June 17th, 2025. Finance committee, budget hearing, and regular meeting to order. Um, councilor Bean Here. Councilor Sullivan? Here. Councilor Figgy here. Okay. On the budget side, uh, schools welcome Superintendent Zaki and Financial Guru Shannon Berry. Why don't you start by giving us, do you Want us to come up or do you want us to sit from here Off? That'd be awesome. It'd be better for the camera. Don't get too close. Why don't you start
with a brief overview of where we were, where we are, where we're going, You just number piece, um, in terms, and I'll talk about the other. So we, we had, uh, our budget last year was 70 72. I don't have number, exact number. I have a new number. 72 4 27. That's the number. Yes. We're going up to 75,566,339. So our, our major budget drivers as usual are transportation and special education costs. So, um, and contracts. And contracts. So if you look at the last three years,
the state has allowed special education schools to increase their tuition by over 22%. Of course, that falls onto districts. Uh, and, uh, there is something called circuit breaker where they're supposed to reimburse, uh, districts four, uh, up to 75%. That's the actual, uh, the legislation that would be 75% reimbursement. Um, it's been averaging about 44%. So there's, um, further reimbursement. So that is hurting us as well. Uh, we're seeing transportation costs increase, both for regular transportation and special education, transportation.
And part of that I would argue is because we have one company bidding the contract and there's no competition. Um, but also their costs are increasing as well. So, um, we know that the cost to pay the drivers, for example, it's very competitive. Um, and I think we're around 27th and I think some of the other area districts are even higher than that. So in order to retain drivers, they're going to have to adjust their pay rate, which makes sense. Um, so, uh, I can interrupt you. Um, so state law says K through five for busing. Six
Can Think K through six. Yeah. And we're doing, So we do the, uh, K through 12. Right. Okay. So has there been any discussion on not doing that? There was, uh, yes. Um, I do think it has the potential to negatively affect attendance, uh, at that level, which is where students start to lose interest in school. And attendance is affected already. So I don't want to make a problem worse. Uh, we talked about even charging a fee for, for, uh, busing and, um, not sure that it would even be financially worth it
because we would have to actually hire another person just to deal with that. So, and We'd have to make the busing cost. So, I mean, so high for families to make it worth Their worth. Worth it. Yeah. So, um, So nothing on the idea of, and I know, well, I guess it's a little bit budget related, but it's not even two periods in the year where people can sign up at a given moment, you know, seven through 12. And if beginning of the year they sign up, maybe midyear they weren't using it, but then they realize they needed midyear, then they sign up again. Is that, is there any movement within those contracts to do something like that? So we're, we're contracted to pay
for a certain number of buses regardless. Right. We have to tell them by, you know, I I wanna say it's a date in August if we're going to reduce the number of buses we're using. So we couldn't the way the contract structure Now. Yeah, no midyear. And the other thing I noticed is too, because we have tried that in the past where we're reaching out and saying, you know, if Ralph's not using the bus anymore 'cause he got his license and he drives his car to school most days. Finally. Yes. After 10 times taking test. I'm just kidding. Right. But, uh, Thank guys for Walmart. Yeah. And the other problem happened was too, even if we cut off the high school run, because we talked about that for this year, um,
it's a tiered system so we wouldn't, it wouldn't save us anything 'cause it's by the bus. Yeah. And so we'd still have to pay for the whole bus. We're putting out a tier. Yeah. So what I, and what I was gonna say is that, you know, what we're getting from families is they want us to, they want to keep their child's seat on the bus in case the car breaks down in case something happens and they, they can't get to school any other way. So we're not finding a lot of, we didn't find a lot of willing people to, I know you guys were working on it. I just Yeah. To lose the privilege. I know. As long as you're on busing. I know it probably brings up a slew of other issues. Any look at bringing it in house.
So we, we did loosely look at that. First of all, the initial cost for the buses would be probably a quarter million dollars per bus. Uh, the amount of time it would take to get that because it's you, they're not really, um, they're building them so they're gonna take some time and then it would increase our overhead tremendously. Um, and I'm not sure if it would be worth it in the end at all. Any thought of leasing versus buying on if you did bring it in house or, and I have a follow up after that one. Yeah. Um, we didn't talk about leasing because I'm still trying to figure out how we would,
you know, it would expand personnel and departments at the, at the school department, which would cost additional monies as well. What I need is a competition. The band pool contracts off at the end. We need Sledge hauling competition too. Well, I have actually, you're not the only one. I'm working on trying to make relationships with some of the other busing companies in the area that say do Springfield Ho can see if we can at least get them to, to bid. I didn't know how many buses we would need if, if you were to bid, you know, things like that. Well, even if you took over
and maybe just a piece of that, like athletics, you, you, we provide in-house athletic transportation or sped in district sped we did that, you know, instead of doing the whole thing. 'cause I think doing the whole thing's overwhelming and I think it'd just be crazy to try to start that all at once. So right now our contract is for two more years mm-hmm. With the krinsky and we wouldn't be able to do that until that expires anyway. Right. But it gives you two years to dos a plan. And just so you know, the scope, it's 29 regular buses
and then 22 mini buses. So it's, that's what we have still substantial even for special education. Yeah. That's 51 if you put 'em all together. Right. Right. Um, and going back out of this placements, how much do they go up? What's the percentage you gave? Well, The, the year last year was 36%. I don't know what it is this year. If you have that percent Either. You can get that to me later if you'll, I'll give it to you later. Yeah. I don't have it as a percent. Yeah, that's fine. Have the overall Numbers, But, and it's built, I Think it's a lot higher. Yeah. 'cause one, I know one other placement district 'cause they're restructuring what I'm 60 grand.
