All right. Uh, I'd like to call the Tuesday, May 26, 2026 meeting of the finance committee of the Garden City Council to order. The assistant clerk will please call the role. >> Councelor Dalowitz, >> present. >> Councelor Hegund, >> present. >> Councelor Mack, >> present. >> Announcement of open meeting recordings.
The open meeting recording notice is on the wall over here. Is anyone recording other than staff? Noted. There is none. Um, next we have uh review and approval of meeting minutes. Um, there are none. Going to
subsection two, the FY2027 budget meetings. Um, we met on the departments under the purview of the finance committee a couple weeks ago had updates from the mayor and department heads um with their narratives that we um do
greatly appreciate. Um the mayor has since then submitted his propo uh proposed budget to us. We have that um in front of us now which is just you know obviously as we've gotten in the past but for those at home an additional uh column with u the mayor's proposal of
the council um and it's u our job here to see if we have any further questions about all the um departments. We'll go one by one um and if we have um any recommendations to make possibly to the council. So um Mr. Mayor, did you want to say anything? Uh the only thing I'd say is that was uh sent an email to the
finance committee this morning. Um Auditor Butler did notice that the uh professional development and travel line item in the HR uh department had not been zeroed out even though it had been accounted for in the amount that's included in the combined uh professional development and travel account. Uh so that corrected version was emailed out
to the finance committee this morning. Uh it is reflected in the orders themselves. And just for clarification purposes, for uh transparency sake, I did include in that email a listing of all the different departments and their request for professional development and travel so you could see where the bottom line number of that account came from that's included in the unclassified
account. >> Thank you. >> I brought a copy of the listing in case somebody needs to refer to it. >> Thank you. Um that being said, um we'll move on to the uh first uh departments that are in front of us, which would be
the city council. Um, is there any further >> discussion or on this one I had done here? >> Okay. >> Um, same with the um city clerk's office. Was there any further discussion on that section?
>> Uh, city report uh jump to >> it's on page three. >> Three. Yeah. >> Okay. Page three. I did this by line. Um >> um the only change I made, Mr. chairman
is I went back to step one um just as we go through the search process of that and then if there's the person does get hired at a higher step or something like that we can come back and address that at that time but knowing that the city cler submitted her resignation for a vacancy before the fiscal year that's why they've dropped back down
>> understood next okay um and then there were elections um right below it there I had nothing for that section either okay um onto the executive department. That should be it's on my version is on page one. Um
>> mine's on page one. I have I have uh three on on this page under different department. So I'll start with u line 63. Let me just see. I'm sorry. Line 21. I apologize. Line 21. >> Yes.
>> Um because that position has not been approved. I think it should be reduced to the current what the current position is. Yeah, >> in the budget because the it has the council has not approved it. So I can't see why we should budget the money there. >> Yeah, if I could just comment on that,
Mr. Chairman. Um I if you remember at the previous meeting I said that I included that number in there just for uh transparency sake to see what the reductions added out so that it was uh could visually show that it was uh budgetary neutral. That's why professional development and travel is also still included in the mayor's budget rather than the professional
development line was for that purpose. I believe I said that at the last meeting, but if that is reduced until that's approved or not approved or voted on by the council, that's fine. Again, that was just for illustrative purposes of showing the uh work that was done to try to make it a budget positive move.
>> So, say the part about the professional development travel again. I'm sorry. Uh so professional development and travel which is in line 30 here that was still kept in this budget to show that the amount that was being reduced uh amount that was being included in this year's mayor's request budget even with the addition of the position and the
increased compensation for that >> going down >> is everything else is going down to help make it budget neutral between that and the classified account. >> So if that is something that now that it's shown would be preferred moved into the consolidated account that's also something that can be done. It's just
one of those things. It was kept here for the illustrative purposes of showing the budgetary impact. Yeah, >> understood. Thank you, >> Counc. >> I I just think that I mean until I just don't think we should be showing it until it's approved. I think it gets you know it's I don't think it's accurate.
Um but we still have the number under the department request and then so it's it's there that that was requested by the department. However, until in my opinion, until the position is is approved by the council, that's just, you know, I'm just wanting to vote, but I just don't think it should be showing,
but I will defer to my colleagues >> and we are we just making recommendations up to the council um I believe at this point what kind of reductions um to make. Um >> yeah, I think I mean I know that's on our agenda today too. So depending on
how that discussion goes, um I could certainly see and I think that's what a lot of the other positions right are reduced. >> Yeah. Correct. >> To the initial depending how contract >> Absolutely. So >> um so yeah, we could recommend
>> I'm not against recommending no that and pursuing to a future. Um it was all sort of illustrative of what you tried to do to accomplish that goal, but I'm not against making the recommendation to produce it this time. And >> yeah, I just if a new type of position whether it's this one or a different one
is created then altering the budget that then >> I just I just think until it should be based on the 20 uh FY26 revised budget amount um plus whatever um you know cola would be included in there cuz it's not in any position
the 58 341 84 >> there were no colas included in this year's because we did the step scan last year >> okay y so yeah so I I just wanted to make you know. >> Okay. Um I guess there's a motion to make that recommendation.
