6.4.2025 Fall River City Council

My back

Hey hey hey.

Hey,

My

home coming.

City Council Committ will come to order.

Clerk will call the role. Council here.

Dion here. Hart Kilby here. Ferrer here.

Here. Reposo here. Tip here. And President Camaro here. For everyone in attendance, I just want to know councelor Paul Hart had reached out said he has a commitment today. He will join us later on in the evening, but he just could not be here for six o'clock. but he is expected to be here later on. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may

transmit this meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpreceived by those present and not deemed acknowledged and permissible. We have three individuals who signed up for assistance input time.

First we have John Lynch. Subject matter for fire department stations. Everyone who talks at his input time will be given three minutes.

Good evening counselors. Good evening.

Good evening. I want to thank you for allowing me to speak before you today.

My name is John D. Lynch. I live at 612 South Main Street, Far Mass. I was a firefighter for 36 years.

I'm happily retired. I also want to thank you because I know you don't get enough praise and I know you're sitting in a hot seat and it's a tough position to be in, but there are people out there that appreciate what you do for this city.

And I know that your hearts are always in it. We don't always agree with you, but I know, and many do that you do it for the right reason. So, I like to it's a little quote from Daniel Webster, who was in Congress in the 1800s, represented New Hampshire and then Massachusetts. He said, "There are politicians and there are statesmen."

He says, "A politician does what the people want."

He says, "A statesman does what the people need." And I think that you were all statesmen because you understand we elect you to do your job and you're doing it. We don't always agree, but we elect you for that purpose. And I know you go through a lot of stuff sometimes. People always pointing things fingers at you on social media and that's wrong. But get on with it. I'm here because I saw recently

there was a thing on the fire department stations and deplorable conditions. And I agree. It's been like like that for over 40 years.

The conditions of the stations are very tough, but we're not alone in this. Every city in town is plagued by it, except for the affluent communities like Newton, Welssley. We all know it's a big expense. I'm here to tell you some good news about it that's going to help you out hopefully because we know This city has limited expenses. Stations take a lot of money.

In an ideal world, the money would fall from the sky and we could fix them all up. That's not the case.

The good news is there's a retired chief from Westwood, Bill Scoville, who represents the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts on the state house. And last week, we all gathered together, Bristol County Fire Chiefs and Retired Chiefs, and he's proposing and he's fighting on on uh Beacon Hill to have somebody put together a bill and have this bill pass that has a fund created similar to

what the school department has to build new stations, repair stations. And retired chief Bill Scoville spoke to the speaker of the house, told him what his proposal was.

The speaker of the house wasn't at first in favor of it because he said, "Where is the money going to come from?

Well, Bill Scoville had a great idea. He said, "What about all this cannabis money we have? Why can't we use some of that cannabis money to create a fund like the school department to help all these cities and towns that have stations that are in deplorable conditions? And Florida is not alone.

And we're not the worst." Try to wrap it up, chief. Oh, sure. the rules. Second motion wave rules to allow another 3 minutes has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. So what I would like the city council to do and you've always been advocates of public safety and especially the fall fire department.

Contact our local legislators. Have them push this forward. Support it because that would help us out immensely. It would take a lot of the burden that's being borne by the cities and towns like Fall River. However, and this is most important of all, stations as dire in need are not as important as apparatus replacement. And most important of all adequate staffing. Our apparatus right now after

replacement several years ago is getting unreliable and we can't rely on a savior like Mike Dion and CDA to save us again after 15 years. It's going away anyway.

and and you know that I've always been a proponent of it and several of you have also and I know councelor Kadim has always said this that we need a regular replacement a regular schedule to replace the apparatus we can't wait for 10 years and all of a sudden it all falls apart at the same time so that is it is very important but even if we had pristine stations reliable appar apparatus and

equipment. They would be mere ornaments without adequate staffing. This is why I felt compelled to come here today before you because I've heard rumors and I hope they're just rumors that there might be possibility of cuts to the fire department, public safety, police department. That's unacceptable.

Staffing is paramount. Firefighters mitigate hazards. Trucks and stations are useless without proper staffing. So, at the end, I'm imploring you, don't lose sight of what's really important. I know we're in the heat of moment right now.

Stations, everybody's going in there and we're all saying they're in horrible condition. Yes, they are. But let's not lose sight what's really important.

Staffing and good equipment and apparatus. Thank you, Chief. Councelor Kilby, you have just really quick coming from you. It's it's very very it's highly significant that you came down here. Um so it's especially for me is to hear it from someone that's so respected as you are in in the city and uh how you know. So, thank you for coming and uh I know we're all listening, council president. I'm we are and uh so thank

you. Just wanted to make that just one last thing. Council Ponty, I contacted you a while back. I want to know what hat size you are cuz I'm going to buy you our first Yankee hat.

No, it's not going to be no comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief. Next, we have attorney Rita Rita Brown. Subject matter for police

department. Thank you, Reena Brown, 105 Bank Street. And it's come to the attention of some people that councelor Kadeim has suggested a $10 million cut from the fallro police department's $24 million budget. Let me be absolutely clear. A cut of this magnitude or threat of one is not just irresponsible. It's unconscionable and egregious. This proposal, which seems to stem from some

type of personal vendetta against Chief Kelly Fittado, not rooted in facts, public safety, or fiscal prudence, its political grandstanding at the expense of every man, woman, and child in this city. Cutting nearly half of the police department's funding would their ability to protect us. Recruitment and retention are already serious challenges and it would become impossible. Officers

are already leaving for better paying and better supported departments. This kind of drastic cut sends a loud and dangerous message that our city does not value its officers and the critical work they do. The message would also be clear that you don't care about the safety of our community. Because here's what $10 million in cuts would look like. Fewer officers would be on the street. Longer

response times in emergencies, no proactive policing to deter crime before it happens. It'd be the elimination of specialized units that combat gangs and narcotics, illegal guns, violent crimes.

We'd have no school resource officers to protect our children. No detectives to investigate serious crimes, including those against our most vulnerable population, our children. And this isn't an exaggeration. It's the reality of gutting a public safety agency. And when you remove that layer of protection, the result is not just disorgan disorganization, it's pure lawlessness. You do not dismantle a

city's safety infrastructure because you have a personal disagreement with leadership. You do not jeopardize the security of over 90,000 residents to score political points. The mere suggestion of such a cut is not just shocking. It reveals a dangerous disregard for the well-being of the community. The Fall River Police Department does not belong to one person. It belongs to the people of Fall

River. Every one of us deserves to feel safe in our homes, our neighborhoods, our businesses, and our schools. and every officer deserves to know that their service is respected and supported by the city they serve. I strongly urge this council to reject this reckless proposal and to be cautious with your rhetoric as it affects everyone. You are elected to serve and protect the people

of this city, not to play politics with their safety. And just as an important reminder, the police department budget includes the harbor master, the animal control officer, prisoner supplies and protection armor vehicles ammunition utilities, fuel, housing projects, maintenance on the buildings, traffic signage, licensing, trainings, and so so much more. Restricting the budget is

purely reckless and ultimately harms the entire city. I would ask you to please uh fully fund the Fall River Police Department in their budget request. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Next, we have Chris Beck, subject matter for DC. Who said that council C1? Thank you. I I want to thank the speaker. I think she was very eloquent and articulate in the uh statements that she made, but she was hold she was actually proving my point.

You know, everything she just said about the for police department is absolutely true. The statement was made that let's cut $10 million from the police department budget because the person who was in charge to lead the department was not here to discuss the budget. and I was trying to prove a point that a motion could be made to have the police department's funding cut and reduced and

the person who was in charge of the department is not here to support it. At no point, none of my colleagues even thought that was a serious motion. So, the fact that the uh speaker thought it was, that's fine. But she made my point.

It is important for public safety, both the police and the fire to make sure that they're fully funded. And all my questions will go to that. But the fact of the matter is is that the police the chief the chief of police was not here to speak to the budget. So that that in itself speaks to how severe and how detrimental it could be if you're not at a meeting to discuss a $27 million

budget to discuss staffing that includes 284 uh sworn officers and civilians and dispatchers and uh animal control officers. So that's that's what I would say. I think it was it was a great statement and I concur with her. Let's fully fully fund the police department.

Thank you, council. I I don't think anyone was thinking anything differently. I agree. Come down now.

Crisp.

Good evening, good evening, councelor.

Christopher Pekham, 29 Beacon Street.

Honorable council, in light of a recent article written by the for reporter about the former DCM director, I was compelled to attend tonight's meeting and share some concerns that I have pertaining to the story. On May 30th, 2025, the for reporter released an article detailing the alleged misconduct of a former DCM director. In this report, private investigator Looney documents that accusa accusations were

made pertaining to hazardous toxins and chemicals being voided within the incinerator located at 10 Lewon Street.

As a former member of the city's OPA committee and upon its inception, um I still I'm still continuing to follow its progress. I have questions pertaining to OPA money that was earmarked for 10 Lewon Street and the incinerator itself. In two separate OPA line items, specifically OPA 64 and 64A, this location um I'm sorry, 64A, this location is set to receive in total $16,219,213. The incinerator pit area

itself is set to receive an upgrade and is attached to this money as well.

Lost my place. I apologize. It's been a while. It's okay. Take your time. This brings up several questions. While allocating the OPA funds to DCM, was it determined prior whether or not the director did in indeed dispose of toxins into the incinerator? If true, which I'd have to assume it is, has it been decontaminated?

Now, if the area is still contaminated, are any monies from opera 64 and 64A dedicated to deontamination of that area? Were the surrounding single family homes and businesses notified of the potential hazards? Was the D contacted? These questions lead me to ask, did the city allocate this money to the DCM with the intentions to rectify the hazardous conditions in a shifty manner? No matter

how you look at this, the city was aware in 2022 of the director's actions, which would indicate that they were aware upon the allocation of these funds. I am asking the city council to call upon the mayor's office and the OPA committee to freeze this line item within OPA until these questions can be answered. The taxpayers should not be footing the bill. The director should be. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Just just just as a point of information uh to uh councel Pekkham's comments um we did file a resolution at least I did I think it's going to be on the June 10th meeting is that our next meeting uh it's not obviously on tonight um where I think it's in our duty and responsibility to uh to get an investigation done figure out what actually did happen not just a private investigation because there were some

serious comp serious issues that I took after reading the report that was just published recently It was the first time I heard about it.

I'm very very concerned. There's definitely possibilities accusations of fraud, misconduct, malfeasants. I mean, it's just in my opinion, it can't be tolerated. And, you know, we stood here holding a prior administration accountable for some actions that they that they did. And uh I I I hope that when that resolution that I co-sponsor with my colleague in seat one is heard that we can do a proper investigation to

make sure that what was done uh what actions occurred and what the administration did to follow up to make sure that um these things never happen again and what really happened because I have a lot of questions. So I know we're the legislative body. I filed the resolution from an accountability perspective and I'm hoping that when that comes before us that we can get unanimous support to find out the true

facts about what happened with that. So I just wanted to make that comment.

Thank you. I just want to make sure people understand much of what was in that report was during the same administration that we held accountable the Korean administration much of it. Uh Mr. President with all due respect that investigation occurred under the current mayor right but what was hap the comments and the timelines were during the previous it was years of it going on. So I don't want people to think that

this is all happening under this but there was there was actions that could have been taken and and when you tell the local press that you're going to refer it over to a department to look at and it didn't happen. I just want to make sure we're holding all people to the same standards like we just did with you counselor and the only reason I made the statement I'm making is because I

heard you say we held the prior administration accountable for his actions. This is all part of that prior administration's actions there. Yeah, it was connected to a degree. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Just make it clear.

Thank you, Mr. President. Council C5, council vice president. I'll speak on that because the fact of the matter is every single city councelor received an email if they were here in 22. We all received an email. I have had conversations with the mayor. I've had conversations with attorney Ramsey when all this went on to try to figure out if there was anything that was done illegally. And I think some of my

colleagues should have a conversation first um to see exactly uh what happened.

Um you know and I I just think this coming up now we had this Joe Good wrote a story about this and the Herald News fought for us because they wanted to get um a redact a copy that was unredacted.

The copies that we got were redacted. I went to the law department and read it and I believe my colleague in seat number two also read it. I never took a copy because if it ended up on Facebook, I didn't want to be a part of that. I read it there. But recently the redacted copy, I mean the unredacted copy was put out and when I read it, there was

something in there that I know I didn't say and I was never contacted. But now I understand the how the unredacted copy got there, which is fine. Which is fine.

But I got calls from DCM and everything that it caused turmoil there as well. So I think we should look into it to know that everything that needed to be done was in fact done. With that I yield.

Thank you. Council C1, did you want to make a comment as well? No, I was just going to clarify because I know a lot of folks are saying why are we discussing it now? But the report that was issued, you know, a couple years ago was was actually redacted or a year ago, whatever it was. So the report that we currently have is not redacted. So now there's a lot more information that we

have obviously uh privy to that we weren't privy to prior and I I wasn't aware that we could go to the uh corporation council and read a report. I mean if it's redacted it's redacted. I I don't know why it wouldn't be redacted for us. Um we're a legislative body.

There's no difference than the the general public. So uh with with that I I think there is some some questions and concerns that need to be um be addressed and we can talk a little bit more about that the next meeting. I we don't need to take it up now. But I yield. We we did all receive an email with the copy.

If you didn't go up and read it, everybody got one in an email. Doesn't make it a crime for you. So, I'm glad that it was No, but that was the redacted, right? It was redacted. So, even if you went up there to and I'll let my colleague see too. She went up and read it. I'm pretty sure it was a redacted copy.

I don't know. It was redacted with the names, but all the information I read it when it was sent to our emails and it was redacted. Okay. with name to see forecast. I'll just say that uh I'll speak to the resolution and make a decision. Um but sure, you know, I'm inclined to support it. However, there's a lot of things that happened during that administration. Yeah, let's let's hold those comments off for the next

week. We can reopen a lot of things.

Want to look under dogouses? We can do that if you want. Whatever. I mean most likely I'll support audit for in the process in the spirit of u let's wait till but there's a lot of things that happen and it's just cur I'm just curious why not but we'll wait thank you thank you councelor entertain a motion to lift item two from the table motion still made lift item two deal has made and

seconded all in favor any opposed motion carries continue discussion proposed Fiscal year 2026 municipal budget as follows department's carryover from May 29th 25th committee on finance agenda if needed and also public safety police hover master can we have can we have the start with public safety have the police come down and anyone else from want to come down and join her constant T2 concert I'll wait till I

get to the table yep and if you could please all just introduce yourselves so people at home know who we're Talking to name and position, please.

Kelly Fitado, chief of police. JT deputy chief of operations. Sergeant Peter Gloo, administrative assistant.

Emily RP, interim director of finance.

Thank you. Contin.

Good evening everyone.

Um, so if we turn to page 126, do we have anyone in the academy at the present time? Are you anticipating um upcoming? I'll start there.

Yes. So, we have 14 people in the academy right now. Chief, could you pull that microphone close up? Sorry, I'm just getting old. My hearing is not what it used to be.

It's usually people telling me to stop yelling. So, um, so we have 14 in the academy right now. Six, uh, eight, nine, eight patrolman and one, um, environmental graduating actually tomorrow night. So, they'll be out on the road, but they'll be in the FTO program. And then come August, we have another six graduating.

In August, we have 10 potentially 10 people. Um, deputy, I think. Yeah. 10 slated for August, another 10 in October. In October slated to go into the academy. Okay. So, in the in the budget here, we have a total of 15 17 23 vacancies. Patrolman, environmental police, housing authority, and walking beat.

How many of those positions do you anticipate you'll be filling with the differentmies coming up?

So there we I have 16 vacancies right now right?

So well on page 126 I have 15 patrolman.

I don't know. Is that correct?

the the timing of this data could be off from the point in time today to when it was published just because it was about a month or so ago or two months ago. 16.

Yeah, 16. We actually have 16 vacancies.

All right, let me write that down.

So 16 vacancies for patrolman. We have two in environmental police.

Yes. Three in the housing authority.

Yes. and three in a walking beat.

Yes. So the CDA walking beads. Yep.

So 16 18 24. So how many with these upcomingies and with people moving around how how many of these 24 vacancies do you think you'll be filling I guess is my hopefully by the end of the year at least 20 to 22.

the the the problem is is that themies take so long. So we have people ready to go to the academy but we couldn't get them into the academy till August. Then the next academy is October.

Okay. Well, the reason I asked Hold on, Chief. You mean by the end of this calendar year or the end of this fiscal year?

This calendar year. Okay. Thank you. Can I just get a point of clarification?

Yep. So the to my colleagueu's point though the vacancies so the 14 individuals that are in the academy plus the 10 in August 10 in October are they considered vacancies or are they already are their names associated? So I don't no I don't that would I don't think the names are in here yet. They're those are the vacancies. Yeah because I think there's a chance that they obviously could not pass the academy. So that's

why it's not put in there like that. I just needed that clarification. Thank you.

Cont. So, the reason I'm asking um when I saw that many vacancies on page 120, I see that your overtime was cut by $581,818 and that disturbs me. I don't see that that's going to work. Um, so my hope was if all positions weren't going to be filled, we could have taken salaries from the vacancies and brought your overtime back to where it was.

Obviously, if you're going to have 20 people um filling those positions, we can't do that. Um, I mean, do you realistically think that that cut um is going to be doable in overtime?

Yes. So, and the reason why is that once we get to a certain um amount of vacancies filled, then that will put us in for the um we'll be able to fund the remaining with the cops hiring grant. We couldn't supplant um vacancies or or bodies with that. We had to fill the open vacancies that we have now. And then once they're filled then the cops hiring grant which is 2,375,000 once that'll uh open that up

to us.

Okay. So at this point in time you're not concerned with that no cut. On on top of that, we've made some um we've made some significant cuts in the overtime by uh for instance implementing supervisor actors um acting supervisors.

So um October, November, December, we're we paid out $232,910 um compared to So once we realized there's a problem, we implemented some uh minimum manpower along with uh implementing acting sergeants. So that brought the overtime down significantly to 104 955. the savings was 127,955,000. On top of that savings, um we changed the inservice training where it used to just be historically for

decades. Um February to April, you were assigned a week of inservice training.

During COVID, they went to um online training, but you still were assigned that week. So what I did was change that. So from November to May 31st, there was 32 hours of training time put into um a training bank. And each officer got to take their time whenever it was convenient for them to do their inservice training, but without causing overtime. Without causing Yeah. without causing overtime. And there was blackout

dates. So you couldn't take a inservice training day on the weekend or on the holidays. So basically was Monday through Thursday you could take an inservice day. Um that saved us $55,133 just just making minute little changes like that. And to be honest, it made the guys really happy. So to date, you've basically saved $175,000 pretty much. We're running more efficiently with less because we're we

put systems in place to make sure that we hold uh a certain standard for minimum manning where it was kind of a little bit chaotic and we've got computer systems in place now that we look at that on a day in and dayout basis. Um but inherently when we hire more people the overtime is going to go down because we're going to have more staffing. Correct.

Um, we all there's a couple of other um things that we put into place too. Uh, they're still in the infancy stage, so I'm not quite sure where that's going to be as far as savings. It is going to be a savings. I'm not sure how significant.

One of the major things we did was um you had six slots per vacation week. So, six police officers could take vacation.

we um removed one so it's only five slots across the board. That saves 85 spots of backfill, mostly overtime to backfill the officer who's on vacation. And half of the half of those 84 is during peak call volume. So now we're actually um going to save in the overtime, but also have more. You're gonna have another body on on the road. Yep. Makes sense.

Um, we also did a for the details, we came back to the old system. We went to I always forget the name of the company.