Right. So that's actually, there's, that's another thing. I find it to be an appalling loophole on the state level and have voiced my concern. Any of these out district schools can go and say that we are restructuring. And so the, uh, and they get to go up really any amount that they want. And so we have one school for one student that was already three 15 that went up to 3 75 under the restructuring rule. And it's one Student, 375,000 For one student. And then we have, uh, six kids at this, uh, helix. Helix. And uh, they went up, was it 40,000 something crazy.
40,000 per child. So there's 240,000. So there's two, um, especially out of district schools that have gone up under this restructuring that are costing the district a half a million dollars. I don't think that's right. I don't think anybody in the right line State thinks it's right. Well, We, Let's, We can make a list of those in the municipality world. We too much power. Great. I'm, That's basically it. Well We've made reductions, but I think we've been creative in, in ways to try to, to supplement the reductions that we had
to make as much as possible. There is less programming, but I think, um, you know, we're, we're not thrilled with that. But we have, again, I think we've been creative to try to make up the, the deficits that have come from that I'll, many positions are lost at this point. So it originally was 43.6 and then through the earmark we should be receiving the $250,000. We were able to bring back two coaches and four library paras. And then we were able to do a switch. Um, we were gonna hire a data specialist instead.
We, um, we brought back a unit B position that was the tech supervisor. So we're at 36.6 positions now that we've reduced. How are those layoffs? Or are those open positions that just aren't going to be filled? So we've actually had, um, 12 plus six retirements. Right. Two, some retirements. Yeah. So I think, um, there Only ended up being one person that actually lost their job through all the bumping and Right. And the retirement system going out. Retirement. Where was the one At WTA? Yeah, west Tech Academy.
And that was a bumping situation from the middle school. And that was which service? Wish. So there's an English teacher coming up from the middle school to replace that position. So it's not that they've lost a staff person, it's just a bumping situation. Okay. What about the manufacturing program? So there are 42 students currently enrolled, which is lower than it's been in some time. Uh, we have, uh, added a shop assistant position. Mm-hmm. So for eyes on on that, um, but what we were looking at is when you have,
so it's every other week and you have um, you know, eight eight in the sophomore class, they attend freshmen. Well, all of the seniors are out on co-op. So every other week they have eight students to work with. Uh, yes. They do go out and visit the co-op and so is our co-op person. Right. So, and then you have, uh, the other week where they would have the sophomores and the juniors where it's a little bit larger, but even some of the juniors are going out on co-op, um, halfway through the year, which is when they become eligible. So the 42 becomes 30, uh, at in January. Um, I would love to see, um, that program grow.
There's a huge demand for, uh, employees in that field as we all know. And I, I think we have to do a better job attracting students to that particular field. So I would agree totally with that last statement. And I think when you look at the Westfield economy in particular, um, you know, with a real backbone in manufacturing it's even more important in Westfield. It's also, if you got open, it's also an opportunity to market and bring in some students. 'cause the tuition would help on the revenue side of things. Absolutely. So, You know, look, I'm gonna end up voting for the school department budget. I don't like it. But for all the, not the same reasons
as most, I don't think it's enough. Um, and I think it's really, I understand the numbers and I understand you had to make tough calls. I totally respect that. I think this one is particularly shortsighted. 'cause I think it has bigger ramifications when companies are looking at where are they gonna grow, where are they gonna expand, where can I find the workers? And we're basically saying we're shrinking this program and at least have given everybody an opportunity for a year to fill the seats to whatever you believe the numbers justify that extra position. So I think that cut in particular is particularly shortsighted, but I will be ultimately a yes on the budget.
'cause I'm not gonna cut the school budget. Done. Anything else you guys wanna add before we ask some more questions? No, I think you already, I just, just, and, and I read an email a month or so ago about, um, you, you, you were fined, uh, the 250,000 that grant coming in. I do have issues with it being used for recurrent costs. Um, I, again, it's tough decisions. I get it. I I just, what's the plan for next year for those six positions that you're using? So, I mean, we obviously hope that, uh, the chapter 70 money will be where it needs to be.
Yeah. There's a certainly level of frustration when the neighboring community gets 3 million and we get one. Yeah. Um, and I think that, that, that is particularly frustrating. Um, I think that the positions that were brought back when we, um, looked at them, it was to impact the most amount of students. I mean, the library pairs on the surface doesn't look like that's a, a smart decision. But we were putting literacy assistance in there to man the libraries and still try to work with students who can't read. Well. I need those literacy assistance with those students as much as they possibly can be so that they're more successful later on.
I can't have a literacy assistant trying to work with a student, can't read it in shelving books. That's not helping. And our libraries can't be closed. There's no, that's not acceptable either. Right. Uh, and in terms of, so what we, we, you know, when we looked at that, uh, there are other things we certainly could do with it. Um, but I think kids reading is important and I know that, um, it was, it was probably the most important thing we identified as a, as a central office team and we need our kids to have the support for reading. Uh, the plan afterwards again is, is I hope our chapter 70 money and we're lobbying for that and we are speaking to the people we need to speak
to about it and letting them know that we've really been shortchanged in Westfield probably for the last several years. And it's just disheartening to see neighboring communities get so much more. Yeah. Fair. With the, uh, 2026 budget and conference committee right now, is there any hope for getting any increase? Any additional aid? Everything I'm seeing is no. Uh, in terms of chapter 70, the money that part stayed the same. What they are both trying to do. Uh, the House and the Senate, when I say both are, it is increased the reimbursement for circuit breaker,
which would be tremendous for us. But until that actually passes, and, you know, there are two things. I feel like the state short changes districts across the state on, which is one transportation. Uh, particularly regional transportation, but all transportation, that's where they make their cuts. And then special ed, uh, out of district reimbursement. I mean, it's supposed to be 75% and 44. It's a far cry. Mm-hmm. Should we, oh, go ahead. Go ahead. No, ahead. It might be a mere question too, but any thought on this, the stabilization account for schools rather than sweeping money at the end of the year, and it goes back to us 'cause you return money to us, say every year,
but a lot of the years, not this year. A answering your question directly, there won't be anything this year. There won't be. So, but even in the future, I mean, it's just something to think about. You know, I didn't love the idea originally, but I understand. I mean, set, Excuse me for Yeah. So you'd like to set the schools up as an enterprise Fund. Yeah. Especially for that, that sweep at the end. And this way we don't have to Well, I mean it would help because sometimes we sweep, but we, and, and we sweep and return back to you because there are things that we need to purchase. Yeah. Uh, but by the time we realize how much we have left,
Well, I know I The time's a time. Yeah. No, it's, it's a terrible process. It really Is. It really is. Because we don't have the time to put in, uh, requests for, for things. So, um, I originally also was not in favor of the idea and I don't know where I am on that right now. I I was cut Back. Yeah. Said Ing you were right. Enterprise. I'm sorry. It's okay. So just, just a what if, which I realize is dangerous, but what if there was some relief on the circuit breaker in the conference committee And so we actually wouldn't see it until the following year. Right. So it's not gonna show up until 27th. Right. That's kind of what I thought.