>> So second by council max second by councelor Peglin uh to recommend the executive aid salary wage be reduced to the FY 2026 amount. Uh any further discussion? None. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Opposed. That motion carries. Um Mr. Assistant clerk, can you keep a running tally of the ones we're changing? Yep. With line items if that's possible. Thank you. >> If you can give this to the clerk. This is just my line by line reference of everything that I'm going to bring up today.
>> Okay. >> I I Hold on. Let me see. I might um if not >> I also get one after the meeting, counselor. >> Yeah, you have two after the meeting. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. You can copy. >> Um, is there another >> uh not on page one? >> Not on page one. Uh, council. >> Nothing from me. >> Okay. Um, I think the professional development that should be moved personally into
>> again the illustrated purpose. >> Illustrated purpose was there. it's here for us. But um I' I'd make a motion to move that um to recommend removing that item um from the from here um and adding it I guess to the other the other total. >> Yeah. So that would be me before the
order gets submitted to change that there too since the council can't add to the line made by me. So my we're going to move to reduce reduce this uh to to zero. Um and if the mayor wants to make further
alterations to the budget of his own accord, yeah, we may do so. Um second motion made by council, second by council Higglin to reduce the professional development travel line item in the mayor's
um budget to uh to zero. Any further discussion? None. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Those opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Um, it's not list if you may unclassified. >> Yeah, it's morning.
>> No, it's but on the list from the agenda. Um, I don't think it's on the unfortunately, but it's part of the exe. I think it was executive department. >> Wait, starting on page four of mine into page five is where I have it. Yeah. >> Um, there any discussion here?
No, I I'll just repeat what I said at at public service. I just want to make sure I I appreciate getting this list by department because I want to make sure the um distribution of professional de development is equitable among departments >> and it doesn't come until you know uh you know March 1st and we're out of
money. So at least people have itemized and they know where they're spending. um the building inspector sent a very detailed list of everything they spend their uh um to me. They they spend their professional development on. So I just want that that's my only fear about
putting this in one line item is to make sure that um it's accessible to everybody and all of a sudden we're just not out of money and you know this department end up getting double what they needed and another department didn't get any professional development. >> Council,
no I it's a good point. I think a system is definitely going to be needed. Um, it's something I've been thinking a lot about. Um, and and whether it's something the council proposes at ordinance, something the mayor has in mind, a system will, I think, really be necessary to make sure
things are done equitably. I agree. >> Yeah. Um, but for today's purpose, Exactly. >> Yeah. But it's a good good point. Um I did and there are as I speak to it is I pulled out of the um the budget the
council me should have too I think it over here um and council he have one it is just all the professional development line items um put together totaled um kind of for our information on the right hand column are the ones that were still in there obviously we've spoken to the
mayor's the mayor's one already HR1 you've you emailed us out. Um the auditor had saw it was in there. Um there were a few others that were still in there um as well. Um >> yeah, the disability commission and the historical commission have since also been taken out. Uh cable department had
remained in there similar to the enterprise account because they're a proprietary account paid for not by the general fund but out of their own cable funds. Okay. >> They are allocated separate for there just because it's a different funding source. >> Okay. And then I had animal control. >> Yeah, that was also taken care of and moved in. That's also what I already missed that.
>> If I didn't, I meant to was that >> it is in the list you sent us today. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. This is the >> That's why if you look at the bottom line of the list, I believe it's 116 in change and the budget was 118 to make sure that those are all encapsulated in this consolidated account. >> Okay. And I had at least a year to date
the actual usage of it was under $100,000. And I don't know, further bills are coming in. Um, and if there's further information that could be provided, but >> you'd have to check to see what what year to date number did you >> the for the Excel version that you had sent last week. So, >> okay. All right. I'll double check cuz
there were two. >> So, double check the math cuz the Excel was a little wonky and it was coming up completely wrong for a bit. Okay. >> Um, so I I didn't manually double check this number. Okay. >> Um, so double check that. But, >> um, >> the Excel comes out of Munis and sometimes the formulas don't carry over through Munis, even though the the
actual figures may be right when you try to do a formula that way. It's odd. >> I ended up having to cut at the end of the week, but I had to cut paste it into a different page and start over. Um, seems to total in quick math align more closely. Um but just to get an idea if
we are I mean there was there's obviously you know a gap of another six weeks where yeah funds could be being used and um it may come close to that number. >> I even I like to see how this works. I don't necessarily >> um I don't want to cut where we need to
where it's being used and used well but also mechanism for the is to make sure it's being used correctly and not like as said already it was a race at the end of the year to use it on something. um not to just use it. >> Yeah. >> Not saying that's happening but at all. Um I just want to make sure it's getting
used correctly. That's um and everyone gets a chance. That's all. So >> thank you. >> Um I have nothing further um in that section unless there's further further recommendations. Further information on it though. >> No, I think the further information will
be helpful because if it is less than 100 maybe we reduce it to possible 105 something closer. Correct. That was my my thought with it. So to get a more accurate picture of >> the professional development requests from fire, police and DPW, those are
largely license related. Okay. >> Um so those will be the biggest ones that will likely be used every year consistently. Um so just to keep that in mind as we move forward too, but I can certainly get to the more accurate year-to- date number. It's just those three have contractual through their union contracts requirements. >> Obviously three like the lines, you
know, half of it was I think more than half of those those ones. >> Yeah. um you know 31,000 35,000 there's another 15,000 one in there too >> I think 4500 in ambulance or something like that >> there's yeah about 4500 for ambulance too correct the
>> way the sheet polls doesn't have >> yeah you don't have >> the answer for the number you can go reference but it's >> I got you no we can get that for you sure >> yeah would appreciate that so we could have that for our full budget hearings meeting
um does the executive department. Um, next up we have the city auditor. I have that on page one. Um, does we have any for the auditors here for the questions? >> Uh, hold on.
