myself, councelor Stephanie Infante, chair of the committee, and online we have council president Javanni Rodriguez. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2022, this meeting of the budget and finance committee is being conducted both in person and via remote
participation. A reminder that persons who would like to listen or view this meeting while in progress may either attend here in the city council chamber or may view our meetings through our city our Facebook page, YouTube page, channel 20 on Comcast and um 22 on
Comcast and channel 42 on Verizon. At this moment, can we please um have a moment of silence for officer Arville Cruz, who's currently recovering um from an incident.
>> And now join me in the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Counselors, can I have
a motion to approve the minutes? >> So move. >> Motion the minutes from hold on February 9th, 2026 all the way to May 13, 2026. Motion has been made by council the plant, seconded by council president
Rodriguez. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, madame clerk, can you please call the role? President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> President Giovanni Rodriguez can't hear me. >> You want to save it for later?
Gio, can you hear us? >> Yes. >> Okay. Councelor Mark Land. >> Yes. >> Okay. Madame Chair Stephanie Fante. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion. >> Motion carries. Council's first item
under new business is item 248-206. LPPA local 125 Lawrence Police Patrolman's Association funding approval brought to us by our Cav Cappo Ramona Savajos. Uh CAFO, you have the floor. >> Good evening, counselors.
>> Good evening. Um I'm happy to announce the uh the Lawrence Policement Association and the city have come to an agreement. um they have ratified the union um for the years
um July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2028. The um we're here before you not to ask for an appropriation, but more to inform you of what the um the contract is. The patrolman association, the the police
department has currently 28 vacancies within this department and the vacancies right now are covering the the funds we need to uh provide the retro for the FY26.
I'll be happy to go over the summary of the synopsis of what um is in this contract. >> Uh let's do that. Walk us through the contract. The contract term is from July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2028.
The cost of living increase is in line with what we we have done with previous unions, which is 7.5 in total, 3% for July 1st, 2025, 2.25 for July 1st, 2026, and 2.25 for July
1st, 2027. and the wages. Employees who have worked 29 or more years will be provided a 5% increase to their salary. Just to give you a comparison with the superiors um union, they have had this
in their uh negotiation since 2012. They started at that step at 3%. And then in 2015, they received that at 5%. So this uh step is to make uh make this union in line with the superiors.
Under miscellaneous um they have added a cell phone to the clothing allowance. And I'm just going to read what we have there. It says effective July 1st, 2025, we're adding a cell phone to the clothing allowance as required equipment and increased clothing from $1,200 to
$2,000. All officers shall be required to acquire or possess a personal cell phone. officers will be required to use their personal cell phone, any required department related cell phone applications for business use. And to give you somewhat of a
background, the last time they received an increase in the clothing allowance was back in 2007. Compensatory time for all officers should be capped at 480 hours. Members who currently have 480 hours or more
will not be acrewing any additional time. until they used the their hours. >> Can you repeat what year the clothing allowance the last time we increased it? >> It was uh 2007. >> Okay.
>> Details. The weekday detail rate uh increases from $60 an hour to 65 and week night from $90 to $95 an hour. that last time was increased was in 2020. The city detail rate um is going from
$45 to $55. And this the last time it was increased was back in 2013. >> Where do we see um we've been talking a lot about the overtime. >> Where do we see most of that overtime? Is is it because of the details? Is it
because we we have the vacancies and officers? Where where where is that the the bulk of that? Right. So detail separate there is a separate account for detail that we build the different vendors that use the services. So detail
has a whole different account. It's not within the the general fund. >> Okay. >> Um so the overtime will be mainly due to um the 28 vacancies that they currently have. >> Okay. >> And other things that may come up within the department.
>> Do you remember um when the chief was here for the budget hearing? He did say we have some officers in the academy and we'll have Do you know? >> It's my understanding that there's six officers and I I have to say I have the
executive board from the patrolman's union here in the background if we have any more questions. >> I will be bringing them up after this. >> Yes. So, I'm grateful to have them here in case they have any you guys have any questions. Um so, it's my understanding six um recruits are in the academy and they will be starting within the next
couple of weeks. Thank you. >> Um, that sums up the synopsis for this union contract and again like I mentioned the uh executive boards here if you have any specific questions. >> Yes, I would like to bring up the Eboard
um to introduce themselves. I know there's been a few changes and um to give I also like to hear the Eboard's side of how negotiation went. Um >> and yeah, name and address for the record. Uh David Moan from uh vice
president of the patrolman's association um 90 lower street. >> Good evening city councilors. Uh Julio Pasmino, treasurer, Lawrence patrolman's association. >> Good evening. Tom Murphy, union rep,
early night shift. >> Good evening. Uh Victor Martinez, I'm the rep for the midnight shift. Kevin Negoian Law PD. >> Good evening.
>> What I mean, I'm assuming you obviously the union is is good with this contract. You guys are here. >> Yes. Uh we ratified it. We we've had plenty of discussions. I think we met with the city approximately 20 times over the course of a 16 months, I would
say. So, uh it was a lot of back and forth. I mean, I think the body thinks it's a fair deal. You always hope for some more, but that's kind of where we're at right now. So, we ratified the contract. >> Okay.
>> And some of those numbers that she said, like you could see like the clothing allowance hasn't been increased since 2007. I know the city rates like city details is different from private vendors and that rate hasn't gone up since 2013.
So, some of those rates haven't gone up in a long time. And I know you were asking a question about overtime and details. Details is completely de different. So every time a police officer works a private detail for National Grid or Eversource, the city of Lawrence makes 10% off of those road jobs. So I don't know sometimes I think
that gets lost in transition. The city jobs obviously we don't make 10% cuz those are grant money or like from the general fund or like I don't know exactly uh chapter 90 work. Those don't get charged an admin fee. So all the
other details get charged an admin fee and then that's 10% on whatever that detail is if it's an 8 hour detail or 12-h hour detail. So that's revenue that comes into the city for the general fund. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Counselors, any questions for either the
caf or the union council the plant. My >> uh if you can stand aside, I will come to Mr. Mo adds a question for the capital first. in the negotiations within did the discussion regarding body cams come up? >> No.
