do to have a stable operating budget if the transportation costs really are going to be firm. But that's so in that sense, yes, there are other areas that we could pull back from if we need to. >> So why wouldn't we do that now though? Right? So if we if we've got to put together a balanced budget, right? you have a number that's coming from the the
school department that transportation costs based on contracts and and again I know there was 5% uh escalator clause in one of the contracts and I think you know there's some variables in other contracts and especially uh special education transportation is a significant variable right so there is a
good possibility that transportation goes up not down right so they could be before us asking for more money than the 17.1 right so we don't know that that's That's not the case. We've heard about redistricting. Redistricting may provide a savings, but we don't know that. So,
the only solid number that we have right now, and I know we can go back and forth, or you can go back and forth and say that you don't necessarily agree with their numbers, but that's the only numbers that were presented to the city, and that at least from one person on the city council that I support the 17.1. So, why not? If we have to have a
balanced budget, we know what their request is. Why wouldn't we just give them a 17.1 now um and tell the other departments that they've got to find reductions? Because if you're telling me I got to go do this in in December, that means you're going to have to find double the the amount of reductions
because if they've already spent half their expense, you know, expense budget, then we're >> I mean, it would be before December. I think we've talked about more of these numbers being firmed up in October, beginning >> November, [clears throat] right? So, you're talking you're talking about a month, right? So, I mean, okay. Okay. So, as opposed to being six months already spent, you're you're five
months, right? So, you you're still going to be close to doubling to having to make double the cuts >> to be able to fund what you need if we're waiting for December. So, from my standpoint, let's let's fund them 17.1 million and then in November, December, if that number if the actuals are coming
in less, then we can reallocate to the other departments for expenses. That to me makes more sense as opposed to the opposite of waiting five, six months and having people having to reduce even more. >> Yeah. I I think the the thought process and opinion was the fact that these
departments would be cutting different operations or programs or services that they're providing cutting it and cutting it off completely to [clears throat] provide a number that they know was in flux and that you know has these things that are potentially going down. sort of pull something back that we would change the way we're operating that, you know,
the intent is that this 450 wouldn't change the way that the school department's operating. They're already changing the way they're operating and that's where the savings is coming in. It's not like we're coming in saying you're going to stop busing kids to save this. So that's why, you know, rather than stopping a department's functions or services that they're providing when
there already is potentially a natural savings that's coming from the way that they're choosing to change their operations. It it just tends I mean that still takes a vote of the school committee. There's got to be an analysis done on on redistricting and the buses. So So we don't know that there's a guarantee for the
redistricting unless it's already taken place. >> The redistricting has already taken place technically in the sense of moving students. It's the bus outcomes that are unsure. >> Is that accurate? >> The redistricting for this year has taken place. >> Okay. >> But as I said, we continue to register students. We have programs that we also,
you know, changed. I mentioned the dual language program has some implications. The transportation. So, so I I missed the part that the redistricting has already taken place. In my mind, it was something that was >> have been notified. Students have been determined. I believe I'm correct.
>> So, status quo, if there were if there were no students added, are we assuming that there is a savings? Is that where we get to >> I don't believe we're Yeah, I'm I'm uncomfortable uncomfortable to assume right now. I I would I would be in your
position too to uncomfortable to assume, but that that's that's the point I'm trying to I'm trying to make is is the fact that we've got a redistricting. We don't know if there's going to be a savings, but we're >> we're asked to approve a budget based on something that you're uncomfortable with, right? An assumption that there's
going to be a savings when we don't know there's a savings. So my take is if it's $17.1 million, that's what we should be funding, 17.1 million. And I've had this conversation with the administration that at that point it should be the 17.1.
