the city share is 47 million. So if you take that calculation, it's
exactly 75% of what that $62 million number is. >> So you can see the total health care cost and then >> the number in red is the city share. I just want to clarify that. >> But I guess so where I'm going with this
is so if you look at Gallagher um 46,210,572 is the employee. >> Yeah. Yes. So that's not the number that I'm using in that top calculation. >> No, you're using $49,685,710 as the remaining project costs after
community development BCTC schools. >> No, sorry. No. So if you backtrack all the way up to the top of that where it says the 58 million. >> Yep. >> So that's the number that we're talking about. So 58 million is the total cost. So that is Blue Cross Blue Shield for the active plans. There's an Etna cost.
um for the retirees which is 9 million 9.8 million and then there's the dental estimates of almost 800,000 and then the life insurance of the $289. So all of that makes up that $58 million number. >> Okay. >> So because of the way that we have some
of the prescription rebates and the stop-loss insurance in there, that's why we use that higher $47 million number and not the lower $46 million number. >> Okay. So if we start at the 48 million, use the deductions that you have here in
this box. It come at it come you get to 49 million. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So we agree on that. So then we need to deduct 1,88,487 from that 49 million. >> Why? >> Because that's not included in this box.
And you're telling me we start at 58,000. >> 58 million. >> 58 million. >> I mean 58 million. So the 58 million includes dental and life insurance on the employer side. So the the sheet that I have, if you look at the red box that's on it, it
shows the total costs in that box and it shows all four numbers that add up to make that 58 million. >> Okay. So I guess I'm trying to get at this a different way. Could I just quickly if
my colleague's looking to get the detail for health insurance, that would be the second page that's provided. That's that's going to show you the detail. Well, I think that page you're on right now. >> So, Gallagher has us at 46 million. This is showing us at 49 million. And I'm
trying to understand the the the difference in the in $3 million between Gallagher. >> Can I and the city remain >> council one your point of information? >> Yeah. Can you just So if we're on the second page, >> Yeah. >> we should be looking at the middle box. That's the one that to do, right?
>> That's highlighted in yellow is that $47 million number. So if you look at the the very middle of it that says 47 with the yellow box around it. If you look at this red box, this red box is the same exact box that's on every page of this document. And it's just highlighting which number is related to it to build
to that $58 million number. So this is just step one is that 47. And then the next page would be the ETNA cost. And then the next one's the dental. And like I said, there is nothing for life insurance that's on here. But all of those are what build up to that 58 million. >> Right. So, and I just want to and I'm
not trying to take away from my colleagues time. I just want to clarify it. So, if you go down Blue Care Elect is one of the uh health insuranceances that you can take, right? So, now they break it down individual family plan. And then in that you can see the city
share, the employee share, and then the bi-weekly cost. And then you've got the network blue and then you got the access blue saver that goes all the way down and then the the percentages on the on the side are what the increases are from last year. So blue car elect is seeing a
10.5% increase from last year. Uh so all the plans are essentially. Then the total cost for all those plans is 62.8 million. Our share is the 47. That's what's highlighted in that red box up top. Then she's taken the Etna plan
which is the retirey health care plan. She's adding that and then there's the dental and the life insurance which comes out outside of Gallagher but that's added to the 58 if that's >> okay. So can we agree column two 47,110,572
>> correct >> does not include health or dental we all agree with that >> that is all that is health >> does not include >> I didn't mean health you know what I mean or the dental or the life >> it's not life insurance okay >> correct >> so if we add 1 million88,487
to 47110,572 2 we come up with 48,199 not 49,685. >> Yeah. So I can you please >> say those numbers again council please >> I know what you're saying but there's the what's in here are they are our external from the general fund that
provides their cost of it. So the redevelopment authority is not a general fund entity but we let them use insurance through our our stuff. So they pay us directly for those costs. this total number that Gallagher gives us, it's just an employer share for our plan. So that includes anything that's
funded through the plan, they don't care what the funding source is. So the redevelopment authority, BCTC, that we provide health insurance to CDA, they have to pay their portion of it. So those are the deductions that you're seeing from that $58 million number. We're taking out the costs that are not the general funds costs in that sense
and not the city's costs even, >> which is bringing you to 49,685. >> It's bringing it to the 49 million. Yes. >> Right after those deductions. >> Correct. So then it shows below that that's what we're suggesting as a funding amount.
>> I will say I could be being dense. However, when you tell me that Gallagher's numbers don't include dental and health and you add dental and health, it does not come to 49 million. And I understand
you're take you're taking those other reductions. I understand you're starting at 58 million with dental and health. I understand you you're taking out the BCTC, the RDA, the school grants, etc., etc., and it brings you down to the 49 million.
>> But the number you come down to, if you add dental and health to Gallagher's 47 should match that number. They shouldn't be off by a million dollars. >> No. Because all of those entities, BCTC, CDA, redevelopmentally, they all have
dental, health, life, they have all of those insurancees. So, they're paying different parts of all of that. It's not just one of those insuranceances. So, it it doesn't work out to be the same in that sense. >> Okay. So, where can we see what their share is that they're actually paying?
Is there a minute? Wait a minute. is what they're actually paying the RDA minus 14,942. Are they are you backing out their share? Is that >> 14,942? So, and that's I'm going to say it's never perfect because it's based on
what their current enrollment is and then the new rates. So, could their enrollment change? Sure. But otherwise, yes, it's based on their current enrollment and the new rates. Okay. So, it is an exact number. So, they're contributing and then you're backing out their contribution is essentially what you're telling me.
>> I'm taking the total cost and then I'm backing out their portion of it. >> Correct. Which brings you to 49,685. >> Correct. >> So, if you take all those numbers away and we're at 49685 and then you take the numbers you quoted
me of 1,ion88,000 and add it to the 47,000. It's it's a million dollar discrepancy. the 47,000 that 47 million is not the whole city share it's all of those agencies included in that >> can so point of point of information so that
million18 is is just solely the dental the 799 250 >> and the life insurance of 289 237 >> but that that number is already captured in the 58 million >> yeah I understand that
>> what's the confusion if you understand But we don't agree if we make all those deductions, the numbers in the end, if you add this to that or deduct that from that, they should match. No, because part of that is their health insurance. So part of what BCTC is paying for is health insurance. Part of
its health insurance, part of its dental, part of its life. So you have to take that big number and take out all of their portions. So that's what's happening there. So, it shouldn't be some of that dental and life insurance number that I gave you is part of BCTC and part CDA and part RDA.
>> Whatever their 75% contribution is >> for their employees taking any of those benefits. All right, I'll leave this alone right now. Like I say, I could be completely misunderstanding it and I don't have a
problem if I am saying admitting I am. Um so in terms of health insurance so when I look at um the enterprise accounts
they pay the city council for example uh health insurance in the for city >> they contribute a portion of that's indirect correct >> okay how many people get receive health insurance
in the city council >> the employees of the city council >> two >> two of them yes >> two and according to this the indirect cost for two employees is 82,800
53 >> council. What are you looking at, if I may ask? >> This was something that was sent in an email today. This this is a uh >> calculation of the indirects for FY27. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I would beg to say that that number
is way off. >> Um I mean it I can relook at that calculation. There is a chance that that could be wrong the way that was pulled in. So, I mean that it is what would we say? an average of 25,000 for indirect cost benefits for
>> in general benefits being added on to employees. So, you're right that seems like there's more in there than there should be, but that I can relook at that line and adjust it if we need to. >> Well, I think I think we need to because if you look at let's go back to the
information you gave us. So let's say we have two uh let's say we have two employees in city council both of which receive benefits
um is 28 for for the most expensive most expensive um single plan is 2835 a month times 12 months would be $34,000.
not $83,000. >> I can like I said if it would have been if you could have called me when I was still at my desk I could have pulled that and corrected it but I I didn't know and I don't have that backend detail to correct that right now. >> So I guess I I guess the problem is I didn't have it early on either and I'd
been like all day looking at this and trying to figure this all out. So I'm sorry that >> No, it's okay. I just apologize that I don't have it. I just don't have anything in front of me to be able to change that or correct that. >> So, um, under under mayor and city administrator. >> No, that's not where I want to go. I'm
sorry. >> I'm sorry, Mr. President. Just through. I hate to keep interrupting, but what is it? What are you looking at? >> I am looking at indirect calculations for FY274. >> That was sent to her when she called me today for the enterprise. >> I haven't sent it to everybody yet. >> Oh, could we get this? Everybody can
look at it >> because it's very important. And the reason I'm looking at it is I feel >> would you like us to have a recess to allow this to be printed because candidly you're the only one that has it. >> That's what I was going to ask. >> We're going to do a two two-minute recess. >> Everybody received this information. >> You have copies. >> I will go make them.
>> Oh, show me. >> Two minute recess. Hey, Heat. Heat. as far Our city council committee on finance meeting is now back in order. >> Right. So, I'm going to let people get this look at a little bit. I'm going to uh go back to another question.
>> Okay. >> So, let's go back just for a second. >> So, we're looking So, the 47 million that that we're going back and forth on, that's when the rate was going up 10 and a half%. That's not the final number. It
went and health went up 88.6%. So, it's actually 46 million. So, we still have a million-dollar discrepancy because we're basing it on you're you're giving us numbers and telling us this is right and this works, but you're basing it on the numbers from when it was when
health was insurance was going up 10.5%. >> Correct. We we budgeted higher to be conservative given that the other column is putting things at risk and is assuming that we'll have some of these other savings come in. And so to make sure that we have enough and in the talks of rebuilding a fund balance and
getting back to where we needed to be, we went with the higher number to be safe and conservative with it. So, >> okay. So, I was thinking 900,000 I was thinking incorrectly. I was stating it incorrectly, but in the end result, it's a difference of a million dollar.
>> It's $900,000 more than what it should be. >> Okay. So, at least So, we agree on that now. >> No, that was intentional, >> right? $900,000 more than what I'm going to say Gallagher said we needed to do. >> Okay. So, I guess that would lead me to ask
>> how often and I know you haven't been here long, so I can't even I'm not going to place blame anywhere. Um, these are just going to be some overall statements. I suppose I think Mr. Molini would be more aware of some of this. None of his fault either. Can
you tell me how many times how many times over the years have has Gallagher underestimated healthcare? >> Gallagher doesn't underestimate. They provide a number of where we should be at. So we get carrier projections that
usually come in much higher. That's directly from the insurance carriers. Gallagher takes a look at it and says this is based on our analysis where we're comfortable with you budgeting at. Um, and then it's up to the city from that point to budget accordingly. There have been times I'm aware of where we
haven't budgeted to that number and then there are times that we have. I I couldn't give you an exact number historically of how many times we've gone directly to that number. Okay. >> What I can say is this year we're going directly to that number. >> So I guess I guess my point is I can
tell you that in FY21 at the end of the year there was a $6.6 million surplus. FY22, there was a $3.4 million surplus. FY23, a $4.6 million
surplus. FY24, $3.3 million surplus. FY25 is the only iffy year because the GLP1s and we don't even know yet that we're going to end up in a deficit. We could end up with break even, a little under, a little over. Would you agree with that? >> Yeah. And that surplus is if the city
had budgeted directly or exactly to the number that Gallagher had provided. >> Right. So I guess I guess the answer to the question is they're really good at what they do. >> Yes. Very. >> And I think we can certainly trust their
numbers. So to me there's some room with with that $900,000 number. I guess that's my point there. Um so >> so can we back up for one second? Just just so when you look at those columns,
Gallagher's suggestion was 10 and a half%. And that that's why we're budgeting to 10 and a half%. When you see that final elected number, we did two things. We worked with the PEC to put in a co-pay for the weight loss drugs after October 1st. So we are we
are essentially eliminating those drugs. People are getting 12 scripts of those drugs and then after that 12 scripts, they're done. October one, if you haven't had your 12 fills yet, you'll have a $50 co-pay after that. Same access to 12 scripts. You're done after
the 12 scripts. The PEC because the employee trust has had a healthy balance puts money at risk to lower that that rate. So, they've elected the 8.4% increase. So, that's why you see that final elected number, but you're putting
money at risk when you do that. so they can draw a little bit of money off that employee trust fund. What the city is saying is we're not putting that money at risk. We're going to budget exactly to the 10 and a half that Gallagher is saying we should be at and and you know if claims work out, we're not going to
draw down. We're not putting anything at risk. If we have a good year, we're rebuilding that employee trust fund. >> Okay. On that note, let me ask you this question. In those agreements with the PEC, in those discussions, not only did you and
did they agree because once upon a time they had a $50 co-pay, they reduced it to a zero. This year, because of the 10.5% increase, they agreed to go back to the $50 co-pay.