Oh, on page one. >> Yeah, I want to >> I had nothing on these. >> Yes. Um so I had no um on this. So we move on to the uh next we have uh purchasing and civil enforcement.
There's page one and page eight director. That's so we'll start purchasing um on page one. I had nothing for this. That's what says either.
>> No. you'd like to speak on it. >> The only thing I'd add since you're talking about professional development, uh, just with the new employee in my department, the professional development is mandated, she needs to be MCPO designated within one year. So, that professional development will have to be
funded. Uh, it's three classes about 600 bucks a piece. The first one is being done with this year's fiscal year. Um, but I'm going to need at least, you know, 12,300 bucks next year. um I have to do continuing ed but I can backload it so I don't have to do and then I can
find free courses too. So um but there'll also be a way that if you do want to take a course that can be done through the new consolidated account too. >> Yes. >> Cuz the money is still allocated just differently in that account in a group versus the department. Correct. >> And most of my professional development
is done virtually. I don't typically leave the city to do any professional development, nor do I stay or do anything. Uh there's one conference I go to every uh September, but it's just mileage. It's not like it's and I you know, it's small. So >> Mhm.
>> I appreciate the call. >> The only other thing I'd point out, Mr. Chairman, is that while it's a very >> uh No, never mind. Looking at the wrong department. I apologize. >> Okay, we'll get to that after I guess. >> Yep. I just want to note on what we received today from the mayor for
purchasing um the amount was $1,000. >> Yeah, that wasn't there. >> Okay. So, you're thinking you're going to need more than that? >> Uh well, yeah, with the new hire, when I submitted the budget, >> when I submitted the budget, there wasn't a need. Um but I mean, it's going to be close cuz if I I I just don't know
about the carryover how we used to do it. >> If I can carry over leftover funds to my professional development, then I can I can carry it over, too. So, >> is how is the So incumbrances, encumbrance is the carryover funds. If we ever hear in encumbered, that's what that means. Uh if we know that certain
expenses are going to be incurred in the upcoming fiscal year and there's a written justification for why you believe those funds could be used upcoming forward, then a department head can move those from a current year account into an encumbered account, carry those over to the next fiscal year and spend those funds. They don't have
to be uh explicitly restricted to what you write in your justification narrative. It's just because the justification narrative is really anything that says I know I'm going to have some expenses coming. This one could be as simple as we know there's additional training because of a new but those funds being encumbered into next
year. And it also is not restricted to professional development to professional development. If you have something in professional services, say in fiscal 26, but you know you're going to need it for professional development in 27, you can encumber those from a professional services into an encumbered professional development account. so long as you can
say this is what we anticipate is going to be needed. So that's where the encumbered funds come from. >> So I guess my question further I guess was because this sub this budget is moving this into the mayor's unclassified. >> Yes. >> Because this is coming from the previous years it's still going to stay in an
encumbered line item in the purchasing >> in the purchasing department's budget or whoever's >> correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> Not in an overall encumbered account in the mayor's the this current >> yes method. So I think yeah I think I can encumber funds that'll offset so I'll only need $1,000 from the mayors.
>> Yeah. >> Encumbrances stay within the department. >> Y >> I just I think I'll just add too I think you know even if if we do find through that number is far less than 118 even if we reduced it by some there probably will be buffer as well. So I feel
confident in >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So anything further on the purchasing board portion? >> Okay. Um and then civil civil enforcement I have on mine is page eight. Um I there just
>> nothing. >> Okay. >> I'm very limited. >> Thank you for the information on the pressure. >> Yeah. Uh, next up we have the city assessor. >> She's also
>> what's that? Did I skip one? >> Yeah. No. >> Oh, page two. I'm sorry. Is here with us today. Um, any questions? >> Yeah. I have uh line 63. The clerk assistant.