But another efficiency and somebody's looking to add things back in. Maybe, maybe we get lucky Sometimes. Better to be lucky than good. I've learned the state really operates on a slow pace, not the pace we like them to operate at. Sometimes. Not as slow as that. No, No. You really be so hard on yourselves. So I, I think it's, it's really, really devastating that you got a increase in your budget and you still have to resort to layoffs to reductions. Right. I mean, that, that's just So every year, I mean, when you look at our contractual obligations are
$1.8 million this year. Mm-hmm. Yep. So that's another, uh, significant increase. Yeah. The other, Well we, we weren't able to prepay this year because we aren't gonna have money left at the end of the year to prepay. So that set us back. 'cause I'm usually prepaying 600 to $700,000 worth of tuition is Yeah. Um, and and the other thing to be just along with you is we've seen a tremendous amount of students with need moving into our district. Um, I mean, pre COVID our, our autism spectrum disorder program at Paper Mill had 19 students. Next year we'll have 70. And you know, we built a program to serve the needs
of our kids is we're apparently Doing too good of the job. Well, Yeah. So, but we're gonna take care of our kids. Well I'm hearing that there are advocates, uh, for kids that are telling families, oh, you should move to Westfield to have a great program. Well, that's a problem. Um, that's a problem. Yeah. I have a You got any more? No, I got a couple questions that were emailed to me, uh, by a fellow counselor. Uh, and I don't know, I'll let you guys be the judge as to whether they're budget related or not.
Some of 'em are kind of in my mind, questionable. Are the availability and accessibility of the restrooms at the tech academy compliant with a DA? They are. Okay. Uh, just so you know, we, so neas just went through and did their part one and they do two parts now and they've now doubled their cost. Uh, whatever. It's, uh, and the citations were the facilities, but not 'cause of a DA compliance for other reasons. Are there any other health or safety related repair issues at our schools that require media attention? So we have done, I think, particularly good job this year dealing with things as they've come up. Are there any things that you're, that you're aware of? Not
That I'm aware of. Okay. Have changes at the federal level affected our students? If so, how So? Uh, as of now, title 1, 2, 3, they're all being fully funded. Well, title two, there's potentially gonna be passed two. Title Is title two. Title. Title two A is the professional development, which obviously trickles down and it impacts the students because the teachers would have less money for professional development. But the other ones yes. For next year except to Remain the same. Yeah. I can't promise for the year after. Are school meals still gonna be covered? Yes. Yes. The last one is, how do physical health, emotional health
and bullying impact your operations and your bottom line? How does physical health, emotional health and bullying impact your operations at your bottom line? How do those impact manifest themselves during economic times? I find that one, I mean, I think that the physical and the, I think the emotional health of our students is, has increased our budget costs since, particularly since COVID in terms of the amount of counseling and counselors that we need. Um, it's gotta be going up every year though, even before that. Yeah. Yeah. But I think it's not just a spike, probably.
Yeah. Well I feel like COVID gave us a spike. Yeah. Yeah. And we still see some of those, um, lingering effects on Sure. Not just the kids and parents. I was Just gonna say just the kids. Well, and our staff to some, to some to some degree too. Absolutely. You know, I think, um, you know, physical, mental, you know, I, I don't know where we fall this year in terms of having to use substitutes, but we, we've definitely use that line mm-hmm. In long term substitutes too. So it, it is having an impact and I, I don't love when the teacher is out, but I know stuff happens. Um, because the best instruction
that's happening is when the teacher's in front of them. Agreed. Anything else? No. Anything else in closing? Nope. Just if they have any follow up questions, feel free to reach out to either of us. We're happy to, to, uh, provide any information that you might ask for. Yeah, listen, I mean, we're pretty familiar now. I mean, you've guys given them a great public opportunity throughout the last month. Two months. Really. Three months. And That's why I didn't know what to, it's been a, I think we've seen it all. And you know, we tried to get there when we, you know, obviously can, but overall, like even for the public to weigh in, you guys have done a really good job of all this process.
So I appreciate that. It's not easy. It's not easy. Thank you. And thanks to the school committee members that are here. Support. I'm assuming You guys are here. Listen. Um, Chris, you know who? Tim? We didn't, we didn't have a And the mayor. Mayor. Oh yeah. The mayor. Can't forget the mayors of the school. I was looking. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all hard work. I appreciate, thank you. The transparency that came before us as if people don't know what's in your budget, it's because they have the lock. Because it's there and it has been
a lot longer than the city has been. So thank you for that. Appreciate it. Next step is, Alright, the next step will be, uh, budget reconciliation on the 23rd and then the final budget vote will be June 30th. Okay. So we changed the process a little bit. Right. I think last year we, we were, it was committee as a whole and it could be cuts brought in reconciliation will have that opportunity. The lot to cut budgets. Well Proposed, Proposed cuts then voted and then we vote on the cuts. So that's, that's the difference this year. Okay. Because we didn't do committee
as a whole for the whole budget. Right. We decided to Well, good chairman decide. So there will be a public hearing for this whole budget. Uh, next Monday at five. Yeah. Okay. Or six. What time? I think it's six. I think it's six o'clock. I can't make either one of those meetings. We understand. For The public. I know. Okay. Alright. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Have a good evening. Thanks. Okay. Switching to the regular finance meeting. First item on the agenda is request for consideration on approval.
