5.12.2026 Fall River City Council

Speaker 1 As for a public hearing, for the City Council public hearing will be called to order at 5:56. Madam Clerk, roll call. Speaker 2 Councilor Cadime? Here. Tamara? Here. Canual? Speaker 3 Here. Speaker 2 Dion? Here. Hart? Here. Peckham? Here. Pereira? Here. Reposo? Here. President Fonte? Speaker

1 Here. meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item. To open the public hearing. Second. To open the public hearing as it may by Councillor Raposo.

Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. First item is Robert Cofori of 909 High Street Investment Trust P.O. Box 4266 for the removal of curbing as follows. The existing parcel is served by a 14-foot curb opening and driveway.

The applicant proposes to create a new 18-foot curb opening and driveway to provide access to additional housing units and parking. The total opening for the location will be 32 feet. The site plan review has been successfully completed. Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. Calling all

proponents. Calling all opponents wishing to speak on this item. Calling all opponents. Hearing none for either. Next item is item number two on our public hearings. It's Dillon Estates LLC of 1175 State Road Westport Mass 02790 for the removing of curbing as follows. The existing parcel is served

by a 20 foot 8 inch curb opening and driveway on South Main Street. The applicant proposes to create a new 16 foot curb opening and driveway on Osborne Street to provide access for parking. The total opening for the location will be 36 feet and 8 inches. Calling all

proponents wishing to speak on this item. Hearing none. Calling all opponents wishing to speak on this item. Hearing none. Item three, jointly owned poll location. The Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England Inc. for one jointly owned poll location as follows. This is

on County Street. The petition is proposing to install one new jointly owned mid-span poll P27-50 on County Street, approximately 30 feet westerly of the existing Pole 28 near the intersection of County Street and Goss Street in accordance with plan number 31260032. There's a restriction noted that the pole

shall not interfere with access to the existing Americans with Disability Act ramp. That is noted as a restriction. Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. And if you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Speaker 4 Good evening, ladies. Good evening. Rebecca

Castadio, 245 South Main Street, Hopedale, National Grid. Speaker 5 Good evening. Belinda Trung at Control Point Technologies. I have not memorized my address that easily. Speaker 1 Are you here as a proponent wishing to speak on this item? Yes. Okay, go ahead. Speaker 4 So we need to

install a mid-span pole, pole 27-50, roughly 30 feet west of pole 28. This is for a pole top recloser. A reliability purposes, this piece of equipment needs to be installed on in this area. So this is where they've proposed to put it. Speaker 1 Thank you. Do you

have anything you'd like to add? Speaker 5 No, I do not. Speaker 1 Okay, very good. Thank you. You can stay right there for us if you'd like. Calling all opponents wishing to speak on this item. Calling all opponents. Hearing none, item 4. Massachusetts Electric Company doing business

as National Grid and Verizon, New England for one jointly owned pole location as follows. This is on King Street. The petition is proposing to install one jointly owned Class 2 Pole P10-50 on the easterly side of King Street between Pole 10 and Pole 11. That's approximately 70 feet

north of the center line of the intersection of Walter Street in accordance with plan number 312-93162. Calling all proponents, please reintroduce yourself. Speaker 4 Rebecca Castadio, 245 South Main Street, Overdale. Speaker 5 Belinda Trung at Control Point Technologies. Speaker 1 Can you get your address for the record,

please, before we leave today? Yes. Please speak as a proponent. Speaker 4 we are installing a 45 Class 2 poll between poll 10 and 11 on King Street. It will be on the same side of the poll. Poll will be labeled 10-50, and, again, this is also for

a recloser to be on that mid-span poll. Speaker 1 Do you have anything to add? Speaker 4 No, I do not. Speaker 1 Thank you very much. Calling all other proponents wishing to speak. Hearing none, calling all opponents. Hearing no further proponents or opponents. Item 5, Massachusetts Electric

Company doing business as national grid and Verizon, New England for one jointly owned pole location as follows. This is on Mount Hope Avenue. The petition is proposing to install one jointly owned 45-foot H1 mid-span pole P10-50 on Mount Hope Avenue between existing pole 10 and pole 11, approximately

50 feet westerly of the intersection of Mount Hope Avenue and Bayview Street in accordance with plan number 31293092. There is a restriction noted that the pole shall be set back of the walk and shall not interfere with existing driveways. Calling all proponents, welcome again. Speaker 4 Rebecca Custadio,

245 South Main Street, Hopedale, Mass. Speaker 5 Belinda Chung, 200 Ledgewood Suite, 300, Rockland, Massachusetts. Speaker 1 Thank you. You are a proponent? Speaker 4 We are proposing to install a 45 Class 1 poll between poll and 11 on Mount Hope Street. Poll will be labeled 10-50, and

again, this is also for a recloser. Speaker 1 Thank you. Anything further? Speaker 4 Nope. Speaker 1 Hearing no other proponents, is there any opponents wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none, no further proponents and opponents. Item 6, Massachusetts Electric Company, doing business as National Grid and

Verizon New England, Inc. for one jointly owned poll location as follows as is on Rodman Street. The petition is proposing to install one jointly owned poll location P24-50 on Rodman Street at the location that is both approximately 128 feet northwesterly of their center line on the intersection of

Lonsdale Street and 49 feet westerly of the existing poll 25 in accordance with plan number 31290760. Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. Speaker 4 Rebecca Castillo, 245 South Main Street, Hopedale. Speaker 5 Belinda Trung, 200 Ledgewood, Suite 300, Rockland, Mass. Speaker 4 We are also

proposing to install a mid-span pole for a closer. This pole will be labeled 24-50, about 49 feet northwest of Pole 25. Speaker 1 Hearing all other proponents wishing to speak on this item, hearing none. Any opponents? Speaker 6 No. Speaker 1 Hearing none, Counselor in seat four, Council

Vice President Dion. Speaker 6 Good evening. Just one question. With all the polls that you're putting in, are there any mass electric company polls owned that will be removed at any point because of all of this work, or is everything staying? Speaker 4 Yeah, everything will be staying.

They did kind of like a, it's called a Flizzer program. So what it does is they run this program, and they see where these reclosures need to be based on reliability purposes. So a lot of polls, one poll, one purpose type of deal. So they can't put this

big, heavy equipment on poles where there's other equipment. Speaker 6 So nothing's being duplicated. It's just being enhanced. Correct. Okay. Thank you. With that, I yield. Speaker 1 Thank you. Hearing no further proponents or opponents wishing to speak on this item, we're going to go to item number

seven. Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as a national grid in Verizon, New England, for one jointly owned pole location on Tripp Street. This petition is proposing to install one jointly owned pole, 45-foot Class II mid-span pole, P30-50 on Tripp Street between existing Pole 3 and Pole 4, approximately

180 feet northeasterly on the intersection of Tripp Street and King Phillip Street in accordance with plan number 31294261. 31294261, calling all proponents. Speaker 4 Rebecca Casadio, 245 South Main Street, Hope Deal. Speaker 5 Belinda Trung, 200 Ledgewood, Suite 300 Rockland, Mass. Speaker 4 So we're also proposing to

install a 45 Class 2 poll between Poll 3 and 4. This poll will be labeled 3-50 and is also for poll top recloser. Speaker 1 Is that it? Speaker 4 Yes. That's it. Speaker 1 Thank you very much. Speaker 4 Oh, sorry. Speaker 1 Appreciate you both. You're

good to go. Thank you. Calling all the proponents wishing to speak on this item. Here are none. Calling all opponents wishing to speak. Counselor in seat seven, Counselor Pereira. Speaker 7 Yeah, the only question that I have to the ladies before you leave. Yes, sorry. This is like

brand-new polls or it's going to be connected to another poll. Speaker 4 Brand-new polls. So I think this one would be approximately like 100 feet away. Speaker 7 All of them brand-new polls and not doubles. Speaker 4 Correct. Yeah, it's brand-new. The only time there's double poles is

because we have a contract with Verizon. We install the poles, Verizon removes the pole. Oh, sorry. Okay. When there's double poles, it's because we have a contract with Verizon. So we install the poles, Verizon removes. We can't touch their wires legally. So we cut the poles at the

top, attach our wires to the new pole. Then Verizon has to tell Comcast and whoever else is on the pole to go transfer their wires. And then when all the wires are off the pole, they then remove the pole. Do you call them to let them know? We

send them a 605, which is a notification that they need to transfer their wires. Speaker 7 They haven't done that. Speaker 4 Yeah. Speaker 7 Any suggestions on how we can get them to do that? No? It's okay. Speaker 4 I wish I had one. Maybe tell them

to come to a meeting. Speaker 7 Yeah, we have. Speaker 4 Oh, you have? Speaker 7 We have to book six months out. Us too. We'll do that again. Lauren has tried. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you. Anything further? Thank you. Motion to close the hearing.

Made by Councilor Raposo. Seconded by Councilor Canual. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We're going to go right into the Committee on Finance. As far as City Council Committee on Finance, we now will be called to order Madam Clerk. Speaker 2

Councilor Skidim? Here. Kamara? Here. Canual? Speaker 1 Here. Speaker 2 Dion? Speaker 6 Here. Speaker 2 Hart? Speaker 1 Here. Speaker 2 Peckham? Here. Pereira? Here. Raposo? Here. President Punky? Speaker 1 Here. Pursuant to the open meeting, or any person may make an audio or video recording of

this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. It is 6.07. The 4 of the City Council Committee on Finance has been

called to order. First item on our agenda today is the call for citizens input. Any? There is hearing none. Item number two is an order authorizing the award of a two-year contract with a one-year option for municipal solid waste and single stream recycled curbside collection and disposal services

to Capital Waste Services, Inc. This was referred to the Committee on Finance on April 28th. Members of the administration, please come down. Is there a brief introduction that you'd like to say? I'll just introduce yourselves for the record, please. Anne O'Neill-Souza, Interim City Administrator. Speaker 8 Emily Arpke,

CFO. Speaker 9 Al Oliver, Director of City Operations. Speaker 1 Ms. Anne O'Neill-Souza, would you like to give us a brief introduction on this item and where we're at and what you're looking to accomplish here? Speaker 10 Yes. Good evening, Council President, members of the Council. As the

Council is aware, the City, acting through the Board of Health and the Department of Community Maintenance, issued a solicitation for municipal solid waste, single stream recycling, curbside collection, and disposal. Two responses were received, one from Capital Waste Services, Inc., and another from E.L. Harvey. There was a five-member

selection committee established to review the technical proposals using the evaluation criteria that was set forth in the solicitation. In addition to the technical proposals, the committee reviewed the price proposals submitted by the two companies in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-8 of the solicitation. The committee deliberated

and determined based on the facts set forth in the solicitation that the evaluation criteria and the tally sheets that the higher technically ranked higher cost proposal represented a better value to the city than the lower technical ranked proposal. E.L. Harvey's bid price was $15,990 with a comparative score

of 24.90. Capital's bid price was $16,553,915. They had a comparative score of 28.70. E.L. Harvey was $543,915, below the other bidder, but was outscored by Capital in the comparative evaluation by 3.8 points. Nothing in the solicitation required the city take the lowest price proposal. Instead, the city reserved

the right to base its decision on the entirety of the information provided and sole judgment as to the best service provided. The selection committee therefore requested to the mayor that a proposed order be forwarded to the council requesting the approval of the award of a two-year contract with

an option for an additional year for curbside collection and disposal of municipal solid waste and single stream recycling to Capital Waste Services, Inc. Speaker 1 Anything further? Before I acknowledge any of our colleagues, our Council Vice President to serve on this, is there anything you want to add

on that committee, separate and apart from what our interim city administrator mentions? Speaker 6 I think it was just important to note that obviously we only had two people that submitted bids. Obviously we do need to handle our trash. We're either in or at the end of year

10 of our original contract. capital seemed to meet all the needs and actually exceed them. But I'm sure there are questions that counselors have. It was just simply for us a scoring mechanism just to rate which one of the two that we thought were better. I wasn't involved

in any conversations prior to the RFP being sent out Speaker 1 or anything like that that I yield. Thank you, Council Vice President. Council in seat eight, Councilor Opposer. Speaker 11 Thank you. Mr. Oliver, I guess I'll start with you. I guess you probably can answer most of

these questions anyway. As part of this new agreement, the pilot program for cardboard, it's the longest pilot program I've ever seen in my life. So I'm just curious, with this new contract, what happens with that? Speaker 9 We'll still evaluate that with the new company, absolutely. The goal

is to try to reduce as much cardboard out of the MSW. So that's a big project for us, and we need to evaluate with this new company. Speaker 11 Have they made any presentation to you of how they're going to handle cardboard with this new agreement? Speaker 9

Well, we're still working with them on that. Once we award that, we'll be working with them on that cardboard pilot program. Okay. Speaker 11 And I guess in your current position, what is your plan with that? Because, again, it's been a long pilot, and I would imagine at

this point you have some data to say either we're in it or we're not in it. Speaker 9 So at this point, it's neutral right now. Because cardboard is a commodity, we're finding that it's neutral at this point. So we're not benefiting at that point. We weren't paying

anything extra for that, so it was neutral. But as cardboard raises in value, then we have to attack that situation. But working with capital, we'll have a better idea immediately what we'll do. Our goal is to expand that. Speaker 11 Okay. because I guess my larger question is

how does the cardboard play? Because really it seems like from the discussions we've had, cardboard is the only commodity that's worth anything at this point when it comes to recycling. So how does that factor into your potential working relationship with capital? Speaker 9 I mean, they are aware

of what our desires are. We did mention that we do have that program right now, and they understand what we're trying to do. Speaker 11 That's part of the negotiation, I'm assuming? Sure. Okay. Secondly, when it comes to customer service, what do you know about capital that will

essentially improve the customer service to the residents of the city? Speaker 9 So part of that, they're going to be involved with full compliance for customer service. They'll have that internally on there. So they'll be receiving the calls. They'll be dispatching from that point on. So they are

aware of what our needs are, and it's well spelled out in the specifications. Speaker 6 Point of information? Speaker 1 Councilman C, for your point of information. Speaker 6 As part of the committee, one of the things that the committee liked about Capital is that they have five

to six full-time customer service representatives that will be on duty every day that they're collecting trash and also have a customer service manager who will also be on site every day. So I think that was a definite plus for us on that side. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor.

Speaker 11 Thank you, Madam Vice President. That answers that question. And the third part is, if this were to go through, when is the official they begin? What's the time? July 1st. July 1st. Okay, so if this gets approved between now and June 30th, you're going to get

a contract squared away. Correct. And what does that transition look like between our current provider and them, if that were to come to be? Speaker 9 Well, EZ and Capital have merged. So Capital has a firm working in New Befford right now, and EZ is doing our service

at this point. So they would merge, and they are currently right now as a merger. So we would definitely be working with them a lot closer. And remember, the other contract was for pay-as-you-throw. So this one is well spelled out, and that was one of the things that

Council was talking about. They had a great plan that they put together. Harvey knows what they're doing. They've been doing this for many years. I've worked with them in the past, Speaker 11 but the actual plan that was presented to us was a lot better. So I would

assume through this agreement there's going to be no more of shipping some stuff this way and some stuff that way. It's going to be one. What's the end pathway for the waste? Speaker 9 Well, they have multiple locations for the end pathway. So they're working with several locations,

Republic one of them, and they have a couple other outside of the state as well. Speaker 8 The big difference with this, though, is that it's not our responsibility. Once they load it into the truck, it's theirs to do what they need to dispose of it. So we

won't be involved with any of that after that point. Speaker 9 It is a turnkey operation, Counselor. It is. Good. Speaker 11 And then the last question I have is as far as... I wanted to say something. I'm sorry. Speaker 10 I was just going to say in

their proposal, They listed two disposal sites, Republic here in Fulerville and Covanta in Wareham. Speaker 11 Wareham, okay. The last question I have is, as far as it's a two-year with a possible additional one year to make it three, how is the administration judging after the two years

if it's something they want to continue with or not? Speaker 10 One of the things the city did with that third year is we want to work on waste diversion methods. We're very interested in working. We've been working very closely with the representative from DEP on re-educating individuals

regarding recycling. We're doing really well. We have a five-day collection. Three days are great. Two days are not so good. Those are the ones that we're working to target those areas to re-educate individuals. We're working on things like the cardboard, possibly pilot expanding something along those lines and

looking for ways to get the domestics out and the textiles out of the waste stream, which can no longer be in there. So there's going to be a lot of education, and there's going to be some other possible things that we're looking at with potential companies coming to

do some waste diversion and conversion here in the area. Speaker 11 Okay. Who's going to be responsible to judge if, at the end of two years, we're going to continue on or move on to someone else? Who's going to be responsible for that directly? Speaker 10 I would

imagine the director of DCM. Speaker 8 Probably. Speaker 10 DCM director. Yeah, okay. Yeah, the administration, and of course, the council will be consulted as well. Okay. Speaker 11 All right. I had one more, and I just lost it, so I'll come back to you. I yield, Mr.

President. Thank you. Speaker 1 Councilman C7, Council Vice President, Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 Thank you. Anne, are we ending with CREPO on June 1st? June 30th. June 30th, Crapo is done. Correct. They couldn't get more with Crapo. No. They wanted us out. Okay. So we are looking at

Waste Free Public. Did we put in that the trucks have to be of a certain age? We don't want rickety trucks around. Speaker 9 That's a great question. In the plan, they are going to pick up brand new vehicles. Speaker 7 Give me a great answer. Speaker 9

They are going to give us brand new vehicles, and they're starting to purge those in right now as we speak. Speaker 7 They are. Okay. And the cardboard, to be honest with you, I shop a lot, and a lot of the cardboard that I get, I bring it

to DCM, and they have a place there where they take the cardboard, because I find if I don't have a bin for cardboard, it rains, forget it. The cardboard's worth nothing. Is that something that people are encouraged to do if they can do it? Speaker 9 Well, we

don't have a permit for a drop-off for anything like that, But something as a recycle component, you really don't need an MSW permit for that. So cardboard is a recycling component. We can take those in. We encourage the pilot program to take that. But if folks want to

bring that in, we'll take that in with no problem. Speaker 7 Are they considering the school department as well with the cardboard that they have there? Speaker 9 Well, they have their own cardboard collection point right now. So they're not part of the pilot program. They have cardboard

dumpsters. Speaker 7 So maybe we need to talk to them and find out how their pilot program is going and how we can use it on our side. Who picks up their trash? It's easy. Easy. So easy must know what they're doing over there to get that done.

Speaker 9 Well, they have containers specifically for that. Speaker 7 Okay. And my last question, Ann, you talked about DEP coming and educating. We've been talking about educating on recycling for a long time. And I really think that one of the things that DEP has in their booklet,

where they talk about, I guess it was pay as you throw a long time ago, that you have to do this whole education program. And one of the things that's said in that literature was that the best way to educate on recycling was through the schools, through younger

children who come home and explain it to parents who may be busy or what have you. but you get them into recycling. Is there any work being done with the school department relative to that? Speaker 10 Yes. The mayor's office in conjunction with Joe Kennedy through litter enforcement

is working with Missy Hollenbeck. Speaker 9 Missy Hollenbeck. Speaker 10 Sorry. To look at that. And we're doing educational promotions. They're going to be coming out with totes so that individuals who live in multifamily houses can get a tote bag and rather than have to go out all

the time with their recycling, they'd be able to put their clean recycling in the tote, take it out to the bins, and then bring it back into the home. We're going to be working with the school department. We've talked with them previously, the previous superintendent, and going to

continue with the new administration regarding educating the students in the classroom, working with the green team at the high school, working with CTE program. We had some training here a few weeks ago with the CTE students from Durfee, and Joe and Al put on a presentation to them.

They were very interested in being part of this promotion. We've started PSAs on the government channel, all the cable access channels to promote the recycling changes. Some people still don't know that pizza boxes are recyclable. Speaker 7 Right, but the bottoms, if it's greasy, you have to go

in trash. The tops go in. Speaker 10 No, it just can't have food in it anymore. Speaker 7 Oh, so now if it has grease, it can go? Speaker 10 Yeah, and you can't have it. Speaker 7 I ripped a box last night for no reason. Speaker 10

It's about just simple things like that, like people aren't aware of. Speaker 7 Well, there was stuff Joe Kennedy, I think, had talked about the water bottle, that if you recycle a water bottle, you have to have the cap on it to recycle it. If the cap is

off, the cap needs to go in the trash, and the to-go boxes that are black, those can't go into recyclable because the conveyor belts are black, and it shoots it out, which is crazy. Why don't they make the conveyor belts white? I mean, it makes no sense to

me. Speaker 10 We're also working with the schools through ParentSquare, sending information out to the parents so that they'll know tips regarding recycling that they may not be aware of to help promote that. Speaker 7 And as far as customer service, I have not had a problem at

all with EZ when I get a constituent call relative to somebody forgot to pick up my recycling or what have you that I call, And they have been very good at going back. So all the people, I think Councilor Dion mentioned that they're going to have five people

taking customer calls. I think that's good. Speaker 10 And we have an on-site supervisor right here in the city who's very responsive when we have an issue. He goes out, assesses the situation rapidly, and takes care of it. Speaker 7 And Capital was a unionized trucking company. easy

was not unionized. So now that they've merged, they're all Speaker 9 union? They're all capital. Speaker 7 They're all capital, which means they're all union, correct? With that I yield. Thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor. Councilor, seat six. Councilor Peckham. Good evening. Speaker 12 As far as

the contract, is there a penalty for percentage over tonnage or over it's just a flat rate? Speaker 8 It's just going to be a flat, yeah. It was different with New Bedford. Craybro Hill right now so it's not going to be that way with this contract. Okay now

Speaker 12 how did you come up with the number when you presented it to them is it by population the budget or is it bypassed trash hole? By tonnage we gave them an Speaker 9 average of tonnage 28,000 to 31,000 tonnage and the average it really is 30,000.

Speaker 12 Okay do you see that going up in the future? No it's actually going down right now. Speaker 7 we're down to like 28,000 all right our target is I would beg to differ that it's gonna go up because you're building all these homes and apartments everybody

in those apartments are gonna have trash so trash is gonna there's gonna be more trash thank you I appreciate that that's that'll actually Speaker 12 segue me in so my question is with all the new people that were introduced to the city of Fall River again I've said

it publicly we don't know what our population is nobody can guess so how are we basing this off of tonnage if we don't know how many people live here my fear is in the next couple of years once the you know we've got these migrants that have moved

in so once they settle and then when we go to 40% for the MBTA Act for the zoning we start filling those market-rate housing apartments where's this trash budget gonna go it's not gonna Speaker 9 go down a level itself out, correct? It's gonna go up? Well our

target is to to have waste diversion counselor. That's our target, that's a necessity. It's not our target, it's a necessity that we have to do. The more recycling you do the less trash you have and that we have to do that. We have no choice, everyone has to

Speaker 12 do that. And how far into this are we, this trash diversion program? Well Speaker 9 Ms. O'Neal just mentioned that. There's a lot of training that has to happen. We have to start from the foundation at the schools. We have to notify. Those are the leaders

of the recycling component. Bring that home. That has to happen that way. Speaker 12 Okay. I know trash needs to move. I'm just really scared of the immediate future with the population that this city has, and not just with trash, with infrastructure in general. I think conversations need

to start being had now before these numbers start to go up. I don't want to wait for the day we find out what our population is and we're sticking a bunch of bills on the taxpayer to make up for our shortfalls. Speaker 6 Point of information. You go

first. Speaker 10 I'm sorry. I was just going to say I think a lot of the new units that are being put online too are units where people have vendors who are picking up their trash. They're not so much single. There are single-family units absolutely being built. But

there's not a lot of multifamilies being built. and a lot of the mill conversions that you're seeing or the new buildings that are being put up are going to have private vendors for their trash. It won't be a city requirement. We're also looking to make some changes regarding

the six families and things that we pick up now to do away with that and kind of downsize in that regard. Business, commercial trash has finally been ceased, so we're doing what we can in that regard to lower it. Speaker 12 Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm

sorry, do you have a point? Speaker 6 No, no, that's exactly what I was going to say. The size of the units exceeds what's allowable for trash to be picked up by the municipality. Speaker 12 Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. I just think that we've got to

– I'm asking maybe that you guys could take a look at that. We all know the population increase. It's not a secret. How is that going to affect us in the future? It's infrastructure in general, trash, water, sewer, public safety, all of it. Will it affect us in

the future? And if so, how? And if it will, what is our plan to keep up with that? Because we're going to need one. With that, I yield thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councillor. Councillor in seat one, Councillor Kadeem. Speaker 13 Thank you, Mr. President. Just a

couple of questions. So the first, can you just talk a little bit about, I guess, the logic to a, we'll call it a two-year contract or a three-year contract, depending on if you're including that one-year option. Why would we do that? Speaker 8 I guess what would be

the alternative to do a one-year? Speaker 13 Five-year, 10-year contract. Speaker 8 We don't want to end up where we were with this current 10-year contract where we outgrew it and the terms didn't really match our needs anymore. We didn't want to be stuck in that situation again,

so we wanted to shorten it up some to have better control over the changes that are coming that we know may or may not be coming and not have to be in a 10-year contract to try and then change the whole thing over at that point. Speaker 13

I appreciate that. I guess most communities are not doing three-year contracts, You'll see a five-year contract, even if you give a three-year contract with several one-year options. So that, number one, drives the competition, right? So you're going to get a better rate coming in. So you only got

two bidders coming in for this. You know, unless you have a – so one company that's already performing the service in-house is going to bid, right, because they want to maintain that. But all the other companies are not going to put the legwork in to give you a

contract and a pricing for three years to be out in three years or potentially two years. There's a lot of work. There's a lot of logistics that goes into coordinating the pickup, the rollout of the trash trucks and all this other stuff. So from my standpoint, just looking

at it, to me it doesn't make sense to do a two-year and a one-year. But, I mean, we're here. I was just trying to figure out if there was anything more to it than, you know. I mean, typically you would see 10-year contracts, and usually they may work.

