7.28.2026 Fall River City Council - Special Meeting

This former city council meeting will now be called to order.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Cadime.

Here.

Guevara.

Here.

Canuel?

Here.

Dion?

Here.

Hart?

Here.

Peckham?

Here.

Pereira?

Here.

Raposo?

Here.

President Ponte?

Here.

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

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.

It is 5:30 on the 28th of July.

This meeting has been called to order.

Um, just for everybody's own edification, for the public and those who are here, the City Council chambers, as memoed to the council and the community a couple of other meetings, is closed to the public until August 11th for some work outside of the chambers.

We felt that the ceilings are down, there's some work that is being done internally that needed to have been done, so that is being done.

So we are in the City Council hearing room for this special meeting that has been called.

First item on our agenda this evening is citizens' input.

One person signed up to speak is Colin Dias, 560 Ray Street, and it is regarding the budget.

Oh, actually, we should have— before we do that, this is a, uh, this isn't a full city council meeting, correct?

Yes, it is.

We should actually— if you can go back over there, Mr. Dias.

If everybody in the city council hearing room could please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

I apologize.

Thank you, and a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Sorry about that, we're a little out of our element here, uh, so I'll reintroduce the item.

It is citizens input, Mr. Dias, 560 Ray Street, and the subject matter is budget.

3 minutes.

Thank you, Council President, members of the City Council.

I'm here today to speak in support of the transportation budget as approved by the School Committee.

This number was fully vetted by the School Committee, and it's important— I believe it's important that we do not have to come back before the City Council for money if need be.

I do not— and again, I do not trust that this administration would even honor that request if we even had to come back.

I think it's important to— when you're— I guess for hypothetical sense, when you buy a house, you should have enough money to pay for the mortgage.

The mayor recently told us at Wednesday's school committee meeting, last Wednesday, that he would fully fund the $17 million and that a deal was reached tonight to fund— fully fund the budget.

That's what he said.

2 days later, the mayor changed his mind.

My question is, what changed?

Was it the investment income projections?

Was it something else?

I don't know, but I am frustrated as one member of the community today, and I, and I wish to state state this on the record and mark my words.

The mayor is currently bullying our superintendent, who is behind us, to agree to the number that is before you tonight, which is not the number the school committee agreed to.

The city council has a duty to pass a fully funded budget, a fully balanced budget.

Please deny the mayor's budget that he sends down and demand that he sends down a fully funded budget for transportation.

There should be no question, no politics when it comes to the students of our city, and we deserve a fully funded transportation budget for the kids of our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Diaz.

Next item on, uh, Council Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, I'd only like to make a couple of comments, and I guess the first one is, um, Whether this, whether this would be funded, whether this would be funded down the road if need be is not in the mayor's purview.

It's up to the council to vote to fund it or to give extra money, not, not the, not the, not the administration.

The purse strings are here.

And, um, and secondly, yes, we're obligated to pass a balanced budget.

And I'm not saying— and, and I'm not making these comments saying whether I agree or don't agree with the transportation issue, just basic facts.

Um, and then the other thing is, yes, we're responsible.

We have to pass a balanced budget, correct?

But just like anything else in this budget, we cut the indirects in, in a stabilization account by over $1 million.

Why?

Because we were able to.

Because just because it was in the budget didn't mean we had to say yes, I guess is my point.

So yes, we have to balance— make sure it's balanced, but we don't have to agree to everything that's in it.

So I just want to make those 2 points just for some clarification.

Thank you.

You yield?

Yes.

Thank you, Councilor.

I just have something to add because I get pretty frustrated when people make a statement that I sit here and wonder, is that true, is it not?

But Mr. Diaz, you just made a comment that the mayor is bullying the superintendent.

The superintendent is here, and if she is being bullied by the mayor, I think she should tell us that.

That— I mean, you made that statement.

If she's being bullied, I want her to tell us.

Are you being bullied?

You know, I, I can't speak for the superintendent.

But you did.

You just said she was being bullied.

I fully stand behind my comments, so I'll leave it at that.

Well, you can say you feel possibly that way, but to make a statement that— has she had a conversation with you about being bullied?

I was informed by whistleblowers.

Well, you can't listen to all whistleblowers, you know.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Kadeem.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm like, um, I just want to clarify one statement.

I, I do agree with my colleague.

