Council meeting will now be called to order. Madam clerk, roll call, please. >> Council Scadin >> here. >> Camarra >> here. >> Can >> here. >> Dion >> here. >> Hart >> here. >> Peekom >> here. >> Carrera >> here. >> Reposo here. >> President Ponty >> here. Pursuant to the open meeting,
Laura, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may MIT the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. It is 5:30 on the 28th of July. This
meeting has been called to order. Um just for everybody's own edification for the public and those who are here. The city council chambers as memo to the council and the community a couple of other meetings is closed to the public until August >> 11th >> 11th u for some work outside of the
chambers. We felt that uh the ceilings are down. There's some work that uh is being done internally uh that uh needed to have been done. So that is being done. So we are in the city council hearing room uh for this special meeting that has been called. Uh first item on our agenda this evening is citizens input. One person signed up to speak is
Colin Das 560 Ray Street and it is regarding the budget. >> Oh actually we should have before we do that this is a uh this isn't a full city council meeting correct? >> Yes it is. Mhm. >> We should actually, if you can go back over there, Miss Mr. Adas, if everybody in the city council hearing room could
please rise for a moment of silent prayer. >> I apologize. >> Thank you. And a salute to the flag. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for
all. >> Sorry about that. We're a little out of our element here. Uh so I'll reintroduce the item. It is citizens input. Mr. Das 560 Ray Street and the subject matter is budget three minutes. Thank you, Council President, members of
the city council. I'm [clears throat] here today to speak in support of the transportation budget as approved by the school committee. This number was fully vetted by the school committee and it's important I believe it's important that we do not have to come back before the
city council for money if need be. I do not again I do not trust that this administration would even honor that request if we even had to come back. I think it's important to when you're I guess for hypothetical sense when you
buy a house you should have enough money to pay for the mortgage. The mayor recently told us at Wednesday school committee meeting last Wednesday that he would fully fund the 17 million and that a deal was reached tonight to
fund the fully fund the budget. That's what he said. Two days later, the mayor changed his mind. My question is what changed? Was it the investment income projections? Was it something else? I don't know. [clears throat] But I am
frustrated as one member of the community today and I and I wish to state this on the record and mark my words. The mayor is currently bullying our superintendent who is behind us to agree to the number that is before you
tonight, which is not the number the school committee agreed to. The city council has a duty to pass a fully funded budget, a fully balanced budget. Please deny the the mayor's budget that he sends down and demand that he sends
down a fully funded budget for transportation. There should be no question, no politics when it comes to the students of our city and we deserve a fully funded transportation budget for the kids of our city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Das. Next item on uh you reading here?
>> Yeah. >> Council or Council Vice President Dion? >> Yeah. I'd only like to make a couple of comments and I guess the first one is um whether this whether this would be funded whether this would be funded down
the road if need be is not in the mayor's purview. It's up to the council to vote to fund it or to give extra money. Not not the not the not the administration. Um the purse strings are here. And um
and secondly, yes, we're obligated to pass a balanced budget. And I'm not saying and and and I'm not making these comments saying whether I agree or don't agree with the transportation issue, just basic facts. Um and then the other
thing is yes, we're responsible. We have to pass a balanced budget. Correct. But just like anything else in this budget, we cut the indirects in in a stabilization account by over a million dollars. Why? Because we were able to. Because just because it was in the
budget didn't mean we had to say yes, I guess is my point. So yes, we have to balance make sure it's balanced, but we don't have to agree to everything that's in it. So I just want to make those two points just for some clarification. >> Thank you. You yield? >> Yes.
>> Thank you, councelor. I just have something to add because I get pretty frustrated when people make a statement that I sit here and wonder is that true, is it not? But Mr. Das, you just made a comment that the mayor is bullying the superintendent. The superintendent is
here and if she is being bullied by the mayor, I think she should tell us that that I mean, you made that statement. If she's being bullied, I want her to tell us. Are you being bullied?
>> You know, >> no, I I I can't speak for the superintendent where she would be comfortable sharing. >> You just said she was being bullied by >> I fully stand behind my comments. So, I'll leave it at that. >> Well, you can say you feel possibly that's way, but to make a statement that
has she had a conversation with you about being bullied? I >> I was informed by whistleblowers. >> Well, you can't listen to all whistleblowers, you know. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Councel Kadim. >> Thank you.