They may not work for you in terms of the pricing, but you can put some language in there. But, you know, usually you'll see some communities with a five-year contract. I'm just concerned about that one. Is there any discussion? I know we're talking about waste diversion, a nice

fancy name of just recycling, and we've talked about recycling, and we haven't had a whole lot of success with our recycling. So what do we think we're going to do in terms of changing how we're getting that information out to the residents and really kind of getting the

recycling that we want to see? because we did have pay-as-you-throw. We're the only community that did pay-as-you-throw and then removed it, right? So I think there is a little bit associated with that. I mean, pay-as-you-throw, initiate, incentivizes that whole recycling and the waste diversion that we were talking

about. We've taken that away. I'm just curious to how we're really going to kind of drive that and really kind of reduce the solid waste that we're talking about. Speaker 10 I mean, I've been part of the group working with Al, Joe Kennedy, Missy Hollenbach. The biggest piece

was trying to educate those on the two days that we have issues with our recycling. That's our biggest issue on Monday. Am I right? Tuesdays and Thursdays. Tuesday and Thursday collections are the issue. We're targeting the schools whose children would feed into those school systems. We're targeting neighborhood

groups. We're trying to put the targets on those areas with the Tuesday, Thursday collections so that what we can do is, again, focus very hard with them on the educational piece of the recycling, the waste diversion, too. A lot of people don't know that textiles cannot be thrown

away in their trash, so people are throwing away their quilts, their curtains, things along those lines, not being aware. They were looking right now with DCM with their construction project going on down there is maybe partnering with a group who would come in and take these things for

free. So you could go down there, you could bring them to them, and then they take them from there. We've met with a few groups who are interested in providing that service. Speaker 13 So in terms of the contract itself, year over year, so what are we looking

at from 26 to 27? So what's the total dollar amount for the contracts and then the percentage increase? Speaker 8 So to be clear, we're nowhere near finalized with that because we're still negotiating all of that. but the estimate right now is about $1.5 million from 26 to

27. Speaker 13 Of an increase? Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 13 And what are we anticipating for a total contract? So would we not be approving that tonight in terms of dollar amount for the contract? Speaker 8 No, this is just to award, essentially to let us open up

those negotiations for the contract. Speaker 13 So just awarding the bid? Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 13 So just for the record, the trash service is exempt from 30B, which also allows you to go with any vendor that you want to go with. so I just clarify that so

while some of my colleagues are excited about certain answers I see things a little bit differently from a different lens so while people get excited about brand new trash trucks and them driving down the street I just get a little bit of concern when I see in the

bid on page 17 that we're requiring especially for a three year contract that we have trucks that are five years or newer and I'm just trying to understand the reasoning behind that. So I guess my question would be, are we anticipating in doing a re-municipalization, so do the

reverse of the privatization into bringing it back in-house into the municipal services? Speaker 10 There's been no time. Speaker 13 So we're going to continue with the privatizing of the trash services. That wasn't part of the discussion. So what's the incentive for having, especially for a three-year contract,

to have vehicles that are five years in newer? Speaker 8 Reliability, I believe, is what the point was with that. Not having the trucks break down, making sure that the trash is being picked up as scheduled because trucks are actually working the way they're intended to work. The

size of our city, I think when something breaks down, there's too much ground to make up quickly if they don't have the proper trucks available. Speaker 9 And I appreciate that. Can I add to that, Councilor? Sure. One of the other items was the technology for the newer

vehicles so that we have camera systems that we can upload. If something wasn't put out on time, if something was needed, a shot of a photo shot so that we have backup. So the technology part that the other trucks didn't have. Speaker 13 But I think if you've

got all those side arms, right, your automated stuff typically have the cameras already. Speaker 9 They would not have cameras. Those don't have cameras. Typically? Speaker 13 No, not typically. It depends. Easy doesn't have cameras in there. I believe they don't have those on every truck. Okay. So

even with that, I guess my question is, let me state this. So I've been accused of wasting taxpayer money, right? So that's been a new catchphrase for the last, let's call it two weeks. Just as accountability has been a dirty word for about the last two years. So

now it's we're wasting taxpayer money. So this is the reason that I've got an issue with the fact that we've got a three-year contract. One, we're not being competitive with the competition that's coming in, so that's driving up costs. So if we want to talk about wasting taxpayer

money, that's number one. Number two, we've got a three-year contract requiring trucks to be five years or newer. So if anybody is familiar with contracts, that's just going to be a pass-through, right? So we're going to have a higher CapEx, right? So the capitalization for those are just

going to come into and we're paying on top of that. So we got a $1.5 million increase. We don't know what the total cost of solid waste is. But what we did do is, let's just take this. We got about 13 trucks in the city. So we've essentially

said that everybody that was bidding for the city of Fall River, we need 13 vehicles, but we need 13 brand-new vehicles. So if you run the numbers, $300,000 for a new truck times 13, $3.9 million. They're going to have to finance that business, 7%. So you're going to

be well north of $3.9 million. So then they're going to amortize that into your contract. So on a yearly basis, we're paying for that. So let's just say they want to amortize it over a three-year period. I'm sure we would push back on that. But that would be

a $1.4 million annual payment on top of the trash collection. If we push back and say, no, you can amortize it over a five-year period, right, the annual payment then goes down to $945,000 each year. If we said, no, you're going to amortize it over a seven-year period,

and we would take it at that point, that's $674,000. As opposed to having the contract negotiations to say we want language in there, that if the trucks aren't reliable, then we have the right to reserve the right to pull them off or rent a new truck at your

cost to make sure that the trucks that are servicing the city would actually be to meet our standards. So I guess I'm just confused as to why we would have that automatically generating additional cost into the contract when we went out to bid. Speaker 10 Do we have

an answer? Well, I was not in this position when the solicitation was drafted. Unfortunately, Attorney Thomas couldn't be here this evening because he is actually in Virginia at a facility there looking at new methods of disposal that the city is very interested in as well. He is not

there on the city's behalf, but he is there this evening. So I would defer to Al if you would have that information as you were part of the issue. Speaker 13 I guess what I'm saying is anywhere from $674,000 to $1.4 million, depending on how the company is

going to amortize their cost of financing brand-new trucks that we're requesting for no reason on a three-year contract. It's additional costs that we don't need to incur is where I'm coming from. Speaker 9 I mean, as a committee that we talked about, part of the issue was to

have reliable vehicles, and part of the vehicle was to make sure that we had a vehicle that was in good standards and just to make sure that they were able to support it. Speaker 13 Is that worth $674,000 or $1.4 million when you can negotiate language into a

contract that would mandate the vendor to be able to make sure that whatever? Listen, let's just talk about capital. If capital just went, if they're switching all their trucks from easy over, so obviously they're doing probably some paint jobs on their vehicle, they're going through full maintenance and

stuff like that, Why would we then tell them, hey, by the way, go buy brand new vehicles and charge us for all these vehicles, right? Speaker 8 That isn't in the contract as a direct charge or payment, and we're not requiring them to go get new ones. If

they already have ones that are within the five-year period, we're not necessarily saying that they have to go do it. You're right. They do have a lot of them already ready for it, but the other side of it is the enforcement. Speaker 13 I guess what I'm saying

is if capital is coming in right now and they've got 14 vehicles that are five years, or let's just call it four years old, right they just purchased it four years ago by the time they get into the second contract they got to purchase brand new vehicles in

any business right it's just like a triple net lease when you go to any commercial right you you absorb the the cost so they're going to do a pass through and they've always done pass through it's like we we can go right back to easy when they purchase

the vehicles we've got the cost associated with their vehicles coming into the trash contract it's just it's a general practice that if they're going to buy the trucks and it's to service the city of they're going to just increase the price of the contract. I mean, that's business

101. I mean, they're not going to sit there and go out and buy 14 brand-new vehicles at a 7% interest rate and just sit on it and say, okay, we'll take everything else in terms of the trash service and hopefully our profit covers it all. They're going to

roll that capital right into the contract on the bids. Speaker 9 So some of the conversations that we had internally was that at some point, if any of these trucks that were not up to par, they were not newer type models that we would have trash that would

be down for a day or two to get another vehicle. And that was part of the conversation that we had. We did have that through the lifetime of that contract. We did have some issues regarding some vehicles. But, I mean, it wasn't something that was a big thing

to do at this point. But we did have some issues with some vehicles, And that was the mindset of making sure that we had some good vehicles in. Speaker 13 There's just ways to do it. I mean, the individuals that have been negotiating contracts for trash, I mean,

they know better. I know they know this. This is just standard practice. It's not even a question. So I think the evaluation in terms of what we were looking at, I think it was just a little short-sighted. And number one, the amount of years that were issued. I

mean, I would have did a five-year contract. That's just me. Absolutely removed that language, had some additional language in there. I mean, $1.4 million, $945,000, or $674,000. And that's just assuming it's a $300,000 vehicle. I mean, I did a quick Google search. I mean, it could be a

lot more. I don't even know what the wait time is on those vehicles. There could be a lot more that goes into it, and the equipment that has to be added to those vehicles, I'm not sure. But I know there's additional expenses. And I just don't know what

the actual value of that language in that bid was valued at or even worth. So that's just my concern and issue with that. The other question, we talked about recycling. Are we doing the market rate adjustments to any of the recycling? So are we doing an annual adjustment

on that so that there's some profit sharing? So we talk about the cardboard. So looking at the commodity market. So if cardboard is up, which we've had in the past, let's go back to 2010. I know we were making money on recycling to reduce our costs for the

services that were being provided. Are we doing a profit sharing? Obviously, there's an impact to that. If the market is not in our favor, we pay a little bit more, but we see that fluctuation in the market. So if cardboard is considered more of a commodity and there's

profit to be made that's shared with us, are we doing that? Speaker 9 That was the target when I first came on board, Counselor. We haven't been doing any of that because we haven't gotten into that stage yet. The goal is to make sure that we do profit

from our recycling. Speaker 13 So what about this contract? This contract includes recycling, right? It does. So are we doing that moving forward with this contract? Speaker 8 I think that would be part of the contract negotiations with the language of what is going to be put in

there that we couldn't speak to at this point. Speaker 13 You would have probably had to capture that in the bid, right, so they know what they were bidding on. Did we do that? Speaker 10 I mean, they talked in the proposal about waste reduction and the climate

action goals for the city for the plans for managing the solid waste and recyclables in a sustainable and cost-effective manner, and that the city is committed to reducing its weight tonnage by 30% by 2030. Speaker 13 But nothing in terms of how we were going to make the

adjustments to recycling fees, whether the market was benefiting us or not, like profit sharing. Speaker 10 I mean, in my look, no, that's not something I've seen. But again, I was not in this position when the initial proposal was made. I'm sorry. Okay. Speaker 1 Just to be

clear, there's no contract that's before us right now. This is just giving the mayor the ability to, you know, execute a two-, three-year contract. So if the council has, to our colleague in seat one in eight's point, if they have some questions or some concerns about that, There's

nothing stopping us from returning this back and adding or waiting for a full contract to approve it. You're satisfied with that verbiage. Speaker 7 We don't approve that. Speaker 1 We are approving that by the order right now. Speaker 13 I guess, I mean, I'm just confused. The

order before us is authorizing the award of a two-year contract with a one-year option for municipal solid waste. So, number one, I don't see a contract that's going to be negotiated. So, I guess it's just misleading what's before us then. Speaker 1 That's correct. Speaker 13 So, I

don't know what I'm approving. Speaker 1 So right now you're approving that the mayor is authorized to execute the said contract upon successful negotiation of the contract. So if it's the will of the council to see a full contract with all of this verbiage, it's our prerogative to

request that and return this order to them if you find it necessary. I just want to make it clear that all of these questions that our colleagues are asking – Speaker 13 I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut you off, but that language you just wrote to me,

where are you reading that? Speaker 1 It's in our order before us in finance. Ordered that the mayor is authorized to award a two-year contract with a one-year option for municipal solid waste and single stream recycling collection and disposal services to capital waste, subject to the negotiation and

execution of a contract in a form acceptable to the mayor and corporation council, and further ordered that the mayor be hereby authorized to execute the said contract upon successful negotiation in a form acceptable to the mayor and corporation council. Speaker 13 So the order before us would just...

Speaker 1 There's no contract before us. That's correct. It's an order letting them go do it. Speaker 14 Point of order. Speaker 1 Councilor on seat 5? I'm sorry? No. Not as the way it's presented. Speaker 14 They don't need our approval. They don't need our approval. I

would like to know, though, what you're talking about. You know, the details and the intricacies of it. Speaker 1 Noted. The council has the ability to refer it to full council and act accordingly and reject it and ask for a copy of the full, reject the order and

ask for a copy of the full contract. We have every right to do that, in my opinion. Council on seat one has the floor. Do you have a point of order, Councilor Pereira? Speaker 7 Yeah, I don't think that what you're saying is accurate because when they did

the purple bags, it was with the Board of Health and Mayor Flanagan at the time. And when it comes to trash, they don't even need to come before us. the mayor can just go out and execute a contract for trash. I believe that's true. Him sending this down,

I think, was to let us know this is kind of what I'm working on. But we're not going to get it after the vote on it. Am I right, Counselor? Speaker 1 That's correct. Speaker 13 Mr. President, all I'm looking for as one counselor of this legislative body

is to just act on our legislative control and authority that we have under the city ordinance, city charter, right, state laws. It is so frustrating to me that what is clearly outlined in city ordinances and city charter is constantly challenged by corporation council and we're told that we

don't have this authority. Yet we get items before us that we should not be approving. And I'm going to ask the question, this is a three-year contract. What contract service agreement has this city council as a legislative body ever approved and what authority do we have to approve

this contract we have never ever given the mayor any authorization to go ahead and negotiate any contracts that's not within our purview but here we are tonight we're having a full conversation about trash contracts everybody's okay with that fine so be it all i'm looking for is the

authority that is outlined in the city charter i can't even get that but i can get a trash contract we can have full discussions discussions. To me, like, the fact that we're down here, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the, you know, the working together to have these

discussions because they're important in terms of what we're doing, the cost associated with this. But it's a three-year contract. All the other contracts came before us because they were over three years, right? So anything over three years requires a legislative body. But this is a two-year contract with

a one-year option, which makes it a three a contract. So we've got nothing to vote on. So we can vote yes, we can vote no. There's no authority whatsoever. And we don't give authorization to the mayor to negotiate. He's the executive branch. He can negotiate with anybody he

wants. He can negotiate it how he wants. So, I mean, I'll play the game. I just need to know what the rules are because the goalpost keeps moving. I just want to know how I'm playing this game. That's it. With that, I yield. I don't even know if

I'm going to make a motion to approve a contract that I don't need to approve or what, but I'll for my colleagues to ask their questions with that at yield thank you council in seat three council Speaker 3 of can you thank you so i think when it

comes to recycling we've had a challenge i think we've talked about education of that i guess my question centered around what's the next step there are emerging technologies and companies out there who help sort recyclables to make them more worthwhile because I think when it comes to how

things are, the cost associated with it, recycling is the cheapest when it's clean recycling. Then we have solid waste. And then contaminated recycling actually costs more than the solid waste. So I guess my question is around, has the administration looked at emerging technologies or companies that could perhaps

help? Because I don't know that we could educate. I think we educated people on the council tonight just about some of the rules that have changed over the years, and those rules will probably continue to change. But if we were to partner with another company or technology, I

see you nodding ahead, Ian. How would you respond? Speaker 10 Yeah. I mean, the administration has been for the last several years in talks with companies who have emerging technology. There are a number of companies that have come forward. Al has had the ability to sit in on

some of those conversations and that is something that the administration is looking to proceed forward with, absolutely. Speaker 9 How far out? I mean, Council, we've had, even back in 2006, we've been bringing companies in to see what we can do with trash and recycling. It's a challenge

in Massachusetts. We have a zero emissions component. We have a moratorium we can't burn. And a lot of these companies are in various other states, and they're able to do a lot of other things that we can't do in this state. We are working currently right now with

a company to see if that's viable. They are doing things down in Virginia that we're trying to bring up in this area. We have talked to companies that are startups and haven't had the history, but it's a known fact that there's a potential of massive growth in this

industry. We brought the governor in. We brought the attorney general in to make sure that NMASDEP, to see if that is viable. So we've had numerous discussions, and this next one I think will have a better idea of what's going on. But we have to do a better

job, and we want to be the leaders in this vicinity and try to utilize other locations as the host city. So we're trying, which we've talked to many, many companies. And if we like, we could talk to the council of things that we have talked about and the

pros and the cons. Right now the cons are outweighing the pros at this point. Speaker 3 Okay. Thank you. The other question I have is particularly around, I think I'll echo my councilman C1 in terms of the length of this contract. I think five, ten years is generally

A, more competitive, and B, just from a financial standpoint, easier to predict in terms of the annual budget cycles because we get to the end of three years, and we will be rebidding again. We won't know what those bids will be. I think we would have probably got

a better deal if we had a five- or ten-year contract before us with more fixed costs over that period of time. When it comes to the truck aspect as well, I do have a question. Are we still paying for the EZ trucks that we sold off to EZ?

Speaker 8 I was supposed to pull that. Yes. Yes, I'd have to look to see where it's at in the bond cycle. I forgot that we had talked about this a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't pull it for tonight. But I think part of the conversation

around the five-year contract, I want to be up front. We obviously don't disagree with that. I think given the contract that we were coming out of, knowing how much this new contract was going to be starkly different from the last 10-year contract, and then given some of these

other things and opportunities that we're working on that we've been talking about with the waste emissions and the different technologies that are evolving, I think this is a timeframe that we're looking to do this shorter period of a contract just to allow for some of those changes to

come in and not shortchange us again. So I don't think that we'll always do a three-year solid waste contract. I think this was just the good timing of it to be this length at this point in time. But we would continue to go out further when the time

comes and to start earlier so that we can predict better for the following future years. So the goal would have been to be doing this in July for the next July's start of the contract so that we can plan better. Speaker 3 Okay. And then the final question

I have is around where these contracts came in. I think capital waste was 16.55. How does that compare to any analysis that we've looked at to potentially bring this back in-house and how that would compare? Speaker 8 so that it's still it's still lower than that but to

be clear that 16 million dollar number that we're talking about that's really an apples to apples comparison from the other bidder but the reality is is when we take that data down and look at what our actual tonnage is and and the way some of that contract amount

isn't going to be the responsibility of the general fund it's part of the schools now so some of those things that 16 million isn't going to be the line item that you see in the budget so I want to be very clear about that so in that sense

it's still a much better deal than what we could be doing in-house with the number of employees that have to bring on the liability of them, the benefits included with all of that, and then the trucks and the maintenance and the full scale of operation that we would

need to manage a service such as this. It's just, it's too much, it's more than having, you know, 13 trucks and 13 guys to run the trucks. It's much bigger than that. So the cost ends up being not comparable. Some of those overhead costs, they can now split

between doing this amongst many communities that they have. So it just changes things dramatically. Speaker 3 All right. Speaker 1 Thank you. I yield. Councilor in seat to Councilor Kamara. Speaker 15 Thank you, Mr. President. Sousa, the educational component to this, are we doing it in different languages

as well? Are we having Spanish and Portuguese? Speaker 10 We are. Yes. Through the school department, what will go out will be in the person's spoken language, yes. We are working on that with DEP. Speaker 15 Are we running neighborhood conventions as well? And I know you mentioned

earlier. We are, yep. Speaker 10 We're going to go out, educate in neighborhood groups, various, not just the neighborhood groups, but any local groups that there are, church groups, all of that to go out. And as I say right now, we're concentrating on the Tuesday, Thursday, because that

is the issue that we have with contaminated recycling. Monday, Wednesday, Friday recycling is great. You can go right to the facility where Tuesday, Thursday has to be taken and sorted on Lewiston. Speaker 15 Are we still going to monitor it like we used to do back in the

day when they put it out, and if it wasn't, they'd go right to the house and talk to the landlord and just? Speaker 10 They're doing that right now. They do tag the recycling, let them know what shouldn't be in there. In some cases, they might not pick

it up if it's got a lot of trash in there or something along those lines to educate the individuals. And Joe Kennedy and his litter enforcement crew do a great job with that. Speaker 8 Go ahead. So just to bring that back around, though, part of the new

trucks idea and having the new technology on them and the cameras would be to do more of that enforcement with the contamination and the trash that should not be included or the recycling that shouldn't be included. Having that technology will really support those efforts rather than expecting the

people on the trucks to be catching that. We don't always know which house it goes back to, but the cameras would help. Speaker 15 Do you find a lot of people are still using the blue bins to recycle? Al, do you notice it's going? Speaker 9 We don't

have those blue bins any longer. Speaker 15 So the recycling bins that people have out there, what do we have, just one trash bin? I have a blue bin. Speaker 8 We do have recycling bins. I don't know what the question is. Speaker 9 We have recycling bins.

You're talking about those little. Speaker 15 No, I'm talking about the big ones. The big ones, yes. Yes. Speaker 8 It's just contaminated on those days of the week, so it means that sometimes there's recycling, but sometimes there's a lot of other trash or non-recyclable materials that are

included in it. So they're using the blue bin, but they're not necessarily using it properly. Speaker 15 My question is, do you see people using it to the same rate they were years ago, where you think it's died down a lot and people are just putting out the

green bins with the trash in it? Speaker 9 So they do. They do put out the recycling, but what's happening is the recycling in certain areas, On the Tuesdays and Thursday areas, they are very contaminated. Speaker 15 So it's just like putting out two trash bins? Speaker 9

Pretty much. But, again, so if you put in something like a diaper or you put in some other item and it becomes contaminated, once it hits the location that we take our recycles, they'll charge us extra for some contamination. Speaker 15 I understand that. But my question is,

so do you notice that more people – so I guess they're still using the blue recycling bins, but they're just putting trash in it for the most part in those days. Speaker 9 In other stuff, yeah. Speaker 15 Because I know that some areas, I don't see any

blue bins out, just trash bins. Speaker 8 Our tonnage hasn't gone down, so people are still using them and using them the way that they should be in other areas. So to say that people aren't using them at all anymore and that the usage is going down, it's

not that. Speaker 15 I think they use them a lot less. Before those blue bins were filled to the gills, now they're not. Speaker 8 But maybe it's because they're being filled properly, so who knows. Speaker 15 I just wanted to know what you guys saw, what you

see when you're picking up the trash. And as far as trash, how much trash, do you know what the number one indicator in how much trash people are going to have is? What do you think it is? It's very simple, and it's accurate as can be. The economy.

The better the economy, the more money people have, the more they will buy things, the more trash you're going to end up with. The less the economy, in a recession, trash always goes down. If you have a great economy, trash is going to go up. It's the number

one indicator. Households hasn't changed. Good economy, trash going to go, more trash. Bad economy, household numbers haven't changed. You're going to get a lot less trash. It's the number one indicator for how much trash you're going to have. So if people are saying that, you know, depending on

the economy, there goes your trash consumption. I learned that a long time ago. And just a question. I know Matt Thomas's name came up, and I know he's involved in a lot of this stuff, but you said he wasn't working for the city right now in whatever convention

he's at or the trash place he went to. Speaker 16 Yeah. Speaker 15 Is he on vacation, or does he just go to a trash place, or is he working with somebody else? Speaker 10 No, he is not. He has another client who he was working for and

going to Virginia to look at this waste diversion. Speaker 15 Is he working for Capital? Speaker 10 No, no, not at all. Speaker 15 Someone that's not even affiliated with Waste. Speaker 10 No, nothing. It's a waste diversion project that he went down just to look at. Speaker

15 Okay. Speaker 10 Yes. Speaker 15 All right. I was just wondering. Speaker 10 And just as far as this coming down, one thing was because trash has not gone out before for procurement. This is the very first time that it has gone to be procured. So this

was more coming down transparency so you would see. I was going to ask that question. What's the point of bringing this down? Speaker 16 I'm glad you're speaking on it. Speaker 10 What was in the RFP, what was requested, what the bidder who is going to be awarded,

what they've offered for service, just so the council would be aware. If there are things that you feel we can add in with negotiations, import is always valuable, so please feel free to do that. Speaker 15 I think that's good. I was going to ask that to me

on the last question. Why are we doing this? But if you try to get input from the council, I think my council can see one brings up a valid point, right? If we say to someone, well, you know, trucks have to be less than five years, and they

have to be Mercedes trucks, and they have to be, you know, serviced four times a year by a PM service done to make sure everything in that truck is working right because we don't want to interrupt the service in the city. You could also put the wording that

if a truck breaks down, you have to continue the trash within a number of hours and work overtime that night to make sure all the trash gets picked up and just can't leave it out there. But there's different languages and different things you can put in there to

this point so that it may be going to be less expensive because we can make this as expensive as we want. We have to have brand-new trucks, you know, or you can have trucks that are no longer than 10 years. What are Uber drivers? They can't have a

truck that's less than, what, 10, 12 years, 5 years, whatever it is. So they have those type of regulations. We want someone in a pretty somewhat reasonable truck. You can't have 200,000 miles. You know, you have to meet certain requirements. And I think that's the point I was

trying to get to without tying the city's hand so much and wasting money saying five years. I'm talking about how many miles those trucks have within five years. So it takes into consideration, you know, mileage as well. Because if a truck that's, some cars have five years old

and guys doing highway driving to go back and forth to Montreal every weekend, it's going to be a lot of mileage. and someone has a five-year-old car, they go to church every Sunday, big difference, right? Wear and tear on those vehicles. So you just have to take different

things into consideration. And I'm glad you came down and brought this down here so the council can give you input in some things to help out with. But you really don't need to vote from the council to execute a contract of this size. I get it. Speaker 10

Correct. Speaking to the year of the vehicles, I think to Al's point, it was the wear and tear on those vehicles and how they are on the road and not only the mechanics of the vehicle itself with taking the trash and the levers and all of that, and

that they don't have the most updated GPS systems and computerized systems which these trucks will have. And that helps us a lot, too, when we're monitoring where the trucks are. Within the city, we can find out at any point from the vendor where their vehicles are at any

time in the city. Speaker 15 All right. So, yeah, that's pretty much the rest of my colleagues have answered a lot of questions that I had. But, you know, good luck with the contract negotiations and fight for every dollar. I mean, listen, it's a no-win. You go into

a 10-year contract and say, why did you go into a contract so long? You go into a two-year contract, it's going to be whatever fits. But I do agree with two years, maybe you can extend it for another two after that or whatever to make it appealing to

get more people to bid. Only two people bid on it. There's a reason. And I don't know if we were expecting to get more bids in or just? Speaker 10 I think it's kind of common. I think they said the city of New Bedford only had three. For

the area? Yeah. Speaker 15 I mean, you do have to have someone to the area to service it. I know there's not that many out there, but so I didn't know how many exactly were there. I know there used to be a couple more that have closed down.