We had outsourced to a company called Extra Duty Solutions, which was going to take over all of the management of details. And the thought process was that's not really police business. Get it out of the building. Um, but it came at the cost of sacrificing 10% of our admin fee to this company. So that's to the degree of $250,000.

When Chief Fittado took over, we looked at the efficiency with that. We also listened to uh the patrol officers and they weren't completely happy with it being outsourced because it kind of gives us a lack of control of uh being able to fill details and the communication piece. Uh but more importantly, we looked at the budget constraint. Why are we letting this company make $250,000 on the backs of our police

officers that are out there working these details? So, we piloted that program for about three months and then we just brought it back uh early this spring uh and it's been a great success.

It was the system we had before, but that money has now come back into the city. So, we haven't really experienced the loss of it except for about three months of that fee. Uh but obviously that's a huge that's a huge bringback in revenue for the city. Yeah. Because now you're talking in excess of 400,000 when you put all the numbers together.

Right. Exactly. A and the cruiser uh the cruiser fee which the um DW White the whole Deval Street project that's all cruiser driven so um there's extra an extra fee for using the cruiser Sergeant Delas I don't know if you have that cruiser fee amount yes so uh councelor Dion uh in the last two years alone with with that Devol street project uh because it is um a heavy traffic area. Every detail that is

hired in that area uh that zone uh is required to have a cruiser. Uh the cruiser fee that is added to the on top of the detail fee is $17 per hour. So in the last two fiscal years, we've seen that cruiser detail fee uh increase uh by $200,000 and we're currently at approximately $336,000. We've already this year earlier in March we purchased a uh March cruiser utilizing that fee. I know in

the past some of the councils have talked about you know revenue and and in ways to drive revenue uh and that's you know one of the things that we're kind of taking advantage of. Uh I know capital has been a topic uh with regards to it. So, it's it's just another means to an avenue to where we can use this type of uh revolving fund that we have to uh to address, you know, those types

of capital needs. So, we've already purchased one cruiser that we are in receipt and we have approximately $336,000 currently uh that we can utilize to make additional purchases.

And that's all from the 79 corridor. The the not exclusively, right? because we do have other vendors like National Grid, uh you know, the the traffic location, the time of the day. A lot of times when there's a detail called in at night, uh because of the low visibility, they'll request their cruiser. So, it's not exclusively DW White, but we have been the beneficiary of that of that

project because all of the details that they call in are require a cruiser. So, so moving forward, we can hope to anticipate that we'll have a fund that can replace cruisers on an ongoing basis. Obviously, not to this degree, not not to the extent that it will take the entirety of our capital needs, but uh to supplement, you know, uh as we go along. I think uh the the collection

rate every year and three quarters were able to buy another marked cruiser. So based on the the volume of details, it's kind of upticked with the the 79 project, but um it's definitely another revenue stream that helps us.

I'll also take three quarters of payment a year. Yeah, I'll take it. Um on page 121, um repair and maintenance traffic signal is up $40,000. That might go to Emily. I'm not sure.

So, it it did come from a request from um their electrician that they use to maintain all of those. There's a couple more replacement projects. So, um are you councilor Dion? Are you referring to R&M traffic signal? Is that the line?

Correct. Okay. So, if we backtrack to fiscal 24, I believe the request was also for $110,000. Um although I wasn't part of the administration team at that point.

Um there was a re a withdrawal in that line item that reduced it from 110 to 70. And so that's what we had to work with. Uh that line there is part of the ongoing uh cycle or program to update the aging traffic signal and infrastructure around the city. So uh that's for our signal um our signalman Chris Hathaway. He has four lines within our budget. And so that's why you see

that we're requesting uh the same amount. It's just last year it was approved but then after the budget was approved there was a revision which uh reduced that funding. Yeah. And for us the what we have is the actual from 24 which was just shy of 65,000. Correct.

And then the revised in 2568 projected now at 71. So that's why I would Yeah.

um it doesn't show that it ever was at the 110. So those are the numbers we had to work with. Um other professional services, what are those? Because that's an increase of 16,000 almost 17,000. It's uh one, two, three, four, five, seven lines below the uh traffic signal one.

That's when we combined that was a recategorization of uh something that was under another line. uh we have uh hazardous waste products that get collected by Sterycle. That contract was moved uh under that because it was miscatategorized under another line. So it was basically housekeeping. Okay. Was the rentals and leases went into the other professional services and there's a further down

medical supplies was 0000 that's at 24,000. What? Yes. So when Emily came aboard, uh we had numerous conversations about the existing police line items, especially on the expense as well as the salary side. Uh there were some lines that we had that are dated and really didn't reflect uh what we were using them for. An example is our um cruiser supplies. So our first responder, our

our amboo bags, uh you know, the gauze, all those types of medical uh uh supplies, we had been using the other supply line. So where you see other supplies specific and so in getting together with Emily and and uh trying to establish a more um transparent or appropriate line, uh she was able to create for us this brand new line uh which is the first year, the medical supply line. So, we moved that medical supply cost

$24,98 into that line. It's it's the only it's the only expense in that line.

And some of those movements we would try to re label if we could if it was exclusively if the only thing that was charged to a line item was that we would kind of just rename it and that's what you would see is the history with it.

But sometimes things were combined together and some of them appropriately belonged there and some of them didn't.

So that's why sometime it it doesn't appear as clean as it. So based on that, is that why bulletproof vests shows zero dollars but leather apparel went up? Uh the the bulletproof vest under the uh leather apparel line item now or what happened there? Uh so to speak to the bulletproof vest line, uh council Dion, uh historically there had been some funding in that line traditionally.

However, it's a reimburseable item. So whenever we purchased a bulletproof vest, uh we're able to get a 50% reimbursement from the federal government and then once we receive that reimbursement from the federal government, we in turn submit um to the state uh government and we get another 50%. So in essence, when we purchase a bulletproof vest for one of our members, um we have a 100% reimbursement. So, in

discussions with Emily, it didn't make sense to, you know, fund that line with $40 or $50,000 when we were getting reimbursed for 99. Every now and again, there might be an anomaly like if we have u because you can only get reimbursement once every five years. So if we have a scenario where an officer is in need of a vest and and it's within that five years, we wouldn't be able and we'd have

to bear those p those costs out of out of pocket. But the cost is so minor in comparison to a $27 million budget. It didn't make sense to to just have money sitting there in reality that was just going to get turned back into free cash at the end of the year. Okay. So the increase in leather apparel um 33,000 what that that has to do ma'am with with our uh aggressive hiring uh uh strategy.

So, um, as you, um, are aware, the the city implemented a a I'm not going to call it a scholarship program, but a program where they contract where they correct. And so, uh, you know, we have anticipated um those costs to buy the uh, all of the uniforms that are required to go to the academy. That's why you see the increase in that leather apparel. So, as we are more aggressive

with hiring, that number can in be anticipated to be a little higher. Once we get to full staffing and and and we're no longer in that aggressive hiring uh position, you'll see that number kind of fluctuate.

Um I only have two more questions. Uh page 128, six, uh dispatches vacancies. Uh we hoping to fill those. It's a unfortunately we have a revolving door with dispatches.

Um we try and keep them but we're losing out to the towns. Um comparably they're they're severely underpaid to likes a uh agencies. So we have a competitive issue there where they're constantly looking for obviously same job better pay. Um but yeah we've when I was in charge of staff services we worked diligently to try to get to the 35 mark 36 mark. We we hit that a little bit and then we

dropped back down. So even under Deputy Chief Cullen when he was in charge of all of that, uh the highest we ever got I think was 32 was his magic number teetering there. Um but we we want to get in a higher staffing because obviously call volume is a is an issue and we want to make sure we have proper staffing. Oh, definitely significant in Fall River. Anybody who has a scanner knows that.

um on page 129 under the hobra master um what are the professional services and what are the other purchased services and again it's not it's not a big number I'm just curious what that what it is that's under the expenses so the professional services line is for the hovermaster assistance that gets paid out of that okay and the other purchase services are for uh boat repairs storage commissioning and

decommissioning vessels So, but you have but there is an R&M boat line um for 7,000. So, that's other purchase services or additional maintenance. Uh yes, ma'am. So, um like the storage um or work that has to be done at say the winterizing there's three separate boats. So, winterizing, um, storage or wrapping, uh, the patrol boat over the winter, uh, keeping up with the safer boat, the one that, uh, Hoba Master

usually uses, and then the pumpout boat.

Okay, this is also one we didn't get to cleaning up the lines as much as we want to, but, look for that next year.

We're working through it. And, uh, and gas and the gas has gone up more than doubled.

um but less than the revised budget of last year. Okay, with that I yield.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Cont.

Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, thank you for being here. Thank you. Um so I asked a similar question to the fire chief uh about staffing. So can you just and and briefly I don't need a whole explanation, but can you just speak to your staffing levels uh in terms of adequacy for the department? What you think the adequate total numbers are? Uh when the fire chief was here, uh he mentioned he was looking for 200. We

currently have only 187 budgeted. I noticed that for the uh police department, uh FY25, we had 282 full-time equivalents. For this year's budget, we've got two additional staff.

So, I'm just trying to figure out for planning purposes from a staffing standpoint, where are we with an adequate staffing level? Not saying that we'll get there this year or five years from now, but what does that number look like for for the city of Fall River? So, right now we we just to go down the line, we have two deputies, five captains, 15 lieutenants, uh 31 sergeants, 16 vacancies. Uh we funded

149 patrolmen. Uh we have 19 from other sources, one sergeant which would make make that 31 from uh from the school department. School department pays for that. Uh what ultimately we'd like to be at for patrolman is 183. That we've been at 183 before. at 183. I believe that we that would cut down our overtime significantly and we could comfortably be at that number without ordering uh people people in. And and

you said we're at what are we at for patrolman currently?

It's 149. 149. No, 149 plus 19. Oh, right. 149 on the city.

149 on the city side. The city budget.

So, but total patrol 165 and we're saying total to be where we you feel like we would be adequate to to minimize overtime and do proper patrolling would be 183.

That would be like just awesome.

So 18 is that with that if we if we could get and I believe with this new civil service pathways I believe we can get there you know. Um, council Kim, the the chief also made point of that cops grant that we have uh that would allow us to expand staffing, it doesn't allow us to supplant to get to a number, but you know, being funded at 169, I

believe, in the fiscal year 26 or 168 in fiscal year 26, if we got to that number, the we could use that grant to get us above it and try to get to that 183 number. I mean, right now we're at historically low numbers and to the credit of the the police officers, not only in the crowd here, but working, our service level has not degregated. We answer every call. No call goes

unanswered. So, it's to their credit, but I think we can get much more specialized and increase our service level and uh clearly give our guys and girls a break out there if we get above uh into that that number 183. And so, I recognize this administration is is new, right? So, you right, we're couple months into it. Um, have you started having those conversations with the with the administration and the mayor in

terms of is it feasible in terms of their standpoint from a sustainability standpoint to get to 183? What does that look like? Is it a 5year, 10-year plan?

Um, using the various grants to be able to to get us to where we feel like from a patrolling standpoint, it would help to reduce obviously burnout and things of that nature. Well, one thing that unlocked uh the ability to hire some more people quickly is uh the civil service reform, right? the local register. A credit to Lieutenant Galveo who's sitting in the audience today.

Towns don't like you for that though.

Well, hey, guess what? It's a competitive market. So, we're hiring it forever. I don't think we have a recruiting problem. We have an attraction problem. And if we can increase our staffing, we can make a better work environment that I think people want to come to the city because obviously, as you all know, there's a lot of things happening out there in the city right now, but in a good part, but

more importantly, the that helps us get more people in. So, I think what the chief had already said, uh, within the next six months, we're going to have 30 people brewing and then we're going to continue. So, I think the goal is to get to 183 with the grant. We have the ability to to take some alleviation off of the city uh and then may make it a problem as far as funding later, but

we've never been able to get out of our way the last 10 years to be ahead of attrition. We've always been climbing at it ever since the layoffs. So, so I recognize that if if we budget 183, you're you're probably working numbers are probably 40 or 30 below that. I mean, I know the numbers that we just mentioned in terms of vacancy, but um in terms of, you know, recruitment retention, uh you know, it's it's a

problem throughout the country, especially in Massachusetts. And I've said this before, I don't know that the um uh post has done anything, you know, the police uh reform law. I think it's it's kind of uh done the opposite of what it was intended to do. You know, I I I just have significant issues with the way that was done from a legislative process. So, I I I recognize and appreciate, you know, the challenges

that come with it and and I think part of it has to do with that police reform law, especially when you start looking at Massachusetts. Um the training that is that is done in Massachusetts compared to any other uh state in the country is far exceeds uh what other states are doing. And and from my standpoint, we always have, you know, bad apples in in different departments and and but that doesn't speak to the

need for a complete reform. And to have a police reform that did not take into account uh discussions with the industry, talking to chiefs and police officers on the impact of that, I think is um is unfortunate. And and now from from the city side, you know, now we're dealing with uh the post commission getting certified and now we've we've got negotiations going on for additional

um salary adjustments just for a post certification which is driving even uh more issues from a funding standpoint when we could be putting that into additional bodies. So there's there's a lot to that whole situation. Um but I I'm not sure if you're aware uh council kadim they are now um requiring the SRO's to be double certified. So they have to go through a separate certification not only certified as a

police officer but now they have to and go through a whole another slew of trainings which all is great but it costs money.

All right. Um, so my my other question I have with regards to just sticking on on patrol and and uh staffing. The council I know has has talked for a number of years. I think it's about six years, maybe even longer than that about operating uh 12 patrol cars uh throughout this the city. Um, I I think we've gotten there at some point and I know there was a deal that was cut with

the union to at least my understanding uh is is that we would continue to run 12 patrol cars throughout the city. But if there was obviously if there was overtime we uh I should I say we you folks wouldn't backfill. You wouldn't force. So you would offer it up to for overtime if folks didn't want to take it. They wouldn't be forced and and the minimum would be a 10 10 car patrol.

Right. And then you would you would force if you got below the 10 car. Is that is that accurate? Right. So, uh, with the union's cooperation, we looked at that when G Fertado took over and we kind of figured out that, hey, uh, the frequency in which the voluntary effort to get to 12 was just not there. So, we kind of wanted to get down to brass tax and like what can we sufficiently man

and allow people to get their vacation, which is obviously owed to them. And then obviously the conversation of comp time. So there was some flexibility, there was some give there because just from a manning standpoint, we don't have the bodies to bring 12 people up every single time. So there was some there was some give from them in an agreement that we were able to do kind of unofficially

to move forward that we're not at the level we're at. We should be to man 12 cars. So we've been running with what we would call an 11man system. Uh and we were able to man cars plus uh the desk officer. So essentially that's our minimum standard right now. There are times where it's above, but where you're seeing some of our overtimes come in is when we have either mandated training or

vacation. Is the desk officer the officer in charge? Is that who that is?

When that's the uh No, that's the basically the the desk officer is answering the phone. He's managing the details that are coming in. Attendance.

Attendance in the front the front lobby.

So on on average So on average, are we averaging 10 cars? Is that what you're saying? We're averaging 10 patrol cars out there. Yep. 10 and then the the 11th one is is the desk. But then they're not technically patrol and they'll go out if the front window is technically a patrol. So you're really looking at 12 total people. So 11 is the patrol function, one is the desk.

So one of the things that we're looking to do uh which um is a IT nightmare. So every time we come up with this idea, the IT department like runs from us. But one of the things that we want to do is go to a 10th sector like come up with 10 sectors so that the whole city is man because we have 12 cars but two cars get shut down um which ends up making the

guys just run ragged all over the place.

Right. And um so we want to go to a 10 sector plan which I do believe that um Chief Souza did do that during layoffs when we laid off 40 uh officers. He went to a 10 sector plan. Um it is trying to find that. So it's already it's already done. Um so with that we we would save money in um cruisers and the equipment which is quite expensive in the cruiser

and to have for me with a lot of experience in a patrol car. I would rather instead of running 12 cars, I would rather in the busy sectors like the middle of the city, the Flint, to run two man cars, you know, two guys to a car, which um historically in our field, we know that there's more proactivity to that and it's much safer.

So, I would rather have that. We're doing that already, you know, and then everybody, the whole city's uh covered.

We're also looking with the environmental to try and bump them up a little bit more. We've always we've been running with one and two. I'd like to get them to the full I we have five uh budgeted. I really would like to get six because I don't like them one person working by themselves, especially out in the reservation. But we want to increase their responsibilities to add the parks.

Now that we don't have anything to do with the water department, I want them to also be um part of their focus is the parks to make sure that they go around the parks, especially the hotspot parks and uh so that that has some, you know, uh patrolling and attention. Do um do the environmental police officers, they obviously got to be fully certified and trained. Fully certified. Yes, they have

full chapter 90 powers as They're full police certified police officers. Okay.

And they're just that except their detail is just preservation environmental parks. Okay. May May I interject? Sure. Um Council Demission.

Mhm. Thank you. Yeah. On the environmental police officers uh when Mayor when Lambert Mr. Lambert was uh was mayor, they were under the water department, right? Yes. and then they uh and very gratefully got transferred to the police department which I think was a great move because they went through the training they you know they that's they're able to do details and different things through that. So um I would I

would like to see them at full compliment and I would I would like to see u that expanded role sounds very interesting with them going into the parks and things like that as well. So that's so I guess if I could just wrap up that line of questioning in terms of you know the staffing plan itself. So if you could I guess work with the administration to get us something uh

just to figure out similar to what the fire department's going to do before we start talking obviously with the safer grants for the fire. I just want to make sure from a sustainability standpoint that one if if we're coming off the grants uh obviously we can sustain them because there's nothing worse than you know adding the grants adding uh bodies through grants and then having to lay

them off and and there's just additional cost associated with that. So um but just in in terms of the salary line items. So I'm just looking for a clarification. So there was a million dollar increase in the salary line item itself. So the very first line item compared to fiscal year 25. So, I noticed it's two additional bodies, I I believe.

Um, so can you just speak to the additional is there additional personnel? Is there uh movement from fiscal year 25 to 26 that's driving that cost? Uh, so more detectives, more specialized units where uh folks are just getting additional um salary increases that they wouldn't or is it just solely collective bargaining agreement? So, just to start out, there's a couple of those things that

they can answer to way better, but um part of it that we caught after the fact, and it's in um the email that I think went out to you guys this morning, we did realized that there was grant funding that was typically in there for the dispatchers that was short changed and what was originally submitted, which is almost a $350,000 difference. So, that should be off of there. So, it I mean, I know it's

still upwards of $700,000 difference, but that is a big part of it. Um that needs to be okay. So that's that's all captured. It's not just police s. So that's all that's going to be a hover master dispatch. All is captured in that first line. Correct. Okay.

But it's it's captured across the board in that line. No, I I recognize that. I I thought that was just solely police department. Go ahead. Well, that is technically to the police department. I know that's the it's confusing, right?

Sworn versus nonsworn. Correct. Yeah. I thought, and maybe I'm mistaken, I thought in the past we had a breakdown for for the hover master and then dispatch was a separate. So the harbor master is separate and then the other ones it's just it's always just been broken down in the detail, not in the lines over here. So it is still broken down in the detail if you you can see

like there's a police and then it ends and then there's environmental police and you can see a total and then animal control you can see a total when you get into the detailed pages and then dispatch you can see a total. So that is I I was thinking about putting in the list that you're looking at as a totals, but I didn't want to change too much yet. So So then my my other question, if

I if I'm understanding correctly, so we we currently have staffing shortage and patrol. Um and with that mind, I have several questions regarding uh recent personnel decisions. So the I guess first I want I just want to get clarification. Uh the union president is he the shifts that you are working four and two. So, four days on, two days off, right? You're assigned to shifts. Is the

union president now doing union business for his four days?