>> Sorry, I might um I just wanted to clarify one statement. I I do agree with my colleague. The only the only issue that I have is is that we can only while we control the purse strings, we can only act on items that come down before us by the the mayor. So, if the mayor doesn't submit >> some type of an order for us to make a
transfer or an appropriation order, we can't take any action. So, I I think that's where uh Mr. Das was going. But I don't disagree. I I think at least the conversations I've had, if there are any um transfers that need to be had or any appropriations the mayor has committed to making those. So I would I would hope
that he would >> uphold his his word and his commitments come back down. But I mean that's for a conversation uh in one of our next discussions to to really kind of talk about where we stand in terms of a balanced budget. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, Council Limera. >> Yeah. I just want to pick up on what council seat 7 was talking about. Mr. D.
Do you have any documentation or proof you can leave with this body today to back up the statement you just made about the bullying? >> I was informed by whistleblowers. I trust statements that would be so the answer is no. >> And I stand by my comments. >> So the answer is no. You don't have any documentation or facts you can give us.
>> Is there documentation that the mayor bully people? I mean I I don't understand the question. >> Very simple. People make comments. Let me just finish with the question so you understand it. People make comments and usually they back it up with facts, documentation to prove that their comments are true. That's not that difficult to understand, is it?
My advice as a citizen and as someone who watches council meetings and someone who understands what members of the council support the mayor more blindly than other members support the administration. I would advise you to maybe take the blinders off and
understand that there's many instances in the community where there's been actions that aren't appropriate. I I stand by my comments. I believe the whistleblowers that have come before me and I just want to make the statement because I've seen the action. I've seen the mayor make a comments that he's
fully funding the budget. Two days later, it's not fully funded. I I think that's where I think you should subject the mayor. >> So, so I just want to ask you several question. You answer the question. You don't have any documentation to back up the comments that you're making. You just listen to whistleblowers, which is
okay if that's where you want to rule. That's fine. It's up to you. I don't go that way. when I make a comment, I have documentation to back up what I'm saying so people can actually see it and know what and want to judge for themselves whe it's true or not. >> So my advice, you're the one that brought it up, not me.
>> A citizen would be to ask the mayor what changed within two days how he promised the school committee he would fund it at 17 million and we're here today with a budget that's not 17 million. I just want to know what happened within the last two days. >> That's totally different for what I'm
talking about. I'm talking about the bullion comment. just want documentation on the bullying comment that you made, not about what happened and what changed, what happened, what he promised, what he didn't promise. Let's not try to change the subject. It's very simple. All I want to know is if you have documentation or anything else, you can leave with this body to prove your comments about the bullying. That's all.
>> Yeah, I think I answered the question. I don't have paperwork to give you. >> Thank you. With that, >> thank you. Thank you, council. Any further? Thank you, Mr. Das. That will conclude citizens input. Priority matters before this council, the mayor in an order in a memorandum of agreement uh between uh Mayor Paul Kugan and the
for city council regarding outside legal counsel. >> Motion [clears throat] to adopt. >> Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Herrera, seconded by councelor Raposo. Is there discussion on this item >> on the adoption of the memorandum of agreement between the mayor and the city council? Council vice president Dion.