It's a very difficult business. It's a very difficult industry, and it's a tough one to get into. I certainly do not want the city to ever entertain going back into that type of business because we are not prepared for it, never will be, and probably never should have

been in that business. With that, I yield. Thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councillor. Council on C4, Council Vice President Dion, followed by Council on C4. Speaker 6 I just have a comment. So in terms of the recyclables, so we know that that's a moving target. Things are

constantly changing. Today it's okay, tomorrow it's not okay. I think some of the constants have been, if you look at the bottom of any container, there are numbers. If it's a one or a two, you can put it in a recycle bin. If it's higher than a two,

you cannot put it in a recycle bin. You can't put styrofoam. Paper towels. So those things are pretty steady. In the past, we had printouts that would tell people, yes, no. You can put this. You can't put that. So as things change, or can we print those again,

and then as the rules change, they can be updated, we get tax bills four times a year. That gives us four opportunities every year to give people new printouts saying the rules have changed again, this is what's okay, and this is what's not okay. I think that would

be helpful perhaps in your educational piece because you know and I know people at home, for the most part, not everybody, aren't going to go on the computer every month and say, gee, let me see if anything's changed. No, they're just going to keep old habits die hard.

Speaker 10 We've put that together with the education that's on our social media right now. Speaker 6 Yeah. Speaker 10 And we have it on the city's website as well. So we are trying to keep that updated so that people will know whatever changes that there are. Speaker

16 And we do have those documents. They are updated. Speaker 9 We presented those to the last class, the Derby class. So we can share that and put that into tax bills, absolutely. Speaker 6 Yeah, because everybody opens their tax bill. But with that, I yield. Speaker 1

Thank you, Councillor C. Day. Councillor Raposo. Speaker 11 Yeah, just a follow-up question on the enforcement piece. With the new contract, do you envision any changes for litter enforcement? Because you mentioned bad recycling. So what are we doing? Are we fining people for bad recycling? Absolutely. We are

fining folks. Speaker 9 Okay. And it is – we are getting those bills paid, unlike other years, yes. Speaker 11 That was naturally my next question. Because I remember maybe six, seven months ago we had a discussion regarding collection of trash finds. Do we have a sense that

that's getting better as far as collection is concerned? And the ones that haven't been collected, what are our actions against them at this point? Speaker 9 Well, I believe it goes into their tax bills, correct? That is the last that we talked about. Speaker 11 So municipal liens

aren't happening for uncollected trash finds? Speaker 10 And there's talk about amending some ordinances and writing new ordinances to talk about if people continue to not follow the requirements for trash, there's a possibility that their bins can be pulled and they'd have to go to a private vendor.

That's good news. Speaker 8 To be clear, we're only leaning properties right now as we're already doing other leans because the amount of bills that we have in trash tickets don't equate to doing a lien on their own right now. So just because somebody has an outstanding trash

bill, we're not liening it at that point. There's usually other past-due bills that are included at this point in time. So we can do it, but we haven't been that aggressive because it costs at least $150 every time we do one. So a $200 outstanding bill isn't quite

what we do that for. Speaker 11 No, I understand that. But I guess when you talk about notorious Tuesday, Thursday, bad recycling, right? You labeled it as, what was the word you used? I don't know. I'll use problematic, I guess. But it's consistent, and you know it's consistent.

So at what point, to your point, are we saying, all right, here we have two methods. Either we're going to municipal lean it, or we're going to go down the fossil road of, listen, if you can't follow the rules, hire a private vendor and deal with them instead.

I guess that's, when do we pull that trigger? Speaker 10 Well, the literal enforcement offices have been working on, like, problem properties, targeting ones that have been constant offenders. And those are the ones we're going to go after first. The ordinances are in the process of being written,

and then we'll be presenting them. Speaker 11 When do you envision that coming down to the chairman of ordinance? Speaker 10 That I'd have to check with Corporation Counsel on, but I would say within the next few months. Speaker 11 Okay. Can you get an idea and get

back to me if that's possible? Speaker 10 I'd appreciate that. Speaker 11 Absolutely. All right. And Mr. Oliver, would it be possible to get an update on where we are with trash finds as far as what has been issued for FY26 to this point and in comparison to

FY25 and 24, if that's a possibility? Counselor, I apologize. Speaker 9 I printed that, and I don't think I put that in my file. That's okay. Speaker 11 An email. But I do have that. An email would be sufficient for it. Absolutely. And I guess just for food

for thought, going into a new contract, you know, other than the change of the warrants you suggested, I'm wondering, are there any other changes to litter enforcement as a department to essentially maybe be more aggressive to it? I know this is kind of more of a budgetary question

now, but I'm wondering, you know, new contracts, a little more aggressive on the collection, a little more aggressive on the enforcement. Do you envision any changes to the department that is litter enforcement at this time? Speaker 8 I think we were hoping the technology was going to be

a piece that we wouldn't necessarily have to add bodies to the structure. But if we use the technology to support, I'm going to say, additional enforcement help, you wouldn't need as many people to do that work. So we intend to be more aggressive in that way and then

keep the people that we have on the ground, you know, doing more, hopefully one day more education and less actual enforcement because it'll not be as necessary. So at this point in time, I don't think that we're really looking at a change to the structure because we're hoping

that some of these other changes will help. Speaker 9 If I can just add, we are looking at different ideas on how to distribute the enforcers out on the streets. We are trying to utilize more technology and better methods of getting them to stay on the streets so

that we don't have to have them do a lot more reports. So we are working on that. Speaker 1 Okay. Thank you. I yield. Thank you. Councilor C7, Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 Just a quick question. You kept talking about the Tuesday and Thursday. What sections of the city

is that? On those two, is it a specific section? What section of the city is that? Is that more of a multifamily Speaker 10 sections? It is more of a multifamily. It's in the multifamily. Corky Rowey area, the Buffington Snell Street area. the Flint area there's a part

of the deep south end I believe as well Speaker 9 I mean those Tuesdays and Thursdays we pull those back just as a historical factor we pull those back so we can have the recycling and we can purge some of those recycles in house before we send those

back out to the recycling for a location we were going to pay fines at a certain point So by doing that, we eliminated the fines. Speaker 7 Okay, because I know you talked about that. And I do know that when the city decided to go to Crapo, EZ

had purchased two more trucks because they couldn't run to Crapo and come back and continue. So now that they're working locally, maybe it would be easier for them to get rid of the trash. And the reason that I asked about the trucks initially was because there's been a

few times where easy trucks have dropped oil or liquid from the trucks on city streets. And I've gotten calls about that and called. And they did come and they cleaned it up and that. But clearly it was the levers and the oil and the grease that they used

there that had broken down. And they did come and clean it and put sawdust and swept it up or did whatever they had to do. But that's why I asked about what the year of the trucks would be. With that, I yield. Thank you very much. Thank you,

Councilman. I see one. Speaker 13 Councilor Kadeen. Thank you. I just got one quick question. So just going circling back to the trucks. So I heard you say that it was the data or the technology, but then I also, the reliability of the trucks. Have we had any

reliability issues with the current vendor? Speaker 9 In the past, we've had 1C, 2Cs, and they have had some issues. Yes. I mean, it wasn't highly defined on a day-to-day basis, But in times we did have some issues, and we had those corrected as soon as possible. Speaker

13 But they were corrected, though, right? Yeah. Okay. So you would say not major issues then, right? Or how would you categorize it? Speaker 9 Well, I mean, throughout the last three years, I would say probably about two to three times that they've had some breakdowns, and they've

had to replace some of those trucks. Yeah. So two to three times a year? Speaker 1 That's what you're talking about. Okay. Thank you. I yield. Councilman C2, Councilor Kamara. Speaker 15 Yeah. Getting back to my colleague and C7's question about the areas, do you find most of

these are absentee landlords? Because I'll tell you, some of these cities and towns, are you looking to see what they're doing when they fine people for not doing putting trash out there? They're pretty stringent. They don't mess around. They're aggressive. So these people who don't live in forever,

they're used to seeing fines, and I think we should really come down on them. If they're not going to live here and not care and they're going to wreak the benefits of having tenants here that don't seem to care as well, then maybe we should just start to

see if we can do something. I don't want to separate them, but if they're an absentee landlord who doesn't live in the city of Fort River, and you're a chronic problem, maybe something needs to take place and make it more... Pull the vets. Put more bite to it

because they just can't... They don't care. They don't live here. It doesn't matter to them. Right. So with that I yield. Thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you. Anything further? Is there action to refer to the full body? Speaker 15 No. Speaker 1 No, there's no action. We're going

to refer it to the full body. Nope. We got to refer the item or we have motion to refer. Motion to refer the item to full council. This is the order that's before us. It's been made by council. Look married. We have a second. Second. Seconded by council.

Is there discussion on the referral to full council for action? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next item on our Committee on Finance is an order appropriating $3 million from the FY25 surplus revenue to the Employer Health Trust. As referred on April

28th. Is there a discussion, Counselor, in seat four, Council Vice President Dion? Speaker 6 So the explanation that we're getting basically is we're continuing a conversation that we started a year ago. when we discussed the FY26 budget, and we're bulking up the account. Is that accurate? Okay, so

I guess my stance on that is new budget is here. If it's strictly to bulk up an account, it's a year later. Like, why do it now? Why not just include it in the FY27 budget? Speaker 8 So I guess to circle back to all of the conversations

that we've been having. So one, we started having this conversation, I'm going to say in FY25, that the fund balance was no longer in the account. It had been reduced down to nothing and used up. So we needed to rebuild the fund balance. So I'm going to say

separate from appropriations and general operating expenses, we need to have a fund balance in there. We've talked about how the standard's about three months' worth of expenses, so we're looking to have at least about a $10 million balance in there right now. and we don't have one in

there. So the other part of that conversation has been, well, how did we end up not having a fund balance anymore? And it was due to under budgeting for that line item each year. It seemed very unintentional that all of the costs weren't being captured and what somebody

had been planning to include for the expenses in that budget. So then we weren't therefore appropriating enough into it. So we started to change that. but the gap from last year in FY26 when we were talking about this, to jump up to what they needed to be funded

at, to fully fund it, was already an upwards of $8 million increase that we needed for the budget. So to then say that we're going to now add in an extra $10 million to rebuild the fund balance in one year, we can't do that. So we were already

trying to make up this big gap to get to the large increases we saw in health care costs while also getting to where we should have been budgeting the whole time. So it was kind of doubling down on a problem that needed to be fixed. And then there's

the fact that we need to rebuild the fund balance. So there are some smaller natural ways that we'll rebuild the fund balance over time, the interest income that's in there, the fact that, you know, as health care costs, because they typically do come in somewhat underneath the projections.

I know last year they didn't, but if you look back at a 15-year span, they've always come in, you know, within a couple percentage points, at least underneath what they expect. So that will help start to rebuild some of that. So little things like that will help, but

we wanted to take a bigger bite out of it now to get back ahead of it. So we had talked during last year's budget cycle and even with those additional appropriations that we were sending down about the need to do this. So while we have the one-time money

available, we want to start rebuilding that fund balance as much as possible. We want to get there in the next two years. And in order to do that, we need to take this one-time money and really put it into it. Speaker 6 But this one-time money is not

going away. If we don't transfer it today, we're still going to have one-time money in our possession. Speaker 8 It has to be recertified every year. So this one-time money, this free cash certification, if we don't spend it by June 30th, we, in a sense, lose the ability

to spend it. It kind of goes away. Then when we do our next certification, if that excess money is still sitting there, then it would be recertified. But it's complicated to explain in this one-off way. So, no, the money never goes away. We're not losing it. It doesn't

go anywhere. It's all a fund balance that's being certified as available to spend. So I guess I don't understand why we would wait to put it in there when we have the ability to start rebuilding that fund balance now that we all know we need in there. Speaker

6 Well, why would we wait a year to do it when we're starting our next budget? And actually, to be honest with you, so it's our next thing on the agenda, and I don't want to talk about something that hasn't quite come up yet, But in the quarter

three budget report, all right, let me back up a second. So if somebody tells me I'm going to bulk something up, that tells me that the money I have is adequate, but I want to have more. Does that work in this scenario? It's to rebuild the fund balance,

yes. Okay. But that's not what the quarter three budget tells us. Speaker 8 We can talk about that. I mean, we can talk about that. Speaker 6 The budget three, which I know that's what you said. we're not there yet, but that indicates a deficit of $4 million.

So transferring $3 million right now isn't going to bulk up anything. It's only going to bring us, we're not okay. We are okay. Speaker 8 So we have three, we have over $3 million in the account right now available. The problem with the quarter three report, with any

quarterly report, especially with healthcare trust fund, we've talked about this several times in general, like it's, it's been many times that we've shown deficits in there it's a point in time grab literally that we grab it as of this date so whatever's been recorded at that point in

time it's a hard cut off in the system so I even have I have a couple of receipts that last year we had received them before March 31st this year we received them on April 1st so then it's already right there you're missing receipts that would have been

captured that aren't now captured so there's a lot of things that happen like that if you look at the comparison column in the quarter three report we started putting in there the comparison of what it was the prior years during that point in time and so it shows

you that this has always kind of been a trend I can pull back several years where it shows that so it's not it's not necessarily new in that sense we are fine at this point in time there is a potential that we would use I when I've run

all of the calculations I can run and projecting from everything that we have for expenses that we could use maybe 600,000 of that towards from the fund balance but it's not necessarily from this three million because we already had a fund balance in the account before this year

started we had a fund balance of 1.1 million so we would use that fund balance not necessarily the current one so it's it's just a point in time issue that you're seeing in the quarterly report and it doesn't change the fact that we are on track with what

we budgeted and with the expenses coming in we're at I think it's 90 percent 92 percent of what we had budgeted for and projected for so it's so let me ask one more Speaker 6 question because again yeah I don't want to be on the quarter three report

we'll have that discussion in a few minutes because I do want to expand on that. So why couldn't, can't you just, if that's what's necessary, necessary or just you want to do it or whatever the case may be, why can't it just be done in a recap? Because

when we get to the recap, we have actual numbers and we know really at the end of the year you do a recap. Speaker 8 The tax rate recap? Or you mean at the end of the year end of year transfer. Speaker 6 So you do a recap

at the end of the year and if there's a deficit we make a transfer to cover a deficit or you get your actual numbers. We know really truly exactly where we are. Speaker 8 So you want to see that there's not a deficit before making this transfer to

fund balance? Speaker 6 Well because if in the end result it's a deficit and not okay that's a big difference. If you're going to tell me I just want to bulk it up, it's perfectly fine. We can stay where we are. I just want to bulk it up

versus oh, guess what? No, yeah, it's a deficit, so we really need to transfer it. So I guess what I want is transparency, the bottom line, and what we're really looking at. But we'll wait until we get to quarter three. I know other counselors want to speak, and

I'm going to yield for now, but I'm not supporting the transfer, and I yield. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor. In seat three, Councilor Canual. Speaker 3 I yield. She stole my thunder on questions. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor. In seat one, Councilor Kadim. Speaker 13 She stole my

thunder, but my thunder's not quite dead yet. Okay, good. Well, let's hear your thunder. So I guess I was following. I've got the same line of questions, but we're $5.4 million in the deficit. And I know it comes down to 4.2, but that's because we had a surplus

of 1.1 from FY25. So just looking at FY26, the true deficit that's being reported is $5.4 million. So go ahead. Speaker 8 you have anything for this to help with the point in time and the fact that it's the timing of these things part of it is timing

we're still waiting for reimbursements to come through Speaker 17 as far as stop loss goes prescription reimbursements abacus we did we switched to a diabetes and obesity weight loss management program which required some up front escrow to fund that account so part of it is timing and we

will be recouping reimbursements as we get closer to the end of the year. I mean, I know we still have. But you should have received at least three quarters of your rebates. Speaker 8 No, we haven't. Speaker 17 Not yet. We're still waiting on a chunk of rebates

from both stop loss and the prescription drugs. Stop loss, I was looking just. Speaker 8 But even the prescription rebates. So that's one of the ones that I was talking about. So we have, I wrote it down, it's $700,000 that we received on April 1st that we typically

received the prior year before March 31st. So that right there is already not captured in your quarterly report. So if you look at those numbers from where we were at this year to where we were at last year, it shows the shortfall. But when you add in that

stuff from April 1 that I did on paper because this point-in-time grab doesn't allow for that, we actually are over where we were at the same time last year. So it's a hard – that's what I'm getting at with this employer trust fund report, the way it's done,

it's a hard grab. But as of today, we're $3.3 million to the good in that account. So that's what I'm saying. And we're still missing. We're still delayed on some of those reimbursements from stop loss, from the prescription rebates. We get almost $2 million a year from the

school grants to help fund their part of it that we haven't received a penny of it yet for this year. So there's still a number of those things like that that we haven't received because of the timing that we always receive in the last quarter, even after the

last quarter in July and August. So it's a normal, mistimed situation. Speaker 13 So when you say normal? Speaker 8 It feels less normal because we don't have a fund balance that we used to have. So then it helps offset that point-in-time grab by not showing a massive

deficit. But this is the reason why I asked for this. Speaker 13 when we get to the third quarter, why I asked for the analysis to be reflective of quarter three. So if you're presenting a quarter two budget, I want to see last year's quarter two so I

can see where the analysis is. So you've put that in there. So just looking at it, we are currently $5.4 million. And I understand what you're saying. You've got those reimbursements for stop loss. You've got the prescription coming in. I recognize that the grants, I'm not sure what's

taking so long with the grants. But we're at 5.4, and at this time last year we were 3.7, $3.7 million. So we're significantly higher in terms of – so you anticipate that much more reimbursements coming – or rebates coming in? I know it's a snapshot in time, which

is why I asked for that snapshot, because all this, my point was you present FY23 actuals, FY24 actuals, FY25 actuals. You've given us the FY26 actuals. We're in the third quarter. Looking at all those end-of-year data points doesn't make any sense because they're not apples-to-apples comparisons. So your

FY23 reported actuals is the most important thing out of all this. I mean, obviously we've got some history, but the two columns I'm looking at is the FY26 and the FY25 quarter three. so at this time last year $3.7 million deficit we're now at $5.4 I just and

I don't disagree in terms of the account not being with the fluctuation right so the IB&R and everything else that we need to get in there which is why I said we need to have at least three months of our claims in there we're going to work to

get there so what is that number again the number is $10.5 million $10 million, I was going to say $12 million. So where are we? I mean, we're looking to transfer $3 million. We've got $3 million in free cash, and I understand the free cash. It's not that

difficult. If you don't appropriate your free cash, it's your surplus. It gets rolled over as a surplus again, and then you've got to wait for it to be certified as free cash. However, if you want to stop that, then we appropriate. If you don't want to appropriate it

to the health care, you appropriate it to a stabilization account. Then it's going to require two-thirds to come out, but you don't lose that money. So we can do it one of two ways, but I guess from my standpoint is if we know we need three months of

IV&R in there and claims and all that good stuff, I just need a funding mechanism on how we're going to get there. Three million here, three million. I'd rather just, if we've got to put $5 million in there, let's just put $5 million and call it a day

and just let's continue to work on it. Because every year at $3 million and then having additional deficits going into it, it's not going to make any sense for me. And I guess I'm just going to take you at the word that we still, you know, this is

April. We don't know what May and June is going to be. You can have high claimants that come in, or you can have claimants that are below your stop loss, and you're not getting the reimbursements, and there are significant claims that are still going to drive some of

this cost. And while we're 106% above for a loss ratio, so 6% above where we're supposed to be, with the rebates, you're at 92. So obviously you have a surplus based on the estimates. And Gallagher is usually pretty good. But I just want to figure out how we

finally get to a point where the employee or trust fund is just appropriately funded. Speaker 8 I think the goal with getting there, you're saying why not do it all now? Because, you know, our free cash certification this year was just under $16 million. And I think, you

know, we have requirements that we have to put. It's almost $3.5 million of it away for OPEB and stabilization per our financial policies. So then off the top there, you're talking about having, you know, 11 million, 12 million left that we, you know, I'm going to say have

competing priorities. So as much as this is a priority to get this fund balance back up, we also have capital needs. We have the overtime that we paid in FIRE. So we were trying to balance out, you know, getting there. So that's why we didn't opt to take

all 10 million at once and swipe it over into it because we have those other needs that we're trying to get there over the next. So between this fiscal year and the next two to have it be fully to that $10 million number. Speaker 13 So I appreciate

that. So the OPEB, here's the thing with the OPEB. While the financial report is nice to have, right, and obviously if we don't fund it, it impacts our bond rating. I recognize that. However, we also got another problem with health care, right? So we put OPEB in there,

but it's three quarters of a million dollars. I mean, three quarters of a billion dollars, a B, right? We're not getting there in the next five years or ten years, right? It's going to take forever. So we know we have a problem in the employer trust fund. Why

not take the money and we say we put in a little bit less or we forego at least one year or two years with the OPEB, put it into the employer trust fund. Let's settle that issue so we no longer have to deal with that issue, and then

we've got enough funding, a fund balance in that account to be able to move it. then we go back into dealing with OPEB. Speaker 8 I am more than happy to do that if that is the will of the council, but I was already trying to meet the

expectations of council with the OPEB requirement of 5%. So if it's the will of the council to do it into the health care trust fund, I think it's actually a great idea as well. I appreciate that. I think you're right on with that. Speaker 13 And I'm not

trying to take away anything from OPEB, and I'm sure the average person doesn't understand the OPEB. The OPEB is fake money, right? So it's a waste of $750 million that we're going to pop in a checking account in the event the city of Fall River goes bankrupt. In

the event, right? And I would challenge anybody to go and look at any community. There's not many communities out there that have gone bankrupt, right? So we can't touch that money for any other purpose just to keep it there in the event we go bankrupt, that we can

still fund retiree health care, right? This is legitimate ongoing operational costs. So from my standpoint, we address the operational costs first, get that in order, and then we'll go deal with, you know, the OPEB. While it would be nice to continue to be able to do both first,

I'd rather just deal with the operational component that is real money right now needed. That's just me as one member. So I'll do what the will is of my colleagues table this have a conversation support the transfer I'll go either way with it it just needs to be

done we need to get we need to get funds in there to fully fund that account so I'll support it one way or the other so can I can I just say Speaker 17 one thing so I just want to point out just because I think for people

that are watching at home or whatever that that aren't as familiar with this stuff the city has been super aggressive when it comes to trying to stay on top of the health insurance I know that people hear this and they kind of go well you know where did

things go wrong? It's just that's health insurance. I mean, everyone is getting caught up in it, but the public employee committee has like, we've made changes for the last 16 years that I've been here to try and stay in front of this stuff and make changes before they've

become problems and to still offer benefits that make it worthwhile to work for the city. So I just want to point that out, that we've tried to be as aggressive as possible. Speaker 13 And I don't want anybody accusing me of downplaying OPEP. I know we've got to

find OPEP. I just think right now in terms of priorities and needs, I think we need to address this account first and let's just get that behind us and let's just make sure that we're appropriately funding it moving forward Speaker 1 so we don't constantly have these transfers

that are needed with that yield. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Constance C7, Councillor Pereira? Speaker 7 Yeah, I have a question. I know with the $3 million, that is to place into the trust fund. That is not to pay claims. Are all our claims paid? Speaker

8 All of our claims are, yes, paid at this point in time. All of our bills are all paid. Speaker 7 Everything is paid. Speaker 8 Yeah, but, I mean, we still have more bills that are coming in. Speaker 7 Right, but the bills that are coming in.

Speaker 8 We also have other revenue coming in. Speaker 7 But do you know if you have enough revenue to cover all the bills that are coming in? You don't know that. Speaker 8 At this point in time, we're projecting that we do have enough revenue to cover

that. So, again, obviously. Speaker 7 You're projecting that you do. But if we don't, then you'll have to come and ask us for more. Speaker 17 I mean, the problem is the further into the year you go, you start getting those high-cost claimants that start to add up.