Let's regroup from an administration on both sides, come together collectively and identify how we're coming up with these numbers so that everybody is comfortable and on the same page as how we're making a determination for what the transportation costs are. Not that we don't believe the numbers that are coming forward, but obviously uh there's
some differences of opinion from, you know, the city's administration versus the school administration, but those dialogues need to take place. And from my standpoint, well before June, right? I I know these conversations started in June. That's just to me doesn't make any sense. Uh but we are where we are. Um
and in the end of July, let's let's just do the 17.1 million and and let's figure out where we're getting the money from. That's that's that's where I I personally think we should be headed and the direction we should be going. And I also will tell you as we start to come
into a new budget season which we really start now we have a new CFO. We're going to be working with you. I mentioned this I think when I came before you that first evening. >> We will work closely with you. There'll be a state of the schools in November. We will start our budgeting process if the school committee again approves the
process that we will recommend. So we will be partners with you in this. We're looking to refine with redistricting. Uh at this point here, I'm not sure if we'll continue uh to make those efforts. It we'll have to take a look at how this year goes. Um it it's impacting class
size in a positive way. There are very positives coming out of your decision to redistrict. And again, I I can't say it enough that I was really pleased to call Council President Ponte the next day and to be committed to working together with the city council and and to do this for
your taxpayers. Are there savings that we can look at? Same thing with the mayor's office. We will continue. I know the two CFOs have committed to working very closely together in the months to come and I hope that is going to be the way we do business. >> Yeah. And I'm confident in everything
you've said because you know actions speak louder than than words and and you folks have been here more than any other administration on the on the school side that since I've been on the city council, I've been on the school committee. Uh we've seen you more in council chambers than than anybody. Uh, so I know the the collaboration's there
and quite frankly, I don't envy the position you're in to to have to come down and and still advocate for the schools and the 17.1 million, but also trying to work with the administration to get a number that that makes sense from a budgetary standpoint. I think the decision is is probably difficult for us as counselors to be able to figure out
and digest which direction we want to go in and and maybe we all disagree on on what that looks like. I for one support the 17.1 uh based on the the conversations we're having here in in previous conversations. I'm confident that we can get to the table and be more comfortable with the numbers that are being presented next year. But I think
right now 17.1 is where we should be at. If it comes in less than that, then we can deal with it. If we do it the opposite way, then we're asking departments to make, you know, more [clears throat] much more significant cuts than they really should. Um or we'll go into free cash, which, you know, that's I don't know that that's
what we want to do, too. But I mean that's an option. But at the end of the day the numbers could come in significantly higher than than lower. So um I personally support the 17.1. That's what I told the mayor I wanted to see unless we had a commitment that the number was not 17.1. And I know he had a
conversation and just based on the discussion I'm hearing what I'm what I'm hearing from you folks is that you you'll work to you'll do whatever you need to do to work within that number. But the 17.1 is is a solid number. So that's a number I'm going to support moving forward. With that I yield. >> Thank you. Councelor Raposo.
>> Yeah, just one followup question. So after 101 and once all the once the DESIE report is submitted, if you have students who enroll after 101 and they need busing, how does that operate? Do do they >> I'm that does not impact the busing. The busing is I'm sorry if I confused. Do the busing is provided to the students
no matter when they move in. If they move in June 1st. >> Yep. >> Okay, that answer my question. >> That that is just our enrollment figure that we give to the state. It does impact our chapter 70 funding. >> Okay. and and I caught a bit of the school committee. Um they were discussing the rolling over of the SIS.
Have have that has that happened yet? >> It has not happened yet. >> So you don't have an exact number of how many students you have at this moment? >> Actually, we have rough estimate. >> We have some numbers. We just we pulled them before we left. >> If [clears throat] I can uh deputy, if you could just introduce yourself for the record, please.
>> Liz LGO, deputy superintendent. Um, as of 72726, we have 10,563 students. Um, and we have not rolled over in in the SIMS. Um, but I can tell [clears throat] you the register. Uh, so
as of 72726 and some of these registrations have not been put in the SIMS is 604 new completed registrations for the new year. uh for last year in comparison at this time at 7 uh at uh July 2725 we had
566 new completed registrations for the new year >> do you know your enrollment was at that time last year at that moment >> I don't I didn't pull that one >> do you know what you ended the school year with >> uh 11,000
I think it was 11,184 students actually october tw 20 on October Ober 25th, we certified our enrollment with SIMS at 11,184 students. So that was what you based your chapter 7 day off of.
>> Okay. Thank you. I yield, Mr. President. >> Thank you, counselor. Councelor Canuel, >> Miss Here we go. [clears throat] >> U Thank you. Uh, Miss Arkkey, can you just
walk us through how we got to the number we're at today? Cuz it since the last budget, it's gone up 450,000, which is halfway between where we were and where the school committee uh approved the number. So, I think can you walk us through the logic of how you got to that
number? >> So, I think I think there's been a very clear conversation that we don't have all the data to come up with these numbers of how redistricting is going to impact that. I think that's been a very clear conversation here. So, given that, you know, we had had conversations about putting the full
900,000 back in, but I then had figured out and and heard information about Vavaros going back to the community school. So, I looked at the buses that were going to that school that would no longer be needed. I also understand that what they've talked about that some of those students have now shifted to these other schools and other programs. So,
there might be more additional students that need busing somewhere else that could change. They could need another bus. They could go on to an existing one. And how enrollment could go up. And so there's all those variables that are in there, but just taking those five vehicles, I'm going to call them vehicles because I know it's vans and
buses. Um that number specifically to that one school calculates about $543,000. So given that there could be others added in somewhere else and there could be other changes. The other part of it is the fact the electric buses there's a
lease payment that so I don't know how many people are familiar with the electric buses that was bought for the school district on a grant. So there was 10 electric buses they started going to operation at the end of last year at some time but we get a lease payment for utilization from the transportation
company of $25 per day per bus. So those numbers haven't really been realized in the budget either. So those are some things that I know would be a savings that aren't necessarily factored in, but there's also other things that keep going. So with all of those numbers, it it seemed like that 450 was
potentially a very real number given some of that other data. So that's where the 900 went to the 450. >> Okay. >> But as everybody stated, it's not a final number that there's a ton of things that could still continue to change with that.