>> Why not? >> I I don't know. >> And the reason why I asked I was going to ask them, but >> I I mean I this is my first round. I'm not sure if this is something they've taken up in the past or where they stand on it, but um that was not an item
negotiated. So, um, I've been doing some light reading about body cams. I'm interested in the subject matter. I'm interested in how they not only protect the city but protect officers because often times there's baseless charges that are put against officers. And what I've been
seeing and hearing many times, not 100%, is that these body cams exonerate uh the officers from any wrongdoings that are alleged. and it provides them in a very good spot and it puts a city or a municipality in a good spot and it saves not only
>> time but money and reputations etc. It's a tool and it seems like a pretty good tool and it seems to be being used very successfully. I think I understand but I don't like it why we're not having body cams on our on especially our patrol
officers and perhaps our superiors as well. And we're not even asking. >> I know it's a very costly um from what I understand endeavor and it's something that definitely needs to be negotiated with the union, but I will definitely keep it the next time around it's going to be within two years. So, we'll definitely be working on that negotiations pretty soon. So,
>> sure. >> I I'm actually surprised and no offense cap. I'm actually surprised it had wasn't even brought up as as as a as a as a as an item uh for for discussion. it it this is this this technology has
been around now for perhaps a generation maybe that's too maybe I'm overstretching it a little bit but it's it's well >> I'm not sure was it brought up in the previous >> um >> if you don't mind thank you >> um the little history that I have about
body cameras is uh we're always open for negotiations to to get body cameras but I think it's just not cost effective like meaning like we don't have the money not saying it's not cost effective But like there's grants out there that uh buy the initial body cameras, but
then it comes down to storage and manpower because like certain departments once they I I can use Lynn for an example because there was a conversation about Lynn had to create a whole new unit and add five offices into that unit around the clock because now
you have discovery for everything that they touch and it the cost really comes down to the storage of how long you keep that memory of that material that has to be held for. So that's kind of where the cost is and I think we've improved the
PD and technology in a different way. Uh and I know how you feel about it and cameras would be great for the city of Lawrence. I just think we just have to find a way to come up with the money for it. And it just didn't come up in this negotiations at all. I know there was talk that we had a grant, but that was
back when uh Chief Vasque was here was the last time I heard anybody talk about body cameras to be honest with you. There's nothing more I could say. Thank you. >> Yeah, >> from my if correct me I don't know if you remember Kapple. Correct me if I'm wrong. Uh again going back to the police
budget hearing I believe similar um Sergeant Dar I'm sorry it's been a long day so I'm a little I I rushed over here from work so um Sergeant Dar mentioned the same thing but he also mentioned if I remember correctly that
um the new police uh office or building should be equipped now but then again it comes down to the to the cost of storing ing the evidence or the video or whatever it may be. And I don't know if you remember my comment.
I I looked at him and and I said it wasn't directed to him, but when we want to make things happen as a government, some way somehow we move mountains. So if this is something that the city feels us as a government is
important, um it would be like another like previous incidents where we would figure it out. Obviously, it will take some time, but that was that was the conversation. >> I do have one more question to the cappo. >> In these negotiations, is the police
chief part of this or anybody from the senior? Okay. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Council President. Do you have any questions or comments? I guess >> they can make a motion that we send this up to the full council as a committee
report. >> There is a motion on the floor to send as a committee report. Is there a second? >> Madam Chair, can you confirm that Mr. Rodriguez is with us? >> Council President.
>> Yes. I second the motion. >> Okay. Okay, motion has been seconded. Any further discussion? Um I actually Why are we sending this as a committee report? >> There's no action. >> There's no action to be taken on.
>> Got it. Got it. All right. Um Madame Clerk, can you please call the role? >> Council President Gavanni Rodriguez. Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. I'm going to call you a second. Councelor Mark Lewan. >> Yes.
>> And then uh Madame Chair Stephanie Fante. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Motion carries. We'll see you next Tuesday. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> U. Next we have item 249-26, year end transfers between department
accounts. Uh Kappo, you have the floor again. Good evening again. Um, we usually have a placeholder for the year-end transfers between department accounts. Um, this year we only have one and it's within the mayor's office. Um, they are
requesting a $15,000 transfer from purchase services account to the personal services account within the mayor's office u budget. This will not increase their budget overall. is just switching from what we call character code which is personal services and
purchase of services. Um senior advisor is here to answer any specific questions you may have about this transfer. >> Council has any questions or comments? >> Is this it? >> No. No.
>> Uh the the memo that looks like this. get a chance to read. >> Walk us through what what is this going to cover? Cuz this this memo is very broad. So what what are what is this transfer for? I'll let the senior advisor explain.
>> Yes. The Good evening um uh madame chair and also city councilors. The um we had a um we have to address personnel related uh shortfall.
Um there's one individual that was not um part of the team anymore. So we have to um we have uh an acred vacation. we had an acred vacation and other benefits that had to be paid and that's the reason for
being short on the you know on in salaries. So that's why we asked requesting the transfer. >> Okay, counselors any questions any further questions or comments? >> Oh counselor Le
I don't know how important this is. I'm curious as to who the individual is that that left. If you don't want to answer it, I guess you don't have to. I'm just curious. >> I mean, I can say it, but you know, it is the former chief of staff. >> That's what I figured.
>> You remember the former chief of staff had to go. >> That's right. That's right. >> Yep. >> That's right. >> And can you tell me what the uh what the cost was for the for the the all the acred monies that that had to be paid out? I don't have the numbers um on top
of my head. Uh in addition, I don't think even a CA can say because we are we're still under litigation. >> So that's the reason I'm trying to be as reserved as I can. >> Okay. Yeah. [snorts] Yeah. Okay. >> Well, when you were explaining, I kind of figured
>> Yes. >> It was it was that >> I did send an an email specifying I mean >> I haven't I haven't Sorry, I haven't seen it yet. >> No, no, it's okay. I said to be it was a >> it was um >> recently discussed
>> any impacts on your purchase services what's being uh what's being threatened by this? >> No, we had conversation with the mayor. We made it clear that you know we have to tighten the belt. It's just a couple of weeks. >> Okay. >> And that's it. >> Thank you. >> Any other further questions or comments?
>> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion that we send this up to the full council with a favorable recommendation. >> Motion has been made by council the plan to send as a favor recommendation. Is there a second? Is there a second? >> I think the chair I
>> I'll second the committee report. >> I'm sorry. He said second. >> I will second the committee report. >> Motion. >> Okay. Um um I think the chair I'm going
to second the motion. Either way we have to pay this. So um motion has been made probably seconded. Discussion >> through you, >> council president. Uh uh through you mad chair. I'm not saying that we shouldn't
we shouldn't pay. we just uh the reason why I'm in favor of a committee report is that that way we accept it uh with a well-known uh
as of why and then potentially approve it or not approve it. But having a recommendation from the committee uh if we're not fully aware of all the information then
uh that's that that's a that's an issue >> right I we >> but I understand been second >> we received the the information but because it is in litigation we could go at the full council into an executive
session if there is further questioning but I can't do it at this level because it wasn't part of the agenda. >> Yes, I understand. >> Okay. So, >> that's why that's why potentially a committee report will will will represent a better view of what the
committee think. >> Okay. All right. Um, [sighs] Madame Clerk, I I'm not I don't object to to it as being favorable. So, um, Madame Clerk, can you call the role? Actually, can you before we do that, can
you also make a note um anticipated executive session just in case we need it for next week? >> Okay. >> Ready? >> Madam Chair, Stephanie Fonte. >> Yes.