So I couldn't tell you what the next two months will bring. I mean, I want to say our high-cost claimants are about 16% of our total spend. So as we get closer. Speaker 8 The other problem with that idea, too, is the highest-cost claimants, they fall under the

stop-loss reimbursement. So they go over that $250,000 threshold. Is it $200,000 or $300,000? $250,000 in a $300,000 aggregate. So when that happens, though, all of our costs go up higher than we expect. So, yes, at that very immediate, the costs go out the door, but then they get

reimbursed. But that timing is easily months apart. So there is some of that that you see with some of these expenses that seem higher in the immediate, but we know are coming in for reimbursement. So that for sure we know. And those aren't things that I'm saying we're

projecting we're going to get. We know we're going to get those. The timing of them, we are projecting, right? We don't know if they're going to come in this month, next month, July, August, September. So some of that's a little bit of a projection, but in general, we

know that those costs will be covered, and that data and information is a rather firm line in the sand to say they've gone over this amount, this will be reimbursed. So that part of it isn't really the guesstimate. The guesstimate part comes from some of the stuff with

the grants, right? So any employees that are on grants that are fully paid by grants and have benefits, we then take what they've contributed out of their paycheck and put into it. There's an estimated projection in that sense of now if that employee no longer takes benefits or

no longer works here, then obviously those costs change. So I can't tell you exactly how much is owed or going to come in by the end of the year because we get them with some of these departments monthly based on when their things are. And then the prescription

rebates, I mean, there's estimates that we get from Gallagher, but those are always just going to be estimates until things are fully reconciled. We don't know better than to project them. Speaker 7 My guess is that we're going to give you $3 million, and then you're going to

come back and need a little bit more. So I would agree with my colleague in seat number one. Take the $5 million, and let's close the book on it. Speaker 8 I mean, I'm more than happy to send down another appropriation in order to increase it, because I

know you guys can't tonight. If you could, I would tell you go ahead. Speaker 7 But if that's the will of the council, we have no problem doing it. Because I don't think that it's going to figure out the way you think. And I know that Nick, Mr.

McAleen, talked about a lot of the drugs that people are using are very costly. I know some insurance companies are only allowing that for a year or something like that. And I would say that going forward, we take it by claims-based, by plan-based, not claims-based. that's where we've

made a mistake year after year after year because you did it by claims and then the extra money we filled in the budget when we shouldn't have. And that has happened over time. So I would say go with the $5 million, bring it in with the $5 million,

get it done so that we're ahead of the loop on the health insurance. Speaker 8 I'd like to be clear. I'm happy to send out a $5 million, but if we do $5 million, we will still need to put somehow another $5 million in to get to that

fund balance that we're talking about. Maybe it's less than $5 million now, but I just want to be clear that if we do $5 million now, which I think we should and I'm happy to do, we will still need to add more to that fund balance. Speaker 17

We want to get up to that three-months claim rate at some point. I mean, that's something that we discussed last year. Speaker 7 So you're just telling me if I do the $5 million, I'm still going to need another $5 million. Speaker 8 To get up to the

$10 million fund balance. So if you do $3 million, I'm going to need another $7 million. There you go. But that's over time. It's however fast we want to get there. But that's been the plan. We can't cover $10 million. Speaker 7 So go with the five, and

then little by little, we'll go with the rest. Speaker 8 I'm happy to do that. Speaker 7 But I think you need to make sure that the health insurance is covered, you know, that we start doing the 25%, 75%. Because Chipper Kamara comes down and talks about that

every budget season, and he's been right about it. Mr. President, with that, I yield. Speaker 1 I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilor. Councilman, seat two, Councilor Kamara. Speaker 15 Thank you, Mr. President. Just real quick, the stabilization account, how much is it now? Speaker 8 The

stabilization, it's about $21.5 million today. Speaker 15 Is it a general account or is it specific projects with specific diamonds? Speaker 8 That one's just the general fund stabilization account. That's clear. It's just general fund stabilization. That's about $21.5 million. Speaker 15 Do we have any money with

specific projects in the account, stabilization accounts with specific projects to them? Speaker 8 We have the diamond stabilization account. Speaker 15 Is that the only one? Speaker 8 That's the only. It's for the general fund. So obviously water has a stabilization, sewer has a stabilization, and EMS has

a stabilization. but for us yes that's it just those two okay thank you counselor is there any Speaker 1 further discussion is there a motion to act refer what would you like to do Speaker 3 for the full council motion for the item to full council has been

made by Speaker 1 council of cannula second by councilor Raposo discussion on the referral full council hearing on all those in favor opposed the ayes have it thank you thank Item number four is a fiscal year 2026 quarter three budget report. It is referred to the committee on

April 20th. Councilman seat floor, Council Vice President Dion. Speaker 6 Under the summaries tab, page one, and a miscellaneous, $1,122,988. What is miscellaneous? What's included in that? Speaker 8 So a lot of that is from the demolition, the insurance, oh, my gosh, recovery that we've received that was

over and above beyond what the demolition cost when we had the fire at the school. So there's about $400,000 that's in there. The other parts of it are, I'm going to say, unclaimed money from the state that we had received back. that's another couple hundred thousand in there.

So it's literally odds and ends. The other part of it too is supplemental billings for tax. That's about 50,000. That's within that as well. So the 50,000 is kind of clear, but then the rest of it, there's 400,000, like I said, 400,000 for the demolition. There's another 350

for the unclaimed money, and then the rest of it is literally miscellaneous odds and ends. I can get a full detailed report if you'd like one. Speaker 13 I'm sorry, Mr. President, just not to... Speaker 1 Councilman C1, your point of order? Speaker 13 Can you just elaborate

a little bit on the demolition? I didn't follow that. So what's the demolition? Speaker 8 So I'm going to get the address confused because... Sylvia School. Sylvia School had the fire. We had a million dollars that we were given from the insurance company to cover the damages and

the demolition needs there. The demolition costs only came in around six-something, less than six something if there's four or 11 left. Speaker 1 Council of Vice President, you have the floor. Speaker 6 Enterprise summaries on page one. Under, let's see. What does PCG stand for and PCG reimbursement?

Speaker 1 You have a point of information, Councilman? Speaker 7 I just have a, just sorry to interrupt. It is now about quarter of eight, and we have all these people that are waiting for things that are on the city council agenda. If they're going to get, you

know, somebody's going to become the DCM director, things. Can we hold this off until after? Speaker 1 No. Speaker 7 We can't recess this? Speaker 1 We can't recess the Committee on Finance and then open the city. Speaker 7 Can we refer that this be put on the

next council meeting? Speaker 1 If it's the will of the council to table the item, it's the will of the council. Speaker 7 Then I would make a motion to table because we're going to all take time on this. And I think if we all have questions on

the quarterly report and take time on it, it's going to be 8.30ish. I just think that, I mean, when it's heavy finance things, I don't think any of us would mind coming in on another day just to do finances. I just feel bad, and I've heard from people

that they hate coming to council, meetings and then they don't start till late for the council meeting that they're here for. Just out there. So I would consider making a motion to table. Speaker 1 There's a motion to table the item, which is the quarter three budget report,

has been made by Councilor Pereira. Seconded by Councilor Hart. There's no motion really on a motion to Councilor C2L. Your point of order. Speaker 7 How long is this going to take? Probably till 830. Everybody's going to have questions on it. Probably. But then everybody else is waiting

for a council meeting to start. I've heard from people that they don't like to have to wait until late. Speaker 15 I've heard that too, but if we're having a council meeting, it's a good thing. I mean, we're going to stay with them and come back. Speaker 7

Come back to the next council meeting. Speaker 1 Motion has yield. Speaker 7 We'll have it on another night. Speaker 1 Motion to table the quarter three budget report has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Hart. Roll call. Speaker 2 On the motion of the table,

Councilor Skidin? No. Kamara? No. Canual? Speaker 3 No. Speaker 2 Dion? Speaker 6 No. Speaker 2 Hart? No. Peckham? No. Herrera? Yes. Raposo? No. President Ponte? No. Speaker 15 Council on seat four, you have the floor. Mr. President, if I may just make one more comment, please. Sure.

I would hope that my colleagues would consider people waiting and just ask poignant, accurate questions not be repeated or get off subject which will help an awful lot thank you constancy for you Speaker 6 have the floor go ahead pcg reimbursement what so i can't give you the

definition of that acronym Speaker 8 but i can tell you exactly what it is so pcg we get it from um the state it's it's to help backfill the cost of ambulance runs that are done that um i think it's medicare doesn't fully cover so they have a

set rate but the reality is the cost is a different rate and so this amounts done she submits a report at the end of June or I should say at the end of May I think and we get it in towards the end of June it's usually around

June 25th that we get that amount in for the full year to kind of help backfill those additional costs that weren't covered so we we don't ever get that until probably the last quarter. And under expenses, Speaker 6 direct. What is expenses? Speaker 16 What page are you

on, Councillor? Same page. Speaker 6 First page. Speaker 8 It's the first tab. I should probably start numbering these. Enterprise summaries, EMS Enterprise, I believe. Is that correct? Yep. Speaker 6 First tab, summaries, EMS. So first it was a question under the revenue section. Now it's under the

expenses section. It's direct expenses and the category is expenses. What are the expenses under expenses? Speaker 8 it's the list that makes up their budget I mean it's a litany it's all of their operating expenses within there so it's medical supplies it's technology items it's their insurance it's

I mean it's literally a litany of things that would be included in that their budget breaks down better what would be included in that in a general sense but I've been in all the budgets so I don't want to misspeak on the exact names of the items that

are in there right now. So electricity, heat, office equipment, the EMT school costs, the EMS vaccine program, radio repairs, rentals and leases, workers' comp bills, oil, parts and accessories for vehicles, education supplies. So, I mean, it's literally a litany of things. Speaker 6 So for expediency purposes, we

won't go on, but, yeah. Speaker 8 Some of the costs are paid at one point in time, so they won't necessarily continue at the same rate. So especially with their leases that are in there, so they have leases for their ambulances. So once those are paid, they don't

continue through, and sometimes they're not equally spread. So that line item itself isn't at 75% for the year. It's probably already at 100. So the fact that they're that close to their budget right now doesn't mean that they're going to go over. Speaker 6 Okay. Under indirect, other

general fund, $897,000. What is other general fund? Speaker 8 So that's from the indirect calculation. So that includes part of, you know, like the mayor's office, the finance team. So all of those services, they don't have any. It's their part of contributing towards our salaries that support them.

Speaker 6 Yep. All righty. And to date, there's a $3 million deficit. Speaker 8 So her revenues usually lag. It's if you look at last year where we were at in quarter three, it shows the same thing. Just the timing of the billing that happens with the ambulance

runs. That's a big part of it. But then again, that PCG coming in, that's actually I know it's budgeted at one point five, but it's closer to two million, at least one point seven five that would come in for that. So it's just the timing. Their fund usually

by January, we start looking at it as this doesn't look good. and then by June and July, it's always perfectly fine. And then so it's one of the most unfun timing ones along with the health care trust fund. Speaker 6 Okay. And then let's go to the employer

trust fund on the second page. So earnings on investment in FY25, $7 million. That's a missed post. Speaker 8 I just looked at that when we were talking before. That $7 million should be in the transfers from general fund. It should only be the $124. Speaker 6 Okay.

Yeah, that was pretty odd. Speaker 8 I just was looking at it, and I was like, oh, it's literally just presented in the wrong line, and I honestly don't know how, but it's very much not accurate. Speaker 6 That makes me feel good. Speaker 8 So minus 7

there plus 7 on that 38. Speaker 6 All right. That makes me feel a little bit better. I'm sorry. What was that? So on page two in the employer trust fund, under total school revenues, it was under shared. It shows earnings on investment. And for FY25, it showed

a $7 million, that we earned $7 million, which didn't happen. That was a mistake. So we have stop loss reimbursement on the city side and stop loss reimbursement on the school side. On the city side, in FY25, we had $1,392,000. And in FY26, it dropped to $132,000. How

does that happen? Speaker 8 Timing. And if you look at the report from Gallagher, it shows in there the claims that are over, and not all of them have been paid. So if you look at the one for its page, I don't even know how to count these

pages anymore. Oh, they are numbered. Page three from Gallagher's report. So it shows that there's 1.2 million over that we need to recoup. And I believe that when we last talked about it, that 400,000 of that still needed to be paid. But some of it has been paid

since this report was grabbed. And then for the other page, the page four, it shows $4.3 million over specific. and it shows 2.3 that's been paid. So it's just the timing of the payments coming in. Speaker 6 And that would be the same explanation under the school for

the stop-loss reimbursement? Speaker 8 Yeah, it's the same mechanism. It's just divided out between the two sections, but it's the same exact reimbursement timing that comes in. It just gets split between the departments. Speaker 6 Okay. So I guess where my issue comes in a little bit, if

we look at – I'm back on page one. I'm sorry. If we look at total expenses, $40,975,000, and our total revenues were only $35,572,000, which is on page two. You've got to flip to see both numbers, which is what created the deficit of $5.4 million. How do we

know? Okay, I get it, timing. We're going to get reimbursements. I get all of that. But how do we know? We don't know what the actual costs are going to be because people are still taking those meds. We don't know what the offset's going to be. We don't

know if we're going to recoup this $5 million. We could incur another $3 million and end up $8 million deficit. I mean, theoretically, so anything can happen at this point. Speaker 8 First of all, yes. Let's be very clear on that, yes. The part of it that we

do know is the stop loss is very firm. There's an amount that once an individual hits this over claims, we get that back. It's really not up for debate. So those numbers we can find and we can say this is what we know we're owed right now. So

that's not unclear and there's not a guesstimate. If somebody's going to go over, obviously there's a guess, but no matter what, it doesn't matter if 100 more people go over, we'll get it all back either way. So I'm going to say it doesn't matter in that scheme of

things. Speaker 6 So can I stop you there for a second? Because when it comes to stop loss, we know exactly how many people are involved with stop loss. Correct. Where with rebates for medication, we don't. That's just a general number. Correct. So if we know that 10

people, just for the sake of numbers, 10 people are going to get reimbursements and stop loss for 10 people. If we've already received it for eight people, there's only two left. So that's not as much of a variable as the prescriptions are, I would think. Speaker 8 Well,

it is because more people are going to continue to go over. as their claims keep coming in, as they keep going to the doctors or in the hospital. So those numbers will keep going up of how much they're over and who's over by what. So if you look

at the page... Speaker 6 But we only have so many people that are under the stop loss. Isn't that correct? Speaker 8 Not every employee in the city... No, every employee is under stop loss. Speaker 6 But not every employee in the city who's under stop loss has

an illness that requires that level of payment. Correct. So that's my point. We only have X number of employees that require that level of payment. And we know how many we have that do. Speaker 8 I mean, that number changes all the time, but yes. So right now

we have in there, right now we've got seven. That's on this report as of March. We have seven that are over the threshold already. But there's a list below that that goes all the way to number 23. So there's another 15 people that we're watching because their claims

are already close. So in that sense, you're right. That number may stay at seven. There's a chance of that. But there's also a potential that all 15 of those could come on or that 15 more could come on. So in that sense, it's very much a variable that

we don't really know. Speaker 6 So we're going to have the, you can't even say definitive answer, I suppose. By the close of the fourth quarter, are we going to have a good picture? Or is it still going to be, we have too many variables, nope, everything's good,

yep, everything's... No, so we will have a better picture. Speaker 8 First of all, it trails, so it's actually 12 months and 24 months. So if there's lagging bills that come in from the prior 12 months, they'll still kind of catch it in in the next 24 months,

which is what you see on the second page of the report. That's what is on there. So that will continue, but you're right, we'll know. It doesn't mean that we'll have the cash in hand, but we'll know how much to expect at that point in time. So that

number will continue to kind of change in that sense, but we'll know what to expect. That number could continue to grow, but we'll at least have a bare minimum that we know is coming back. Speaker 6 Okay. So, again, for the sake of expediency, I will yield. Thank

you. Speaker 1 Councilman C, three, Council of Canual. Speaker 3 Thank you. So I thank my colleague for pointing out the $7 million on the earnings on investment. What was interesting when I was looking at it is the Q2 budget book that we had. These numbers were kind

of inverse. The other revenue was on the $7 million side, and this earnings on investment was actually $124,328. So it's really strange to me. So if you get that cleared up and updated for us, because obviously that affects the bottom numbers, because when I do add up. Speaker

8 So the total is the same. Speaker 3 Correct. Speaker 8 The total is the same. It's just showing in the wrong line. But all of those numbers, even from quarter two to now, the total is accurate. It's just the year that it's the line that it's being

presented in. So I will work to fix that. But I want to be clear that the total number is correct. It's just the wrong line. Okay. Speaker 3 Now I'll ask three questions that weren't asked yet. Snow and ice, we've spent nearly $3 million year to date. Are

we expecting any FEMA or state reimbursements? Speaker 8 So there's been talks from the state that there's going to be support from them to cover that. So it's, I believe, separate from FEMA and MEMA. It would be an additional amount that they're going to be sending out to

the communities to support this. So we're waiting on timing for that to even get final amounts. So yes and no. Is that an answer for that? We're kind of waiting for stuff, but we don't actually know if it's real yet. Speaker 3 Okay. Second is the pension assessment,

already at 101.1% in Q3. Why is it already over when we're still in a quarter to go? Speaker 8 We get reimbursements from certain departments and grants to cover their portion. So we've already paid out the full bill as the city, so that's why it shows that way.

But those reimbursements will come in and cover that. We have a very set timing schedule that we pay the bill, and the people reimbursing it aren't necessarily on the same schedule. Speaker 3 Okay. Then my final question, I believe, was the same question I asked during the Q2.

I think you were going to look at it closer. Diamond, it's already at 106.8%, and Bristol Aggie at 167% of budget. And I think you kind of made that face, I think, at the Q2 hearings. I'm sorry. It didn't look right. Speaker 8 I am. I. You're looking

at on the net school spending report, correct? So I that is a new page that I added in and need to I'm going to say clearly work out better. If you look at the vocational assessments on the page prior to that, that's the hardcore data that comes out

of Munis. And you'll see that we're not over budget. so something's clearly, my new page is not working out for me yet. Speaker 1 Okay. Speaker 8 Sorry. Speaker 1 Thank you. I yield. Councilor, thank you. Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Reposo. Speaker 11 Payment in lieu of

taxes for local receipts, do we anticipate any? Speaker 8 Yeah, we get a, it's, we typically just get one payment in June for that, sometimes July, but it's a one-time payment that we get at the end of the year. Speaker 11 Do you know what it's anticipated to

be? No. Okay. Speaker 8 there's a calculation that I was told that they use I believe it's the housing authority that's paying that one and there's some sort of calculation from federal funding that they have that they get that they do so it's never clear what it's going

to be because it's based on their other data that they've been reporting so we don't have that in advance I can tell you that it's traditionally the last couple of years been over 450 but it hasn't been below 400 in probably four years now. Speaker 11 So is

that the rationale why the revised budget was increased $50,000 essentially? Speaker 8 Because last year was so much higher. Last year came in at $550,000, and we weren't anticipating that. So I'm hoping that it's still on that same trend, understanding what I do about how it's calculated. I

don't think it's going down, but we're learning. Speaker 11 Fair enough. To my colleague's question in seat three regarding the snow removal, have all the expenses been paid to this point? or is there anything outstanding still? Do we know? Speaker 8 To my knowledge at this point, everything's

been paid. There's always a chance that we're going to get another random $5,000 bill that wasn't submitted on time or that somebody lost. So there's always potential for a couple thousand more. But to my knowledge, everything that we have in hand that we know of has been paid.

Speaker 11 Especially from the massive snowstorm we had? Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 11 Okay. And then I guess this question is relative to you particularly. Your salary as of right now, is it being drawn out of the director of finance CFO position? Speaker 8 It is now. It

wasn't the full year. Speaker 11 Okay. So the remaining budget under the analysis of compliance position, it's going to stay like that? Speaker 8 It's going to stay just like that now. Speaker 11 Okay. All right. And then obviously to the city administrator, I guess the question here

for that, is that going to continue going forward into next year's budget? Do we know? That particular line item in position? Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 11 Okay. It will. All right. So right now, as far as that, the 82-302 is probably going to sit there until. Speaker 8

Yeah. So to be clear, that 83 is not just the city administrator. Speaker 11 It's also part of the grant writer. Speaker 8 So the grant writer is split between that department and the school department. Speaker 11 No, I'm talking about the analysis position. Your prior position. I'm

sorry. I thought you were talking about the admin. No, I was asking the city administrator as far as that line and position. Is that going to continue to the next one? Yes. Okay. Yes. So the 82-302 for your former position is going to remain for the rest of

this budget. It's probably going to be carried over. Speaker 8 Wait, but 82, that's what I'm confused. Speaker 11 That's what, it says available budget. No, it says. Speaker 8 Oh, the $80,000. Speaker 11 The 82-302 available budget that's remaining. Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 11 That's going to

remain. Yes. Because your salary is now being paid out of the director of finance. Speaker 8 No salary is being paid out of that now. Speaker 11 Okay. Speaker 1 That's all I got. I yielded. Councilor, thank you. Councilor in seat one, Councilor Likadeen. Speaker 13 Thank you.

just a couple of questions so going on the first page of the general fund summaries my first question is just on the revenue collection that we've got for local receipts actually the tax levy so real estate personal property 75 percent what do we have for a Speaker 8

collection rate on the real estate i i don't have that number in my brain to tell you right now i I know that we're on track for where we've been in that sense that we're, we have the same number outstanding right now. So May was just due. So

this doesn't reflect that, right? Because this is from March 31st. But the May bill was due May 1st, the last quarter, I should say. So we are at a similar position that we were in previous years of how many haven't been paid in the amount that's outstanding at

this point. So the treasurer's office, treasurer collector's office works for the next, you know, two months to chase that down before we lean any of it. Speaker 13 So is there a way to break that down in the future just to see real estate versus the personal property

types? Oh, yeah. Just so it's easier to, I mean, so we'll never be at 100% of collection on real estate and the personal property comes in and that fluctuates and then you've got prior years that are getting. Yeah. It's just easier when you're looking at it to see

where we stand from a revenue standpoint. Speaker 8 I can definitely change that in here, but I will say that the munis reports have it by that. So there's a separate object code for each fiscal year of collection between personal property and real estate. So it is within

there. I can work to break that out better in here. But just so that you know it, you can look through that painfully formatted report in the back to find it if you would like it now. Speaker 13 I'm sorry. I'm lazy. I didn't look at any of

your munis stuff. Sorry. Speaker 8 No, that's fine. Speaker 13 I just want to be clear that it is there. I have limited time, so I did – I scrolled on the computer and looked at your sheets up front, so that's – Speaker 8 No, that's fine. Speaker

13 All right. And then the motor vehicle excise, the MVE, 81.9%, so I know the largest commitment came in February, so it looks like we're on target. I'm just curious, are we truly on target? Because I know the last quarter tends to be smaller kind of dribbles that

come in in terms of that, so I just want to make sure that we still are going to be on target to hit the amount. Speaker 8 Yeah, we definitely are on target because the amount that came in, so as you mentioned, that first commitment, we knew it's

been increasing at a higher rate, so we kind of anticipated that to level off a little bit more, and it didn't. So even that first commitment that still dribbles in, and then the fact that we have other commitments, the amount that we have sent out in excise bills

is far greater than we ever have before, and we thought that was going to slow down, and it really hasn't. So in that alone, I think it's another 4% increase from what we've billed out year over year. It's been consistently at 4% to 5%, and we thought that

was going to start to level, and it hasn't been. So we are very much tracking to be above that $9.7 million right now. Speaker 13 Okay. And then just looking at going to the next pages for the department, so the city clerk salaries, is that 80%? Is there

what's the driving factor on that one? Speaker 8 So you said city clerk. So that is in part from the buyout that happened. But then the other part of it is the fact that that department has positions in it that received CPIs, I believe, increases that aren't part

of AFSCME that weren't necessarily appropriated for. So we'll probably have to do a transfer from. We do have an employee reserve set up still that has almost $300,000 left in it. And so towards the end of the year, once we see what shakes out more, we'll be doing

that. Speaker 13 And then just out of curiosity, you may not know this, but how many vacancies do we currently have within all the various departments? Do you know? Speaker 8 I couldn't just give you that number off the top of my head. I can tell you what's

in the budget book is rather close to accurate right now. Speaker 13 Yeah, could you just provide that? I'm just curious where we are with vacancies. And then just staying on the department's dispatch. So the salaries are at 80%? Speaker 8 So that one has a grant that

is usually used the second half of the year. The 911 grant? Yes. So it would be easier for this purpose if it was just done throughout the year, but it's not. So those amounts kind of stop now. Speaker 13 Yeah, that's typical. Police capital. So I noticed that

in the police capital expense it's not been used yet. So two questions. What's in the capital expense, and do we anticipate using it? Speaker 8 So those are the vehicles that were done. So they are encumbered. They just haven't been expended. So right now in the actuals, it

doesn't show. It shows what's literally gone out the door. I believe last year when I did this, for quarter four, I put in the encumbrances so that you could see clearly. But it is now. I don't even know if it was in the back of this report as

of March 31st, but it is maybe close to fully encumbered already. Speaker 13 All right. So you don't include the encumbrances in the actuals? Speaker 8 No, because sometimes that also then makes the numbers look higher than they are. So I try not to do that until quarter

four because otherwise it will inflate it all year long. For things when they put in a purchase order for the year for a service. No, I recognize that. Yeah. Speaker 13 And then the Harbormaster, there was no salaries associated with this salary. Speaker 8 Yeah, so the base,

there is a police officer that's assigned to this fully. and that his base salary is part of the salaries and wages under police um i don't know it's a much bigger story than i can tell you on why that happened why they stopped doing it there so all

that's in that is some overtime for that position um so some of it was used beginning of the year and some of it's used towards the end of the year the last couple of years it hasn't been budgeted in that line but then they use it so i

i will tell you that in the 27 budget i finally put a budgeted number in there again because I don't know why we keep doing that when Speaker 13 we keep using it so I finally changed that and then fire capital it's similar to the police but they

have actually expended some of their capital yeah so Speaker 8 it's only only 15% yes so they had that 1.23 million that you see that was for the first free cash transfer that we did for them so one was to buy a used pumper truck and one was

to order a brand new one so the the used one was 195 so that's been fully expended and then the remaining amount is for the new truck Speaker 13 that they are working on getting encumbered right now okay and then just shifting over to the net school spending

budget so you've got school department at 62.3% spent. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So total net school spending is 65.5%. Not much of a difference, but it is a difference. But the four public schools has only spent 62.3%. I guess do we have a concern that they're not meeting

their budget numbers and then hence we're not going to be meeting net school spending? Speaker 8 First of all, I always have that concern. Second of all, no. This is typical because of the way their salaries are. So because their school year starts end of August, some of

those expenses don't really start for that first part. So it is usually more back heavy. Then on top of it, they have payments that they do for the employees. The balloon payments at the end of the year. So it is rather normal for it to look like this.