Vene mark the amount of $35,397 and 1 cent from FY 26 reversed reserve for future salary. Increase accounts to fulfill a first year contract ratified successor agreement between the Westfield Miss Professional Employees Association and the City of West. Thank you Attorney Reid. Okay. So you have before you the amount that was provided by the auditor. Um, that would fill year one, um, fill year one of the increase.
Um, you also have before you a draft of the successor agreement. Um, the entire agreement we didn't provide, just because it's online. You can look at it, it's a lot to, uh, to upload. So do you have questions before? Um, I just, do you want just a kind of a brief overview Yeah. Of the changes? Yeah. If you could just hit the highlights. Sure. Well, the highlight is the economic provision. So let's start there. That's on the, um, third page of the successor agreement. Um, you'll see in this particular one
that each unit members going to receive a one time $1,400 payout using FY 25 monies. Um, as you ask, all know, this is a tight FY 26 budget. So this was a proposal from the Wimpy unit, um, for a $1,400 payout. Um, that worked out to be about one and a half percent for most. Um, there's a couple that were, were a little bit over that. Um, so an average of about 2%. Um, important to know that that is not added to the base. That was just a onetime payout. Um, the rest of the economic provision is a 1% for FY 26,
a 2% for FY 27 and a 2% for FY 28. Um, that's the highlight for the economic. Okay. Um, if you want to start on page one of the successor agreement. Um, and some of this was allowed housekeeping. It seemed to be when we were at through it. Right. A lot of this was, um, the first time that I've actually negotiated the contract from the very beginning. Um, we kind of went through each one starting last summer, um, each of the nine contracts and kind of went through some of the things that didn't make sense. Some of the housekeeping things. And honestly, the union has come in with a couple of, um,
housekeeping items as well. So, um, we'll kind of skip over some of the housekeeping ones. Sure. If you don't mind. I mean, if you have any particular questions after we come and go through the highlights, I'm happy to answer them. Um, the grievance procedure was amended. Their grievance procedure just didn't make any sense. So you'll see that as attached as an exhibit A. Mm-hmm. Um, and then the number, number five, or I'm sorry, number six regard. That's a kind of a big paragraph. But their, their old language had very specific language in it from 2006 about the certain percentages that were covered for health insurance.
So, um, this was just kind of moving it in line with the MOA that was done back in 2012. Um, number seven is just making sure that in order to receive any increase, that everybody has a valid reappointment. Um, number eight was actually one of our proposals. We're trying to reduce the number of MOAs and have a rubric, um, when people come into the unit as opposed to just kind of trying to figure out a wage scale. So this kind of gives us a, a rubric to work off of. And obviously if there's somebody that's hired that kind of defies the rubric itself, there's still the opportunity for an MOA that this kind of covers everybody's, um,
when they come into the unit. Um, housekeeping, because they're all housekeeping. Um, again, exhibit C, this is more of a housekeeping thing. This is an MOA that was done for on-call stipends for some of the tech center people. They, um, provide 24 7 coverage to, um, police and fire in certain circumstances. So they get $35 a day when they're, so that's just adding it into the agreement. So we don't have a million MOAs all over the place. 35 a day shooting. 35 a day. Yep. And it's only when, it's not everybody all the time. It's only when they're providing the coverage. Okay. I think there's a, a network administrator.
Network technician. There's a primary and a secondary, um mm-hmm. And that's in the on way. Um, number 13 is a working out of classification clarification. So the language in their current agreement didn't really clarify. Um, this would, uh, we're amending it to allow the department head to be out for 30 days without triggering it. Um, and to clarify the amount that would be paid. Um, so just as a by way of example, and since my department is not in a union, I can use my department as an example. If there was a city solicitor and said city solicitor was out for two weeks, the assistant wouldn't get any,
any increase it would require. The department had to be out for more than a month before. 'cause you know, part of the duties of an assistant or included inherent that you kind of cover for at least a short period of time, that's not the case for police and fire. That's not, they're not this agreement. Right. Different, different union. Different. Yeah. Different union. Different, different. I found it interesting. It's not to exceed 60 days. That's actually part of the N-G-O-M-G-L requires a 60 day limitation on it. Um, and 'cause like more permanent after that or something. Yeah. They want you to go through the actual hiring process of chapter 41 61 A is a 60 day appointment.