The only, the only issue that I have is, is that we can only— while we control the purse strings, we can only act on items that come down before us by the mayor.

So if the mayor doesn't submit some type of an order for us to make a transfer or an appropriation order, we can't take any action.

So I think that's where Mr. Diaz was going, but I don't disagree.

I think at least the conversations I've had, if there are any transfers that need to be had or any appropriations that the mayor has committed to making those, so I would, I would hope that he would uphold his, his word and his commitments, come back down.

But I mean, that's for a conversation, uh, in one of our next discussions to really kind of talk about where we stand in terms of a balanced budget without a yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Camara.

Yeah, I just want to pick up on what Councilman Seat 7 was talking about.

Mr. Diaz, do you have any documentation or proof you can leave with this body today to back up the statements you just made about the bullying?

I was informed by whistleblowers.

I trust the statements that will be made.

So the answer is no, and I stand by my comments.

So the answer is no, you don't have any documentation or facts you can give us?

Is there documentation that the mayor bullied people?

I mean, I, I don't understand the question.

Very simple.

People want to say— people make comments.

Let me just finish with the questions.

You don't understand it.

People make comments and usually back it up with facts, documentation to prove that their comments are true.

That's not that difficult to understand, is it?

My advice as a citizen and as someone who watches council meetings and someone who understands what members of the council support the mayor more blindly than other members support the administration, I would advise you to maybe take the blinders off and understand that there's many instances in the community where there's been actions that aren't appropriate.

I stand by my comments.

I believe the whistleblowers that have come before me.

And I just want to make the statement because I've seen the action.

I've seen the mayor make comments that he's fully funding the budget.

2 days later, it's not fully funded.

I, I think that's where— I think you should be asking the mayor.

So I just want to ask you several questions.

You answer the question.

You don't have any documentation to back up the comments that you're making.

You're just listening to whistleblowers, which is okay if that's where you want to roll.

That's fine.

It's up to you.

I don't go that way.

When I make a comment, I have documentation to back up what I'm saying so people can actually see it and know what— and want to judge for themselves what's true or not.

So my advice, you're the one that brought it up, not me, a citizen, would be to ask the mayor what changed within 2 days, how he promised the school committee he would fund it at $17 million and we're here today with a budget that's not $17 million.

I just want to know what happened within the last 2 days.

That's totally different from what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the bullying comment.

Just want documentation on the bullying comment that you made, not about what what happened and what changed, what happened, what he promised, what he didn't promise.

Let's not try to change the subject.

It's very simple.

All I want to know is if you have documentation or anything else you can leave with this body to prove your comments about the bullying.

That's all.

Yeah, I think I answered the question.

I don't have to do the work to give you— Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor.

Any further?

Thank you, Mr. Diaz.

That will conclude citizens' input.

Priority matters before this council: the mayor and an order and a memorandum of agreement.

Between Mayor Paul Coogan and the Fall River City Council regarding outside legal counsel.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Ferreira, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Is there discussion on this item, on the adoption of the memorandum of agreement between the mayor and the city council?

Council Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, I just— I would just like to state that a lot of time and effort did go into this.

Um, I think the goal was to be a bridge between the City Council and the administration, to just to try to bring people to the table.

How people vote, whether they agree with it, don't agree with it, is fine.

People don't have to agree with it.

Um, was there compromise that went in?

Absolutely.

You have to have compromise, um, in, in many situations.

And whatever this— and it's— oh, and I want to be very clear It was always about the body.

It was never about the President and myself.

We made it clear from day one there was no agreement that could be signed by us.

There was no agreement that could be rock solid.

We could not bind this council to anything.

And at every meeting we had, I would tell the administration, before anything else can happen, before we can move forward, everything we've discussed, and any MOAs that come out of these meetings have to go to the council, to the body, because this MOA and moving forward is about the body.

It's not about me.

It's not about the council president.

So whatever this body votes today is the direction we will move in.

And with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Anything for Councilor, uh, Councilor Lateen?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I— so I just want to kind of echo my I want to echo the sentiments of Vice President, and I want to thank the President and Vice President for their due diligence on this work.

I know there was a lot of meetings that took place to try to get to the place we're at.

I can tell you that especially for the Vice President, I was involved in the last meeting.

She did reach out to me to try to bridge the discussion between myself and Corporation Counsel, and I will say it was a productive meeting.