Council President Giovanni Rodriguez >> present. >> Present. Okay. And then council Mike Llland. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Motion carries. Next item is 250-26 transfer in the amount of 1,325,743
from FY26 capital reserve fund to various city accounts. Uh Ko, can you please walk us through this one? >> Yes. Um we are requesting a transfer from the capital reserve fund for FY26. This is part of chapter 58 section nine
of the acts of 2010 that talks about the act providing for the financial stability of the city. The city shall establish a capital reserve fund into which the city shall appropriate in each fiscal year beginning into year 2012 at
least 1.5% of the amount of the property taxes committed for the preceding fiscal year. The tax levy for FY25 was $88,382,893. 1.5% is the equivalent of 1,325 $325,743. Um the process is we ask department
heads to submit their requests in terms of what their needs are uh in the capital um world. The requests are reviewed by the administration and then a selection is made. I will be coming in the next in the near future also
requesting a transfer for the FY27. But right now we're doing F26 and the breakdown is as follows. Roof replacement for the fire station and the library for $550,000. Replacement and repair of lighting units
orals and and the like for $200,000. Sign replacements also within DPW 50,743 renovations within council on aging building and surrounding areas 200,000 it computer system upgrades in and other
routers $325,000 total 1,325,743 the departments that will be managing these projects are here in case the council has any specific questions on these projects. Thank you counselors. Any questions? >> I do.
>> Council council councelor Llan. >> Thanks. So the IT computer system upgrades. Um I am Mr. Camera right now. So are there any cameras or surveillance equipment involved with that purchase? [snorts]
>> Good evening madam chair. Good good evening councelors Carlos 200 Common Street. Uh no we are not buying camera with that money. Uh that's to upgrade uh service servers that we have in house
and some of the uh switches that needed that needed to be replaced. >> Thank you. Um Cappo, thank you, Mr. Castillo. Uh I got two pages of the same. Was that intentional or is that supposed to be It's the same thing twice.
>> Um not sure. It should only be one. >> Should only be one. Okay. I would like to see what the departments provided as their wish list for items that they think is important. >> Um, okay. I can I can get that to you.
>> I don't have it right now. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> That's fine. And and usually when we have the um capital improvement is the capital improvement budget or >> so help me
>> because um our debt capacity is so high due to the new schools the tuner schools and police station we are not doing a formal capital improvement plan. We are doing a less formal which is a payo capital which is the 1.5% of last year's
levy. So per the acts of 2010, the city um was requested to put money aside to keep up with the structures and and the different buildings and so forth. So this is part of our budget, but we are
hoping that our uh debt service will be reducing as debt comes off. Then we'll be able to in the future have a formal uh capital improvement plans like we've had in the past. Thank you. The
Do you know how much the the entire wish list was for? For example, this was just a subsection of it, I'm presuming. >> Well, let me just >> go ahead. You want you can know where I'm going. All right. >> No, I understand. Um, when we asked the
department heads to provide the request, we were very clear as to the the limited amount that we had. So, we said we only have a million three. we're going to really take the the the the biggest priorities. And I also said FY27 is around the corner. We can come up
literally next month and and provide whatever didn't make it on this list. We'll be able to to accommodate other requests for next fiscal year. >> So that that helps, but that's not exactly my entire question. So, I'm I'm interested in knowing what I think once
you give me the list, it'll have a sum, but for discussion purposes, do you have a ballpark as to how much was like $10 million worth of stuff? Was it 25? >> No, it was probably >> I don't know $3 million. >> Okay. And when and I'm sure every I'm
going to guess those weren't superfluous. I'm going to guess each one of them was rooted in fact and had basis and had a good reason for why it was on that list because those departments looked at what they're facing and said, "We really need whatever is on the
list." >> How was the decision made to get these? >> Um, I understand like for the roof, those are both leaking and they've been needing repair for a long time. So that's we had to do those. Um the
lighting units also I believe uh for safety and maybe the main roads on Broadway Street. Uh is also >> what did you call that? >> Broadway. >> Broadway. I thought you said Broadway. Okay. >> Um Broadway Street. So for safety in the area. Did >> you say Broadway Street again?
>> It's not a It's not a street. >> Broadway. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> You want this to pass, right? Broadway. >> Um also signs around the city. We do use a lot of signs for you know different things around for safety in the streets and also we do pay for handicap signs
and so forth and you guys see how many handicap requests we get gosh in the council. So uh DPW needs to provide all those signs. So um that's that area. Um the council on aging building uh senior center also needed some has been needing
renovations for quite some time and it's been it's been put on the back burner for a while. So um >> I'm not I'm not quibbling with the needs or any of these just so you know I I I believe these are needs. So that's not even a question. Mike, what I really
been trying to find out is did someone put this piece of paper to the mayor and said, "Here's the 24 items, but these are the six that we really think you should do." Or did someone say to the mayor, "Here's 24. You picked the six." I want to figure out how was the sausage
made on the decision- making on this. >> We got the list from all the department heads. We review them >> um and then we identify maybe areas that can be funded through grants as well. Um, and maybe put those aside and see,
okay, let's see if we can fund these through a grant and maybe work with the different departments that could help us fund those through a grant and then let's see what probably will not be funded through a grant and then sort the list out in terms of priority and needs. And I think that's how the decisions was
made. >> Did the recommendation to the mayor? Were there was there a recommended list? I'm just curious. No, the mayor got everything. >> So, everybody, he got briefed. Maybe department had spoke with him about it as well. >> Um, I'm not sure if he had a chance to speak with every one of them. Only the
ones maybe they needed more clarification. He reached out and said, "What exactly do you need to do here?" And then because >> and the reason and the reason why I'm asking that, you may say maybe you're over session your crowns council of plan. That's an executive branch decision. And that's exactly right. It is an executive branch decision. And that's I'm not quibbling about that. I I
just I [clears throat] I'm hoping that the mayor gets u all the information >> uh pros and cons and everything else so he can be informed and so when he sends that list down with his name on it saying this is my list >> it's coming from him and he knows what's
on it and he's made that the buck stops with him and so he he can stand by each one of those things. >> Absolutely. He was the one that made this decision. Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Any other questions or comments? council
president. Any questions or comments? >> No, I'm good. >> I said no. Thank you. What? What was that? >> He's good. >> I'll make a motion to send this up. >> I say no. I am good with the question. >> Thank you. >> I make a motion that we send this up to
the full council with a favorable recommendation. >> Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. >> Probably seconded. Any discussion? Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. >> I. No.
>> Roll call. Roll call. Madam Madam clerk. >> Roll call. >> Okay. Council President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> Madame Chair Stephanie Fante. >> Yes. >> And Council Mark Lanton. >> Yes. >> Okay. Motion.
>> Motion passes. Okay. Next we have item 251-26 net metering electricity offtake agreement. We have Simon Pereira, supervisor of energy projects here with us tonight
uh to discuss this item. The name and address for the record, please. >> Is it off? Oh, it's off. >> Sorry. Uh, Simon Pereira, 200 Common Street, Lawrence, Mass.