So if you were to go back and to do what council team and council Pereira have suggested would be to fully fund it. Do you anticipate just raising revenues? Do you anticipate going back to departments to make cuts? What's your >> I think it to be honest with you it' probably be a combination of both. I
understand that there is, you know, the potential that we could just increase the investment income revenue, but I want to be clear that if we increase that investment income revenue by $450,000, that would put us at the exact budget that we ended with this year in total
actuals for the general fund. So, not including the um ARPAD money being transferred in, we ended around $4.1 million. So, adding the 4.5 to the 3.6 six is is 4.1 million and from my side of things and from my experience with
budget you don't that's just a very bad idea. So I could increase that maybe a little bit more and be super aggressive with that number which isn't very comfortable at all. But the other side of it would have to be, you know, pulling expenses from other places. I've I've continued to go in and try and
adjust the revenues as much as I can. It's part of how this 450 that was added back in was already accounted for. I'm I'm running out of areas that I feel like when we could comfortably take in additional revenue um and exceed, you know, the budget and meet the budget.
So, I think it's it's just getting it's a very tightly budgeted budget as it is. I know that we've had conversations in the past, you know, two budget cycles with me that it is a much more um aggressively budgeted set of revenue than we have been doing. So
we're already kind of pushing the bar and so we would just be pushing that a little bit closer and closer at this point. >> So then if we did go that step of increasing the number and we put the 17.1
and right we have to wait then let's assume there is a savings. Let's assume it does come in lower. We have to wait till when to be able to uh utilize that money savings. I don't know. So, it depends on how we handle it. So, if we put in the $17
million number, I'm going to say today the numbers from there to say that there was a savings, we would have to come back down to you to reduce that appropriation. So, depending on how we get there, we could decide to I'm going to say reallocate it to where it was pulled from, we could decide to just release it. So, if it's before the tax
rate setting process, which is usually mid to end November, then we could just kind of release it in that way. But if it's done after taxes are set and the revenues are set, I mean, it's you could kind of move it around, but it or it would just be surplus that would be certified and turned back. So, it's
it's kind of a tough question to say when we would be able to utilize what's being turned back. It's it's depends on the process that we go through. If we don't come down to you to reduce an appropriation and to transfer it around, it would just become surplus. So, >> I hear the concerns of my colleagues. I
think in terms of the we're talking about 450,000. The reality though is this is one it's a 1,000th of this budget. Um it's a small number in the grand scheme. I think that that's a number that can easily be absorbed in other areas if there is a
shortfall. I think we'll know by sounds like at the end of Q1 of the fiscal year with when the trans when the headcounts uh and the school redistricting how many buses you have, how many vans you have, etc. Um I think it's a small enough number that we can potentially absorb.
I'd be surprised if there was any um denial by this council or the mayor to f fully fund transportation, whatever that true number ends up being. Um I I get a lot of concern at the prospect of asking department heads to cut that [clears throat] further um potentially
cutting services because once we cut services we won't be able to restore them for the fiscal year likely. So with that I yield. >> Thank you council vice president. I guess my first question is, well, my first comment is um in terms of the $1
million um cut we did in indirects that you had to um reduce the budget by. Um not all of that offset came from funded vacancies. Am I correct? Correct. >> 400,000 I believed was a reduction on
the city side in pension liability to offset that number. >> That was part of it. Yes. So, there was there were several things, but I was I was just he had spoken about how there would be vacancy savings to turn back and cover some of this, and I wanted to be clear that we had already eaten that up was all I was saying. It's not that we didn't do other things to adjust for
the million, but that was one of the tools that I had already used to cover that other vac savings that was needed. So, I couldn't use that again for this. >> Correct. However, um did you use all funded vacancies or a portion and then
offset with the 400,000? So, in other words, are there still some unfunded vacancies in the budget at the present time? >> So, so the vacancy savings that was added, it's not like I pulled out vacant positions and didn't fund them in the budget. That's not the way the vacancy savings was applied. It was applied in the sense that there's turnover that
happens. So, if a position is is or was right, the timing was vacant at the time that the budget went down. That doesn't mean it's even still vacant at this time. There's turnover. There's gaps that happen, but then usually we fill it again and it and it cycles around. Usually, when somebody leaves after a couple of years here, the next person coming in is hired at a lower rate. So,
those are what I call just like a general vacancy savings that takes place every year that we see in salary turnbacks every year. It's just a timing of positions turning over. So, that's what was kind of applied. Generally, there was a percentage based on if they have current vacancies, there was a 2% vacancy savings added to the department.