Also, they and the city also agreed that they would put in either $200 or $250,000. The city would contribute $1 million and that's what brought this down to 8.5%. Gallagher is not still saying we're at
10 and a half. Gallag is saying because of those agreements and because of of those actions, it reduced it from 10.5 to 8.6 >> the rate. Yes. Right? That's a whole different conversation. That's a whole
different story. So in reality, the increase is 8.6. Gallagher is not suggesting we're still at 10.5. So we've reduced it by a million dollars and we're still adding $900,000. >> They're putting it at risk. It's
literally called at risk. It's saying to draw from the fund balance. We've been talking about rebuilding our fund balance. So we don't want to draw from that fund balance but we set one rate for the city. So we are setting a rate and that is the rate that you see. So that rate is what is elected for healthcare insurance but we are funding
to more than that so that we don't draw down on our fund balance. The employee side has a fund balance to draw on and they want to draw down on it. We don't have that luxury at this point. So we are saying that we don't actually want to draw on that money. >> Okay. So, I guess in that line, um, and
I was going to say this later on, but I'll say it now. Um, based on what you're saying, I think what we should be doing is we should always be carrying a minimum balance in the employee trust fund, which should be 3 to 5% of the
gross claims plus three months of incurred but not reported claims. So every year we would have a minimum balance in in the health care fund. Correct. So we wouldn't have to worry about that. >> Correct. >> And that can be done year after year. >> Correct. >> Um and
>> we've been working towards that. That's what's that's why we wanted to go with the higher number because we're still trying to get up to that threshold. >> We just transferred $5 million >> and that that number that you said that three and a half and the the 10 um the three months of claims, we need at least $10 million in >> the best practice of three months of
claims would be 10.65. $65 million based on averages. So, we still want to build that account up. >> So, if we start doing that every year, we will get there and we will consistently have a minimum balance, which is what we should have. Yes. Correct.
>> And then the city council should get a breakdown of what makes up free cash. Uh the surplus attributed from healthcare should be transferred to the trust care to the trust fund. When free cash is certified, >> there is no free cash that is created from the healthcare trust fund. We've
everything goes into the healthcare trust fund and it all lives in there and there's no free cash from the healthcare trust fund. >> I would beg to dis disagree with that because every year that we had a surplus again, you weren't here at the time when we had a surplus of $1.79 million or
$3.3 million that didn't that wasn't put in the health in the employer trust fund. That would have been that was free cash went back into the budget and was used to >> You're right. I'm sorry. In the in the most recent years since I want to say even 2022 or 2023, we have transferred
every single dollar that is appropriated directly into the fund. No questions asked. So, you're right. Before then, that could have been different, but that does not happen anymore. >> Okay. So, let's get back to um the enterprise funds because I think there's a lot of deductions that can make be
made in the enterprise funs. I think so. We start with the city council page one. >> Sorry. >> 82,853 and uh we're looking at what did I say? 33,427 is the cost for the most expensive plan
for a single plan. So that would be 50,000 higher than it needs to be. >> Can I just be clear at what you're what you're getting at with this? You want to reduce the indirect charges within the enterprise funds. I'm saying that the enterprise funds
shouldn't be on the hook for $82,000 when the actual cost is only $33,000. >> So potentially I I think that that number could maybe be corrected, but to be clear, they're not being charged $82,000. This is breaking out what the total cost of having the city council
department is. And then below, they only take a certain percentage of that that they're then covering. So you're right, that $82,000 maybe needs to be corrected. I can relook at the backend calculations, but they don't actually just pay that whole line item. >> But would you agree that they it comes
out of the indirects. So if that number is lowered, their percentage is also lower. >> No, absolut like I said, yes. I just want to be clear that that whole line item is not the total amount that they're paying. They're just paying a portion of it. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on that. But I agree if we correct that, it would change the numbers.
>> Okay. So if we go to page five of six, there's six pages. Page five of six. We have now this is underwater and sewer. We have two environmental police. Correct. >> So technically technically we don't have
any individual environmental police anymore. They're all now part of patrol and my understanding the last count was that there was five. Four or five. Is that correct? >> Four to five. >> Four to five. >> So where are they now? Are they in the police department? Are the environmental police? Where are they? They're in the police department. They've always been
in the police department, but instead of being labeled as environmental police in the budget >> as a separate thing, they are patrolman that focus on environmental police. >> Okay. So, >> shouldn't then their health come out of that budget as opposed to
>> It does. That's what I'm saying with this. This is just saying the total cost of having that department for the city is that total number at the end. the total cost for the personnel and for the health care and the retirement and the Medicare is that number. So then what happens is we take that total number,
I'm going to round it and say $500,000 and we say that the general fund is responsible for 84% of that. Then from there, water's covering 5.7% and sewers covering 10.3%. Because they're using that much of their time for it. That is what that breakout
is. So then it's taking that $500,000 number and giving five of 5.7% to water and 10% to sewer. And these are the departments and these are the individuals and the positions that these departments have agreed with their indirect cost agreement that they are
covering a share of because they share the benefit of those that work that's being done in the general fund. >> So under EMS facilities director it's showing EMS's share is 18.6%. 6% right. >> Correct.
>> Okay. What is what so what number is that 18.6%. Because this is simply showing facilities director is 46,000 for insurance which really it's not because the most expensive plan is only 40,123 for the year. So that's over by 6,000.
Um what is their share? What is their what's the 18 point share? Where is it? How much was EMS charged for that? >> So that that 18.6% it's of it's of the dispatchers. It's a portion of the dispatchers and of the facilities director. So it is the bigger number
from that is taking a portion of the dispatchers. Can >> I just point of clarification >> your point >> where where so we were just talking about if we go back up to water and sewer general fund share of 83.95% 5.72% 10.33%. How are you coming up with those
percentages? Can you just explain that? >> So it's based on the their budget. So, I think that those percentages, it's it's a little bit different on these ones because now you're looking at just their portion. So, if you look at the first page again, you can see that we're taking all of those numbers and breaking
out all of the departments that are sharing it. So, with that, you're you're then just I'm going to say condensing it to be just between general fund, water, sewer. So, you're taking their total budgets without their debt portions of it. And then you're saying that that the
rest of that operating budget is how much time is how much of their share is. So especially considering like the assessors um and collectors, right? Especially with collectors, the amount of money they collect. So the amount of revenue they bring in is the portion of
their time that you would say that they spend citywide. So if they're collecting all of the city's money, however much is related to water is what they do and sewer is what they do. So, I'm sorry. I I didn't follow that. >> I It's a very It's a spreadsheet that
has a lot of formulas and data in it that I think it it'd be easier if you could see the formulas. I want to be clear, I never I didn't create this. This was something that's been used. This is something I've seen used um in other communities exactly like this. So this is how it's been calculated. I'm
going to say in in many places by using this. So it kind of walks you through some on the methodology up top, but I mean I can send you the full document as an Excel so you can read the formulas and understand better what it's doing. But >> wouldn't you just take the I I guess
like for water, sewer, EMS, just take their total budget and then divide that by the total dollar amount which would be the general fund and the enterprise funs and get a age on that. >> It that's what I that's what I was trying to say, but it may not have been clear. >> Oh, okay. >> But I was saying that for that section that you're looking at, it's different
because EMS doesn't take a share of that. >> So then it's it's doing that same idea, but with less departments. Does that make sense? >> All right. Sorry. >> That's okay. So, let me ask you this. Um and and and
again I I keep referring to everything at the top tier, the most expensive. We have people in all three categories. We have three tiers. So these numbers could yet still be lower. >> So the the health care the way that that's calculation is working, it's taking the total health care budget, I'm
going to say less these outside entities, right? So with just the general fund, the school department, water, sewer, EMS, it's taking their salaries and taking all that it costs us to fund health care and dividing it amongst that. So it's saying that on average for this amount of salary, this
is what we're paying in benefits. So it's not a perfect ratio ever. It's never, you know, Nick has this much in health insurance, you have this much in life insurance. It's based on what the average cost is by salary. there's it to do it individually with that level of specificity when projecting out for
FI27. It's I'm going to say near impossible. So there's a calculation that shows on the health insurance side that's saying this is what the salaries are, this is what the you know the total budgeted number is and cost and this is how we're kind of splitting it out by salary basis. So it's it's not a perfect
calculation and again I can relook at how we're doing that but I can tell you right now that especially when forecasting forward it'll never be perfect and exact not knowing what the way plans change and who's going to be enrolled and who's going to do what and there's other costs that are other than just a basic health insurance plan that
are included in that. >> Okay. So let me ask you um EMS share 18.6%. Um, we have the police share, the fire share, EMS share, retirement, $527,370,
and and then there's a note that says plus fire. What is that plus fire for EMS? Is that the if is that the five people the fire? >> Yes, I'm sorry. >> The five firemen they used to pay for. >> Correct. and that they're now not so
they were paying as a direct so they directly took those employees as much as they were fire employees and they were taking them off of their rigs and paying for them because they were using them. Now they are not doing that and she has agreed to still pay for them but it can't be as a direct expense. She agreed to have it included in her indirect cost
calculation and so that's what that is. So, so, so EMS is paying retirement and health care for five people that they don't >> for a small portion of it. No, for the it's for their salaries and their it's for all of their benefits, including
part of their salaries. >> And that's $336,420. >> Correct. That's what they've been if you look back at past budgets, that's what they were covering. >> All right. Um, I I can say as one person, I've been
looking at this today for hours trying to make sense out of all of it. I think honestly I need longer to digest it and go over it. Um, that's probably more conversation for another day. Um, and I'm just going to point to one more thing, let other
people speak. Um, I have to find the other page. I keep confusing myself. I've done this to myself three times. I have to figure out on page 142 in the budget,
it shows general government pension pension contribution at 33 million, school pension contribution at 10 million. >> You're talking about for FY26. FY27
>> FY27 is 11 million for school. >> Well, in this budget book on page 142, it says school pension contribution 10,69,316. >> That's for FY26. >> FY26 revised. >> Oh, I'm sorry. All right. My error. I
got you now. So 33 and 11. Okay. But if I look at pension under indirect calculation on page three of six, it shows general fund at 22 million and school at 18 million. >> So to be clear on that one, we don't use
this sheet for schools. This is data that I thought I was clear with you on the phone that we have not been using. It's data that I've been looking at as we're going through our indirect cost agreement with them to see if we should be adjusting it or not. So that is not an actual number. We're we're working through that as we're revisiting our
redirect our indirect cost agreement with them about what their share should be. So that is not a final number. It's not firm. It's not actual at this point. But it is part of the reason that we're having these conversations that on the back end about the indirect cost because I am coming up with different numbers
than what we have been doing. So I we are looking at that as a team and this is not an official number at all. So, >> and had I known this was going to be shared to the rest of the council, I would have had that pulled out, but I thought I was just sending it to you. >> Oh, okay. So, it's an indirect calculation that's not real
>> that just for schools at this point. Like I said, I I'm I'm working through that at this. Either way, that total number is being shared between us and schools right now, but I am I am unclear if more of it should be shifted to schools. >> Okay, I will yield for now. Thank you
very much. >> Thank you, Constencade. So, I feel like we're just talking words. I I just I'm so confused. I I don't know. Like I guess this is the first time I'm seeing this indirect cost agreement and
I it's it's not making sense to me. >> It's not an agreement. It's a calculation. >> I mean, I'm sorry. Sorry. >> Yeah. I'm thinking about >> I I wasn't expecting it to be shared tonight and I would have loved to be able to have a presentation and full information on it. We have been talking about this. I've been talking about sharing it. We've been talking about
getting back to it, but this isn't really the way I intended for this to become the conversation on this. >> Ask the questions. It's okay. >> No, I know. I just I feel bad because he's saying it's kind of thrown in and it's confusing to understand at a quick moment. >> Health insurance generally speaking is confusing. >> Well, this is indirect.