His um schedule has not changed in the last three years. It's the same exact schedule. However, we are in um negotiations and there are some things about not just the union president but uh the whole union body uh with uh the union executive board that uh we're negotiating right now. So the collective bargaining agreement I and I read it said that uh the union president should have two days of the four days that he's

assigned to conduct union business. So my understanding that that's always the way it's worked and then if you wanted more than the two days it was a request by the uh chief of police. I had requested payroll for for a time period in April. Um and I had noticed that uh April 1st, 2nd, uh April 3rd and 4th um the union president was non assigned to a group. Then April 7th, 8th, 9th,

and 10th, he was also not assigned. So he was the only individual out of the entire payroll um that was not assigned to a specific group. So and I've been hearing that he is working full-time, which again, you say there's no change, but is is he working patrol? it. The only change he is assigned to the patrol uh bureau. The only change that was made was when he is on the schedule. Say

there's 12 one man cards. He's number 12 and there's an incident and he comes in as the union president. Then he tells the clerk, "Take me off the um watch list." That's the way it's worked for for decades, right? That's the way uh it's always run by CBA. What would happen is now you have to order somebody in, right? So, the only change I made was he's on the watch list, but he's in

a a different spot. So he's counted as manpower, but he's he's off an assignment, per se, so that we don't have to order somebody in if he if he has a last minute union thing, which we've had several over the last couple of weeks, as as you I would imagine, you know, um it's not a last minute where we're ordering somebody in. At least if somebody's taken time off or something,

they don't Oh, yep. Like John's not counted towards the compliment. So for his his foreign two, so his his shift comes up four days. He's reporting to the station and two of those days he is on patrol. No, he's not on patrol. Well, I guess that's what I'm asking. So he's he's on he's not If he's not on union business, yes, he's on patrol. So how many days of the four day rotation is he on union

business? My understanding is is that and based on the payroll that I see that he is now on four days that he is not coming to the station. He is not patrolling. He is not doing anything.

And and that I guess that's that's my concern. I'm hearing that. Right. So I see him in the station almost every day.

So uh dealing with something or another.

So I'm not sure where that information is coming from. But I will tell you that he is not doing anything different than any other uh union president has done.

And this is the first time it's ever been an issue. Well, that's that's news to me because again, when when you say you see him in the in the in the station, he could be conducting union business in the station. My my question is is if he's assigned a patrol, he's got a 4 and2 schedule, four days on, two days off. Every other officer is reporting, getting in a vehicle and

patrolling or doing some type of of assignment for the police department. He is not. He is doing union business for days and that's a change. So that's a change because it was been requested by has to be requested and approved by the chief. Now if you've requested that's fine like that that's the request that and it it has been for decades that that power I would say has somewhat been

relinquished to the uh uniform captain makes those decisions and takes over.

Now the since they went to mass cop the union president is also involved with the being the mass cop vice area vice president because we have a large department and that comes with some legislative um no powers I recognize that but that I guess what I'm trying to say that this there has been a change and it has been a change under your your administration that he I wouldn't say that there's a change under my

administration I've only changed the manpower power but he has not change changed at all the manpower like like counting him towards manpower that's the we anticipate that he has union time no no it's so I want to be confusing so prior prior to you he he is he has been off four days doing union business yes three I have three years of his schedule that he's been off four days a week yes

well I'd like to see cuz I I think it's a change because I've I've been told that every time I asked the question, he was only two days on per the collective bargaining agreement. So, of his 4 day rotation, he only does two days. So, what I would say is is that and and this is my concern and the collective bargaining is is what it is. So, it it clearly states that he has two days uh

that he can set aside for union business. uh if the union requests to have it changed, it's um it's, you know, the request is put in by the chief to the chief and the chief either approves it or denies it. And so that's well within your scope based on the collective bargain agreement. But you did mention that you you had a request if you can just send it to the council,

the request that was put in. My concern again when we're talking about patrol um and getting to 10 or 12 man cars, we have an individual who's being paid just shy of $100,000 and is not doing police work. I don't know that I've I know of any other union president that is working full-time doing union business.

The only other union president would be the uh the teachers association, but the the union the FREA actually pays that salary to the school committee. Um, I know I'm not even I don't even think the supervisors have a full-time uh union rep and and they and they've got this they've got the same language in there.

So, right. So, just so you know that um this is the way it's been for a long time before I took it over, but that was one of my um I'm not sure if this is even a violation of 150E or this is somewhat new to me, but um that is on my one of my issues. It's a point of frustration, counselor. Clearly, we we've addressed that with the union. It's part of

bargaining right now because they also have executive board members that can get union business. It causes a scheduling nightmare. Um so we've asked for a little bit of leniency there which is on the table right now. And I I just again I just want to reiterate I I I don't disagree with two days. I I just to have a you know patrol officer making $100,000 total salary. I know there's

other could be Quinn in there and other other things. I'm looking at just total salary is $100,000 and we're not really getting any patrol or union business. I mean police business. Let me clarify.

police business. That that to me is is just a concern. Um I'd I'd also point out just, you know, in terms of patrol, just looking at um and there's no slight at uh the individual in front of us, but the um administrative assistant, so the finance function, I know we had we had talked about several years ago and I I believe the union had agreed uh to actually relinquish that position and

make it a civilianized position. So, you know, I would I would also ask that you you folks look at, you know, making that a civilian position, making the change, getting somebody even move somewhere to get that back into a an actual patrol uh position out there. We have tried to make some um there are positions that I feel personally could be civilians but the CBA uh is very clear

on I I recognize you got to you got to work within the constraints and the confines of the the CBA and during negotiations have those conversations but I I was under the impression for the uh finance function and and that goes back I know we've had the conversation I I think back to when I was here in 2011 11 and 12 uh trying to get that to make make sure that it was a civilian

position. Somebody who truly understood the finances and grants and and managing of of things of that nature because obviously overrunning grants has an impact on free cash and and uh certifying of free cash, things of that nature. And then um you know the other the other issue would be just the major crimes division clerk assignment. Um you know I was I was told that we had a civilian for that clerk position. uh but

we moved the patrol person into that into that position uh to serve as as the clerk and has received the 5% pay uh for performing those duties. Is there any truth to that? No, there isn't any truth truth to that. So that several things that took place with that. We lost a couple of people that are out on light duty that was helping doing licenses which we've um get by the thousands. Right. So, we created a

position. She's not the MCD clerk. She is uh she does sex offenders. Uh the detectives said that they were swamped. We took that away from them. So, she takes care of the sex offenders. She's kind of like a hybrid uh position. She also takes care of all the attendants outside of the uniform division, right? So, she does take care of um making sure that the um comp time is is correct, the attendance, the

vacations, but she also does the licensing. She helps our licensing person. So, she fills in with that. She also does the backgrounds for the constable. She does the constable license. So, she wears many, many, many different hats to include uh missing persons. Um but histo historically was it filled by a civilian staff years ago it was so she's the only the the only thing that people get conf people I

believe are getting confused because we put her in the office of the old secretary right but she doesn't answer the phone she doesn't act like the um secretary there I'll stop you there I'm not really I don't need to go into that whole detail I mean at the end of the day the department is is yours as far as I guess what I'm what I'm trying to get from my standpoint. I I I think it's

been clear. Um I fully support making sure that the police department is fully staffed and I want to get you folks to where you need to be. I want to make sure that we do it in a sustainable manner. And so, but part of that, right, so from from an advocacy standpoint, if we're going to be doing that, you know, my my expectation just as one city counselor is is that if we have, you

know, sworn officers, we should get them on the streets or into the specialty units that we need to get them into to make sure that they're doing what they should be doing. And then I think we should be doing the best that we possibly can through the collective bargaining process um to civilianize some of the positions that we have. And just not to say that there's going to be reductions in terms of staffing, but

just getting that that staffing onto the streets or in an impact position. Um, and again, not to suggest that, you know, having a major crimes clerk is not an impact position, but you know what I'm talking about when when we start talking about crime and safety and things of that nature. Um, I I've got more questions. I'm I'm just going to ask one more question and I'll I'll yield to my my colleagues. Um, but it

just comes back down to vehicle replacements and having a replacement plan. Um, as I as I mentioned, uh, in terms of capital, and I I think the former fire chief was here just talking about the importance of of equipment, um, and staffing and things of that nature.

So, historically, we have um I think we've tried to budget about five replacement vehicles a year, right, in in the past. Or is that not You're looking at me like No, no. Was that a Was that a wish list? It was actually 10. It was 10. If we could get into um a cycle where we could get consistently five every every year, right? That would go a long way in in addressing those capital needs and

keeping us um with uh vehicles that are um first line, front line uh ready at all times. Um so we have been fortunate over the uh co era with the uh impleation implementation of opera and we were the beneficiaries of a couple different opera programs where we were able to um purchase cruisers during this year. Um right now as we speak uh the funding for ARPA 70 we are waiting on

the last delivery of six marked police cruisers that we anticipate in the very near future. Okay. Um, so you know, again, uh, I guess maybe I mis misremembered conversations and and maybe it was a request to have five, but I always thought that at least from my standpoint, that's what we were that was our goal, trying to achieve achieve to make sure that we had five replacement vehicles coming in so that we can take

some of the uh, older ones offline and and one I think that should be built into the operating budget from my standpoint just so that you know on a yearly basis um, and I would do at least from my standpoint just come back down to the city council uh, uh request approval for a three-year lease and then you know you're minimizing the the impact and as you know your third year you're just adding another another five

onto it um and just keep that rolling and then if we need additional vehicles we can talk about that in in the capital items and the use of free cash stabilization accounts whatever whatever the case may be. Uh I was going to ask if there's any other um funding sources but I I think you kind of mentioned it and spoke to it about the detail and creating uh the revenue. So I think I

think that's a that's a good point. Um, so I will and I'm going to continue to say that I want to make sure that we we figure out a plan. So on top of the staffing plan, the capital plan I from my standpoint is absolutely uh paramount to make sure that you know your department has what it needs. So uh and I I don't want to just focus on, you

know, the cruisers. I know we with with Opera we did the uh active shooter uh supplies and things of that nature and um the riot gear and and tasers. So whatever whatever we need, I just want to make sure that we have replacement plans for for all that. So we're not back into a situation where they're end of life and then we're trying to scramble to figure out where the funding

is going to come from. So that's that's just where I stand on that. And with that, I yield. Thank you, Cong.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um so a couple things um on my colleague in seat one's comments on capital. Um, you know, I mentioned at our last meeting, you kind of recall my comments about removing most of the capital items, if not all capital items out of the municipal budget, and it directly impacts specific departments. So, my question is going back to the capital plan that was submitted previously to the city

council. I wanted to see what the game plan is for what was sent to the city council for capital. What what I guess from your vision, chief, um what are you looking at from a a capital needs perspective that the council can advocate so that the police officers can get? And I and I say that broadly because we're looking at something before us that in fiscal year 2026, and I'm not sure if this was you that

submitted this at all either, uh but you you were looking for seven marked police cruisers. You were looking for three unmarked police cruisers. You were looking for one marked supervisor cruiser and you were looking for $120,000 for traffic signal light upgrades which will be about $675,000 $674,000 in capital needs. So without a capital budget chief, what is your plan?

What would the plan be? So this was put in prior to me the capital. So we do have a um funding source for we we have six cruises coming in right which is still we just how many cruises just new cruises so we we've received quite a few new cruises we've received as part of the opera funding on the opera grants we've been receiving cruisers motorcycles um through throughout uh so on on the capital plan

uh count Council Ponte, I think you know the with regards to the funding mechanism, we were we were uh we didn't have anything recognized as far as you know whether there were grants available to to fund it. Um we didn't believe there was a uh the ability for us to dictate whether or not it would be bonded. So that was essentially this was a wish list for us and essentially requesting that the city um determine

what the best funding mechanism for these capital needs would be. All right.

But but respectfully, there's no capital budgeted, right? So there's no capital for the police department right now. And what we're doing is we have an unsustainable model for future fiscal years. That unsustainable model is there's no there's no capital in this budget. and what's going to happen next year. We're going to need to budget for that capital. So, I guess what is it?

Does the department not have any capital needs? Because that's what I'm looking to. So, it's it's not on the department to figure out how that gets budgeted into the scheme of the general fund budget. That is the responsibility of the person sitting in this role. So, um it is something that we're working on.

It was something I plan to talk on tonight. So, we can talk about it now or but just specifically on the police department if we So, I don't I don't have anything specifically for anybody.

the the the whole goal of it is that we are committing to at least $10 million.

Um, and I say at least because based on the current capital plans that was recently submitted, it is just under $10 million for all of those for the items that haven't already been taken care of since that submission was done. So, with that being said, you know, we may bond some of that. We may do it through onetime money that's available. We might find other sources of funding, but

looking at the debt side of it, if we issue debt on our current schedule, which we would never really go outside of that cycle, it's issued at the end of January, beginning of February, and our first debt payment wouldn't come until the following fiscal year. That's why there isn't anything in this budget, and there doesn't need to be in the following fiscal year. More debt will continue to drop off, and we would be

able to put some on if it does come out of debt at that time. Okay. Well, we we we might be able to have that discussion because we have we might have a debt problem because when we when we take stabilization money out that we the council approved for Diamond, you'll talk about that. We'll talk about that, but I want to get deeper into the police department's needs. I could speak on

that, counselor. So obviously you see the capital improvement plan that was put in front of you uh is convoluted by vehicles because I think the the agency has a PTSD from going into dire straits like we were 13 years ago when we were in front of council begging uh for bonding to get five cars. Uh, so I think with that said, to councelor Kadine's point, if we're budgeted to buy five new

cruisers a year, and how we suppide those up amongst patrol or unmarked or whatever is obviously our decision, but if we know each year we're getting five cars, then you would see a capital improvement plan that's not sacrificing other needs. I mean, we have a serious parking issue at the police department.

Uh, and we grow, we're going to need to look at that because our parking lot, we've looked at different ways to engineer it. We've we've got more equipment than we've ever had. uh we don't have enough parking for our own employees at some point. So these are capital improvements that I'd like to see in the future because as we grow as an agency, it comes with more cars coming in for just people commuting to

work. Right. Right. But what you're what you're I hear what you're saying, but what I'm looking for is the sustainable model or the sustainable system where the police department would sustainably be able to have its capital needs budgeted fiscal year over fiscal year without throwing a flare in the air and saying, "Oh, here we go. We're going to get that today." So, what is going to be

the plan that the police department provides to the administration, which then provides to the city council, the capital outlay or the capital needs that the department has? What are they exactly? Can like from from from our perspective, this council has been really good with supporting public safety. We want to make sure that the police department has the adequate resources. But when I look at a budget

that has no capital in it, I want to hear exact what are the needs? What is it that the council can advocate for in this budget cycle and not throw again throw that flare in the air and say, "Oh, well, maybe we'll get it." Because there's no guarantees. The interim CFO, with all due respect to her, said that we're going to have $10 million of capital. Do you know how much money of

that is going to be applied to the police department? I don't. You don't.

We don't. That's part of the capital plan process that we've discussed. So, I guess my question is what are the capital needs in this fiscal year that the police department needs, Chief?

Well, we need the cruisers. Obviously, that should be on a rotating basis because they're getting uh we we just had a brand new cruiser that was parked, crashed. Um I think this plan here puts us into where we would have some plan the one the the original capital plan that we had submitted. Okay. So the six police cruisers that you're getting from ARPA that is that going to put any dent in

the capital lease for police cruisers?

It's going to move some cars that need to be moved out of the fleet. So how many cars does the police department need to be adequately like if money wasn't an issue? I I'm just curious if money wasn't an issue in the police department, what how many police cars do you need? Would you need in in a fiscal year, this next fiscal year, to put us in a good spot so that

we could reduce it? I'd say 15 marked cars. 15. And so I guess what I'm looking at from a deeper perspective from an advoc advocacy standpoint, what is it that you're doing to try to find ways to make sure that we add seven police cars next year and seven police cars next year or 10 next year and five next year? what are we doing? So, are you suggesting because obviously this is a new administration. You suggesting

that we asked for that in our budget.

Um, historically it's always been part of capital. I believe uh years past that this seems to always be the argument, right? Because they should be in the rotating through the budget every year.

Well, what I'd like to see is an actual a step-by-step process that breaks down when the department is going to receive police cruisers because it's a need. Our police officers need to be safe and we need to make sure we're advocating for them. So, but but I don't hear yet and and it's not your fault because you're new and you're taking over and you're not sure really what the finance team is

going to give you for capital resources.

If you were to How much is a police cruiser cost today currently? Yeah. To get it all replaced a Mark cruiser. It's $63,000. $63,000 information. Is that all in computers? That's Yes. that's upfitted and that's you know that's from the factory to the street where the officer can is an SUV cruiser or just for Yes. So that uh currently we have a Ford Ford Explorers. So what are we doing when it comes to um looking for

grants for that because I know the state's been advocating for additional state police and local police. Um we've used grant money. Uh we've had uh the JAG burn JAG grant. We've used money there but then that takes away from other things that we could get as far as firearms and things like that. We have aging firearms right now that we're trying to get some money allocated so that we could upgrade that as well. So

what's important from my standpoint right now is I hear that the police department needs 15 police cruisers. Is that 15 in addition to the six that you're getting? Yes. Okay. So from my standpoint, what I can try to do as only one counselor is advocate to get more police cruisers for the police department. Is there any other glaring needs right now that you see within your department? Our evidence room. Uh we

need new shelving in there. We had a complete overhaul in our evidence room over the last five years. That is a high-risk area that we take a lot of pride in making sure that uh we stand by accreditation standards and to the credit to the individuals that work in that room. They've identified that we could upgrade the shelving to expand space and maximize efficiency in that room. Uh that is part of uh the capital

improvement plan uh that you have there.

It's $60,000. 60 It's $60,000 for the show. And where did that go? It's a It's very heavy. No, I agree. It's the crank.

I I'm not disagreeing on the price. What I want to know is why haven't we done it? So, we actually just discussed today um making that purchase with the money that is available this year in their current budget that has not been expended. So, they are working on doing that now. So, are you going to have an appropriation come before us to to do that in the first? They have money in their current

budget to do that. What are they taking out?

Their current FI25 budget. They have line items that are not spent for items.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Emily. Did you Didn't you already commit all of the free cash from this fiscal year? I didn't say from I said from their current budget, they have unspent expenses that have line item room to cover that expense this year. Okay. You also have cap inactive capital projects that I've been all over. I know you didn't prepare this um last quarterly update, but the city is sitting on

$362,000 of idle capital projects at least from the last budget report that we have. So, I mean, I think whether it's done through um the current budget that you have or whatnot, I mean, that's a need that I think we should start, we should get going, and I I'll be sure to follow up on that with either the the chief or somebody in the administration here to find out when that's getting

done. What other glaring needs do you have from a from a capital standpoint?

Chief, we'd like to upgrade our firearms.

Okay. Is there a cost associated with that? Couple hundred,000.

And the useful life on firearms is what depending on the technology. The technology that we're going to now through what we've tested. Uh we did do an upgrade a couple years ago to the same model to the 2.0 model that we have now. Um the cost associated with the ammunition is is really one of the reasons for changing. We we use 40 caliber which is expensive. 9 millimeter there's studies uh a lot of federal

agencies and municipal agencies have gone back to it because of cost uh but also effectiveness uh for what we apply it for. Uh but there are new types of sights for firearms that are actually like a a dot site that goes on an actual handgun. It improves accuracy. Uh it obviously helps with target acquisition.