>> Okay. Um, so let me I'm a bit confused. Super energy projects for the city of Lawrence. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh, yes. I've served in this role for almost 11 months. >> Okay. Okay. Neil, that's something like I've never All right. All right. So,
walk us through this. What is this? Um >> yeah, give give us the project overview, the and the contract overview. >> Sure. Um and just for context, I've brought uh Joe and Mark Cabodana of Colonial Power, who sort of brokered this deal. They're a third party um
facilitator. Um and the deal was between the city of Lawrence and New Leaf Energy, which is a [snorts] energy power developer who have developed solar projects and battery storage namely. Um but basically
this is a request for an agreement for a net metering electricity um offtake agreement of which the city is familiar with. Um two years ago we signed another net metering offtake agreement with Agilatas Energy um which was unanimously approved by city council. Um and in
doing so you create some sort of a a discount rate for which we procure energy usually over a contract period. Um the last one was 20 years. This deal will also be 20 years. Um and basically we'll be procuring 14 million kilowatt
hours. Kilowatt hours is sort of how we measure [snorts] electricity. Um you know these light bulbs are using kilowatt hours. So we're procuring um 14 million kilowatt hours over the course of 20 years. Um
and I anticipate that we'll save around 12 million if not more um over the course of 20 million over the course of 20 years. Okay. When you say that we will save the city of Lawrence, the residents who >> um this is the this is the city of
Lawrence. Um so any sort of you know rateayers in theory save this money would come out of different parts of the general fund. >> But yeah, this is all the money that we normally spend on electricity for municipal buildings um such as this one,
such as the city library. >> [snorts] >> Okay. Is there anything I see DPW? Is there anything to add to this presentation? >> Oh, I
I just want to say that maybe you're not familiar with Simon, but Simon has been working with Anel. >> Um he was hired um I believe was through a grant. >> Um so he's been with us and he has been uh working and bringing a few grants. So, we're very grateful for the works
that he's doing. >> Sure. And yeah, I'm happy to talk more about the uh I appreciate that. And I'm happy to talk more about the uh the deal in itself. Um and also I've brought along Mark if if he wants to say anything. >> Walk us walk us through the deal and and we
we have you know the average resident watching our meetings. So >> true >> even even though for even the city council sometimes we approved things two three years ago and sometimes terminology or what we approved may we may forget. So walk us through this so
that the average person understands what is this project what is act the actual saving like what does it mean um in general? >> Um yeah I'll do I'll do a first take and then Mark feel free to hop in as well. Um
>> yeah, maybe you you are actually the best. He's he's an expert. Um and I will just say everything that sort of has been looked at already in the terms and conditions have agreed by um this the city attorney, the city solicitor. So >> Okay. Thank you. >> Moving it over to Mark.
>> Why? >> Go ahead. I >> So a net metering deal is actually something very simple. So if you think about it in dollars, he was saying this is actually a very rich net metering deal. It's a 15% discount. So let's just say that the city of Lawrence spent $100
on electricity. They would only spend $85 uh on in that month, right? So each and every bill will be discounted by 15%. It doesn't cost the city anything to do this. This is a benefit that the
the state is providing. We all pay for this benefit on our bills for a net metering discount. So, it's nice that the city's taking advantage of it because you're paying for someone else to get a discount regardless. So, what they're saying is it's it's a financial transaction. There's going to be a solar
array or solar arrays uh somewhere else in the state. Uh what that production is, they'll match it up with what you're using. And then those two things will uh then match up. So they'll say, uh, you produced a million kilowatts. Uh, you use a million. We produced a million.
Now you have to pay your bill. I know that it's large. I'm just going to say it's $1 million this month. Okay, you have to pay $850,000. And that savings goes to you each and every uh time that you're using energy for the next 20 years. The uh the last
contract that was signed by Lawrence was at 12 a.5 uh%. So it's a little bit a little bit richer this time around. I just want you to know um the contracts that we're seeing today out there are around 10 to 7 and a half% just because uh we're getting really deep in the
stack just so that you're aware uh the solar stack meaning we're getting less and less many many uh other communities are trying to get in on this. >> So what makes So what is the difference between this two 20-year contract and
the one that we approved two years ago? Um, so a different solo developer, exact same concept. >> So why do we need two? >> So that you get all the benefits. Right now you're only using about uh I think it's about 2 and a half to three
megawatts of that and you get 10 by the state. So you're using the other seven and a half to get full benefits. >> Okay. Councilors, any questions or comments? Councelor Le Council President.
>> Yes. Uh quick question on the net meeting. Um two years ago when we approved the the contract uh what was the rate uh for that uh for that uh kilowatt hour?
>> I I believe it was a 12.5% discount. >> No, not the discount, the rate. Yeah. Uh so the the rate is different than the discount. So you get off your >> discount is is is let me let me explain as a why I want to know the rate.
You can give me 20% discount. If you increase the rate by 25% there's no discount. >> Just want to make sure that we discuss that. >> Yeah. Correct. But we're just talking about apples and oranges here because you'll have a supply contract. That
supply contract will be half your bill and then your uh national grid would be the other half of the bill. Then this contract will give you 15% off your total bill. >> What is the rate?
>> A 15% discount off your >> I'm not asking for this discount. I'm asking for the price of the of the of the energy. >> We >> Am I not clear the rate for kilowatt hour? We would have to go and ask >> not the discount. >> Yep. Correct. We would have to ask what
the current uh municipal contract is for for the buildings. That that's the rate. This is very different than the supply rate. >> The supply rate is the supply rate because that's how the the electricity get to you through the wires in the
street. So people understand. >> So that's the supply rate. I got it. >> Yes. >> Yes. So the the price that you pay for the energy it is the kilowatt hour that the rate that you set up if it is with national
grid uh right now you potentially could be paying uh620 January was 21 and then it went all the way down to 16 on July 2026. So what is the rate that is encumbered in this
uh in this uh deal? >> So so in in this deal at 15% discount if you're saying it's 16% you'd be paying 12. >> My goodness. And no more questions.
Madame share I know about math. I know what a discount means. No more questions. You're not answering my question. I'm asking for the rate div. the value per hour, kilowatt hour. You know what I'm talking about? >> Yes. You said the rate was 16, correct?
>> No, I'm saying that a national rate I'm seeing here on front of my eyes that on July 2026, the rate is 16 cents plus the plus the delivery uh rate. >> So, so, >> so I'm asking you so we can be clear on
this 20-year contract, what is the rate that we're setting up? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, this is is uh is different than the supply rate. We're m we're kind of mixing apples and oranges
here. There'll be a TND rate by National Grid. There'll be a supply contract that the city will sign for 3 five years. That will give you your supply rate. And I thought you had said that was 16. off that rate, you'll get a 15% discount
for the next 20 years. >> Okay? >> So, when the bill comes in, that bill will be zeroed out and then you'll pay. So, I'm just going to make it easy for everyone here at home. >> The bill that came for $100 would be zeroed out for the city and the city
would send $85 to New Leaf Energy. >> Who's going to be the supplier to maneu? >> Uh, whoever you choose to be the supplier. So it's it's it's it's the national grid or the other supplier that it was together with the with the contract that we signed last year. >> That's correct.