It was a very long meeting.

In terms of what was before us in this MOA.

But overall, when we start looking at the MOA, I think it's a great compromise because that's what it was.

It was a compromise.

And when we start talking about the body as the City Council, the lens that we looked at this from was not this current administration or this current council, but it was future administrations and future councils and making sure that there was some safety nets and protections for both sides.

Number one, not to circumvent the administration or Corporation Council, but to give Again, some reassurance to the council, if there is a disagreement, we have the authority to seek a second legal opinion.

Nothing that would be binding, but to really just get a second set of eyes on any type of legal opinion that was sent down or any opinions that have been submitted even without our request so that we can kind of get some reassurance on where it stands.

So overall, I want to— again, want to thank Council President, especially Council Dionne, who really kind of, um, you know, ushered this through.

Uh, Corporation Council, I think he did a phenomenal job in terms of, uh, giving in in certain areas as well, uh, as well as the City Council.

And I think overall this is an MOU that will benefit this council, future councils, and the administration.

That being said, um, I can tell you that I had to commit to, uh, Corporation Council that there was an ordinance that was submitted with regards to legal counsel.

So I'll be filing a resolution to have that removed from ordinance because it was in this MOU.

Part of my agreement was that we would not have an ordinance and that this MOU would, would pretty much be the Bible in terms of where we were going with regards to getting outside legal counsel and the process that it would take place.

So I'll submit a resolution to, to have that removed and go through the process, and hopefully we'll have the support of the council.

But overall, I think this, this MOU is, is a great starting point.

And then obviously the council will have to, you know, come up with a policy in terms of, you know, how we go about entertaining getting outside legal, when we can request second legal opinions, things of that nature.

But again, kudos to the administration and, and to council leadership for really trying to kind of usher this through and bridge the gaps between our disagreements and differences that we had.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Camara.

Yeah, just curious, maybe through the chair to my colleague in C1, does that mean that there will never be an ordinance, or can any other council create an ordinance that will put into effect what you had in that ordinance?

What if 5 or 6 years from now the council is different and someone says we should have an ordinance to put in certain things in place?

Will that null and void this agreement, or Yeah, I don't know the fact you're going to get rid of your ordinance that you hadn't written out, but there's nothing to prohibit future councilors from saying, no, we really need an ordinance to address— no, no.

And that— so short answer is no, it doesn't prohibit future councilors from submitting an ordinance.

It's whether or not, uh, Corporation Counsel will agree that it's a legal, uh, ordinance, right?

Like something that could be legally challenged and upheld.

You know, one thing we, we did walk away saying that we're not foregoing the fact that we feel that we have the authority for outside legal, and he's also not foregoing his idea that he has to approve outside legal.

So I think it's just we're not setting any precedent moving forward, but it was just an agreement from my standpoint to have that removed.

So if future councilors want to take up that fight and submit an ordinance, then they have the— they have the opportunity to do that.

All right, just curious.

Thank you.

Without any further discussion on this, There's a motion to adopt, and I want to again thank you to Madam Vice President.

It's working with you and Corporation Counsel as well as the interim city administrator and the mayor for getting us all in a room to to work through these intricacies so that we can move the dial forward here.

So again, thank you for everybody's efforts on that.

I echo everybody's comments.

Motion to adopt has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, roll call, Madam.

Madam Clerk.

Councilors Kadim?

Yes.

Kamara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

No.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 8 yeas, 1 nay.

Madam Clerk, item 3 is a communication from the mayor and the 3rd revised proposed fiscal year 2022-23 budget.

2027 Municipal Budget General Fund Appropriation Order.

Discussion?

Councilor Pereira.

All right, this is what I have to say about the whole issue with this budget.

My understanding was leadership had a meeting with the mayor to talk about the budget.

School Department finance team met with the mayor with the city's finance team.

Now, to be perfectly honest with you, I never got a call from anybody in leadership to say, we met with the mayor and this is what we're looking at so far, this is what's happening.

So I'm hearing a lot through the grapevine.

So I'm going to throw the grapevine out, and you people who are all here can tell me what's true, what's not, and where we move from here.

That at a school committee meeting— and I watched that school committee meeting— when they talked about the school transportation And they asked— I want to say it was School Committee Aguiar that said, what is the amount?

And the mayor said it would be $17 million.