So there's an associated cost not only with the firearm, but then it changes the holster and everything like that, but you're looking at industry-wise it's every three to five years that we're switching firearms out. All right. If I if I may, I know you're busy. Um I would love to see a like a comprehensive even if it's not comprehensive, it's summarydriven need that the police

department needs in terms of capital. as as we budget and we go through fiscal year over fiscal year, I could keep that and start holding, you know, the administration accountable and advocating for what the police officers need because truthfully, that's what we're here to do. So, I just if you could send that, one of you send that over to us. We can share it with the council. I think that'd be great. The

important Oops, go ahead. We had shared uh when uh the former city administrator was here, we put together a pretty comp the chief put together a comprehensive list. I'm sure she'd be happy to share that with you. like a wish list of capital needs as well as like uh you know over the goal line over well I think there's a dire there's a wish list there's a dire need there's there's a

maybe if we can get it all we had all the money in the world list and I'd love to see that because we this is what we do this is where we can become effective as legislators the firearms are really important because um they're a smaller handgun which is easier and more accurate for officers with smaller hands compared to the larger gun so the accuracy has gone down significantly ly in our um

armor feels that and our uh range instructor feels that going to a smaller gun would and could save some liability uh with the city. Okay. Um police department does it need any does it need repairs specifically?

We're coming along pretty nicely with uh repairs. We we I know that this has been talked about for a decade is the windows. We desperate need for new windows. Uh most of them either the latches are broken or the cold just comes right right through it. But have you applied for any community preservation funding? Is that Nope. No, we should. We will look into that. We should. I don't know if you I don't know

if it'll be granted, but certainly something that you should look into because I believe they came before us and they said that they have a whole bunch of unused money uh for real estate related activities and it's the building. So, um, I'd urge you to maybe send a letter, chief, to and see what we could do. I might get denied, but I think you should be heard before the board for sure. That's probably an

expensive project. Um, revenue generated. Uh, I'm almost done. Revenue generated when it comes to the police department. What do you generate as a department of fiscal year? What are you expecting to generate in fiscal year 26?

Council pot. Uh in regards to the to the fees and revenue uh in fiscal 26, we're anticipating the um $520,000 total revenue. Yes.

And that includes what? Tickets. Police speeding tickets. Uh the breakdown of that would be $250,000 that from the police detail admin fee uh $87,700 um in the fees which is uh consists of $55,000 in alarm calls. um $6,000 in police reports, $500 in fingerprints, $25,000 in license to carry fees, uh $200 in firearm identification cards, and $1,000 in solicitation applications.

Of what of what of that is turned into police tickets, tickets for speeding and and what? So that that's a little further down the line on uh page 18 on departmental revenue um where you see a breakdown of $180,500 that is comprised of $163,500 in CMVI which are the uh the motor vehicle citations. Has there been any interest or any discussion whether it's through the union personnel or

order from the chief to um um to increase traffic department in terms of fees whether it's highway patrol or city streets? I've noticed mean raise the the fines or No, no, no, no. I'm not say yet. I'm not saying raising the fines.

I'm saying assign more people to assign more people to traffic. Yes. Actually, last week we just did that. So, the walk-in beats, um, we put out walk-in beats and, um, they're not as popular as they used to be. So, um, trying to be innovative, we came back with, hey, how about bringing back the Avenue detail?

Uh, guys like working the Avenue detail, so they can go out, uh, four hours. They have to give out x amount of tickets um to hotspot areas. you know, won't we always called it the Avenue detail, but it'll be wherever they'll be assigned to uh wherever the need, whether it's Eastern Avenue, Plymouth Avenue, um we've done a couple of stings up at um the industrial park in those areas.

So, some of that walk and beat money is they're also going to uh encompass that, too. Is there a reason, is it a Massachusetts law that doesn't allow us to have those ticket um cameras like Providence has red cameras? I just heard today that they're they're constitutional. Yeah.

But they're looking to um pass something at the state level to allow communities to uh pick and choose on their own.

Yeah. I think East Providence or something generates buku money when it comes to $1 million. Yeah. One, two, one thing too, council. I think you're you're going towards like parking fines and things like that if police officers do that. That just goes to the general fund. That's not earmark. No, no. I I know. And and I have a reason for that is because I was looking to see what the department brings in. Are you

consistently bringing in $520,000 fiscal year over fiscal year in terms of revenue? And have you looked at any opportunities to increase revenue when it comes to fees or or fee structures?

Um like I said before, another department head, Mr. Aguar in engineering did a really good job of looking at revenues uh that he when it comes to fees from a perspective of a fee uh and brought in a lot more revenue within his department. Is that an initiative going forward? I think the first thing I brought to Chief Fertado's uh when she came aboard is that we needed to get the the admin fee back to

the police budget like 250,000 back. So that's kind of been the hot button item, but it was it was it was bifrocated because you had the issue of us giving it to another company to manage our details, but historically we were not as uh focused on collection. So we have a sergeant now that he strictly oversees as part of some of his duties as the detail system and making sure that we're

we're on top of these vendors and making sure we're getting payments because obviously uh that's an issue as well.

You can work all the details and and have all the details, but if we're not collecting the money, then the burden falls on the city. So, I I appreciate the cost-saving approach, but my question is, is there a fee schedule that the police department has that's been analyzed to other communities? I just met with the fire chief today. He looked at all of the fees that they had and where they where they are in

comparison to other communities. I'm talking parking fees, speeding tickets, whatever the situation. So, we've been looking at like the pedaler hawker licenses and things like that as far as fees associated uh with that and and obviously the process the city uses with that with background and vetting people.

Um, so it is a conversation, but we haven't looked at other agencies or other communities as far as where we're at with fee scale as far as Can I implore you to do that? The city is in dire needs. I mean, this is something the administration should be telling you, not me. But I I would ask that you look into those things. Um, the city is going to be, if not, if it's not there

already, in a need for income, revenue, and if the if the police department can do their part in looking at the fees that run back to our general funding, it will make a big difference. Um, SRO's are any of them paid for directly by the school department or reimbured? If so, how many? All of them. So, you don't pick up any SRO's within your um, even their overtime? Everything. They pay for

everything. Okay. Um, question on police details. Um, I believe it was during COVID that there was a price per hour that um, police officers were getting on the detail. Maybe it was a little bit more than usual. was, let's call it, $150 an hour, $100 an hour or whatever it was. Was there a change between police details from CO to where did you have to readjust that at all? No, that's

never been a case. Okay. I wanted to get that clarification. Um, and from I guess just a I like to dispel rumors. My final question is going to be I'm hearing some words that press is not allowed in the police department or in the fire department anymore. Has there been an order that has come down that the press isn't allowed to speak to the chief or anything along those lines? No. Okay. I

just wanted to clarify that rumor. I yield, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, council. I just have a question.

Getting back to the red light cameras, is it a Massachusetts law you can't have it there? There is. You can you can do a home rule petition to to request it, but there's a bill right now to allow it.

And it would automatically allow the legislative body to take action if you want to put it in. So, if it passes because that would pay for cruisers, guns, bulletproof vests, and and I will I will also say that there's also I know um the former fire chief was before us, but there's also already a bill out there similar to the MSBA uh that they're looking to fund for municipal buildings. So, not just fire stations,

but you know, city halls, um police department, police departments, things of that nature. So, that that's in there, too. Seat six is right.

Providence makes a killing.

Okay, there being no further questions five.

I'm next. How much did we get on forfeite money this year?

You know what departments do we get forfeite money for? I know that we have some officers that work with ATF, DEA, whatever. What's the forfeite money we get? And do you get that money or does that go into the general fund? It comes back to us in revolving funds.

So not general fund, it's a revolving fund.

So, there's money that gets uh from the DOJ federal asset seedures, which is with our federal agencies. Some of that money is still in uh process right now.

As you saw, since October, our CAST team has been out there seizing a ton of drugs, guns, and money. All of that has to be gone through the process as well as property. So, we've kind of started seizing some more property uh and trying to use our federal partners to help us get that. So, a lot of that still in transit. I haven't got a report on what could be coming back to the city. And

obviously the DA drug money, uh, that's something that's shared with the DA's office. 50 50% from the DA's office. And I know you've been doing a lot of work, so I figured, oh, good. We're going to get There are some restrictions on that money, though. So, I know it looks sexy, but it can't be used for everything. I know. Couple of things I have. You have um the the harbor master, but there's no

assistant harbor master.

No, we just we had an assistant harbor master. Anything to do with the harbor master has to be post they have to go through a police academy and they have to be postcertified. We have um he is the assistant harbor master, right? Um what's his name? Paul. Paulie.

Paul. Paul. Yeah. Paul.

But he does the pump he just does the pumpouts. Okay. But we get paid for the pumpouts. Correct. What do they make on pumpouts?

So, uh, Mr. Borges is are we talking about his rate of pay, right? Well, I just didn't see it in here. I thought he had lost an assistant harbor master.

Yes, ma'am. So, when you when you look at the harbor master, uh, that line I just want to I just want to refer to it so that I'm um his his line is there.

His his u salary portion of it. It's just not identified um as clearly as uh because it's it's in other uh purchased services I believe.

Other purchase services. Yes. So where you see that line, I believe it's seven other purchases. Okay. Or professional services. Professional services, I'm sorry. Professional services. Where you see that line, that's the the line item that is used to uh compensate Mr. Borges when he does uh do work for uh the har when he does the pumpouts when people pay him for the pumpouts. Yes. Does that

go into the harbor master salary and budget your budget? Where does that go?

That's a free service on the on the um with regards to that ma'am. We get a grant uh the clean vessel grant. So any salaries that we pay for the performance of pumpouts uh is reimbured to us through that grant. How much did you get reimbured? I'm just curious. Uh well, the grant is uh $14,000. 14,000.

Okay. I was just curious.

I know. And and I have talked to the hob master because we're on the water.

People come over the bridge. You want to see boats in the water. You want to see moorings in the water. You want to see life in the city. People will come off.

I know when they did the Tom Norton Pier, they put things around there. And I know we have the yacht club, whatever.

Um things over there, too. and and he has to make sure that whatever they hook up to their boat that they go underwater and make sure that everything is good.

Is there any way we can get a floating ramp off of the um picnic area? I have a lot of people with kayaks that do we have money in here to do that? Get a floating ramp in there. It's been a discussion. It's been a discussion. Um I have to speak with the harbor master more in depth around it. We've kind of restructured the police department and had them falling under someone else. So,

uh, after reviewing the budget and obviously we've heard community, uh, want for those down there, I want to have a discussion with them and see there is some money that we could potentially use towards that. I think that would be good. How many officers are retiring this year? Do you know, Mr.

Du, do you have it? Do Do you have it?

Deputy Chief. the chief.

I know that I read that Murphy had retired um but still he had left before.

Is he hanging on? So he's So we call it terminal time. Okay. Right. So that's that's I hate to say a soul people that been on around for a long time, but during the '9s, the the late 80s, the 90s, the early 2000s when the city had no money, they never paid the overtime.

They paid you in comp time, but what happened is that they never expected people to hoard it, you know, and so that's what a lot of the older guys did for the end of their career. So, Captain Murphy has like three years of time to take. So, he started taking his time and he he'll be on the books until like 27 28. So, we won't be able to fill that

position until 27. Is that it? Or Well, we had spoken to the Well, we had one vacancy, one captain's vacancy, so we did fill his spot because we can't go without a patrol captain, right? So, we did fill fill his spot with that because we did have a vacancy.

Do you anticipate any anybody else retiring this year? How many retirees are we looking at? We're trying to bring people in, right? And the old people are leaving us. Right now, we'll have one, two, three, four people potentially in the very near future that will be um retired on medical retirements. Oh. Um, that's sad.

As as far as regular superanuation, there's only a handful of people that are at that magic sweet spot. So, uh, we've kind of gone through the mass exodus at this point. Right. And when you're talking about other people coming on board in the police department, um, I know that if you have more officers coming on board, you're going to need more bulletproof vests. You're going you were talking about ammunition

and guns and that I thought you were all using Glocks. Am I wrong? Yes, it's Smith and West. We use Glocks now. Smith and West and M&P 2.0. I didn't like the Smith and I have a Glock myself. I don't have a Smith and Wesson. If you're willing to purchase Glocks for us, we'll take them.

Yeah, I I thought it was easier to handle. Um Emily just had a heart attack. Huh? Emily just had a heart attack. She's like, "No more purchases.

I don't have to bring it here."

Especially tonight. I'm well protected.

Um, I got to ask you this question because it's bothering me. A few years ago, I thought Community Development spent money on something called I want to say Polaris. It was supposed to be a little vehicle that could go up and down like the rail trail. And I walked the rail trail. And I know a lot of people are concerned with walking the rail trail because of any encampments or what

have you, but I have never seen that.

Did we never get that? Do we not? Uh two years ago we did get it. Uh it was parked in the garage um unable to be used and in October we broke it out and we used it all over the place now. It'll be at the day of Portugal if you want to see it in action. But we've used it more and more over the last six months. We're actually

looking to get a second one because it uh don't worry don't worry Emily, it's not coming. We're going to get somebody to buy it for us. That sounds great. I'm all in.

Every time I talk, she she has like a heart attack. Um so we're looking to somebody uh might offer to buy it for us. Um because it's been so popular and it's it's really uh good to go through the projects with um the housing developments. It's easy to get get around. Um, I find that the the guys like enjoy using it, so they're much more proactive, you know, if we can get

them out and the kids love it. So, I I definitely would love to get another That would be good. Do you still have the the I know walking beats, but you have the bike patrol. Yes. Still going out there. Yes. How is that at getting officers to ride bikes? I mean, I I wouldn't really be good for that to be honest with you. Well, with the restructuring, obviously, we had some personnel changes, but we actually are

earmarked to purchase four ebikes. Oh, that makes So, it's going to make it a little grant money. Exactly. With grant money. With grant money. But, uh, yeah, definitely there's an interest out there and uh, we look to continue that this summer. Thank you. I I think my concern is that there is enough equipment that is needed to keep every officer safe because it's not so safe out there. And

you know, um I think we have a lot of officers that do really good things and then we have some that kind of do a bad thing and it makes it look like everybody else is and it's not. And it's not. Emily, you said something about capital. I had told you the last budget meeting that we had. There's nothing in here for capital. We in all departments.

So you're saying that you can pull out of this budget, their police budget here, that you can pull out of there to get capital. So So it it's also part of it's going back to I'm going to say our our definitions of capital and kind of the way it was. So you know, when we were talking about capital and what was pulled out, I I was talking about true traditional things like an entire fire

truck, you know, seven cruisers at once.

So those are the types of things that I'm I was referring to. So there are the I'm going to call them smaller things, not that they're not important, but costwise that are still in here. So something like replacing shelving, as much as it is $60,000 and could be part part of a capital plan, it is something that in a $2 million expense budget, you know, when there is something that

wasn't needed or wasn't spent, you know, they're able to buy it within there. So there are things like that. I mean, as you see the traffic signal repairs and replacements, I mean, between the two line items, there's over $200,000 in that one. So, stuff like that, you know, is baked into the budget in that sense.

And I just wasn't considering that as a traditional capital item in that way.

So, those types of items are in here.

And as you saw, you know, we did increase that back up to the 110. So, that type of stuff is within the budget still. And that's why I kind of was talking about the definition side of things and and what's defined as it because there are ways that it is in there if you little things that the police department needs. Correct. I can't see you taking a dollar out of

this budget from any item that that is in here. It's not me taking it out. It's not me taking it out. It's it's again there's certain line items that have built-in excess or you know if we need this or a contingency or like they said some of the you know the vest money that was budgeted knowing that it was going to be reimbursed and so it's things like that that are in there that it's not

that we're taking away something that they need. It's that they didn't need to spend that money so now they're spending it in another way this current year. So I'm not referring to the 26 budget when I say that. I was talking about the stuff that was able to be you know the electricity budget. You can see that it's budgeted at 220. Right now it's projecting at like 160. I'm not taking

away them having their lights on. It's spend that money on something that you need, replace, you know, a vest or to or to buy something like that. So, that's more of what I mean by kind of reallocating what they already have today and have it haven't been spent.

And then again in 26, you know, there's going to be another capital plan process and and we want to get back to to councelor Pon's points that having an actual capital plan that is an actual plan that we are following and has an outlook and has funding sources identified and and has things that we're working towards in that way because it is important and we do need to get back to having some of those items like

police cruisers on a rotation that are consistently expected to be paid out each year.

It's just a lot was coming back online in one year and so we weren't able to do it at this point in the process with me having started doing you know working on this March 1st. I just need a little bit more time to make sure it's a very thoughtful you know doing a capital plan itself is never done in hand with the budget here because it is a whole another month and a half long process

that we would go through. So it just has to be done after this is done at this point. I would have loved to have it beforehand and I would have a beforehand as well. I absolutely would have too, but we all had decided that the capital plan that was there wasn't quite ready to be utilized in that way. So, I just I didn't have something I could have done

that with at this point and and I wish I did, but we're we're going to make sure that that's not the problem moving forward. It's just like, you know, look at the revenues that the police department makes. Anything you do, you're going to be having if you're increasing fees on anything. I know you gave a list of fees that, you know, for for gun permits and things like that. Do

people have to pay when they go in to get a Corey check? Yes. And what's that fee? Uh well, right now depending on what the what the Corey check is for, uh the sieges rules about it. So you we would have some people coming in for their Corey check for another employment, there's ways they can get it through their employer now. So that's kind of been realigned, I guess, in our department because we just went through

an audit through SEIUS and they kind of gave us some pointers of like, hey, you can't do that for those type of people.

They have to go through there. So, um, as far as the fees concerned, I can't speak to what the revenue was on those fees. Just a point of clarification. I I thought you had to go through the state, the department of, uh, probationary records. Uh, because I've done it in my Yes. Yes, you do. You do. So, you have to go through the sieges, actual department of sieges, but there's

certain things that we can do it for.

And I guess there's been some confusion in the past that we've done Corey checks for other departments in the city, and we're not supposed to do that. the department's not sign up directly with internal with consensual forms, right?

And I would say it would be few and far between. The number one thing we do do is fingerprints. Like people come in for a fingerprint card, but as far as background checks, everything now has been aligned to be done through the employers. There are there are avenues for them to get a portal for that. Well, the reason that I asked is because a lot of the schools if children go on field

trips or somebody wants to be a member of an organization that they are required to come back with a Corey check and they would go to you or now they wouldn't go to the could go directly through Sie just there's a website called I Corey you sign up yeah I actually had a conversation with the fire chief because their employment process they do Corey checks and I sent him in that direction so that they could

do it themselves make it more efficient but also be in compliance with sieges because any fees that you're going to raise are going to be raised on the the taxpayer unless it's we're talking forfeitures and and things like that any grants that you can get um that type of thing. Um you still have your accreditation. Is it up this year? Have you done it already? Is it in two weeks?

We'll get our reacredititation award for Massachusetts and we were reacredited with the Kala about two years ago. So that's a four-year cycle. Uh four years Massachusetts is a three-year cycle. So sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't, but we have maintained both accreditation. I mean, you have a really lovely lady that does helps with all the accreditation and does a phenomenal job.

I think she's probably been there since she was maybe 17. Uh Mhm. Um, so she's committed to staying, which is good. Um, the other thing, did somebody else have something to say because then they can get back to me. Oh, I know what it was. Two other people. I remember shortterm me. Uh, it's what happens. We're going to give Alzheimer's. I guess the um dispatchers.

I've been at a function where there were several dispatches. They had telling me about their pay rate. They're involved in a union. They go through negotiations. They have to deal with it that way. But one of the things that I heard was that they were not allowed on their day off to work as a dispatcher in Somerset Dy in Swansea. Now that has changed. Are they allowed on their day

off? So uh when I was promoted to deputy March of last year, I was in charge of administration. Uh prior to that, captain of staff services and there were outside employment requests that came through. There was an initial uh under the under the previous administration initial stop that we weren't going to do that because in fear of them jumping ship to another agency after some

discussion with the unions we've allowed it. So they've all been allowed to to work per DM at other agencies.