Yeah, I just I would just like to state that um a lot of time and effort did go into this. Um I think the goal was to be a bridge between the city council and the administration to just to try to bring people to the table. How people vote, whether they agree with it, don't
agree with it, is fine. People don't have to agree with it. Um was there compromise that went in? Absolutely. You have to have compromise um in in many situations. and whatever this B and it's all and I want to be
very clear. It was always about the body. It was never about the president and myself. We made it clear from day one. There was no agreement that could be signed by us. There was no agreement that could be rock solid. We could not
bind this council to anything. And at every meeting we had, I would tell the administration before anything else can happen, before we can move forward, everything we've discussed and any MOAs that come out of
these meetings have to go to the council to the body because this MOA and moving forward is about the body. It's not about me. It's not about the council president. So whatever this body votes today is the direction we will move in
and with that I yield. >> Thank you. Anything for council uh council? >> Thank you Mr. President. I so I just want to kind of echo my sentiments of uh vice president and I want to thank the president and the vice president for their due diligence on this work. I know there was a lot of meetings that took
place to try to get to the place we're at. Um I can tell you that especially for the vice president um I was involved in the last meeting. she did reach out to me to try to bridge the uh discussion between myself and corporation council and I will say it was a productive meeting. It was a it was a very long
meeting. Um there was a lot of back and forth in terms of what was before us in this MO MOA. Um but overall when we start looking at the MOA, I think it's a a great compromise because that's what it was. It was a compromise. Um and when we start talking about the body uh as
the city council, the lens that we looked at this from was not this current administration or this current council, but it was future administrations and future councils and making sure that there was some safety nets and protections uh for both sides. Number one, not to circumvent the administration or corporation council,
but to give um again some reassurance to the council if there is a disagreement. We have the authority to seek a sec a second legal opinion. nothing that would be binding, but to to really just get a second uh set of eyes on any type of uh legal opinion that was sent down or um
any opinions that uh have been submitted even without our request so that we can kind of get some reassurance on where it stands. Uh so overall I want again want to thank uh council president especially council Dion who really kind of um you know ushered this through uh corporation
council. I think he did a phenomenal job in terms of uh giving in in certain areas as well uh as well as the city council and I think overall this is aou that will benefit this council future councils and the administration. That being said, um I can tell you that I had
commit to uh corporation council that there was an ordinance that was submitted with regards to uh legal counsel. Uh so I'll be filing a resolution to have that removed uh from ordinance because it was in thisou. Uh part of my agreement was that we would not have an ordinance and that thisou
would would pretty much be the bible in terms of where uh we were going with regards to uh getting outside legal counsel and the process that it would take place. So, um, I'll I'll submit a resolution to to have that removed and go through the process and hopefully we'll have the support of the the
council. But overall, I think this thisou is is a great starting point and then obviously the council will have to, you know, come up with a policy in terms of, you know, how we go about um, entertaining getting outside legal uh, when we can uh, request second legal opinions, things of that nature.
Again, kudos to the administration and and to council leadership for really trying to kind of usher this through and and bridge the gaps between our uh disagreements and differences that we had. Uh so with that, I yield. >> Thank you, Council Chimera. >> Yeah, just curious maybe through the chair to my colleague C1. Does that mean
that there will never be an ordinance or can any other council create an ordinance that will put into effect what you had in that ordinance versus what if five or six years from now a council is different and someone says we should have an ordinance to put in certain things in place. Will that null and enfor this agreement or something?
[clears throat] >> Yeah, I appreciate the fact you're going to get rid of your ordinance that you hadn't but there's nothing to prohibit future counselors from saying we really need an ordinance to address >> No things no. So short answer is no. It doesn't prohibit future councils from submitting an ordinance. It's whether or
not uh corporation council will agree that it's a legal uh ordinance, right? Something that would could be legally challenged and upheld. You know, one thing we we did walk away saying that we're not foregoing the fact that [clears throat] we feel that we have the authority for outside legal and he's
also not foregoing his idea that he has to approve outside legal. So I think it's just we're not setting any precedent uh moving forward, but it was just an agreement from my standpoint. Gotcha. uh to have that removed. So if future councilors want to take up that fight and submit an ordinance, then they have the they have the opportunity to do that. >> Right. Just curious. Thank you. With
that, I yield. >> Thank you, councelor. Any further discussion on this? >> There's a motion to adopt. And I want to again thank you to uh madame [clears throat] vice president uh working with you and corporation council um as well as the interim city administrator and the mayor for getting us all in a room to to work through
these intricacies so that we can move the dial forward here. Um, so again, thank you for everybody's efforts on that. I echo everybody's comments. Motion to adopt has been made and seconded hearing. No further discussion. Roll call. Madam clerk. >> Council Kadine, >> yes. >> Camarra,
>> yes. >> Canal, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> yes. >> Pekkham, >> no. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Raposo, [clears throat] >> yes. >> President Ponte, >> yes. >> Motion carries, eight days, one. Madam
clerk, >> item three is a communication from the mayor and the third revised proposed fiscal year 2027 municipal budget general fund appropriation order. >> Discussion uh councelor Pereira. >> All right.
