6.3.2026 Fall River City Council

As far as City Council Committee on Finance meeting will be called to order at 6.02 PM. Madam Clerk roll call please. Councilor Skadeem? Here.

Kamara? Here. Canuel? Here. Dion? Here. Hart? Here.

Here. President Ponte. Here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, 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. First item on our agenda is on the Committee on Finance is citizens input. Hearing none. Next item is departments that were carried over from June 2nd Committee on Finance agenda which there are none. Next item is insurance and other governmental expenditures.

Motion to lift from the table. Motion to lift the item from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo seconded by Councillor Dion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And if you can just introduce yourself for the record please. I'm going to try to make sure you got your microphone on. Why don't you start Mr.

McElhinney. Nick McElhinney Director of Human Resources. Emily Arpke.

Emily Arpke CFO. Anne O'Neal Souza Interim City Administrator.

Okay very good. Council on C4 Council Vice President Deion.

I guess I'm going to start with... And for the record, this is insurance and other governmental expenditures for the record. Correct. Yeah, well we just got some information on our desk so I'm trying to look at that and... So we can go through that. So what we've provided was, it's something that we, I started providing last year, so last year I provided it for the health insurance I had created one for FY25

with the same backup document. So all it is, you can see that the first page of that document is what I'm going to say, like a screenshot of the top of page 141. So it's that same exact page. There's nothing different in it.

It's just a screen grab of it. And then there's a little red box around it that kind of walks you through the numbers. So then each additional page, you can see in that same box highlighted what number is reflected on that page that Gallagher provides. So it's just a very concrete way of showing you exactly where these numbers are coming from for your own knowledge and

understanding of what they're sharing with us. So

I know this one sheet here from Gallagher, the first, so let me see, it'd be the second page of the handout you gave us. I have that same thing right here.

This one here shows the increase for this year, but the final column is the final column. So I guess, Mike, well, let's start out with what did you determine, if you can give me the number as opposed to me figuring it out here? I know that when you start talking the employer trust fund, it obviously involves a multitude of line items. But in the end result, there's a

bottom line to it. And dental and life insurance are included in the final numbers. Correct. So can you tell me what? What dental and life insurance, what that number is in this budget? Yep, so if you, it is on the first page of that handout. It's actually on every page of the handout, to be clear, in the red box. But the dental estimate for FY27 is $799,250. And I'm

speaking specifically for the employer share on all of this. Yep.

And so the life insurance. And life insurance is what? So the life insurance is $289,237.

OK. So that of all of the numbers that we have that make up that calculation, the life insurance is not provided by Gallagher. Right, correct. So would you agree that in that top box for employer trust fund, The, that is all basically the city's share. This is just the city's share, yes. Right.

I shouldn't say the city's share, the employer's share. The employer's share. The employer's share.

So this Gallagher is the employer, this sheet that you just talked about is the employer's share, and so is this first box under expense detail. Correct. Okay. It's all employer's share. Okay, so that totals $1,088,487. Correct. Constancy one.

I know what you're saying, but when you get to the second page of the Gallagher, they're giving you the total cost and then they break out the city share, right? Correct. So if you're looking at that second page, there's a box, a yellow box around it. There's a number that says $62 million, and then below that, the city share is $47 million. So if you take that calculation, it's exactly 75% of

what that $62 million number is. So you can see the total health care cost and then the number in red is the city share. I just wanted to clarify that. But I guess so where I'm going with this is, so if you look at Gallagher, $46,210,572 is the employee. Yeah, yes. So that's not the number that I'm using in that top calculation. No, you're using $49,685,710 as the remaining project costs.

after community development, BCTC, school grants? No, sorry, no. So if you backtrack all the way up to the top of that where it says the $58 million. Yep. So that's the number that we're talking about. So $58 million is the total cost. So that is Blue Cross Blue Shield for the active plans. There's an Aetna cost for the retirees, which is $9 million, $9.8 million. And then there's the

dental estimates of almost $800,000, and then the life insurance of the 289. So all of that makes up that $58 million number. Okay. So because of the way that we have some of the prescription rebates and the stop loss insurance in there, that's why we use that higher $47 million number and not the lower $46 million number. Okay. So if we start at the 48 million,

use the deductions that you have here in this box. You get to 49 million, correct? Correct. Okay, so we agree on that. So then we need to deduct 1,088,487 from that 49 million. Why?

Because that's not included in this box and you're telling me we start at 58,000.

58 million. 58 million. I mean 58 million. So the 58 million includes dental and life insurance on the employer side.

So the sheet that I have, if you look at the red box that's on it, it shows the total costs in that box. And it shows all four numbers that add up to make that $58 million. Okay. So I guess I'm trying to get at this a different way. If my colleague's looking to get the detail for health insurance, that would be the second page that's provided.

That's going to show you the detail. Well, I think that page you're on right now. So Gallagher has us at 46 million. This is showing us at 49 million. And I'm trying to understand the difference in the $3 million between Gallagher and the city and remaining.

Can you just, so if we're on the second page, we should be looking at the middle box. That's highlighted in yellow is that $47 million number. So if you look at the very middle of it that says 47, with the yellow box around it. If you look at this red box, this red box is the same exact box that's on every page of this document and it's

just highlighting which number is related to it to build to that $58 million number.

So this is just step one is that 47 and then the next page would be the Aetna cost and then the next one is the dental and like I said there is nothing for life insurance that's on here but all of those are what build up to that $58 million. Right, so and I just want to, I'm not trying to take away from my colleagues. No, go ahead. I just want to

clarify it. So if you go down blue, Blue Care Elect is one of the health insurances that you can take. So now they break it down, individual, family plan, and then in that you can see the city share, the employee share, and then the biweekly cost. And then you've got the Network Blue, and then you've got the Access Blue Saver that goes all the way down. And then the percentages on the

side are what the increases are from last year. So Blue Care Elect is seeing a 10.5% increase from last year. So all the plans are essentially. Then the total cost for all those plans is $62.8 million. Our share is the 47.

That's what's highlighted in that red box up top. Then she's taken the Aetna plan, which is the retiree health care plan. She's adding that. And then there's the dental and the life insurance, which comes out outside of Gallagher. That's added to the 58.

Okay. So can we agree? Column two. $47,110,572.

Correct. Does not include health or dental.

We all agree with that? That is health. Does not include the Aetna. I didn't mean health. You know what I meant, sorry. The Aetna or the dental or the life. It's not life insurance? Okay. Correct. So if we add $1,088,487 to $47,000,000,

$110,572, we come up with $48,199, not $49,685.

Say those numbers again, Consul, please. I know what you're saying, but what's in here are they are our external from the general fund that provides their cost of it. So the Redevelopment Authority is not a general fund entity, but we let them use insurance through our our stuff so they pay us directly for those costs. This total number that Gallagher gives us, it's just an employer share for our

plan. So that includes anything that's funded through the plan. They don't care what the funding source is. So the redevelopment authority, BCTC that we provide health insurance to, CDA, they have to pay their portion of it. So those are the deductions that you're seeing from that $58 million number. We're taking out the costs that are not the

general fund's costs in that sense and not the city's costs even. Right, which is bringing you to $49 million, $685 million. It's bringing it to the 49 million, yes.

Right, after those deductions. Correct. So then it shows below that that's what we're suggesting as the funding amount. I will say I could be being dense. However, when you tell me that Gallagher's numbers don't include dental and health, and you add dental and health, it does not come to 49 million. And I understand you're taking those other reductions. I understand you're starting at $58

million with dental and health. I understand you're taking out the BCTC, the RDA, the school grants, et cetera, et cetera. And it brings you down to the $49 million. But the number you come down to, if you add dental and health to Gallagher's 47, should match that number. They shouldn't be off by a million dollars. No, because all of those entities, BCTC, CDA, redevelopment, they all have

dental, health, life. They have all of those insurances. So they're paying different parts of all of that. It's not just one of those insurances. So it doesn't work out to be the same in that sense. Okay, so where can we see what their share is that they're actually paying? That's that number. Wait a minute. Is what they're actually paying the RDA minus 14,942?

Are you backing out their share? Is that their share? Yeah, 14,942. So, and that's, I'm going to say it's never perfect because it's based on what their current enrollment is and then the new rates. So could their enrollment change? Sure. But otherwise, yes, it's based on their current enrollment and the new rates. So it is an exact

number. So they're contributing, and then you're backing out their contribution, is essentially what you're telling me. I'm taking the total cost, and then I'm backing out their portion of it. Correct, which brings you to $49,685. Correct. So if you take all those numbers away, and we're at $49,685, And then you take the numbers you quoted me of 1,088,000 and add it to the 47,000. It's a million dollar

discrepancy. The 47,000, that 47 million is not the whole city share. It's all of those agencies included in that. Counselor, in seat one. So point of information. So that 1,188,000 is just solely the dental, the 799,250, and the life insurance of 289,237. But that number is already captured in the 58 million.

Yeah, I understand that. What's the confusion if you understand?

But we don't agree if we make all those deductions, the numbers in the end, if you add this to that or deduct that from that, they should match? No, because part of that is their health insurance. So part of what BCTC is paying for is health insurance. Part of it's health insurance, part of it's dental, part of it's life. So you have to take that big number and take out all of

their portions. So that's what's happening there. So it shouldn't be some of that dental and life insurance number that I gave you is part of BCTC and part CDA and part RDA. Whatever their 75% contribution is. For their employees taking any of those benefits. All right. I'll leave this alone right now. Like I say, I could be completely misunderstanding it. And I don't have a problem if I am admitting I am.

So in terms of health insurance so when I look at the enterprise accounts, they pay the city council, for example, health insurance for city council.

That's where they're indirects, correct. Okay. How many people receive health insurance in the city council? The employees of the city council. Two. Two of them, yes. Two. And according to this, the indirect cost for two employees is $82,853.

Councilor, what are you looking at, if I may ask? This was something that was sent in an email today. This is a calculation of the indirects FY27. So I would beg to say that that number is way off. I mean, I can relook at that calculation. There is a chance that that could be wrong the way that was pulled in. So, I mean, it

is, what would we say, an average of... $25,000 for indirect cost benefits for in general benefits being added on to employees. So you're right, that seems like there's more in there than there should be, but I can relook at that line and adjust it if we need to. Well, I think we need to because if you look at, let's go back to the information you gave us. So

let's say we have two, let's say we have two employees in City Council, both of which receive benefits, is 28, for the most expensive, most expensive single plan is $28.35 a month, times 12 months would be $34,000, not $83,000. Like I said, if you could have called me when I was still at my desk, I pulled that and corrected it, but I didn't know and I

don't have that back end detail to correct that right now. So I guess the problem is I didn't have it early on either and I've been like all day looking at this and trying to figure this all out. So I'm sorry that I wasn't able to give you that. No, it's okay. I just apologize that I don't have, I just don't have anything in front of me to be able to change

that or correct that. Okay, so under mayor and city administrator. No, that's not where I want to go. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. President, just three. I hate to keep interrupting, but what is it? What are you looking at? I am looking at indirect calculations for FY27 for the Enterprise. That was sent just to her when she called me today. For the Enterprise. I haven't sent it to everybody yet. Oh, could

we get this so everybody can look at it? I have not sent it to everybody yet. Because it's very important. And the reason I'm looking at it is I feel like. Would you like us to have a recess to allow this to be printed? Because candidly, you're the only one that has that. That's what I was going to ask. I was going to do a two-minute recess. Yes, everybody received this information.

Do you have copies? I will go make them. No, she'll make them. Quickly. Two minute recess.

City Council Committee on Finance meeting is now back in order. So I'm going to let people get this look at it a little bit. I'm going to go back to another question. Okay. So let's go back just for a second. So we're looking, so the $47 million that we're going back and forth on, that's when the rate was going up 10.5%. That's not the final number. Health went up

88.6%. So it's actually $46 million. So we still have a million dollar discrepancy because we're basing it on, you're giving us numbers and telling us this is right and this works, but you're basing it on the numbers from when health insurance was going up 10.5%. Correct. We budgeted higher to be conservative given that the other column is putting things at risk and is assuming that we'll have some of these

other savings come in. And so to make sure that we have enough and in the talks of rebuilding a fund balance and getting back to where we need to be, we went with the higher number to be safe and conservative with it. So.