>> Because everybody was changed from national grid to the new supplier as per the contract that we signed two years ago. >> Correct. I don't I don't believe that contract's in place as of yet. I believe the project's still under construction. I don't believe you. >> So that's that's what I'm saying.
We have a rate set up under the uh under the agreement that we signed aggregations. >> So under that specific rate, we have an specific amount that is being set up for an specific amount of years
>> and everybody's going to go into that rate. Um, >> so plus the deliveries that >> I want to make sure I I just want to make sure we're not >> Can you can you let him finish because you won't get the full question or his
full statement if you keep trying to interrupt him. So let him finish what he's trying to say and then we can keep the conversation going. Okay. Because I'm trying to listen to him and I I even can't hear what he's trying to to say. So, Council President, can you repeat
what you the last 10 words you just said? >> Last year, we have a a we set up a company that we were going to have everybody in the city of Lance transfer whoever was on the
national grid rate for the supplier. Everybody was going to be transferred to that supplier that we signed two years ago. So that specific rate that specific rate was set up for
everybody that uh that uh that is is a is a is somebody everybody that pays energy in the city of LRs unless we tell them not to. Uh so what I'm asking is whether or not that rate that we set up 2 years ago
still the same or that was part of the negotiation of the 20 years contract uh that we setting up today. And if that's the case what is the rate for the supp for the supplier for that uh for the supplier not the delivery for
the supplier how much is that still the same as two years ago? How much is that change with this negotiation? How much is that the kilowatt hour for the supply of the energy?
>> So our energy projects person like you should have this information from the other contract. >> Yeah, feel I think he's going to answer your question. We're just talking about totally different things right now. >> Correct. >> Talking about a community choice aggregation for the residents of the city of Lawrence. weren't talking about an official.
>> Can you can you come to the >> I can't hear nothing. >> I think he's >> Yep. So So I now understood what what he was saying. So we Colonial run the city's municipal aggregation program. The rate is 132. It will be that until
November of 2027. That is for the residents of Lawrence. That rate doesn't change. You should know that the basic service rate in uh national grid is going up to 17.2. two starting in August, your rate will not be going up.
You're protected by by that aggregation rate. Now, I understand why he was confused because I stood in front. >> I'm not confused. I'm clear. I just want to hear you. >> Yep. But what we're here today to discuss is a net metering deal for the
municipal buildings. Doesn't have anything to do with the aggregation at all. Has nothing to do with that. this >> and let me let me just uh say something right there. So, council president. >> No, no, but just let me say something right there as why this this question
was >> as I said when you were speaking finish his statement he was not done once he's done with his statement then you can you can follow up with your questions continue. >> So I just when I heard what he said aggregate I understand what the confusion was and I just I wanted to
apologize because I was talking about a net metering deal. I have been in front of you prior on the aggregation. He was asking about that aggregation rate. I believe which is 132 will stay that way until November of 27. National grids
rate is going up in August. This is different. It's for the municipal buildings only. And it's the net metering deal for a water treatment plant, uh the city hall, the library, and all the electricity bills that you pay. >> Okay. >> You are not part of the aggregation
because you have a private contract for the municipal buildings. Council President, >> does that make sense? >> Council President, >> so the reason why I asked that question and I want to make sure like uh that that negotiation that we have two years
ago uh if it's part of this negotiation or if it's not it was because during the presentation I hear that um who is going to benefit from this? anybody anybody that pays for the electricity at some point
someone says that on the podium and that's why I wanted to make sure like whether whether or not the negotiations that we did two years ago was involved into a 20 years contract now um >> no >> with another net metering deal that we
need to be aware of. So that's why the question was correlated to what we we what we have approved two years ago. >> Understood. And now we just we just got the >> And I just want to clarif Yep. Just one
clarification. The reason he mentioned everyone's tax dollars do pay the electricity bills here at city hall. That's the the kind of the genesis of the issue. I I understand why you got confused on that though. I I do now that
he got out the question. and I apologize for that. >> Okay, council president, you all set? >> So this No, one one final question. >> So basically supplier of the building that we have at city
hall is not changing to uh or if it change it have nothing to do with the discount. The discount is still going to be there. >> That's correct. >> That's what that's what we discussing in the crystal clear matters. That's a correct statement. That's correct.
>> Okay. So, basically, if the city decide to go to uh a company from Canada that is selling electricity at 10 cents kilowatt hour, they still going to have the 15%. >> Correct. >> discount. >> Yes. >> Okay. No more questions. >> Okay.
>> Thank the plan. >> I get it. [laughter] So my question is less only because you're here and and there was a lot of confusion two years ago about the opt in
>> opt out program with the aggregate and people needed to physically I think opt out or else they were automatically were going to be in part of it. So that's what I remember and I and and and I just I think it's important since you're here and I'm not sure how frequently you come
here to and it's important just for us to understand that there was a lot of u mistrust. Who's lining their pockets? What's happening? What's going on with this? How can I be sure I'm going to be saving money? and and what you said to us
tonight for those people who decided that they were going to take the chance, if you will, or to say, "Yeah, I'm going to go with the aggregate." They are going to be saving um approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Um starting in August.
>> Starting in August. and just when I talk I think that's worthy of some sort of um press release or worthy of something um because I think that's a win um that the city was involved with and that's the kind of win we should be talking about >> and just so we can articulate that win
just a little bit more clear. The average homeowner and you may not have this and I'm going to give you I'm going to give you an exit ramp. I would be interested in knowing what the average homeowner would begin to save monthly starting in August when the
rate is a 17.2 when other folks are going to get 17.2, but we're sticking at 13.2. Is that something you can if you don't have it now? >> I can. So, it's about 4 cents and you're looking at uh six. So, you're talking about about uh four $4 and something
cents a month. the average customer the DPU says to use uh 600 kilowatts. Um I'm more than happy to uh get over to Simon a press release that that you guys can then modify, you know, just talking about what's going to be happening so that you can get the word out. The one
thing I want to mention is the way the city set up this program. If somebody was nervous because they didn't want to do that. >> Yes, I was going there. Thank you. >> They can always opt back in for free. There's no fee or penalty. They can get back in this program. And that's why I think it's important that we do that
because once people see that there are savings I think you'll see some people jump on board and I and I do recall that and so I just and I don't want to har this is not about that but it is power related. So but I just my last point is I think we can safely say that the
average Lawrence homeowner uh will pro more likely would save $50 a year. That's >> over the next six months almost guaranteed >> or beyond $50. Yep. I would Yeah. 100%. >> Is there a range 50 to 75 51?