If they had no vacancies but aren't a, you know, but are a department that has more than one employee or that has, you know, that's in a block group, we added a half a percentage vacancy savings based on, you know, kind of what we're historically turning back in a general sense with the general fund operating of
salaries. >> Okay. So let let me try to I want to make sure I I'm clearly understanding what you're saying because what I'm hearing I could I could be entirely. So you're saying that the savings based on
vacancies is based on the vacancies you think we're going to have some turnover we've had but it doesn't mean those vacancies won't be filled. >> Right. So it's it's just a it's a number if you look at so I had sent out a sheet before the June 30th meeting that
detailed out how the vacancy savings was applied, what departments had it, and what amounts it was. But the way it's being done is saying the base salaries I'm going to say of just HR is $100,000 because of the positions and the turnover. We're going to say it's about a 2% savings that could happen
throughout the year because they currently have a vacancy. So then now they're budgeted at $98,000. That's it's not like we cut a position and said you can't fund it now, but given the fact that as of July 1, they didn't have somebody in the position. The reality is there's likely going to be a savings that we're going to realize
in the year on that salary budget that we won't need because clearly there's turnover that's happening and it needs to be replaced. So that's kind of how that >> Okay. So basically the savings and the cuts were made on to a certain degree assumptions.
So if we've got 100 employees in a department, there's five funded vacancies. Those five funded vacancies are still there and still being funded in [clears throat] the budget. >> Correct. Correct. There's a percentage that's taken off the top because the odds of them being filled perfectly for
the full amount for the full year clearly are slim at this point. So then I guess that tells me that we certainly can cover an additional $400,000 um where we still have unfunded
vacancies bec because because you're not funding it doesn't mean the it doesn't exist. It just means you're not funding it at this time. >> Right. That means the department will have to go the entire year without that position. >> That's correct. >> Right. which in historically how many
departments have had vacancies that have never been filled? >> So those ones we we went in but those ones we went in and cut. I would like to remind you of that. So the ones that the two in facilities the plumber and the electrician we did cut those the full vacancy amount. We did pull that out. >> Um the other one was in planning
planning or engineering one of his departments. I'm sorry. It's one of the the departments that he has. He's had a clerk position that he hasn't filled in over two years. So we did fully cut that one out. So the ones that have been chronic for more than a year, we did pull at that point. So, >> but you would agree this this there are
still a number of funded vacancies that could be unfunded to compensate if if we need the money. >> That's a choice that the council could make. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Um that's interesting. That's an interesting way to cut a budget by
projection and assumption. Um, I hope it works out. >> There are other cities that do that. It's not an unheard of idea. >> Okay. Um, now in terms of the electric buses, what did you determine the offset might be? >> It's 45,000 for the 10 buses for the 180
days of the year. The calculation is $45,000. >> And you came to that number how? >> It's $25 a day per bus per day. And it's 180 school days that they bus. So that savings isn't already calculated in transportation and and the and the
school department's numbers. >> My understanding is no because the buses didn't weren't online for most of last year. The timing of receiving the buses and getting them up and running, it wasn't online for most of last year. So that that's why it hasn't hasn't been realized yet.
>> Would everybody agree with that? I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but you know, [clears throat] I feel like some of this is assumption, some of it isn't. I want to know what's rock solid and what's assumption. And if it's not a completely accurate statement, I
think we need to know that. >> Said that, right? >> So, from a financial standpoint, would would you be able to opine on that? If you can just move the microphone to you. >> Should we make a motion to wave the rules and bring Mr. Pico to the table? >> We already did that, but Mr. Pacho can come down. We've waved the rules already.