Okay. So I was thinking more. And it's 900,000. I was thinking incorrectly. I was stating it incorrectly, but in the end result, it's a difference of a million dollars.

It's $900,000 more than what it should be. Okay. So at least, so we agree on that now. No, that was intentional. Right. $900,000 more than what I'm going to say Gallagher said we needed to do. Okay. So I guess that would lead me to ask. And I know you haven't been here long, so I can't even, I'm not going to please blame anywhere. There's

just going to be some overall statements, I suppose. I think Mr. McElhinney would be more aware of some of this, none of his fault either. Can you tell me how many times, how many times over the years, has Gallagher underestimated health care? Gallagher doesn't underestimate. They...

provide a number of where we should be at. So we get carrier projections that usually come in much higher that's directly from the insurance carriers. Gallagher takes a look at it and says this is based on our analysis where we're comfortable with you budgeting at and then it's up to the city from that point to budget accordingly.

There have been times I'm aware of where we haven't budgeted to that number and then there are times that we have. I couldn't give you an exact number historically of how many times we've gone directly to that number. What I can say is this year we're going directly to that number. So I guess my point is I can tell you that in FY21, at the end of the year, there was a

$6.6 million surplus. FY22, there was a $3.4 million surplus.

FY23, a $4.6 million surplus. FY24, $3.3 million surplus. FY25 is the only iffy year because the GLP won.

And we don't even know yet that we're going to end up in a deficit.

We could end up with break even, a little under, a little over. Would you agree with that? Yeah, and that surplus is if the city had budgeted directly or exactly to the number that Gallagher had provided. Right. So I guess the answer to the question is they're really good at what they do. Yes. Very. And I think we can certainly trust their numbers. So to me, there's some room with that $900,000

number. I guess that's my point there.

So, so I can we back up for one second? Sure. Just, just so when you look at those columns, Gallagher's suggestion was 10 and a half percent.

And that, that's why we're budgeting to 10 and a half percent. When you see that final elected number, we did two things. We worked with the PEC to put in a copay for the weight loss drugs after October 1st. So we are, we are, essentially eliminating those drugs, people are getting 12 scripts of those drugs, and then after that 12 scripts, they're done. October 1, if you haven't had your 12 fills

yet, you'll have a $50 copay after that. Same access to 12 scripts, you're done after the 12 scripts. The PEC, because the employee trust has had a healthy balance, puts money at risk to lower that rate. So they've elected the 8.4% increase, so that's why you see that final elected number, but you're putting money at risk when you do that. So they can draw a little bit of money off

that employee trust fund. What the city is saying is we're not putting that money at risk. We're going to budget exactly to the 10 and a half that Gallagher is saying we should be at. And, you know, if claims work out, we're not going to draw down. We're not putting anything at risk. If we have a good year, we're rebuilding that employer trust fund. Okay. On that note, let me ask you

this question. In those agreements, with the PEC in those discussions. Not only did you and did they agree, because once upon a time they had a $50 copay, they reduced it to zero.

This year, because of the 10 and 1 half percent increase, they agreed to go back to the $50 copay. Also, they and the city also agreed that they would put in either two $250,000 the city would contribute 1 million dollars and that's what brought this down to 8.5 percent Gallagher is not still saying we're at ten and a half Gallagher is saying because of those agreements and because of those actions it reduced

it from 10.5 to 8.6 the rate yes right that's a whole different conversation that's a whole different story so In reality, the increase is 8.6. Gallagher's not suggesting we're still at 10.5. So we've reduced it by a million dollars, and we're still adding $900,000. They're putting it at risk. It's literally called at risk. It's saying to draw from the fund balance.

We've been talking about rebuilding our fund balance. So we don't want to draw from that fund balance, but we set one rate for the city. So we are setting a rate, and that is the rate that you see. So that rate is what is elected for. health care insurance, but we are funding to more than that so that we don't draw down on our fund balance. The employee side has a fund

balance to draw on and they want to draw down on it. We don't have that luxury at this point, so we are saying that we don't actually want to draw on that money. Okay, so I guess in that line, and I was going to say this later on, but I'll say it now, based on what you're saying, I think what we should be doing is we should always be

carrying a minimum balance in the employee trust fund, which should be 3% to 5% of the gross claims, plus three months of incurred but not reported claims. So every year, we would have a minimum balance in the health care fund. So we wouldn't have to worry about that. And that can be done year after year. Correct.

And that number that you said, that three and a half and the three months of claims, we need at least $10 million in that fund. Best practice of three months of claims would be $10.65 million based on averages. So we still want to build that account up. So if we start doing that every year, we will get there and we will consistently have a minimum balance, which is what we

should have. Yes, correct. And then the city council should get a breakdown of what makes up free cash. The surplus attributed from health care should be transferred to the trust fund when free cash is certified. There is no free cash that is created from the health care trust fund. Everything goes into the health care trust fund and it all lives in there and there's no free cash from

the health care trust fund. I would beg to disagree with that because every year that we had a surplus, again, you weren't here at the time. When we had a surplus of $1.79 million or 3.3 million, that wasn't put in the employer trust fund. That was free cash, went back into the budget, and was used to. You're right, I'm sorry. In the most recent years, since I wanna say even 2020, the fund, no questions asked. Before

then that could have been different but that does not happen anymore. Okay. So let's get back to the enterprise funds because I think there's a lot of deductions that can be made in the enterprise funds. So we start with the City Council, page 1, 82,853 and we have We're looking at, what did I say? $33,427 is the cost for the most expensive plan for

a single plan. So that would be $50,000 higher than it needs to be.

Can I just be clear at what you're getting at with this? You want to reduce the indirect charges within the enterprise funds? I'm saying that the enterprise funds shouldn't be on the hook for $82,000 when the actual cost is only $33,000.

So... Potentially, yes. I think that that number could maybe be corrected. But to be clear, they're not being charged $82,000. This is breaking out what the total cost of having the city council department is. And then below, they only take a certain percentage of that that they're then covering. So you're right, that $82,000 maybe needs to be corrected. I can relook at the back end calculations. But they

don't actually just pay that whole line item. But would you agree that it comes out of the indirects, so if that number is lowered, their percentage is also lowered?

I just want to be clear that that whole line item is not the total amount that they're paying. They're just paying a portion of it. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on that. But I agree if we correct that, it would change the numbers. Okay. So if we go to page five of six, the six pages, page five of six,

we have now this is under water and sewer. We have two environmental police, correct?

So technically, Technically, we don't have any individual environmental police anymore. They're all now part of patrol. And my understanding, the last count was that there was five. Four or five. Is that correct? Four to five. So where are they now? Are they in the police department, the environmental police? Where are they? They're in the police department. They've

always been in the police department. But instead of being labeled as environmental police in the budget, as a separate thing, they are patrolmen that focus on environmental police. OK.

Shouldn't then their health come out of that budget as opposed to? It does. That's what I'm saying with this. This is just saying the total cost of having that department for the city is that total number at the end. The total cost for the personnel and for the health care and the retirement and the Medicare is that number. So then what happens is we take that total number. I'm going to round

it and say $500,000. And we say that the general fund is responsible for 84% of that. And then from there, water's covering 5.7% and sewer's covering 10.3% because they are using that much of their time for it. That is what that breakout is. So then it's taking that $500,000 number and giving 5.7% to water and 10% to sewer. And these are the departments and these are the

individuals and the positions that these departments have agreed with their indirect cost agreement that they are covering a share of because they share the benefit of that work that's being done in the general fund. So under EMS, facilities director, it's showing EMS's share is 18.6%, right? Correct. Okay.

So what number is that 18.6%? Because this is simply showing facilities director is $46,000 for insurance, which really it's not because the most expensive plan is only $40,123 for the year, so that's over by $6,000. What is their share? What's the 18-point share? Where is it? How much was EMS charged for that? So that 18.6%, it's of the dispatchers. It's a portion of the dispatchers and of the facilities director.

So the bigger number from that is taking a portion of the dispatchers. Can I just point of clarification? Your point? So we were just talking about if we go back up to water and sewer, general fund share of 83.95%, 5.72%.

10.33%. How are you coming up with those percentages? Can you just explain that? So it's based on their budget. So I think that those percentages, it's a little bit different on these ones because now you're looking at just their portion. So if you look at the first page again, you can see that we're taking all of those numbers and breaking out all of the departments that are sharing it. So with that,

you're then just, I'm going to say, condensing it to be just between general fund, water, sewer, So you're taking their total budgets without their debt portions of it and then you're saying that the rest of that operating budget is how much time, is how much of their share is. So especially considering like the assessors and collectors, right, especially with collectors, the amount of money

they collect, so the amount of revenue they bring in is the portion of their time that you would say that they spend citywide. So if they're collecting all of the city's money, However much is related to water is what they do and sewer is what they do.

So I'm sorry, I didn't follow that. It's a very, it's a spreadsheet that has a lot of formulas and data in it that I think it'd be easier if you could see the formulas. I wanna be clear, I never, I didn't create this.

This is something that's been used. This is something I've seen used in other communities exactly like this. So this is, how it's been calculated, I'm going to say, in many places by using this. So it kind of walks you through some on the methodology up top, but I mean, I can send you the full document as an Excel so you can read the formulas and understand better what it's doing. But... Wouldn't

you just take the, I guess, like for water sewer EMS, just take their total budget? and then divide that by the total dollar amount, which would be the general fund and the enterprise funds and get a percentage on that? That's what I was trying to say, but it may not have been clear. Oh, okay. But I was saying that for that section that you're looking at, it's different because EMS doesn't take

a share of that. So then it's doing that same idea, but with less departments.

Does that make sense? All right, sorry. That's okay. So let me ask you this.

And again, I keep referring to everything at the top tier, the most expensive. We have people in all three categories. We have three tiers. So these numbers could yet still be lower. So the health care, the way that that calculation is working, it's taking the total health care budget, I'm going to say less these outside entities, right?

So with just the general fund, the school department, water, sewer, EMS, it's taking their salaries and taking all that it costs us to fund health care and dividing it amongst that. So it's saying that. on average for this amount of salary, this is what we're paying in benefits. So it's not a perfect ratio ever. It's never, you know, Nick has this much in health insurance, you have this much in life insurance.

It's based on what the average cost is by salary. To do it individually with that level of specificity when projecting out for FY27, it's, I'm gonna say near impossible. So there's a calculation that shows on the health insurance side that's saying this is what the salaries are, this is what the total budgeted number is at cost, and this is how we're kind of splitting it out by salary basis. So

it's not a perfect calculation, and again, I can relook at how we're doing that, but I can tell you right now that especially when forecasting forward, it'll never be perfect and exact, not knowing what the way plans change and who's gonna be enrolled and who's gonna do, and there's other costs that other than just a basic health insurance plan that are included in that. Okay, so let me ask you, EMS

share, 18.6%. We have the police share, the fire share, EMS share. Retirement, $527,370.

And then there's a note that says, plus fire. What is that plus fire for EMS? Is that the five, Yes. The five firemen they used to pay for. Correct. And that they're now not, so they were paying as a direct, so they directly took those employees as much as they were fire employees and they were taking them off of their rigs and paying for

them because they were using them. Now they are not doing that. She has agreed to still pay for them, but it can't be as a direct expense. She agreed to have it included in her indirect cost calculation. And so that's what that is.

So EMS is paying retirement and health care for five people that they don't pay salaries for. For a small portion of it. No, it's for their salaries and it's for all of their benefits including part of their salaries. And that's $336,420.

Correct. That's what they've been, if you look back at past budgets, that's what they were covering. All right.

I can say as one person, I've been looking at this today for hours, trying to make sense out of all of it. I think Honestly, I need longer to digest it and go over it.