Now there have been municipalities that will say that that vacancy that's created at the end of 60 days creates the vacancy and then you follow the 60 days again. So, um, it's never been challenged. Mm-hmm. Well, I like it limited that that doesn't make it open-ended. Yeah. Um, again, I think it's inherent in the job description of an assistant that you kind of cover the duties of a, of a department head. And I think that was the mayor's, um, belief as well. So that was some language that we just some clarification. Um, the vacation on number 14, the language right now is automatic one week carryover
with then I another. Um, this is just allowing the two and then, um, limitations on when they have to be used by, um, 15 is just welcoming us to the 21st century. Um, we have a shared calendar that works very well, so that we're doing that. Um, the other two are, a lot of those are 16 and 17 are just some housekeeping measures. 18 is relating to the sick incentive. Um, most units including PSAs, if you do not use any sick time, you get four hours vacation in a quarter. So if you don't use any sick time in a quarter, four hours vacation added, um, we are, um, I'm sorry
that that is, that's not the right, you get sick vacation. Sorry, wrong thing. So a lot of the contracts allow people to convert a week of sick time to vacation time. Um, this is a requiring that you use all of their vacation leave first. So that's more of a safety net as opposed to just a bonus week of vacation. So like a sick pool still Existing. Um, I think this, this union does have a sick bank. Um, and this, this, um, sick leave is currently they have, they can use up to five days
per fiscal school year, um, for household members and parents. This changes the language to allow 'em to use up to 10 days. Um, for, for fiscal year for the sick or dependent child, spouse, or parents. Um, and an additional five days if they have an approved FMLA through the personnel office. Um, number 20 right now it says five years credible service to get severance. We've changed that to seven And that a move to eliminate sevens Just a change to from five to seven. 'cause I know when the schools gave up their severance, everybody else was supposed to follow suit and nobody else did. So I didn't know if that was a push
that you guys were making or not. It's just a making your work here longer to be able to do it. Okay. Um, thank you. Mm-hmm. And, um, a lot of the other ones are, are really, um, housekeeping measures. Um, if you have any specific questions on them, I'm happy to discuss also when number 27, it should say assistant COA director, assistant dispatch director and assistant health director. Those job titles will be added, but saying it's not people funding. So, um, but if we do fill them that they would be in this unit.
Okay. Um, I don't have much of an issue with what's been proposed. I have a real issue with part of the contract being put into letters to the council, uh, telling us how we need to behave and what we can and cannot do as far as asking questions to candidates. That is contract language. I know I have a real issue with that. That shouldn't be in the contract. That should just be standard issue. And I don't understand where this all came from. 'cause I can't remember a time where the council has been derogatory or nasty
or mean to anybody coming in front of it. So why does this have to be in all these letters? Because the Contract language was added actually prior to 2020. And I can't tell you exactly what year. If it was 2019 or if it was 2016, that contract language was added and um, just kind of added. It was never, I don't think anybody, it was added. It's been in the contract since then. Mm-hmm. The contract requires that language. It requires the personnel department to include that language. It was never done. And until recently, until recently, um, it was brought to Annie's attention.
It was grieved. Right. And so she got a grievance and so she's required to follow the contract language. Yeah. So I understand that. Mm-hmm. But I don't think that has any place in a contract. And I'd like that removed before you approve this. Can't do that Then we don't have a contract. If we don't authorize the payment contracts can go. You can, you Can your you're welcome to vote. Now that is, I can't you also, but you also can't negotiate the Contract. Right. I I'm just saying that would be my reason to vote. No one should be that, um, or to table it. But I understand the need
for the FY 25 using those funds. Oh yeah. Which we are available now. And if we table this, it's gonna go into next year and then those funds go away. So I don't wanna do that. I don't wanna punish the hardworking people that make up this union. But I think that union needs to show the respect to the city council that we deserve and need. And this does not do that. So is there any way we can rectify this short of voting? No, There's nothing before you at this time to change that. It wasn't something that the union is willing to change.
That's the language that they negotiated a long time ago. And they are, it's the language that they want to keep in. I don't have any, anything from them saying that they're willing to change it at this point. I mean, I can't, again, I can't tell you when that went in. I know it was at least 2019. It just was never, But can you understand my feelings about how I'm being treated through this letter? Am I overreacting? I mean, I'm not, I'm not really prepared to speak to that. I just That's fair. All I can say is that it's contract language. It's been there for a long time and they negotiated it
and wanted, they want to keep it at this point. So it was part of the discussion. So they knew that we discussed, Were upset the entire contract. Okay. That's oh they, they're well aware that there been some concerns. Is, is there, is there a way to find out why it was in insert in 2020 and there be discussions To discuss that prior to passing? I mean, I'm sure that they, that their, that their membership is probably aware of when it was added. Exactly. You know, I could go back historically and look at old contracts Yes. To see when it was added that, I don't know the, the precipitous that that caused it. I really don't. The other part is, as I read it,
it looks like if we ask any questions of the, of the person that we are now subject to, uh, failing the a for warrant, appropriate recourse shall be provided. So that means the union would sue the council because we ask a question. I mean, I think this is pretty serious. No, I, I agree that it's a, it's, it's, I mean they can't limit what the council does through a contract. I mean, that shouldn't be right. So, no, that, that's me. The only thing I can speak to is that it's that it's been there for a long time.
I understand. And it's not, I don't wanna shoot the messenger. I don't want to do that. But I just want the union to know that it's, it's just doesn't settle well. So it coming through on the letters starting two months ago mm-hmm. Was the result of it being brought to Annie's attention? And when I discussed this with Annie, that's what she told me. Mm-hmm. And I, I said, well I think that's wrong and it shouldn't be in the contract. But I don't know how else still aggress it. But Can I just ask a practical money issue? Sure. Um,
is the $35,000 appropriation in front of us? But am I right that part of it would be paying out of this fiscal year? The 35,000 is actually for FY 26. That's, that represents the 1%. So if you look at, um, Okay. So how I thought in your discussion, you had said that there was a $1,400 prepayment Yep. Paid Out. There's no appropriation request required for that. The money isn't, It's already there. Yeah, we have, okay. So we're not coming up on a deadline of the end of the fiscal year is where I was trying to go. 'cause I don't wanna hold up the payment
while this other issue is discussed or negotiated or debated. But that doesn't, that's not gonna happen. So the 1400 still goes out the door. The 1400 is in FY 20 five's budget And can still be paid And can still be paid in three through June regardless of what happens with this tonight Or Thursday. No. Only if, if this has, you have to approve the funding because again, you don't approve the actual contract, which you up or down the funding without that. I don't have assigned contract. The mayor can't sign this until the city council approves. Yeah. It's coming out of ffy 26 ERs reserve the 35,000 was
out of FY 26. 26. But I'm more worried about the 25 part of it. Part of the 25. So, so my question, I guess is, is there a way to bifurcate the vote to appropriate this year's money so that it can be paid within the next two weeks? Which I appreciate the financial maneuver here to get it prepaid and still negotiate out and have that discussion. I, I'm happy. I'm not looking to put the mayor on the spot, but I don't think it's a So through the chair,
if you're willing to entertain his answer, I'd be more than happy to entertain. So here's our dilemma. The contract language has existed for at least six years. Mm-hmm. The process would normally have been to know it's in the contract. Come to the mayor. Say to the mayor, I don't like this being in the contract. Take it out. That never came to me. I don't know anything about it. Life is good. We've Been told several times that we're not allowed to, to see the details within the Contract. No, no, no. I'm talking about the existing contracts that you've already voted on and approved. So the 19th contract, the 20 contract, one contract.