>> I'm talking about the indirect cost. >> Indirect costs generally. So, >> I'm just trying to figure out. So, if I'm looking at page 146 for EMS, the indirect costs, the charges is
$5.2 million. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, the document that I have here, the five of six, >> five of six. >> Yeah. on the document that you just so
under EMS can you just explain that portion to me how this ties into to page 146 so the dispatchers so >> so page it if you look at six of six that's what really more of what is tying
into the page the numbers that you'll see so part one part four and part five those add together to make up transfers to general fund Part three is the transfers to the health insurance and part two is
retirement. Sorry, that was really out of order, but that's why my brain works down the list. >> So, part five is additional support. So, EMS is being charged $863,000. >> Correct. That's their portion of the dispatchers and their fire um shared
squad. So if you if you look back at past budgets, they were kind of in there as a direct charge, but they're not a direct charge. So if you look at their salary expenses, that's been changed to not being included as part of a direct cost and it's being shifted over to their indirects.
>> So how do you get that five? So the retirement that's 527370 is that is it is it in that column or >> no that that the pension that you're seeing within those departments. So within dispatch within you know city collector and sorry
not collector but in the financial services and all of that that's just part of the basic transfers to the health to the general fund. So in in essence that's a revenue source for us and then we make all of our payments into the healthcare trust fund and some of that is covering some of that. It's
not like a it's a it's a covering it as a revenue. It's not a direct transfer. So, all right. So, let I guess let me take a step back because I I really need to try to understand this. So, page five of six is solely part five, the additional departmental support, right?
>> So, when I get to EMS, I'm just going to be focused on EMS. >> You're taking the dispatchers, that's the total budget across. So, if I go into this and I look at dispatching, $2.6 million would be all of this, right? All the charges associated with
dispatch. Is that correct? It's it's an yes that's >> and then facilities director is the same thing across the board. So then when we add those up $2.8 million
>> correct >> what are we doing with that number? So that number is >> So if you look at So I happen to just call it like a police share and um a fire share because obviously we don't charge them for any of that in an indirect way but taking the fact that
those are supporting some of these public safety items right we are adding them together saying this is what that costs and if we were diving it out so that should still come out to the 100%. So between police and fire, I'm going to call that at the general fund share and then EMS is because they use the portion
of the dispatchers for their time. So that's that's where that's pulling in from. >> So when you say police share, 44.13% of dispatchers and facility director of that $2.8 million is attributed to the police department. Is that is that what >> Yeah, but it's the the facilities
director part makes it a little bit less clear because it's just grabbing the general fund portion and it was easier to pull it out in that sense. But yes, it's to show that we're breaking it out between the public safety >> department. So dispatching. >> So 44% of that $2.8 million is police.
So if I take that 44.13, I haven't done the math, multiply that by the 2.8, I'm getting the 1.2. >> Correct? And then same with fire 37 >> correct >> percent and then EMS >> correct >> and then those all add up to 100%.
>> Correct. >> So no other department uses the facilities director. >> No, but that's what I'm saying. The police and that's that the facilities one just seems misleading for because it doesn't really matter. We're not actually charging them anything, right? We're never going to charge police and fire for use of dispatch and facilities.
But that's making up the rest of the general fund share. No, but but what you're doing is that if there's other departments, it should lower the EMS. So, you're overcharging EMS because you're charging EMS. So, you may not be charging police and fire, but you're charging EMS. And so, you're saying that the facilities director only applies to
three departments. So, if we shut down tomorrow, you're saying that Alivera has to stay on there because 100% of his time is going to solely police, fire, and EMS. >> I can I I can correct it. time when I shared this, there wasn't any feedback
before now. So, I'm happy to take the feedback and we can adjust this calculation sheet. >> Did I mean did Beth not have it? >> She did. >> Oh, she did have an issue. >> No. >> Oh, she did. Oh, >> no. >> You didn't. >> I'm sorry. I I've shared this with the the pertinent internal people that and
nobody had comments or concerns like this. So, >> okay. happy to make these adjustments as as everybody would wish, but I >> no I I think this this document and I I know you didn't put this together. I think this document is extremely just
convoluted and and confusing. So I know what we're trying to do. So the indirect cost agreement I I fully understand. So we're we're essentially saying that in the general fund, all the departments that are currently operating, if we were to close government completely to the
public and just had water, sewer, and EMS operate, we would need to figure out what that cost would be for those departments. So we take the appropriate share from the treasurer's office, the collector's office, the finance director, and apply it to all those departments for their share associated
with that. I'm I'm just when we go through it, it just seems like it's a little heavy to just the enterprise funds and I and I get we're trying to get some money back into the general fund for for revenue and it's just taken from the enterprise fund shifting it, but from my standpoint, it's
it's a little heavy-handed with with regards to that. And it's just it's hard. We I mean, I don't think we would have ever had this conversation because we don't get the documentation to see how the indirect costs are are made up. So, it's just now that we've got this document, there's a lot of questions that come into, you know, how we're calculating
that indirect costs. And so, when we get to the to the first page, like city council, you know, $544,000 budget. Um, >> well, the audits in that, so that's a huge factor of it. >> Yeah.$170,000.
Um, so when I look at page one, if I was just to go through, add up all the enterprise funds, add up the general fund, and then I take the school department budget, they're coming out to
the 52% of the total budget. Water is coming out to 3.57, sewer is coming out to 710, EMS is coming out to 3.62%. Right? And so then those so the city council budget is getting charged to three just call it uh 4% to EMS 7% to
sewer and another four 4% to water >> correct >> and then so all these other departments so find so what we're what essentially what we're charging to these departments are the city council the city clerk all the financial services so
>> all of it >> auditors you're missing assessors and Um, right. So, I would think the collectors would be in there, right? >> So, the collectors are not in EMS because we don't collect EMS revenues at
the window to take like the payments for fees. We obviously manage money, which is why treasurers is included, but the collectors don't actually take payments at the window. >> We only do that for >> they do for water water and sewer, right? So, they should be included. >> So, that's why they're on that separate breakout on the back page. >> All right. I haven't gotten that far.
Okay. And then so we're taking the mayor, city administrator, HR, MIS, and law. And then we're doing snow and ice as well. What's the logic behind snow and ice? >> That's how it's always been included as one of the departments. So I was not
going to discclude it without changing indirect cost agreements. >> Okay. All right. I yield on this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything further on insurance? Conscency 3 indirects insurance other governmental the item constell. >> Thank you.
>> I do want to ask about SERA um specifically u the regional transit authority line on page 142. >> This is a massive increase of 37.5% 624,000 not consistent with any other increase
we've seen in the past. I know that this is a number that is provided to us, but I I wanted to direct my question, I believe, to uh the acting uh city administrator because I believe you sit on the represent the city on the sort of
board. I'm really trying to understand why we had such a massive increase. I believe this is the largest of any increase compared to any neighboring community in in terms of both percent and dollar amount. And I just kind of want to understand, you know, is it did did they do a mass redistribution
because this is not an increase I would expect. >> I mean, it's not something that we voted on. We voted on the budget, but we didn't vote on any assessments to come to the communities. I know free fairs has played into it in the past and they have extended those free fairs and they
have um done the microtransit in the MBTA communities as well to provide transportation near the um MBTA stations and such. So I'm thinking that probably has to something to do with it. I mean I can get a breakdown in the assessment
but it's not something that we vote on as the cert. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah, because I mean I think when I I'm looking at the the cost here, this is just a massive cost that forward is incurring additional this year than any other year. And I think even just from
our 25 spend to 26, you know, the increase was just 41,000 in change year-over-year, but we're going from 41,000 year-over-year to 624,000. and it just feels like they're, you know, shifting the burden to Florida
River in particular and like to really get a breakdown. Um, this is something just to confirm would which commission votes on this is the board of commissioners for county or who who assesses this to us? >> I'm imagining >> the state gives it to us in our cherry sheets.
>> So, the state is providing us with this assessment. The state is taking it directly from our revenues. It's not >> um it's done at the state level in that sense. I know I know the free fair is definitely impact but that's existed right nothing changed trying to think of what changed
>> there could be a funding source that was helping cover that if they had certain grant funds to start that program and that offer it and if that changed and but they decided to extend it without that same funding you know source so we can do our best to to get information on that but I want to be clear that that
you would have to go to the state to have that changed >> understood okay I I just think we should be questioning this number not just accepting it um this is just such a massive increase. I think we should really press them from the city level on finding out why this went up so much
because I'm not seeing um this type of increase in any neighboring communities and this is this is a big amount of money to people. So, um, with that I yield. >> Anything further? Council C, I'm sorry. Councilman C2, Council Camarra, >> thank you. I just actually want to go back to healthcare if I can one quick
question. >> On the city council healthcare, it's says it's $82,000. Is that for counselors or for the court? >> No, it's it's just it's it's not it's based on the salaries that are in there and a breakout of the salary. So, the way that that's calculated, it's based
on the salary. So we say we're funding health insurance, the healthcare trust fund by this amount. These are all of the salaries matching up to people that are within that eligibility to take that health insurance and we divide it out across the salaries and then we take these
salaries and estimate it. So it's a I'm going to say a very rough calculation in that sense of health care costs this per salary. So that's what that number is. >> So it's not necessarily saying that any one person is taking >> any one insurance, right? because you have to it's also part for retirees and
all of that. So it's it's more than just existing active employees taking current insurance >> because I don't I didn't think any city had health insurance from the city right now. >> I I don't I don't know and to be honest with you that wouldn't necessarily change this number. It's based on the salaries. >> Got you. What did I Thank you.
>> C1 council. >> Thank you. I actually meant to ask the question the last time but so in terms of that forecast why wouldn't we just take the the working rate like we would >> I'm sorry. Can we >> So So you're you're saying the health >> talking about on the healthare Yeah. for the indirect costs.
>> So it's it's taking that total amount though that that 49 it's really the 58 million or the 49 million I'm sorry it's the 49 million and then it's saying what are all of the salaries for school city water sewer EMS
and it's dividing it based on the salary rate in that sense. >> Yeah. But you're you're so you're taking the salary rate as opposed to the individuals, right? So why wouldn't you just take the individuals that take health care and then get the working rate and similar to what we would do on the school side because the these
numbers are extremely inflated. >> I'm going to say this is how the form was set up and it and it made sense to me in that sense to to do it in that way. So when I I can tell you that when I was in New Bedford, we used a very similar form and when we would do it at the end of the year, we would go back and we would pull actuals and we would
adjust what we set the indirects at and we would adjust it for what actually happened, >> right? >> But we don't we haven't been doing any of that here and I'm just trying to get back to having an actual calculation sheet to make these numbers. So um we could do that to get those actuals, but when projecting forward to say what it's
going to be for the year, it it's been the way that it was set up and so I just continued with it. So, and here's my issue. So, my issue, not to say that I don't have the issue with EMS and and because I I do have the issue with EMS because I think they're o being overcharged as well. However, I don't have the same concern with EMS because
how they're driving their revenue is completely different than water and sewer. So, by having these numbers, and I'm going to say inflated, I don't mean anything by it, but higher numbers than what we need. We're charging the indirect cost to go into the general fund. So that means that's going on to
the the rates, right? So water and sewer rates. So the higher these numbers are, the higher the rates are going to be on water and sewer. So that's an additional tax. So we're already doing the two and a half and then we're driving and adding additional rate increases because we have these additional indirect cost agreement. I'm sorry, I keep going back
to the schools, the indirect costs coming in from the enterprise funds into the general fund. So for me, I just want to just as one city councelor and and I understand the retirement portion. I understand we got to pay for that. To me, that just seems a little excessive
because we've already got two and a half% being charged as a levy. My my personal opinion would would be that you uh or at least for the health insurance that we're not looking at uh the retirey portion of that. So the the Etna plan, we're just looking at active plans.
you're taking the um you know working rate or the per employee per month rate that you would have and multiply it by the number of individuals that are in that department that use the healthcare so that we can capture that exact snapshot so that we're not increasing the water and sewer rates because that's
inherently what we're doing. >> I mean we didn't this year but yes >> can I ask for a point of clarification? Sure. Council, >> the enterprise funds, um, doesn't community development and the grants that they have, um, and also BCTC, they
give money back to the city through the enterprise fund. They have the working rate, Mike Dion's uh, grants and things like that. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't that go back to the to the working rate? So, those departments pay 75% of the working rate. >> Correct.