It's probably more conversation for another day. And I'm just going to point to one more thing, let other people speak. I have to find the other page. I keep confusing myself. I've done this to myself three times. I have to figure out.

On page 142 in the budget. It shows general government pension pension contribution at 33 million, school pension contribution at 10 million. You're talking about for FY26?

FY27. FY27 is 11 million for school.

Well, in this budget book on page 142, it says school pension contribution, $10,069,316.

That's for FY26. FY26 revised budget. Oh, I'm sorry.

All right, my error. I got you now. So 33 and 11, okay.

But if I look at pension under indirect calculation on page three of six, it shows general fund at $22 million. and school at 18 million. So to be clear on that one, we don't use this sheet for schools. This is data that I thought I was clear with you on the phone that we have not been using.

It's data that I've been looking at as we're going through our indirect cost agreement with them to see if we should be adjusting it or not. So that is not an actual number. We're working through that as we're revisiting our indirect cost agreement with them about what their share should be. So that is not a final number.

It's not firm. It's not actual at this point. But it is part of the reason that we're having these conversations that on the back end about the indirect cost because I am coming up with different numbers than what we have been doing. So we are looking at that as a team and this is not an official number at all. And had I known this was going to be shared to the rest

of the council, I would have had that pulled out. But I thought I was just sending it to you. Oh, okay. So it's an indirect calculation that's not real.

that just for schools at this point. Like I said, I'm working through that at this. Either way, that total number is being shared between us and schools right now, but I am unclear if more of it should be shifted to schools. Okay.

I will yield for now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Constance C1, Councillor Kadeem.

So I feel like we're just talking words. I'm so confused. I don't know. Like I guess this is the first time I'm seeing this I'm sorry. I'm thinking about indirect cost agreement and it's not making sense to me. It's not an agreement, it's a calculation sheet. I mean, I'm sorry. Sorry. Yeah, I'm thinking about indirect cost. I wasn't expecting it to be shared tonight and I would have loved to

be able to have a presentation and full information on it. We have been talking about this. I've been talking about sharing it. We've been talking about getting back to it, but this isn't really the way I intended for this to become the conversation on this item. That's fine. The council will be able to ask the questions. It's okay. No, I know. I just, I feel bad because he's saying it's kind of

thrown him in and it's confusing to understand I had a quick moment. Health insurance, generally speaking, is confusing. Well, this is indirect. I'm talking about the indirect costs. Indirect costs, generally speaking. Yeah. So I'm just trying to figure out. So if I'm looking at page 146 for EMS, the indirect costs, the charges is $5.2 million? Yes.

So the document that I have here, the five of six. Five of six?

Yeah, on the document that you just. So under EMS, can you just explain that portion to me how this ties into page 146? So the dispatchers. So page five, if you look at six of six, that's what really more of what is tying into the numbers that you'll see. So part one, part four and part five. Those add together to make up transfers to general fund.

Part three is the transfers to the health insurance and part two is retirement. Sorry, that was really out of order, but that's why my brain works down the list. So part five is additional support. So EMS is being charged $863,000.

Correct. That's their portion of the dispatchers and their fire So if you look back at past budgets, they were kind of in there as a direct charge, but they're not a direct charge. So if you look at their salary expenses, that's been changed to not being included as part of a direct cost and it's being shifted over to their indirects. So how do you get that 5,

so with the retirement, that's 527,370, is that? Is it in that column? No.

The pension that you're seeing within those departments, so within dispatch, within city collector and, sorry, not collector, but in the financial services and all of that, that's just part of the basic transfers to the general fund. So in essence, that's a revenue source for us, and then we make all of our payments into the healthcare trust fund, and some of that is covering some of that. It's not like

a, it's a, it's covering it as a revenue. It's not a direct transfer. So, all right. So I guess let me take a step back because I really need to try to understand this. So page five of six is solely part five, the additional departmental support. So when I get to EMS, I'm just going to be focused on EMS. You're taking the dispatchers. That's the total budget across. So if I go

into this and I look at dispatching, the $2.6 million would be all of this, right? All the charges associated with dispatch. Is that correct? It's an app, yes.

And then facilities director is the same thing across the board. So then when we add those up, $2.8 million. Correct. What are we doing with that number? So that number is? So if you look at, so I happen to just call it like a police share a fire share, because obviously we don't charge them for any of that in an indirect way. But taking the fact that those

are supporting some of these public safety items, right, we are adding them together saying this is what that costs and if we were divvying it out, so that should still come up to the 100%. So between police and fire, I'm gonna call it at the general fund share, and then EMS is because they use the portion of the dispatchers for their time. So that's where that's pulling into. So when you say

police share, 44.13% of dispatches and facility director of that $2.8 million is attributed to the police department? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, but it's the facilities director part makes it a little bit less clear because it's just grabbing the general fund portion and it was easier to pull it out in that sense. But

yes, it's to show that we're breaking it out between the public safety departments. Dispatching.

So 44% of that $2.8 million is police. So if I take that 44.13, I haven't done the math, multiply that by the 2.8, I'm getting the 1.2. Correct.

And then same with fire, 37%. Correct. Percent and then EMS. Correct.

And then those all add up to 100%. Correct. So no other department uses the facilities director? No, but that's what I'm saying. The facilities one just seems misleading because It doesn't really matter. We're not actually charging them anything, right? We're never going to charge police and fire for use of dispatch and facilities. But that's making up the

rest of the general fund share. No, but what you're doing is that if there's other departments, it should lower the EMS. So you're overcharging EMS because you're charging EMS.

So you may not be charging police and fire, but you're charging EMS. And so you're saying that the facilities director only applies to three departments. So if we shut down tomorrow, you're saying that Al Oliveira has to stay on there because is going to solely police, fire, and EMS. I can correct it. When I shared this, there wasn't any feedback before now, so I'm happy to take the feedback and

we can adjust this calculation sheet. Did Beth not have it? She did. Oh, she did have an issue. No. Oh, she did. No. I'm sorry. I've shared this with the pertinent internal people and nobody had comments or concerns like this, so I'm sorry.

I'm happy to make these adjustments as everybody would wish, but I... No, I think this document, and I know you didn't put this together, I think this document is extremely just convoluted and confusing. So I know what we're trying to do. So the indirect costs agreement, I fully understand. So we're essentially saying that in the general fund,

all the departments that are currently operating, if we were to close government completely to the public, and just had water, sewer, and EMS operate.

We would need to figure out what that cost would be for those departments. So we take the appropriate share from the treasurer's office, the collector's office, the finance director, and apply it to all those departments for their share associated with that. I'm just, when we go through it, it just seems like it's a little heavy to just the enterprise funds. And I get we're trying to get some money back into the

general fund for revenue. And it's just taken from the enterprise fund shifting it. But from my standpoint, it's a little heavy handed with regards to that. And it's just, it's hard. I mean, I don't think we would have ever had this conversation because we don't get the documentation to see how the indirect costs are made up. So it's just now that we've got this document, there's a lot of questions that come

into, you know, how we're calculating that indirect costs. So when we get to the first page, like the City Council, you know, $544,000 budget.

Well, the audit's in that, so that's a huge factor of it. Right, right. Yeah, $170,000. So when I look at page one, if I was just to go through, add up all the enterprise funds, add up the general fund, and then I take the school department's budget, that coming out to the 52% of the total budget. Water is coming out to 3.57, sewer is coming out to 7.10, EMS is coming out to 3.62%, right? And

so then those, so the city council budget is getting charged to three, let's just call it 4% to EMS, 7% to sewer and another 4% to water?

Correct. And then so all these other departments, so fine.

essentially what we're charging to these departments are the city council, the city clerk, all the financial services. Not all of it. You're missing assessors and collectors. Oh, I'm sorry.

Right. So I would think the collectors would be in there, right? So...

The collectors are not in EMS because we don't collect EMS revenues at the window to take like the payments for fees. We obviously measure money, which is why treasurer's is included, but the collectors don't actually take payments at the window. We only do that for water and sewer. But they do for water and sewer, right? Correct. So that's why they're on that separate breakout on the back page. All right, I haven't

gotten that far, okay. And then so we're taking the mayor, city administrator, HR, MIS, and law. And then we're doing snow and ice as well.

What's the logic behind snow and ice? That's how it's always been included as one of the departments. So I was not going to disclude it without changing indirect cost agreements. Okay, all right, I yield on this, thank you. Thank you, anything further on insurance, Constance C3? Not insurance. Indirect, insurance, other government to the item. Constance C3,

Councillor, can you one please? Thank you. I do wanna ask about CERTA specifically.

the Regional Transit Authority line on page 142. This is a massive increase of 37.5%, $624,000, not consistent with any other increase we've seen in the past. I know that this is a number that is provided to us, but I wanted to direct my question, I believe, to the acting city administrator, because I believe you sit on the represent the city on the third board. I'm really trying to understand why

we had such a massive increase. I believe this is the largest of any increase compared to any neighboring community in terms of both percent and dollar amount. And I just kind of want to understand, you know, did they do a mass redistribution? Because this is not an increase I would expect. I mean it's not something that we voted on. We voted on the budget but we didn't vote on any assessments to

come to the communities. I know free fares has played into it in the past and they have extended those free fares and they have done the micro transit in the MBTA communities as well to provide transportation near the MBTA stations and such so I'm thinking that probably has something to do with it. I mean I can get a breakdown in the assessment but it's not something that we

vote on as the CERDA board. Okay. Yeah, because I mean, I think when I'm looking at the cost here, this is just a massive cost that Fall River is incurring additional this year than any other year. And I think even just from our 25 spend to 26, you know, the increase was just 41,000 and change year over year. But we're going from 41,000 year over year to 624,000.

and it just feels like they're shifting the burden to Fall River in particular. I'd like to really get a breakdown. This is something, just to confirm, which commission votes on this? Is the Board of Commissioners for Still County or who assesses this to us? I've imagined it's true. The state gives it to us in our cherry sheets. So the state is providing us with this assessment. The state is taking it

directly from our revenues. It's done at the state level in that sense.

I know the free fairs definitely impact, but that's existed, right? Nothing changed. I'm trying to think of what changed. There could be a funding source that was helping cover that if they had certain grant funds to start that program and that offer it, and if that changed, but they decided to extend it without that same funding source.

So we can do our best to get information on that, but I want to be clear that you would have to go to the state to have that changed.

Understood. I just think we should be... questioning this number, not just accepting it, just such a massive increase. I think we should really press them from the city level on finding out why this went up so much, because I'm not seeing this type of increase in any neighboring communities. And this is a big amount of money to people. So with that, I yield. Anything further? Councilman

C2, Councilor Kamara. I just actually want to go back to health care if I can for one quick question. Of course. On the City Council of Health Care, it's $82,000. Is that for counselors or for the court? No, it's just, it's not. It's based on the salaries that are in there and a breakout of the salary. So the way that that's calculated, it's based on the salary. So we

say we're funding health insurance, the health care trust fund, by this amount. These are all of the salaries matching up to people that are within that eligibility to take that health insurance. And we divide it out across the salaries and then we take these salaries and estimate it. So it's a, I'm gonna say a very rough calculation in that sense of health care costs this per salary, so that's what that number

is. So it's not necessarily saying that any one person is taking any one insurance, right? Because it's also part for retirees and all of that. So it's more than just existing active employees taking current insurance. Because I don't think any city costs health insurance from the city right now. I don't know, and to be honest with you, that wouldn't necessarily change this number. It's based on the salaries. Gotcha.