Then the Ordinance Committee, we had a meeting here, and our CFO, Mrs. Opke, was here.

What is the amount?

And we weren't really sure.

Then in listening to school department individuals, that they had a meeting and it was thought that because of the fact they're doing the redistricting, we could look at possibly 3 fewer buses and 2 fewer vans, that there would be a decrease in transportation.

So it was talked about to give the school transportation $16,650,000.

Which would leave a balance of $450,000 to meet the $17 million mark.

At that point, I had heard they were looking at the earned interest from our investments, which I believe in the budget had been about $3 million.

But I had, um, Lauren send it to everyone because I tried to call and speak to Miss Oppy, couldn't get in touch with her.

I know she's very busy.

Reached out to Ian Shackney, and Ian did send an email— you all have it— where there was $4 million some odd dollars in earned interest, plus another close to $1,995,000 from OPER investment money.

So the total is over $5 million in earned interest.

Now, I just heard Mr. Kadeem say, I believe that if we do the— and I— not this amount, but if we do the $16.6 million and the school department needs more, we do have money in earned income, and the mayor has agreed that he would supplement the school department if it was needed.

So that's where I'm at.

That's what I'm hearing.

So I'd like to hear if that's something that can be mutually agreed upon by people Or do we take the money now and put the whole 17?

Does it make a difference either way?

Motion to waive the rules.

Motion to waive the rules to invite Ms. Arkey and the school committee superintendents down has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Hart.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. Aldo.

We might need another chair or so, but all right, very good.

If you can, um, beginning with you, Madam Superintendent, introduce yourself for the record, please.

Kathleen Smith, interim superintendent of schools.

Aldo Petronio, CFO for Fall River Public Schools.

Emily Erbke, Director of Finance.

That's okay.

You know, Neil Souza, Interim City Administrator.

All right, Councilor Pereira, you have— so maybe if you can all clarify that for us so that we can then take a vote.

Could I speak first?

Yes, absolutely.

Councilor, first of all, I want to thank you again for having us here, and it really is important for me to go back to, I believe, June 1st, which was the night where we actually defended our budget and it was non-net school spending.

I sat here with Kevin Almeida, our Chief Financial Officer at the time.

I had been in the seat for about 1 month.

I had Deputy Superintendent LeGault, and I also had Ken Pacheco, Director of Transportation.

At that time, the budget had been reduced from what was approved by the full school committee unanimously on the non-net school spending at the time, the $17.1 million.

I think it was on the 16th of April that was done.

We stood by that budget.

We talked about, you know, why that was important to us.

At the time, the thing that was in question, the variable, and we talked very openly about that, was the redistricting.

And it was important to note that with the redistricting, there are a lot of moving pieces here.

We are— and I'm going to be careful to use the word hopeful— But we are trying to be fiscally responsible in not only the redistricting, and this is really step one with the redistricting, but to see if there was going to be cost savings.

After that meeting was over, there was a lot of discussion.

I want you to know that the very next day I picked up the telephone and I called Council President Ponte.

I first of all thanked him for the questioning and the respect shown to our team that evening.

I think there was a lot of dialogue from all of you.

I went through my notes just the other day.

And at the time, we committed to working together, knowing of the variables for this year, whether you call it a task force or whatever it was, that we would sit and review on a very regular basis.

There's a lot to review, whether you want to look during this coming year not only at the redistricting— do you want to look at walk zones?

You basically— the state sets an amount, you actually allow for a lesser amount, you transport more of your students for safety reasons, you know, certainly a good reason to do that.

Looking at again the buses, the vans, are there savings?

So that is where we landed at the time.

I'm now coming before you this evening after some discussion very recently.

There has not been— you know, Councilor, you asked about discussion.

I have had some discussion recently, the past couple of days, with the mayor and his team about the $450,000.

So if you look at that, it's actually come down.

To a deficit from what we requested to $450,000.

I cannot sit here and commit absolutely that we would have that savings, but what I can continue to commit to work with the mayor and his team, you know, to work with the council president and your team, that we would come on a regular basis.

We're right now still registering students.

We're not sure about the Green School, which has a dual language program, although we've redistricted There are some programs that are in movement right now.

There are days, I'm told, and this is not unusual for a large urban district, where you register close to 100 students during a day.

I think right now with our political atmosphere, there are, you know, we're really questioning, you know, are all of the students going to register?