That's how we've done it in the past. Is that what you're doing? >> Which is why Yeah, that's why we're taking the 49, not the full $58 million number. We're taking the 49 million, which is after all of that comes back out of it and saying that this is what our salaries are. So that's how we're breaking that cost out of the $49
million up by the salaries that are in there. So it is Thank you, >> Councilman C1, you have the floor. So, that's just that's just my take on on this and why we should just kind of narrow it down and and I understand it's we're struggling to have our revenues keep pace with our expenses, but I I I
don't want to see it on the backs of the taxpayers again and just duplicating it because it's just an an additional tax above the 2 and a half% from my standpoint. That's just what it is. Obviously, it's it's allowable because what you're really supposed to be doing in the enterprise fund is making sure it's number one self-suffic
self-sufficient capturing all the costs. Um, but from my from my standpoint, I think it should be reasonable because we know that any increase in the indirect costs are going to have a a direct impact on what the rates are. So, and again, we can argue that with EMS,
but and when you get to EMS, I just think it's it's not fair that, you know, I understand EM EMS is generating additional revenue and all this other stuff, but to to try to say that, you know, 18
18% of the facilities director expenses for 28,000 is going to EMS. I mean, EMS has one building, right? They got one facility over >> I mean he also oversees all of the fire stations that they're in too.
>> I I I get it, but I mean the argument would be that they got the new facility. How how many people are really in these other facilities? How long are they really there for if they're on the 911? So I mean we're saying I I don't know that it's 18%. Is is what I'm saying. Like I don't know that that number is is the right number. So um you know you got
every single other department that's in in this building. I mean I would think that a good majority of time would be spent in this building. Uh, you got the library. >> Yeah, I can I can relook at that that that facilities one. Um, for sure. And I definitely um can relook at that one,
but the dispatch part you're not disagreeing with. Is that correct? Just before I go back and >> No, no. I I I think I think the dis dispatch is pretty straightforward with that. That you know, you're getting the 911 calls out of that. Yep. >> That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that I was not going to go back and not do everything.
>> All right. With that, I yields. >> Thank you, Councilman C4. Council Lion. >> Yeah, I just want to um say that I think to base it on salaries across the board definitely inflates all the numbers is
not the way to go. So let's take again city council. It's the easiest one to do. Two employees 30,000 a year, not 83,000. There is not one city council that receives health care. In 2017, the charter
was voted on, was accepted, and in that charter, it said anybody not on city healthcare prior to that charter was not eligible. So to base it on all the salaries in city council when nine people aren't
even eligible, you just can't. And I think that and that should go through the I think the the entire thing should be that way. I don't think >> nobody else will have that same issue. All of the other departments have people that are fully eligible for healthcare. >> I understand that. But would you agree that not every single employee in the
city of Fall River has city healthcare? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I guess that's my point. As opposed to saying basing on entire salaries in one department, you have to take the step to identify how many employees do we actually have on health
care. And then the numbers have to be based on that number, not on the entire department. Okay, >> I guess is what I'm saying because yes, that's driving numbers. That's and it's inflating numbers, honestly. Um, and again, I'm not trying to be, you know,
accusatory or anything. It's just a fact, I guess, is the best way to put it. So, with that, I yield. >> Thank you. Constant C6. Council Pekum. >> Just one question. And if we go to page 140 under debt service,
>> I just want to get some clarification on these numbers. >> Yep. >> So the Dery High School debt exclusion FY25 actuals you have is 5,517,614. >> Yes. >> And then if I go back to page 23, Dery
debt exclusion FY25 actuals 2583005. >> Um I'm sorry, you said 20. 258. Yeah, it's page 23. I apologize. Idol 23 dery dead exclusion. I
so that number being in there is I'm going to say hard because the way it works is you're looking at actuals. So that bolded number that 139 is actual receipts that we had of tax payments for that year. But the way that it's
calculated, you're right, that amount would have been part of the debt exclusion. It's the dery. It's the debt that's eligible for that exclusion. we may not have either one collected at all or two taken that full amount that's eligible. So, I'm just breaking out the debt payments based on the Derpy debt exclusion, but that doesn't mean we take
every penny of that every year, nor does it mean that we collect it. So, that's why that calculation could look weird. So, I can look at that again. >> So, that one in >> for FY25 actuals, just when you're talking about the 25 actuals, it kind of skews it. If you look, I pulled it out for 26 projected because it's
>> to say what portion we've collected that was from the exclusion or not is is a hard. >> If you go to FY26 revised, >> page 23, you got 5147245. >> So that's how we that is how we budget.
>> And then on page 140, it's 518315, >> right? So that means that we I'm going to say we didn't take the full exclusion. I know it's a $40,000 only short change, but it means we didn't take the full exclusion when calculating the rate for the levy. So, the total levy is that bolded number. And to get
to that, you have your new growth, that's a firm number. Your two and a half% that's a firm number. So, then it means that that exclusion, whatever doesn't add up to that is the difference. So, it means that we took 40,000 less than what we could have for that
exclusion. >> What page are you looking at? >> 23 and 140. Yeah. >> 3/4 of the way down on 140 will be the debt exclusion for Derby High School. >> I know. It's just confusing to me. >> It is confusing. I'm going to be very
clear with that because it the debt exclusion is the total debt amount that we are allowed to exclude. What we actually take is always going to be I'm going to say some pennies off, right? It's never when we calculate this this levy is based off of the budget the full
budgeted numbers and for us to end up exactly as we should to the penny every time. It doesn't always happen that way. So sometimes we don't take I'm going to say technically speaking the full amount that we could point of information. >> Yeah. Point of clarification. Was it in FY25 that the administration um took
some action to reduce that impact on the taxpayers? >> I don't I don't think it was. I think the number that looks skewed is because we didn't receive the full receipts, but I will look at that. It could be that, but I I don't know if that's what it is. >> My memory serves you right. I think that's that was there was action taken of the administration to lessen the blow
on on the taxpayers for the dery debt solution. >> Isn't that what page 23 says with the minus 1.2? >> It might be it, but I I don't want to say that for sure. I would rather pull it to confirm. >> Can we check to see if that last overlay is a 1.25 years?
That last overlay is 1.2. It was 1.25. That was for sure. I know that that overlay is correct. That is a firm number. We take it. We pull it out and that's a I can pull that report to show you exactly what it was. >> All right. With that, I yield. Thank you, Council President. >> You're welcome, counselor. Anything further? Any other questions? Council in
seat for Council Vice President Dion. >> Yeah, sorry. I just spotted this. So, this was on our desk when we came in today and I hadn't looked at it. So, if I look at the appropriation order that you gave us for EMS >> Okay. Uh to be clear, uh what I had the clerk do is just make extra copies of
the appropriation order. This wasn't from them. There's no change. >> So I just had the Correct, Madam Clerk. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I just wanted councils to have extra copies. >> All right. So this is the appropriation. >> Sorry. I just didn't know. >> I didn't know either. I stand corrected. >> It's the same appropriation order in our books. >> Yep. Okay. So when I'm looking I guess
my point is, and again, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. But if I'm looking at this, the departmental receipts and the departmental expenses, direct and indirect expenses versus the receipts is identical.
18,38,739. Correct. Correct. >> Because they have a balanced budget. >> They have an entirely balanced budget, which means that I hate to say it. I almost want to say that yeah, we can see that we're going to find that hurt that the EMS budget is
inflated uh because I don't know where the talks are for contractual talks, but this tells me that any increase through a contract, they can't afford to pay it. They're
going to have to come down for a transfer or additional monies. >> So, um correct. >> Well, no. So when we when we did the um the overtime change that we discussed some yesterday with the FLSA and all of
that. So that change from paying them the way we had been with the straight 42 hours every week to changing it to being 24 and then 48 and having the overtime that resulted in a I think it was a 4.5% base pay increase. I'm going to say
naturally without any CBA, without anything just by changing that they all got an increase of 4.5%. So I can tell you that even without having come down for anything to be changed, they have already started to realize what is now in their CBA. So it is part it is mostly
already baked in because of that. So there isn't actually a much more dollar value that will be coming down >> when it does come down. >> Okay. >> And there is not a concern about being able to afford it from the chief's perspective on the revenues that they
have coming in. So I I mean I I'm not going to fully speak to that for her, but because the majority of it's already included in their base budget, the with the the way the overtime change it's >> so so to say mostly covered before they
come down indicates they will be needing to come down at some point. >> I mean we always have to come down with the CBA to have it be approved and technically funded in that sense. So yes, we always have to come down with that. >> All right, with that I yield. Thank you. >> Anything further? Any other questions? Council C7. Council Per,
>> there's three um departments that haven't had their contracts renewed. Correct. >> Three units. >> Three. >> Yeah. So, EMS will be down later this month. Um so, it'll be Teamsters, it's for Teamsters, um both police unions, and then fire. >> Is there anything in this budget for
those raises for the negotiation? >> Yes, there is um a $400,000 line item at this point in time for >> And that's for all for all of those. So, if they got a two and a half%, what would that give us >> in all the people that are there?
>> I don't have that full number in front of me, but I can tell you that when we looked at um when we did it for ASME, it was for 2 and a half% it was about 144,000. So, >> well, ASME is small, but police and fire are larger at
>> I mean, ASME is actually probably more people, obviously lesser salaries, but it's more people. So, I was just trying to say to give you some perspective, um, I would say a 2 and a half% within police and fires got to be upwards of 200 to 250,000.
>> So, 250 2 to 250, but we have 400 in there. >> Correct. It may it's it's not a perfect number and I to estimate that if I knew an exact number to put in there, it wouldn't be an estimate anymore at that point. So, we will have to have those conversations
as contracts begin to settle. >> And the debt exclusion for Dery and the payment for Diamond, uh, that was coming out of the budget. So, you have 1.7 for diamond this year. That was in the
budget, but they had gotten another payment as well. Correct. I >> I'm not sure. I'm following. I'm sorry. >> How much have we paid diamond last year? And what are we paying them then this year? >> So this year in FY26 >> Yes. >> and then FY27.
>> Yes. >> Sorry. Um we are at >> we had given them 4.6 I thought. >> Yeah. I don't want to misspeak at this point. My brain clearly has too much in it. Yeah. So it's 4.5 this year, >> right? >> Next year is 5.2. >> 5.2.
But didn't we take 1.7 1.7 mill with that to >> to transfer into the stabilization fund for diamond >> for diamond? >> So that would be probably for an FY28 payment. >> I'm just feeling that
um a lot of this budget depends and when we were questioning you on different things, oh we'll come down for that later, you know, we can come down for that later. For example, the parking garages. They're like $5 million for parking garages as our capital.
>> Yeah. >> There's like $5 million for parking garage. Has that contract been signed already? >> So, the contract has been awarded. We We should have something down for the next meeting on Tuesday. >> But here's my thought. We signed a contract with a contractor to fix that.
You know, to fix >> We awarded the bid. We didn't sign the contract fully yet. I'm sorry. We awarded the bid. So, it wasn't signed. It was just over. >> Correct. We need to have funding in order to fully execute a contract. >> So, where will that money come out of free cash? >> It'll be most likely debt. I >> If it's stabilization, you need two of
>> It's debt. >> It'll be out of debt. Okay. >> I just think things should be done before we even award. Make sure we have the money there. You know, not fair to the contractor. Just my my thoughts. >> Correct. But that's why a contract
hasn't fully been signed. It's the award is subject to appropriation. That's how they typically work. >> Okay, with that I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Anything further on insurance or other government? >> Hearing none, that will conclude our budget deliberations from a committee on
finance perspective. Is there a motion to refer the budget? >> Motion to refer to full counsel. >> Motion to refer the item to full counsel has been made by council vice president Dion, seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I >> opposed. The eyes have it. Motion to adjourn.