You you want to you want to speak on council's comments or at all from a financial >> I don't know I didn't know about the $25 per bus. >> Understood. M um Mr. Pico. >> So it's it's an accurate state.
It's an accurate statement that um it is $25 a day on the electric buses and all the days that they're in service. And um it is the numbers that um Emily said, the 45,000. We did not have it. The
buses were um in service for about 27 days, 28 days this year, but they will be in full service in the upcoming >> So you're realizing a savings this year that you didn't have last year. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. >> And do you know what that fully amounts to? Like
>> it's it's the same as Emily said. That's a full year. >> $45,000, >> right? for a full year. >> All right. Well, that's still a far cry in a $17 million budget, but I Okay, I appreciate that. And then I have another question. Um, and the savings per bus,
how did you determine that number? And what what did that what was the totality of that >> per bus? And >> you said, so Vera Schools Community School, they have five buses. So that means they didn't need X number of dollars because they don't have those five buses. So where did you get those
numbers? is three buses, two vans. >> It's three buses, two vans. But again, as they've stated, that's not necessarily a a final thing. Something could change with that, but that is what is the at the time it is a community school. Obviously, that can change. That's been a very clear statement that that could change. Transportation needs
could still change for that. Um, but with that those numbers, it's it's 543. I have that. So, I pulled the actual invoices that were coming out from those from that school from last year. I pulled it in June. The way it works is it's 180 days of schooling that you
transport kids. So there's a per bus per van rate. There's a monitor rate that you know that is charged based on those usages. So I pulled the actual invoices of what was currently being done there for FY26 and calculated that with the rates that
are provided by each of those vendors for 27. And that's where that 543 I have it somewhere in front of me. I just have too many things in front of me. >> 543. We'll call it 543. Um but so in reality though to a certain extent
that number is based on assumption. Assuming we're not going to need those buses and vans. Assuming um things aren't going to change. Assuming we're not going to get students that are going to require that transportation. Is that an accurate
>> correct? And that's >> so that number could change completely. >> Correct. which is why why I was only comfortable putting in an estimate of closer to 450 knowing that that number could change there could be something else needed somewhere else other you know needs could arise just within where those students were moved to and and
whatnot so that was part of why I then took a very clear calculated number if you really calculate those buses there is an exact number you can come up with but the reason that I didn't put that in front of you was because there are other variables that could come into play so I was trying to pull it back and be safe and then the 45,000 so that leaves at
least at least a whole another bus or two that you know could pension a bus or a van that could be added in without a single need. So, I guess um my final statement would be that as one counselor
um I can't say that I'm completely comfortable with cuts in a budget that are based on assumption, cuts in transportation that are based on assumption. Um minus hard facts minus variables.
Um, I I for me I find that to be a bit of a problem and I don't know that I'm comfortable with the number at this point either based on that. I I mean, you know, when I when you figure out a budget, you you generally know how much you have, what everything's going to
cost, and then you can come up with a rockolid budget. I mean, I could assume that my electric will go down a hundred bucks a month for the next six months, but if it doesn't, and I don't budget for it, I'm in trouble. So, with that, I yield. Thank you, councelor Kamra. >> I can't sorry
Vento fund. How much money is left in that fund? Just curious. >> So the the current balance as of I think I pulled the number last on Friday at about 5:00 was um it's 77 700,79
I can't say the number. $779,000. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> So, some of that's already factored into this budget. I want to be clear. >> How much of it? >> So, there's probably about 600,000 that's factored into this budget already to be used from that fund balance that
hasn't that's been sitting there. >> All right. Thank you. I >> Thank you, councelor. Council All right. So, in terms of the appropriation order that's before us, so under education, the transportation is 12.8 million. So, I don't have my budget
book in front of me. What makes up the the 16? What what's the difference between the 16.6 and the 12.8? >> Um, that is 2 million of Mckin Vento, 2 million flat. >> Yeah. And then the number from circuit breaker that the school committee had
voted on for transportation which is thank you 1.816652. >> So 1.86 was what? >> Um circuit breaker sorry >> no circuit breaker. And then you said $2 million from Mckin Vento but
>> the school committee had voted on 1.4 million. So 2 million is with you know um assuming we would spend some of that savings the fund balance that's in there of 600,000 of that fund balance >> and then the commitment 1.4 for
reimbursement that's coming in in FY27 is that >> yeah so it's 600 that's already there. The 1.4 is the estimate of what's going to be coming in. So that's what makes up the 2 million and then it leaves obviously a little widow a little bit of wiggle room. Sorry. So
what are we anticipating for Mckin Vento coming in for next year? >> Around 1.4 is the number that >> So you're using 100%. >> Yes. So in this past year we did use 100% [clears throat] as well. It's the balances in there from previous years that we weren't using 100%.