>> Yes. >> Uh, it's minus $28.61 61 cents from last from the two amounts of FY 27 and what you uh in the mayor's budget. So I just wanted to know why the difference
>> it goes from 42,700 >> to 42,67139 >> I think it's Is that just rounded? >> Yeah. So the the 427 was a rounded number up we get the actual number. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I round up. >> Okay. I did that on all of these. I did all my math.
>> Yeah. >> Y >> Okay. >> So, all right. I just wanted to make sure. >> I believe that represents a 3% cost of living adjustment for the union contract with ask me. >> Yep. >> I just want to make sure we're not under budgeting any numbers. That That's my whole point that
>> I I will always round up. So, yeah, that's the exact number. Yep. >> That's my question. Any >> further questions? >> Nothing else for me. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Um, we have the treasurer collector page also on page two. Um, >> so on line 76 I have the same thing for the assistant salary. There's a minus $75.65 difference. Is that the same reason? >> Yeah, this is one of those that's included in the step scale. So that's
the number that's in the step scale. >> Okay. >> I think the uh treasure included a cola number. I think that was in the narrative, but >> yeah, but I >> was a good catch. I had no other questions. >> Done there. Um, we have debt service
property insurance as well. Debt service 11. Um, I have no questions here. The explanation is the same every year. This is just the interest and the debts we have. Um and then property insurance
on page 12. Um similar question does move on to the next section. Um we have human resources. That's back on page two. Any questions for me?
>> Obviously, Mr. Mayor, feel free to jump in if you have anything to say. >> The only thing I had to say on human resources was that $1,500 that we caught earlier today. >> Yep. Okay. Yeah, I had that highlighted in my email. So, um, nothing on the committee. >> Okay. I have no questions on that one
either. We have information technology. I think that starts on page two and goes to page three. >> Yes. >> I have one question on line 127. >> Yes. >> Uh, is it 127? Hold on. No, it I
apologize. No, it is 127. So, I'm just questioning the um the FY27 was $71,49.13 for FY26 and for the mass difference, it's gone up $11,242.94
to the 82,000 >> that reflects the new ordinance change that we had for the grid >> with the with the >> with the steps that were approved for the position. Um >> um the auditor and I are currently working on doing the transfer vote into those accounts to allocate for those this year, but that's not included in
the FY26. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> My only other question was is the IT director I mean he did not come in to present his budget. Is he coming in today? >> He was made aware that this meeting is happening today. >> Okay. >> Because he should be here to present his
budget like every other department is meeting to. And so, um, I I have to fasten because I disarm in the hallway when I walked in. So, >> um, anything further on that budget? >> Nope. >> And the last one we have is the law department budget page.
>> Page two. Um, that one we do have a narrative. Um, partially my era. I didn't get it into into file. Um, so for the last time, but we do have it now. Um I don't know if there's any uh that it does note obviously which the city
solicitor um Mr. um attorney Bruce had brought up in the past about having a um an assistant on he's a partially funded assistant or some some level um is brought up um in there. I don't know if the mayor has any further to speak on >> uh it's not included in this budget. The two salary line items for the assist the
solicitor and assistant solicitor are set uh reflective of the ordinance changes that were recently done. the outside uh I believe it's uh a lot of the funds attorney Pusetary did zero out on his own thinking he didn't need certain
things like arbitration costs and office supplies a lot of that is because uh he and attorney Batenzi work in different firms so there's not as much uh outside counsel that's needed because if one is conflicted the other can help take over and vice versa back and forth from there. Uh so we've actually saved a lot of costs when it comes to things of that
nature. uh the office supplies, a lot of it, you know, it's electronic letterhead rather than printing specific letter head. Um so the main um differences you'll see is an increase in closing costs and legal fees from 125 to 500 and
uh the outside council line item was level funded from last budget as well. So it's really a couple hundred increase from last year's budget aside from the salaries that were adjusted in the new ordinance. questions, comments from
>> No, I didn't have anything. >> Okay. >> It just explain the difference again in the 20 plus $20 itself that you guys round off. So, the assistant >> any further uh comments or
questions regarding the departments that were in front of us. >> Yeah. We'll we'll make our recommendations known um that removable budget here ends up there >> and I'll uh submit a new budget that allocates the $4,000 that was removed
into the combined account that you see in front of you. So that will go up by $4,000 that you see there at 118. Um and then provide you with the information that was requested today on the combined account overall. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> I'm just going to give this to you there so you can see my they're not of the departments that just I had some
comments on. >> Appreciate it. >> Yep. Um there are no items in the first time on the agenda portion. Um in subsection four we have in subcommittee we have item 11482 discussions regarding the
city's health insurance payments and trust fund. Um any further updates from the mayor's office on this? >> Uh the we did get the official vote to remain with Blue Cross at the 12 and a half% increase. So that is what's included in the budget that you have before you and that's what we'll have moving forward into the fiscal year. open enrollment uh letters did get sent
out to everyone uh indicating that change uh that we would be unless another email was out stating otherwise there'd be a 12 and a half% increase we are remaining with blue cross either way uh and that is moving forward. >> Thank you. Um questions from the uh the committee
>> not for me this will no objection will remain on our part of our agenda. No objection. It will remain. Um item 11752, study and report on the sh salt shed repayment issues. Mr. Mayor, I'm anticipating by the end of the fiscal year we'll have the full vote to
reallocate the money back into the stabilization account that's left over. Um and as well as uh a document saying the plan of what actually what then the funds to buy the new chassis were transferred out of that account to pay for it separately. Okay. Um do we
you got the decision from the >> the law department said that it was a legal >> use because it was related to the use of the salt shed. Okay. >> Uh but feeling the you know the opinion of the council the feedback that we've received just to make it cleaner overall in general. Even if we have a a legal opinion doesn't mean that the audit