So those contracts, right? Yeah. So if there's something in those contracts that you guys don't like that's offensive to you, your responsibility is to come to the people that have to negotiate on behalf of the city and say, Hey, we would like you to remove, get this figured out a way to negotiate this out of the contract. That didn't happen in this contract. I'm not being disrespectful to anybody in, it didn't happen. So the shanna's negotiation is with the unit and for the city. If the city were to then come back and say, oh no, you've got it.
You've got a, a deal that you've made here and now you want to change the, the language of the deal, if you will. Now we're gonna be subject to bargaining bad faith, which I don't want to do either. Right. So I think you put a pin in it and you say, okay, you kind of hold your nose and you say, alright, we get it. And mayor or whoever the next person is that does the negotiation. We wanted to make a focal point of the WPS contract. We want you to ameliorate this language in the subsequent negotiation.
But I don't think you can do it in this one. That's just my take of it. I could be wrong, but I think it's right. And I thank you for that because I think it is a learning experience that I don't think we've ever had this situation before. So I, I didn't know how to go about it. I went to to the personnel director first and expressed my displeasure there as did some other counselors. But it never got up to you to that. Yeah. I, I can take responsibility For that. So following up on that, and I'm happy if you say, I wanna go talk to somebody before you answer, if we come to you with that and say, we don't like this language, whatever.
It's, whether it's this language or something else. And then it still shows up when it comes into the council. Are you telling us that we can sit there and vote no on the language? 'cause it didn't come out on the language. Not on the numbers. On the language. No Numbers. Okay. See, so that, so you know what I'm saying? So we, so it's it. Right. But if it Does come, which by the way, I disagree with Okay. But we've had this discussion before. Agreed. I think that's wrong. But It doesn't come to us in Negotiation. Right. If it doesn't come to us as part of the city ask. I understand. But if then if you then don't go ask or you put in some other new language
that wasn't in the contract before, you're still basically saying tough. You can't change it anyway. At least that's the opinion we've been given. I don't think that's right. But that's what I don't, I, 'cause I don't know how in the world you can expect us to do oversight when we can't ask any questions. It's, it's doesn't make any sense. I, but I understand that that's the opinion we've been given. So that's, I appreciate that answer. But I don't know that it gets us anywhere because it doesn't change the language and it doesn't even allow us to ask questions about the language when it comes back into us. At least again, that's the opinion whether we given it. So I appreciate that answer though.
And I Sounds like it can't bi I was gonna try to bifurcate mm-hmm. The numbers to let you spend out of this year. But I don't, which I'm happy to do, but I, I, I guess my only thing to it is back in 2020 I, I'd like to know why. Mm-hmm. You know, what was the purpose? Is this, is this just language that is best practices all of a sudden and people inserted this because of the climate we're in? Or is this particular because of this council, individuals, et cetera. That's why I want to find out. Um, I'm sure I'll be told that I can't find that out, but in the end, I'm not supporting this now
until I get some answers. So I don't know what you want to do with it. I know it'll probably screw everybody up with the budget side, but I I, I feel blindsided by this and, uh, I think it's inappropriate at best. I think you've got three posted meetings, publicly posted meetings between now and the end of the fiscal year. There's some time. Just gotta make sure you add it to the public. I agenda. So do I hear a motion? Motion to table to uh, we'll say next. Next meeting. Next meeting. When is your next meeting? Uh, Monday The 23rd.
23rd. The finance committee meeting on the 23rd. You're gonna have to post it as a finance committee that you, right now you've only got post it as a public Hearing. Right. A public hearing at six o'clock. And you would continue this finance meeting directly after the public hearing. Right. And then you've got reconciliation the next night. But you'd have to again post it and the same thing on the 30th. So you just gotta make sure that it's posted. We didn't have any further questions on the actual No. What was presented. Yeah. Discussion. Motion made second at the table. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Opposed? Table three. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I appreciate the conversation. Thanks. You appreciate. You're welcome. Okay. Next up is a requesting acceptance of a grant in the amount $1 million from the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation to Westville Barnes Regional Airport to be used to mitigate noise in the community surrounding the airport. Welcome Councilors for the city is, as you said, a grant to accept a grant for $1 million from the Office
of Local Defense Community Cooperation, which is a month. O-L-D-C-C is the acronym they like to use. Mm-hmm. The ODCC is a, uh, field agency within the DOD. Their main, uh, operation is to mitigate noise around communities, uh, around military bases. Um, of course now the, uh, F 35 coming online at multiple bases. That has been their primary focus. And when the offer came out back at the end of last year for a civilian community, um,
to apply to get this grant, uh, Chris Willenberg at the time jumped on it, made the application for the grant as well as some other communities within the region. Uh, Burlington being one and, uh, Westfield Barnes was accepted, uh, for this $1 million grant. The purpose of the grant is to offset the local, uh, charge of the local distribution that would be paid each year for the next five years, uh, so that we can perform, perform, uh, noise
sound deadening in houses within a 65 DVZ contour. Um, we're still waiting for the new contour map to be presented to us from Joan Payne Group. Um, but we are expecting that soon. So the, uh, the local share roughly is estimated to be about 200,000 per year with the, uh, rest of the money going, coming from, uh, FAA grants that we apply for every year. And that's essentially it. Okay. Questions guys. So just at the end of the day, there's no city match.