>> Motion to adjourn. The committee on finance has been made by councelor reposo. Second by council vice president Dion. All those in favor? >> Opposed. The eyes have it. >> Guys good. for city council meeting will now be
called to order at 7:21 p.m. >> Um, we're going to do roll call first. >> Yes. Where am I standing? >> Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> I don't know. >> Council Scad >> here. >> Camarra >> here. >> Can >> here. >> Dion
>> here. >> Hart >> here. >> Peekom >> here. >> Pereira >> here. >> Raposo >> here. President Ponti >> here. If everybody in the chamber can now please rise for a moment of silent prayer. Thank you. And a salute to the flag of the United States of America to the
republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisibley and justice for all. >> Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are
being made were perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda. Madame clerk, the committee on finance at a meeting held on June 3rd, 2026 voted unanimously
to recommend that the following appropriation order be recommended to the full council for action. This is the FY2027 appropriation order. >> If I may just um state for the public and the council's edification on a conversation that I had with the mayor
today and our council vice president can also speak on this. Uh I'm not taking the floor, just more of an announcement. Um after speaking to um some counselors, I got the consensus that the city council as a body or as a majority would like to have seen outside counsel for
the city council in the city council budget. Now, not all of you you were in favor of that, but a majority of you were uh based on conversations we've had and deliberations we've had in this chamber. Um I spoke to the city to the mayor on multiple occasions today and over the last week and the mayor's
position right now is that um he he wants to work as on a compromise with the city council on this. He's heard from you all privately. Um, he did mention that he would give the corporation council $40,000 in an account, but it would be run through the corporation council's office and at this
point, not the city council budget. Um, he did ask today for the city council policy that was adopted the last time we had council. I believe the clerk's office did send that over to uh the mayor's office today, so they saw the policy when it came to that. But at this point, the mayor is not giving the city
council budget, the city council $40,000 in its budget for outside council. Uh he wants that to go through corporation council. Um council vice president, I'd like to give you the floor as well because I know you had a conversation. >> Yeah, I spoke with the mayor and I also
spoke with acting city administrator uh some point over here uh today. They both asked me my position on that. My my answer to them was I was adamant. I wanted the $40,000 line item in the city council budget, not in the law
department budget. Um because I feel in the law department budget, it is not at our discretion. Um and that that was my preference that I was not going to speak for everyone. But I believed that as a whole, if we were going to move forward
with this, that I believe it was the general consensus of this council um that that line item be put in city council budget because precedent has been set when we had it before. It was in the city council budget and I see no
reason for that to change. And that was basically my my conversations with them. >> Yeah. And just so we're clear for everybody, the mayor is trying to compromise with us on this matter, but he did say after speaking with corporation council is where he what he indicated to me. I'm not sure.
>> That would be correct. That would be correct. >> Very good. You yield. >> I yield. >> Council see Mr. President. So the policy that you referred to right now when you said it was voted on by the council, you're not talking about this current council, are you? You're talking there's no policy that we have. Um, the only c
the only policy that has been adopted by a council was I think it was in the year 2021 where the council adopted a policy and it's been the only policy to date that we have. >> That policy doesn't exist right now. >> The policy is still adopted as as a city council. We haven't I don't believe
there's been any vote to uh delete it or rescend it in any way, shape, or form. It's still uh of a policy of the city council. >> But that was a different city council. >> It was. Yes. So I mean I don't know how new councils would have to be binded by a policy that
was voted on by a different council that directly affected the involvement of a city council and corporation council. So it's just my opinion but I mean I probably have to re relook at that policy and maybe take a new vote >> sure >> on a new policy
>> or maybe the same one but at least we like to take a vote on it. >> I agree. >> Just want to make it clear. Thank you. If I can just counselor um I will tell you that if this goes through I have every anticipation to add it to the agenda and have input from this new council. That would never be fair to any
of you to just adopt a policy that is by another council if this goes through. I just want you to know >> appreciate that. >> Thank you. Council C7 council Pereira. >> I agree. I thought that the old the policy that was adopted I thought it wasn't a good policy. You had to get permission from the vice president or
president to use it. That's not right. We all get elected. we all get voted on and we're all here and I don't think that it should be two people determining whether or not why I want to speak to an attorney is any of anybody's business. Um if as long as it has obviously
something to do with city I would suggest that if we do it that if it's $40,000 everybody gets $4,000 a piece if you needed to contact an attorney. Whoever doesn't use the money the money goes back. If somebody has expired their 4,000 and I haven't used an attorney, I
can give money uh to one of my colleagues if they're looking to pursue some legal matter. But I think getting $40,000, it doesn't make a difference to me if it's in the council budget or if it's in um the law office budget. It's our $40,000 and they're not going to
stop us from using it. So to me, that really doesn't make a difference. Um, but I just think the way that that $40,000 is distributed is the important thing. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, council. And just for the record, citizens input was the first item on our agenda and nobody did sign up. I want the record to reflect that.
Anything further? Council vice president, council. >> Yeah. No, I agree. I agree with both council 2 and council in C7. And I think any of us looking through it, I definitely believe there can be modifications. Um, this is something that hasn't been done in years. And I so
I feel like, you know, we're more at a a square one. Start from scratch. There's nothing wrong with taking the policy, looking at it, seeing what we think is good. If we think nothing's good, we throw in a shredder, we vote it out, and we start from scratch. If we identify areas that we think are good, and then
we have modifications we want to make. There's no reason as a body we can't do that. And I agree modifications can be made. So with that, I yield. >> Thank you. Councilman C2, Council Chimera. Yeah, I know we keep talking $40,000 and $4,000 for each council. They're in close too, but there's
nothing to prohibit any city councelor from getting a legal opinion from any attorney that they wanted to free of charge as well and they could present that at any time if they had a discrepancy with anything that's going on. There's nothing that prohibits that. >> With that, I thank you. >> I just wanted to give you guys that
update because I know it was a pressing item and I didn't want uh anybody to be caught off guard about that. Is there a um so I think it's the appropriate thing to do as a council um as which we've done in the past is we have our appropriation order before us. The city clerk has the ability to uh we're going
to have her read into the record uh each appropriation order and the city council has that ability to reduce, reject, or approve if they find it necessary. Um councelor in C4, >> I was going to make a motion. I'm waiting. >> Oh, sure. I just wanted to let you know that's what we're going to Um, I would
make a motion that we go through the appropriation order line by line and we vote to reject, accept, or reduce each line item in the appropriation order. >> Motion uh made by council vice president Dion to have the clerk read each
appropriation uh line item in the appropriation order. Uh, and the council will have the ability to reject, reduce, or approve each of those items. Motion has been made by council vice president Dion, seconded by >> second. >> Seconded by council academia. Is there discussion on that procedural mechanism?
Hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. Madame clerk. >> Item A1 from the general fund for mayor salaries in the amount of $314,83. >> Motion reject.
>> Motion to reject has been made by councel Kadim. Seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> uh is a is a roll roll call. Madam clerk, we're going to roll call this >> on the motion to reject line item A1. Councelor Kadim,
>> yes. >> Camarra, >> no. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> no. >> Rapo,
>> yes. President Ponty. >> Yes. >> Carry 68, three days. >> Motion to take items A 2 to 10 together. >> Second. >> Motion to take items A 2 to 10 together has been made by councel Kadim, seconded
by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Madame clerk for the record. Item A2 from the general fund for mayor expenses in the amount of $20,250.
Item A3 from the general fund for city council salaries, $258,664. A4 from the general fund for city council expenses, $170,700 from the general fund for city clerk salaries, $381,90
from the general fund for city clerk expenses, $35,875. Line item A7 from the general fund for elections salaries in the amount of 367,638. A8 from the general fund for elections
expenses $14,300. A9 from the general fund for veterans benefits salaries $31,77. A10 from the general fund for veterans benefits expenses 1,756,55. >> Motion to reject.
>> Motion to reject has been made by councelor Dion, seconded by >> second >> councel Pekkham. Discussion on the rejection hearing none. Roll call vote, please. on rejecting line items A2 through A10. Councilors Kadim, >> yes.
>> Chimera, >> no. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Reposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes.
>> Motion carries, seven, two nays. >> Motion to take items uh B1 to B3 together. >> Second. Motion to take items B1 to B3 together after reading has been made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councel Pekham. Discussion hearing none. All
those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. Madam clerk. >> Section B for the purpose of administration B1 from the general fund for administrative services salaries 1,544,380. B2 from the general fund for
administrative services expenses 3,792,85. B3 from the general fund for judgments and claims $350,000. >> Motion motion to reject. >> Motion to reject has been made by councel Canuel, seconded by second.
>> Council Pekkham. Is there discussion on the rejection? Hearing none. Roll call vote, please. on rejecting items B1 through B3. Councelor Scadm, >> yes. >> Camarra, >> yes. Who send it back? >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes.
>> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Aea's one. Section C for the purpose of financial services. Line item C1 from the general
fund for financial services salaries 1,893,476. >> Motion to reject. Second. >> Motion to reject has been made by Council Kadim, seconded by Council Pekham. Discussion. Roll call vote >> on rejecting line item C1. Council Kadim,
>> yes. >> Chamra, >> yes. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. Hart, >> yes. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion carries, nine years.
>> Line item C2 from the general fund for financial services expenses. >> Motion to reject. >> Motion to reject after reading has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councelor Canuel. Discussion. >> Roll call. >> In the amount of $344,990.
Item C2. Councelor Scadm. Yes, >> Camarra. >> Yes, >> Canuel. >> Yes, >> Dion. >> Yes, >> Hart. >> Yes, >> Peekom. >> Yes, >> Pereira. >> Yes, >> Raposo. >> Yes, >> president. >> Yes. Take item carries 98 together. I
>> take items D1 to D3 together. Has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by council vice president Dion. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Oppose. The eyes have it. Madame clerk. Section D for the purpose of facilities maintenance. Line item D1 from the
general fund for facilities salaries in the amount of1,115,023. Line item D2 from the general fund for facilities expenses 2,181,465. And there is no appropriation for line item D3 from the general fund for facilities capital.
>> Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by council vice president Dion. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed. >> The eyes have it. >> Motion to take E1, two, and three together. >> Second. >> Motion to take items E1, two, and three together has been made by councelor
Raposo. Seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Section E for the purpose of community maintenance. Line item E1 from the general fund for community maintenance salaries 5,655,974.
E2 from the general fund for community maintenance expenses 17,891,532. E3 from the general fund for community maintenance capital has no appropriation. >> Motion to reject. >> Motion to reject has been made by council Pekkham, seconded by council vice president Dion. Is there discussion
hearing? None. All those in favor? >> Opposed? >> We don't need necessarily need a roll call. Motion uh has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? >> Opposed? Hearing no opposition. The eyes have it. >> Motion to take item F1, two, and three together. >> Second.
>> Motion to take items F1, two, and three together. Has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Section F for the purpose of community service line item F1 from the general fund for community services
salaries 2,918,265. F2 from the general fund for community services expenses $680,631. F3 from the general fund for community services transfers $30,000. >> Motion to reject. The motion to reject has been made by councel Pekkham,
seconded by council vice president Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to adopt G1. >> Motion to adopt G1 has been made by councel Kadim. Seconded by >> second. >> Seconded by council vice president Dion.
Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Motion to reject G2. Motion to reject G2 has been made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councelor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor?
>> Opposed. The eyes have it. >> Motion to approve G3. >> Motion to approve G3. General fund education assessments in the amount of 10,22542 has been made by councelor Kadim,
seconded by council vice president Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Just for the record, if I may, um just for the public's own edification, G1 means from the general fund for school appropriation in the amount of
212582416 that was approved by this council and the item uh G2 from the general fund for school transportation. The amount of 12 million 35048 was rejected as just we didn't introduce that and I want the record to reflect that.
>> Next, >> Mr. President, would you like me to introduce G3? >> Yes, please. If you can, please reintroduce G3. >> G3 from the general fund for education assessments, 10,225,442. Also approved. >> Was also approved. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk.
>> Motion to take H1 through A together. >> Second. Motion to take items H1 through A8 together, which is community protection, has been made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Madam
clerk, >> section H for the purpose of community protection, H1 from the general fund for police salaries, 24,780,499. H2 from the general fund for police expenses 2,130,62
H3 from the general fund for police capital no appropriation and no appropriation also for H4 from the general fund for harbor mass salaries. H5 from the general fund for harbor master expenses $35,500.
H6 from the general fund for fire and emergency services salaries 20 million21,736 H7 from the general fund for fire and emergency services expenses 1,187,798 H8 from the general fund for fire and
emergency services capital has no >> second >> motion to approve Approve has been made by councelor Camara, seconded by councelor Pereira. There discussion hearing none. Roll call vote on app on approval. >> On approving line items H1 through H8. Council Scadm,
>> no. >> Camarra, >> yes. >> Canuel, >> no. >> Dion, >> no. >> Hart, >> yes. >> Peekom, >> no. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Reposo, >> no. >> President Ponti,
>> no. >> Motion fails. 3A six nays. >> Do we have to make a motion to reject? >> Motion to reject. >> Second. >> Motion to reject has been made by councelor Dion, seconded by councelor reposo. Discussion. Uh council, sorry, councel peek. Discussion. Hearing none.