opinion would say the same thing too. Uh so we're trying to find a new way to pay for those. >> Um I appreciate it. Uh I don't know if you're supposed to submit that at some point just to see it. Um or two I don't I don't know if there is some sort of precedent where if there is
a law department opinion and someone could challenge some does that behold are we stuck to that or we beholden to that? >> No it's an opinion. So it's one of those there's a difference of opinion that it's not a ruling type. >> Thank you. That's what I fig >> just on this topic I just want to refer
back to councelor heglin because you were really questioning the repayment issue. Is that resolved? Are we still looking for a repayment schedule? >> Yes. >> At this point that we need to save and pack before we close it. >> I was going to ask that too. So it sounds like you're hoping by the end of
the fiscal year the chassis situation will be fixed and >> the leftover amount in the appropriation will also be known so that then we can make the full schedule after that by knowing how much is outstanding. >> Products closed out. >> Okay, that was the only question if we knew if anything about that payments
free cash related to it. Um we had any time on on any of that. So >> yeah, >> I know councilor Mac has asked many occasions and I know it's an ongoing process of closing it out. Is the final seating going? >> I'll have to get an update on that one and I don't have that information yet. >> Okay.
>> All right. Um yes, we'll just continue with unless there's any objection, we'll continue to keep this item with us at the finance committee. >> Um so stay with us. Uh item 11728 uh discussion on the current state of facilities management for all municipal
buildings. Um, and this kind of ties into the other items here as well, which is item 11814, a measure accepted the job description of a new chief of staff position for the mayor's office and item 11816, an ordinance to amend the attachment F of
chapter 8 of the code of the city of Gardener. Therefore, entitled primary non-UN compensation schedule. U, Mr. Chairman, if I could just add on 11728 because I know council Mack did request in the past a separate job description for the facilities. Uh, we have reached out to a couple other municipalities. We've yet to receive an actual uh
response yet on a job description for a facilities manager. Fitsburg had one that they've since discontinued. Uh but I've asked them to still provide a copy of the description to see what it looks like. Uh and we've asked a couple of other we've now gone out from besides just the cities into the towns in the area too to see if they have anything there too. So that's still a work that
we're trying to get done together. Okay. Um there any further questions or discussion on item 11728 specifically the facilities management position? That's right. So that's that's good to hear. You're looking for the job descriptions. So because I think my only
question was going to be if the chief of staff position doesn't happen or doesn't include that part, >> um if that were to be amended out, would you have a backup plan in mind? >> Yeah, it' be something like that. >> And you'd be looking to create some sort of new position, new salary.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> No. >> Anything further? >> Not on the facilities management. No. >> Okay. Um they just will continue to remain with us for no objection. Um item 11814, a measure accepting the job description
um of chief of staff, which I actually already read into the record, so we can just say the number. Um is there um for discussion or updates from the anything the mayor wants to say as well? >> I believe I sent some additional requ uh information at a previous meeting. Um if there's any questions, ideas, comments, or anything like that from, you know,
some of the counselors, I'd be happy to answer those at this time. >> The back. Um, I do I I mean I I haven't, you know, sent out an email list and stuff, but I just I just again I just really question number one the need for this. I'm not convinced that with
everything that is going on in the city, I don't think this one position um will increase the, you know, what's in the mayor's office, the communication. Um I I I still think that the I just think it could just be with the current um executive, you know,
assistant to the mayor and the mayor working together, they could come up with some, you know, better strategies and time management. Um you know, I just um and I and I I do I I have grave concern of a executive physician overseeing facilities instead of having
somebody who's a hands-on facilities person. Um, so I'm I'm just gonna I will put in my once the budget's over, I will put in my concerns and questions to the mayor, but I also um I will wait to see because I I I personally feel that a
facilities manager, even if it was a a halftime person, um is better than right now a chief a chief of staff in my opinion. Um because, you know, regardless of you know, there's an administrative assistant there. I just, as I said, I just I sometimes you just
have to be creative and work with what you have it now. And I just think of the needs of the city across the city that this is a hard sell for me. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council. >> Thank you. Um it they're valid concerns. They are. I um it's new. It's, you know,
the facilities issue in particular, I don't know if it is the best home or not for it. I liked the job description when we last looked at it. I think I had mentioned that meeting that I thought it was pretty strong. You know, for me, having worked in in government and in the public sector and for many years and
and been involved with these types of roles, I still do see a need for it. I think it would attract better personnel. I think it would help really professionalize your assistance role in your office. Um,
and I think, you know, we just bring in someone with far better experience to do things. I and I worry that we'll see a revolving door in AIDS. um you know people coming in getting a couple years of experience and looking for chief of staff positions somewhere else is my concern. Um
and and most of the duties I think were pretty similar um to what the aid does. It is a you know I think there was some more oversight thrown to this position. Um so for me the title it's just a common title. I think we can't have deputy mayor. That's not how we're set
up. We can't have an assistant to the you know mayor. That's not how we're set up. um we don't have a you know soft mayor and a city manager or something like that. Um so I like it. I I am interested in
seeing this move forward um and then playing out and where we don't necessarily have a facilities plan right now and knowing that the building commissioner wants to see something change, we've all agreed something change at least in the meantime. I think it's something in the right direction.