With that, I yield. Thank you. Councilman C1, Councilor McDean. Thank you. I actually meant to ask the question the last time. So in terms of that forecast, why wouldn't we just take the working rate like we would do? I'm sorry, can we? So you're saying the health care for the indirect costs. So it's taking that total amount, though, that that 49, it's really the 58

million, or the 49 million, I'm sorry, it's the 49 million, and then it's saying what are all of the salaries for school, city, water, sewer, EMS, and it's dividing it based on the salary rate in that sense. Yeah, but you're taking the salary rate as opposed to the individuals, right? So why wouldn't you just take the individuals that take healthcare and then get the working rate, and

similar to what we would do on the school side, Because these numbers are extremely inflated. I'm going to say this is how the form was set up, and it made sense to me in that sense to do it in that way. So when I, I can tell you that when I was in New Bedford, we used a very similar form. And when we would do it at the end of the year,

we would go back and we would pull actuals. And we would adjust what we set the indirects at, and we would adjust it for what actually happened. Right. But we don't. We haven't been doing any of that here and I'm just trying to get back to having an actual calculation sheet to make these numbers. So we could do that to get those actuals, but when projecting forward to say what it's gonna

be for the year, it's been the way that it was set up and so I just continued with it. So, and here's my issue. So my issue, not to say that I don't have the issue with EMS, and I do have the issue with EMS, because I think they're being overcharged as well. However, I don't have the same concern with EMS because How they're driving their revenue is completely different than water

and sewer. So by having these numbers, and I'm going to say inflated, I don't mean anything by it, but higher numbers than what we need, we're charging the indirect costs to go into the general fund. So that means that's going on to the rates, right? So water and sewer rates. So the higher these numbers are, the higher the rates are going to be on water and sewer. So that's an additional tax.

So we're already doing the two and a half and then we're driving and adding additional rate increases because we have these additional indirect cost agreement. I'm sorry, I keep going back to the schools, the indirect costs coming in from the enterprise funds into the general fund. So for me, I just want to, just as one city councilor, and I understand the retirement portion, I understand we got to pay for that. To

me, that just seems a little excessive because we've already got two and a half percent being charged as a levy. My personal opinion would be that you, or at least for the health insurance, that we're not looking at the retiree portion of that.

So the Aetna plan, we're just looking at active plans. You're taking the working rate or the per employee per month rate that you would have and multiply it by the number of individuals that are in that department that use the health care so that we can capture that exact snapshot so that we're not increasing the water and sewer rates because that's inherently what we're doing. I mean, we didn't this

year, but yes. Can I ask for a point of clarification? Sure, Councilor. The enterprise funds, doesn't community development and the grants that they have and also BCTC, they give money back to the city through the enterprise fund? They have the working rate.

like Deon's grants and things like that. Yeah. Doesn't that go back to the working rate? So those departments pay 75% of the working rate. Correct. That's how we've done it in the past. Right. Is that what you're doing? Yeah, that's why we're taking the 49, not the full $58 million number. We're taking the 49 million, which is after all of that comes back out of it, and saying that this is what

our salaries are, so that's how we're breaking that cost out of the 49 million up by the salaries that are in there. So it is. Thank you.

So that's just my take on this and why we should just kind of narrow it down. And I understand we're struggling to have our revenues keep pace with our expenses, but I don't want to see it on the backs of the taxpayers again and just duplicating it because it's just an additional tax above the 2.5% from my standpoint. Obviously, it's allowable because what you're really supposed to be doing in the enterprise

fund is making sure it's, number one, self-sufficient, capturing all the costs, But from my standpoint, I think it should be reasonable because we know that any increase in the indirect costs are going to have a direct impact on what the rates are. And again, we can argue that with EMS, but when we get to EMS, I just think it's not fair that, you know, I understand EMS is generating additional

revenue and all this other stuff, but to try to say that, you know, 18% of the 18% of the facilities director expenses for $208,000 is going to EMS. I mean, EMS has one building, right? They got one facility. I mean, he also oversees all of the fire stations that they're in, too. I get it, but I mean, the argument would be that they got

the new facility. How many people are really in these other facilities? How long are they really there for if they're on the 911? So, I mean, we're saying I don't know that it's 18% is what I'm saying. I don't know that that number is the right number. So, you know, you got every single other department that's in this building. I mean, I would think that a good majority of the time would

be spent in this building. I think the dispatch part is the one that you've got the library. I can relook at that facilities one for sure. I definitely can relook at that one but the dispatch part you're not disagreeing with. Is that correct? No, I think the dispatch is pretty straightforward with that.

You're getting the 911 calls out of that. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that I was not going to go back and not do everything. All right. With that I yield. Yeah, I just want to say that I think to base it on salaries across the board definitely inflates all the numbers. That is not the way to go. So let's take, again, city council, it's the easiest one

to do. Two employees, 30,000 a year, not 83,000. There is not one city council that receives health care. In 2017, the charter was voted on.

was accepted and in that charter it said anybody not on city healthcare prior to that charter was not eligible. So to base it on all the salaries in city council when nine people aren't even eligible, you just can't. And I think that should go through, I think the entire thing should be that way. I don't think any- Yeah, but nobody else will have that

same issue. All of these other departments have people that are fully eligible for health insurance. I understand that, but would you agree that not every single employee in the city of Fall River has city health care? Correct. Okay, so I guess that's my point. As opposed to saying, based on entire salaries in one department, you have to take the step to identify how many employees do we actually have

on health care. And then the numbers have to be based on that number, not on the entire department, I guess is what I'm saying. Because yes, that's driving numbers.

It's inflating numbers, honestly. And again, I'm not trying to be accusatory or anything, it's just a fact, I guess, is the best way to put it.

So with that I yield. Thank you, Councilor C6, Councilor Peckham.

Just one question, if we go to page 140, under debt service, I just want to guess him. clarification on these numbers. So the Derfee High School debt exclusion FY25 actuals you have is $5,517,614.

Yes. And if I go back to page 23, Derfee debt exclusion FY25 actuals 2583005.

I'm sorry, you said 20? Mm-hmm.

Page 23, I apologize.

I don't, 23. Dorothy Dadex solution.

I so that number being in there is, I'm gonna say hard, because the way it works is you're looking at actuals, so that bolded number, that 139, is actual receipts that we had of tax payments for that year. But the way that it's calculated, you're right, that amount would have been part of the debt exclusion. It's the debt that's eligible for that exclusion. We may not have either, one, collected it all, or two, taken

that full amount that's eligible. So I'm just breaking out the debt payments based on the Durfee debt exclusion. But that doesn't mean we take every penny of that every year, nor does it mean that we collect it. So that's why that calculation could look weird. So I can look at that again. For FY25 actuals, just when you're talking about the 25 actuals, it kind of skews it. If you look, I pulled

it out for 26 projected because it's to say what portion we've collected that was from the exclusion or not is a hard. If you go to FY26 revised, page 23, you go 5147,245. So that is how we budget. And then on page 140, it's 5183,155. Right, so that means that we... I'm going to say we didn't take the full exclusion. I know it's a $40,000 only short change, but it means we didn't take the full exclusion

when calculating the rate for the levy. So the total levy is that bolded number.

And to get to that, you have your new growth, that's a firm number. Your 2.5%, that's a firm number. So then it means that that exclusion, whatever doesn't add up to that, is the difference. So it means that we took $40,000 less than what we could have for that exclusion. What page are you looking at? 23 and 140. Three quarters of the way down on 140 will be the debt exclusion for Durfee High School.

I know it's just confusing to me. It is confusing. I'm going to be very clear with that. Because the debt exclusion is the total debt amount that we are allowed to exclude. What we actually take is always going to be, I'm going to say, some pennies off. And so when we calculate this, this levy is based off of the budget, the full budget numbers. And for us to end up exactly as

we should to the penny every time, it doesn't always happen that way. So sometimes we don't take, I'm going to say technically speaking, the full amount that we could.

Constance, you have your point of information? Yeah, point of clarification.

some action to reduce that impact on the taxpayers? I don't think it was. I think the number that looks skewed is because we didn't receive the full receipts, but I will look at that. It could be that, but I don't know if that's what it is. If my memory serves you right, I think there was action taken from the administration to lessen the blow on the taxpayers for the Durfee debt exclusion.

Isn't that what page 23 says with the minus 1.2 million? It might be it, but I don't want to say that for sure. I would rather pull it to confirm that. Can we check to see if that last overlay is a 1.25? That last overlay is 1.2? It was 1.25. That was for sure. I know that that overlay is correct. That is a firm number. We take it, we pull it out,

and I can pull that report to show you exactly what it was. All right, with that I yield. Thank you, Council President. You're welcome, Councilor. Anything further? Any other questions, Councilor? In seat four, Council Vice President. Dionne? Yeah, sorry, I just spotted this.

So this was on our desk when we came in today. I hadn't looked at it. So if I look at the appropriation order that you gave us for EMS.

Okay. To be clear, what I had the clerk do is just make extra copies of the appropriation order. This wasn't from them. Oh, okay. There's no change. So I just had the clerk. correct Madam Clerk? Yes. Yeah, I just wanted the Consulist to have extra copies. So this is the appropriation order. Sorry, I just didn't know. I didn't know either. I stand corrected. It's the same appropriation order in our books. Yep,

okay. So when I'm looking, I guess my point is, and again, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me. But if I'm looking at this, the departmental receipts and the departmental expenses, direct and indirect expenses versus the receipts, is identical, 18 million, 38,000, 739, correct? Correct, because they have a balanced budget.

They have an entirely balanced budget, which means that, I hate to say it, I almost want to say that yeah, we're gonna find that the EMS budget is inflated because I don't know where the talks are for contractual talks, but this tells me that any increase through a contract they can't afford to pay it. They're going to have to come down for a transfer or additional monies. Correct?

So when we did the overtime change that we discussed some yesterday with the FLSA and all of that, so that change from paying them the way we had been with the straight 42 hours every week to changing it to being 24 and then 48 and having the overtime, That resulted in, I think it was a 4.5% base pay increase. I'm going to say naturally. Without any CBA, without anything, just by changing

that, they all got an increase of 4.5%. So I can tell you that even without having come down for anything to be changed, they have already started to realize what is now in their CBA. So it is mostly already baked in because of that. So there isn't actually much more dollar value that will be coming down. when it does come down. And there is not a concern about being able

to afford it from the chief's perspective on the revenues that they have coming in.

So I mean, I'm not going to fully speak to that for her. But because the majority of it's already included in their base budget, the way the overtime change, it's... So to say mostly covered before they come down indicates they will be needing to come down at some point. I mean, we always have to come down with the CBA to have it be approved and technically

funded in that sense. So yes, we always have to come down with that. All right, with that I yield. Thank you. Anything further? Any other questions? Councilman C7, Councilor Perra. There's three departments that haven't had their contracts renewed, correct?

Three units. Three? Yeah, so EMS will be down later this month. So it'll be Teamsters, it's for Teamsters, both police unions, and then fire. Is there anything in this budget for those raise this for the negotiation? Yes, there is a $400,000 line item at this point in time. And that's for all of those? So if they got a 2.5%, what would that give us in all the people that are

there? I don't have that full number in front of me, but I can tell you that when we looked at, when we did it for AFSCME, it was for 2.5%, it was about 144,000. So Well AFME is small, but police and fire are larger. I mean AFSCME is actually probably more people, obviously lesser salaries, but it's more people. So I was just trying to

say to give you some perspective, I would say a 2.5% within police and fire has got to be upwards of 200 to 250,000. So 250, two to 250, but we have 400 in there. Correct. I mean, it's not a perfect number. And to estimate that, if I knew an exact number to put in there, It wouldn't be an estimate anymore at that point. So

we will have to have those conversations as contracts begin to settle. And the debt exclusion for Durfee and the payment for Diamond, that was coming out of the budget. So you have 1.7 for Diamond this year.

That was in the budget, but they had gotten another payment as well, correct? I'm not sure I'm following. I'm sorry. much have we paid diamond last year and what are we paying them this year so this year in FY 26 yes and then FY 27 yeah sorry we are at

yeah I don't want to misspeak at this point my brain clearly has too much in it yeah so it's 4.5 this year right next year is 5.2 5.2 but didn't we take 1.7 1.7 million with that to?

To transfer into the stabilization fund for Diamond. For Diamond. So that would be probably for an FY28 payment. I'm just feeling that a lot of this budget depends, and when we were questioning you on different things, oh, we'll come down for that later. You know, we can come down for that later. For example, the parking garages, they're like $5 million for parking garages as our capital. Yeah.