This is what I have to say about the whole issue with this budget. [snorts] My understanding was leadership had a meeting with the mayor to talk about the budget. school department finance team met with the mayor with the
city's finance team. Now, to be perfectly honest with you, I never got a call from anybody in leadership to say, "We met with the mayor and this is what we're looking at so far. This is what's happening." So, I'm hearing a lot through the grapevine. So, I'm going to throw the grapevine out and you people
who are all here can tell me what's true, what's not, and where we move from here. that at a school committee meeting and I watched that school committee meeting when they talked about the school transportation and they asked I want to say it was um school committee
agar that said what is the amount and the mayor said it would be $17 million then the ordinance committee we had a meeting here and our CFO Mrs. RP was here. What is the amount? And we weren't
really sure. Then in listening to school department individuals that they had a meeting and it was thought that because of the fact they're doing the redistricting, we could look at possibly three fewer buses and two fewer vans
that there would be a [clears throat] decrease in transportation. So it was talked about to give the school transportation 16,650,000 which would leave a balance of 450
to meet the $17 million mark. At that point, I had heard they were looking at the earned inest from our investments, which I believe in the budget had been about three million, but I had um Lauren
send it to everyone because I tried to call and speak to Miss Oppy. Couldn't get in touch with her. I know she's very busy. Reached out to Ian Shaky. And Ian did send an email, you all have it, where there was 4 million some odd
dollars in earned interest plus another close to a,995,000 from OPA investment money. So the total is over 5 million in earned interest. Now I just heard Mr. Kadim say I believe
that if we do the and I not this amount, but if we do the 16.6 6 uh million and the school department needs more. We do have money in earned income and the
mayor has agreed that he would supplement the school department if it was needed. So that's where I'm at. That's what I'm hearing. So I'd like to hear if that's something that can be mutually agreed upon by people or do we
take the money now and put the whole 17? Does it make a difference either way? >> Motion [clears throat] to wave the rules. Motion to wave the rules to invite uh Miss Ary and the school uh committee uh superintendent down has been made by councelor Kadeim, seconded by councelor Laard. All those in favor?
>> Opposed? The eyes have it. >> Mr. Aldo, >> we might need another chair or so, but >> All right. Very good. if you can. Um, beginning with you, Madam Superintendent, introduce yourself for the record, please. >> Kathleen Smith, uh, interim
superintendent of schools. >> Aldo Petrono, CFO for F River Public Schools. >> Emily Arky, uh, director of finance. >> That's okay. [laughter] >> O'Neal, Souza, interim city administrator. >> All right. Uh, council Pereira, you have
a question. >> So, maybe if you can all clarify that for us so that we can then take a vote. >> Could I speak first? >> Yes, >> absolutely. Council, >> first of all, uh, I want to thank you again for [clears throat] having us here. And it really is important for me to go back to, I believe, June 1st,
which was the night where we actually defended our budget and it was non- net school spending. I sat here with Kevin Almeter, our chief financial officer at the time. I had been in the the seat for about one month. I had Deputy Superintendent Lagal and I also had uh Kemp Pacico, director of transportation.