I will be honest. I panic every time, but it is normal. So at this point in time. Speaker 13 But is that significant? Speaker 8 Yeah. Speaker 13 So the balloon payments represent 10%? Speaker 8 Yeah, the balloon payment alone is upwards of 10 to 20 to 30.

It's huge. It's a huge payment that goes out at that point. It's more than double the normal payrolls. Speaker 13 Okay. Pension assessment. I don't know how I got there when I'm already at net school spending, but sometimes my notes don't make sense to me. but I do

have a question I guess on the pension assessment. Was it over by $500,000? So we know what the pension is coming. Speaker 8 Yeah, so it's the recovery from the other, I'm going to say funds, not the enterprise funds but from like CDA, BCTC. They have a portion

of that that they pay to us and it's just paid monthly rather than at the same time that we pay the full amount out. So we have paid the full amount out, which is actually higher than that 43, but some of it's already been recovered. Speaker 13 So

I heard you say that. So you pay the entire amount, including the CDA, so the entire payment. Speaker 8 Yeah, and then the recovery slowly comes in. So even right now, I looked at that number today, and it's like 150 that's left to be paid. So it's already

come down significantly from that 500 in March. Speaker 13 Okay. And then the only other question I have before we get to projects is sewer is running a $1.1 million deficit. Speaker 8 Yes. Speaker 13 Actually, I'm sorry. Let me back up because EMS is there. So I

heard what you said in terms of it being a timing issue. so I guess the question is is it a normal timing issue or is it more of a billing collection issue so are they not getting the bills out in time and that's creating a cash flow issue

which is impacting our actuals as we see them or Speaker 8 I'm going to say the majority of it's normal that is a normal thing that happens with this it's the it's the way the medical bills kind of get paid but I will tell you that I've in

conversations with the chief she's been talking about the fact that she has a new billing clerk that's actually been speeding things up lately um so that some of the stuff is coming back in sooner because they're getting it out sooner but there is still a lag time that's

not like the other like water and sewer i mean people get their bills and then they pay them and that's a very normal cycle but Speaker 13 the medical bills are definitely and i could and i could be wrong but i don't i don't recall Speaker 8 seeing

the uh deficits in ems in the past so if you look at last year's quarter three it shows I mean, it's almost the same size. It's three point. Speaker 13 Was it? Speaker 8 Yeah. So last year they were at 9.9 in revenues, and their expenses were at

11.6. So it's not that far off from where. Speaker 13 So they do all their billing in-house and turnaround time? Do you know what the average turnaround time is? Speaker 8 That's a big question for me right now. I can get back to you. She could speak more

to it. Like I said, I know that she's been talking about how it's been improved lately, but I don't know that level of view. Speaker 13 I guess if we can just look at that, I mean, improved lately compared to what? If it's bad? No, I think compared

to the normal, yeah. So there's a difference if we've got good turnaround in terms of our billing and collection and we approve that, that's good, right? If it's bad and we're making improvement to good, it's a different narrative that is out there. Speaker 8 Yeah, I couldn't speak

to that part. Speaker 13 And the only concern, and the reason I ask that is obviously, as you know, the longer we get out there without turning around these invoices, the more likely they are of the collection rate just sitting there. And then, you know, then the question

we get into is, what are we doing for these uncollectible bills? And are we writing them off? And is it going to hit the free cash and all that other good stuff, or retained earnings in this case? So that's the reason I asked that question. I'm just a

little concerned about that. And then, so the sewer deficit? Speaker 8 Sorry, I'm just trying to take notes. that's a similar thing I think it's because there's a lot more front loaded with their debt payments and the timing of those but it's not a concern I mean their

revenues are coming in they're at more than 75% of what they should be at so they're above their 75% collection rate on that their sewer liens are well above so they're doing well on that I think it's the timing of some of the expenses going out the timing

of the debt payments don't line up with the revenues equally the way the expenses do. So you can see that that debt service is at 94% already. Speaker 13 And then just switching gears to the projects. So I know that we've done some cleanup here, but just streetscapes

for Beffitt Street, that's showing a deficit of $5,000? Speaker 8 Yeah, it's honestly a cleanup that we just need to continue to move through. We've taken the bigger ones, but if you look, the one right below it and two above it, literally wash it. So it's just an

accounting cleanup that we need to do. And because it's a $5,000 issue, it hasn't been top priority, but we will get on that so that we can stop talking about those ones. Speaker 13 Right. But that did come in? Speaker 8 Yeah. Speaker 13 So Beffitt Street came

in over budget? Speaker 8 I don't know how much it's necessarily over budget and how much things maybe aren't always charged appropriately to the different lines because those three, I mean, it's $5,000 between for that account. And then the other ones happen to math out perfectly to cover

that. So I. Speaker 13 Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Speaker 8 Okay. Speaker 13 And then police station HVAC window update. If you can. That was authorized in 2021. Speaker 8 That's. Yeah. Speaker 13 outstanding unexpended money yeah and it still has a hundred and ninety

thousand dollars and then the only update we have is project is designed and waiting on potential funding so is that are we still waiting on window replacements HVAC Speaker 8 a chiller I'm gonna have to review that no it's it's been a while then I've looked at these

to refresh my memory on that so I can get more detail and circle Speaker 13 back okay and then similar on the fire department uh facilities let me just find it uh it's the 130 so um like a quarter of the way down yeah i so five seven

six four dash fire Speaker 8 for the fund number do you see that yeah no i i see what once you're gonna talk about i'm gonna Speaker 13 have to i'm gonna have to get back with those okay yeah so that one has the overhead doors boilers and

generator it's 130 000 there says candias and headquarters doors are complete waiting on the globe boilers waiting on generator to be installed so there's still 130 000 there and that again you know that goes that goes back to 2021 so is the work complete is are we still

waiting for it and then i guess if we're waiting for stuff why we probably it's probably an old note Speaker 8 at this point but i'll confirm all of that yeah and i just if we didn't if we didn't do a generator Speaker 13 a boiler or a

door. I guess I'd just like an explanation. I mean, we're five years into that at that point. And then resiliency prep. I know we've run into some issues with the school department and the MSBA turnaround. So $314,000 deficit. What are they? So it's just the same comment over

and over again. Speaker 8 Oh, I know what that was. So that one, I'm sorry. Speaker 13 Yep. Speaker 8 We were actually just talking about this the other day, and I didn't realize that it was reflected in here. So that amount authorized, that $6 million, it's $8.1

million. So it's just that part of it is what's wrong there to start with, but then the other part of it is the MSBA reimbursement. And I know that we talked about the fact that there was an issue. That's still the case. We're still working through those MSBA

reimbursements. There's something with an amendment that was needed that was signed in three places, but not four. And so we're working on it. Speaker 13 But it's actively being worked on, right? So it's not one of those situations where we're sitting out here for a year just waiting

to get reimbursement from the MSBA. Speaker 8 Right. No, this is the one that you're looking at for that more recent one. That's the one that was their window replacement. So we are, I want to say, Ken last told me it was like 95% complete. So it's practically

done. It was mostly done this entire fiscal year at this point. So it's very actively working, and we are working to get those reimbursements. It's not a stale project like some of the other ones were, which if you can see that, I guess from this report to the

last one, we've actually started finally cleaning those up, and we did get some of those final reimbursements in. So I didn't take them off of here because I wanted to reflect that we did actually get them in. So you can see that three, two of them, we finally

got those final reimbursements in out of the three that we needed. Speaker 13 All right, so I'm going to ask one more on the projects, then I'll ask that you just get back to me on a couple of other ones just to save some time. So a quarter

of the way down, CSO settlement. So that goes back to 2006. It's a $70 million amount. So we've gone out, we've bonded. We still have $6 million available. Is that unused going to be used? It's going to be used. What's the status? Speaker 8 My understanding is that

CSO settlement, it was done as this big, massive lump, but it's something that had, like, I don't want to say a 30-year, 20-year plan to be utilized on it. So that's still a very active portion of it. So that bonds that you see, that's not all city-issued bonds.

Most of it's done with Mass Clean Water Trust that we kind of are washing through them. So they're only bonding it as certain pieces of it are completed. So it was like an initial approval that happened in 2006, but it was always supposed to be a long-term project.

And I say long-term, much longer term than I think any of us are ever used to. It's like a 20, 30-year plan that they've been working through. So it's very active still. They're still doing projects within that. I can get more detail on that from Paul because he

has the full breakdown. Yeah, I don't know. Speaker 13 I mean, maybe it's close, but, I mean, I guess my concern gets to, and I hear what you're saying, so we've got the line item that says it's authorized but unissued, and then, you know, you get that amount

at $68.5 million. It's a $70 million authorization. You're showing almost $6 million not being utilized. I just guess I get a little concerned if only $1.4 million hasn't been issued. The remainder there, do we not run into an arbitrage situation? Speaker 8 No, it's all issued through Mass

Clean Water Trust, so I can circle back with more information and detail on that, but I don't believe that most of that, if any, of that is issued by us. Okay. Speaker 13 And then I would just ask on all the water, if we can just get updates.

They have a ton of surplus in those. I just want to know, are they using it, not using it? I know we do loan authorizations every year. I just want to know where we stand with those projects. And then my final question comes back to the health insurance,

the rebates. In particular, I know we have, we're at about 6% above our funded level. If you count on the rebates, we get down to the 93%. So we've had the issues with the school department. in terms of their rebates. How are we handling these rebates with the

schools moving forward? Because this is just going to be a little bit of a concern for me in terms of where we are with that net school spending number. So if they're truly at 65% and let's just take the balloon payment and get you there, if they're on

target, then they're going to be under if we don't include, or if they're expecting us to include the rebates. Speaker 8 So I'm going to say that when this year's budget and when FY26 budget was set, conversations between Kevin and I at the school as the CFO, when

we were setting this budget, we did include prescription rebates. Yes, sorry. We did include the prescription rebates when we budgeted for this. So I'm gonna say from my perspective at this point, regardless of the indirect cost agreement changing, because we budgeted for it this way, it is going

to be in there this way this year. The conversation of moving forward, I think we-- Speaker 13 Meaning that the school department is getting their rebates? Speaker 8 It's a credit for it on their net school spending report, yes, for this year. I don't want to speak to

future years yet, but I know that when we budgeted this year, we planned for that. So I am going to do my part to see that through for this year. You know, if we continue to do that, if we budget for that, you know, next year, that's a

conversation that we're all very actively having. Speaker 13 So just so that I'm clear and I understand this correctly, So they are going to get their actual rebates that pertain to school employees. Speaker 8 No, the rebates aren't done that way. It's a share. So relative to their

share of the prescription costs, because those we do have more detail of, and we can say this is your prescription cost and this is ours, so we kind of take those and we are divvying it out that way. The prescription rebates, the way it's done through the third-party

company, it's more complicated that we don't have. Speaker 13 Sorry. Speaker 7 Nicholas here. Speaker 13 just want a third base coach trying to wave them home come on down so we don't have insight on the rebates Speaker 17 that's that's new to me it's not that we

don't have insight it's we try to keep that on the stop-loss side as anonymous as possible just for the sake of um i mean obviously you Speaker 8 want to know who those high claimants are not no the prescription rebates is what he's asking yeah we know the

stop loss that's prescription stop loss they get their employees yeah yes because Speaker 13 that gets credited back to those great numbers right but the prescription how did we would know Speaker 17 who they who the individuals are that'll get tied back to group numbers also right yeah

that can be Speaker 13 tied back to group numbers we have been we don't we do we do now yeah you vote you would always have how would you reconcile it right so you so you're gonna get these rebates and you're not gonna have an employee number associated

with it you would never be Speaker 8 able to reconcile it but that's not it's that's not how prescription rebates work Speaker 13 sure it's on the it's on the medication that's going through we do a split on Speaker 8 that one that comes back right that's what

I was saying yeah so we don't have Speaker 17 the group detail we don't it gets split that rebate comes back and it gets split a certain percentage between city and school and it gets credited so 25% goes back to the employee and then it gets split. Speaker

8 Because the list of prescriptions is always changing. And again, I think we could go to the company and ask about that level of detail, but it's run through, right, Max, or it's through the third-party company that runs that. The prescription list changes, I don't want to say

daily, but it goes up and down. The amounts go up and down. So the detail of getting that all back and sending it back to us that way, it's just not been the way it's done. So you're right, we could maybe inquire about it, but we just take

instead because we know the prescription costs concretely, we just take that and say, if the prescription costs are 60-40, then we do the rebate 60-40. Speaker 13 So somebody, whether it's Gallagher or you folks, has to reconcile the prescription rebate. We're not just getting, hey, you've got a

million dollars for a rebate because people are using drugs. We're going to look at the rebate and make sure it ties out because, number one, we've got the list of drugs that are on for rebate. Yes. Right, and you got a third-party vendor that's doing this. Speaker 17

Somebody's got to hold them accountable. Correct, so Vital One or Maxwell provides that to PBI or X. PBI or X goes through and scrutinizes it, and that's when we get our rebates. Speaker 13 So you would know whether they were school employees or – Speaker 6 Oh. I

can call what that actually – Point of information. Your point of information. And I could be wrong. Trust me, I could be wrong. I think the reason that they don't identify and the city gets X number of dollars because people received these medications, therefore you qualify for rebates,

I'm leaning towards it could have to do with HIPAA. Because if they identified every individual and the medication they're taking, would you give you insight into their medical history? Speaker 13 We know their medical history. They get the claims. They know exactly who's getting what treatment and what

the names and everything. Speaker 6 With stop loss. Speaker 13 No, with Blue Cross Blue Shield and all the health care. Speaker 6 They tell you every diabetic, every person with high blood pressure. Speaker 13 When you say medical history, it's dollar amount. No, no, I get it.

I just want to clear that. Speaker 16 That's what I'm talking about. Speaker 13 One person at a time. It's not dollar amount. You know exactly what their condition is in terms of what the treatment is for. So if it's diabetes, if it's cancer, you know exactly what

it is. I personally do not, but there is a PBRX goes through and they review that. Speaker 16 No, no, that's what I'm saying. Speaker 13 I'm not saying that we're just going around, but we have insight, so we can pull the information. Listen, I'm not looking to

say, you know, this person is getting this drug. All I'm trying to say is we know that we've got a list of medication that is on the list for rebates, right? So if you take Ozempic, which is not one of them, I'm just saying, right, if you take

Ozempic and you get a rebate for Ozempic, we will have a list of individuals who are on Ozempic and have purchased Ozempic, and we will get a rebate on that, right? So what I am saying, and the issue at hand here, is that the school committee is claiming

that their employees, the city is getting rebates on these medications, and the school department is not getting their share of the rebate. So we're charging them 110%. I'm just making up numbers. 110% above what the actual costs are because we're taking the rebates. We're getting a revenue piece

on that, a savings. they're paying 100% of the cost they're getting zero reimbursement on the rebates so the issue becomes we just want to make sure we know the employees we know the drugs that they're taking and if the medication falls in that and there's a rebate all

I'm saying is we need to be able to identify which employees are getting these rebates using the drugs that are getting the rebates and transferring it over to the schools Speaker 8 nothing gets transferred anywhere let's be clear on that it just balances the trust fund I want

to be clear that we're not giving anything to anybody. Speaker 13 No, no. But it comes back down to net school spending and what's reported on the year-end report in terms of the net school spending. So the suggestion is that they are getting charged more. So theoretically, they

would be under net school spending if we gave them the rebates. Speaker 8 Rebates aren't required to be shared in that sense. It's a mechanism that we use to fund the health care that we self-insure. It's not like a direct reimbursement that is inflating a cost in any

way. Speaker 13 But if the law is, and this is where I agree with Kevin Aguil. He is spot on. So the law says that it is net. Speaker 8 Reimbursements. Speaker 13 Right. Speaker 8 A rebate is not a reimbursement. Speaker 13 What is it? Speaker 8

A rebate. A rebate is something that you get because you happen to buy a product that happens to have this thing attached to it. It's not a required reimbursement that is offsetting the cost. Speaker 13 And what's a reimbursement? Speaker 8 A reimbursement is saying that's not your

cost. So you paid for my water, and I gave you a dollar back. You didn't pay a dollar for it. You in a moment did, and it's not really your cost. It's my cost. So you don't get credit for them spending that dollar when I gave it back

to you. Speaker 13 So that's a reimbursement. So if the city is going to reimburse the school department for something, and it's not their true cost, but they pay for the drugs, we get a rebate, which reduces the cost on our ends, which is attributed to their employees,

we're not giving that back to them? Speaker 8 It's the healthcare trust fund that gets it back, and part of that is factored into the rate that is set to begin with. So all of that factors into how the rate is created. It's based on the fact that

we'll get these reimbursements back, but then part of it is the fact that we use that to fund the other part of it. So instead of funding the full cost of expenses, we use that to then set a different rate for the cost. Speaker 13 I think it's

cute that we're playing the word game reimbursement. Speaker 8 It's not a word game. It's a very technical specific definition. Speaker 13 Okay, but it's money going back. Speaker 15 Just a point of clarification, please. A point of clarification. Whose definition is it? Is it the state's definition?

Speaker 8 The reimbursement and the rebate. It's in accounting. It's the state laws that define reimbursement. Speaker 15 So it's not a decision. So it's not something that we're creating that definition. Speaker 13 I'd like to see the definition. Speaker 1 That's news to me. Constancy, one has

a floor. Speaker 13 So can I get the legal definition of a rebate? I didn't know that that was a thing. Speaker 8 Okay. I don't have that in front of me right now, but I can work. I mean, this is part of that whole debate that we've

been having between the school department and – Speaker 13 Right, but if we take a 10,000-foot step back or above or wherever you want to be positioned in this universe, we are saying in order to get to 100% of net school spending, we are charging the school department

their costs of health care. okay they're employees so if we are removed and we say we are shutting down the town of the city right there are no employees we lay off everybody and the only employees that exist are the school department where do those rebates go to

Speaker 8 the health care trust fund that's how that works okay so at some point that's Speaker 13 coming back because of those employees right so that that means we did not spend the entire amount if you were running a deficit we just showed it so am I

not supposed to take your rebates and we're supposed to say that you're 106 percent above what your your costs are like you're saying you're using those rebates to reduce your deficit to reduce Speaker 8 the cost of health insurance which is appropriate you're charging so you're charging the

school Speaker 13 department for their costs so they're contributing to the rebates that are coming down that are reducing the city's cost but we're not giving it to the schools i don't know how we can Speaker 8 justify. That's why Kevin and I had these conversations last March

and decided to put it in the budget that way because I am on page Speaker 15 with how that works. Kevin, I'll meet it, not Kevin Speaker 8 I'm sorry. I don't, yes. School CFO. School CFO. We discussed this and this is why it was budgeted that way.

So I want to be clear that I'm not disagreeing with that. Right. Speaker 13 And I guess the whole reason for this conversation is what we're doing. We're doing a split and I'm saying it should be actual. We should give them actuals. If the rebate, if we know

there are 10 employees that are getting rebates because of the prescription medication that they're using. We as the city should not be keeping it on the city side. We should be giving it back to the schools. We technically got a rebate, reimbursement, whatever you want to call it.

We did not spend the entire amount of money of health care. And they contributed to that. Speaker 8 I mean, also, this is such a bigger conversation than all of this right now, and I'd like to have documents in front of me to have this full net school

spending, you know, rebate conversation, because it's much bigger Speaker 13 than that. Listen, all I'm saying, and I've said this before, I don't necessarily support going back and trying to give all this money, millions of dollars, to the school department, but we've got to figure it out. But

at the end of the day, we've got a pile money that we said that we've put in that we anticipate to spent, right? And we are getting credit because the school department is part of that expense and we can charge that off. So if we've got $100 and

then we get $20 back in rebates, not reimbursements but rebates, we still only spent $80, right? But we're still going to charge the schools their portion of it, right? So if they're 50%, they're getting charged $50, right? And we're only getting charged $30. How is that right? That's

what I'm saying. It doesn't make any sense. Especially when we're a community that's 100% of that school spending. I think it's disingenuous to say that we're at 100% of that school spending and that they haven't spent all their money. We've gotten rebates. There's credits that are coming back.

Maybe it's not reimbursements. Maybe it's a credit. I don't know. I'd just like to get that clarified. I'm just moving forward, and I appreciate that we're changing it, but I want to be consistent going forward. I just want to be all on the same page. And I just

want it to be actual so we can put this to rest because we have the insight, we can get the insight on who's using the medication and where it belongs. With that, I yield. Thank you. Councilman C2, Councilor Kamara. Speaker 15 Thank you, Mr. President. Listen, I agree

with what he wants to do. I just think that what we should probably do is have it on another separate day where before the school budget meeting or during that school budget meeting, we can clearly clarify. According to what you're saying, we're using that money, the reimbursement or

rebates, and putting it in to lower the cost of their overall insurance to begin with. If not, we give them the rebate. We're going to up the price of insurance because we no longer have that money that's coming from their rebates or their reimbursements. But let's make it

very clear to everyone so we understand where it's coming from, how it's being used, because this is the first time I've heard it in that type of detail and it makes sense. So I can see why people would say, hey, we're not getting our rebates. We deserve them.

but that is being calculated into the cost of what it costs for overall health care in the trust fund. Simple enough. Okay. I think we should probably just try to clarify that before we have that budget meeting because there's going to be maybe some people won't agree with

that assessment, but I hear how it's happening and why it's happening. But that I yield. Thank you. Speaker 1 Hearing no further discussion on this item. Motion to adjourn finance. Motion to adjourn finance has been made by Consular Reposo, seconded by Consular Canuel, All those in favor? Aye.

Opposed? The ayes have it. Time is 8.35. The four of the City Council meeting will now be called to order. Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 Councils Kadeem? Here. Kamara? Here. Canual? Here. Dion? Here. Hart here Peckham here Herrera here proposal here President Ponte Speaker 1 here if everybody in

the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer thank you and a salute to the flag I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands Speaker 11 one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice

for all Speaker 1 Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person who make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit a meeting through any medium, attendees have therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present

and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 Mr. President, the first item before you is a communication from the Mayor and a request for the confirmation of the appointment of Christopher Hathaway as the Director of Community Maintenance. Speaker 1 Motion to confirm the appointment has been

made by Councillor Kamara. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Council on seat four. Council Vice President Dion. Speaker 6 So I have a bit of an issue with this in regard to number five on our agenda is the ordinance that was drafted in relation to this position in regards

to doing a reorg. Within the ordinance, it explains the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the individual who would be the new DCM director. The problem is this. The ordinance is contradictory. It's not clear. It's wrong. and it does not accomplish what it should accomplish. Ultimately, if

they were going to do this, they should have sent down a reorg chart, explained what was happening, defined the roles, sent it to ordinance, write the ordinance, and then proceed with the individual. Because how do you approve an individual for a position that the position isn't even clear.

And I'm going to give you one example. One example. If I may, because the ordinance is out of order at the moment, so do I make a request or a motion to combine it with one? Speaker 1 No, I'll let you speak on the item. Speaker 6 So

in the RE-ORG, there's now identified departments. One is Department of Community Maintenance. One is Department of Engineering and Planning, which is M. So if you turn to where engineering is discussed, it states 2-821. It's going to be replaced with this. So let me try to make this clear.