There's like five million dollars for parking garage. Has that contract been signed already?

So the contract has been awarded. We should have something down for the next meeting on Tuesday. But here's my thought. We sign a contract with a contractor to fix that, you know, to fix the... We awarded the bid. We didn't sign the contract fully yet. I'm sorry. We awarded the bid. So it wasn't signed, it was just awarded. Correct. We need to have funding in order to fully execute a contract. So

where will that money come out of free cash? It'll be most likely debt. If it's stabilization, you need two thirds of over. No, it's debt. It's debt. It'll be out of debt. Yes. I just think things should be done before we even award, make sure we have the money there. Not fair to the contractor, just my thoughts. Correct, but that's why a contract hasn't fully been signed.

Right. The award is subject to appropriation. That's how they typically work. Okay, with that I yield. Thank you, Councillor. Anything further on insurance or other government? Hearing none, that will conclude our budget deliberations from a Committee on Finance perspective. Is there a motion to refer the budget? Motion to refer to full council. Motion to refer the item

to full council has been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Council or opposed of discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn the Committee on Finance. Second. Second by Council Vice President Dion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. You guys good?

City Council meeting will now be called to order at 721 PM.

We're going to do roll call first? Yes. Madam Clerk, roll call please. I don't know. Councilor Skidim? Here. Kamara? Here. Canual?

Here. Dion? Here. Hart? Here. Peckham? Here. Pereira? Here. Raposo? Here.

President Ponte? Here. If everybody in the chamber can now please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

Thank you and a salute to the flag.

Pursuant to the open meeting, Laura, 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 rather perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda, Madam Clerk. The Committee on Finance

at a meeting held on June 3rd, 2026, voted unanimously to recommend. the following appropriation order be recommended to the full council for action. This is the FY 2027 appropriation order. If I may just state for the public and the council's edification on a conversation that I had with the mayor today and our council vice president can also speak on this. I'm not taking the floor just more of an

announcement. After speaking to the I got the consensus that the City Council as a body or as a majority would like to have seen outside counsel for the City Council in the City Council budget. Now not all of you were in favor of that but a majority of you were based on conversations we've had and deliberations we've had in this chamber. I spoke to the mayor

on multiple occasions today and over the last week. The mayor's position right now is that he wants to work on a compromise with the City Council on this. He's heard from you all today. He did mention that he would get a the Corporation Council $40,000 in an account but it would be run through the Corporation Council's office and at this point not the City Council budget. He did ask today for the

City Council policy that was adopted the last time we had Council. I believe the Clerk's Office did send that over to the Mayor's office today so they saw the policy when it came to that but at this point the Mayor is not giving the City Council budget, the City Council $40,000 in its budget for outside Council.

He wants that to go through Corporation Council. Council Vice President, I'd like to give you the floor as well because I know you had a conversation. Yeah, I spoke with the mayor and I also spoke with Acting City Administrator. Pointing over here.

Today, they both asked me my position on that. My answer to them was I was adamant I wanted the $40,000 line item in the City Council budget, not in the Law Department budget. Because I feel in the Law Department budget, it is not at our discretion. And that was my preference, that I was not gonna speak for everyone, but I believed that as a whole, if we were gonna move forward with

this, that I believe it was the general consensus of this council that that line item be put in city council budget because precedent has been set. When we had it before, it was in the city council budget, and I see no reason for that to change. And that was basically my conversations with them. And just so we're clear for everybody, the mayor is trying to compromise with us on this

matter, but he did say after speaking with Corporation Counsel is what he indicated to me. That would be correct. That would be correct. Very good. Do you yield? I yield. Counseling C2, Counselor Kamara. Thank you, Mr. President. So the policy that you referred to right now when you said it was voted on by the council, They're not talking about this current council are you? There's no policy that we have. The only

policy that has been adopted by a council was I think it was in the year 2021 where the council adopted a policy and it's been the only policy to date that we have. But that policy doesn't exist right now. The policy is still adopted as a city council. I don't believe there's been any vote to delete it or rescind it in any way shape or form. It's still of a policy

of the city council. So that was a different city council. It was, yes. So I mean, I don't know how new councils would have to be minded by a policy that was voted on by a different council that directly affected the involvement of a city council and a corporation council. So it's just my opinion. But I mean, I probably have to re-look at that policy and maybe take a new

vote on a new policy. Or maybe the same one, but at least we'd like to take a vote on it. I agree. Just wanted to make it clear. Thank you. If I can, just, Councillor, I will tell you that if this goes through, I have every anticipation to add it to the agenda and have input from this new council. That would never be fair to any of you to just adopt a

policy that is by another council if this goes through. I just want you to know. Appreciate that. Thank you. Constance C7, Council Pereira. I agree. I thought that the old policy that was adopted, I thought it wasn't a good policy. You had to get permission from the vice president or president to use it. That's not right. We all get elected, we all get voted on, and we're all here. And I don't

think that it should be two people determining whether or not why I want to speak to an attorney is any of anybody's business. As long as it has obviously something to do with city. I would suggest that if we do it, that if it's $40,000, everybody gets $4,000 apiece if you needed to contact an attorney. Whoever doesn't use the money, the money goes back. If somebody has expired their $4,000, And

I haven't used an attorney, I can give money to one of my colleagues if they're looking to pursue some legal matter. But I think getting $40,000 doesn't make a difference to me if it's in the council budget or if it's in the law office budget. It's our $40,000 and they're not gonna stop us from using it. So to me, that really doesn't make a difference. But I just think the way that

that $40,000 is distributed is the important thing. Thank you, Councilman. Just for the record, citizens' input was the first item on our agenda and nobody did sign up. I want the record to reflect that. Anything further? Council Vice President, Council on seat 4?

Yeah, no, I agree. I agree with both Council on seat 2 and Council on seat 7. And I think any of us looking through it, I definitely believe there can be modifications. This is something that hasn't been done in years. And so I feel like, you know, we're more at a square one, stop from scratch. There's nothing wrong with taking the policy, looking at it, seeing what we think is good. If

we think nothing's good, we throw in a shredder, we vote it out, and we stop from scratch. If we identify areas that we think are good, and then we have modifications we want to make, there's no reason as a body we can't do that. And I agree modifications can be made. So with that I yield. Thank you.

Counsel in seat to your counsel, the camera. Yeah, I know we keep talking $40,000 and $4,000 for each council. They're close too. There's nothing to prohibit any city council from getting a legal opinion from any attorney that they wanted to free of charge as well and they could present that in terms of discrepancy with anything that's going on. There's nothing that prohibits that. With that I yield, thank you. I

just wanted to give you guys that update because I know it was a pressing item and I didn't want anybody to be caught off guard about that. So I think it's the appropriate thing to do as a council as which we've done in the past is we have our appropriation order before us. the City Clerk has the ability to, we're going to have her read into the record each appropriation order and

the City Council has that ability to reduce, reject or approve if they find it necessary. Councilor in C4? I was going to make a motion. I'm waiting. Sure. I just wanted to let you know that's what we're going to do. I would make a motion that we go through the appropriation order line by line and we vote to reject, accept or reduce each line item in the appropriation order.

Motion made by Council Vice President Dion to have the clerk read each appropriation line item in the appropriation order and the council will have the ability to reject, reduce or approve each of those items. Motion has been made by Council Vice President Dion seconded by? Seconded by Council of Kadima. There's a discussion on that procedural

mechanism. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk.

item A1 from the general fund for mayor salaries in the amount of $314,803.

Motion to reject. Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye.

There's a roll call, Madam Clerk, we're going to roll call this. On the motion to reject line item A1, Councillor Kadeem. Yes. Kamara. No.

Daniel. Yes. Dion. Yes. Hart. No.

Peckham. Yes. Pereira. No. Raposo. Yes. President Ponte.

Yes. Motion carries 6 yes, 3 noes. Motion to take items A, 2 to 10 together. Second. Motion to take items A, 2 to 10 together has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk, for the record.

Item A2 from the General Fund for Mayor Expenses in the amount of $20,250.

Item A3 from the General Fund for City Council Salaries, $258,664.

A4 from the General Fund for City Council Expenses, $170,700.

from the General Fund for City Clerk Salaries, $381,990.

From the General Fund for City Clerk Expenses, $35,875.

Line Item A7 from the General Fund for Elections Salaries, in the amount of $367,638.

A8 from the General Fund for Elections Expenses,

A-9 from the General Fund for Veterans Benefits Salaries, $301,077.

A-10 from the General Fund for Veterans Benefits Expenses, $1,756,055.

Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Dion, seconded by? Second. Councillor Peckham, discussion on the rejection?

Hearing none, roll call vote please. rejecting line items A2 through A10.

Counselor Skidim. Yes. Kamara. No. Kiannual. Yes.

Dion. Yes. Hart. No. Peckham. Yes. Pereira. Yes.

Raposo. Yes. President Ponty. Yes. Motion carries seven yays, two nays.

Motion to take items B1 to B3 together. Second. Motion to take items B1 to B3 together after reading has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Peckham.

Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk.

Section B for the purpose of administration. B1 from the general fund for administrative services salaries. $1,544,380. B2.

the general fund for administrative services expenses three million seven hundred ninety two thousand eight hundred and five dollars B3 from the general fund for judgments and claims three hundred and fifty thousand dollars motion to reject motion to reject has been made by council of cannula seconded by second council of Peckham is there

discussion on the rejection hearing none roll call vote please on rejecting items B1 through B3. Councilor Skidim? Yes. Kamara? Yes. Who's sending back? Kanuel? Yes.

Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries eight yays, one nay.

Section C for the purpose of financial services. item C1 from the general fund for financial services salaries $1,893,476. Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Roll call vote. On rejecting line item C1, Councilor Kadeem. Yes. Kamara. Yes. Canual. Yes. Dion. Yes.

Hart. Yes. Peckham. Yes. Pereira. Yes. Proposal? Yes. President Ponty?

Yes. Motion carries nine yays. Line item C2 from the General Fund for Financial Services Expenses. Motion to reject. Motion to reject after reading as been made by Councillor Peckham, seconded by Councillor Canual. Discussion? Roll call vote. In the amount of $344,990.

Item C2, Councillor Skadeem? Yes. Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes.

Deon? Yes. Hart? Yes. Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponty? Yes. Motion to take D1 and D3 together. Take items D1 to D3 together has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk. Section D for the purpose of facilities maintenance. Line item D1 from the General Fund for Facilities Salaries. in the amount of $1,115,023.

Line item D2 from the General Fund for Facilities Expenses, $2,181,465.

And there is no appropriation for line item D3 from the General Fund for Facilities Capital. Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to take E1, 2 and 3 together. Second. Motion to take

items E1, 2 and 3 together has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Section E for the purpose of community maintenance. Line item E1 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Salaries, $5,655,974.

E2 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Expenses, $17,891,532.

E3 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Capital has no appropriation. Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Council of Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? We don't necessarily need a roll call. Motion has been made and seconded, hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No opposition the ayes have it. Motion take item F1,

2 and 3 together. Second. Motion take items F1, 2 and 3 together has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Peckham. Is there discussion? Hearing none all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Section F for the purpose of community service line item F1 from the general fund for community services salaries $2,918,265.

F2 from the general fund for community services expenses, $680,631.

F3 from the general fund for community services transfers, $30,000. Motion to reject.

Second. Motion to reject has been made by Consular Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to adopt G1. Motion to adopt G1 has been made by Consular Kadeem, seconded by? Seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion?

Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to reject G2. Motion to reject G2 has been made by Councillor Kadeem. Seconded by Councillor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to approve G3. Second. Motion to approve G3. General Fund Education Assessments in the amount of $10 million 225-442 has been

made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Just for the record, if I may, just for the public zone edification, G1 means from the General Fund for School Appropriation and the amount of $200 and 12582416 that was approved by this council and the item G2 from the general fund for school transportation amount of 12,350,048 was rejected.

We didn't introduce that and I want the record to reflect that. Next. Mr. President would you like me to introduce G3? Yes please if you can please reintroduce G3.