Unfortunately some have left for other agencies but at the end of the day it's the work environment. Correct. Well it's a pretty big from what they told me it's a pretty big difference in pay. Correct.

the um and they don't answer as many calls. If you're in Don for our dispatchers is 48,000. Um Swansea from what I understand is starting at 68. It's a big difference.

All right. Well, thank you. Good luck.

And if you do need any equipment or whatever, I think that you should definitely come back. And I know you're probably going to do another capital improvement plan that you did already that you submitted to Seth who's now gone. and they're going to use we would like to use we would like to use that in in July August when we start our capital plan process again with the entire city

you know I would like to have them just update we had a little bit of capital improvement in all these budgets for little things and all the departments the little things are in there I will say that the little things are in there I would call five police cruisers not a little thing though no but maybe two can be a little thing a polaris and then we'll fight for three more with that I yield Mr. President,

thank you and good luck for Council Kil.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Uh, first a comment. Uh, and this has this comment has nothing to do with comparisons. It has to do what I see right now. Um, someone who I have a great deal of respect for when it comes to law enforcement. Um, and he said to me that um, you know, a police chief's only going to be as effective as a team that that he or she builds. So I just want to

say right I see in front of me a very good team that did a very good job tonight. Thank you. We work very hard.

That's uh our mantra is teamwork and unity and that that that's sincere. I can see it. Okay. Um now the next question just one question. Mr.

Councelor Dion had a question with regard to vacancies. Um, and I think you stated, chief, that there's 16 now as of today. Mhm. Uh, general fund. So maybe answered the question. I'm not too sure.

Maybe I missed it. But now I'm looking at police non-general fund from the housing authority to walking beats to uh dispatchers. There's an additional 12.

Now that's not out of the general fund.

So is that uh subsidized things from the housing authority? Are you looking at for instance a housing authority not paying their share what they should be paying? Uh I'm confused with that point.

Maybe it's so through reorganization we had to move some people around.

Obviously uh patrol is the number one function. So there are some vacancies there inherently because we have guys that be working the street versus assigned to those specialty units. But all of the partners that we have from outside the general fund are are contributing and covering the positions that we're able to fill right now. Okay.

I think I understand that what you're answering. So So they only pay for the officers that they're receiving services from. So right now they're not paying the 77,000, but we're also not paying the 77,000. So once they have a body to put back into it, then they'll cover it.

Okay. So all right. So it's it's more than 16 then. So uh councelor Kilby, if I I I keep hearing the number. I think there's just a little bit of confusion because when the paper budget was printed, uh there were some extra vacancies. In April, we put six police officers in the academy. Those six police officers are not shown. Their names are not here. They're coming up as vacancy when they're really not there.

So where where you see, for example, so it should say pending. Yes. So, so the last name uh is is a um is a a a patrolman by the name of Tiang and then it becomes vacancies after that. We put in six additional officers in the academy in April, but their names are not on. I was always confused with that.

Even in the school department, I was confused with vacancy vacancy, but they're not necessarily correct vacancies for this year. Correct. It's a printed document. So, it's very hard to keep. I mean, even if we reprinted this yesterday, if somebody left today, I mean, we would already be in a spot where we're correct. So, while you see a total of 22 vacancies on paper, it's actually only 16 because six of those uh

placeholder vacancies have names in them already. Okay, I understand that.

Thanks. Don't took 20ome years for me to get to get that answer. But um now uh so yeah I I think um the questions today asked were very worthy of us. I think they were poignant questions, excellent questions and um I I think the uh the responses that I heard were excellent. I would just like to add to what you said in the beginning with them being a good team. They are one of the biggest

budgets in this entire Yeah, I know that budget and they were the first ones to submit every single detail that was needed and it was it was done exactly as needed. You know, we had shifted the ways we were doing things and everything was in with every line of detail the way we had requested from and it was it was uh very very helpful. And not about comparisons here, trust me, making a

comment. They were just first. It's not that everybody else didn't do great, but they were first and it was impressive. I wish I had a good joke to tell so I can make you laugh again.

So I yield, Mr. President. Thank you.

Seven counc. Good evening, Chief. Real real real quick. I'm going to keep this simple. Um animal control. Do do those officers work set hours? Those individuals, is it is it just a like 9 to4 type of thing? Yeah. What are what is the hours of the animal control?

There's some on call component to it, but they they have a rotating shift.

Okay. So, so essentially if there was a reason like two in the morning for example of a dead animal in the middle of the street. Absolutely. That is situation that can't be called in. We have a policy on it that actually will speak to what the what the criteria has to be. Uh Cindy's excellent and her team is excellent. Sometimes we'll just call her and bounce something off and nine

times out of 10 she's like I'm just going to come out and handle that. Yeah, she's very very very good. Sweet. Um my my questions are around the SRO officers. There three questions real quick. Um, I remember receiving some information from the Atlanta Charter School about the SRO. Yep. Which is no longer currently there. Is that correct?

So, is there a plan at some point down the road to rectify that as far as Okay, we're hoping. Is it a staffing situation? Is that what it comes down to? Okay, it is. Second question. The SRO's when school is not in session, what are they what do they do normally?

It it sounds like a really silly question. No, no, this comes up every single year by everybody. So that's when they run the um they run the team police academy which takes two weeks, two full weeks. Um they finish their training that they need to um have throughout the year and then they take their vacation time in their the their acred time.

That's that's what they do because um even though in the CBA you can pick your vacations right at throughout the year that position it's it's known if you want to be an SRO then you cannot take your vacations during the school year.

We want we want them in in during February vacation they have um inservice training and then during April vacation they do the state in inservice training.

So there's a lot of um post has put a lot of extra training on the SRO's. They also step up during special events for parade coverage and with an uptick too with a lot of field days now happening with all these schools. uh they they'll attend those in in lie of a shift type thing so that they can work out their schedule, right? Like green school Saturday has their field day. They'll

come in to work but in lie of um overtime it'll be for a day in the summer like a shift for a shift like some of the graduations going on too would be something like that as well. Yes. Okay.

And then just a kind of a general question as far as you know conversation with the school department about possibility down the road growing schools, more buildings. Are these conversations you've already had with the school department? What may anticipate the need for more SRO's at all down the road? They're going to build more buildings. There's obviously conversations down the road.

Neighborhood schools. Yeah. You know how so I mean I don't I don't know the layout. I don't know the layout how SRO's are assigned to I know middle schools, high schools, elementary schools. How does that work exactly?

So, we try to get the um the high school always has two and we try and have somebody in the middle schools. And when you say the high schools, as in Dery Diamond, that's a good point. So, Dery 2, Diamond has one. Dery two, diamond one female Atlanta Charter has zero currently has zero currently and Argusy has zero. They've never had a never had one. They've never had one. And then

Talbot Tal So the four middle schools we try and um fill them rotationally or we're down two because um one of the officers are pregnant now so she's on late duty. So hopefully by September we will have a full complement of SRO's again, one at each essentially. Yes. So the four middle schools, two at Dery, one at Diamond. All right. And then as far as the elementaryaries is in rotation, we usually we usually have one

floater. Okay.

And that just right now we have the middle school person is assigned certain amount of uh elementary schools. So that's where they are geographically.

That's their contact. Okay, cool. So, so I guess the short answer is right now there's no concern of growing another SRO unless something changes. Correct.

So, with Diamond's new building, is there no conversation about a second SRO at Diamond? No. No, there's no need for that. That's I hate to say a tight run ship, but it it's just a different, you know, it's just different. Okay.

Excellent. Thank you so much. I yield.

Thank you. Plus with the new schools are going to have a highly sophisticated surveillance cameras everywhere. So, makes it a lot easier to patrol.

C3. Thank you, Mr. President. Chief, hi.

Welcome. Um, just a few things. I apologize first that it was late, but um it might have got mentioned, chief, but the environmental police. We're at three now. We want to get to five. Are we going to get to I'd like to get to six.

We are going to get to five. We We're only budgeted for five. Yep. When when will the other two are they already in the words one's in the academy? She's actually graduating tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow night. Yep.

So, she'll be good to go. Uh she'll go through the FDO program. Um and then I believe we have another one starting in August. Yeah, we have that one slated for August. Okay. And um I see the walking beat. We have four currently. We want we want to f make it to seven for the walking beat. Yes, that's the CDA.

the CDA offices and do they uh the walking beat is it treated do they go in partners like two go into the neighborhood or is it just one I mean do we go by the sector like does one uh uh patrolman go in there in one sector one sector two sector three I'm sorry so they so the um CDA walking beats they're not really walking beats that that's just what they've always been called but

they're um low to moderate income extra patrol okay so um quite well. There's a a a CDA map and those are the areas that they patrol. So, um we regularly get hot spot areas, you know, that's what the neat team does. So, hotspot areas, that's where they um will go as a team and try and straighten that area out or whatever the problem is right now. And also too, like a key piece of public

safety is getting out into the neighborhoods. Yes. Uh community policing, right? Um how are we doing with that? And are we looking to maybe upgrade it or increase it? We're doing actually um I'm pretty proud of the guys. They're really stepping up when it comes to that. I'm a huge proponent of community policing in the neighborhood groups. Uh the neat team has the neighborhood groups. Um they're they

actually are assigned each one is assigned a neighborhood.

Um what I just had a conversation with housing today and one of the something else that we're going to in uh implement is uh in trying to get the patrol to uh be engaged with the housing um managers.

uh the patrol officers that are assigned to a cruiser to be um held accountable for reaching out to some of those uh people and making um you know contacts.

It's it's not only is it good for the community, but it's good for the officer, too, you know. Yeah. Now, um I think it was council Pont was talking about the uh the tickets being written uh by by the patrolman uh whether it's speeding or any any other reason for providing up a ticket. And I seem to remember that um back when I was on the council, if you got a speeding ticket or

any other noncriminal kind of uh ticket, you would go and pay it at the courthouse and you would bring your money with you to the courthouse and that that would go that money that was given to the courthouse, whoever was whether whether it was a police officer from Fall River, I'm not sure, but it was a written by a Fall River police officer, that money went directly to the

county, kept that um if it was a uniform citation like a Massachusetts uniform citation. But I think that if it had to go to if it went to the county, it was because maybe a police the something on the ticket wasn't filled out properly.

I'm just looking at revenue maybe. Well, I think that system that that system of written tickets is out of the question now. Everything's digital tickets. So when it when you're getting a ticket, does it does it now go right to the the police department on Pleasant Street?

How how is it getting paid? Hey, that's the first I've heard them funds were ever old city ordinance book. Yeah.

Yeah. No, I No, but it was something where they they were looking to gain revenue. Um, and I'm just curious if that's still I know everything's digitalized and it's a lot easier now, but is there any kind of situation where that might might happen again?

No, I'm just saying you know there's a way to I mean appeal processes happen pretty much Tuesdays and Wednesdays at the court. We have a a representative from the police department, a detective from our court leison unit sits there.

But as far as us collecting fees physically, we don't. No, everything comes through the state. So So now everything is when when you get a speeding ticket in Fall River, I get a speeding ticket on Eastern Avenue. I get pulled over. I go make make the payment.

Whether I want to mail it on or go online or go directly to the police station, that's where I would go now.

You go to the RMV. Yeah, you go to the RV. They're going to direct you to mail in the payment because they don't want to touch anything moneywise there. So Okay. So the RMV I So that's my point.

I'm wondering the RMV is the clearing house for the the clearing house. Okay.

But do we get any of that? 50%. Oh, we do. Okay. That that was my question.

Okay. So it's 50%. Yep. All right. And what does that do you have an idea of what that generates? I know there 100.

So for uh if you already brought that up, I apologize. That's okay. 163, uh 500. That's okay. All right. All right.

Oh, that's it. I yield. Thank you.

I just ask C5, you have a repeat question. I just a followup when um councelor Hart was talking about speeding tickets. Some of the speeding we have gone around and paved a lot of the roads, Stafford Road, for example, we've paved now people I get complaints people are flying down Stafford Road, Industrial Park, you get calls they have drag races up there. I wish there was a place we could have a drag racing strip

and have people there and they pay to drag race and you could make money on that, but we don't. So, um there's it's not a speed bump hump, it's a speed ramp or something speed humps. Is there any thoughts on putting some of those around the city in certain hotspot areas? Yes.

So, we um actually worked we were uh in the mayor's office a couple of weeks ago and um he had the maps out on where certain areas that are uh problem areas we want to pilot a program to put them in. Uh especially around the schools.

So, I believe it was uh Albert Street near um Maplewood Park because that's always a problem and and you know the kids come running down that hill and right into the street. Yeah. And the cars are flying by because they want to avoid all the lights on Brighton Avenue, right? So, um it was there it was Stone Haven Road because that's always a major problem um with complaints from the kids

speeding when they leave school on Stone Haven Road. Um Industrial Park is another one. And then on Bay Street near um where uh like Globe Mills A and Globe Street in that area where the kids come out of cuss out of cuss. Good. So, that'll be like a pilot program. And I think that'd be a little proactive, get people to slow down a little bit. I I see it more in in more in uh community

uh in communities, those speed humps.

There's one right next to Case High School in Swansea if you want to see and feel one. Yep. Well, I've seen them down in Florida around Pompo. They have them.

And I mean, you really can't feel it.

It's not like when you pull into Diamond that you had these big bumps that kind of bottomed out. My car, you know, you had to kind of go at an angle. But so you're saying you were speeding counselor? No, I wasn't.

No, I wasn't speeding. I did go through a red light and one of you guys pulled me over, but um that's it. I mean, you know, better than anybody else. You mess up, they That's interesting.

No, the homes. Oh, yeah. No, they're they're very very effective. That's That's my answer to bottom out the car, nothing. But it kind of made you just Yeah. But you can um it doesn't affect the uh the plows or the like ambulances and stuff like that. Yeah. That's good.

That's very proactive. Just to clarify too, we uh the um Mr. Aguar and the traffic uh board was here last week.

They're going to they're putting out bids for those, right? Yep. They're going to hopefully put some around the city and I think Albert Albert Street's very very good area to start and also the industrial parks. You'll make Dell very happy. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, they're they're all over Providence, Boston. Just drive in any of those towns and see them.

Count one. Council, thank you. Got some budget questions.

um overtime. I know you talked about this, but in just in terms of specifically the overtime for investigations, so I noticed that uh OT for investigations for FY25 was budgeted at 230. Projections in FY25 are expected to be 323,000 and and just refresh my memory. So it's um actuals through May. Is that or is it actual? It's actually projected. So it we took you know if it was I think it

was May 1st. So then we said take that times four months. So actual act actuals through April essentially through May.

Yeah. Up to May 1st. Yeah. April 30th.

Um and then projection. So we're projecting 323,000 in uh investigation for for OT.

So, but then in the FY26 budget that gets reduced uh down to $200,000, which is significantly less than projections and $30,000 less than the original budget for FY25. Can you just explain that?

That was that was one of the changes that you had talked about, I believe, when we sat down. I I can't speak to the personnel changes that happened, but there was things that were changing with the staffing that was going to decrease that. Correct. So even the investigation is the reduction is solely responsible to staffing and not necessarily investigations. So K I think one of the things we're trying to do

better in our agency is the systems in place for categorizing overtime because uh it's a digital system. Sometimes some people put it in the wrong category. But from an investigative standpoint, uh we're doing a pilot program right now where our major crimes or major case division is working a night shift and we did a cost analysis between what it would cost to pay those officers to be

on night shift versus the overtime associated with it. And actually it's it's a savings to do that. So, uh I think with staffing potentially helping, but the investigation number, we were comfortable with that. As Emily had spoke earlier, it's a calibration. And so if we're running in a way where we're going to go above it, then we'll have a reason why we're going in that way. So I

think with the systems in place, we'll we'll keep an eye on it. But I think I'm comfortable with that. Sorry, that program is what I meant when I said staffing. I meant you changed something in the way people were time being there.

I like Okay. Uh the other thing too is that we for the last 18 years, we've um gotten received the uh Shannon grant money. um that has always just run out of one small unit. So you have such a significant $227,000 to run out of a small unit, you know, where um it's for gang investigations, gang activity where now uh all the different grants we have are departmentwide. So now the major crimes

division who would us who would normally put in overtime beyond Torah duty overtime can we now utilize the Shannon grant money because that's what that's what it's for. Okay. Um can you just and and the rest of my questions are pretty quick. Uh snow stipen uh who who gets the snow stipen? I don't Oh, um Chris Hathaway in the mechanics. It's uh yeah it's in the CBA. Okay. So that's that's

new. All right. No, that was another one that was moved. Oh, it was. So that was in other personnel costs. You can see that there was never um a budget there, but then things were being charged there. So we put it into it's the drug or not the drug, I'm sorry, the snow and CDL hoisting stipen. So that was that was my other question was the hoisting and CDL. So that's from that same line

above which that I actually just pulled that updated number and they're at 7,000. It actually perfectly budgeted out for 25 that it's been updated. Okay.

Um, and then just for the repair and maintenance. So, can you just maybe it is straightforward, but I'm I guess I'm just trying to figure out why there was no budget in the prior year, but uh street lights versus traffic signals.

So, I know the traffic signals fell under you, but you you're doing street lights. We're doing street lights now.

So, um Al Aloa switched his budget over to Chris, um, and an additional electrician so that Chris can take care of that instead of outsourcing to save money.

Great. I I'd suggest that we uh take Alivera's money um and then send back the repair street lights and the signal replacements back over to him. um use the uh what is it 50,000 and 165 um so 215,000 and cruises buy some cruises. I mean if you did a uh you know a three-year lease on those that you can get five and wait three years and get another five. I think that would that

would solve some of the problem. Um, and and quite frankly, I think I think that that if if we're looking at the police department and we're looking at like, you know, responsibilities and and costs associated with I I would I would say traffic signal replacements and uh street lights should be under community maintenance, not not the police department. That's and I know it's been like this for a little bit, but

um and then I I will say that uh while my colleague in in C uh six is my favorite counselor, um I I do first of all the the the police department building was built in 1996. So I don't know that you can go back to uh yeah C CPA for uh the windows. I will say that I think we need to identify what the window replacement is going to be. Uh

but I do have a question with regard to the building maintenance. It seems like building maintenance supplies has been reduced by 60,000. So is that just janitorial supplies or is that actual supplies for just general maintenance of the building that was moved?

So, councelor Kadeima, in that particular line, we were using that line historically for upgrades, remodels within the building structure. After uh budget conversations with Emily, the mayor, DCM, uh it was determined that the bulk of that would fall under uh DCM. So, we had $60,000 moved from our budget over to theirs to account for that. What remains here, uh, the $30,000 is a project we

have at the Far Police Department firing range where we're going to, uh, build a structure there. All the more reason to keep the 215 and, uh, assign it to police vehicles. Um, so just to uh clarify, the 50,000 and that 60,000, if you look at his budget, you can see one of his lines going up. It's actually more than 60, but because other departments did the same thing. And then

the 50,000 you can see is now zeroed out in his. So those were direct just departmental transfers that you could track in the book. Okay. And then the building is 96, right? Is that when it opened? 96. Constructed in '95, built in 96. All right. Okay. Thank you. Uh with that I yield. Count2 count. Yeah. Just one more quick question. Um how many people did you say are going to be retiring?

So there's a handful that are around that sweet spot. I don't think they have any intention to retire. They haven't indicated that. There are some medical retirements that are coming up potentially. I believe there's four people eligible for because the reason I ask on page 120 under employee buyouts, it's zero. So that to be honest with you, it's a point of contention for me too. So it has historically not been

budgeted for in their department. Um and FIRE has historically budgeted for it knowing with their retirements. So, you know, we we did I looked at putting that in as an actual budget, but because of the amounts and the uncertainties it there wasn't a number to put into it.