There's no city match. This is what this $1 million covers and is it paid out like $200,000 a year for five years? It's paid out based upon the work that is performed each year. So I am required to perform, uh, regular quarterly reports to the O-L-D-C-C of the work that is being done. And, uh, with the pay requisitions that come in, uh, both for the FAA grant that is, is presented to us as well as the old DCC grant. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Well thank you very much.
I was worried when you first said, say match 200,000 and then your second explanation. No, I'm sorry. I meant to say share. We'll share completely covers it. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? No. Motion. Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Motion been made and seconded to approve. All in favor. A Aye. Opposed? Motion passes to zero. Thank you Council. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. Appreciate it. Keep up the good work. Keep that. Yes sir. Keep that gravy train coming. Number six. How many millions have come in over, over the last three years?
Taxes is the appropriation of 121,000 in free cash to the flood control purchase and services account to clear trees on the little River. 11. Are you up? I am. Hey city. I am. Allison is representing, Uh, the city of Westfield at the National Public Works, Um, association meeting, uh, where she's a delegate. So she couldn't be here, so she asked for somebody to Chair. I bet you're the chair though. I am. We're airport among friends. I'm smirking At.
Yeah. Um, this one's pretty straightforward. It um, obviously it's part of the final phase of the structure to, um, provide flood protection in the city of Westfield. Um, the maintenance is vegetation and tree removal. It's been approved and is in compliance with the RB Corps of Engineer requirements. Um, it brings us, this is, uh, there's some technical stuff going on. This projects brings us further along. Enrollment and PL 84 99, the Federal Levy Rehabilitation and Disaster Assistance Program. That's what those numbers are for,
effectively our flood insurance for the federal government. We've already started the correspondence for the first section. I want to include it the final section of the levy. This piece itself, um, uh, finishes the Culbert project onto the green, uh, the Columbia Greenway, which means if you go to the top of the berm, everything to your left down to the greenway is what we're looking at. Um, it includes tree stump removal, tree and stump removal, grading, reshaping, mowing, and restoration of areas that have been dug out, which is where you look at it. There's a couple spots that have been dug out.
Um, the total bid came in at 442,000 0 73 from Northern Tree. Um, they are the ones that took care of the, the West run of the levee. Uh, they did a terrific job, to be honest with you. Um, we currently have in the flood control commission's money, um, 321,500 1889. If you do the math on that, that leaves us with a shortfall of about 121,000. You and finance are allowed to amend on the fly. Is that correct? Can you move that to 1 25? And the only reason I ask you to move to 1 25 is
because we're not sure the, the total exact number just yet. We think it's gonna be the numbers that we gave to you, but if it changes, I don't wanna have to try to get back to you. I promise you we will, you know, give back whatever the balance is on that. Um, and then we need a decision prior to June 30th in order to fulfill, uh, the bid requirements and the um, uh, uh, procedures through purchasing. Um, again, army Corps of Engineers on board. They understand exactly what we're trying to do. Um, and quite frankly, we want
to get it buttoned up in FY 25 rather than FY 26. We will have a little carryover if approved. So the purchase order will run out a little bit into, uh, July and into August. But the work will be done. And I'd like to, um, say thank you to the folks that have stayed on top of this. I know it's been difficult without a flood control commission, but um, we've been able to take care of these trees that are 60 and 70 years old, um, in a timely fashion. So this completes the project. Any questions I amendment?
Yeah, I was gonna make a motion to amend the appropriation to 120 5002nd Motion made to amend. All in favor? A aye. Okay, so now the motion has been amended to $125,000. Uh, any questions or comments on the 125 move approval? Motion made. Second. Okay. I just like to add that the timing is right for this because you've already got stuff going on, so it's just continuation of the existing. So Yeah, that's actually, Allison has given me some notes. It says why it matters. Losing momentum in our compliance
and restoration, uh, re restoration to your point and, um, potentially being ineligible in the, uh, event of a flood. So we're right on top of this. We're in pretty good shape. We appreciate that and more too. So any further discussion? Any, none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Three zero. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll let the city engineer know that you did an admirable job. Thank you. We'll give you the $600 Stipend for being the chair. Item seven is a transfer of $145
and 85 cents from the health department FY 25 reimbursement account. The FFY 24 reimbursement account to cover the cost of a prior year bill owed to. Do you guys wanna leave listening to me? Believe they made you wait. You didn't take home your new boots? No, They don't. I try buy It can't be a health on the spectrum. No. Um, so my understanding of what happened, um, when I interviewed the clerical staff involved is that, um, one pair of boots was ordered and we did not realize that two were shipped.
The bill went to the school department. So we paid for the one pair of boots. We found the second pair of boots under the desk, still in the box all wrapped after when we were getting ready for our what? Third in a row inspector to fill the position. And, um, they will not take them back. It's just keep going. Size nine. Size nine. Size nine. And Second. Motion made. And second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Three Zero truth. Thank you very much. Patience with us.
Repentance was to sit through that hour, Right? That's right. You're really great. Item number eight, the appropriation of $250,000 for free cash. The old pep account Replen the amount cut during FY 25 budget process. Okay. This has been on our, they've been in the committee for quite a while. Uh, we wanted to, we held it because we wanted to see the consistency in the appropriations in the, uh, last year it was 250,000 on the original 500,000. This year's budget has another two 50,000. So it's up to us what we want to do with this.