G3 from the general fund for education assessments.

$10,225,442 also approved. It was also approved. Thank you Madam Clerk. Motion to take H1 through 8 together. Second. Motion to take items H1 through A8 together which is community protection has been made by Councillor Kadeem seconded by Councillor Opposso.

Discussion? Hearing none all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk.

Section H for the purpose of community protection. H1 from the General Fund for Police Salaries, $24,780,499.

H2 from the General Fund for Police Expenses, $2,130,062.

H3 from the General Fund for Police Capital, no appropriation, and no appropriation also for H4 from the General Fund for Harbor Mass's salaries. H5 from the general fund for Harbor Master expenses, $35,500. H6 from the general fund for fire and emergency services salaries, $20,021,736.

H7 from the general fund for fire and emergency services expenses, $1,187,798.

H8 from the General Fund for Fire and Emergency Services Capital has no appropriation. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve has been made by Councillor Kamara, seconded by Councillor Perreira's, their discussion. Hearing none, roll call vote. On approval. On approving line items H1 through H8, Councillor Skadeem? No. Kamara? Yes.

Canual? No. Dion?

No. Hart? Yes. Peckham? No. Yes. Reposo? No.

President Ponty? No. Motion fails. Three yeas, six nays. Do we have to make a motion to reject? Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Dion, seconded by Councillor Reposo. Discussion, sorry, Councillor Peckham. Discussion?

Hearing none, roll call. On rejecting line items H1 through H8. Councillor Skadeem? Yes. Kamara?

No. Canual? Yes. Keon. Yes.

Hart. No. Peckham. Yes. Pereira. No. Raposo. Yes.

President Monty. Yes. Motion carries six yays, three nays.

Section I for the purpose of other governmental expenses. I won from the general fund for debt service $13,719,946.

Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Aye, too, from the General Fund for Insurance, $52,402,162.

Motion to reject. Motion to reject has been made by Councillor Peckham, seconded by Councillor Peckham, seconded by Councillor Oppozo. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. I 3 from the general fund for pension contributions, $45,191,673. Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject has been made by Consular Peckham, seconded by Consular

Raposo. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. I 4 from the general fund for reserve fund, $400,173. Motion to reject. Motion to reject has been made by Consular Peckham, seconded by Consular Raposo. Is there discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

That's all we have. So the council has in its part rejected most of the appropriation order items. Is it the will of this council at all to give the administration any kind of an indication on what items they want to see rejected? Council in seat 2, Councilor Kamara. Thank you. Madam Clerk, I just have a question. For the purpose of community protection, was that rejected? Was that

passed for rejection or did that pass? Rejected.

H1 through H8 was initially the motion to approve failed to carry and then it was rejected, yes. What was the roll call? Six yays, three nays. Thank you.

So as I mentioned, Councilman C1, Councilman C1? Yeah, if we're looking for recommended cuts.

I've got a couple that I'd like to offer up. The first I would like to do is $100,000 from legal salaries that essentially would eliminate one of the open positions, the paralegal that was there, and essentially an assistant corporation counsel, part-time assistant corporation counsel as well. We've heard throughout this budget and I

think what we've seen is that there's $700,000 in outside legal services and questions that were asked in terms of the attorneys that were actually working. What we've heard was Matt Thomas, who's outside legal. So from my standpoint, I think the salary itself, the salary line item itself is extremely inflated, and I'd like to see that cut. That's the first one. Would you like as a counsel to

make that in the form of a motion? Sure. So under administrative services salaries?

Is that under the section, Counselor? I'm not sure I have services salaries. It is on the appropriation order. Page three. Page three. So what was that amount, Counselor? $100,000. $100,000. So just so we're aware and for the public certification, these are suggested cuts that the Council is asking the administration to cut and send us back down for another appropriation order. We've already acted on it. This is just

us working to hear us as a body to make necessary cuts. There's a motion on the floor to reduce the under administration from the General Fund for Administrative Service salaries has been made by Councillor Kadeem. Second. Second by Council Vice President Deion. Discussion, Councillor in seat eight, Councillor proposal. Yeah, I guess I'm just curious, is

a motion necessary for this? It's not necessary. No, we're just doing it as procedure.

But I think it'd be more organized if people want to take the floor. Fair enough. If you don't want to act on it, we can. I mean, I haven't seen many people raise their hands, but we'll be speaking as one body instead of one individual. Thank you. Motion to reduce, suggested reduce, has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Is there discussion? Harry Nunn, roll call on the

suggestion. Councillor Kadeem? Yes. Kamara? What are we voting?

that we want to suggest to reduce those amounts to these departments? Yes. Yes.

Present. Canual? Yes.

Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Ferreira?

Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponty? Yes. Motion carries seven ayes, one aight. Councilor in seat one? Council in seat one, you have a four. Thank you. And then I'd also like to reduce $200,000 from administrative services expenses coming out from outside legal counsel. That budget currently has $700,000. The corporation counsel was before us basically saying that he's not sure if two of the

cases would move forward. Reducing that amount by $200,000 seems prudent. If there is a need, then if there's other cases, he can always come back down to us. But that budget from my standpoint seems to be excessive.

recommendation and my motion is to reduce that by $200,000. The suggested reduction under from the general fund for administrative service expenses for $200,000 has been made by Councillor Kadeem.

Second. Seconded by Council Vice President. Dion is there discussion? Hearing none, roll Council in seat two. Council Camara. I just want to say when the corporation comes in front of us, I asked the question what would happen if we were to cut that amount from what you have it at and he said it could be very detrimental to the city so I can't support it, sorry. Thank you. Council on C4, Council

Vice President Deon. Yeah, that didn't get full support that night when that was suggested, but when it was suggested that night it was cutting the entire $700,000.

And this is only cutting $200,000. He clearly stated to us that he believes one of those cases will be litigated this year. $500,000 is more than enough to cover that. He kind of were given the impression it was 350,000 per case, but nobody knows.

The other one he said it could, it may not, he doesn't think it will, it might be litigated this year. And he can always come down for an appropriation if that does come to fruition. And he has on more than one occasion stated that any time he's asked for more money because it's been necessarily to litigate or or have outside counsel for a case that the city council

has never denied the request. So just my position in terms of that, I think it's a fair request and I yield. Thank you.

Councilman C2, Councilor Kamara. I appreciate my colleagues' recollection of that meeting. I saw it completely different. With that I yield, thank you. Thank you. Anything further on the motion, on the suggestion? Thank you. Councilman C3. Councilor Canual. Yeah, I didn't support the reduction of the $700,000 because that would be detrimental. Giving half a million dollars

into this fund, we provide plenty of money for him to manage it. I'm with my colleagues that I don't want to over budget in this area because I don't want it just to be turned over to free cash. If he needs more, he can come back down, explain it to us and I'll fully support that. Thank you, Councilor. Anything further on the suggested motion, on the suggested reduction? Hearing none, roll call

vote, please. The motion is to reduce from the general fund administrative service expenses by $200,000. Has been made and seconded. Roll call please. Councilor Skidim? Yes. Kamara? No. Kanuel? Yes. Dion?

Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes.

Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries seven yays, two nays.

Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo first. Okay, I got a few for myself as well. So if we're going to go to, bear with me one second here, please.

Make a motion to reduce the financial services salaries by 70,000, which essentially equates to the current vacancy of the financial analyst and compliance manager. Motion to suggest a reduction in the amount for under financial services from the general fund for financial services salaries and the amount of $70,000 has been made by Councillor Raposo

seconded by Councillor Pereira. Is there discussion? Hearing none, discussion on the motion? Councilman C.

D. And just it goes back to the conversation we had some nights ago that I think there is some plan to changes around anyway so at this point let's let's reduce it and then when if there's going to be a reorg change in financial services then we'll address that as we need to appropriately I yield. Understood. Councilman in seat six, Councilor Peckham on the motion. I got clarity on it. Thank you.

Anything further on the motion only? Hearing none, roll call please. Councilor Skidim? Yes.

Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes. Dion?

Yes. Hart? Yes. Peckham? Yes. President Ponte? Yes.

Councilman Seed 8, you still have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Next up is going to be a motion to reduce, suggested reduction, of course, in community maintenance, no, I'm sorry, community service salaries in the amount of $36,000 and this would be the vacancy currently in the City Planning Department for the Administrative Clerk. Second. Motion to suggest the

reduction of $36,000 for the purposes of community service for the general fund for community service salaries has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Councilor in seat three, Councillor Canua. Is it 36,000 even or the exact amount, $36,306.71?

One second, Councillor. You are correct, so I'll amend to 306.71.

What is that position? That is the administrative clerk vacancy currently in the city planning department. Noted. The motion is 36,306.71. $36,306.71.

Thank you very much. Council on seat three, do you yield? Yes. Thank you. Council on seat two, Council on Kamara. Does this council have the ability to reduce the budget? Reduce, reject, or approve each appropriation order. Why don't we just reduce it if we want to be? Why are we suggesting that they reduce it? Why don't we

just reduce that? I mean we're making recommendations and suggestions that hopefully those will do it. If we want to really put some teeth into this, why don't we just make the motion to reduce that? Because the City Council currently, I can just, if I may. The reason I believe that a vote occurred is because the City Council I think has taken a firm stance and you guys can speak for yourselves

to have $40,000 for outside council in the city council budget. So if they give the $40,000, this goes away?

I've spoke to many of you and I believe that is what the council wants and we can't add that item in the city council budget. I'm not talking about adding any items. I'm talking about we have the ability to reduce the budget. We do. We're making suggestions to them to reduce it. Yep. If we really want to put some teeth into this and reduce it like we're saying we want to do,

we can just make that motion and vote on it accordingly and it's reduced and we save the taxpayers the money we want to save them. Why are we asking, suggesting that they reduce it for us? We have the ability to reduce, correct? We do. I'm just curious why we're not reducing it. Because we can't add. We're not adding. No one wants to add. We do. We have to add $40,000 to the

city council budget for outside council. We don't have to add it. We would like to. Some council would like it. That's not a necessity. But if we're talking about, so if that's a strategy, because we can't add $40,000, we're going to make all these suggestions that they reduce it, then I don't think there's really intent here that the council wants to reduce it. Because if we'd wanted to reduce it, save the

taxpayer's money, we would just make the motion to reduce it and then we'd vote on it accordingly and appropriately and it would be reduced, done once and over. We would save the taxpayers money that way. Regardless of what the administration wants to do, we would do it here. We have the ability to do it, but we're not doing it. We're making suggestions and hopefully you can continue to get the $40,000 that

you're trying to get into this budget by making suggestions instead of just reducing it.

I get it. I see what's going on. I think it's just good luck with your strategy. With that are you. Thank you, Councilman C.D.A., Councilor Reposo. Yeah, I just wanna correct my councilor there for a minute. These reductions have nothing to do necessarily directly with that. These are discussions that we've had. Just one at a time, Councilman

C.D.A. has the floor. Well, you said if that's the strategy, but I'm gonna defend myself because I'm making the motions currently that these are reductions that I've written down through the week that we've discussed of things that we don't necessarily need. I'll use the one that we're currently talking about. We had the conversation with Mr. Agar, he

said, you could live without that particular vacancy. So that's. That's exactly what, okay, you have the floor. But my point is, is like we're going through this process and in the sense of collaboration, we're giving the administration, these are the things we're indicating to reduce. You are right, we could surely just make the motions and reduce it. But I will say, at this current moment, we're giving them

the opportunity to go back. We've rejected 99% of the budget. Correct. These are our suggested reductions, let them go back and then ultimately will they answer to those reductions?

Or give you the $40,000. If I may just be clear on this, just because we're asking for the $40,000 doesn't mean there are other rejections that will not come from this council. These would have happened regardless. Okay, just making it clear. Maybe I misspoke and I apologize if I did. This isn't like a tit for tat, like if the city council doesn't get its $40,000, all these reductions go away. I'm not

taking that in any way, shape or form as any kind of compromise. of point of order? Sure, Council on seat five, your point of order. Thank you, Mr. President.