>> Yeah, you probably Well, right now they're saving half that uh and have been for since uh February. Uh it's at it's at right now the rate is 153 and you're at 132. So you're saving about 2 cents. It's going to double. So you know over the last year I'd say they're
probably 75 to $80 for the year. So we so starting in August 75 to80 per year and currently we're saving half of that. So like $38 $40 something like that. And I can actually give you the numbers I if you'd
like them, counselor. And >> and and that's and I tell you and and and I'm just going to harp on this one last time. And and in in a in a sea of bad news, in a sea of costs going up everywhere, where groceries are going
up, gas is going up, and no matter where we turn, no matter what we do, everything is going up. For those individuals in the city of Lawrence who decided to go and and stay with this program, those rates for everybody else
is going up. Their rates have been steady and constant and will be for how much longer >> until November of 2027. >> To November of 27. Then what happens? >> Then the contract ends at some point prior to that will bring you, you know, the next leg of the the what that deal would be.
>> So that's next year. That's >> that's correct. >> Okay. Okay. So, things will change because we'll look at the numbers and it'll probably go up or something. >> Really depends on let's let's hope we can work out the issue in the Middle East. >> Good enough. Yeah. Thanks. >> I I do want to mention what was in front of you tonight was a net metering deal
that's guaranteed savings and so forth. I know we got off track, but >> how much? >> Uh 15%. >> How much does that mean? >> About about $12 million over 20 years. >> That's absolutely. You did say that. So, u where's our budget person? Are we looking? How much do we anticipate in
this upcoming year if we get this CAFO? What are you thinking? >> What are we thinking? What are we thinking we're saving in 20 city saving in 2027 if we pass this thing? If we adopt [snorts] it. >> So over 20 >> FY 2027, >> you're going to be looking at around 3/4
of a million dollars or so. You know, I'm just doing quick math in my head, but >> Sure. >> If it's uh 12 million over uh Yeah. about 750,000 perish >> ish. >> Yep. Is >> okay. >> Close enough. >> You know, we'll take it where we we'll take it where we can, right? So, yeah.
Thank you. >> The one thing I should mention, there's not a risk on that one. It's just a discount. >> You're welcome. >> Any other further questions or comments? >> Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Make a motion we send this up to the
full council for table recommendation or minutes. >> Second. >> Motion has been made by councelor the plant seconded by council president Rodriguez. >> Any further discussion? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> Seeing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. >> I mean can you please call the role? >> I was really ready to say I. [snorts] >> Council Mark Leland. >> Yes. Hi, >> Council President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> Council President
>> and um Madame Chair Stephanie Fonte. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> We will see you on Tuesday. Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. Have a great evening. >> You as well. All right. We have item 263-26, authorization to expand 573,000.
And this is for the Federal Highway Administration Safe Streets for All SS4A, Signs and Lines Project Grant. And we have Alicia Miller from the Mayor's Health Task Force here to speak on this item.
You have the floor. >> Good evening, Madam Chair. Good evening, Council Presidents. Um, before I I proceed, I just wanted to make one uh one clarification. And I I think I when I sent this to um city clerk uh Bernal,
I made a mistake. It's actually um uh critical crossings, not signs and lines. So it's safe streets for all critical crossings, not signs and lines. >> Maria, did you get that? >> Okay.
Thank you. >> Yes. So, um the the the safe streets for all grant it is it it we got this uh as a as a mechanism to pay for some of the work that we would like to do in the lower tower hill space where we where we
currently have our reach grant. Um our reach funding does not pay for um some of the work that needs to be done and so we we had to go ahead and find other funding sources to pay for some of this work. What we're intending to do with
these dollars is to do a comprehensive plan um of our streets uh uh and uh um our critical crossings um across the Tower Hill space. When we originally proposed it, it was for the lower Tower Hill. Um but given the f the amount of
funding we got, we decided that we would expand the um research um space, moving all the way north to the Mithuan line and to east to the to Broadway. And we stopped at Broadway because there's another um safe streets for all grant
that uh the Marmmont Valley Planning Commission holds for that corridor. Okay, counselors, any questions or comments, council, >> I'll make a motion. >> What is your motion? >> Motion to send it to the full council
with a f recommendation. >> Motion has been made to send with a favor recommendation. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Probably seconded. >> Discussion real quick. >> Discussion. Council. >> It's always good to help my former constituents out in district D and Tower Hill. So, I'm glad that they're getting a little bit of love and a little bit of attention. It's welld deserved. They've
they needed some help over there. So, I'm glad that they're getting it. So, good stuff. Thank you. >> Okay. >> This question, >> uh, council president. So um
uh through you madame chair I have noticed the effort that the committee the people working with you have made when it comes to the outreach uh with similar grants
um around margin street and lower street. >> Mhm. And um I feel uh very good about the the fact that you guys went out and and reach out to different members of the community. That's always good because
you get not only that information but potentially other needs you identify other needs and other projects that might need on the comm around that those areas and I you know kudos on that. That's that's awesome. Thank you.
>> Um, but I'm disappointed on the fact that you you you hire uh companies to do the story and I guess that
uh they kind of like you know didn't perform the design with the full spectrum of the need just to put it nicely. Um and uh don't don't use the basics of it
of a of a u uh of a design when it comes to public mobility and when it comes to cars turn to and so far so >> um >> so let me tell you why very quick and I
I finish with that and that I know that we are in the process of re-evaluating that intersection the intersection of margin and low and marginal loss through you know you better aware of the issue I sent an email I wasn't able to copy you on it but I'm pretty sure that you
receive it from from the team um my apologies but um essentially um it is disappointed to see when two different companies that are engineering companies get involved and uh they don't they're not looking at the basics
uh when it comes to turning to the right from margin Virginia Street to Low Street. Um, people need to go back and forth to be able to make the turn and that's unsafe. [snorts] So, I hope that, you know, once
you guys decide to go back, not to do the the outreach because the outreach is well done. You guys spend a lot of time around and uh and that's great. Thank you. uh but when it comes to the design
portion of it sometime as an engineering I can tell I can tell you that um sometime things look good but when you look into it very deep um you find so many
um so many things that don't work for lack of better word um and and I believe that that's what happen here. Um, let's sit down again and re and recoup on that intersection because
the intent is very good. We just need to tweak it a little bit more so we can allow people to turn to the right in a safe way before another accident happened. I mean, it was a three car accident 3 days after that. uh
the the mitigation uh was put in place and and it it could be a little bit of an issue, but I mean by all means, thank you for that reach to the community. Uh and um I think [snorts] that the the the issue is
around uh the design portion of it. >> Um so so thank you. Uh, we did not I'm I'm not certain what what um vendor you're talking about. We did not put we did not hire anyone any any vendors for
this. This was done with our partners from MVPC. Um >> yeah, your partners. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes, your partners. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. >> I say yes, your partner were the one that designed it. >> Okay. So So um
>> MVPC Sorry again. Sorry. Meat Valley Planning Commission. >> Planning Commission. >> So, so this is a this is a demonstration project that we we've put in place um to improve uh safety at that intersection. Um there's always been accidents at that
intersection. Uh we certainly have I have reached out to um Lieutenant Oliviveri from the police department uh to see what information we can gather about the accident. um I've heard about it uh informally and so we're trying to get some information
on the accident so that we can um tweak our processes as we go along. Uh so we will be having conversations uh when we meet again when we have our team meetings again. But this is the the the whole intent is to slow traffic
coming through that intersection and to make it safer for people on foot on uh bikes and rollers to be able to get across safely. I'm not quite sure what happened, but I'm certain in the in in the in the course of the next coming days, we'll we'll learn more about it
and and be able to um to reassess what we have in place and and be able to accommodate any changes that need to happen. But it's a demonstration project, so we're learning as we go along. >> Yeah, definitely. And and I agree with that. It's it's a it's a try out. >> Yes,
>> it's a try out. Just just keep in mind that, you know, over 10 over I would say over 5,000 cars go on Law Street and that's, you know, try out could be cool, but it got to be well well thought. But
anyway, once you guys come back to do to re-evaluate this the the intersection >> as a counselor at large but u rep you know a counselor that represent that area and leave around
uh pass by every day know exactly as a as a as a resident as a counselor as a traffic engineer for 21 years. >> Mhm. uh I think that you know additional
input might might help out when it comes to mobility around around that decision and and many others as well. So let me know when you guys going to be around I work [snorts] and I be I be available in the afternoon not in the morning.