At that time, the budget had been reduced from what was approved by the full school committee unanimously on the non-net school spending at the time, the 17.1 million. I think it was on the 16th of uh April that was done. We stood by
that budget. We talked about, you know, why that was important to us. Um, at the time the thing that was in question, the variable, and we talked very openly about that was the redistricting. And it was important to note that with the redistricting, there are a lot of moving pieces here. We are, and I I'm going to
be careful to use the word hopeful, but we are trying to be fiscally responsible in not only the redistricting, and this is really step one with the redistricting, but to see if there was going to be cost savings. [clears throat] After that meeting was over, there was a lot of discussion. I
want you to know that the very next day I picked up the telephone and I called council president uh Ponte. I first of all thanked him for the questioning and the respect shown to our team that evening. I think there was a lot of dialogue from all of you. I went through my notes just the other day and at the
time we committed to working together knowing of the variables for this year whether you call it a task force or whatever it was that we [clears throat] would sit and review on a very regular basis. There's a lot to review whether you want to look during this coming year not only at the redistricting. Do you
want to look at walk zones? You basically the state sets an amount. You actually allow for a lesser amount. You transport more of your students for safety reasons. You know certainly a a good reason to do that. Looking at again
the buses, the vans are their savings. So that is where we landed at the time. I'm now coming before you this evening. After some discussion very recently, there has not been, you know, councelor, you asked about discussion. I have had some discussion recently the past couple
of days with the mayor and his team about the $450,000. So, if you look at that, it's actually come down to a deficit from what we requested to $450,000. I cannot sit here and commit absolutely that we would have that savings. But
what I can continue to commit to work with the mayor and his team, you know, to work with the council president and your team that we would come on a regular basis. We're right now still registering students. We're not sure about the green school which has a dual language program although we've redistricted. There are some programs
that are in movement right now. Uh there are days I'm told and this is not unusual for a large urban district where you register close to a hundred students during a day. I think right now with our political uh atmosphere there are, you know, we're really questioning, you
know, are all of the students going to register? We're concerned about that. But those are variables we don't know at this time. So, I guess I'm sitting here this evening. I'll answer any questions I can. But we are committed to working with all of you to keep you updated as school opens, whether it's monthly, whatever it is, so that we can share
with you the savings that we're seeing. And obviously sooner than not if if there is an opportunity we have where we have to say to you here are the reasons and we're not seeing the savings then we would like to be able to count on the mayor and the city [clears throat] council to be able to you know fully
fund our non-net school. One of the things we spoke about at the ordinance committee which councelor proposer chairs and he had put in um you know so let's have an ad hoc committee with certain members of the council certain members of the school committee to keep
an eye on that. So if that's going to happen as well I think that would be helpful to both sides and you would know you'd be able to discuss the transportation issue there. So are you saying that if we give the 16 6 650,000
but that you needed more. Do you have faith that we would be able to give you more at that point, Emily? Would we be able to give them more? >> Yes, I think that we have um enough in reserves and enough other variables that we can, you know, constantly do. We have that situation anytime, right? There's
other things that happen throughout the year that are unforeseen and we have um we come down for more money as it's needed. So, we're always in that ability and and there is a big commitment from our side that we would make sure that we could do that. >> Could you do the 17 now? >> I >> I think you can if you can get it later,
you can get it now. Am I wrong? >> It would it sometimes it would require changes and other things that are in flux that we don't know about that could be [clears throat] in flux in a different way that would help you know transfer over >> take it from investments from the interest in investments. >> So, we've been we've been talking about investment income. We did increase it.
So, this submission now has an increase of um >> it's 5 million. >> No, that's the actual that's Yeah, sorry. It was an interest. It was an increase of 350,000 I >> Yeah. Okay. from what you had put in. >> So, so it's up to 2 3.6 million. It was
at 3.25 and it's at 3.6. So, we are losing you. You mentioned a million of that 5 million is ARPA. So we won't have that anywhere near that rate next year just because ARPA's got to be fully expended by December and the fact that we're obviously dwindling down. So we only have six months of it and it's a
lot lesser of an amount. So that number is going to continue to drop down. So looking at our general fund side of things and the fact that interest rates have been coming down slowly luckily over the last year they do continue to slowly kind of trickle in that direction. So to say that we're going to
continue to hit that $4 million number. I think it's been a conversation since before I even was in the seat that that's not going to maintain. >> And you might not have that. And I'm not talking about what we're going to do for next year. I'm talking about right now. You can't get $450,000 to make them whole at 17 million. >> Well, that you're talking about that
investment income being from 26. Is there $450,000? I mean, I look at some of the hirings that have been done. I look at some of the raises that have been given to certain people within city hall that if we're tight, I think that
some of those raises $15,000 a little too much. Just my opinion. >> So then in that sense, sure we could do the 450 today, but you're talking about pulling something else that's in the budget that, you know, we've been going through that we've submitted documents from other departments and stuff like that and we have that zerobased budgeting in there. Yes, we could do it,