>> Okay. And then just I'm just struggling and I and I heard one of my colleagues and I and I appreciate not wanting to see additional cuts, but I I I think from from my standpoint, it's hard to to say
that if we approve anything less than 17.1, we're essentially approving a bal a budget that's not balanced, right? >> Agreed. >> So, you agree with that? >> I agree with that. That's what's been stated at this point. I think it's uh I
I can't speak on my opinion on how everybody should move forward and view the budget, but I put down a balanced budget that is balanced with everything that's in there. And I there's always going to be variables, even if that $17 million number was down, other things could come in and other things could change that
would change that number. So, it's it's always going to be that way. Okay. Listen, I I recognize that I've I've put a a number of budgets together myself, but when you make reductions and and and and I don't disagree, budgets are are all based on assumptions. It's a living document. I I recognize that. However,
when you when you make reductions, you've identified what the expenses are. In this in this case, we can't go back to the school department and say that you need to reduce your transportation from 7 17.1 down to the 16.6. Right? So, let's just
call it $500,000. So, >> they're not cutting buses. They're not telling kids you got to walk to school or find another mode of transportation, right? So, at that point, to me, it's it's an actual expenditure. So, we shouldn't be stopping there to make make the cuts, >> but but they're already doing things that are changing the number of buses
that are needed. It's not that we're telling them to do that. They told us that they are doing that and it is changing. >> I've heard that, but I've also heard the school department say they're not comfortable with anything less than $17.1 million. So, I don't know. >> [clears throat and snorts] >> how how we say that this is a balanced
budget. So, we've we've got we've got a department that's coming back before us and they have no way if that number comes in at 17.1 to be able to cut expenses in transportation, right? So, if we go anywhere else, any other departments, I mean, we can cut the
police department can cut overtime, the police department can cut um training, they can cut a number of different areas. the uh you know the treasurer's office can go and cut expenses, the fire department can cut expenses, but the school department can't cut transportation, right? There's there's a
mandate associated with transporting students to school. So, from my standpoint, anything less than $17.1 million is approving a budget that is not balanced unless we find other ways. And so in terms of the local receipts, you're I I know you're conservative in
terms of the local receipts coming in, but where are >> are you at 98% of the local receipts? Are you overly aggressive with your estimates? Is there any room in other areas >> that the calculation that um it states that in the mayor's letter, it's it's 88
maybe 6% of local receipts. So So pretty much yes. And then uh the reserve fund the $578,517 that's >> so we don't have a contract with police,
fire teamers that's been settled yet. So that's intended to help cover >> contracts that are completely unfunded at this point. >> But it's it's not going to cover the entire contracts. Would that be an accurate statement? I have no I I couldn't say it could at this point it it would never cover the retro and the
new year contract to say that it couldn't possibly cover the year that is taking place I I can't say that but I can tell you obviously it wouldn't cover the retro but we typically would pay the retros from onetime money anyhow because it is really a onetime payment at that point >> right so why wouldn't we just take the
reserve fund fund that transportation and then obviously through negotiations come back down to the council for an appropriation order because you're going to have to do that anyways, right? So, it's not going to cover the entire amount. >> That's again also a a choice that could be made and that could work. I'm going
to say the same way. >> But from my standpoint, then at least we have a balanced budget. We've got money that's going to the schools that are going to be used and then any type of >> in the form of a motion. >> Well, I I could make [laughter] I could make that in a form of motion. in the form of a motion. >> So moved. But I I don't know that we have the authority to to make the
changes. But >> I would say that that could be the same thing though using that reserve fund to cover that 450 whether it's today or whether it's a month from now. That could still be the case that we could send down. I'm going to say and amend the appropriation and revise the appropriation before you if that's the will of the council. So I just would say
that you're right. I don't know if we can move that line item today, but if that's the will of the council, we could send out an order for the next meeting to move it over. >> To me, that's the cleanest way to do it. And then because I because you can make an argument that negotiations is is a variable right now because you don't know where it's going to end and you're going to have to come down for an
appropriation. So for me it's the cleanest way to do it. We have the ability to give the 17 million 17.1 million to the schools and then we'll just deal with how we're going to handle the negotiations for for the various collective bargaining. >> I mean at that point there might be known savings from transportation that we can move back. So