Roll call >> on rejecting line items H1 through H8. Councilor Scadm. >> Yes. >> Chimera. >> No. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion. >> Yes. >> Hart. >> No. >> Peekom. >> Yes. >> Pereira. No
>> repos. >> Yes. >> President Bonti. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Six, three nays. >> Section I for the purpose of other governmental expenses I1 from the general fund for debt service
13,719,946. >> Motion to reject. >> Motion to reject has been made by councel Kadim, seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? opposed. The eyes have it. >> I two from the general fund for
insurance 52,42,162. >> Motion to reject. >> Second. >> Motion to reject has been made by councelor Pekkham. Seconded by councelor repos. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed. The eyes have it. I3 from the
general fund for pension contributions 45,191,673. >> Motion to reject. >> Motion to reject has been made by councelor Pekkham, seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> I four from the general fund for reserve
fund $400,173. >> Motion to reject. >> Motion to reject has been made by councel Pekkham, seconded by councelor Raposo. Is there discussion hearing? None. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.
>> That's all we have. >> So, um, the council has in its part rejected most of the appropriation order items. Is it the will of this council at all to give the administration any kind of an indication on what items they want to see rejected? Council in C2, Council
Camaro. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. I just have a question. um for the purpose of community protection. Was that rejected? Was that passed for rejection or did that pass? >> Rejected. >> Rejected. >> H >> H1 through H8 uh was initially the
motion to approve failed to carry and then it was rejected. Yes. >> What was what was the what was the roll code? >> Six days, three days. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So, as I mentioned, council one council. >> Oh, yeah. If if we're looking for um recommended cuts, uh I've got a couple
that I'd like to to offer up. Uh the first I would like to do is a $100,000 from legal salaries. Uh that essentially would eliminate um one of the open positions, the parallegal that was there. Uh and essentially, u assistant corporation council, part-time assistant
corporation council as well. uh we've heard throughout this budget and I think what we've seen uh is that there's $700,000 in outside legal services and and the number of questions that were asked in terms of the attorneys that were actually working. Uh what we've heard was Matt Thomas who's who's
outside legal. So, uh from my standpoint, I think the salary itself, uh the salary line item itself is extremely inflated. Um and I'd like to see that that cut. Uh that's the first one. Uh second would would you like as a
council to make that in the form of a motion? >> Sure. >> Um make that in a form of promotion. >> Uh so under administrative services salaries is that the under the section councelor >> administrative services salaries >> uh it is on the appropriation order.
>> Page three. So what was that amount counselor? >> 100,000 >> $100,000. So, just so we're aware and for the public's edification, these are suggested cuts that the council is asking the administration to cut and send us back down for another
appropriation order that we've already acted on it. This is just us working for them to hear us as a body to make necessary cuts. There's a motion on the floor to reduce the uh under administration from the general fund for administrative service salaries has been
made by council kadim. seconded by council vice president Dion discussion councelor in seat 8 councelor repos. >> Yeah I guess I'm just curious is a motion necessary for this? >> It's not necessary >> but I think it'd be more organized if if people want to take the floor and if you want if you don't want to act on it we
can I mean I don't seen many people raise their hands but >> we'll be speaking as one body instead of one individual. Motion uh to reduce has been uh suggested reduce has been made by councel kadem seconded by council vice president Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none. Roll call on
the suggestion. >> Council scadim. >> Yes. >> Camarra. >> What are we voting on whether or not we want to suggest to reduce those amounts to these departments? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Present. >> Can >> Yes. >> Dion. >> Yes. >> Hart. >> No. >> Peekom. >> Yes. >> Pereira. >> Yes. proposal. >> Yes. >> President Ponti. >> Yes.
>> Motion carries seven days, one night. >> Councelor and seat one, you have the floor. >> Thank you. And then I'd also like to reduce $200,000 from administrative services expenses coming out from outside legal counsel. Uh that budget currently has $700,000. The corporation
council was before us basically saying that he's not sure if two of the cases will move forward. Um reducing that amount by $200,000 seems prudent. um if there is a need then uh if there's other cases he can always come back down to us. Uh but that budget from my
standpoint seems to be uh excessive. So um my recommendation and my motion is to reduce that by $200,000. >> The suggested reduction under uh from the general fund for administrative service expenses for $200,000 has been made by council kadim. Second >> seconded by council vice president Dion.
Is there discussion hearing? None. Roll council seat two. Council, >> I just wanted to say when the corporation council in front of us, I asked a question, what would happen if we were to cut that amount from what you have it at and he said it could be very detrimental to the city. So, I can't support it. Sorry, but that I
>> Thank you, Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion. >> Yeah. Um, that didn't get full support that night when that was suggested, but when it was suggested that night, it was cutting the entire $700,000. um and this is only cutting $200,000. He
clearly stated to us that um he believes one of those cases will be litigated this year. 500,000 is more than enough to cover that. Um it we kind of were given the impression it was 350,000 per
case, but nobody knows. Um the other one he said it could, it may not. he doesn't think it will. It might be litigated this year and um he can always come down for an appropriation if that does come
to fruition. And he has on more than one occasion stated that anytime he's asked for more money because it's been necessarily to litigate or or or or have outside council for a case that the city council has never denied the request. So
I just my position in terms of that I I think it's a fair um it's a fair >> suggest >> request and I I yield. >> Thank you consency 2 council kamar. >> I appreciate my colleagues um recollection of that meeting. I saw a completely different with that I yield.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Anything further on the on the motion on the suggest? Thank thank you councilman C3 council. Yeah, I didn't support the reduction of 700,000 because that would be detrimental. Uh giving half a million dollars into this fund and provide plenty of money for him
to manage. I'm with my colleagues that I don't want to overbudget in this area because I don't want it just to be turned over to free cash. If he needs more, he can come back down, explain it to us, and I'll fully support that. >> Thank you, council. Anything further on the on the suggested motion on the suggested reduction? Hearing none. All
uh roll call vote, please. Just to be clear, the motion is to reduce uh from the general fund administrative service expenses by $200,000. Has been made and seconded. Roll call, please. >> Council Scadin, >> yes. >> Camarra, >> no. >> Can >> yes.
>> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Rapos, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion carries, seven yay, two nays. >> Okay. Council C. Consular
in uh seat 8, consular reposo first. >> Okay, I got a few for myself as well. So, if we're going to go to >> uh bear with me one second here, please make a motion to reduce the financial
services salaries by 70,000 which essentially equates to the current vacancy of the financial analyst and compliance manager. Motion to suggest a reduction in the amount uh for under financial services from the general fund for financial services salaries in the
amount of $70,000 has been made by councelor Raposo seconded by council Pereira. Is there discussion? >> Hearing none discussion on the motion council >> se and just it goes back to the conversation we had some nights ago that um I think there is some plan to to
change this around anyway. So at this point let's let's reduce it and then when if there's going to be a reorg change in financial services then we'll we'll address that as we need to appropriately. I yield. >> Understood. Council in seat six council Pekkham >> on the motion. >> I got clarity on it. Thank >> you. >> Thank you. Anything further on the
motion only? Hearing none. Roll call please. >> Council Scadin. >> Yes. >> Camarra. >> Yes. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion. >> Yes. >> Hart. >> Yes. >> Peekom. >> Yes. >> Pereira. Yes. >> Rapo. >> Yes.
>> President Ponti. >> Yes. >> Councilman Seed8, you still have the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, next up is going to be a motion to reduce suggested reduction, of course, um, in community maintenance. No, I'm sorry,
community service salaries in the amount of $36,000. And this would be the vacancy currently in the city planning department for the administrative clerk vac. Second >> motion to suggest the reduction of $36,000 for the purposes of community
service for the general fund for community service salaries has been made by councelor Raposo seconded by councel Pekkham discussion council in seat 3 council >> is it 36,8 or the exact amount $36,36.71
>> one second council you are correct so I'll amend to 3630671 >> what is that position >> that is the administrative clerk vacancy currently in City Planning Department >> noted the the motion is 3630671 36,36.71.
>> Thank you very much. Um Council C3, do you yield? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Council C2, Council Camarra, >> does this council have the ability to reduce the budget? >> Reduce, reject, or approve each appropriation. >> Why don't we just reduce it if we want to have them reduce it? Why are we suggesting that they reduce it? Why
don't we just reduce it? I we're making recommendations and suggestions that hopefully they'll do it. If we want to really put some teeth into this, why don't we just make the motion to reduce that? >> Um the because the city council currently this I can just if I may. Um
the reason I believe that vote occurred is because the city council I think has taken a firm stance and you guys can speak for yourselves uh to have $40,000 for outside council in the city council budget. So, if they get,000,
this goes away. >> I mean, I'm I'm I've spoke to many of you and I believe that is what the council wants and we can't add that item in the >> I'm not talking about adding any items. I'm talking about we have the ability to reduce the budget. >> We're making suggestions to them to
reduce it. Yep. >> If we really want to put some teeth into this and reduce it like we're saying we want to do, we can just make that motion and vote on it accordingly and it's reduced and we save the taxpayers the money. We want to save them. Why are we asking suggesting that they reduce it for us? We have the ability to reduce.
Correct. >> We do. >> So, I'm just curious why we're not just reducing it. >> Because we can't add. >> We're not adding. I don't want. No one wants to add. >> We do. We have to add $40,000 to the city council budget for outside council. And >> we have to add it. We'd like some council like them, but that's not a
necessity. But if we're talking about So, if that's the strategy because we won't can't add 40,000. We're going to make all these suggestions that they reduce it. And I don't think there's really intent here that the council wants to reduce it because if we'd wanted to reduce it, save the taxpayers money, we would just make the motion to
reduce it and then we'd vote on it accordingly and appropriately and it would be reduced done once and over. We would save the taxpayers money that way regardless of what the administration wants to do. We would do it here. We have the ability to do it. We're not doing that. We're making suggestions and hopefully you can continue to get the
40,000 you're trying to get into this budget by making suggestions instead of just reducing it. I get it. I I see what's going on. Um I think it's just >> good luck with your strategy. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, Councilman CD8. Council Reposa. >> Yeah. I just want to I want to correct my counselor there for a minute. These
these reductions have nothing to do necessarily directly with that. These are discussions that we've had just one one at a time. Council C's the floor. >> Well, you said if that's the strategy, but I'm I'm going to defend myself because I'm making the motions currently that these are these are reductions that I've written down through the week that
we've discussed of things that we don't necessarily need. I I'll use the one that we're currently talking about. We had the conversation with Mr. Aguar. He said he could live without that part particular vacancy. So that's >> that's exactly what you have. >> Just let but my point is is like we're
going through this process and in the sense of collaboration we're giving the administration these are the things we're we're indicating to reduce. You are right. We could surely just make the motions and and reduce it. But I will say at this current moment we're giving them the opportunity to go back. We've rejected, you know, 99% of the budget.
>> Correct. >> These are our suggested reductions. Let them go back and then ultimately will they answer to those reductions. Let give me >> give you the $4,000. >> If I if I may just be clear on this, just because we're asking for the $40,000 doesn't mean there is other rejections that will not come through.
>> These would have happened regardless. >> Okay, just making it clear. Maybe I misspoke and I apologize if I did. I This isn't like a tit for tat. like if the city council doesn't get its $40,000, all these reductions go away. I I'm not taking that in any way, shape, or form as any kind of compromise.
>> Well, just a point of order. >> Sure. Council C5, your point of order. >> Thank you, M. That's what I thought you said. >> Okay. Well, I apologize if I said that. That was not my intention if I misspoke. I hope I clarified that. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> I agree. >> Council in seat 8, you have the floor still. >> I'll yield. I think you just clarified
whatever. >> Sorry if I misspoke, but I want to make that clear. councelor in seat 2, councelor Camarra. So >> I guess I'm just I don't know. I I guess I'm confused as to why if we want to eliminate this position that the plan director said he didn't need, let's why
don't we just reduce it for $39,000. Is that the amount? What's it? >> 363067. >> 36 3067. So why don't we just say I make the motion to reduce it. 36 30670. That's my only question. And then guess what? We vote on it and it gets reduced or it doesn't get reduced. End of story.
and we continue on to the next item and if we sincerely think that that should be reduced which I agree with some of these right so let's just reduce them why are we asking them to suggestion that they reduce it that's all very very clear what I thank you >> thank you councel one council >> no s I was just going to clarify too so
it's not one or the other uh from my standpoint I voted no on the on the budget because the 40,000 coming into the city council is what I want to see that's number one even with that the the recommendated recommend recommended cuts that I'm making I still want to see above above and beyond the 40,000 for
outside legal coming into council. That's it. With that yield, >> thank you. And by the way, for the record, we could have just rejected this and left. We're trying to be helpful as a council in letting people speak to let the finance team in the administration know where you all stand as individual
counselors. We could have just rejected it, adjourned, and would have been done. So, council C4, council vice president Dion. >> Yeah. um for my and I so for my part, yeah, there is no connection between the 40,000 and the reducing uh dollar amounts in specific line items. It's two
separate issues. Um I I believe that there there are items that can be reduced. Um but I also remember in the past uh one year we did do that. We did make reductions. We sent it back to um the
administration for those reductions to take place. We sent the budget back. They turned around, sent the budget back to us with no reductions whatsoever. So I for me I feel like it's appropriate to to make to say what we want to see
reduced send it to them for action and then if they take no action then we're having then we have yet another conversation. if they take action. Do I as one council say, "Okay, well, they reduce this, this, and this, but not that." Maybe I'm okay with that.