So, it's something that we were talking about and we would probably move towards especially once staffing gets fully up because right now some of that vacancy savings has been naturally covering it.

But, it is something that we I want to move forward with with them and you know, especially knowing that some of those retirements will start coming up soon because they're kind of eligible now, but they're not necessarily looking to. So that is something that we'll hopefully move towards in the future.

The good thing though is that we and it'll be in we have had our mass retirements over the last five years. So now it's just a trickle here and there.

You know my father always said it was the you know it's the World War II turnover, the Vietnam turnover, the Desert Storm turnover. You know also so you we're working on the control mechanisms with the amount of unfunded liability with comp time. So obviously I know that uh the council, the mayor, the city residents here do not like to hear that someone has three years on the books. Even internally we don't like

that because it messes up hiring. It messes up promotion opportunities. So we've kind of eradicated that and with what the union's been able both unions have cooperated with that. We're moving in a much better place where to Emily's uh admiration we'll be able to kind of scale what we know who has there'll only be a controlled amount of time on the books. So at any given time we'd be able

to know who'd be ready to go and you know how the buy would cost. Exactly.

Exactly. Yeah. Because I mean it is important. Uh sometimes that can be significant. So um that's it. With that I yield. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all of you for coming. Can I just I'm sorry. Just council has one more question. I'm just trying to find it.

Um so auto repairs.

So you had you had mentioned councelor NC 6 had mentioned uh if if money wasn't an issue how many vehicles you would need and you said roughly 15 would get us to to the point. So um that's pretty significant but the auto repairs and I just can't find it right now but it it decreased by is it by 60,000 did I have that right?

I don't think there's three lines the motor oil and lubricants parts and accessories and auto body repairs.

Is that I'm sorry it's about halfway through that expense. Oh, maybe it wasn't 60,000. I'm sorry. That was building, but there there was a decrease in in the auto repair line.

Uh about 5,000 because they hadn't been utilizing it. So they've been only spending about 20,000 a year. So So that's just based on a trend analysis.

Yeah. And it's also a lot of it's covered with insurance costs. And so again, before it was fully budgeted of we're kind of doing this much in repairs, but then a lot of it was being covered with insurance. So we we just tried to get more accurate of the amount that is truly, you know, the general fund's responsibility. So Okay. I just wanted to make sure we weren't short changing that line knowing that some of

the vehicles are are running. Obviously, all the vehicles are running mostly 24/7. But all right, with that, I yield.

Thank you. Thank you. That'd be enough for the questions. I want to thank all of you again for coming down. An excellent judge. No, we're still in finance.

Thank you so much and good luck and thank you for what you do each and every day for the residents of this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night.

What is this? All

right. I thought we had the 11th and the 12th. This changed. That's the update, I guess. Thank you. Now we have the 10th and the 11th.

Constit.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so I I know that you sent down to us a 2026 proposed budget amendment um before us tonight. Um, so it's it's not um let me start with saying I you know I had conversations with um city clerk's office about I'm going to say the legality of submitting that. So right now it's technically not a full official submitt because um I would like to wait

until we get through the rest of the hearings next week so that if there are other changes that are requested that we need to make we could make one actual submission so that you could act on it.

Um because this is an increase to the bottom line you can't technically adopt the amendment that way. So, no, no, no, no. I recognize. Okay. Yeah, that's this isn't an order. I I make it clear. Okay. I just wanted to I just wanted to make an appropriation to start out with. Okay. Yeah. We would have an appropriation order before us and would have to vote reduce, reject, or approve

it. And I know what you're doing. You heard what we had to say and you're trying to be proactive, which I appreciate, with trying to get the council over its questions to be answered. Generally speaking, based on what you have, I just want to speak out loud and tell you my position. Okay. Um, I know that we have a full council meeting scheduled tonight. Um, and I I am going to make, you know, after I'm

done speaking a motion to refer it to full counsel to reject the budget. We can act in full counsel for that. And I state that only because um I can see, you know, we had that we had that um um health insurance I guess disagreement in terms of whether it's short $5 million or if it's not short $5 million.

um you in your communication to us respectfully said well what we're going to do from what I understand correct me if I'm wrong that you're going to take $4.5 million out of the diamond stabilization account that we had correct which we just enacted we just put forward which I was complimentary of right I was I appreciated that this is great but what we've done is we've actually done you you you've created an

even larger problem with a structural deficit by using one-time money to infuse into the budget. So I go ahead. So the I I agree and that's why I originally had not utilized that money to put it into the budget and and was in EM working on plans with um several people with administration with HR to close that gap and to figure out what that actual gap is if there is

a gap from the general fund side of things.

And I heard from council loud and clear that you weren't comfortable with that.

So then I decided fine, let's put the onetime money in. I mean, if if you're talking about no matter what solving that healthc care problem, it's one time money. Whether it's from diamond stabilization, whether it's from our current stabilization, whether it's from free cash, if something needs to be put in to close that immediately, it would be onetime money. if you don't want to

give it time to close the gap otherwise and so you know I think there are other plans to close it and and we I was trying to talk about that but if that's not the will of everyone being comfortable with that then you know we can put in the onetime money and and ultimately if we don't need it we don't have to pull it out right it's it's in there as a line item revenue but it

doesn't mean it immediately comes out so if there are other revenues or other things that change we don't necessarily have to spend all of that onetime money we've estab um let's take a step back we've establish lish the stabilization account for diamond already. Correct.

It's been established. Is it true that anytime we take money out of stabilization, we need two/3 votes from the council. That changed that changed.

What was the change? If I can somebody tell me. I don't. It's a simple majority. Simple majority. What? Okay.

So, I want to just say that I don't believe in utilizing onetime money to balance a budget. It's a concern of mine. It's unsustainable model. I can appreciate what you're doing. Fully agreed though. But I cannot in good conscience see a municipal budget before us that has onetime money being used to balance its budget. It's literally I've always said it's a definition of insanity in my opinion. It really is.

And and I know you know this because you're doing what you can with the researches that you have, but I'll get to that point in a moment. Like if my household spent more than I earned and I had to go to savings, which is exactly what you're doing, you would be doing here, I would be setting myself up for future financial horror, right? If I if I make x amount of money, but my

expenses are higher than the revenues than the if my expenses are higher than the revenues I generate and I have to keep going to my savings account, when that savings account runs out, what do I do? I have to cut. I have to make budget cuts. Okay? And I could get into the intricacies about how I feel about the $3.7 million that you're using for investment income. I tend to disagree

with your analysis behind it with all due respect. Okay. Um I feel that you're using fair gains. They're not real dollars. Not accurate, but I I I just I I this is how I feel. uh whether it's fair gains or not, you're using you're using investment income that is also I don't believe sustainable. Um reading some of the uh government finance officers association guidelines using investment income isn't something that

they recommend anyway. Um but again, we can disagree on that and I'm only one vote, right? You can figure this out elsewhere, but I just don't believe in in in balancing a budget also with investment income as well.

Um, so look, I I'm I'm prepared tonight and and and I just want to say that I was very complimentary of the fact that you utilized the diamond stabilization account and now we're utilizing it to balance a municipal budget. I think it's crazy. I think it's it's it's not a model that we would be able to sustain for the future. And I would I would caution you that it's a kicking the can

down the road type approach because if we can't find that revenue going into the next fiscal year, you're going to have to make a cut next fiscal year.

Cuts might need to happen this fiscal year. And I don't necessarily know if you would be able to cut $4.5 million of the budget, but that's not on us to do.

We don't have the luxury with the exception of this to hear from department heads in terms of um you know, where can you cut, where did you zero base? I know MIS is an account that has seen $3 million of potential increases, I think, year-over-year over the last three years. And I know we used a ton of ARPER money when it comes to MIS, right? We just, you know, I don't

want to be doomsday and glooms day, if that's what it's called, but I don't find that this is a this is this is a budget that I can support from my standpoint hearing from police and fire um uh that there's needs that they need.

Um, and and we haven't, with all due respect, we also haven't heard from other departments, but looking at what we're what we're at from fiscal practices to transparency to utilizing investment income to balancing a budget of $4.5 million, almost $5 million of one-time money. I I think the real thing here is the mayor is going to need you and the fin you, the mayor, and and all your department heads are going to have

to maybe try to find a way to cut $4.5 million. So, just to be clear though, you you said you don't want I'm going to say upwards of $3 million in the investment income. You don't want the $4.5 million in there. So, now you're talking about 7.5 million in cuts just from the changing the revenue plus then wanting to add in more capital at what rate? So, now you're talking about

upwards of 8 to9 million in cuts that would need to come out of the departments. And if you look outside of the staffing and public safety and just look at the core department functions, you're you're barely at, you know, $20 million. So to to take something like that from it, you're devastating the budget to be able to cut that much out of it. So that's where I'm kind of I'm kind of getting a little confused and

frustrated on what the actual ask is here because you don't like the revenues that are in there, but then you don't think that there's enough expenses, but then you want to cut expenses. I just am trying to understand realistically like what's the solution to this because I agree with not wanting to do onetime money and I I had other ways that we were going to work to close that gap but because that

wasn't comfortable for everybody else you know we said we'll we'll utilize the onetime money because that's something but I don't have a plan to need that in the future because of the other things and the reason that I showed that there was a potential gap to begin with was because I had ways of closing it and and didn't wasn't going to carry that forward moving on. So, I'm just I'm

trying to understand what is not being understood and what is not being shared and what you guys would like to see changed because the administration is listening and they and they care to hear what you want changed, but it's it's getting a little confusing. So, I'll just say this. You're making my point.

You're making my point due to the fact that you have $4.5 million of money that is one time. It's not sustainable for future fiscal years. It won't be. It doesn't need to be. So, so then what is the what is the financial plan? What is the game plan? What's the master plan?

What's the financial plan surrounding on how you are going to be able to uncover or receive those that $4.5 million next fiscal year? How are you going to guarantee another $4.5 million of new growth going into next fiscal year? It's impossible. Again, it was it's about bringing those health care costs back down and not saying that we're actually reducing healthare costs. It's about the

fact that there are other expenses, other outside outside of the general fund costs that are being charged there that we need to make sure that we're capturing all of the appropriate revenues to fund those sides of it so that the general fund isn't taking on that burden. And so that's something that I was saying would then long term keep that number out of the budget, keeping that 4.5 million meaning to be

covered with general fund next year instead. Yes, there'll be a normal increase, but that would be I'm going to say a normal level increase that we already plan for and have other things that are able to increase the way it always has been. Don't you think you're just pushing down the inevitable of budget cuts? You don't you don't feel budget cuts are going to be necessary in the next coming fiscal years at all? I

do not. I'm telling you I there was plans to close that gap so that that 4.5 million was not needed to fund the healthcare trust fund and that that would be a sustainable thing moving forward so that it wouldn't be needed and it isn't onetime money. Okay, I hear you. Tell me what is sustainable about using onetime money to balance a budget.

I I said I did not want to do that. I I made that very clear. There was a reason that it was not originally in here. And it's not, you know, it's something that we can do and and that is possible, but it's not it wasn't my recommendation.

It's not something that I think is the best way to do this. And I think there's other ways to cover that that aren't onetime things. What I was talking about with the healthcare trust fund and and right sizing the revenues that are coming into it is not a one-time thing.

it is going to be a year-over-year funding source within that healthcare trust fund that would keep those down.

So that that's not a one-time thing, but everybody here didn't seem to be comfortable with that. So I decided we could put the onetime money in for the one time because it would be a onetime gap and then once this stuff changed, you would see that next year and it wouldn't be a concern. Are you do you do you feel in your analysis by Gallagher your own internal practices that you're

going to see $4.5 million less in insurance next year? So that's what that's what I think is not being understood. There are numbers that are provided by Gallagher. Galler just says this is what is costing the city. The city has this plan and this is what it costs. Gallagher is not looking at the participants of the plan saying these are general fund participants, these are enterprise fund, these are school

department, these are grants funded, these are BCTC, these are CDA, these are RDA. So they're just looking at an overall number saying this is what you got to cover and it's up to us to say you're responsible for this, you're responsible for this, and you're responsible for this. So that's the majority of what I am discussing changing that again it's not about our health care costs all of a sudden coming

down that's not realistic right it's about making sure that the costs that are in there associated with these non-general fund entities are taking on their actual cost burden and again it's it's hard for me to detail that out now and tell you those ex exact numbers because it's going to take time to get those exact numbers and to have those conversations with all of those different entities. It

hasn't been done this way here before. I have seen it done this way in New Bedford. So, I know that it's not an abnormal thing and it and it works the way it's can be done, but it's just we have to get there. And so, I don't have concrete numbers to give you saying exactly this amount more from here and this amount more from here and that's what's going to cover it.

So, that's why it was proposed the way it was and and that's why you didn't see it fully closed because I don't have a concrete set way that it's going to be closed. But, I am confident that we will get there. So, how I feel, I'll wrap up and say that we're going from having a budget that is not balanced to utilizing another budget that is going to set up a structural deficit. That's exactly what

I that's how I feel. And I I listen, I think you're doing yman's work, all right? You're really working as hard as you can. Okay? But last year, I I sat here and I I questioned the number of things. The council cut a budget by almost what 700 $800,000. And oh my goodness, guess what? $10 million or thereabouts is going to uh flow through to free cash. Right? So what that tells

me is maybe last year I don't know maybe last year that there were some maybe budget practices correct that we could have looked at. We did look at all of those all of those changed this year and that all of that changed this year. That excess has been cut out information that excess has been cut out. If you look department by department, I think many counselors have pointed out there are

extreme percentage decreases on almost every single department on the summary page because we cut out those problems that practices that was turning over $10 million. We already cut that out. And I can tell you we added in the 3 million for the solid waste. We added in the diamond for 4.5. So that $10 million that you're discussing was immediately taken up by exorbitant increases that

weren't normal or expected. And so we had to rectify that to fix that. So I completely agree there was surplus built in and there was things that could change to reduce that and so we did change that. It the problem is that far more came in as expenses outside of what we anticipated to come in for this year.

Sure. But is it also fair to say that of the $10 million that was going to flow through to free cash, you also last year, didn't we just make a transfer of almost $4 million or something like that to the health insurance account? We had $17 million in surplus from 24. For 25, we don't have that surplus number yet, but it it is it was very high. And again, those same like we have cut that

out, so that won't happen again. You feel you've zerobased budgeted every department? Absolutely. Uhhuh. Okay.

Absolutely. I mean, this is this is a budget book and it's already an overwhelming document with the amount of information in it. We could provide far more. I mean, like I said, the police budget, it's over a hundred lines in the back detail. I'm happy to share it with you. It's just to do that for every department. Again, it's not that it's a secret. It's not that we're not willing to share it. It is an overwhelming

amount of information that you are more than welcome to. It's just we don't publish it in that way because no nobody could digest it. It's just not. So from a from a financial standpoint, I can't see how as one counselor I would be able to support a unbalanced budget and then a budget that is a future structural deficit by using onetime money. I just I I can't and and and until you can tell

me or convince me that it's fiscally responsible to do, you're you're not hearing what I'm saying of why that's not accurate and why it is balanced and why I didn't want to use onetime money and why onetime money isn't necessary.

So, in that sense, I again, I I want to keep working with you on this and and we can have more conversations offline, too, to fully understand, you know, the the discrepancies that we're having here. But like I said with the you're calling it unbalanced because of that 5 million. But again, I I'm trying to tell you that I don't believe that $5 million gap right there is the responsibility of

the general fund, which is why I left it there because I don't believe it is the responsibility of the general fund to cover those costs because they're not the general fund's costs. What if the costs come in though?

They are from all of those from the enterprise funds from BCTC from CDA from outside grants from um BCTC, RDA, CDA.

Did I say those three? So there's several, you know what I mean? There's several other things that we ensure and cover that aren't just people that are staffed in the general fund that are listed in here that have insurance coverage that should be responsible for their portion of their bill. Okay. I'll hear what you have to say to my colleagues. I'm just being completely direct and candid with you. My my

position I just it's not something I'll support. So I yield. Thanks. Thank you.

Council one council. Thank you. I guess I guess I'm I agree with my colleague and everything I said, but I I'm not following the cost versus the I guess what I would call allocation of the funding for health care. So, you know, on page 141, you already provide a breakdown of CDA, BCTC, redevelopment authority, screw, uh, school grants, prescription rebates, um, stop loss, and then others. So, if

you felt like those numbers should have the allocation on who is covering the cost, why why wouldn't you have made that adjustment there? Because So, that's that's what I'm saying. I I need time to be able to make that with all of the proper data that is being provided to have those conversations with those organizations to figure out exactly how that's going to change. And it's it's

just it is going to take me more time than the two months that I had to do all of that. So again, without having those exact numbers and having those conversations with the departments and getting all of the data and being able to make officially those changes, I didn't want to put something in here of what I have for estimates because it's not it's not real yet. And and to me that's also unfair to misrepresent in

that way saying you know this organization is going to pay this amount when it's not a set amount yet and when we haven't finalized all of those details. So that's the part that I'm so I guess that's where I guess that's where I'm getting confused. So you don't know for certain number one I mean CDA could come back and b at the uh I guess the allocation that you're you're saying

uh belongs to them. And if if they b at it and then we come back and say okay it's not going to be picked up by CDA then we're going to have to pick it up.

So it's still it's still a deficit. So I guess C itself is is Yes. And I agree with that because that's they are city employees and they're being funded a different way. So that's maybe a little bit different. But some of the other ones I mean we are not we hold no responsibility for having to ensure BCTC employees. It's not they're not a city organization like it it doesn't work

that way. We offer this to them. Okay.

But that's but they don't have to get an outside plan. But but that's a $400,000 line item because that's what they're currently paying into it. Right.

So, but you you honestly think that it's going to be like we're talking about $5 million. So, if CDA is employee, let's let's remove them. Correct. So, BCTC, you've got $400,000. Even if you say it's another $500,000 to get it to a million, I mean, we're still $4.5 million off. If we go to the forever uh redevelopment authority, there's only $13,000 in there. And the and the I think the redevelopment authority is

only I think one person. It's one person insured. You're So the other part of it is is the enterprise funds and that's part of my other just just hear me out though. So that's that's two entities outside entities, right? So we're not we're not even close to $5 million.

Correct. School grants. We know what the school grants are. The grants have always, you know, it c it talks about what the administrative costs are going to be. So we should know know that off the off the bat. It that's not accurate.