Um, so I liked it. I I support it. Um, I think there could be some real benefit. Uh, and that's where I'm at for now at the moment. If there's any other discussion, um,
WC both sides that something needs to change um, with the particular facilities portion. Um, there needs to be some some kind of new oversight. um councelor Mac's point of someone hands-on is you know it's a true it's a
true statement you know that experience does help um but and the other side of his um as council he said is having someone um you know more professional not that professional like a more um
position that will draw talent um maybe at a higher level um to do our job at a higher level um I think is important as well. Um, but that's that's that's where I am. I'm kind of torn between the two, honestly.
Um, I don't know if it helps me to if there's no objection to me talking about sort of the two items that pertain to this in conjunction. Um, >> we can Yeah, the take them together. So, I item 11816 already so we can discuss them together.
So my thought too is, you know, you showed that you can make your budget net zero, which for me was a big deal. That was one of the biggest things I think whether we call it an aid, we call it the chief of staff, the title to me isn't the most important part. It's the duties and then is the job description
and the salary equivalent to each other. For me, the title is the title for set semantics. But if we, you know, if we're looking at that role and what that person should be able to do, what they should be governed and entitled to do, then making sure the compensation matches that and the skills and things that you laid up like you had some other
special requirements in mind for that role. >> Um, I still think we could bring it down a little lower as a starting point. >> I think even just to 75 I would be more comfortable with plus the cuts. Um, and
even with removing PD out, if that ends up getting cut and still in theory, it's still a cut to your department's budget. Um, so it might even put your department, you know, net positive in that case. Um, so I didn't have an amendment ready to that end. Um, I think
I am I am planning to make motions on both of these items today. Um and for me, you know, reducing that salary to 75. Um would go, you know, a long way to I think in bridging the gap between
attracting better talent and hopefully securing somebody that can be there to support the mayor. The tough too is there are things that you do that have benefited us. you know, a mayor being present in Boston, a mayor being
present in in amongst the MMA can cut both ways. Sometimes it can be frustrating or difficult, right? You know, you're busy all the time and you don't have the support staff to help out the way you do. Um, but those are things really the mayor can only do. That
networking at the state level that I think has gotten us grants and other money and really benefited Gardner is not something achieved can do. that has to be you in your role. And so I think that is a benefit to us and I think to offset that having someone in your
office who can represent you or be there on your behalf um to ensure that city operations are functioning for the half a day you might be gone to Boston um or at a conference um or if you are in DC advocating for something. I think there
is also real benefit to that. Um and so again for me just adding and and improving and strengthening this position I think goes a long way to that role. Um and that unforg >> Yeah. Um see this is where I get stuck because you just said councelor Hegel that a lot
of the job description is the same as what the administrative aid is doing. It's really to me it is semantics but it's really a a title change adding a few things but it's really I I found it adding things but also just rewarding
things that are should be done. I'm not convinced that the administrative assistant currently as it stands is being utilized the way it should. A change in title is not going to change that. it the person
has to be be um given instruction and trained. The mayor's office went months without an administrative assistant and it still think things happened, you know, and now we have one. I I just um
and I I I still think 75 is too high. I wouldn't go higher than 70 because when you really look at the two job descriptions and what you're adding, let's take the facilities management piece out of that. It's not a huge amount of additional responsibility.
And and I could be wrong, but part of me asks, is this a way to give a raise to the current executive aid, whoever's in that position? Because I don't see this being reposted to get somebody of better quality than
the current person. So I see this as a way to a carrot for the current person to stay. But number one, how long has the person been here in that job? How long how much have they been trained? How much um independence have they they've been
given to do some things? Um, I don't think it's go I mean that position, call it what you want, it's a dead end job here in city hall because unless you're going to run for
mayor, there's nothing higher to be than being the chief of staff or the executive aid to the mayor. You have to run for mayor. So, I can't see unless it's somebody who just loves public government, loves, you know, and and that's And that's that's
they or into the business organizational piece. That's fine. But if is this also you have to realize and and the current mayor can speak to this that executive aid position. Okay. When every time you have a new mayor, they're new personalities.