Yeah. I just I think it's just more complex than we're making it. And um I'll go with the majority. How the majority want to proceed. If the majority want to proceed the way we're proceeding, I support it. If the majority say, "You know what? He's right. Let's not do it." Okay, I'll
support that, too. So, that's my stance. And with that, I yield. >> Thank you. Anything further on this item? Council C2. >> Just one last remark. I don't want to belittle this and go on and on, but my only comment was if we sincerely want to make reductions to this budget and save taxpayers monies, we have the ability to
do it right now. That's my only comment. I was just trying to make it clear. Uh with that, I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. Uh councel, you have the floor still for your motions that you suggested reductions on. >> The motion was made and second. It's the uh Madam Cler, correct? >> Madam Cler, did we vote on that?
>> We did. We did not vote on the 36,000 36 >> as amended >> should be 36,30671. >> Motion motion. Well, we amended the you amended your motion. I don't need an amendment motion. We have the record reflected. Thank you.
>> Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. >> Councilman seat three, you have a question. >> Yeah. What is this one specific? >> All right. This is your the 36,000. >> Would you like me to >> 30671? Madam clerk, for the record, please. The motion on the floor uh was
made and seconded as a suggested suggested reduction to the mayor line item F1 in the amount of 36,000 $36.71. This is for the vacancy in the city planning department for the administrative clerk position.
>> Hearing no further discussion. Roll call, please. >> Council Kadim, >> yes. >> Chimera, >> yes. >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> yes. Peekom. >> Yes. >> Pereira. >> Yes. >> Raposo. >> Yes. >> President Ponti.
>> Yes. >> Cons. >> Yeah. I got I got a few. Sorry. Um so this is going to be in community maintenance expenses. So make a motion to reduce um E2 general funds for
community maintenance expense by $15,000. Particularly, this is a reduction to the other purchase services for $15,000. $15,000 under community maintenance for
the general fund for community maintenance expenses. The suggested $15,000 reduction has been made by councelor Rapo. >> Second. >> Seconded by councel Kadim. Discussion >> hearing not. All those in favor? I >> opposed. Uh roll call vote, please. >> Council, what page is that on?
Uh this would be on page 106 other purchase services. >> Just a point of clarification, what are what are the other purchase? >> So this was May I Mr. President? >> Of course. >> Um this was the discussion that we had with Mr. Hathaway regarding um the
additional funding that was put in to the budget. Um he mentioned trailers for example, what have you. But the rationale here is that FY25 was 42978. FY26 projected was 41473. Um, and I feel that 15,000 is a good
middle between those numbers that we need to to address. >> Harry, no further. Just as you have another anybody have any other comments on this item? All right. Motion to confirm reducing 15,000 from 68,000. >> Yes, madam clerk. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madam Clerk, for the clarification. Roll call, please. >> Council Kadin. >> Yes. Chimera, >> no. >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no.
>> Peekom. >> Pereira, >> no. >> Reposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Five, three nays. Next up on the list here,
bear with me one second, please. I just want to get the right pages and all that good stuff. So, make a motion for a reduction in community services salaries in the
amount of $1,675. This is particular to the position of director of minimum housing because the salary is now going to be out of ordinance. >> What page? >> Uh, this would be on page 111. Motion um to take under community
services salaries 1,675 has been made by councelor Raposo. Is there seconded by councel Canuel? Is there discussion? Hearing none. Roll call. So, it's reducing $1,675
from the minimum housing director position um in the budget at $69,175. >> $1,675,675. >> Thank you. Council Kadim, >> yes. >> Camarra, >> yes. >> Can >> Yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart,
>> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> no. proposal. >> Yes. >> President Ponte. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. Seven Yay. Two Naz. >> Make a motion.
Let's see. >> One moment, please. Madam clerk, just for a clarification for facilities and community maintenance salaries that would be under D1 or E1. >> Facilities maintenance is D1.
>> Thank you. I make a motion to reduce um from the general fund for facility salaries in the amount of $14,89.34. This reflects the two vacancies um in the facilities department, one for electrician, one for plumber one that
for now six fiscal years has been unfilled and it's unsustainable. Doesn't make any sense. Second >> motion has been made by councelor Raposo in the amount of $104,89.34 has been made by councelor Raposo to suggest the reduction from general funds for facilities salaries
as is seconded by councel. Is there discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> Mr. President, could I uh have clarification on that amount, please? >> Absolutely. >> Could you repeat that number? Just so I'm clear, I have 10489.34.
>> Yeah. So ju let me just I'll announce both of them and then the total. So >> uh one position is 54,356 I'm sorry, $54,356.70. The other position of $50,45264 if my mathematics is correct should be
$14,89.34. >> Thank you. Is that good, Mr. Canel? Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. >> Uh, I got one more. Just bear with me a second. I should have wrote these down. I apologize.
I can get back to you if you'd like. >> Yeah, that sorry I I'm looking for the page in Florida. I'm missing it. I'll come back. I yield. Thank you. Council in C6. Council Pekkham. >> Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to reduce from
the general fund facility salaries the director of city operations 144 200 like to reduce it by 70%. Um it's a savings of $100,940.
The reason for that is um the reorg and I don't know how long that position if it's going to be filled and I'd like to leave 30% um until they figure out that reorg and move that individual to wherever they're moving them. >> All right. So what is the actual cut
that you were suggesting amount wise >> director of city operations? So the cut would be $100,940. >> You want to reduce that amount? >> Yes, sir. >> By how much? by $100,940. That'll bring it to 70%. >> You got that number, Madam Clerk?
>> $1,940 >> 100 940 >> for the director of city operations. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you, >> councelor. Motion has been made by councel Pekkham for the suggested reduction. Is there a second? >> Is there a second?
>> Second for discussion. >> Second for the purposes of discussion by council kadem. Discussion. Councilman seat three. Council annual. >> So if I'm understanding uh the logic here, uh this gives the administration the director of city operations salary for approximately three and a half
months into this fiscal year to work through the reorg which is already in our ordinance committee. And if because this position doesn't exist once the reorg goes through an ordinance. >> Yes sir. >> Thank you. >> Any further discussion?
>> Hearing none. Madam clerk just reintroduce that item for the amount for for clarification and roll call vote please. >> So in line item D1 suggested reduction in the amount of $100,940 for the director of city operations position.
Ro councilman seat one council >> just through you can I just get a I guess a point of clarification I know these are recommended cuts but you're not suggesting that that be the new salary you're just suggesting that >> that we leave that number in that line until the reorg has taken place just as a >> buffer assuming that the Rio's going to
be done in three months is what you're saying and then whatever the Rio has for the salaries that would then need to become down to the council for an adjustment. Yes, councel. >> Okay, I yield. Thank you. >> So, I have a point of clarification. Are you reducing it by 100,000 or you want to keep >> No, I'm reducing
100,940 and then the rest should be 43,260. >> Yep, we got that. >> Okay, thank you. >> Roll call. >> Kadim, >> yes. >> Camaro, >> no. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion,
>> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. Pereira >> no >> propos >> no >> president ponti >> yes >> motion carries five yes four nays
one more under general fund facilities expense solid waste for solid waste collection I'd like to reduce that by 7.3% so the current line item is 10 million 53 3700.
I would like to reduce that to 9,311,567. Say savings of 742,133. >> 74 >> I'm writing it down. 74 >> 742133. >> That's your reduction. Your suggested reduction. >> Repeat that again for me.
>> Yep. Counselor. So for solid waste collection, >> the current budget is 10 million 53,700. I'd like to cut 742,133 from that, leaving 9,311,567. >> And to be clear, counselor, that's under
facilities maintenance expenses. >> Yes, sir. Motion to reduce suggest the reduction in the amount of $742,133 from the general fund for facilities expenses has been made by councelor Pekkham. >> Just a motion to reduce motion to recommend a reduction.
>> Yeah, all of these are yes. >> I just wanted to make it clear if we're going to reduce it, right? >> Yes. I stand corrected. It is all of these motions are suggestions. So I apologize if I misspoke. Has been made by councel. No problem. Seconded by
who? Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. >> Thank you, council president. >> Roll call. >> Can we get discussion? >> Oh, yep. Just raise I can't see hands when they like this. I need people to raise their hands. Council seat three. Council Canuel. I would like a little
bit of understanding uh potentially from the administration possible as to what may happen if we uh if they did make the recommended change because I'm concerned that uh this council did approve a certain bidder for that contract and this type of reduction
may force the city to go with the alternative bidder. Do you want to do that now or would you like to do that between now and next Tuesday and get that clarificate clarification point because these are merely suggestions but whatever you want we'll do if it's the will of the council. I mean right now we're not make
taking any action. These are just suggestions. >> I'm not prepared to vote on this particular one without understanding the full implications of that. So >> fair. Is there a motion to wave the rules and have them come down? >> Motion to wave the rules. >> Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor Pereira. Seconded by councel Canuel. Consency to your point
of information. >> So, we're gonna be negotiating a contract with different trash companies and now we're going to come down and have her explain to us why we should have more and less money for those negotiations and contracted. We shouldn't be discussing this at all right now. If if I mean, look, I I don't
see the point of having to come down and saying why we need more money because we're going to have to pay more to give whoever we're negotiating with leverage as to what our thought process is. We're going into contract talks. All right, I'll withdraw my second >> point of order. If councelor Canuel uh
has questions on this and we're not going to bring anybody down, you can just vote present either way and then that way you're not voting one way or another. Council can you >> with that I yield? >> Yes, you do. Constant C2, you do not yield.
>> It's a it's a fake reduction anyways. It's a suggestion. So, they might not do it anyway. So, with that, I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Is there anything further on the motion on the suggested reduction? Roll call. >> Council Kadim, >> no.
>> Camarra, >> I'm sorry. What was that? Can you just repeat the motion again on fake reduction? >> It's reducing line item D2. >> Yeah. >> Uh in the amount of $742,133 for the solid waste collection line item.
Can you >> present >> Dion? >> No. >> Hart. >> Uh, no. >> Peekom. >> Yes. >> Pereira. >> No. >> Rapos means well.
>> President Ponti. >> Yes. >> I get what he's saying. >> Fails to carry two. Yay. Six names. >> You have a point of information. Council seat one. Um, I just want to state I know that these are recommendations, but I think the intent is for people to vote on them so that the mayor knows where the consensus is on these
recommendations. So, >> that's right. >> Okay. >> I know it's not like fake, but this is we're we're being helpful. At the end of the day, the administration is going to get a letter from this council tomorrow that gets the suggested votes from this body, and they can do what they want
with it, and then we can do what we want with it on Tuesday of next week. Just so we're clear, this this is I think helpful. I don't know, maybe it isn't. >> Councilman C6, you have the floor. That motion did not pass. >> Thank you. So, I'm gonna be helpful. I'm gonna make a motion to reduce um under
general fund facilities expenses, solid waste disposal. Current line is 3,500,000. And I figured I'd be helpful by cutting 257,867 from that line. 250 250 what? 257867
>> and that's under facilities maintenance >> solid waste disposal >> under so it's going to be under facilities maintenance >> under E2 >> community maintenance expense >> sorry E2 under E2 20 57 867
>> 257867 >> 867 All right very good that's under E2 under community maintenance expenses is the suggestion by councelor Pekham is there a Second. >> Second for discussion. >> Second for the purpose of discussing council seat one.
>> What does that amount for and what's the reason behind it? >> Well, so I was combining solid waste collection and solid waste disposal was a combined total of roughly 135. So I brought them both down by 7.38% for a total savings of a million
dollars between the two. I thank you. >> Hearing no further discussion, roll call. >> Council Kadin, >> no. >> Chimera, >> no. >> Can >> no. >> Dion, >> no. >> Hart, >> no.