When we fill out those grants, we have to tell them what the costs are. So if we haven't been putting in the accurate costs, it's not and again I think that the way that people have the way it's been decided about how much the cost is has not been fully inclusive the way it it should be and could be. So that's part of it and again it's not just from these

ones. The other big part of it is the enterprise funds which is a lion share of but the enterprise funds I I recognize that but we have a good portion of the indirect costs coming over. I mean, it's like $23 million in terms of what that is. I I just I don't again the the details of these it's I I understand what you're saying, but it's so much more complex than I can

just dish out in a quick sentence to you on this council floor to explain what needs to be changed and and why it will have that impact. So part of it is the fact that the enterprise funds when I look back at previous indirect you know calculation sheets and how it was done when you look at that and again I'm talking about from 5 to 10 years ago it says direct payment on all of them it

says direct that's not being done it's being put into the general fund and it's also a set amount so at the way it's been calculated is say on March 1st when they start doing their budgets it's actually before then but they say okay January they have this number of employees that have this many plans plans, okay, times 75% and that's what they pay. And that's not that's not capturing the whole picture. And the

fact that sometimes there are claims we we come in over what the plan is being paid into it and there are other costs associated that aren't being captured in that. And so it's something that the working rate doesn't capture all of the costs and it doesn't capture all of the claims. So those are things that need to shift to fully accurate here. And I haven't I haven't even finished yet,

though. And and this is this is my reasoning, right? So prescription rebates. So if you're going to start switching the allocations, right, to water and sewer, then the rebates you get on prescription drugs are also going to have to follow those costs. So you you already have $3 million that is being reduced. So if you So now if that $3 million is only a million dollars on the city side, you're $2 million short,

right? Like so you so you've got to it it that that wouldn't change in that sense. It might change how much they have to pay in, but it doesn't change the amount that is allocated to them. So that 3 million would never go away. It would still be there. It's a separate fund. I I understand it's a separate fund. But if you're saying you're going to charge the enterprise funds for the

cost of their employees for the health insurance and then those employees are being charged for prescription drugs and there is a rebate coming back from Blue Cross Blue Shield on the rebates, the drug rebates. How do you then not reallocate those to the to the water sewer to CDA to BCTC? You're just going to keep that on the city side in terms of and I say I say it's all one I

understand it's all one fund that's not necessarily the city side. So in that sense again yeah we could say this is your bill. It's I'm just going to say number of 400,000 and now it's going to be 500,000 and you have a $10,000 offset but that 10,000 is still part of that 3.1. So now instead of paying 400, they're going to pay 480. And yeah, some of that was offset with that money, but

that doesn't change that. So it it again, it's so com it's it's not I I I'd really like to hear what I'd really like to hear what my colleague in seat number one is saying to you. You kind of interrupted him and I thought he was doing well. Thank you. You're welcome.

No, I I I I'm just saying that it just carried like the logic to me there there is not enough in terms of what we're looking at for allocations to support the deficit of the $5 million. And then even if you did just call it half, you know, let's just just call it $2.5 million. you still have rebates of $3 million that I would think that if you're going to charge the various

groups for their exact costs of healthcare that then you'd also have to give them the applicable rebates.

Absolutely. And the stop-loss insurance was $1.6 million. Right. So if you're charging them for claims that are coming in and somebody has cancer and and they're and I again I I forget what the where the stop loss um it's 250 250. So anything over 250 you get the reimbursement on that. So, if somebody comes in at, you know, $500,000, they would only be charged $ 250, right? And

I would be and if I'm the uh the water department, they, you know, that that charge off should be going off over there. The prescription drug should be going there as well. And so, to me, it's you're still going to net the fact that you're short $5 million. So, so for the record, when I say it would be going over there, the charges and the revenues don't go over there. It's just the

amount that they're putting into it. So, that's why I'm saying that that doesn't go away no matter what. that's what we're getting in. So, it's not going to we're not going to take that and send it over to them and say, "Here's your check and thanks for your extra revenue. It's the excess that you owe is obviously not over the 250." Right? It's it's just going to be what I'm saying what I'm

saying is the way that you've budgeted it, right? So, we've got indirect cost in water and sewer. The way I budgeted is the way it's always been budgeted and I want to change that. Let me finish please. It is it is a cost to healthcare. you have not netted that out with any of the stop-loss or the prescription drugs, right? Because it's just been here are your employees, this is what the the uh premium plan would

be, you know, the working rate, this is what it is. You haven't then come back and said, well, here's the working rate, but we actually got rebates of $3 million for prescription. you stop loss kicked in for this employee because we don't know which employee it is. But if it's if just say it's off of the the water and sewer, you're gonna have to reduce that amount in terms of what

they're pulling uh putting in in terms of an allocation. So to me, it's just going to be a wash. So part of the working rate does include a portion of this. So the working rate for FY26 includes $3 million of the 4.8 that you see there. So part of it is already worked into their working rate. So it it is just a little bit more that isn't factored in that would be in addition to

it that might be factored in for that.

But I had asked you when when I had asked you the we had a deficit we we I said put that deficit aside you said for fiscal year 26 we have a $5 million deficit.

So you're saying that all these other agencies have to kick in more just again I don't like community development how much more they're $147,000 BCTC $400,000 redevelopment authority $13,000 and then you got school grants that are $2 million how much more are we doing like so water and sewer it's just where water sewer and EMS and that's you know over 150 employees between those three

departments as part of it and then again there are there are grants outside of school grants right that those revenues to me do not appear to be captured in this trust fund at this point in time and a lot of grant employees don't have insurance but there are a number that do and again those those revenues from what I have looked into and I have been digging around this best I can I I don't

see them in here so like I said there there's several things that I think Okay. But so just the sewer. So indirect health insurance indirect cost $131,000.

Correct. Not millions, right? So even if we double that, that's 200,000. Health insurance for water 500,000. Again, not millions.

Can we double that one, too? Right. I'm just I'm just saying if we get it to the million, right? It it So EMS I was That's what I was looking for. EMS $1.3 million. Right.

So, I just I mean, even if we start doubling all this, we're still not getting to the to the $5 million. I guess we are covering a gap. She she would be able to cover more of a gap.

Yeah. Well, it's it's a large portion of it. I And again, so I I was very clear from the number that was in there that there were already things that were changing. So, in the email that I sent out, you can see that that cost number has already gone down. And so there that number one, like I said, that's part of the problem is that things like that keep changing

as we get more data and information in from them. The timing of the budget being submitted to the timing of all of our documents coming in. Can we can we talk about that a little bit? Just the timing like I keep hearing that when did we stop the budget process?

So I started in this role March 1st. So we we had done the budget kickoff I think two weeks before that um as part of the whole finance team doing that. So the budget process started February 14th. So February was the first first kickoff for yes and for again for me in the fact that I wasn't in this role yeah that's when I started on it but it's if a normal full-time year it

would have started earlier and you would have had a capital plan that would have been done in the fall that would have led into it then in January you would have started working on all part of the finance team though right correct but I I was not able to be working on this during that time it it's it wasn't my call on what I was working on and and

that this was being started by me or not being started by me and that's part of the problem that I was I couldn't it wasn't up to me to start working on this before then but I'm sure you were you were following and in and going through the process right so you would have some ideas in terms of what you would look to to make changes to if you had the opportunity correct you know there's

there's thoughts and ideas but that doesn't mean I could implement or change anything or get all of the data and have all of the conversations that needed to happen to make those changes so I mean I I don't want to continue to go on I I agree with my my colleague in seat six I I I think we should send this back. And the only reason I say that is

because it it it we're not going to do any any justice to continue until next week to to hear this out and have additional changes. Um I I appreciate what you're saying in terms of the frustration that you are are feeling in in regards to um I guess the messaging you're getting from the council, but I I think the council's been very clear. I from from my standpoint, I don't know

that this is a lean budget. I understand that we're talking about capital items and adding those back into the budget, but I think those are essential services that need to be provided um when we start talking about police cruisers and discussing capital items. I think those should automatically be in um these budgets and capital line items so that we know that we've got a routine plan

for police vehicles and things of that nature. Um but not having an idea, and I know you talked about $10 million being committed for capital items. Um, but not having that with us right now, it just it's it's concerning. And then I haven't done the the complete analysis in terms of all the increases that have gone through with a number of individual contracts, but you know, my colleagues

have um, you know, the colleague to my left has has a number and it's just it's it's a staggering number when we start looking at percentage increases, right?

So, it's not accurate though. The I mean, it's not 600,000. Yes. But it's it's not what you're thinking. It is it includes step increases. It includes contractual things that have changed and education stipens and things like that that it wasn't just you know we think that you deserve $10,000. They're individual when you when you say that I was there they were individual contracts. So there are some that are

individual contracts but that's that does not total $600,000 is what I'm saying clarification. Can we get a number as to how many contract contractual obligations that like for union contracts to please file collective bargaining agreements versus individual contracts? Exactly. So, I I did send out a list of the exact contractual obligation ones. So, I mean, I can take that and subtract it out, but

I do I did send a list of all the contractual change increases. So, that you should have a dollar value for that.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I do. If I do, I'll try to track it down, but I I mean, I can get it as well. I just don't have it in front of me because I had already sent it. So, I just kind of thought it was So, I I will I will just talk cuz I know I was talking to my colleague about this, but from an individual contract

talking about uh the IMS budget, it it's a $30,000 increase for one individual, right? So, we got a 30 $33,000 increase for one individual and I believe the prior year he received a $10,000 increase. So, you got a $40,000 increase for one individual who is in a department that has seen a $3 million increase in the overall budget. We're talking about having a $5 million deficit from my standpoint. If if folks

are coming, and that's the administration's message to the city council that this is a lean budget. I got to be honest, you know, I those are conversations to department heads and people with individual contracts that we're not looking at $30,000 um you know, salary adjustments for contractual employees. We can't afford it. We don't even have capital items uh to provide for public safety or any other

departments. So maybe it's a $5,000 increase, right? So, back to your 3% and I and I appreciate that, but that's just one example that I know off the top of my head that we've been It's the only one that's high for the record. Well, I I'll listen, I'm not going to steal my colleague's thunder because she she did the work, so she'll she'll speak to it.

I I haven't I don't have a list in front of me uh to speak to it, but th those those are just my concerns. Um I do share the concerns with the investment income. Um I I do think that that's a major issue. Um, I applaud you for, you know, again, just piggybacking on on my colleagueu's point that applaud you for creating the stabilizational fund, but we just did that last month, right? We

created the stabilization last month, put $4.5 million in it, and now we're here just reducing the $4.5 million. And it's just it's taking one money pot of money from here to there, and just, you know, shifting where the deficit's going to be. And that's that's the concern.

And I and I don't disagree with him. I think and we we've said this before, if we approve this budget as a council, we're just um we're part of the problem.

We're empowering a budget that is not lean and um fiscally responsible. That's just my take. We we've seen it from prior administrations and this is why we struggle um and and continue to be in the positions that we are where we have buildings that are not being maintained properly. Uh we have resources that are not being uh properly uh given to departments. We we have lack of staffing. uh we we can't afford the

staffing in public safety. We can't put together a staffing plan. And I know that's not you, right? This is just this is a long stemming problem. Uh but at some point the city council is responsible and we need to take a step and and put our foot down and say that we need an absolutely lean budget and if that means cuts that means cuts and I've said that to you the other day and I

know it's it's not an easy thing but if it's cuts we need cuts, right? Can we talk about page 24 of the budget book in regards to the cuts that have already taken place? Mhm.

Yep. So if you look at this, I mean you can see that virtually every department has severely you know cut back all access that they could in their departments. I mean, some of the departments are smaller, so you know, obviously only so much money could be taken, but as much as they could, but if we're just talking about it, continue to operate. Well, we just talked about it.

It has a $30,000 increase for an individual contract. So, that first of all, that's something that happened outside of the budget process. And I I wish I could have had a say in in an increase like that, but I I was not in a position to have a say at that point because I I completely agree and and it's not at the time or place that we can afford that. But it was something

done outside of my purview and my time in this role. So I can't fully speak to that at this point, but I would agree with you that this isn't the time for that. We can't afford that right now.

But I this is what we have. This is what the individual is currently being paid.

There is a contract that's tied to it now. So I don't just a point of clarification. Council Kim reduce that budget by 30,000. Absolutely. Oh, no. I I don't disagree, but you know, we haven't even gotten into because I was waiting for the assessors to come down, new growth to see what their projections are. I I I I don't know if they agree with the new growth. The new growth

needs to come from them. So, they do they do I worked intimately with them to get to this number. So, it's not um it was done with him and and and again, he can speak to you on that and he's happy to, but I will say that that is my point of of asking you to not reject it tonight is because if you want to talk to him on Wednesday, it needs to be in

front of you to talk to him. Well, that that's that's fine. But I I I can tell you that I have heard that they were only comfortable with uh $1.5 million.

So, it was it was 1. We have one council speaking at a time, please. It was 1.7 million that they said they could guarantee each year in a projection running forward.

And so then there was conversations in regards to this year saying, "Okay, now talking about this one year, what are you expecting? What is a number that you think for this year will come in?"

Knowing that we have already started doing some of those valuations and some of that information is already starting to come in and the 2.2 is the number that was then agreed upon.

So it it is true that you're right looking at next year and the future years it might go back down to the 1.7 the 1.5 but at this point in time they are comfortable with this and the actual data will come in and it'll adjust um you know during tax rate recap time but knowing what's happening and the things that are already in place with them they know that it'll be higher

you know listen I recognize that I I see I see the reductions but it's still a seven 7.1% increase I know uh education is probably going take a good portion of that. Correct. I know your fixed costs are going to be uh a major uh point of that. But I solid waste is a big increase on that as well. So solid waste um education obviously which we all know is unfortunately outside of our control

and then the health insurance as well were were the big increases and obviously taking diamond and those were the massive increases that you know came into this. But every other department in every other way, I mean, there are reductions. Even in the smallest departments that only had, you know, 200, $300,000 be budgeted to begin with, made every cut they could. I mean, it's it's it was cut to the point of not

changing anything operational, of not cutting bodies, of not changing any services that are currently offered. But maybe we need to look at changing because it's coming, right? So, it it may not be coming, though. And I don't I don't know why that's not I don't know how else to say that. Okay. So, you're saying it may not come. I'm saying it may come. So, no, you're saying it is coming. It I think it is coming. I

absolutely think it's coming. I mean, we've we've been playing this game for a little while and I've I've said this I don't know 3, four years ago that we're we're walking off a fiscal cliff, right?

You've got negotiations that are taking place. You know, we those types of things that are significant. If we're if we're talking about legitimately funding police and fire staffing, that's additional bodies. that's over a million dollars. I I don't know. It's It's not unique to the city of Fall River. The revenues are not keeping pace with the expenses and the salaries that are that are there. That's it's a fact. I

understand that. I recognize that.

However, it is not a sustainable budget and I don't know and and I appreciate you trying to convince me that it is. I just I I I don't feel it's a sustainable budget. And and I'm saying it right now.

I for one will not support it because as as a council we need to take a step and we got to say okay it needs to be a lean budget and and if that means services need to change then services need to change. We need to figure out what that looks like. We need to know what it is.

We can't just be playing with house money and and saying okay let's let's worry about it next year. Let's hope you know healthcare comes in lower. Let's hope that we can fix the allocations over there. Let's hope um the school department doesn't request more money.

Let's hope that we don't give, you know, 9 and 12% increases to police departments and fire departments again.

And there there's a lot, right? And this is these are the conversations that we had that predate you, you know, in terms of what we saw for collective bargaining agreements coming down before us. And I know that we're trying to be competitive uh and trying to make adjustments, but this this has long-term ramifications and implications on how we move forward.

And and at the end of the day, you know, we we talked about it. It it's I I I think the the quote from uh the chief was was pretty straightforward. You know, there's politicians and this the statements uh statesmen, right? Like we've got to make difficult decisions and this is this is one of them, right?

We all want to have this. We all want to have all the staff and and everything.

And I'm not suggesting that we want to lay people off. But from an operational standpoint, if it's not sustainable at some time at some point, we need to stop the bleeding and we got to say what is it that we can afford and we need to understand it. That's that's the concern and that's the issue that I think we need to address. Now, I don't know that having more conversations next week with

department heads is going to do any justice for you if we're going to just reject it after we have those conversations. Like, let's if we're going to reject it after those discussions, let's reject it now. Give you the opportunity to go back, make the changes, and um so so council, I'm not saying I disagree you, but what kind of changes would recommend to them? Any at all or new recommendations or because

she's going to come back. We already told her to do it once. She went met made the changes. She listen as as for one as one counselor, I don't want to see the use of onetime money coming in to balance this budget. That's that's number one. You want to go back and forth on the investment income. O okay.

Like at the end of the day, we don't we don't have a say on the on the revenue piece. So I I can't push that, right? I can only tell you that I don't necessarily agree with it and that that may, you know, impact people's decision on how they're going to vote for this.

But at the end of the day, onetime money coming in here. I want to see from my standpoint um the healthc care fully funded appropriately without the use of of one-time money and I want to see at least some capital items that are built into this operational budget for for departments uh that need it and then let's figure out how we we address it.

May may I hold on I yield. Thank you.

Conc4 conse I agree fundamentally I think there's some issues for all of us but wouldn't it be more prudent to and and and and give Emily more um knowledge not well I'm saying give give her more of a information um if we have all the departments first once we get all of the the assessors and all the other departments down here if we want to refer you refer it back we'll have just a better grasp because

department heads are ready to come before us at a certain time council kadine um so I'm just throwing out there I agree fun there's I think there's some fundamental problems here um but we should listen to all the departments so that that's that's my point I I don't want to set you up for failure just point of I want to enable you to be do the best job that you can under these

circumstances So that's that's what I want. I I I think we should hear from all departments.

Council want just just as a point of information. I don't disagree with you, but just understand what we're doing, right? So we don't have a meeting until next week. So I forget what the days are. I think Thursday, Tuesday, and Thursday, right? And Wednesday.

Wednesday and Thursday. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. So that's all of next week. So if if on Thursday we make a a motion to reject the budget, right? Then that gives her literally 10 days to turn around and try to make changes versus three weeks. Well, if not, maybe that makes I'm just And then if not, we're working we're working on a 112th budget, which is more of a headache because we have to have a

budget that's approved before July 1. So then we're dealing with the 112 budget.

June 22nd is No, no, no. I'm saying I'm saying in terms of having an approved budget for the DOI takes effect, right? July 1st. So I yield.

Yeah. I just want to touch on the subject of raises. Um so we have over $600,000 in raises which is absolutely ludicrous. C if I if I could do you have any idea how many those raises are due to police fire contracts and union contracts or I have 21 people here for a total of $190,000 that average out to $9,000 each individuals. Okay. And those are not with the not police department, not fire department. Um so

$480,000 are contractual obligations that we have. So we have three $10,000 raises, a almost $17,000 raise. Uh we have a $33,800 raise, a $22,300 raise, a $12,535 raise, um multiple eight and $9,000 raises. That's just that's that's that's just ludicrous. It is just ludicrous.

Again, we the median income in this city is $31,000 and we're giving people more money in a raise than these people live on in a year. And I get it. I get it.

People have to make money. Believe me, I get it. I'm not against raises, but when somebody is and somebody who's only been here two or three years, which even makes just adds insult to injury. Um, when you're giving somebody, where the heck is it? Give me a second. I'll find it. Where the heck is he? My answer. A $650 48 a week raise. What? Where can I go and get a $650 raise a week? Anybody

know? I mean, seriously, put this in perspective. That's disgusting. We have people who have dedicated their lives to this city. People who have been in this city 15, 20, 25, 30 years and don't see this and aren't making what this individual is making. That is wrong on all levels. So I guarantee you whenever we go through this budget line by line, I will be making a motion to reduce

every single salary line item. Point of please.

Uh shouldn't we open up the regular meeting of the city council and get out of finance? Well, this is all discussing finance. We're in we're finance public safety police hobs is done. The regular meeting states proposed fiscal prior to that the first one before police and fire. This is continuation discussion more is more appropriate if we open up the regular meeting because that I'm

sorry we are still in finance. It's the first item on your agenda prior to police and fire. I took it out of order to let police and police come down. You don't have to say sorry. I'm just just so you'll know. We are we are absolutely where we should be in finance.

Okay.

Because whether people realize it or not, I don't care if somebody's being paid the salary already or not, as a legislative body, we have a fiduciary responsibility to to be able to meet the expenses in in this budget and to meet these raises. And if we can't do that, there is no court in the land that is going to say that they have to get that money if we don't have it and can't afford it.

So, I just wanted to make those statements now before we get down the road. Um, just one more thing, which actually a cut in here is actually going to help you. If we cut raises by 400,000, that gives you an extra 400,000. So, I would like to be clear on that. I you have every right to do that.

I have to budget what is contracted already. And so, that's a cut that I cannot make. You guys have to be the ones to make it. That's correct. That's correct. And I have no problem making that. I just wanted to make that clear.