Some you know that person may not want to work with the new mayor. They they might want to hire their own person. So there's a there's a lot to be um considered here. Um because it is it's it's a hard it's a hard it's a hard job.
Um and unless you know you interned at you know with the state repres and you really embrace and you make those connections. I do on the other hand think it's important yes for the mayor to be able to to be at places and stuff but because of the way our city government is it's not just a soft
mayor. It's just not a ceremonial mayor. you have that whole business aspect and and the mayor turning whoever the mayor is turning any of those that control over to somebody right now kind of I don't I just don't think we're there
yet. I really don't I don't think we've you know I think we have a lot of fixing still to do within in my opinion. Um but that and so that's where I'm coming from. I think I think it's just really the a lot of ways it's the same job. Um, but I still think it's too much of of an
increase um for the position because if you are going to look at a facilities management person or director, you need to allocate money towards that. So, I mean, and you're looking for for somebody with hands-on
talent and skills, you know, that's not a person who would be, you know, answering calls, sitting at the desk, emailing constituents. Um, and that's going to take some money to attract somebody who has those skills. Um, more so because that position, if
it's done correctly, can save the city a lot of money before things get into such a um decaying position that it's going to cost us more money. So that that that's where I'm I'm I'm really I'm really caught you know and I I said this before if I felt the
position right now is has is you know 100% utilized and you know and you know the person's at all these meetings stuff which you know I I don't always see I I would be able to sort of support it but I I just I just can't the
way it is now. Thank you. >> Thank you council council. I appreciate it. I think it's it's well said. The only thing I think I'll I'll add is that it's it's really hard sometimes that you have to separate the person who might be in there, >> but you spoke about them a lot and I
don't think that's fair. No, because >> it it's the finish. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um, I don't think that's fair because that specific situation is very unique right now. >> Um, so I think when I think about this, it's what do I think would be help that office best function? And to me, this is
the one of the ways to help that office best function or bump function better. Because you're right, things may be getting done, but I don't think they're getting done well. And I think the mayor being split in as many ways as he is with so much going on, I think that's a
factor in why things aren't getting done well. How many things we've had to fix or we haven't gotten on time or we've had to ask for multiple times. Um I think it's really really difficult for one person to do with 40,000 constituents
between the schools and the city few hundred employees. I think it would just be really helpful to have someone far stronger in that office backing up the mayor. Similar to any state rep or state senator um you know town managers have assistant town managers who are paid far
more than this position would be um you know looking at being paid. And so I I equate it to that, you know, how most towns have that set up where there's a town manager, I think, air, which air is different than gardener, but you know, the town manager there and the assistant
town manager are probably both making close to six figures and over. Um, and that person does a lot. They really are your go-to person. Um, so >> I I and I just want I I I I didn't mean
to talk about the person because I'm going back even further. >> Okay. Not what's going on right now. That there have been other administrative assistants at meetings to represent the mayor. >> Mhm. >> Who don't speak, >> never spoke. I I'm here because the
mayor can't make it today. That's it. Not, you know, not I mean in train. So it's it's the it's the entire >> picture. Mhm. >> And and that it doesn't matter the person, it it matters on the training.
And if the training doesn't change, it doesn't matter who the person or the title is. And I don't think that, you know, going back, I just don't think they've been given adequate direction and u responsibility, you know, as to what they should be
doing. But we're not a town. We're not a city manager. We're management. We're not a town manager, you know what I mean? I mean, unfortunately, the mayor has to make the decisions and
I don't think you can say this wasn't done right or this decision was missed because I was doing X, Y, and Z. That and now I need this position. that that doesn't that for me um isn't I mean it would be showing if the mayor was you
know 100% and then the the administrative aid was everyone say okay for the both of us it's just way too much um but going back I'm just saying that >> if you're going to change the title and the position then you're looking for
something different okay and I just want to make sure you know we're we're if we're we're going we're going to be looking for something different, >> okay? And and pursuing that, not and not just um where we've been in the past few
years having a hard time finding people, you know, have people who want it. Um and and and you know, and I still think um a lot of it it comes into the direction. I mean um I'm going to I'm going to give
an example. I had we had no idea that this the city budget went out to the departments in January and so here it is I think it was in March like you know have you been asked for your budget yet? I mean and then that's just something simple that we
weren't copied on. We always have been. >> You know what I mean? So that's just and then once it was pointed out we still weren't. You know what I mean? It wasn't gee I'm sorry it was oversight. you know, mayor, you should this is what I've asked the department heads to do. So, that's I'm just looking
full circle that um you know, things could be correct. There could be a correction action now going on without having the new position to make things better. And by doing that and then