Engineering and planning has just been identified as its own separate division. And then in 2-821, the Division of Engineering shall perform such services as proper, well, let me get just to A to B. It's A and B. B, the city engineer shall provide professional civil engineering advice and

assistance to other municipal departments as requested and approved by the Director of Community Maintenance. The Director of Community Maintenance is not going to oversee planning and engineering. That is a drastic error. And then there's another spot in here where it discusses that the director of DCM, I highlighted

everything here, that the director of powers under traffic and parking division, powers and duties, streets and highways division, traffic control signs and devices, the street and highways division, which is under DCM or going to be, shall have charge of the erection and maintenance of all signs, signals, markings,

and other devices for the control of traffic in the city. But then you read further, and traffic is under planning and engineering and states, powers and duties of the traffic and parking division. Powers and duties. Traffic control signs and devices. The Division of Traffic and Parking shall have

all powers necessary for the carrying out of the purposes of traffic control. How do you pass this? How do you agree with this? Speaker 1 So, Consul, just so we're clear, on the item that's before us right now for the appointment of the Director of Community Maintenance, we

do have that position. Speaker 6 We have the position, but it's being defined by ordinance, and it's not defined because it's all over the place, And it's giving that individual the power over divisions they don't have power over. So how do you say, yes, yep, you have the

job. You're going to get paid $140,000 a year because this is explaining why you should have the – why we need the position and why it should receive that compensation. But yet it is not clear as to what it is, why, and how it's going to happen. I

mean, they just did not take the steps they should have taken in my estimation. and with that I'll you. Speaker 1 Councilor in C8, Councilor Opposito. Yeah, and I guess Speaker 11 to similar questions to my colleague, I guess I'm wondering to the administration why didn't the ordinance

come down first? Speaker 1 Is there a motion to wave the rules? Motion to wave the rules. So made by Councilor Opposito. Seconded by Councilor Peckham. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Speaker 13 Can I get a point of information real quick? Speaker 1

Your point of information, Councilor? Can I just Speaker 13 clarify? I just lost all my paperwork. I'm sorry. Can't multitask. The position that's before us, the director of community maintenance, is already an established position. Yes. It's a contract position? Yes. So the terms, the dollar amount is not

set? Correct. Okay, so I hear what my colleague is saying. I guess there's nothing stopping us. The position already exists in ordinance. It's a contractual obligation, so there's nothing. I mean, the RE-ARG is the RE-ARG, right? And I don't disagree with what she's saying, but there's nothing stopping

us. It's not like we're appointing somebody to a position that does not currently exist in ordinance. Correct. Okay. With that, I yield. Thank you. Speaker 6 Point of information. You just said that there's no dollar amount to the contract. Is that what was your question? Speaker 1 It's

in ordinance by contract. Speaker 6 Oh, right. Okay, because there is a dollar. It's not established. Speaker 13 No, no. I know there's a 140 on there. I meant that in ordinance is established as a contract, not a dollar amount. Speaker 1 It's a contract. Councilman, see that

you have a floor. Speaker 11 So let me just clarify, though. In the current code, 2-205 does not contain a line that says Director of Community Maintenance because the Director of Community Maintenance is the Director of City Operations. Speaker 5 Correct. Speaker 17 No, there is a Director

of Community Maintenance. And I apologize. I don't want to kind of conflate both of these. if I can speak to item five, am I allowed to? Speaker 1 I'll allow the discussion because it's pertinent to the appointment to my colleague in C4's point. Speaker 17 So going through

the actual ordinance, it was a little messy. I think we knew going into this that my assumption was this would get referred to an ordinance and that we would have to work through some of these things. The spot about the engineer already exists in ordinance now, and I

apologize. I don't have the current ordinance from me, but it is in two places in there. The intent of the rework to come down is to break up the Department of City Operations and have two separate standalone divisions, departments facilities maintenance on one side, community maintenance on the

other side. This is not to have them supervise the engineer. The engineer or engineering and planning will be on its own. Speaker 6 But according to this ordinance that you wrote, it does. It doesn't, and it does at the same time. And the other part of this argument

is, yes, we have a Department of Community Maintenance, we have a Director of Community Maintenance, but in this ordinance it's being changed to a division, and it's called Division 7, and the person who leads Division 7 just happens to be the Director of Community Maintenance. Speaker 17 So

my preference would be, if possible, to work through some of those things down at ordinance when this goes before or if it goes before the ordinance committee so that we can go through and clean up. Like I said, when I went through this, there were a few things

that were out of place. When you looked at 2-205, there were departments that exist that weren't listed. As far as traffic department goes, traffic has been under Dan Aguiar, but I don't think it was actually in ordinance that way. There were all sorts of pieces as we were

going through that really didn't make sense. So I think our intent was to come down and work with ordinance to get this straightened out, get it clear for everybody, do all that necessary cleanup as far as these specific sections are concerned, and that we could do that with

the ordinance committee and the council. He still has the floor. Speaker 6 I'll reserve comment. Speaker 11 Yeah, so I guess my question still stands. Why don't we take care of the reorganization first before we appoint the position? Speaker 17 Timing, we felt that it would be more

efficient to come down this way, that we identified someone that we wanted to run community maintenance, that we wanted to put the appointment through, and that we had a position with the director of community maintenance that we could do that now, we could have the supervision, we could

start implementing some of those things that we want now, and that the ordinance, as far as the full reorg, would follow. Speaker 11 I guess I disagree with you. I think it should be the opposite. I think we should do the reorganization first, clarify rule. And I said

this to the mayor this afternoon because he called me about it. And I said, isn't it make more sense to have clear expectations of what the director of community maintenance will do in the ordinances versus have the position presented and then fix the ordinance later. It's like playing

the game without the rule book and then write the rules as you go. To me, it doesn't make any sense. And again, chairman of ordinance here, I'm saying, listen, I would like to have this conversation ordinance to go through the the ordinances correct them as they need to

And then there's a clear expectation of then when we say we're gonna appoint person a to the director of community maintenance Here we are and and the reality is too because we've heard this conversation I'm sure to counsel Kadim's point we get one bite of the apple here

when it comes to the appointment So we want to make sure it's clear and cut and correct before Can I can I interject for a moment counselor? You may sir. Just so we're clear Speaker 1 I think what we're debating right now is who is going to be

reporting to who under this position. We have in ordinance the Director of Community Maintenance. If appointed, the individual is going to show up to work and do that job. There's no question about job description from my understanding because we know what the Director of Community Maintenance is doing.

What I'm hearing from our colleagues is that there's a struggle in terms of who's reporting to who within the Department of Community Maintenance. Am I correct when I hear that? So if we approve an appointment, the individual is going to show up and do the job, but there

might be a difference in terms of who's reporting to who. Speaker 11 Maybe so, but again, when you read into, because we're essentially getting rid of 2-208, which is the Department of City Operations. We're eliminating that, correct, Mr. McElhinney? Yes. And then we're taking that position and cutting

into two. Facilities Maintenance Director, Community Maintenance Director. Yes. Correct. Okay, so right now, there is no current director of community maintenance. We have an interim director of community maintenance. So with the ordinance change, does it change the functionality of the position? Speaker 17 No. Speaker 11 At all?

Speaker 17 With the ordinance change that comes through. Speaker 11 As it's currently written? No. Okay, so when we then pass the ordinance, it's going to change it, correct? Slightly. Okay, so it goes back to my original point. Wouldn't it make more sense to change the ordinance, make

sure it's clear and cut, and then move forward with the person? Like, listen, I don't have a problem with the person. I just have a problem with the process here. I think we put the person first before we change the ordinance. That's my point. Speaker 3 Point of

information. Speaker 11 Constance C3, a point of information. Speaker 3 When does the current contract or the acting interim position expire? Speaker 17 It was a 90-day appointment that ended on Monday. we put an additional 60-day interim appointment in on Monday, which will expire at the time of

either 60 days or if someone is permanently appointed to the director of community maintenance. Speaker 1 Councilman, seat one, Councilman, dean. Speaker 13 So I talked about the different lenses. I guess I see this a little bit differently. So I guess I want to backtrack. So we currently

have the position of director of community maintenance on the books. It's a contractual position? Yes. Okay. The individual that was in there has been reassigned to a position that currently exists in ordinance. Is that true? I don't know the answer. Speaker 17 Can you say that one more

time? I apologize. Speaker 13 So the person who held that position? Speaker 17 Yep. Speaker 13 I guess it's the position above the city director of city. I forget what the title is. Is currently the director of city operations. It's still the city director of city efforts. Okay,

so there's a vacancy in this position. This is what this individual is going into. Okay. Yes. So I guess my question, it comes back to, is it the chicken or the egg that came for us, right? So we can debate this all we want. So I guess my

question is, had we not had a vacancy, because what's before us is to fill a vacancy. Yes. Is that correct, right? So if we didn't have this vacancy and somebody was in this position, what is the difference between doing the RE-AUG the way we're currently doing and how

we would have done it if the position was currently filled? Does that make any sense? Yes. Because I don't think you're removing the individual from that position of director of community maintenance while we start discussing what the RE-AUG looks like. RE-Augs happen all the time with individuals in

positions getting paid for positions that they're currently holding, and there's a restructure and a RE-Aug in terms of reporting structure, who's got certain responsibility, and sometimes with those RE-Augs there is monetary value that is associated with it, and sometimes there's not. So I don't know that there's a

right or wrong way of doing this. All I am saying is that we have a request down before us to make an appointment. If we don't want to appoint the individual, that's the vacancy. I don't know why we're tying the two in terms of the re-aug and the

appointment. Because you can still have re-augs that are done with people in current positions without any vacancies taking place. And we wouldn't be having any of these conversations if it was done before us. We would be having legitimate conversations about who's reporting to who, why is that taking

place. And so those things, I think, should get vetted out. And I don't disagree that we should be doing that in ordinance. I think to tie it into the appointment here doesn't necessarily make sense. just from my standpoint, because I've been part of a number of reorganizations, and

it just happens. We know which direction we're going to go in and what we want to go in, and it's just a matter of having those conversations to see if we all agree with that. And so let's just say we disagree with the RE-ORG. You still need the

person to fill the position of director of community maintenance, right? Yes. And so if the mayor put a value of $140,000, that's on him to make that determination. Maybe that's a conversation of, okay, it's $140,000 if the RE-ORG goes in, If the RE-AUG doesn't go through, it's going

to be whatever it is. I mean, to me, I think those are the conversations that should take place. I think we should be forwarding this at the item number five to Ordinance Committee. We should be vetting the process, and we should be having real dialogue in terms of

what the overall RE-AUG looks like. That's just my take on that. Thank you. So I yield. Speaker 1 On the confirmation only, Councilman C7, Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 Has Mr. Hathaway already started at DCM? Has he been for that building? Speaker 17 June 1st is when he would

start. Speaker 7 He would start June 1st. Speaker 17 Yeah, that's the date of appointment. Speaker 7 Okay. I mean, I tend to agree. I know what my colleague in seat number four and seat number eight are concerned with. You know, we need to have this reorg chart.

However, I don't look at it that way because you have the position. Mr. Sutton's been the interim. Now you're going to put someone in, and then you're going to figure out there's a lot of stuff in number five that I think needs to be changed myself. So at

this point, but what does concern me is there's been a lot of talk on this council about a contract coming down for the first time that the council vote on it. And when it comes down for reappointment after so many years, because some of the members of this

council want to vote on it again, so I'm a little perplexed. If there is a contract, why don't we have the contract here tonight to vote on? Is it going to come down after? Speaker 10 I mean, as the charter reads now, Councillor, and is interpreted by the

Corporation Councillor, Speaker 7 Okay, so it'll come down after? Speaker 10 Well, no, it's that the Council has the ability to vote on the appointment up or down, not on the contract. Speaker 7 Okay. Thank you for that clarification. With that, I yield. I am ready to vote.

Speaker 1 Thank you, Councillor. Councillor, in seat four, Council Vice President, Dior. Speaker 6 So would you agree that this reorg and this ordinance involves added duties, extra duties that don't exist under the Director of Community Maintenance now? Speaker 17 Yes. Okay. Speaker 6 And that pertains to

the price, to the salary. The fact that it's added duties, it's more responsibility, et cetera, would justify the cost of the $140,000? Just a question. Speaker 17 Possibly in part, but I will say in going through the interview process and posting this position, I mean, we've raised the

salary on this several times since it's been posted. Speaker 6 What is that position paying currently? Speaker 17 Currently, the interim is making $95,000 on that position. Speaker 6 Okay, so we're going from $95,000 to $140,000. Precisely my point. Because of added duties, because of a reorg, because

we're changing responsibilities. My point exactly. So to me, if we approve the appointment, this doesn't even matter. And we'll just fix it later and make it so that everything's where it belongs. and however it rolls out, it rolls out. Just a point of information. Speaker 1 So what

I'd like to refocus the conversation on is the appointment of the individual. We will have the opportunity to discuss. I have let this conversation go on a little too long with respect to the ordinance change and the salary and roles and responsibilities and who's reporting to who. I

want to keep this discussion based on the appointment to the director of community maintenance. Speaker 13 But a point of information, I just want to clarify something. So I don't disagree with what my colleague is saying. However, we just – it's confirmation of an appointment. We don't have

the authority on the contract. So, I mean, the mayor can come down with $300,000. I mean, technically, I guess we could vote against it, but it's about the confirmation of the individual. Speaker 1 Right. Not the contract. That's what I'm trying to refocus the conversation at right now.

Speaker 6 Okay, and I understand that. I truly, truly understand that. So, the bottom line to the story, I still think it's backwards. It hasn't been presented the way it should have been presented. We're going to have another city council meeting in two weeks. Plenty of time for

them to send something to ordinance. Come back in two weeks. And with that said, tonight I'm going to object. Speaker 1 Thank you. Councilor, Councilor in seat six. Councilor Peckham. Councilor in seat seven. Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 Yeah. The only thing that I'd like to add is if

you look at the salary amount, We have put out ads for this position. I remember when we had Mr. Parano here, he was willing to do it for 110. And that got stopped, but then to get other people to apply, people are making this kind of money in

communities that are smaller than the city of Fall River. So you have to pay to get people to come to work. Move the question. I don't disagree. There's a motion to move the question. Speaker 1 It's been made by Councillor Kamara. Is there a second to move the

question? Seconded by Councillor Hart. Motion to move the question has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Roll call. Roll call on moving the question. Speaker 2 Councillor Cadime? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes. Dion? Speaker 6 Object. Speaker 1 Moving the question? That's

out of order. Speaker 6 Yeah, I moved the question. I'm sorry. Lost my mind. Speaker 1 Yes or no? Speaker 2 Yes. Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 Councillor Hart? Yes. Peckham? Yes. Yes. Pereira? Yes, I said yes. I'm sorry. Speaker 11 No. Speaker 2 President Ponte? Speaker 1

No. Motion passes. The motion on the floor right now is to confirm the appointment that has been made by Councillor Camara and seconded by, I believe it was Councillor Peckham. Roll call on the confirmation of the appointment. Speaker 2 On the confirmation, Councillor Cadime? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker

2 Kamara? Yes. Canual? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 Dion? Object. Speaker 1 Any other objections? Hearing no further objections, next order of business. Speaker 2 The next item before you is the communication from the mayor and a request for the confirmation of the appointment of John Sylvia to

the Board of Park Commissioners. Motion to confirm. Second. Speaker 1 Motion to confirm the appointment has been made and seconded. Is there a council? Let me say that again. Motion to confirm has been made by Councillor Canuel, seconded by Councillor Pereira as their discussion. I do. Speaker 7

I would just like to say that I think Mr. Sylvia, who's done a lot of work with the city, neighborhood leader, tree planting, did all of the trees on Plymouth Avenue, watered them every day, very invested in the community. I'm really happy to see him on the park

board. I think he'll do a phenomenal job. So kudos to him. Speaker 1 Do you yield? I yield. Thank you. Councilor in seat eight. Councilor, opposed. Speaker 11 I agree to the clerk. Did we, Mr. McDonald, did he resign from the park board? He did. He moved to

McDonald. Speaker 1 He moved. He moved. He moved. Effectively immediately. Is there anything further? Motion to confirm the appointment has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next item is a communication from the mayor and a request for

the confirmation of the reappointment of the following to the Board of the Park Commissioners. First appointment is for Mr. Farias. Speaker 11 Motion to confirm. Speaker 1 Motion to confirm the appointment of Mr. Farias has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira. Is there discussion? Hearing

none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 Roll call. Speaker 1 Roll call. Heard a roll call. Speaker 2 On the confirmation of Victor Farias to the Board of Park Commissioners, Councilor Skidim? Speaker 13 On the reappointment, yes. Speaker 2 Excuse me, reappointment.

Thank you. Kamara? Yes. Canual? Speaker 3 Yes. Speaker 2 Dion? Yes. Hart. Yes. Peckham. Yes. Pereira. Yes. Reposo. Yes. President Ponte. Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 In the next reappointment is for Helen Rego, also to the Board of Park Commissioners. Speaker 11 Motion to confirm. Speaker 1 Motion

to confirm the reappointment of Helen Rego to the Board of Park Commissioners has been made by Councilor Reposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira as their discussion. Hearing none. Roll call. Speaker 2 On the reappointment of Helen Regal to the Board of Park Commissioners, Councilor Skadeen. Speaker 13 On the

reappointment, yes. Speaker 2 Kamara. Yes. Canual. Speaker 13 Yes. Speaker 2 Dion. Yes. Hart. Speaker 14 Yes. Speaker 2 Peckham. Yes. Herrera. Yes. Reposo. Yes. President Ponte. Speaker 1 Yes. Congratulations. Congratulations. Again. Next order of business, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 item 4 is a communication from the mayor

and a resolution authorizing the submission of the community development agency's year 2 annual action plan Speaker 11 motion to adopt Speaker 1 motion to adopt the community development's 2 year annual action plan has been made by councilor Repozo seconded by councilor Hart discussion hearing none roll call on

the adoption Speaker 2 on the adoption of the resolution councilor Skidim yes Yes. Canual? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart? Yes. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Speaker 1 Abstain. Next order of business. Speaker 15 That was not a reappointment. Speaker 1 That was not. It was just

an abstain. Thank you. We're clear on the reappointments this evening. Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 Item 5 is a communication from the mayor in a proposed ordinance for the reorganization of the Department of City Operations into the Department of Community Maintenance and the Department of Facilities Maintenance. Motion to

refer to the ordinance committee. Speaker 1 Motion to refer to the item to the Committee on Ordinance and Legislation as we may by Councillor Pereira, seconded by Councillor Opposer. Is there a discussion hearing none? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 Item six

is the number of traffic recommendations. Speaker 11 Motion to adopt emergency preamble. Second. Speaker 2 These are new recommendations from the Traffic Commission. Motion to refer to ordinance and legislation. Speaker 1 Motion to refer to the Committee on Ordinance and Legislation as it made by Counselor Pereira, seconded

by Counselor Canuel. Discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 16 My bad. Speaker 2 The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on May 6, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend the accompanying proposed ordinance, accompanied by an emergency preamble, be

passed through first reading, second reading, passed to be enrolled, and passed to be ordained, With Councilor Pereira absent and not voting, this is a proposed ordinance for handicapped parking. Speaker 11 Motion to adopt the emergency preamble. Speaker 1 Motion to adopt the emergency preamble has been made by

Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Roll call. Speaker 2 On adopting the emergency preamble, Councilor Cadime. Yes. Kamara. Yes. Canual. Yes. Dion. Yes. Hart. Yes. Peckham. Yes. Pereira. Yes. Raposo. Yes. President Ponte. Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 11 Motion to pass through all readings. Speaker 1 Motion to pass

through all readings after reading has been made by Consular Raposo. Seconded by Consular Canual. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, just read those into the record, please. Speaker 2 Sure. This is for handicapped parking located at 5th Street West,

65 feet north of Rodman Street, Barnes Street North, 395 feet east of County Street, Welly Street North, 38 feet west of Montauk Street. French Street North, 241 feet east of Barnaby Street. Griffin Street South, 94 feet east of Broadway. Middle Street South, 481 feet west of South Main

Street. Palmer Street North, 40 feet west of Plymouth Avenue. And Union Street West, 18 feet south of Hope Street. Speaker 1 Thank you. Next order of business. Speaker 2 The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on May 6, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend that the

accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading. With Councilor Pereira absent, not voting, this is a miscellaneous traffic proposed ordinance. Speaker 11 Motion to pass through first reading. Speaker 1 Motion to pass the item through first reading has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Canual. Is

there discussion? There isn't. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Speaker 2 the committee on ordinances and legislation at a meeting held on May 6 2026 voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying communication be granted leave to withdraw with council Pereira absent not

voting this is a communication from a city resident regarding parking ticket appeal process Speaker 1 motion to give the item leave to withdraw has been made by councillor Raposo seconded by councillor Peckham the discussion on it councillor City Councilor Raposo. Through you to the Secretary. Speaker 11 Was

a letter sent to the resident regarding this whole situation? Because I know she wasn't at that meeting. Was she notified of the final decision of the committee? Speaker 1 They're happy to check with the existing clerk of committees? That'd be great. And if so, could you still provide

that necessary communication? Noted. I yield. Motion to grant the item leave to what draw has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The Committee on Ordinances and at a meeting held on May 6, 2026. Voted

unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be granted leave to withdraw with Councilor Pereira absent and not voting. This is a proposed ordinance requiring City Council approval of certain employment contract obligations. Speaker 1 Motion to grant the item leave to withdraw has been made by Councilor Raposo,

seconded by Councilor Canual. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed, the ayes have it. Speaker 2 The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on May 6, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying resolution be adopted with Council Pereira absent and not voting.

Mr. President, with your permission, I'd like to read the resolution. Speaker 1 Yes, please do, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 This is a resolution making a recommendation that the council seat outside legal council. Whereas the Committee on Ordinances and Legislation has met with Corporation Council and received and discussed

a legal determination from a judge on the city council's authority to confirm reappointments, jurisdiction to investigate city departments, and authority to hire outside agencies to assist with investigations. Speaker 16 Motion to adopt. Speaker 1 Motion to adopt has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peck. Of

discussion, I'd like to recognize the chair of the Ordinance Committee first to highlight this. Constance City Day, Councillor Raposo. Speaker 11 I think, you know, in Ordinance Committee, we've had this lengthy discussion, a few meetings into it. So I think at this point, the resolution speaks for itself,

and we'll move forward from there. Thank you. Speaker 1 Councilor in seat 7, Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 Who's going to pay for this is my question. I wasn't at the ordinance committee meeting, so who's going to foot the bill on this? Do we know where we're going to

get the money from? Speaker 1 Councilor, did you guys have that discussion? You did not. Councilor in seat 1, your point of information? Point of information, the city. Speaker 7 City? Speaker 1 Yeah, city. Speaker 7 Oh, then when we know that we're going to get the money,

we'll vote on this. If we know we're going to get the money. Speaker 1 Well, it's not in our budget, so we're going to have to debate that. We're going to have to discuss it because it's in the budget that was presented to us tonight. It is not

in our budget. We do have an expense line in the city council budget that we could use at our will. Obviously, there's an audit attached to it, but there is not a line item for legal. So it's something we're going to have to advocate for if it's the

will of the council. Speaker 7 Last time you were president and we got, I think it was KP Law, if I'm not mistaken, We got $40,000 from the legal department's budget. That didn't last long. I guess these attorneys get paid good money. I don't know. I'd like to

know where we're going to pay for this before I vote on it. With that, I yield roll call, please. Speaker 1 Thank you. If there's other counselors who'd like to speak on it, Councilman C1, Councilman Dean? Oh, no. No? You don't want to speak? Speaker 13 I guess,

sure, you gave me the spotlight. I'll use it. So in terms of where we're going to pay for it, I mean, you know, the best part about this time of year is that the budget is coming back before us and we'll be having a number of budget hearings

and we can have those conversations. We've got audits. We have a corporation counsel who has told us he's our attorney, but he failed to tell me what the process was. And you can ask my colleagues on the ordinance committee. I've asked a number of times what the process

is for me to pursue legal action when the committee or the council disagrees with what is being said by corporation councils. And he says he represents us and he couldn't tell me what that process was. So the only other process is to get outside legal counsel. I can

tell you that he's also brought up the fact that there were attorneys that were discussed and I guess counselors on this, unless counsel has asked for legal opinions that was brought up at the subcommittee and that those attorneys happen to give the same response and believe or agree

with the opinion that Corporation Counsel has stated and then when pressed, you know, it was a little misleading because we were led to believe that it was outside legal counsel and then we were told it was Matt Thomas who works for the city. So I don't know how

that's any different, but I can tell you that I happened to have a conversation with a municipal attorney last night, and I did have this conversation, and they don't disagree with me. In fact, when we start talking about appointments and reappointments, they laughed at the fact that the

term of the contract does not expire at the end of the term of the contract, and the employee has property rights. They laughed at that opinion. There was a number of other opinions that they agreed with and said, how does anybody come up with that legal opinion on

that? So I still maintain that the opinions that we have gotten from Corporation Council on the issues that stand before us, this is the only municipality that interprets it that way. So I think it's about time that we move forward, and we just once and for all let

a judge make the determination as to whether or not we have the authority for the items that we listed or we don't have the authority to do so, and then we can put this to rest, and then we can move on with city business. If it's in our

favor, then we're going to continue to expect that if it's appointments or reappointments, that they come back before us. We just had a number of reappointments before us, but we just don't have them on department heads. It doesn't make any sense to me. Same section of the charter,

no separation. But, again, we can continue to go on this. But at the end of the day, the charter was voted on by the residents of the voters of Fall River. We need to uphold it. There's a discrepancy. He doesn't think that there's a disagreement or it's clear.

I think it's ambiguous, or I think it's clear on my side. He sees it a different way, but I think we just need to move forward, and we can advocate through the budget process to get money. With that, I yield. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor. And C2, Councilor

Kamara. Speaker 15 Yeah, I just got a couple of questions, if I could, Mr. President, through you to the Chair of the Audence Committee. It says be a result that City Council pursue legal action to receive a legal determination from the judge. What type of legal action are

we going to pursue? Speaker 11 Councilman C.D. So essentially it's a clarification. I think I'll speak for myself and my colleagues can jump in as well. But essentially if there's a disagreement on the interpretation of the charter, there needs to be a third party that determines what that

interpretation is. I think I can make an argument for precedent being set when somebody challenges the city charter and its interpretation of how it's applied. And that's the only way from a legislative stance you can get a clarification on how it's interpreted. Speaker 15 My question is, how

do we get to the judge? What kind of legal action? What's the lawsuit going to be? Speaker 11 Well, I think that, and I'll defer to Counsel Kadeem on this, too, because this was part of that lengthy discussion of Corporation Counsel Rumsey is the city's attorney who represents

the city. We are part of the city in this case. But that's where it kind of got a little ambiguous as far as how that operates next. So if it's him who represents the city council going to court to get a clarification on the charter or if it's

outside legal to then determine that. That's what we're trying to figure out. And, again, to Council of Kadeem's point, I think that's where the answer wasn't given. I get what you want to do. Speaker 15 I just don't understand how we get there. We're going to pursue legal

action. I'm just curious, what are we going to say? Hey, Your Honor, going to give us your opinion on whether we can do this in the file suit? Speaker 1 We're going to have to hire an attorney as a city council to represent us on these items. Speaker

15 And then we're going to take the city to court? Speaker 1 We are. We're going to the city council. Speaker 15 So what's the action? What is the court case? What are we going to sue them over? Speaker 1 The fact that we can't hire a lawyer?