So sending it back, I won't be able to pull any of that out. No, I understand that. We have to make the rejection. I believe me. I know we can't increase. We can only reduce and reject. I just wanted to make that clear to everybody that because it's contractual, I have to budget for it. No, I I'm not saying you were wrong in in what you No, I know. I know. I just wanted

um I don't know. There's affluent communities that I bet don't give out 20 and $30,000 raises in one shot. Can I just ask I'm sorry. Point of information. I So you're saying those raises were already given out. Yeah. So there there are I can tell you three raises that during the budget process were put in there.

During the budget process itself saying we're going in so we're putting it in.

So they they wouldn't be effective until July 1 if approved. So, that's there's one in there for the parking um for traffic parking um director to give the $10,000 increase because to be honest with you, she was not being paid what the department head should be paid. And so, that was rectified with the $10,000 increase there. And then there was two um one was inspectional services that

was done through the budget process and it's a nominal raise because of the ordinance cap, but it was due to the increased demand on his role. It received a $10,000. was done through his contract process outside of the budget process. But where was that? That was approved through us. We approved it. No, I don't I don't know that process. I wasn't a part of it. I It was before my

time in this role. I don't I don't know what that process negotiation is like.

How that gets just a just a nod shake.

Is it an individual contract or is it like is there a salary range for No, no, it's an individual contract with that.

There's not a contract, right? No. Yes, there is. So, so I guess come down and clarify the rules. I guess I guess I'm just I'm just running into to issues with the fact that we're seeing raises that have already been approved that require council approval on contracts. It is a department into next year's budget, right? Yeah. I just I mean there saying it's already it's already paid for and

so is it I just want to make Could you only make one statement? I'm sorry. I yield. I don't even have the floor. No, I just I just want to make one statement. So, when it came to changing people from not to exceed an ordinance and changing them to contract, I said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have a limit. They can't exceed the limit." You're giving your power away

and you're given the ability for any amount of money to be given somebody when you change people to contract. Here, the proof is in the pudding now. And with that, I yield.

There you go. Nick, you want to just answer councelor Kadim's question as far as Yeah. it my understanding is the appointment is approved by the council and once a contract is in place the contract had expired or uh I believe in this individual's case was an atwill contract with no term on it and it was renegotiated over the course of um you know during the year but without any approval of council

correct the appointment is for the what the council approves not the contractual amount But if you don't have a contract, your appointment, you got to be So, so if you're technically if your contract expires, so has your appointment, right?

It was an at will contract for that specific employee that's being discussed. But but he Okay, so if he was at will and then went to a contract, it would require an appointment by the city. Listen, I don't know how you get around that. I I just that that's my issue, my concern. I don't know. Right.

So again, the city council is circumvented yet again set up with that.

Well, it it it just doesn't it doesn't Yeah, there there is there's constantly circumventing of of the city council.

That that's all I'm saying. So, I don't know how we're at the point where we're talking about an FY26 and we're seeing all these significant increases and we're being told that they're already getting them without any approval of the council that require the approval of the council. That's that's all. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Council C5, Council Per, Emily, I just have a question. Where in the budget does it show the the negotiations for police and fire? What do you mean? Where does it have extra money for police and fire? It's on um page 141. It's the employee reserve amount. So in the even the uh I'm going to say proposed amendment that I gave you that it's still in that one line item. So it's on

page 141. Now I'm confusing page numbers. That might be police that we were just talking about, but I thought it was 141. Sorry. I just want to make sure I'm giving you the right page. It is. It's on page 141. It's a line item called reserve for employee benefits.

And how much is in there? It's $894,000. So almost $900,000. And that that does cover all of the positions that are looking for CIP increases or COLA through their contracts. And how about for the new negotiations for So right now there's none there's no colas. There's no C there's none of we have no percentages right now on the table for contract for contract every everybody's contract conveniently this

year is being is starting again on July 1. So they're all in negotiations right now and we don't have any percentages set for anybody yet. You don't have but you don't have any money on the side for the contracts that are coming up. That's the money set aside is the 900,000.

Okay. And I got to tell you I get a little offended when you compare us to New Bedford because they're $11 million.

I think they're going to hold 11 million. So that was from council cuts, right? Well, so obviously and that's that's one year of a budget.

I'm a Fall River gal and I'm a fall res in I yield. Thank you. Come to C6. Thank you, Mr.

President. So did I hear you just mention that your collective bargaining negotiation possibly for one specific department, you've already budgeted a possible increase? Is that what I heard you say? No, no. We were talking about a reserve amount being set aside for all contractual. So, you haven't budgeted for a $900,000 increase for that specific department. It's not for one specific department. It's for all of the

general fund departments. So, all general funds, you're expecting a $900,000 maybe increase in salaries and and cost of living increases. Cor that correct? That's what we've put aside for right now. Okay. Um, I want to just I want to just I know we haven't had uh the Department of Community Maintenance before us yet, but I would when I met with you and the mayor, I candidly gave

you my opinion about trash. Yes. Right.

Um, notwithstanding the fact that we we waited as long as we possibly could to pick continue picking up business trash.

With that being said, um there was a $3 million increase that was given to the waste hauling company in the middle of the fiscal year. that is going to impact us next fiscal year.

And I recognize that that contract was signed under a prior administration that had pay as you throw and the company came to the mayor or you or somebody and said, "We're losing all sorts of money and we can't we don't know what we're going to do. We we have we need an increase, right?" And I don't remember if that ever came before the city council or not. I'm not sure if that's

something that would have been rational or reasonable to use onetime money to pay instead of balancing uh instead of uh budgeting for it in the middle of the fiscal year or whatnot. These are the these are the small things when when when we have a colleague in seat 2 talking about $400,000 or whatever that number is in raises. There's lots of other things that may or may not have occurred last year that we could have

said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. We just can't do it." And giving three mil additional $3 million to a trash company who was picking up our trash in the middle of the fiscal year in the middle of a 10-year contract to me is is daunting and it it doesn't make any financial sense. understanding the fact that you weren't the CFO at the time and realized maybe you would have kicked back at

something like that, but do you see our point? Absolutely. Right. We have a constant we have to turn the spot off.

And I think that's what we're we're trying to say as a as some of us are trying to say at a unified front in the middle of a fiscal year. If you have a 10-year contract that's set to expire next year, how is it reasonably anticipated that you're going to just here's $3 million? Correct. which is why I'm hurting right now building this budget for the record. It's part of the

problem that I'm in and I stated that to you. Yeah. So I I will say in that sense, you know, it is something that I I cannot explain the full process and how that happened in the conversations because I wasn't I'm just kind of getting the back end of of all of that process. So um I will say that it is it is 3 million over the two years. It's

not like they got 3 million this year and 3 million next year. It's I think like 1 point something. And so just want to be clear. It's 3 million total.

That's all I want to be clear. But we've also had pay as you throw out of the books for 5 years. All of a sudden it's like right now. No. Yeah. I I don't disagree. I don't disagree with you at all. And I and I will say I fully agree with the idea that the spot needs to turn off and there's things that maybe have and I just I want to be clear that

it is something that I am I agree fully on and and have been working diligently with the mayor on cutting off some of these things, increasing revenues.

Again, it's just going to take a little bit of time, which is why, you know, this is one budget and it it might not be ideal and and I know this is something that everybody feels like a can has been kicking down the road. But, you know, I I look at this as I want to be here for several several years and I can be because I am younger and I and I

have the time in my career to do this.

So, I don't want to kick it down the road. I want to see it solved. And it it's just you're talking about solving millions of dollars of issues right now.

It's going to take more than one fiscal year. and and we could just make cuts to solve it now or we could just make long-term sustainable changes so that we don't have to decimate something for one year to then add it back in a couple of you know if we don't need to interrupt service and can correct this moving forward why not move towards that instead and that's just my opinion on it

and I hear I hear where you guys are coming from and I know you've been doing it a lot longer but let me just let me just conclude by saying this not last year the year before I wasn't here there was a collective bargaining unit that had to reopen negotiate that was in the middle of negotiations, right? And they needed an 11% increase or whatever it was, right? And you had to there was one

union that was given a sizable increase that year in a campaign year and all this other stuff. And it reopened up another union, the patrolman's union.

Okay. I'm sorry, the superior officers union. And it has created in my opinion because the the prior the prior council asked the prior CFO and the city administrator what kind of financial burden is this increase going to have on the city for future fiscal years and I believe that number was several hundred,000. I wasn't here. I was I was a guest at my couch watching this on television and I think that was in the

number of about5 or $600,000 on how much that opening that collective bargaining increase would have on the city for future fiscal years. I think that was the number. It has then created a multiplying impact on the city's finances because it opened up other unions and now to to go back to the table during that fiscal year and it has set a precedence going forward on the increases that these departments are

needing. Notwithstanding the fact that some are in group four that uh EMS is seeing 11% increases over the years. And I'm not saying they don't deserve it.

I'm not saying police didn't deserve it.

I'm saying at that time no financial analysis was done. One or two counselors were like, "Wait, this doesn't make sense. Are you sure the impact's only going to be a couple hundred thousand dollars?" Looking back at it, it has opened up a financial horror and has put you in a horrible position in leveraging your collective bargaining negotiations.

It has has had a detrimental impact on the city's finances. Right. We were It was It was maybe a tough vote at that time. you had to make a decision and you needed to give police more money at that time, but it has created a huge issue from a financial standpoint. It has. So, this isn't necessarily unfortunately you're here now, right? And it's years and years of of of of issues and hey,

guess what? ARP isn't there to to to come in all at the same time. Arper is not there for capital needs and all these other things. So, now it's tough time. It's it's it's budget time. It's structural deficits. It's cuts. And I'm not saying if you came to us and said, you know, we're going to cut $3 million, but realize we're only going to use $ 1.5 million or something like that, then

at least as a from my standpoint, not saying I'll approve it. I'll vote for it, but I'm saying at least there's a plan to start making some efforts to do some cutting so we don't have to continuously rely on one-time money to balance a budget. It's bad bad business practice. I I will tell you that I am working diligently on plans to make sure that that's not the case and that there

is something moving forward. My my ask to you is to give me a year to do that.

I give me more than two months, three months in a role that's interrum to do that in because I I'm with you and I I hear all of your concerns and part of the reason I was willing to take this on is because I agree with what you're saying and I think that things need to change and I have a lot of thoughts on how it could change and I've seen a lot

of ways that things could change to help correct some of the issues that you're seeing and I I just need a little bit more time to do it. and to say that you're going to kick back this budget. I can tell you in two weeks, I'm not going to have a radical, oh, here's $3 million that we could just change from this without cutting things and potentially ending services that in say another six

months. I figured out ways to fix it that we're then going to start up again.

And so that's why I don't I hear what you're saying, but I would just like more time because I I don't think that we need to do that yet. And so to I feel like we're jumping the gun by doing that now. I respect your opinion. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield. Thank you, C.

Can I just count one? Sure. Of course you can. That's why we're here. I just just one clarification. I I know we were talking about allocations of um the healthcare going to the different uh organizations. So the school department are they can you remind me are they you are they paying the working plan or the actual working rate? They they use the working rate and not actual. Yes. Okay. All right. I yield.

Thank you. Thank you.

I will let the council know that if this coun if this council decides to send it back or not, it's up to you guys. We will have meetings next week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday to try to get through this budget meeting. We already have scheduled Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. And then if it gets kicked back, I'm going to try to do it for Monday as well. And then so Monday the night Friday night if

necessary dates as well. Well, the all the Thursday the Wednesday and Thursday we have time. The Thursday will be if necessary. I I just want to be clear though. If it's kicked back, I won't have a new budget for you on Monday to start hearings again to be very clear and very transparent. That will not happen. Well, we can have discussions with the departments without a budget. I know. On what item?

No, we can't. All right. Well, then we'll see. Thanks for tolerating me today. I'm talking out of line a lot, but what what is better for you? She's just telling you to get through the department. I I think it's better to get through the departments because you guys have had a wealth of ideas and thoughts on what you want to see different and what you're comfortable with and what you're not. And so if I could get

through the rest of those, if you want to see more changes, it's helpful to hear all of that rather than change things again to come back and before you even know it's something else. And I just looked at the timeline. I mean, we're not at the uh the time of a 112th budget. I Yeah, we have we we still have time. So I I really really appreciate the comments that have been made tonight

by number one in council and seat six is particularly I really do um I want to hear from the rest of the departments and we and just keep our rob

if we reject this budget Tonight, next week there will be no hearings at all because the budget's off the table, right? She have to How long will it take you to submit a new budget, Ma? Any idea?

I I don't I mean I I can turn around quickly, but again, this isn't something to just be shoddy with. I can't just be like, "Oh, here's 10,000. Here's five."

Like, it's not doesn't work like that. I mean, this took months to build and and you're asking me to rebuild one or to pull things out of it. It's going to take time. But honestly, the difference between getting through Wednesday or doing it tonight is not going to make this that much more thoughtful or different. Hearing more from you at this point is only helping the the thoughtfulness because no matter what,

you're asking me to rebuild a budget that just took three months to build.

So, you know, if you want to put that time together, I'd like till the end of summer to resubmit, but you know, I know we need something to operate. So, I'll do whatever I can.

But I guess that's what I'm saying is is that you're going to run into a 1112 budget which is more by rejecting it period at this rate. It took three months to build this. You you got three you got three weeks to at least go back and get something before us to have conver and I and I will and that's what I'm saying. It's just it's No, but I

guess what I'm saying is if we if we don't reject this and we do your recommendation and what my colleague has mentioned that we do, you're losing essentially two weeks. We're still I'm still always working on it as you saw with the amendment that you got today, the proposed amendment. I I can I can work on it on my end without having it be for you. So I am I mean I'm

constantly working on these numbers even outside of the budget time in this role.

That's what I'm always doing. So I'm working on it now. I have been working on it since these meetings started with you. So that will continue whether you could get back or not. And point of clarification, we sent this budget back.

We reject it tonight. When's the earliest you can get it back to us?

Are you going to make me commit to that right now? I'm just curious and I won't I won't hold you to it. I'm just curious comfortably.

It would be after next week that following Monday at the earliest latest. I I wouldn't have another choice.

So it' be the 16th.

Why would Mr. President point of order. Um when it comes to this imposed deadline of what is it June 22nd 23rd 23rd it is it not true that if we act tonight and is a full body and reject the budget we have acted correct. So we don't that that deadline of June 20 whatever it is is over. Correct. So we could have a meeting up until the very last day of

June and vote on a budget or you come with a correct an appropriation month by month which 30th is the deadline in my mind. So I I know we keep talking about that June whatever date is. We act tonight. Reject, reduce, reject or approve. We've acted. The mistake we made prior to was that we rejected a budget in the committee on finance or whatever it was. Yeah. We didn't and we

never referred it to the full council.

Correct. For the full council to act.

That's what happened with that 45day rule. That's right. So I yield.

Thank you. Council Tito reject it. Yeah.

Can um we just verify that with corporation council seeing we have his him pres

not sure exactly what you want verified I've been listen to a lot okay so so what's being said is if we now refer this to full counsel because we have to take the vote in full council. We can't do it in finance. That we screwed up a few years ago with that and reject the budget and send it back. Does that stop the 45day clock? There would be no but yes, you would have reacted within the

45 days.

Um and I'm not sure this is what you're asking. I mean the it it sounds like and maybe I'm wrong here that uh Miss Arkey is is working on the budget regardless of what you do. So, I mean, it's it's also an a suggestion, nothing more than that, that you could hold off on assuming you're going to reject the budget. You could hold off um continue to listen to the department heads. And

Emily's basically telling you she's going to work diligently as if you did reject it say even if you did, even if you take no action, even I'm not sure how your schedule works, but that way you get kind of the best of both worlds.

You get to hear the department heads and you still reserve the right to make the same decision that you have. So, as long as we refer it to full council, whether it be this week or next week, reject the budget, send it back, stops the 45day clock, and it starts again. Once something new is submitted, once something new is submitted, I know Miss Ar's plan is to get something to

you that a new 45day clock would start.

She's probably going to submit it. If she said it's going to take it two weeks, be the week before we have to prove before July 1st. Then we go to a 112th. Correct. Right. Which I'm not sure anyway. But but our concern is you weren't here then and um yeah I What do you mean I wasn't here? Huh? You weren't here when with the 45day thing when the budget went

through. Oh, I wasn't a member of the council. Correct. When you guys Okay.

When that happened and I vowed that day it would never happen again. So that's why I want to be very specific. Ask the questions. Make sure it's exactly right.

That So thank you. That's why I scheduled these meetings so early on last week in May. Yes. Which was very good. Very good. But now we're going back to very bad. Very bad. Yes. With that ideal. And that's with the exception that it's going to pass to get rejected because correct. We could continue to have these meetings. She can continue to make the changes and then submit what she wants to whether we

agree to vote for or not vote for it because I don't I for one not happy with everything that's here either, but I certainly don't want to go to 112 budget and the timeline is It's approaching. It's approaching and some of us has commit have commitments that we're not going to probably be here. Yep. As well. Yeah. Yeah. We all have commitments, but motion to reject.

Second. We can't. We're motion to refer to full. Motion to refer to full counsel with a recommendation to reject the budget. Motion to refer to full counsel recommendation to reject. Has made it a second.

Is there a second? Second. Second.

Didn't Can I ask a question before we take this on a motion? Con um Emily, didn't you say that you would be able to be back by the 16th? You said you needed a whole week or something. That would be that would stand whether you rejected it tonight or you would have rejected it on Thursday. The goal would still be to have be able to be here on the 16th.

Okay. I live here now. Okay. Council, there's there's other members that might not be able to be here. Yeah. For the next two weeks. I know. But I'm saying what did she say? She would have time to do what she wanted to needed to do with the budget. That's my only question.

With that, I yield. Thank you. Thank you.

Motion roll call.

Motion to refer to full counsel.

That's the motion. Refer to full counsel. Recommendation.

Roll call.

On the motion, council Kadim, yes. Dion, yes. Hart, no. Kilby, no. Pereira, yes.

Ponty, yes. Reposo, yes. Tip, yes.

President Kamar, no. Motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Come down. Motion to adjourn finance. Motion to adjurnn finance has made. What was the I'm sorry, what was the count? 63. Oh, 63.

Okay. Thank you. Motion has made to judge finance. Is there a second?

Second. All in favor? Any opposed?

Finance committee is now going to go to the regular meeting.

We're going we're going right now. Yes.

City Council Commission will come to order. Click will call the role. Councel Kadim yes. Dion here. Hart here. Hilby here. Herrera here. Here. Reposo here.

Tip here. President here. Will everyone in the council chair please rise for a moment of silent prayer?

Oh my god. Let's pray.

Oh my god.

Please remain standing for salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit this meeting to any medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made or perceived or unpersceived by those present and not deemed acknowledged and permissible. There's no one has signed up for census input time.

I'm sorry. What was the We're in the No one has signed up for sens input time.

So, we'll go right into motion to reject uh the budget.

Second.

At a point of information, the clerk should have introduced the I'm sorry.

Thank you. I thought he was waiting for a motion. I thought he was too. The committee on finance at a meeting held on June 4th voted six yays, three nays to recommend the accompanying financial order be referred to the full council with a recommendation to reject. This is the FY26 municipal budget.

Motion to reject. Second. Motion to reject as made and seconded. On the motion, roll call. On the motion to reject, council Kadim, yes. Dion, yes.

Hart, no. Kilby, no. Pereira, yes.

Fonti, yes. Reposo, yes. Tip, yes.

President CL, no. The motion carries.

Motion carries. A motion to adjurnn.

Second. Motion to adjourn. Remain second. All in favor? Any opposed? Shady C is now a dream.

Hey, hey hey.