So please try to arrange something in the afternoon so we can be part of it. >> Okay. Councelor Rodriguez, I I will send an invitation out uh try to schedule something with you. >> And trust me, I appreciate the the fact that you guys uh went around and talked to the people because I'm pretty sure,
like I said, that you guys get a lot of other information related to many other issues as well. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other further comments or questions? Seeing none, Madame Clerk, please call the role.
>> Madame Chair, Stephanie Fonte. Yes. >> Councelor President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> Yes. >> And councelor Mark Lant. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Motion carries. >> Motion carries. >> See you on Tuesday. Thank you, ladies. >> All right. And now our final item for
tonight. Councilors, can I have a motion to unte it 30-26, reclassification of nonUN positions, update Collins Center report to reflect
cost of living adjustments, better known as COLA. Motion to unt. >> Motion has been made. Is there a second? probably seconded. Madame clerk, can you please call the role? >> Council President Giovanni Rodriguez.
>> Yes. >> And Madame Chair Stephanie Fonte. >> Yes. >> And councelor Mark Leland. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. So now we have this item before us again. Um last time we left off
uh what I remember so much going on. From what I remember, there was a request to separate positions. Um I forget the reason why it was tabled. >> So I I I remember it here. >> So if I can give you a little bit of a
background. >> Okay. >> We had the the administration had asked for 2.8% increase for the non-unions based on different reasons. the unions do get um a little bit of extra um perks or
um perks that they get or benefits um that non-unions do not get. Um, one of them being um the uh the protection that comes being part of the union also um
some of the um the the negotiated items the non-unions just pretty much get a flat um cola increase. So the council thought that um that number
was a little high and we then the administration met and um we agreed to do a 2.5% increase as we were doing for all the uh other unions. So before you, I believe this is the first time we are bringing before you a 2.5% increase for
um all the non-unions and you did you did ask um to separate because you wanted to see >> um the leadership versus the support staff and we have provided that >> and also I see now that that I'm remembering I believe it was a council
president that asked for this the the current salary or position and where they would be with the um % increase. >> Am I Am I correct on that, Council President? >> Okay, moving on. Um,
>> are you going to are you going to hold on the questions for next year if it is any? >> Okay, but my my question was clarification. Um I believe it was you who had asked to see current salary and then what the salaries would be um if
this if the cola were were >> yeah madam chair uh essentially what I would like to uh to to you know make sure that we are on the same page that the only the only
reason as of why we we doing this increasement is for the benefit of the people that are maxed out. Uh due to the fact that the other people that are not yet maxed out, the
administration can uh can increase their salary have they have by 2.5 or by other amount in the past. So
um I'm I'm I'm in favor of increasing the salary to the max out uh to the max out salaries that were provided to us and uh and essentially keep the discussion on whether or not the salary
is going to keep on increasing uh by an specific amount or it's going to stay up to some point. >> Okay, if I may. Um so this is not increasing it 10% and and and having a
bigger u maximum number. This is only increasing 2.5%. And the reason why we came um before the council back I believe it was February or March was because um if the increase took effect then then we would have need
a um we would have needed an appropriation from the council. At this point, we're making it effective July 1st. It is in the budget. And yes, council president, you are correct. Um, it's mainly at this point for those that
are already at the max because um it will be effective July 1st and and and we do have it in the budget, but originally it was made for everybody because we needed to ask for an appropriation. Council President.
>> Good. I'm good. >> Okay. Council the plant. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure I'm clear. So, let me try to regurgitate what you just said. >> Mhm. >> If you are not at the max, this increases and won't impact you.
If you are at the max, then it will. Correct or incorrect? >> Incorrect. >> Okay. how >> um this increase is also needed because we have it in the budget and we need to well I understand where you're coming
from now. So the budget I did consult with the uh madame chair to see if it was like what direction was I going um for FY27 budget in terms of the non-union. So >> you asked what of the chair >> direction in terms of including the
non-union increase of the 2.5% or not? >> You asked the chair of the budget committee whether or not we should have a 2.5% increase. >> No, I asked >> if it should be and I did state this. >> Let me listen let me listen to the cappo. Go ahead. >> I asked if it should be considered in
the FY27 budget pending our meeting with the budget and finance which has been on on the table. So that's the reason why we're picking it up now because it is in the FY27 budget, the two and a half percent increase. >> Okay. >> Well, that is not the reason why we're
picking it up now. We it's been tabled to to review. Things have been coming up, so we have not untabd it. Then we got into budget hearings. I was asked if it should be included as a just in case. I said yes, so we can see the overall
numbers. Um, and if it weren't to be approved, then the numbers would have to be adjusted. So, that that was a conversation. Um, but not included be because of what how it was just worded right now. That makes sense.