No, no, no. It's the city council's ordinance committee that suggested to the city council that we want to pursue legal action against the city, essentially the administration. Speaker 15 So the city council is going to sue the city? Speaker 1 If you want to call it sue the

city. Legal action is a lawsuit. We're going to ask for a determination on appointments and jurisdiction on if the city council can investigate city departments. That's it. That's what this resolution says. Speaker 15 But you're going to have to formulate a case as to why it's illegal. Speaker

1 Of course, we'd have to hire an attorney for that, which will help us with that. None of us are lawyers. Speaker 15 But how can we hire an attorney until we can't hire an attorney? Speaker 1 Well, that's what we're going to have to work for. Speaker

15 You're going to be asking a judge to make a determination whether we can hire an attorney, but the only way you can get in front of the judge is if you hire an attorney to get us there. Speaker 1 Counselor, just to be clear, the ordinance before

us says that we are going to pursue a legal action to receive a legal determination from a judge. Correct. Speaker 15 So I want to know what kind of legal action we're pursuing. Speaker 1 We are going to have to first off hire an attorney and they'll give

us that. Speaker 15 And he's going to tell us what kind of legal action? He or she, yes. Point of info. So I'm just curious though. We have conversations with attorneys and we can't say we're going to take the city to court over this issue and this is

what, Because the judge is not going to make a determination unless there's a suit. Speaker 12 Point of clarification, if we're taking them to court, right, it would be in violation of the city charter, which the city can't violate in general, so we'd get the opinion of attorney.

Speaker 1 There'll be a plaintiff and there'll be a defendant, and the judge will make a rule. Speaker 15 So our action here. Speaker 1 Hold on. Speaker 15 You guys just contradicted each other, right? He said we can't, and you said we can't. Speaker 1 No, I'm

going to make it clear. If we go to court, we're going to have a plaintiff and a defendant. And we are going to then, the city council will then decide whether the city council will hire a lawyer who is going to represent us. I'm correct. I wasn't at

the ordinance committee meeting. To then give us a legal determination from an ambiguous charter on these two specific items. Speaker 15 So I didn't quite hear you at first. You said there's going to be a plaintiff and a defendant? Speaker 1 Right. That's what usually happens. You're a

plaintiff. Speaker 15 The city council? Speaker 1 That's correct. Speaker 15 And the defendant is the city? Speaker 1 Correct. Because there's a difference. Speaker 15 So like I said, we're going to sue the city. Speaker 1 Correct. Yeah, you can say that. Speaker 15 That's what it

is. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm reading here. Speaker 1 That's correct. Speaker 15 We're pursuing legal action. Speaker 1 That is the will of the ordinance committee. Speaker 15 And then the judge is going to just render his opinion. Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 15 I've

never seen that before. Speaker 1 You've never seen a judge render an opinion? Speaker 15 I've heard the judge make a ruling on what's going on, not just let me give you an opinion. I don't know. Speaker 1 Well, it would be a written, we would ask for

a written opinion. Consulant seat two, you have the floor. Yes. Consulant seat two has the floor. I'm sorry. Speaker 15 Okay. I've never seen this before. I have since the first day I got elected to this position always been opposed to the corporation, to city council having their

own attorney. I voted against every city council that ever wanted to have. And it's been done in the past where they've said, hey, we need to get our own attorney. Every time the council has a disagreement over something with the administration or the legal opinion comes down, and

I've disagreed with Skip Torres when he was representing We were doing different things with the stormwater fees and when he first introduced those and he said they were illegal. We didn't get an attorney. We just voted against, took action and voted against what they were saying. And that's

always been my argument. The city council doesn't need a legal opinion that's different from another legal opinion to help to make a decision. We can make that decision on our own. We can get our own legal opinions. We don't need to hire someone to give us a legal

opinion. Because I might not like the first legal opinion that we're getting from the corporation council. I might not like the second illegal opinion we're getting from. So what do I do? go out and hire another attorney? And who's going to pay for that? The taxpayers? Because I

do have a right to an attorney. I don't understand. It can get crazy. I don't see how this is going to accomplish anything and I'm just, I don't know. It's a truck you want. I'll yield now till my college can convince me why this is a good idea,

but I don't see it. Thank you, Speaker 1 Councillor. Councillor in seat seven, Councillor Pereira. Speaker 7 Well, there's two things that they want to check on with a judge. One is the confirming of reappointments, which is the reappointments like boards and commissions that we do. But when

we had Madeline Coelho as HR, she was the only one that came down when her contract was up for renewal. And I believe it was Councilor Gadeem that put in a resolution that she not be the only one that come down. Either they all come down or nobody

come down. So now nobody comes down. It's handled by the mayor. So now we're going to want to do that. and to investigate city departments with the authority to hire outside agencies to assist in investigations. What are we now? The investigators? You're going to be investigating departments? No

wonder you've got people leaving. Come on, some department heads don't even want to come down here. Come on. That's not our role. I was an investigator. That was my role. Right here, being an investigator is not my role. it's legislative I'm not going to vote for this and

you know what I'm gonna do what Michelle did I'm going to object unless you get something else out because Speaker 15 this makes no sense this is crazy I agree move the question motion to move the Speaker 1 question motion to move the question hold on motion to

move the question has been made by Councillor Camara seconded by Councillor Hart there's a roll call on Speaker 2 moving question on moving the question Councillor Skadeen no Camara yes Canual? No. Dion? No. Hart? Yes. Peckham? No. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? No. President Ponte? No. Speaker 1 Counselor in

seat 6, Counselor Peckham. All right, just for clarification, what do we have a charter for? Speaker 12 City Clerk, could you tell me what we have a charter for? What would be the definition of the charter? If I could, to you, Council President, if I could just ask

the clerk, is there any legality, is there any penalties for violating the city charter? Because ultimately, if there are, we would need a judge's opinion as to whether or not there was a violation. Correct? Speaker 1 Madam Clerk? Speaker 2 That would be a question for Corporation Counsel.

Speaker 1 Yeah, he's not here. Which is not here. Speaker 12 So the way I'm looking at this is like a constitution, like a charter, like anything else, something's put into play, voted on by the people, and that's a set law, just like ordinances within the city. so

if the administration and the city council don't see eye to eye on a issue within the charter like I said before it has got to be some type of penalty for the violation we can't just keep quiet I just heard up here how this is all outrageous we

get backed into a corner on every single thing we do now when do we put our foot down it's a question I have I'm looking at a letter right now right here from the mayor's office telling us that the post investigation is complete well I'll ask you council

president we had the conversation with me and you, right, and Councilor Dion, and you said that this was talked about with the mayor's office and we were gonna go forward by sending this to post, right? Did I not say that I was not okay with it unless I

got to speak to post directly? You were. Fantastic. I never spoke to him. So how did this happen? I'm gonna tell you how it happened because the mayor's office sent to post what they wanted them to review. They didn't send them what they didn't want them to look

at, they sent them what they wanted them to at, accompanied by, I guess, a hit piece against you, right? That's correct. Yeah, fantastic. So, again, I'm at a point, we're talking about a corporation at Rumsey. I like him personally, but he's about as useless to me as the

Attorney General. Listen, I have the floor. At the end of the day, we have to start holding people accountable. This right here is BS, right? How do you complete an investigation? Who is Nick? Is he in there? How do you complete an investigation at all from the city

level, all the post level and not talk to the city council that filed the resolution. How does that happen? I had my own issues. I had my own issue in that thing. The chief of police leaving, right, did not rectify my problems because I could care less if

it was her, if it was you, or if it was Chelsea. It doesn't matter to me. I had my questions, they were never answered. And ultimately, it all comes down to the city charter and I would like a judge to tell me whether or not I had the

right to have those questions and B can continue to pursue the answers to my questions because just because this letter landed on my desk doesn't mean I'm stopping. So I will entertain the next avenue as to getting my answers for this resolution that it filed into this investigation.

So I'm not happy with it. I do think that this through ordinance is extremely necessary. So with that, I yield. Thank you. Speaker 1 Thank you, Consular. Consular in seat eight, Consular Raposo. Speaker 11 Yeah, and I guess the only thing I'm going to say at this point

is that it's not a getting an additional legal opinion. You have to take it to a judge to determine the interpretation of law. So if you as a legislative branch disagrees the way it's written or even more so how it's interpreted, it has to be clarified by a

judge what that actually is. Because there's no other avenue. There's no state agency that can mediate a disagreement on the ruling of law. A judge has to do that. So it's less about getting an attorney to give an opinion we want. It's going to a judge to say,

here's the charter. What is the true interpretation at that level? That's what we're asking for. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilor. In seat four, Council Vice President DeHaan. Speaker 6 Yeah, the only thing I was going to say is, for me, I look at it that we could get

40 opinions. We could get 20 on this side and 20 on that side, and theoretically none of them mean anything. So the only person who can make a judgment, something legal and binding, is a judge. It seems like every time there's a disagreement as to what the charter

states, what it reads, what was meant, what it's supposed to be, It's always, the city council just gets blown off, blown off, and everything goes and everything goes. Nothing changes, nothing happens. At some point, at some point, we just can't stay deadlocked. We can't continue to argue. We

can't continue to discuss this time and time and time again, knowing we're going to get nowhere. So the only person who can make a definitive call, a definitive judgment, something that's legal and binding, is a judge. And that's what we need, just like when the council in the

past, I wasn't on the city council yet, took Mayor Jaisal Correa to court over the recall or whatever it was. The judge made the judgment according to the charter. That's what we're looking for. Tell us what the charter states. Tell us who has what authority. who doesn't who's

overstepping who isn't very simple very simple but it's ridiculous that we have to go to this length to get an answer with that i yield council thank you constant seat three Speaker 3 council annual thank you i think i just want to for this council to reach the

point that we have the same tools and resources that the school committee has the school committee has an attorney president at each meeting and i think that we should have one at each meeting and generally you we don't have that at least not for a full meeting so

i'd like to get to the point where we can call one down as questions come up to get that clarification just as the school department and school committee has that currently as far as moving this forward i think to my councilor seat too i think the answer would

be a declaratory judgment is what we're you know we'll be seeking because in this short time i've been here this keeps coming up it's coming up in many different ways i've sat in this chamber prior to being sworn in and it's come up many different times i think

this is going to continue to come up until a judge rules. So with that I yield. Speaker 1 Thank you, Councilman. To Councilor Kamara. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just a little Speaker 15 confused too. We got this notification that my colleague brought up on Post. What was

the outcome of that investigation? Speaker 1 What were the findings? I don't know. You don't know? Nope. I know what you know which is right there. It was opened and closed. Speaker 15 So no one notified you and told Speaker 1 you what the outcome? I got the

same letter that you got. And I didn't get any phone calls from Post either. No one knows? Speaker 15 Point of information. Speaker 12 I tried to call Post and find out because I obviously had some questions how they hadn't talked to me, and I filed a resolution

and had that conversation with Council President. So no one knows what the outcome was of this investigation? They told me they could not inform me because my name wasn't on there, on the report itself. Speaker 15 All right. And another thing, though, I'm not sure. I know you're

upset that you didn't get interviewed because you filed a resolution, but I don't know why Post would not know if that's why they would care about anyone's resolution filing something about doing an investigation because if they did an investigation, I don't know why they would have to interview

people who were not involved in whatever criminal activities they believed was going on. So I don't know. I wouldn't get upset if they didn't interview me in the file. Speaker 12 May I answer that? Speaker 15 Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 12 Yes. So I had a problem because I

filed the resolution with something that I noticed on the affidavit that was wrong, that I felt was wrong. And it was mentioned in the fall of a reporter. But you're not going to look at that. You're not going to get what the mayor's office sent them and see

what my intentions for the resolution were, like my reasoning for it, by just reading it without speaking to me. So that report come out, I had an issue with the word undercover in the affidavit, okay? Because I have questions as to whether or not he was and whether

or not that word was stretched to obtain the search warrant. I don't think he was, that's just my opinion. So I want a clarification on that. In front of Council Kadim and President Ponte, Corporation Council asked me, what, seven weeks ago now, eight weeks ago? counselor if I

can get you that information if I can prove to you that he was undercover will you drop this right now I said yes the clock's still ticking so I'm just saying there are questions to this that can't be answered by post that I would really like to have

answers for so where does it go from here I've actually asked should I call the mass state police and have them look into it because I do have an issue with it that has not been rectified Constance E2 Speaker 15 I get confused by the minute with this

stuff I don't know maybe it's just I don't understand they did an investigation we were notified that the investigation completed yet no one knows were the people found guilty, not guilty, were they clear the charges, were they not clear the charges are they being penalized, did they go

out on administrative leave, did we ever do that, I know a council voted to do that, did they end up getting out, I don't even, I never asked the chief if they went out on administrative leave or not but maybe we're going to have to maybe we should

send a letter to find out what the outcome of the investigation was can we do that, is that Is that public information or not? I would think it would be. Let us know what the outcome of an investigation is. Whether people are criminally being accounted for or held

accountable or charged or penalized, fined. I mean, we have nothing. I don't understand that. And nobody here knows. Speaker 1 I don't. Speaker 15 What about you? Speaker 1 Thank you. Speaker 15 Councilman C1. I'm ready to vote. Speaker 13 Thank you, Mr. President. So I do have

to agree with some of my colleagues. I mean, this just needs to come to an end. So statements that this is not why we're here, I would argue, the complete opposite. I mean, if you just go to Article 2 of the city charter under legislation, which gives us

the authority as to why we are here, every step of the way that authority is being taken away from us. So the court putting together a case, we've got a number of contracts that have been reappointed. Individuals have been reappointed without the confirmation of the city council. We

just had reappointments on committees, right, boards and committees, but not on department heads. So at the end of the day, whether you agree with it or not, it is in the charter. That is our authority. So if folks want to object to it, not want to move forward,

not want to spend any money and forego all of our authority, then so be it. I, for one, don't want to do this. This is not unique. Jaisal Correa was mentioned. In 2025, the City Council of New Befford took Mayor John Mitchell to court, seeking declaration that the

mayor must seek city council approval for the police chief appointment. somewhat similar to ours. Springfield City Council 2020 to 2022. The city council sued the mayor over the authority to create a civilian police commission, a case that reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Interesting. The Boston City Council

2022 to 2023. The council was involved in legal action concerning a redistricting plan, which was later settled out of court again. So we can sit here. There's a number. We can go down Article 2. We've got letter after letter that basically says that we don't have the jurisdiction.

Now, whether or not you want to say that we have investigative rights or not, and that should be our role, it's highlighted in Article 2. It says that the city council has the authority to do investigations, has the authority, and corporation council says no. So whether we object,

and then the next time this comes back before us, I would hope that the council supports this and moves this on and moves it forward once and for all, Because the legal opinions that are coming down are becoming more and more ridiculous. And I don't know how else

to say it. They are bad. You can't say them with a straight face. There's not an argument that can be made. They do not make any sense. So we can continue to just accept it and just put our head in the sand and say, okay, Corporation Council said

it was okay. That's what it is. We just got to follow them. Okay, great, great. Let's just get the rubber stamps. You know what? instead of ordering city council, let's get all stamps. We don't take the microphones away and just have the clerk come back with the papers

and we'll just stamp it approved, approved, approved. And we'll be out of here in two minutes if that's what we want to do. I'm okay with that. If that's what the council wants to do, then fine. But I say we go to court, we take the action, and

I'd be willing to bet that we're going to prevail. And with that, I yield. Speaker 1 Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this item? Speaker 15 Nope. Roll call. Speaker 1 Harry Nunn. On the adoption. Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. Speaker 2 On

adopting the resolution, Councilor Cadime? Yes. Kamara? No. Canual? Speaker 3 Yes. Speaker 2 Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 Herrera? Object. Speaker 1 Any other objections? Harry Nunn. Next order of business. Speaker 13 what's the ruling on the objections again Speaker 6 with one

objection it can go to a special meeting or the next scheduled city council meeting two objections it has to go to the regularly scheduled city council meeting that is correct Speaker 1 and that's why I ask if there's any other objections thank you that's in our charter next

order of business Speaker 16 Madam Clerk. Item 12 is a proposed ordinance Speaker 15 for miscellaneous traffic. Does the charter say we go by Robert Rules? Cushing's. Cushing's. I don't know it's Cushing's, but I'm asking if it's Robert's or Cushing's. Is it Cushing's as well? Speaker 1 I

don't know, but I'm ready to go to the next order of business. Speaker 15 It's supposed to go by Robert Rules. Speaker 11 Motion to pass for second reading Speaker 1 and enrollment? I didn't hear the clerk introduce the item. There was too many people talking. Item 12.

Madam Clerk. Item 12 Speaker 2 is a proposed ordinance for second reading and enrollment for miscellaneous traffic. Speaker 1 Motion so made. Motion to pass through second reading and enrollment has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

The ayes have it. Speaker 2 Item 13 is also a proposed ordinance for second reading and enrollment as amended. This is the ordinance authorizing the City Council to hire outside legal counsel. The ordinance was forwarded to Corporation for approval and the Corporation Council did return the ordinance where

they cannot approve notation on the Speaker 1 ordinance. And just to be clear there was no letter he just crossed it out right? An initial and said not approve in the initial. Correct. Motion to pass the item through second reading and enrollment as amended has been made by

Councilor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councilor Can you roll call? Speaker 2 Councilor Skidim yes Kamara Speaker 3 no Speaker 2 Canual Speaker 3 yes Speaker 2 Dion yes Hart Speaker 3 no Speaker 2 Peckham yes no Pereira no Raposo yes President Ponte Speaker 1 yes Speaker 2 motion

carries six yays three nays Speaker 13 Mr. President I'd like to make a motion meeting to I'll second that that was handles motion it I would suggest that Speaker 1 it would be Thursday this week this Thursday most motion to call an emergency meeting this Thursday to discuss

the objection second made has been made by well I'll make the motion first let's just let me enter I hear the motion I heard a motion to have a emergency meeting on Thursday of this week that has been made by Council of Kadeem seconded by Council of Peckham

as their Councilman C2. Speaker 15 So this motion is the first time it comes before us? Speaker 1 Nope. This one has already been passed through us before. The item that was before us that was objected to by our colleague, the Councilor is asking me to call a

special meeting on Thursday. Speaker 15 Please make a motion to call a special meeting, so that's the first time I'm here to know that. Speaker 13 That's why I asked what the ruling was, and I waited, and there was no other objection. There wasn't a motion to reconsider.

That's correct. There was no other objection. We can have a special meeting. I waited specifically. Speaker 1 And he asked for the point of clarification. Speaker 15 So I can't object to it? Speaker 1 Not at this point. Speaker 7 You can have a motion to reconsider. Speaker

1 If you're on the prevailing side of that, you can. Okay. Speaker 15 And I'm not going to reconsider. Speaker 13 How can you have a motion to reconsider? Speaker 15 I didn't say that. She said that. Speaker 1 Yeah. You have the floor if you can. Speaker

15 Yeah, I'm good. I do. Speaker 1 Anything further? There's a motion on the floor right now to have a special meeting on Thursday. Speaker 15 What time? Speaker 1 On the item that is objected, which would be. Speaker 15 Do we have a time yet? Speaker 1

Would you like to make that party a motion at 6 o'clock p.m. Eastern Standard Time? So moved. Has been made by Councillor Kadeem. Is there a second? There is a second by Councilor Peckham. Hearing no further discussion. Speaker 15 Eastern Standard or 5 o'clock Central? Speaker 1 Eastern

Standard. Okay. Roll call on the meeting. Speaker 2 We're doing it at 6. Speaker 1 6 o'clock. That's the motion on the floor. Speaker 2 Mr. President, the meeting will not meet the open meeting law requirement, the 48-hour posting. Speaker 13 Do it Friday night. Sure. Speaker 1

6 o'clock on Friday. Speaker 13 That's all I can. We can do Monday. Speaker 1 What is the will of the Council? Monday? I'm not making the clerks come in on Friday Speaker 7 I can't do Friday Speaker 13 I'm not making them stay on a Friday I'm

already hated I don't want the clerks to hate me Speaker 12 I think it's important enough to hear it on Friday Speaker 6 What is the will? Speaker 1 Let's stop all the conversation Monday, 6 o'clock Speaker 15 I'm going to do the next scheduled regular meeting That

makes sense What's the urgency? We're going to have a room before then? What's the crisis? What is it? It's supposed to be for a crisis. Not because we want to get this done right away in two days. Speaker 13 No, that's what the charter says. Speaker 12 The

charter says we're trying to avoid any more nefarious ruins by the Corporation Council. Speaker 1 All right, so let's stop the discussion. We have an item before us right now. Is there any discussion, Constance? Speaker 15 So what is the crisis to get this done in two days

before the open meeting law violation that we're going to go to Friday, Saturday? Why can't we wait two weeks? What difference does it make? We got a court case coming up? Speaker 1 It's the will of the council. Speaker 13 The motion has been made and seconded. Through

you, Mr. President. The charter allows an objection. Speaker 15 I'm not saying it doesn't allow it, but a special meeting is supposed to be of an urgent need. I don't see an urgent need. Speaker 13 But there was an objection that was made, and then the charter says

if there's an objection, we can have a special meeting. Speaker 15 Do I still have the floor? Thank you. I understand the charter and no second objection to go to the next meeting. I get it all. My question is, for special meetings, you're supposed to have an urgent

need, something that is critical and crucial to the detriment of this community. Let's have a special meeting. Usually it's when someone's license is going to expire for the deadline and the council is not going to meet for two weeks, three weeks, but the guy's got a business and

his license and permit is going to expire, so we need to renew those. Different things of urgency to help someone in the city. I don't see the urgency to do this before the next household meeting, two weeks. I don't see anything. Thank you. Speaker 1 I don't necessarily

agree with what you're saying. We don't need an emergency to call a special meeting. There's nowhere, anywhere that I can find that a special meeting can be called by a chair of a committee at any point for whatever reason. It does not need to be an emergency. So

I'm not sure if you're accurate on that. With that being said, I cannot do Monday, so Tuesday would be much better for me. If we can do next Tuesday, I would appreciate that. I cannot be here on Monday. Councilman, seat six, Councilor Feckham. Speaker 12 I was just

going to clarify. I would think that the objection itself would sustain the special meeting, not the purpose of the meeting itself, just the objection. That's what the charter says. Tuesday. Tuesday's fine. Speaker 1 Motion has been made. Anything further for discussion? Motion to call special meeting on Tuesday,

the 19th. Has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Roll call. Speaker 2 What time? Speaker 1 Six o'clock. Speaker 2 Six. On the scheduling of the, I'm sorry, could you repeat the motion? Speaker 1 The motion on the floor is to schedule a special meeting

to discuss the objection that has been raised this evening for next Tuesday, which I believe is May 19th at 6 o'clock Eastern Standard Time. That has been made and seconded. Speaker 2 So a motion made by Councilor Peckham. Seconded by Councilor Peckham. Speaker 1 That is correct. Councilor

in seat three has his hand raised. Councilor Kenuel. Speaker 3 I'd just like to point out that we had a whole list of items that were objected to, and we didn't call a special meeting for those. I don't see, it's not an emergency to my colleague in seat

twos, but I don't see the urgency around this at this time. I don't see why this can't wait until the next meeting. I agree. There you go. Call us, you guys. Speaker 13 Can I just? Speaker 1 Count in seat one. Speaker 13 We didn't call a special

because nobody said, hey, can we have a special meeting? I objected to all those items. You could have clearly said, because remember when you were saying that I was wasting taxpayer money and that we need to get the dogs and we need to do all this stuff. You

could have called a special meeting and got everything, all the funding that we were all concerned about and everything like that. In two days, you chose not to do that. Not my problem. I follow the rules. You give me the rules of the playbook. I'm playing by the

rules. So we have the – I made a motion. If you don't want to vote for it, then don't vote for it. But if you want to go back and say why we didn't do it last time, it's because no other counselor chose to have a special meeting.

You had that authority, that right. You chose not to. Don't blame me for playing the game. Speaker 1 I yield hearing no further discussion roll call on the special meeting for Tuesday we've exhausted this discussion enough Speaker 2 Councilor Skadeen Speaker 1 yes Speaker 2 Kamara no Canual

no Dion yes Hart no Peckham yes Pereira no Raposo yes President Ponty yes motion carries 5 yays 4 nays Speaker 1 so the motion current be forced now that we've done that is to pass the item for second reading and enrollment. That has been read already into the

record, Madam Clerk, and already passed 6-3, correct? Yes, the next item is item 14. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. Speaker 2 Item 14 is a resolution, whereas in a recent discussion regarding turnout gear for the Fall River Fire Department, it was discussed that only 100 sets

of gear would be purchased in the next fiscal year for the capital improvement plan, and whereas the current turnout gear used by our firefighters runs the risk of exposing them to harmful chemicals that are linked to various cancers, and whereas the city has an opportunity to prioritize the

purchase of these new sets of gear for the entire fire department to ensure that they are per and... I can't pronounce that word, my apologies. That they are free of different substances? Yeah, those substances. As opposed to dividing the purchase over the next two years, and whereas it

is critical that all our firefighters are protected while serving our community. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the city council send a letter to the administration requesting the amendment of the capital improvement plan to reflect the purchase of 200 sets of PFAS free turnout gear, and that the

City Council further requests that the administration send down a financial appropriation to support this and be a further resolve that the Committee on Public Safety meet to discuss in more detail the issues revolving around turnout gear and the harmful effects on our public safety officials. Speaker 16 Motion.