>> right so and it's not unusual for municipalities to uh use onetime money for the first appropriation uh of the contract and then build it in. >> Uh so that's I mean that it's pretty standard in in other communities. So to me that's that's the cleanest way to do it. It gives the schools uh the
transportation number that they need and then to your point, you know, when we get closer to quarter two, uh we can make a determination if there's additional money and then if we have contracts that come back before us, we can we can make transfers internally and then also offset it with some free cash or stabilization and then just, you
know, fund those contracts and move forward. You know, I think that to me is the is the cleanest way and we get this budget behind us and and you know, I think the council is comfortable with the fact that we're approving a budget that's balanced. >> So, >> so there's a motion on the floor by
councelor Kadeim to send a communication to the administration on getting the amount from where? From the um >> the reserve fund for the amount of how much? So zero out uh I4 to zero and
>> it's only short 450 right now. >> Oh, what whatever the >> Yeah, it's they're only short 450. So >> reduce 450,000. >> Correct. >> Okay. We can we can do that. Actually, if that's the case, we can do that when we have it uh in our appropriation vote. So it wouldn't be necessary,
>> but I don't think you could put it into another line. Reduce that one. Yeah. Which is also fine. And I just wanted to be clear by councelor Kadine uh to suggest to the administration that they send down the transportation line um taking out
>> uh out of the 570517 $450,000 was that the correct number? >> Yes.$450 $450,000 has been made by council Kadim, seconded by council vice president Dion. I know council needs to speak but on the on the suggested letter. Any further
discussion on that? No, to be honest with you, I would like to sorry to be honest, I'd like to table it. Let her fix that tomorrow and let's come back tomorrow and get this budget done. >> I wouldn't be able to do that tomorrow because we have to post. >> Yeah. Well, if we table it. >> Yeah.
>> Can we table this meeting and come back? I mean, >> Mr. President, if I could, you could take a recess if the director of financial services would like to provide a new financial order appropriation order. >> Move it like that. That's fine. the mayor submits an a revised appropriation or the council could vote on it tonight.
>> We can do that tonight. I allow it because it's not anticipated as well. >> Good. >> We want to take a 5m minute recess. >> Sure. This for a city council meeting is now back in session after a brief recess. Um at this point, um who had the floor? I
don't remember. >> Uh councelor Kadim. >> Councelor Kadim, you had the floor. You haven't yielded yet. I'll give you the floor back if you'd like. >> I'll yield it to you, Mr. President. >> Thank you, councelor. Uh councelor Peko. >> Actually, I yield the floor. Thank you. Any further discussion? >> No. Um, madame clerk, uh, if you could
please introduce this item into the record, please. >> Be it ordered that the annual budget for fiscal year 2027 for various funds is $483,583,582 of which the amount of $471,937,983 be raised from ordinary revenue and
municipal receipts for appropriation. Any discussion? Just council and see uh council >> just quickly. So, uh to go over this. So, you move the 45. >> Yeah. So, I moved it from I4
to G2. >> Mhm. And so, that new number is 13,25048 and then the $2 million from Mckin Vento and then the 1.8 from Circuit Breaker. Correct. It's the 17.1. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I yield. council >> actually. Yeah. Good evening. Just one question. So, as far as our ARPA expenditures and the deadline of September 31st for all projects, where are we with that?
>> So, there's the deadline is mixed between September and December between depending on what the funding source was. So, Bristol County has an earlier deadline and then there's certain um categories that qualify for ARPA that have to be
spent on that earlier deadline, but then the rest of it is December 31st. I don't I'm I apologize. I don't have any of that in front of me um to tell. I I know that when we've been checking in, departments seem to be on track. We are definitely dwindling down on it. Um so, I I don't have those numbers in front of
me at this time. I apologize. I've been very in the weeds of the budget instead. >> Yeah. Go ahead. What I was doing this week is going through the book. When Carham left us as of March 31st, she reconciled all the numbers and we're going to be asking,
the mayor asked me this week to get a um report from the city auditor to show where we are right now and we're going to be following up with everyone who's got any outstanding funds to see that all is expended according to the guidelines of opera. >> Okay, good. So,
no question as to projects right now. Everything seems because I don't want to hit that deadline and then we're giving the federal government back money. >> Yeah. No, we don't want to do that either. And um I've spoken the biggest number of projects is with Mr. Alivera and facilities. Spoken with him. He said
his projects are all on Q. So, we are uh going to have a sit down with everyone, find out um especially what include the OPM of the project at the uh Lewon Street facility and make sure we're on target because that is um the September >> September 30th.