but you would probably be changing something else in the budget, and that would be a conversation about what we would be reducing to put that in. I >> I'm going to yield and let some of my colleagues uh [clears throat] have a chance. I mean, thank you. If you could I mean, you're saying you could do it
with the 16.650,000. As long as you know that another 450 would be available, you can start out with that. Do you know through transportation now? We do not >> how many buses we would >> we don't well that is the variable as I
said you know we are looking to see the students that are presently registering right >> where right now we we have bus routes certainly that are formed but there will be additions you know there there could be some students coming off of the busing that's the redistricting question that I can't answer this year
>> and hopefully people will come and register their children sooner than later usually 2 days before 3 days before a week before everybody's running and registering children. >> Yeah. One date you is very critical to us is the October 1st date. >> So that is important to us for funding
for our chapter 70 funding. So by October 1st, we make every effort to make sure all your kindergarten students are in, your preschool students are in, you know, students that we have people in in out in the district, you know, making sure that people [clears throat] are registered and and I guess I'm speaking from formerly a large urban
district. we make sure that October 1st is critical because that is your funding and it's an 18-month lag in >> and I agree that transportation is critical because we do want to make sure that our our students can get to school. >> But counselor, I'm also saying that when I look at that October 1st, I would
think by November 1st, we would have a very good idea of are there savings that we're seeing? Um I wouldn't be too quick. I mean, but we'd be reporting to our so-called task force or ad hoc committee >> and have that that's that's a good thing to have. I'm going to yield to give my colleagues.
>> Thank you. Two before I acknowledge our other counselors, just as a point of clarification, co council Pereira made a good point. What is the school committee's or your position on how much you need for transportation? Is it 17 million? >> Yes, that is exactly the amount that the
school committee passed on April 16th. It's $17.1 million for a non-net school spending. Okay. And that has not changed. >> That and that's what we want to know, just to be clear. And the city is submitting a budget at 16 >> 650. >> All right. Just so we're clear because I
council purr is asking some good questions but I didn't get a clear understanding of what you are advocating for as superintendent for the schools. It's 17 million. >> It is the it was passed by the unanimously by the school committee on the 16th of April >> which is 17.1
>> and it hasn't changed although there are v you know the variables I just spoke about that has not changed. >> Okay. I just wanted to be clear because she made some good points and I wasn't sure of what you were you were saying. Councelor uh Kadim, >> thank you, Mr. President. So, I guess I'm I'm in line with councelor Pereira.
I I think if it's $17 million, then that's or 17.1 million, that's what it should be. And I and I appreciate the school department coming before us trying to cooperate with the fact that obviously there some budget differences and that you're going to live within or try to live within the number that's
that's funded and appropriated. However, I'm hearing from the CFO that we have the money, right? You you said that if in the future we need to because we heard it at at ordinance that um I think it was Mr. Petronio who who said that uh we would have to go to the stabilization. You corrected him and
said that would be the last resort that we would we would have some movement in the budget. So, if we have movement in the budget, why wouldn't we just fund the school department, the transportation number of $17.1 million? And I know there's a discrepancy between what is the actual cost and we were
trying to figure out how they got to the 17.1 but regardless of how they got there right it is 17.1 that was what was unanimously voted on by the school committee and um I think it was council Pereira who who said that you know obviously we've got open positions and so by the
time we do fillings there's going to be some savings uh associated with the salary line items as well. I mean, I'm I'm assuming that you did 100% of salaries. >> No, >> you didn't. >> So, the June 30th revised budget, June 26th, whatever date the the meeting at June 30th, we had a budget in front of
you that now includes vacancy savings. So, there was a detail sheet that was sent out. So, that was done in order to um I'm going to say amend the budget to account for the million plus dollars of revenue that was cut from EMS. So, there was a you know variety of things that were done, but one of the things that
was done was vacancy savings was added in. So that I'm going to say generic wiggle room within the salaries isn't going to be the same anymore cuz we're already trying to account for that knowing that it is turned back every year. So you know the idea of the stabilization going back to that thing that is the last resort but you know
come o by the end of October we should have our free cash certified for the year. So that's more of what I was saying. And then we can transfer from other departments. If there's other things, we could decide to pull back certain services or expenses within other departments at any point in the year if we feel like that's what we need to 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 you 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 escalated 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 [clears throat] 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 >> talking you're talking about a month, right? So, I mean, 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 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. So to 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 to >> 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? 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 for transportation. >> So, so I I missed the part that the redistricting has already taken place. In my mind, it was something that I was >> have been notified. Foods 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 [laughter] 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 in 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 and 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 Reposo.