Do we wanna spend two $50,000 of free cash or do we want return that to or leave it in free cash? So it's up to you guys As long as, since the appropriation is the same last year to this year, which seemed to be one of the issues, I'm fine taking it out with no action. I we have to, is it just tabled? We have to take it out the table to discuss it. Um, I don't know if it was tabled. I don't think it was. We just, we just left. We just left it End committee. Yeah. I, I I dunno. I I, I just, it's a, it's a drop in a ocean,
so I, I I'm probably more likely not to support it. Okay. What I'd like to see is, I'd like during this fiscal year, possibly if the long range finance committee could meet and work with the mayor and this financial team to see if we can come up with a formalized plan. Because I think the bonding companies want to see a plan, not necessarily how much, but a plan in place. Um, some other communities have put a percentage of free cash every into, um, I don't know, I'm not a financial wizard. Okay. You may input. So, um, since taking over,
I put 500,000 and 500,000. I met with s and p now four times and there you are. Exactly right. So my plan was half a million a year and just keep whacking it at half a million a year until we got to 2034, at which time the pension fund would then be fully funded and we fully expected them to then flip over to the oped fund. By 2034, the oped funding should be somewhere, have, have a running balance of about $200,000. So if you apply 200 million, sorry, million, sorry. The
Liability. Liability, yeah. So if you extrapolated that out, you'd be using 13 and a half million, $14 million over the next 15 years and then you would wipe out the oped fund. They liked the idea. I put it into the budget in FY 25. Budget was a little tight, as everybody knows in FY 25, obviously it's a little worse than FY 26. So I asked for you guys to restore it because it was cut and then we came back with a, a free cash amount that was very, very healthy.
Mm-hmm. Um, what ultimately you decided to do is entirely obviously up to you, the, um, s and p has told me directly without getting your EP funding down. I think I had a conversation, uh, with Rick, uh, like a consultation, excuse me, with uh, Councillor Sullivan about specifically trying to figure out how to get the bond rating from AA to AA plus, which is our next movement up. Um, that's the only way to do it. But I don't ever see us getting up nor do I ever see us dropping down.
So ultimately when I put together the 2026 budget, um, I put in the $250,000 in the 2026 budget in an effort to kind of, I don't wanna say appease, but show good faith to the people at s and p that we're still trying to move along in, in that direction, whether or not it's sustainable or not. I, I simply don't know. And I believe that OEP liability is a bit of a, It's a, it's a bit, it fluctuates. Interesting. Well, it fluctuate, but, but oped liability contemplates
what happens if everybody's retired Right now, what is the opep liability? So you have all your retirees, but then you have your 1400 city employees that would all have to retire on the same day and then that's calculated into the OPE liability. So I, you know, it's, it's a weird formula. Good luck. It's kind of like excess levy capacity. Same arguments. Um, good shot by The way. It's, um, so I, I'm fine taking out with no action. I mean, it leaves the city with 250,000, I guess that in free cash for this year,
which will help this year, next year. Um, is, and I agree with the plan and I think it's chie that actually has voted that. So I, I would certainly, and maybe if it isn't long range finance, if there was a separate committee or whatever set up, I do think we ought to adopt the plan formally so that there's actually a written document that everybody agrees on what that is. Um, which I think would go a long way with the bonding agencies. Um, 'cause I'm sure the mayor's made that representation. I think it makes all the sense in the world. Other people have financed it, by the way.
Um, I think Leinster actually did that. A couple of, couple of communities have actually financed the liability and paid it off that way. Um, again, I'm not saying one way is better than the other, but I like the plan. But I do think we ought to formalize that with a vote at some point. I'm not saying today, but I'm fine taking this out with no action to the full council As procedure goes. Is that plan a council plan? I'm outta my depth here. Is that a council plan or is that a executive Officer? Usually with anything with money has to start with you.
But I'm, I'm certainly happy just speaking for myself, whether it's, I'm not on long range finance. I don't believe, um, whether it's long range finance meets with you or the president sets up a separate committee to deal with the oped. I'm either way fine. I certainly think it can be a joint recommendation or at least a joint conversation and bring it in that way. I'm really happy to adopt whatever guidance I can do. Yeah. I think a joint effort would be wise. I think it would be. So maybe you can talk to the president so I could talk with the president of the council
and see what his feelings are towards us. So whether he wants a special committee or wants, but right now we have a, Yeah, my big, big problem, this is really not a plan in place. I mean, unfortunately that plan can change when the mayor changes. Mm-hmm. So it's really Not, and we've seen that over the course of years. We've Seen that, you know, so that's one of the things I, I'm still not convinced on other than paying our bills. Right. And our, our responsibilities. But what do we get? We're not, we're not going to the next step on the bond rating. It's just, I don't see it happening. 'cause there's other, we've talked about this just recently
and there's other factors involved on that rating. So, I mean, currently, so I'm, I'm, I'm gonna be a No, I have no problem bringing it out, you know, getting it into the full council, but I'm not gonna support, I mean, if you wanna make a negative recommendation vote, I'm happy with that too. Tonight coming out. Finance, I'll, I'll Vote. Oh, I, no, I don't have to do that. I mean, whatever you want do. I mean, I'm not, I'm not here on Monday. Our options are, we can do a yes or a no vote or we can just bring it out with no action. We bring it out with no action and Just maybe we'll have the discussion and we can go from there. Okay. I'm, I'm fine with making a motion to bring it out
to the full counsel with no action. Is there a second? Second. Motion made And second. Any further discussion? Saying none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Okay. Before we, uh, do item nine, I'd like to just thank everybody for their cooperation, their patience, and their understanding during the broad budget hearing process. I think we've made the best out of, uh, the situation we have. And I want to thank everybody for their appearances and their openness and all the information that we have gathered and we've gathered in time. So, and the mayor, I just add the mayor
and the department heads have been great. Yes. About, that's why. Any question I know as well as the chair finance, we don't have to go that far, but anyway. Do I hear a motion? Motion to second. Second. Motion is made. And second. All in favor? Aye. A meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.