>> Pekkham, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> reposo, >> no. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion fails to carry. Two. Yay. Six nakes. Councelor Cat six.
Just make sure I got everything here. >> The If I have a question, the facility stipen for 13,000. Was that addressed yet? >> No. >> Under facility salaries, I'd like to
reduce the stipen for $13,000 by $13,000 and cut it out entirely. Second. >> Motion to reduce uh suggest the reduction from the general fund for facility salaries in the amount of $13,000 has been made by council Pekkham. Seconded by councel Kadim. Is
there discussion? There is not. Roll call. >> So this is for line item D1 in the appropriation order reducing $13,000 for the administrative assistant. Council Kadim, >> yes. >> Chimera, >> no. Canuel,
>> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Where was that? >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> no. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes. >> Motion carries, six years, three nays. >> Next. Councelor Peekham,
>> I yield the floor. >> Thank you. Councelor in seat seven. Councelor Pereira. Uh, you know, I know there's been a lot of um questions or whatever reductions, suggestions for reductions from some of my colleagues, but I want to go back to the 40,000
um because I when you first spoke, I was under the impression that there was a stickling point about the 40,000. And I for one have nothing to do with this budget versus the 40,000. I think we can keep it in the law department and use it and come up with something. But I think
that throughout these budget hearings, many of us have given Emily uh suggestions on where we think certain things should be reduced, etc., and supplying her with this list of what people think. I mean, I'm not we, you
know, took out a whole section that had police salaries, fire salaries. We voted yes on those, but other salaries you rejected for her to look at. You're not going to really reduce somebody's salary. I mean, in in inspection, minimum housing inspection to take money
off of there. That that's somebody's job and their salary. So, I know that it's not in ordinance, but then fix it and put it in ordinance, but you don't take it out and they're stuck. It's not their fault that it hasn't come down to ordinance. It's administration's fault
that it hasn't been brought down. Now that it's known, bring it down. I get it. We voted for it because it wasn't in ordinance. So, I get it. Councelor Reposa, I just don't think that this person after should go without a salary if the budget passes. But I think we've
given Emily and the administration a lot of different areas where we think we can tighten up a little bit. But we have to consider all of the people that sat here and said, "We're not paying our clerks enough. We're not
paying certain people enough to keep them here." There is a balance here and it's a hard balance for all of us and it's a hard balance for the residents of the city because some are struggling. I get that as well. Um but I mean I think
we've given enough examples on where we think maybe we could tweak it a little bit. So with that I yield. >> Thank you councelor councel seed councelor reposo. >> Yeah. So I'm going to just make this real simple. So we have had the many discussions in ordinance about salaries being out of ordinance. We have not
gotten an answer to say what happens when the administration intentionally unintentionally goes out of ordinance. The answer was nothing. So here's a situation where clearly if we approve and again it's not the person, it's just this fact it's out of ordinance. If we approve it, it basically says it's okay.
Violate the ordinance. Who cares? That's my point. So it's nothing against the person. I understand your point council prayer but the reality is this will now put it out of ordinance and until the ordinance is amended I can't I can't approve it I yield council C2 council >> thank you Mr. President to clarify one
thing that my colleague in seat seven said when she brought up the fact that we voted for police salaries and police expenses and we voted as an entire section 8. The fact was we didn't vote that that failed >> just I clarified it with the clerk when I asked him afterwards community
protection that entire section police salaries police expenses police capita all this stuff we talked about that the chief won that did not pass so I just want to make that clear you said that we voted for it we did not some of us did some of us didn't but that failed 63 >> oh I'm saying it failed that that's not
one of our recommended >> cuts with that I understand >> no I understand I know how I voted on I don't I get what you're saying and maybe I stated it wrong. >> I didn't vote to >> put that out either. >> Anything further on this
councelor in seat for councelor Dion? No suggested cuts. >> No, my cut was >> addressed >> already addressed. I have nothing else. >> Okay. Councelor in seat one. Council, are you good? >> Oh, I didn't have my hand up, but I did. >> But I have you here, so it looks like it
you did this >> mine. Uh so all my additional cuts were were made. The only thing I will say is um I would just ask the administration to take a hard look at the transportation number. I just don't know uh from the transportation based on the conversations that we had with the
school and the administration as to whether or not the number is an accurate number, if it's higher, if it's lower. Uh so we can just get some clarification and and make sure that the numbers uh tie out between the uh the schools and uh the city numbers. That's something
I'd be looking to have addressed by the if the new budget comes down. >> Madame Clerk, um when you you're we're going to memorialize all of this in an email in a letter tomorrow. Uh if you could be so kind to include that in in a quick sentence or two uh for clarification on that for our colleague
and our council. I think that's great. >> And while you're doing that, if you can include the indirect costs, uh I know there was some conversation tonight about the indirect costs. So if adjustments need to be made on the indirect cost, I would also like to have that included. I just don't have a number to >> understood. So >> understood.
>> With that, I yield. >> Thank you. Council seat 8. Councelor Raposo. >> Yeah, I found the one I was looking for. >> Go ahead. >> Um, make a motion for suggestion to reduce community service salaries by the amount
of $14,877. That is a vacancy that is currently held in the council of agent. Motion to reduce uh E1 E1 counselor Uh, no. It would be F1. >> F1. F1. I apologize. F1 has been made by
in the amount of 14,877. >> Yes, sir. >> Has been made by councelor Raposo. >> Sorry. Point of clarification. I What was it? >> It's um So the amount is 14,877. It's a vacancy currently held in the Council of Aging under F1 Community Service
Salaries. >> What page is that on counselor? >> Uh that would be found on page 111. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by counceladim. Is there discussion? Constant seat two. Council >> if we could provide community services and have someone take that job and
paying that salary be doing a service to the community. With that I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you. Constant seat one. Council Kadim >> just ask for the uh through you to my colleague what the logic was by the reduction. >> Your logic? >> Uh it's a vacancy and uh I'm not convinced the positions needed.
>> You yield. Cons C 7 cons >> but when um Tess C was in front of us she said that vacancy had just occurred and she's looking for somebody this position is to go into one of the senior centers that we have so I wouldn't want
to um take that position out because the the senior center needs it and she's there's already an application out for it with that I yield >> thank you council seat 8 councelor reposo >> and I think to answer that when you look at health and human services as a department and of itself self. There's
grant funded, CDA funded, there's city funded. You know, I think there is a way to look at that because there's a few there's a few ways of income that comes in to pay for these positions. So, if this is necessarily straight city budget funded and we can look relook at it, I think it's an opportunity to have a conversation with director Kern to see
how we can possibly make some savings there while still maintaining level of service. So, it's it's an opportunity for a conversation between the CFO, I'll be a part of that conversation, so be it. And director Kern I yield. >> Content C2. Council Camarra. >> Thank you. the opportunity to have that discussion when she was here at the table. We didn't bring it up. She told
us what why it was there for >> one of them at a time. Let the council >> Thank you. Appreciate that. So, I think the opportunity to ask those questions when she's in front of us and I think she made it very clear. We'd like to hire someone for that position to provide a service to the seniors for our community. I'm going to stick to what I said earlier. I'm not going to support
this either. Thank you. With that, I yield >> council seat one council kadine. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, I'll support it. Uh but I would be looking for some I guess some input from the director to what's what's really going on. I wasn't here for that uh meeting for that those discussions. I will say
that um I'm in agreement with my colleague and see too that we should be providing services to our seniors. So, I want to make sure that if we are going to cut it, it's being covered by the state formula grant or something or uh I I'd really need to see some justification as to why that vacancy needs to be eliminated. But I'm just
going to support it for the recommendations moving forward. With that, I yield. And we'll make sure uh madam clerk if you could please ask for this specific item for additional information on that for our colleague in seat one and others that would be helpful so they can provide that in anticipation of our next meeting. Councelor said
>> I said what you were going to say. All right. Um motion has been made and seconded. >> Roll call. >> For item line item F1 suggested reduction in the amount of $14,877. This is for the city the council on aging part-time senior aid council kadim
>> yes >> camar >> no >> canuel >> no >> Dion >> no >> hart >> no >> peek >> yes >> Pereira >> no >> reposo >> yes >> president ponti >> yes
>> motion fails to carry four yays for five nays >> I'm done I yield >> Is there any other counselors that would like to speak any suggestions to the administration >> hearing Hearing none. Is there uh um I would just like to read one item into the record if we can. Um we missed the cherry sheet assessments uh under our
appropriation order earlier this evening. Madame clerk, am I correct when I when I say that? >> Yes. Uh it's part of the appropriation order, the general fund operating budget uh bottom line amount. Um it's in the amount of $47,318,439.
>> I don't necessarily know if we need to approve of that. >> It's the will of the council. Just wanted to make sure that it wasn't left out. >> Take a two-minute recess to get clarification on that. >> Motion for a two-minute recess. Back into order. Um, we just had a quick discussion on the cherry sheet
assessments for 47318439. Uh we were just trying to be proactive to see if we didn't miss anything in the record to the clerk's credit. Um and we I find that there's no it's not necessary to vote on this item at this point at all. It's a cherry sheet assessment. Is there anything further
before this council? Council seed a councelor repos. >> So I'm just you know I guess through you to the administration when do we expect uh a possible revision be presented to in front of us? >> Thank great question. Um I will be speak um our clerks have worked in and I haven't seen them stop writing. We are
going to formalize a letter tomorrow taking all of the approved suggested cuts. We will memorialize that in a letter. I will send it to the mayor's office and our CFO. Um they will then take that under adisement. I'm sure I'm going to get a couple phone calls. Uh
and it will be up to them as to whether or not they will be sending down a supplemental appropriation at our meeting which is nextly scheduled next Tuesday. >> Thank you. I >> council in seat three council. I don't believe this council has taken action
relative to the fiscal year 2027 EMS enterprise fund appropriation order. >> That's next. >> That's next. I'm sorry. I thought I were all done. >> Not yet. >> You're so smart. >> Madam clerk. >> Um, also as part of the committee report
is an appropriation order for the emergency medical services enterprise fund for FY2027. Uh would you like me to introduce uh the total amount or would you like to take it uh line by line? >> Line by line. >> Okay.
>> So section A from the EMS rate revenues for EMS salaries in the amount of 9,925,27. It's a motion. There's also a copy on your desks. Uh it was next to the other appropriation order.
>> Council seat three. Councel >> given the items that uh my colleague in seat one brought up in C4 I believe regarding indirects and how that may shift um potentially if there's a recalculation that's made if they're basing it on only people who are
participating in it versus total salaries. I believe at this time it would be appropriate to make a motion to reject this pending uh any updates that may come down. >> Motion to reject EMS rejection. >> Motion to reject EMS rate revenue EMS salaries has been made by council.
Seconded by council a pekkham discussion hearing none. All those in favor. >> A roll call vote please. >> On rejecting the EMS salaries line item. Council scadin >> yes. >> Camarra >> no. >> Canuel. >> Yes.
Dion, >> yes. >> Pekco, excuse me. Hart, >> hey. No, >> my apologies. >> Pekkham, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> no. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti,
>> yes. Is it the will of the council to keep going line by line or take them all together? >> Motion to take them all together. >> Motion to take them all together. Has been made by councel Kadim, seconded by councelor Raposo. All those in favor? I oppose. The eyes have it. Madam clerk. for the remaining line items from EMS
rate revenues EMS expenses 2,599,485 for EMS capital $241,200 for EMS transfers indirect costs 5,213,194 and for the EMS debt in the amount of $59,833. >> Motion to reject. Motion to reject made
by councelor Reposo, seconded by councelor Pekham. Is there discussion? There is not hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed. >> Seat two and seat five opposed. Other >> you want a roll call vote? >> Roll call. >> Roll call. >> Council Scadin, >> yes. >> Camaro,
>> no. >> Can >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> no. >> Peekom, >> yes. >> Pereira, >> yes. Reposo >> yes >> president >> yes
>> motion carries seven yays two nays >> that's all we have Mr. president. >> I do. They have some direct >> motion to has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councelor. >> Did we approve the water? >> We did that. We did that already >> months ago. What was that? I didn't
>> to be clear. Councelor Kadim just asked the question if we approve water and sewer and the council already did that at a prior meeting >> in April. We usually do that before. It's not part of this motion to adjurnn has been made by councelor Pekkham, seconded by councelor reposo. All those in favor the eyes. Have a good night. Thank you all.
>> Agreement.