>> 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? Does do they >> I'm that does not impact the busing. The busing is ob I'm sorry if I confused. 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 a rough estimate. >> We have some numbers. We just we pulled them before we left. >> If I can [clears throat] uh deputy, if you could just introduce yourself for the record, please.
>> Liz Loggo, deputy superintendent. >> Thank you. 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
you the register, uh, so as of 72726 and some of these registrations have not been put in to the SIMS is 604 new completed registrations for the new year. uh for last year in comparison at this time at seven 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 o our October 12 20 on October October 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. >> Thank you, Miss Ar. >> Here we go. [clears throat] >> Um, sorry, >> we can hear you. Council, >> thank you. Uh, Miss Arkkey, can you just
walk us through how we got to the number we're at today? because 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 Vavos 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 electric buses that was bought for the school district on a grant. So there was 10 electric buses. They started going into 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 per hour 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 [clears throat] 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 art 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 what 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 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 back 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. 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. 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 the budget. >> Correct. There's a percentage that's
taken off the [clears throat] 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, 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 rules and bring Mr. Pacho to the table? >> We already did that and Mr. Pico can come down. We've waved the rules already. So >> you you want to you want to speak on council Adion'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. Pashiko. >> 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. Um 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? Right. >> 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 and Mir
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? those 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 state? >> Correct. And that's why >> 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 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 would go down a h 100red 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, Council Chimera. >> I can't. Sorry. >> Kenny 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. >> Go ahead. 779,000
>> $134.68. >> 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. Da y. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Kadine. >> All right. So in terms of the appropriation order that's before us, so under education and 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 McKenna 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 McKini 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 they commit in 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 wid 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% 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. >> 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 assumption. It's a living document. I I recognize that. However,
when you when you're making 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 $7.1 million. So I don't know >> 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%. >> 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 teamsters 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 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. It's a >> well I I [laughter] could make 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 cuz 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 could 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 [cough] on getting the amount from where from the um >> reserve >> 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 by 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. 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 five out of the 57517 $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$8. >> 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. The mayor submits an a revised appropriation order. The council could vote on it tonight.
>> We can do that tonight. I'll allow it because it's not anticipated as well. >> Good. >> We want to take a fivem minute recess. >> Sure. Five minutes to get upstairs. 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 council 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 Pekka. >> 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 from 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 moved the 450.
>> 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 Lee, >> 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 a 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 [clears throat] 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 [clears throat] 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
in facilities. Spoken with him. He said his projects are all on queue. 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 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 for us and get me a response by Thursday? Sometime Thursday. >> Absolutely.
>> I appreciate it. With that, I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Vice President Dion. >> You good? >> Oh, yeah. I'm good now. Thank [clears throat] you. I'm sorry. >> Is there a motion? >> Uh motion to adopt the order as amended. >> Second. >> Motion to adopt as 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. 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 council. Discussion on the approval of the appropriation hearing. None. Roll
call on the call, please. >> Kadine, >> yes. >> Camarra, >> yes. >> Canuel, >> yes. >> Dion, >> yes. >> Hart, >> yes. >> Peekom, >> no. >> Pereira, >> yes. >> Reposo, >> yes. >> President Ponty, >> yes.
>> Motion carries. A one. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next order of business. >> Motion Grant leaves 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 grant lead to withdraw. >> Motion to grant the item lead 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 councel 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 accept place on file. >> Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by councelor Raposo, 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. Council oppos? >> He answered 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? The eyes 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. >> Motion to reconsider would be first. Is there a motion? Motion to reconsider has been made by councel Kadim. Seconded by who? >> Council Chimera. Uh will you that would
be appropriate? Yeah. Motion to reconsider has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? I >> 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 kadim. Seconded by council vice president Dion hearing. No further discussion. Is all those in favor? >> I opposed. >> The eyes have it. >> Motion to pass with second reading and 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. for 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 >> 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. >> Motion to all we have, Mr. President. Motion to adjurnn has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart. All those in favor? Yes. Have a good night. Thank you.