That's what I thought you said. Okay, well, I apologize if I said that. That was not my intention if I misspoke. I hope I clarified that. Okay. Yep. I agree. Council on seat eight, you have the floor still. Oh, you just clarified whatever.

Sorry if I misspoke, but I want to make that clear. Councilor in seat two, Councilor Kamara. I guess I'm just, I don't know. I guess I'm confused as to why if we want to eliminate this position that the plan that I said didn't need let's why don't we just reduce it for $39,000 is that the amount? 36 306 70 so why don't we just say I make the motion to reduce it

36 306 70 that's my only question and then guess what we vote on it and it gets reduced so it doesn't get reduced end of story and we continue on to the next item and if we sincerely think that that should be reduced which I agree with some of these right so let's just reduce them why are we asking them to suggestion that they reduce it that's all

very clear. With that I yield. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lincey, one Council of Codin. No, so I was just going to clarify two. So it's not one or the other. From my standpoint, I voted no on the budget because the $40,000 coming into the City Council is what I want to see. That's number one. Even with that, the recommended cuts that I'm making, I still want to see above and beyond

the $40,000 for outside legal coming into Council. That's it. With that I yield. Thank you. And by the way, for the record, we could have just rejected this and left. We're trying to be helpful as a council in letting people speak to let the finance team and the administration know where you all stand as individual counselors. We could have just rejected it, adjourned, and would have been done. So, Council on C4,

Council Vice President Deon. Yeah, so for my part, yeah, there is no connection between the $40,000 and the reducing dollar amounts in specific line items. It's two separate issues.

I believe that There are items that can be reduced. But I also remember in the past, one year we did do that. We did make reductions. We sent it back to the administration for those reductions to take place. We sent the budget back. They turned around, sent the budget back to us with no reductions whatsoever. So for me, I feel like it's appropriate to say what we want to

see reduced. send it to them for action, and then if they take no action, then we have yet another conversation. If they take action, do I as one counselor say, okay, well, they reduce this, this, and this, but not that. Maybe I'm okay with that. Yeah, I think it's just more complex than we're making it. And I'll go with the majority, how the majority want to proceed. If the majority want

to proceed the way we're proceeding, I support it. If the majority say, you know what, he's right, If we do not do it, okay, I will support that too.

That is my stance and with that I yield. Thank you. Anything further on this item? Counts in seat two. Just one last remark. I do not want to belittle this and go on and on but my only comment was if we sincerely want to make reductions to this budget and save taxpayers' monies, we have the ability to do it right now. That is my only comment. I was just trying to make

it clear. With that I yield. Thank you, Councillor. Councilman, see that you have the floor still for your motions that you suggested reductions on. The motion was made and seconded to the, Madam Clerk, correct? Madam Clerk, did we vote on that? No. We did not vote on the 36,000? Yeah. As amended. Should be 36,306.71.

Motion to vote. We amended the, you amended your motion. I don't need an amendment motion. We have the record reflected. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. Council in seat three, do you have a question? Yeah, what is this one specifically? All right, this is your, the $36,000. Would you like me to add? $306,71.

Madam Clerk, for the record, please. The motion on the floor was made and seconded as a suggested reduction to the Mayor, line item F1 in the amount of $36,306.71.

This is for the vacancy in the City Planning Department for the Administrative Clerk position.

no further discussion roll call please. Councilor Kadeem. Yes. Kamara. Yes.

Kanuel. Yes. Dion. Yes. Hart. Yes. Peckham. Yes.

Pereira. Yes. Raposo. Yes.

President Ponty. Yes. Council on seat 8. Again? Yeah, I got a few, sorry. So this is going to be in community maintenance expenses. So I'll make a motion to reduce E2, General Funds for Community Maintenance Expense by $15,000. Particularly this is a reduction to the other purchase services for $15,000. $15,000 under Community Maintenance for the

General Fund for Community Maintenance Expenses. The suggested $15,000 reduction has been made by Councillor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councillor Kadim. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Roll call vote please. Councilor, what page is that on? This would be on page 106, other purchase services. Just a point of clarification, what are the other purchase services? So this was, may I, Mr. President? Of

course, Councilor. This was the discussion that we had with Mr. Hathaway regarding the additional funding that was put in to the budget. He mentioned trailers for example, what have you. but the rationale here is that FY25 was 42,978, FY26 projected was 41,473, and I feel that 15,000 is a good middle between those numbers that we need to address. I yield. Harry, no further,

does you have another, anybody have any other comments on this item? Motion. I just wanted to confirm it. Reducing 15,000 from 68,000. Yes, Madam Clerk. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for the clarification. Call Call please. Councilor Skadeem? Yes. Kamara?

No. Canual? Yes. Dion? Yes.

Hart? No. Peckham? Pereira? No.

Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes.

Motion carries five yays, three nays.

So make a motion for reduction in community services salaries in the amount of $1,675.

to the position of Director of Minimum Housing because the salary is now going to be out of ordinance. This would be on page 111.

Motion to take under Community Services Salaries. $1,675

has been made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Canual. Is there discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

$1,675 from the minimum housing director position in the budget at $69,175. $1,675.

Thank you. Councils Kadeem? Yes. Kamara? Yes. Canual? Yes.

Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

No. Raposo? Yes. Yes. Motion carries seven yays, two nays. Make a motion.

One

moment please. Madam clerk just for a clarification for facilities and community maintenance that would be under D1 or E1. Facilities maintenance is D1. Thank you. I'll make a motion to reduce from the general fund for facilities salaries in the amount of $104,809.34. This reflects the two vacancies in the facilities department, one for electrician, one for plumber one that for

now fiscal years has been unfilled and it's unsustainable doesn't make any sense. Second. Motion has been made by Councilor Raposo in the amount of $104,809.34 has been made by Councilor Raposo to suggest the reduction from general funds for facilities salaries as is seconded by Councilor Canual. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all

those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Mr. President, could I have clarification on that amount please absolutely could you repeat that council just so i'm clear of course 104 809.34 yeah so just let me just i'll announce both of them and then the total so thank you uh one position is 54 356 i'm sorry 54 356.70 the other position of 50 452.64

if my mathematics is correct should be 104 809 Thank you. Is that good, Mr. Cannell? Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that. I got one more. Just bear with me a second.

I'd

like to make a motion to reduce from the general fund facility salaries, the director of city operations, 144, 200.

I'd like to reduce it by 70%. savings of $100,940.

The reason for that is the reorg and I don't know how long that position if it's going to be filled and I'd like to leave 30% until they figure out that reorg and move that individual to wherever they're moving them. All right so what is the actual cut that you were suggesting amount wise?

So the cut would be $100,940. You want to reduce that amount? Yes, sir. By how much? By $100,940. That will bring it to 70%.

You got that number, Madam Clark? $1,949. 100. 100. 100. 100. 940. For the Director of City Operations. Yes, ma'am. Councilor, motion has been made by Councilor Peckham for the suggested reduction. Is there a second? Is there a second? Second for discussion. Second for the purposes of discussion by Councilor Kadeem. Discussion, Councilor Seat 3, Councilor Kenyua. So if I'm understanding the logic here, this gives the

administration the Director of City Operations salary for approximately three and a half months into this fiscal year work through the RE-ARG which is already in our audience committee and if because this position doesn't exist once the RE-ARG goes through an audience. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Ayo. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk just reintroduced that item for the amount for clarification and roll call vote please. So in line item D1 suggested reduction in the amount of $100,940

the director of city operations position. Roll Council on seat one.

Councilor Kadeem. Just through you can I just get a I guess a point of clarification I know these are recommended cuts but you're not suggesting that that be the new salary you're just suggesting that. That we leave that number in that line until the RE-AUG has taken place just as a buffer. Assuming that the RE-AUG is going to be done in three months. Yes. That's what you're saying and then whatever the

RE-AUG has for the salaries that would that need to be come down to the council for an adjustment. Yes council. Okay. Thank you. So I have a point of clarification. Are you reducing it by 100,000 or you want to keep the line item at 100,000? No, I'm reducing it by 100,940 and then the rest should be 43,260.

Yep, we got that. Okay, thank you. Roll call. Alexis Kadeem? Yes.

Kamara? No. Canual? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart?

No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No.

No. President Ponty? Yes. Motion carries five yays, four nays. One more on the general fund facilities expense solid waste.

For solid waste collection I'd like to reduce that by 7.3 percent so the current line item is 10 million 53 700. I'd like to reduce that to 9,311,567.

Say savings of 742,133. 7,4.

I'm writing it down, 7,4. 7,42133. That's your reduction, your suggestion reduction. Repeat that again for me. Yep. Counselor. So for solid waste collection, The current budget is $10,053,700.

I'd like to cut $742,133 from that, leaving $9,311,567.

And to be clear, Counselor, that's under facilities maintenance expenses. Yes, sir. Motion to reduce suggests the reduction in the amount of $742,133 from the general fund for facilities expenses. It has been made by Councilor Peckham. Just a quick answer. You said motion to reduce, motion to recommend the reduction. Yeah, all of these are. I just wanted to make it clear. It could have changed if we're going

to reduce it, right? Yes, I stand corrected. All of these motions are suggestions.

So I apologize if I misspoke. Has been made by Councilor Peckham. So it made it clear. No problem. Seconded by who? Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second the motion. Thank you, Council President.

I can't see hands when they like this. I need people to raise their hands.

Counselor in seat three, Counselor Ken Newell. I would like a little bit of understanding potentially from the administration if possible as to what may happen if they did make the recommended change because I'm concerned that this council did approve a certain bidder for that contract and this type of reduction may force the city to go with the alternative bidder. Do you want to do that now? Or would

you like to do that between now and next Tuesday and get that clarification point because these are merely suggestions but whatever you want we'll do if it's the will of the council. I mean right now we're not taking any action. These are just suggestions. I'm not prepared to vote on this particular one without understanding the full implications of that. Fair. Is there a motion to waive the rules and have them come

down? Motion to waive the rules. Motion to waive the rules has been made by Councillor Pereira, seconded by Councillor Canual. Constance, to your point of information. So we're going to be negotiating We're negotiating a contract with different trash companies and now we're going to come down and have her explain to us why we should have more and

less money for those negotiations in the contract. We shouldn't be discussing this at all right now. Look, I don't see the point of having to come down and say why we need more money because we're going to have to pay more. Whoever we're negotiating with, leverage as to what our thought process is. We're going into contract talks.

Point of order. If Councillor can, you will... has questions on this and we're not going to bring anybody down. You can just vote present either way and then that way you're not voting one way or another, Councilor Canuel. With that I yield. Yes you do. Constance C2 you do not yield. It's a fake reduction anyways. It's a suggestion so they might not do it anyway. With that I yield. Thank you. Thank

you, Councilor. Is there anything further? On the suggested reduction. Roll call.

Councils Kadeem? No. Kamara? I'm sorry, what was the, can you repeat the motion again? I'm a fake reduction. It's reducing line item D2 in the amount of $742,133 for the solid waste collection line item. No. Canual? Present. Dion? No. Hart?

Council Peckham? Yes. Carrera? No. Raposo? No.

President Ponty? Yes. I get what he thinks. The motion fails to carry two yeas, six nays. You have a point of information, Councilman C1? I just want to say I know that these are recommendations, but I think the intent is for people to vote on them so that the mayor knows where the consensus is on these recommendations.

That's right. I know it's not like fake, but this is... We're being helpful. At the end of the day, the administration's going to get a letter from this council tomorrow that gets the suggested votes from this body, and they can do what they want with it, and then we can do what we want with it on Tuesday of next week, just so we're clear. This is, I think, helpful. I don't know,

maybe it isn't. Councilman C6, you have the floor. That motion did not pass. Thank you. So I'm going to be helpful. I'm going to make a motion to reduce under general fund facilities expenses solid waste disposal The current line is $3,500,000 and I figured I'd be helpful by cutting $257,867 from that line. $250, what? $257,867.