Speaker 1 Motion is so made. Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by Councilor Reposo. Seconded by Councilor Peck of discussion, the sponsor of the resolution, Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Reposo. Speaker 11 Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to give credit to my colleagues, Canuel

and Peckham, as well. It was actually my intention to do this through the committee, but it didn't fall that way, so I just want to give them credit for working with me on this as well. But I think the discussion is pretty self-explanatory. I think members of the

full council expressed that it kind of makes more sense to outfit everybody than just 100 now, 100 later. But the way I obviously wanted this written was two parts. One, to request the 200 sets get done in the capital improvement plan in this coming year, but also to

have a further discussion with our Committee on Public Safety, particularly our fire chief for that matter, about some of these things going forward. So it's kind of a two-pronged approach, but I think everyone would agree that protecting our firefighters is critical here. So that's the purpose of the

resolution. Speaker 1 Thank you. Council, anything further on the item? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 15 Just want to say I don't blame the Madam Clerk at all for not being able to pronounce that word. I don't think anyone in

this building can pronounce it. Speaker 2 I wouldn't even try. I'm with you. Speaker 1 Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 Item 15 is a citation for Corbishop James A. Root on his ordination on May 2, 2026 at the St. Anthony of the Desert Maronite Church. Speaker 16 I would

like to accept in place. Motion accepts in place on file. Speaker 1 Has been made by Council of Peckham, seconded by Council of Kamara. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to make. Take 16 through 22 together. Speaker 6 Second. Speaker

1 Motion to take items 16 through 22 together has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion on taking them together? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 15 Adopt item 16 through 22. Speaker 1 Motion

to adopt after reading has been made by Councillor Camara, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, if you could just read those for the record, please. Speaker 2 Okay. Item 16 is a

curve removal for Robert Caffori, 909 High Street Investment Trust, for the removal of 18 feet of curving for an opening total of 32 feet and 909 High Street. Item 17, Dillon's Estate LLC, 1175 State Road in Westport, for the removal of 16 feet of curving for an opening

total of 36 feet and 8 inches and 940 South Main Street and 279 Osborne Street. Item 18 is for a joint-owned poll location, Mass Electric Company, DBA National Grid, and Verizon New England, Inc. Petitioning for County Street, one new jointly-owned poll location. Item 19, requests from the same

companies for King Street, also one new jointly-owned poll location. Item 20 is for one new jointly-owned poll location, Mount Hope Avenue. Item 21, one new jointly owned pole location at Rodman Street. And item 22, one new jointly owned pole location on Trip Street. These last three also made

the petitions were received from the Massachusetts Electric Company, TVA National Grid, and Verizon New England, Inc. Speaker 1 Thank you, Madam Clerk. You're welcome. Speaker 2 Item 23 is the police chief's report on licenses. Speaker 1 Motion to adopt the police chief's report. Motion to adopt the place

on file. Seconded by counsel, a annual discussion. hearing none all those in favor aye opposed the ayes have it item 24 auto body shop license renewals motion to adopt motion to adopt the auto license renew auto body license shop renewals has been made by council vice president dion

seconded by council of peckham as their discussion hearing Speaker 2 none all those in favor aye opposed the ayes have it and those licenses are for antonio f pinto dba Pintos Auto Repair and Sales Inc. located at 2447 South Main Street and Alexander Medeiros DBA Al Pivas Auto

Repair and Body Shop located at 151 Cove Street. Item 25 are Auto Repair Shop License Renewals. Motion to adopt. Speaker 1 The Auto Repair Shop License Renewal has been made by Council of Peckham seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. After reading, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 And those licenses are for Alexander Medeiros, DBA, Alpivis Auto Repair and Body Shop, located at 151 Cove Street, and Samas Celeb, Carlos, Inc., DBA, South End, Benzina, located at 2322 Southman Street. Item 26 are a number

of claims. Speaker 16 Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Speaker 1 Motion to refer the item to Corporation Council has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Hart. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 Item 27 is an invoice

for Roselly Clark and Associates for the audit engagement fee through July 31st, 2025. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. Motion to approve has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart. Discussion? Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo. Speaker 11 Just, Mr. President, to you, when are we discussing

the actual audit document? Speaker 1 Next meeting. Next meeting. Thank you. Councilor in seat 4, Councilor Vice President Deion. Speaker 6 That's what I was going to do, make a motion to refer to finance. Speaker 1 We actually have the audit in finance already. This is just a

law. I just wanted the council's approval to approve the pay the invoice. Speaker 6 No, I get that, but I just wanted to make sure it didn't slip by. It is stated in the charter that we have to have the joint meeting. And we have sent Speaker 1

invitations to Roselli and Clark to attend the meeting already, right? Speaker 2 Or we will? He has been invited. He's not available for May 26th, but he has advised that he is available for June 9th. Speaker 1 So it will not be on our Committee on Finance agenda

until June 9th. Motion to approve. The invoice has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart. Hearing no further discussions, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The A's have it. Speaker 2 Item 28 is a number of drain layer licenses. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. Motion to

approve. The drain layer licenses have been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item 29 from the table. Second. Motion to lift item 29 from the table has been made by Councilor

Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Is there a motion? Motion to adopt as amended. Motion to adopt the Community Preservation Act funds through the adoption of the appropriation order would be appropriate

first. You want to do the projects or do it all together? Speaker 11 We'll do the projects first. Speaker 1 We'll be doing the appropriation order first. So we have the appropriation order, Madam Clerk. Can you read into the record, please? Speaker 2 Yes, so we are in

receipt of an amended appropriation order from the City Auditor. Copies have been placed on your desks. We had ordered that the following fiscal year 2027 appropriations be provided through the Community Preservation Act, revenues and reserves under MGL Chapter 44B, Sections 427 in the aggregate amounting to $4,459,575.32 to

be appropriated as follows. Would you like me to go down each one? Under the Community Housing Section, Fall River Deaconess Home Exterior Work, in the amount of $100,000 funding sources annual revenue. Speaker 1 Madam Clerk actually we have the appropriation order before us and the first item is

you just introduced it. Is there a motion? Speaker 2 Motion on the floor was to adopt as amended. Speaker 1 Motion to adopt as amended has been made and seconded. Roll call. To be clear I think we're going to take, let's take a step back on this. It

is my understanding that we have an appropriation order to fund all of the projects. After that, then we will then approve to vote on the projects separately. Are you shaking your head? Is there Speaker 2 a reason? So the appropriation order and the list of projects are one

of the same. The item before you is the appropriation order. It does include a list of all the different projects. So if the council wishes, they could take each project line by line, line item by line item, or you Speaker 6 can vote for it as a whole.

Motion to take each project line by line. Motion Speaker 1 to take item each project line by line through the appropriation order has been made by Councillor Dion. Is there a second? Is there a second? Speaker 7 This just has the project. Is there a Speaker 1 second?

Hearing no second. Councilman C1, you're part of information. So Speaker 13 this, I mean this just has Speaker 7 It doesn't have the Speaker 13 Is this referencing the amounts that are going into open space, historic and community as well as the reserves and the administrative expenses? Speaker

2 Yes. The city audit took the appropriation that was before you at the last meeting, as well as the list that was provided by the CPC, and then combined it into this updated appropriation order that lists each of the projects as well as the specific amounts for each

of the projects. Speaker 7 This doesn't say it. Speaker 1 Constance C. Winn, you still have the floor. Speaker 13 Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just... That's okay. I'm not following. Speaker 2 The city auditor did let me know that the amounts, when you compare the two, may not

tie out evenly at first glance because the reserves are combined within the amounts, but they are in essence the same appropriation order. All of the projects have been funded as listed. All right. Speaker 13 So I see the administrative expenditure is $45,000. So then the open space outdoor

recreation. Where is that? The 810. so the 810 857 where do I see that appropriation I would defer those questions to the city Speaker 2 auditor or director of financial services I'm not well versed on all of these details Mr. President Councilor Speaker 13 so Speaker 6 I

believe Speaker 13 we should be doing the appropriations right as it's broken down in this I don't even know what yes that document so you got a dollar amount so we're appropriating forty five thousand dollars into the CPA administrative expenditures appropriating eight hundred ten thousand eight hundred and

fifty seven dollars into the open space outdoor recreation nine hundred four thousand seven hundred seventy one dollars into the historic um preservation and then community housing is a hundred and one thousand three hundred dollars and then housing reserve is $94,325 for the appropriation so that's the appropriation and

then we would take votes on the projects themselves I just don't understand why we keep including the projects with the appropriations the appropriations are separate if there was no projects before us we would have to appropriate the money Speaker 1 I agree Speaker 13 so take the projects

out we need to do the appropriation and it should be into those categories and we're required by law to put a minimum of 10% into those three categories and then we can appropriate the rest of the balances. That's what I was looking for and then a separate vote

would be all these individuals and then we can argue whether or not we want to take them individually or an omnibust vote on all of the items before us and that's fine but I think you've got to take the appropriations first because we could all vote no on

every single project. We still have to make an appropriation. I agree. What's before us doesn't do that. Speaker 1 That's correct. The appropriation order that's before us is incorrect. Again. Right now we're not going to be able to vote on it again. It needs to be corrected. Speaker

7 We're going to take a two-minute recess, please. Speaker 1 Two-minute recess. I'm going to go ahead and see this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 优优独播剧场——YoYo Television Series Exclusive Субтитры создавал DimaTorzok 다음 영상에서 만나요. Thank you. We're going to read the appropriation order to appropriate it, and

then we are going to vote on the projects. Is there any opposition to that? Good. Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 To appropriate it. So the motion on the floor originally was to adopt as amended, so would you like a motion to adopt the original appropriation? Speaker 1 Yeah, just

read that into the record, the appropriation, please, the amount. Speaker 2 So this is on the original appropriation order that was tabled at the last meeting. Order that the following fiscal year 2027 appropriations be provided through the Community Preservation Act, revenues and reserves under the MGL Chapter 44B,

Sections 427 in the aggregate, amounting to $4,459,575.32 to be appropriated as follows. voted that $1,956,253 be appropriated from the CPA fund FY27 annual revenues. For CPA administrative expenditures, $45,000. For CPA open space outdoor recreation projects, $810,857. For CPA Historic Resources Preservation Projects, $904,771. For CPA Community Housing Projects,

$101,300. For CPA Community Housing Reserves, $94,325. And that $2,503,322.32 be appropriated from CPA reserves and fund balance. For CPA open space outdoor recreation projects. From CPA fund balance reserves for open space outdoor recreation in the amount of $729,731.88. From CPA fund balance unreserved undesignated. $453,106.44. For CPA historic

resource preservation projects, from the CPA fund balance reserved for historic preservation, $960,821.01. From CPA fund balance unreserved, undesignated, $359,662.99. since. Speaker 11 Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Motion to approve has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there discussion? Councillor C1, Councillor Kadeem. So the

motion was Speaker 13 to appropriate and I just want to be clear. So I agree with the numbers that were read off. This does not include the projects because the last time that we had this it says projects right with it. It does not include the projects. This

is solely the appropriation going into these buckets. Speaker 1 That is correct. Solely the appropriation. Okay. And then we will have the project's discussion next. Speaker 2 Roll call. Speaker 1 Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. Speaker 2 On adopting the appropriation order, Councilor Skadeen? Speaker

1 Yes. Speaker 2 Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart? Yes. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Would you like me to, in terms of the votes on the projects, would you like me to follow the list that was provided by the CBC or, Speaker

1 I don't know which order you want me to take these in. Take it in the order. If you can take in the order of which, the best order you can from the, that you have in front of you, that the council has. Speaker 2 Okay, so I'm

going to follow the amended appropriation order just for purposes of the projects. Speaker 1 Very good. Speaker 2 So on voting for the projects, the first project is the Fall River Deaconess Home, exterior work, and the amount of $100,000. Speaker 1 Motion to approve or deny the project.

What is the will? One second. Do you need a copy, counselor? Speaker 15 Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Motion to approve has been made by counselor Kamara, seconded by counselor Hart. Is there discussion on the four of a deacons and home exterior work for $100,000? Hearing none, all

those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is, or the next item, previously approved deed restrictions in the amount of $1,300. Speaker 1 Motion to approve the project has been made under community housing. Has been made by who? Councilor Canual, seconded by

Councilor Hart. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 Community housing reserve, 10% to reserve in the amount of $94,321. Speaker 1 We already did that by the appropriation order. That's not a project. Speaker 2 Okay. Speaker 1 Next

order. Speaker 2 the Fall River Historical Society the roof rail window work etc in the amount of 580,000 735 Speaker 1 motion to approve has been made by Councilor Tamara seconded by Councilor Peckham discussion Harry none all those in favor opposed the ayes have it the next project

is the St. Ant's Church Speaker 2 shrine for roof work more mortar work in the amount of 125,000 motion to approve motion to Speaker 1 approve has been made by Council of Heart, seconded by Council of Peckham. Is there discussion? Harry, none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is the Waterfront Cultural District Historic Preservation Study in the amount of $28,750. Speaker 6 Motion to reject. Motion to Speaker 1 reject the project has been made by Councilor Dion. Is there a second? Speaker 7 What is that? Speaker

1 Harry, no second to the rejection. Is there a motion to approve? Second. Speaker 7 Can I hear what she said? Speaker 1 I'm sorry, hold on. Is your motion to second the rejection, Councilor? Motion has been made to reject the project has been made by Councilor Dion,

seconded by Councilor Kadeem. Discussion, Councilor in seat 7, Councilor Pereira. Speaker 7 What did she say? I didn't hear it. Speaker 1 She rejected the Waterfront Cultural District Historic Preservation Study. That was the project she rejected. Okay. That's the motion that has been made and seconded. All right.

Hearing no, Councilor in seat 4, Councilor Vice President Dion. Speaker 6 Yeah. The reason, so we know that Roger Williams did this, pretty much did this study free of charge. They're going to do a second half. They are identifying the historic assets. We were told that this also

would lead to economic development and tourism, to assisting with that. However, at a recent Committee on Economic Development and Tourism meeting, the committee voted to create a committee versus a tourism director to send to the city council. This committee will be able to address and evaluate what economic

development and tourism looks like moving forward. And there's always the potential, once you start naming things as historic, I don't know if all the people that own the properties down there were contacted, if they're all in agreement with it, if they want their properties designated. If they are

designated, is it going to limit what they can and can't do with their properties? I know it's only $28,000, but it's still $28,000 of taxpayer money that I think the in kinds that they're receiving, and then what this committee can do moving forward is sufficient for the needs.

And with that, I yield. Speaker 1 Any further discussion on the rejection? Motion to reject. Hearing no further discussions. Roll call on the rejection. Speaker 2 Councilor Cadime? Speaker 1 Yes. Of the project. Speaker 2 Kamara? Yes. Kanuel? Speaker 14 Yes. Speaker 2 Dion? Yes. Hart? Speaker 14

No. Speaker 2 Peckham? Speaker 12 Yes. Speaker 2 Pereira? No. Raposo? No. President Ponty? No. Motion carries 5-4. Speaker 1 Next project. Speaker 2 Eagle Event Center windows in the amount of $88,150. Motion to reject. Speaker 1 Motion to approve, I heard, or motion to reject. Motion to

reject has been made by Consular Dian. Do I hear a second? Hearing no second to the rejection. Motion to approve. Speaker 7 Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Has been made by Consular Pereira. Seconded by Consular Hart. Is there discussion? Consul in seat four, Council Vice President Dian. Speaker

6 Yeah, again, I'd just like to clarify why I'm voting the way I vote. In this, so this is a second bite at an apple from a private individual. Again, as I said at the last meeting, I don't think that's what the taxpayers signed on for when they

agreed to fund CPA funding. It says it includes off-site restoration for 70 units and on-site work for 36 units. Are those units referring to the actual windows? Is that referring to housing? I don't know what the term units is referring to. Speaker 3 Point of clarification, that is

referring to windows because prior to that it states 106 restoration and reclacing of 106 historic oak finished windows, which then breaks down the counts of 70 and 36. Speaker 11 Okay, thank you. Mr. President, motion to waive the rules. Speaker 1 To do what? Speaker 11 To invite

them down. Speaker 1 Two down. Speaker 6 I don't think we need to. Speaker 1 Motion to waive the rules has been made. Is there a second? Speaker 6 No. Speaker 1 Hearing no second. Madam Vice President, you still have a follow. Speaker 6 So anyways, like I

said, I mean, it's not, this isn't the first time at the table. And I think that, you know, helping somebody who buys a historic property initially, I think, is important. Because it is, you know, a serious undertaking. But once you've been helped, once it's yours, I just think

that people need to be responsible for what they own. And with that, I yield. Speaker 1 Any discussion, further discussion? Hearing none. Motion to approve the Eagle Event Center windows for 80, never mind, Eagle Event Center windows has been made and seconded. Roll call, please. Speaker 2 Councilor

Skidim? Speaker 13 Yes. Speaker 2 Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes. Dion? No. Hart? Speaker 14 Yes. Speaker 2 Peckham? Yes. Herrera? Yes. Lopozo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. The next project is the Historic Property Survey for the Bioreserve Area, Part 2, in the amount of $33,000. Speaker 1 No amount

needed, just a motion to approve. The Historic Property Survey for the Bioreserve Area has been made by Councillor Hart. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is the Chrysler Rock Tower Repair Phase 3

in the amount of $250,000. Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Motion to approve the project has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Hart. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The recreation windows, $406,470. Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Motion

to approve the recreation windows project. has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is the First Congregational Church exterior work in the amount of $309,150. Motion

to approve. Motion to approve. Speaker 1 The project has been made by Councillor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 next project is the Shane landing windows in the amount of $175,650

Speaker 1 motion to approve the project has been made by Councilor Hart is there a second to approving motion to approve the windows no second on the approval Speaker 6 motion to reject Speaker 1 motion to reject has been made by Councilor Dion is there a second Speaker

6 second Speaker 1 seconded by Councilor Canuel is there discussion Councilman C4 Council Vice President Dion Speaker 6 Yeah, on this one I would just like to say again, so the person came before us, told us they've owned this property for about 138 years. They have over 100

businesses that rent from them. I don't think the taxpayers should be paying to replace the windows. With that, I yield. Speaker 1 Anything further? Councilman, seat three, Councilor Canua. Speaker 3 Yeah, I think as I went back over the CPC meetings and the discussions that they had, I

think I was concerned, you know, this is floor number one of four floors. They said they'll be back for more, as well as they have a developer looking at the property. So this one I can't support. I yield. Speaker 1 Hearing the item to reject the Shane landing

windows, that has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion, roll call. Speaker 2 Councilor Cadime. Yes. Camara Yes Canual Yes Dion Yes Hart Yes Peckham Yes Pereira Yes Reposo Yes President Ponte No The next project is the Forever Fire Museum Central Fire Station Five-Year Bond in the

amount of $220,000 Speaker 1 Forever Fire Museum Central Fire Station Bond has been Is there a motion? Made Councilor Raposo seconded by Councilor Pereira is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Project approved. Speaker 2 The next project is a parklet

on Columbia Street in the amount of $300,000. Speaker 1 Motion to approve the parklet. Is there a motion? Motion. So made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor... Speaker 6 Second. Speaker 1 Vice President Dion, is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Councilor C7, Councilor Pereira. Speaker

7 I'll make a discussion on that parking. but the cobblestones that are there in that area should remain there. That's part of, and the city didn't pay for any of that. Who paid for that was the store at the bottom of the street there. And if they're going

to be spending money, I know it's not them, but whoever's spending money there, put those cobblestones where they belong. Because it was Mr. Scharff's that paid for all of that. And I think it would be terrible. Speaker 1 Okay, it's a city project, so you can let Mr.

Aguiar know that if you'd like. Speaker 7 Thank you. Speaker 1 You're welcome, Councilor. Anything further on this? Motion to approve the project has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 15 Just a point of clarification. Did we do the

previous approved deed restrictions? Just before the fire one? Speaker 1 That isn't necessarily a project. That's an appropriation. But if you'd like to vote on it just to play a safe, Councilor, I think that would be a good idea. Speaker 2 I didn't read a counselor because the

council president previously requested that I wouldn't read that. So that's why I skipped it. Speaker 15 I just wanted to show it on this one. That's fine. Speaker 1 Yep, that's fair. Speaker 15 I'm fine with that. Speaker 1 Madam Clerk, let's just do the park that has

been approved, correct, on Columbia Street? Correct. Yes. Let's just read into the record the deed restriction. We'll just call it a project. Previously approved deed restriction. Speaker 2 Would you like me to do both of them or just the ceremony? Sure. ceremoniously. Okay. So on the community housing

previously approved deed restrictions in the amount of $1,300 and under historic preservation in the amount of $6,350. Motion to approve has been made by Speaker 1 Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed the ayes have it. Father Kelly Park Parking.

On the Father Speaker 2 Kelly Park Park Parking project in the amount of $375,000. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. Motion to approve. The project has been made by Council of Heart. Seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The

ayes have it. Speaker 2 Next project is the Abbott Court Sensory Playground in the amount of $200,000. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. Motion to approve. The project has been made by Council of Canual. Seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye. The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is the Samson Parcel Land Protection in the amount of $720,000. Motion so made. Speaker 1 Motion to approve the Samson Parcel Land Protection Project. Has been made by Councillor Peckham. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Hart.

Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. I'm opposed. Councilor in seat seven opposed to this project. Speaker 2 Next order to this. The next project is the Maplewood, Griffin, Highland, North, Chew, Ruggles, and Lafayette Parks. Motion to approve. Resurfacing in

the amount of $250,000. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. The project has been made by Councilor Hart. Seconded by? Second. Good. Councilor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 The next project is the Proprietors Way and Parcel W-15-0073, Land Protection

in the amount of $25,000. Motion to approve. Speaker 1 Motion to approve the project has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Vice President Dion. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 And the last project is the Bioreserved Conservation

Land Acquisition Project No. 1. That's a 10-year bond in the amount of $123,695.32. Speaker 1 Motion to approve. Motion to approve has been made by Councillor Hart, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Okay. Do you have to

do the administrative too? No, that was part of a, that's not a project. Speaker 7 I don't agree with all this land must save them all over the place. Speaker 1 Next order of business. Speaker 2 The Committee on Finance at a meeting held on May 12, 2026,

voted unanimously to recommend that the attached order be referred to the full council for action. This is the order authorizing the awarding of a two-year with a one-year contract option for Capital Waste Services, Inc. Speaker 1 The motion was referred to this council. Is there a motion? Speaker

7 Motion accept and place on board. Speaker 1 Adoption would be necessary. We need to adopt. We have an order. Motion to adopt. Is that a motion to adopt? The order has been made by who? Councilor Hart? I'll second it. Speaker 14 I'll second it. Speaker 1 Motion

to adopt has been made by Councillor Pereira, seconded by Councillor Hart. Is there discussion on adoption? Hearing, Councilman C. 8, Councilor Raposo. Speaker 11 Just to clarify from three and a half hours ago, do we have to even adopt this? Speaker 1 We have an order before us.

It's up to the Council. It's been presented by the administration to adopt the order or reject the order. Speaker 16 Okay. Speaker 1 Councilman C. 4? No, I'm good. Good. Roll call on adoption. Speaker 2 Councilor Cadime sure Kamara yes Canual Speaker 3 yes Speaker 2 Dion yes

Hart yes Peckham no Herrera Speaker 12 it's your vote I voted it's your turn go ahead Speaker 1 your turn Speaker 2 my turn Speaker 1 she called your name to vote Speaker 2 on adopting the order yes Reposo present President Aponte. No. Motion carries six yays, two

nays. Thank you. The Committee on Finance at a meeting held on May 12, 2026. Voted unanimously to recommend that the attached order be referred to the full council for action. This is a transfer and appropriation in the amount of $3 million to be transferred to the Employer Health

Trust Fund from the FY25 surplus revenue account. Speaker 11 Motion to adopt. Speaker 1 Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Opposed. Do I hear a second? Seconded by Councilor Hart. Discussion? Roll call. Speaker 7 Can we? Speaker 1 Roll call. You have a discussion, Councilor? Speaker

7 I do. Can we add in there that we are okay with going up to five? Speaker 1 No. That's not the order that's before us. We need a new order. Speaker 7 But she knows that. So we're good. Speaker 1 She knows it, but that's not what

we're voting. She does know it. I just wanted it to be clear, Councilor, so you know we're not voting on five. We're voting on three. Hearing no further discussion, roll call. Speaker 2 On adopting the order in the amount of $3 million, Councillor Skadeen? Yes. Kamara? Yes. Canual?

Yes. Dion? No. Hart? Yes. Peckham? Speaker 12 Yes. Speaker 2 Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Speaker 1 Yes. Speaker 2 Mr. President, we did receive the fiscal year 2027 proposed municipal budget in the council chamber this evening. Speaker 1 We did. The council has received the fiscal

year 2027 municipal budget. It's here. It is not on our agenda. I will allow the council's will to refer the item if you'd like. It was not anticipated because it was just dropped off to us this evening in packets. So it was the will of the council to

refer the item. Speaker 16 Motion referred to finance. Speaker 1 Motion referred to finance. It's been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Councilor Raposo. Discussion? Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo. Speaker 11 Timeline starts tomorrow, correct? Speaker 1 It starts today. 45 starts today. It starts

today. Speaker 11 It was filed. Noted. Received. Thank you. Speaker 1 And we'll be monitoring those 45 days vividly. Motion to adopt and refer has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Speaker 2 And if we could

have a two-minute recess. Two-minute recess it is. Speaker 16 Two minutes. 优优独播剧场——YoYo Television Series Exclusive ご視聴ありがとうございました Speaker 1 For our city council meeting will now be called back to order. Madam Clerk. Speaker 2 Mr. President, the next item before you is a proposed ordinance for miscellaneous traffic for

final ordination. Motion still made. Second. Speaker 1 Motion to pass the items through final ordination has become made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Council Vice President Dionne, is there a discussion? Yes. There is not. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Speaker 2 The ayes have it in the

last item is a proposed ordinance. ordinance for also for ordination regarding authorizing the city council to hire outside legal counsel. Motion passed or ordained as amended. Motion passed as ordained as amended Speaker 1 has been made by councilor opposed or seconded by council vice president. No. Discussion? Speaker

2 Hearing none. Roll call. On the ordination. Councilor Cadeen. Second time before us. Yes. Camara. I can't object. No. I am your friend but I'm telling you what's right from wrong no Kenuel yes Dion yes Hart Speaker 14 no Speaker 2 Peckham Speaker 7 yes Speaker 2 Pereira

Speaker 7 no Speaker 2 Proposo Speaker 7 yes Speaker 2 President Ponte yes motion motion carries Speaker 1 Motion carries 6-3. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Pereira. No other business, Madam Clerk, right? No other business. Motion to adjourn has been made and seconded by Councilor Peckham. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Yes, have a good night.