showing and displaying that, you know, this there's still, you know, so much to do and and to support the need for it, then that's that's great. But we haven't that's just my opinion. We haven't gotten there yet. So, but I I I'm not pinpointing any person. It's just I find
there's been a lack of utilization of the position >> um as a whole. Yeah. Sure. >> Thank you, Council. >> Thank you, Council Me. Uh, nothing else at this moment. I don't, but I have a motion. I'm going to make
it not if there's no more discussion. >> I I have no further commentary on it. >> Um, very well discussed. >> It was No, I really appreciate it. I think those were a lot of good points. Um, I'm still myself in favor of these two
things. Um, so on 11814, a measure accepting a job description of a new chief of staff position for the mayor's office. I move to recommend to the full council the measure be adopted. Second um motion made by councelor Hegman,
second by council allowance uh to recommend adoption of the position to the full council. Um is there any further discussion? I think I'll just add that I I'm just curious to get the council in general's opinions and kind of get everyone a chance to weigh in. >> That was I don't think this is a first
step in in >> the description with this the facilities management is part of >> yeah as of right now I can't say >> that was going to be my point. I am hesitant as well but this is here with finance um and full council really
hasn't seen much of it at all. Um I think getting it up to them um and getting this proposal up to them is a good idea to get their input um and to see um to see what thoughts they had that may be helpful as well for the part
of this part of the discussion. Um so that's um that's where I stand. Further discussion that was my thought just it's been on our agenda. Let's do something with it. >> Yeah. Um hearing no further discussion. All those in favor say I. I. All those
opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries two to one. Uh item uh 11816 item further discussion on that particular from anyone. So I would move that the committee substitute
be adopted in place of the original proposal. And so this is effectively my amendment on this um and what this would do. So the the changes here um there's actually a couple things. So where this
item just refers to the primary non-union compensation schedule um and attachment F of chapter 8. I had sort of two key changes here. One or three I'll say one was to amend the salary down to
starting at 75,000 and then following the scale from there. That scale is attached. the other section I added in here. Um, so section one is effectively the same, section two is the same. Section three
would be new in this case. Um, something I'm hoping to address at the same time as this is our youth center director's position is going to sunset at the end of June. And so to avoid that, we have to repeal that language. Um, which is
going to take a couple of meetings where it's an ordinance change. So then June is, you know, right around the corner. So wanting to make sure that that can possibly get done in time. I've included that in here as an amendment to um attachment of chapter 8, etc.
Um, and then the other thing I mentioned too to our our points and concerns and this is what I wanted to circle back because councelor Mack I think was wise to bring this up when we're talking about the budget item is that really this position would take effect August 1st, 2026 if
the chief of staff made it that far. If it gets to a point where it has passed, it would take effect August 1st so that we can ensure the budget is reflective of it. any cuts that we feel are relevant to make sure it's net positive would also be included in there. Um so
there's some language cleanups around existing positions and then there is the um evaluating the budget cuts and the pay scale for the um chief of staff position
with a brief recess to review it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Can we have a brief recess? Start recording. >> Good to go. >> We're good. >> Okay. We're uh back here with item 11816. Um an ordinance to amend chapter F. Council Heglin has um given us his
amended um version of the ordinance. A chance to uh he explained it each part of it. Um and uh a chance to review it ourselves. Um we're here for um any further uh discussion on that.
Um, I just want to ask if Councelor Hegel is open to amending the 75,000 to 70,000. And I'm going to give my reasons why. A teacher with a bachelor's degree would have to teach for 10 years before they
receive $75,000. And I believe a master's degree would be at least nine years. Um, so I just think I I think 70,000's a little bit high. Um, because it's it's it's not a department head. It's not a, you know, really I don't
it's is position. Um, and I think it's I think it's a compromise to what the the aid's making to based on the job description minus the facilities part. I think equivalent to what is the expectation of more
responsibilities would be. Um, but that's that's just my that's my comment on that. >> Excuse me. C. >> Yeah, I would absolutely I would 100% be open to that. Um if uh I would support
that motion or a further amendment. Um if if you want to ask >> I'll make a motion to amend the um starting salary on councelor Higgins amendment to 70,000 from 75. >> Second seconded by motion made by councelor Mack, second by councelor.
Let's uh let's start over here. Are we voting to we don't have a first motion up to pass this yet. So that's fair. Um I'd like to get a motion for that and we'll have a motion to amend. >> So I I had made it but I'll move it. >> Did you make it substitute be I don't think it was seconded necessarily. >> Okay. The committee substitute be
adopted in place of the original proposal. >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Pegman. Second by councelor Mack to um put this in uh in place of the original ordinance amendment. Um is there any further discussion?
Motion to with the amendment of this being at $70,000. >> Yes. >> Further amend. >> Yeah. Yeah. Further amended to reduce it to $7,000. >> Thank CH we'll do the amounts to the rest of the charge. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, further discussion. So, uh the all those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed motion carries. Um that brings us to the end of our agenda. Enter a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved.
>> Motion made by councelor Max. Second by councelor Hen to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion cares.