>> But just this item right here, we need to adopt this in addition to the Is this kind of baked? This is already baked into the budget, right? >> Yes. >> Balanced budget. Yes. the balance budget that we talked about the other night. Um okay,
>> so the main concern here >> is those that are already at the max. >> Sure. >> Um because it's an ordinance and it needs to be approved by council. >> Help me play this play this hypothetical game with me for one moment. This this is this needs to go through in order for
people to get for these increases to go through. If this this document, what document is it? 30-26 >> and it's tabled supposedly. There it is. reclassification of non-unit positions,
update on the calling center report and the cost of living adjustments that was put by director Garcia. And in order for in order for the pay to go through, this
reauthorization needs to pass the council. >> So now it's it's a different story. Okay? >> Right. So now it's mainly for those that are at the max that it needs to be approved in order um because right now the max per the
calling center says one amount and in order for us to be able to apply the 2.5%. We need to have it approved by council because it's going to go beyond the authorized max. So, how many of these
folks are being impacted or going beyond the max? >> Um, I do have another schedule that I can send to council president. Um, he hold on. >> I just I I'm more interested not necessarily
who or what. I'm interested in the amount like how many positions. So, I have a worksheet and the highlighted in green are those positions that are already at the max to give you an idea. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mente council still has the form. >> Council President, I just want to clarify this is the worksheet. If you if you give it, can you send it as well through mail very quick so I can
see >> I did >> if it if it is any different than what I already have. >> No, this is the same thing you had asked, but you had asked me to highlight. >> So I I've gone ahead and highlighted >> the uh >> Okay. >> Yeah. So you should receive it shortly. I just sent it to you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So So in the budget, which I don't have with me, I don't have with me. In the in the FY27 budget, each one of these positions, it is reflected as going up by >> 2.5 >> two and a half percent.
>> And here's my hypothetical. If we don't pass this reauthorization and classification, that's not a balanced budget. We're presuming that was there a presumption the council was going to adopt this? >> Yes. >> Okay.
And I realize that the council or the committee perhaps put you in a very in a tighter spot because you had to get the budget. You also had to get this thing done. It's a it's it it puts you in a very difficult position to try to get something through. And the >> So I just want to also mention um the
non-union had not gotten an increase um for over a year now. So they were the last increase that they the non-UN received was January 1st 2025 and before that it was in 23. So they do not get a an increase in 24.
>> So what's the difference between the Collins report the Collins center or this cola and the contractual obligations? >> Um where are we? Because for example, I'm
just going to use a city attorney's contract for example um because that's one that I'm familiar with off the top of my head. I know that in that contract it says if he um if if he meets the KPIs within that contract he gets I think
it's a 3%. >> Yes. So contracts are ted differently. Contracts go by whatever the the terms of the contract. These are non-contract for most of them. There are some here that are contract positions, but most of
the non-unions are non non-contracts. >> I have just one more comment on this. >> So, I I'm probably going to support this. I think that the be the better practice before the council and I've been doing this for a little bit now and this is
not the first time this has happened where things have already been pre pre- u ordained and have gone through the road and then we go back and we ask the council for approval on some stuff. Um, I would I just um >> Well, I thought it was a better practice
to include it because knowing how the how the council >> I was almost on my comment >> knowing how the council has functioned >> um then what what I would have heard was well why wasn't this originally included in the budget? So to save that trouble I thought well let's include it to see the
overall numbers and if it doesn't get approved then we need to adjust the budget. That was my thought process from what I've seen in the past from this council. >> I I I I I I'm not sure what I Anyway, I don't know what you're trying to to get
at there, council, vice chair or chair. What I I just think I don't want to make a bigger deal than I already have. Um I'm voting for it. I think the preference as far as practice is concerned, I think I just articulated that. I think that's my position on it.
Um, I understand there may be underlying reasons. I get it. Um, but I still think sometimes in our city, um, being a part of this institution for a while, we sometimes get at the back end and we get the boxes checked. >> Well, I if I may
>> feel free to feel free to push back. So, we've been trying to work on this for literally maybe five months and due to unfortunate events or different reasons, we just have not been able to to get to the bottom of this because originally my
my hope [snorts] was to get it effective January 1st, 2026 because that's a year after the non-UN received their races. So, I was trying to be fair with the non-union as we are with the union employees that get it
without they don't they don't miss a beat. They get it when it when they get it. And that's not the case with the non-union. And I just wanted to um you know to do the same. Um we are doing 2 and a half% which is what all the non-unions are getting um with except
with the um police. So, it's getting pretty much the same thing, but a little bit uh higher on the um front end and then lower on the um on the last two years. But we are being very consistent
here and we've been trying to get this going for literally four months. We were hoping to get it done and it just for different reasons did not happen. So, we just want you to know we're not trying to do things backwards or um do
it without approval. We we we've been trying. It's it's been a long process and I think um the non-unions deserve to get the race even if it's 6 months after they should have gotten it and we're not planning on doing a retro or anything. We're just going to make it effective
July 1st. >> Madam Chair, >> Council President, >> quick question. Uh can you provide us with the total amount for Tuesday uh of what this means the 2.5% for the non-unions? >> Yes, it's 165,000.
>> 165,000 and that's going to be that's going to go towards everybody uh that is not that is that any everybody that that is that number include everybody that is getting the 2.5 or just the non-union?
Everybody that's getting the 2.5 who is a non-union >> which is a non-union. Okay. >> Okay. So, and can you provide us with the the with the amounts for the uh for all of those that are maxed out?
>> Um just excluding those. Okay. Yeah, I can do that. >> Just just those I think there are 11, right? 11 people. You got it. >> Yeah, it's like 20, >> right?
>> Just those 20. How much will that means? Uh just for those 20 as well. So we got the total amount and then we got those 20s only. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Are you looking for a motion, Madam
Chair? >> All right. I think I'm all set. I was going to see. Um I'm all set. Um yes, at this point, I'll entertain a motion. >> Make a motion to send this up to the full council with a favorable recommendation. Motion has been made to set up as a fair recommendation. Is there a second?
>> Seconded by the council president. Any further discussion? Seeing none, madame clerk, can you please call the role? >> Sure. >> Councelor President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> You always come to me first.
>> You're the president. >> He doesn't like you. [laughter] >> You're the president. Yes, you're number one, >> Madame Chair. Stephanie Fonte. Yes. >> And then councelor Michael. >> You're my number one counselor in Fonte. Um, yes. >> Okay. Motion carries.
>> You are too. >> Thank you. Have a good night. We'll see you tomorrow. >> We have been trying to do this and we got into the year to date stuff, the late nights and weddings and all this good stuff.
>> Tomorrow night. Yes. Tomorrow was tomorrow night we have our last before we go we have our last budget hearing session. Um we will be covering the library, the cemetery, DPW,
um water water department and the airport. Um that meeting is starting at 7 not at 6. And again, it is our last hearing session for the FY27 budget. We have the
special meeting scheduled, the full council special meeting for the public's um for the public hearing on the FY27 budget on Monday uh June 15th at 700 p.m. And there is a
second date if needed um scheduled for Wednesday, June 17th at 700 p.m. So for the public, those who are interested in in making any public comments, June 15th is the date um for us to hear from you.
At this point, there are no there's no further business. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion has been made. Is there a second? >> Probably second. All those in favor say I. >> I mean, roll call. I can't forget.
>> Come on. Okay. Council Mark Lan. >> Yes. >> Council Madame Chair Stephanie Fante. Yes. >> And President Giovanni Rodriguez. >> Yes. [laughter] The chair always go last. >> You last. All right. Thank you. >> Bye.
>> Bye.