>> Yeah, September. And what do we have into that project already? Do you know >> funding [clears throat] wise? I don't right off the top of my head because I haven't um gotten together yet with the city auditor to see where we are now. I think they want to say there was I thought there was like 8 million left as
of as >> Yeah. Point of information when when um attorney H left. Uh 8 8.1 million had been expended and we still had 8 million in opera funding because it was a $16 million project. >> Okay. And there's no questions with that
because I drove by recently and doesn't look like much has been done. So from now until the end of September, we're going to get that project done. And >> that's what I am told counselor. And what we can do is we can provide an update to the council as well. Once we
know what the new number totally expended as of say July 31st is and then what the deadlines are from there, we'll be glad to provide that information. >> I appreciate it. Is there a way to reach out to Miss Oliver and get me a response by Thursday, sometime Thursday? >> Absolutely.
>> I appreciate it. With that, I yield. Thank Thank you. Council Vice President Dion, you good? >> Oh, yeah. I'm good now. Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Is there a motion? >> Uh motion to adopt the order as amended. >> Motion to adopt is amended. The amendment is the amendment. >> The appropriation. I'm sorry.
>> Motion to approve the appropriation. >> There's no amendment necessary because we haven't amended anything. Right. To be clear, madam clerk, correct? Motion to approve the appropriation before us. The new appropriation that has been introduced by the clerk has been made by council vice president Dion, seconded by councelor Ladine. Discussion on the approval of the appropriation hearing.
None. Roll call on the call, please. >> Kadin, >> yes. >> Camarra, >> yes. >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> yes. >> Peekom, >> no. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Raposo, >> yes. >> President Ponti, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. A one nay. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Next order of business. >> Motion grant to withdraw on that. just ask her introduce it and we'll certainly do that. >> Item four is a communication from the mayor and the second revised proposed
fiscal year 2027 municipal budget July continuing appropriation order. >> Motion to grant the item leave to withdraw has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pereira. All those in favor? >> Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> Mr. President, if I could just for a
question of uh procedure. I'm not sure if granting the um order leave to withdraw equals a rejection. There was a a question that had come up in the past. >> Let it Let's just do both. So motion to reject would be appropriate made by
councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Canuel. Discussion on the rejection hearing not. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you, madam clerk. Item five is a communication from the city council president and the uh a policy and ordinance on the use of outside legal counsel.
>> Motion to accept place on file. >> Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by council repos seconded by councel. I'm just going to uh speak on this very briefly as as a letter for you all. Um the reason I uh drafted the letter and added it to the agenda tonight is because many
colleagues um and I know council Pereira and Council Chimera both spoke on having a policy in place. so that everybody was on the same page when it comes to utilizing outside counsel. I made this uh letter to you all with a copy of the already approved policy that was had
when we had KP law here. I want the council to have the ability to give their own opinions um to provide any kind of written communication to the city clerk on what policy you would like to see changed and then this council then would be able to vote on the new policy as a new council at a
future meeting. So, I just wanted to offer everybody that fair and equal opportunity and that's why I sent this letter, added it to the agenda tonight. Councelor Peekham, did you want to speak? I saw your hand raised. >> No. >> No. Councelor oppos? >> Answer my question. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? >> No.
>> Motion to accept the item and place on file has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? You have it. And then is it the will of the council to reconsider the proposed ordinance related to the salary amendment of the director of health and human services? >> So moved.
>> Motion to uh pass the item through second reading and enrollment as amended. >> Motion to reconsider >> or motion to reconsider would be first. Is there a motion? Motion to reconsider has been made by councelor Kadim. Seconded by who? Council Chimera. Uh will you that would be appropriate?
Yeah. A motion to reconsider has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? >> Opposed? >> The eyes have it. >> Just to be on the safe side. Council Chimera wasn't on the prevailing side. Second. >> Yeah, that's why I was thinking about that, but maybe. >> Yeah, no problem. Motion to reconsider.
Let's do this again correctly. Motion to reconsider has been made by Council Khadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Hearing no further discussion. Is all those in favor? >> I opposed. >> The eyes have it. >> Motion to pass through second reading enrollment. >> Motion to pass. The item through second reading and enrollment as amended has
been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pereira. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> If we could have a brief uh recess to sign the ordinance, please. >> Three minute recess. Ora City Council meeting is now back in
session. Madam clerk, >> and the last item before you for um passage to be ordained, it's is the salary amendment ordinance for the director of health and human services. >> Has to be ordained as amended. >> Motion to pass the item to be ordained as amended has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pereira. Discussion hearing none. All those in
favor? >> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> That's all we have, Mr. President. Motion to adjurnn has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor heart. All those in favor have a good night.