And that's under facilities maintenance expenses? Solid waste disposal. So it's going to be under facilities maintenance. Sorry, E2, under E2, 257, 867.

All right, very good. That's under E2, under community maintenance expenses. Is the suggestion by Councillor Peckham, is there a second? Second for discussion. Second for the purposes of discussion, Council seat one. What is that amount for and what's the reasoning behind it?

Well, so I was... Combining solid waste collection and solid waste disposal was a combined total of roughly 13.5. So I brought them both down by 7.38% for a total savings of a million dollars between the two.

All right, thank you. Hearing no further discussion, roll call. Councilor Skidim?

No. Kamara? No. Kanuel? No. Dion? No. Hart? No.

Yes. Pereira? Repozo? No.

President Ponte? Yes. Motion fails to carry two yeas, six nays. Councillor in seat six. Just make sure I got everything here.

I have a question. The facility stipend for $13,000, was that addressed yet? No.

Under facility salaries, I'd like to reduce the stipend for $13,000 by $13,000 and cut it out entirely.

Motion to reduce, suggest the reduction from the general fund for facility salaries in the amount of $13,000 has been made by Council of Peckham, seconded by Council of Kadeem.

Is there discussion? There is not. Roll call. So this is for line item D1 in the appropriation order, reducing $13,000 for the administrative assistant.

Councils Kadeem? Yes. Kamara? No. Canual? Yes. Dion? Yes.

No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes.

President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries six yays, three nays. Next. Councilor Peckham.

I yield the floor. Thank you. Councilor in seat seven, Councilor Pereira. You know, I know there's been a lot of questions or whatever, reductions, suggestions for reductions from some of my colleagues, but I want to go back to the 40,000. because I, when you first spoke, I was under the impression that there was a stickling point about the $40,000 and I, for one, have nothing to do with this budget

versus the $40,000. I think we can keep it in the law department and use it and come up with something. But I think that throughout these budget hearings, many of us have given Emily suggestions on where we think certain things should be reduced, et cetera, and supplying her with this list of what people think.

we took out a whole section. That had police salaries, fire salaries. We voted yes on those. But other salaries you rejected for her to look at. You're not going to really reduce somebody's salary. I mean, in inspection, minimum housing inspection, to take money off of there, that's somebody's job and their salary. So I know that it's not in ordinance, but then fix it and put it in ordinance.

But you don't take it out and... It's not their fault that it hasn't come down to ordinance. It's administration's fault that it hasn't been brought down. Now that it's known, bring it down. I get it. We voted for it because it wasn't in ordinance. So I get it, Councilor Opposa. I just don't think that this person after should go without a salary if the budget passes. But I think we've given Emily

and the administration a lot of different areas where we think we can tighten up a little bit. We have to consider all of the people that sat here and said we're not paying our clerks enough, we're not paying certain people enough to keep them here. There is a balance here and it's a hard balance for all of us and it's a hard balance for the residents of the

city because some are struggling. I get that as well. But I mean I think we've given enough examples on where we think maybe we could tweak it a little bit. So with that I yield. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor in seat eight, Councillor Raposo. Yeah, so I'm gonna just make this real simple. So we have had many discussions in ordinance about salaries being out of ordinance. We have not gotten an answer

to say what happens when the administration intentionally, unintentionally goes out of ordinance. The answer was nothing. So here's a situation where clearly if we approve, and again, it's not the person, it's just this fact that it's out of ordinance. If we approve it, it basically says it's okay, violate the ordinance, who cares? That's my point. So it's

nothing against the person. I understand your point, Counselor Perra, but the reality is this will now put it out of ordinance and until the ordinance is amended, I can't approve it. I yield. Council in seat two, Councilor Kamara. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify one thing that my colleague in seat seven said when she brought up the fact that we voted for police salaries and police expenses and we

voted as an entire section eight. The fact was we didn't vote, that failed.

I clarified it with the clerk when I asked him afterwards. Community protection, that entire section, police salaries, police expenses, police capital, all this stuff. We talked about the chief one. That did not pass. So I just want to make that clear. You said it. We voted for it. We did not. Some of us did. Some of us didn't. But that failed 6-3. Oh, I'm saying it failed that that's not one of

our recommended cuts. With that, I yield. Thank you. I understand. So I understand, I know how I voted on that. I get what you're saying and maybe I stated it wrong. I didn't vote to put that out either. Anything further on this? That I did. Counselor in seat four, Counselor Dion. No suggested cuts? No, my cut was already addressed. I have nothing else. Okay, Counselor

in seat one, Counselor Kadima, you got it? I don't have it. I didn't have my hand up but I do have it. I have you here so it looked like it. You did this. So all my additional cuts were made. The only thing I will say is I would just ask the administration to take a hard look at the transportation number. I just don't know from the transportation based on the conversations

that we had with the school and the administration as to whether or not the number is an accurate number, if it's higher, if it's lower. So if we can just get some clarification and make sure that the numbers tie out between the schools and the city numbers. That's something I'd be looking for. to have addressed by the if the new budget comes down. Madam Clerk, we're going to memorialize all of this

in an email and a letter tomorrow. If you could be so kind to include that in a quick sentence or two for clarification on that for our colleague and our council. I think that's great. And while you're doing that, if you can include the indirect costs. I know there was some conversation tonight about the indirect costs so if adjustments need to be made on the indirect costs I would also like to

have that included. I just don't have a number to Understood. Understood. With that I yield. Thank you. Councilor in seat 8, Councilor Raposo. Yeah, I found the one I was looking for. Go ahead. Make a motion for suggestion to reduce community service salaries by the amount of $14,877.

That is a vacancy that is currently held in the Council of Agent. Motion to reduce E1, E1, Councilor? No, it would be E1. F1. F1. F1.

I apologize. F1 has been made by an amount of $14,877. Yes, sir. Has been made by Councillor Raposo. I'm sorry, point of clarification. What was it? It's, so the amount is $14,877. It's a vacancy currently held in the Council of Aging under F1 community service salaries. What page is that on, Councillor? That would be found on page 111. Thank you. Is there a second? Yes. Seconded by Councilor

Kadim. Is there discussion? Councilor C. 2, Councilor Kamara. I think if we can provide community services and have someone take that job and pay them that salary and be doing the service to the community, with that I yield. Thank you. Councilor C. 1, Councilor Kadim. I just ask for you, through you, to my colleague, what the logic was by the reduction. Your logic? It's a vacancy and I'm not convinced the position's

needed. You yield? Councilor C. 7, Councilor Parra. But when Tess Karin was in front of us, she said that vacancy had just occurred she's looking for somebody this position is to go into one of the senior centers that we have so I wouldn't want to take that position out because the senior center needs it and she's there's already an application out for it. With

that I yield. Thank you. Counselor Raposo. And I think to answer that when you look at Health and Human Services as a department in of itself there's grant funded, CDA funded, the city funded you know I think there is a way to look at that is there's a few ways of income that comes in to pay for these positions. So if this is necessarily straight city budget funded and we can relook

at it, I think it's an opportunity to have a conversation with Director Kern to see how we can possibly make some savings there while still maintaining level of service.

So it's an opportunity for a conversation between the CFO, be a part of that conversation so be it and Director Curran I yield. Constance seat two, Councillor Kamara. Thank you. The opportunity to have that discussion was when she was here at the table.

We didn't bring it up. She told us why it was there. Ask the question one of them at a time. Thank you. Appreciate that. So I think the opportunity to ask those questions when she was in front of us and I think she made it very clear. We'd like to hire someone for that position to provide a service to the seniors for our community. I'm going to stick to what I said

earlier. I'm not going to support this either. Thank you. With that I yield. Constance seat one, Councillor Kadeem. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll support it. but I would be looking for some input from the director to see what's really going on. I wasn't here for that meeting for those discussions. I will say that I'm in agreement with my colleague in seat too that we should be providing services to our seniors

so I want to make sure that if we are going to cut it it's being covered by the state formula grant or something or I'd really need to see some justification as to why that but I'm just going to support it for the recommendations moving forward. With that I yield. We'll make sure, Madam Clerk, if you could please ask for this specific item for additional information on that for our colleague in

seat one and others that would be helpful so they can provide that in anticipation of our next meeting. Councillor, I said what you were going to say. All right.

Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call. Item line item F1 suggested reduction in the amount of $14,877. This is for the Council on Aging Part-Time Senior Aid. Councilor Kadeem. Yes. Kamara. No.

Canual. No. Dion. No. Hart. No. Peckham.

Yes. Pereira. No. Raposo. Yes. President Ponty. Yes.

Motion fails to carry four yays, five nays. I'm done. I yield. Is there any other Councilors that would like to speak? Any suggestions to the administration? Hearing none, is there a, I would just like to read one item into the record if we can. We missed the cherry sheet assessments under our appropriation order earlier this evening. Madam Clerk, am I correct when I say that? Yes, it's part of the

appropriation order, the general fund operating budget, bottom line amount, it's in the amount of $47,318,439. I don't necessarily know if we need to approve of that.

It's the will of the council. Just wanted to make sure that it wasn't left out. Motion for a two-minute recess.

We just had a quick discussion on the cherry sheet assessments for 47, 318, 439.

We were just trying to be proactive to see if we didn't miss anything in the record to the clerk's credit. And I find that there is no, it's not necessary to vote on this item at this point at all. It's a cherry sheet assessment. Is there anything further before this council? Councilman C.D. A, Councilor Raposo. So I'm just, you know, I guess through you to the administration, when do we expect possible

revision be presented in front of us? Great question. I will be speaking, our clerks have worked and I haven't seen them stop writing. We are going to formalize a letter tomorrow taking all of the approved suggested cuts. We will memorialize that in a letter. I will send it to the Mayor's office and our CFO. They will then take that under advisement. I'm sure I'm going to get a

couple phone calls and it will be up to them as to whether or not they will be sending down a supplemental appropriation at our meeting which is next to the schedule next Tuesday. Thank you. Council in seat three, Councillor Canyle. I don't believe this council has taken action relative to the fiscal year 2027 EMS Enterprise Fund appropriation order. That's next. That's next. I'm sorry. I thought we were all done.

Not yet. You're so smart. Madam Clerk. Also as part of the committee report is an appropriation order for the Emergency Medical Services Enterprise Fund for FY 2027.

Would you like me to introduce the total amount or would you like to take it line by line? Line by line. Okay. So section A from the EMS rate revenues for EMS salaries in the amount of $9,925,027.

Is there a motion?

There's also a copy on your desks. It was next to the other.

I believe it

would be appropriate to make a motion to reject this pending Any updates that may come down. Motion to reject EMS. I'll second that rejection. Motion to reject EMS rate revenue EMS salaries has been made by Council of Canuel, seconded by Council of Peckham discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye.

Roll call vote please. On rejecting the EMS salaries line item, Councilor Skidim? Yes.

Kamara? No. Canuel? Yes.

Dion? Yes. Peckham? Yes. Hart? Aye. My apologies.

Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes.

President Ponte? Yes. Is it the will of the council to keep going line by line or take them all together? Motion to take them all together. Motion to take them all together. Has been made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Raposo. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Clerk. For the remaining line items, I from EMS rate revenues, EMS expenses, $2,599,485.

For EMS capital, $241,200. For EMS transfers indirect costs, $5,213,194.

for the EMS debt in the amount of $59,833. Motion to reject. Motion to reject made by Councillor Raposo. Seconded by Councillor Peckham as their discussion. There is not. Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Seat 2 and seat 5 opposed.

You want a roll call vote? Roll call. Yes, please. Councilor Skidim? Yes. Kamara? No.

Kanuel? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart? No.

Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes.

President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries seven yays, two nays. That's all we have Mr. President? I think they have some. Motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor. Do we approve the water and sewer? Yes. We did that already in the prior year. What was that? I didn't hear. To be clear, Councilor Kadeem just asked the question if we approve water and sewer Council already did

that at a prior meeting in April. We usually do that before. It's not part of this. Motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have a good night. Thank you all.

Keep saying agreement.