We're concerned about that, but those are variables we don't know at this time.

So I guess I'm sitting here this evening, I'll answer any questions I can.

But we are committed to working with all of you to keep you updated as school opens, whether it's monthly, whatever it is, so that we can share with you the savings that we're seeing.

And obviously, sooner than not, if, if there is an opportunity we have where we have to say to you, here are the reasons and we're not seeing the savings, then we would like to be able to count on the mayor and the city council to be able to, you know, fully fund our non-net school savings.

One of the things we spoke about at the ordinance committee, which Councillor Raposa chairs, and he had put in, um, you know, so let's have an ad hoc committee with certain members of the council, certain members of the school committee to keep an eye on that.

So if that's going to happen as well, I think that would be helpful to both sides, and you would know, you'd be able to discuss the transportation issue there.

So are you saying that if we give the $16.6 uh, $650,000, but that you needed more.

Do you have faith that we would be able to give you more at that point, Emily?

Would we be able to give them more?

Yes, I think that we have enough in reserves and enough other variables that we can, you know, constantly do.

We have that situation anytime, right?

There's other things that happen throughout the year that are unforeseen, and we have— we come down for more money as it's needed.

So we're always that ability, and there is a big commitment from our side that we would make sure that we could do that.

Could you do the 17 now?

I think you can.

If you can get it later, you can get it now.

Am I wrong?

It would— sometimes it would require changes and other things that are in flux that we don't know about that could be in flux in a different way that would help, you know, transfer over.

Not if you take it from investments, from the interest in investments.

So we've been talking about investment income.

We did increase it, so this submission now has an increase of, um, it's $5 million.

No, that's the actual— that's— yeah, sorry, it was an interest— it was an increase of $350,000.

Yeah, okay, from what you had put in.

So, so it's up to $2.3— $3.6 million.

It was at $3.25 and it's at $3.6.

So we are losing— you mentioned a million of that $5 million is ARPA, so we won't have that anywhere near that rate next year just because ARPA's got to be fully expended by December, and the fact that we're obviously dwindling down, so we only have 6 months of it and it's a lot lesser of an amount.

So that number is going to continue to drop down.

So looking at our general fund side of things, and then the fact that interest rates have been coming down slowly, luckily, over the last year, they do continue to slowly kind of trickle in that direction.

So to say that we're going to continue to hit that $4 million number, I think it's been a conversation since before I even was in the seat that that's not going to maintain.

And you might not have that.

And I'm not talking about what we're going to do for next year.

I'm talking about right now.

You can't get $450,000 to make them whole at $17 million?

Well, that— you're talking about that investment income being from '26.

I don't care where you get it.

Is there $450,000?

I mean, I look at some of the hirings that have been done.

I look at some of the raises that have been given to certain people within City Hall that if we're tight, I think that some of those raises $15,000, a little too much.

So just my opinion.

So then in that sense, sure, we could do the $450,000 today, but you're talking about pulling something else that's in the budget that, you know, we've been going through, that we've submitted documents from other departments and stuff like that, and we have that zero-based budgeting in there.

So yes, we could do it, but you would probably be changing something else in the budget, and that would be a conversation about what we would be reducing to put that in.

I'm going to yield and let some of my colleagues, uh, have a chance.

I mean, thank you.

If you could— I mean, you're saying you could do it with the $16,650,000 as long as you know that another $450,000 would be available, and you can start out with that.

Do you know through transportation now?

We do not.

How many buses we would have less?

You don't know that?

Well, that is the variable.

You don't know that?

You know, we are looking to see the students that are presently registering, right?

Where right now we have bus routes certainly that are formed, but there will be additions.

You know, there could be some students coming off of the busing.

That's the redistricting question that I can't answer this year.

And hopefully people will come and register their children sooner than later, usually 2 days before, 3 days before, a week before.

Everybody's running in registering children.

Yeah, one day each is very critical to us is the October 1st date.

So that is important to us for funding, for our Chapter 70 funding.

So by October 1st, we make every effort to make sure all your kindergarten students are in, your preschool students are in, you know, students that we have people in out in the district, you know, making sure that people are registered.

And, and I guess I'm speaking from formerly a large urban district.

We make sure that October 1st is critical because that is your funding and it's an 18-month lag.

And I agree that transportation is critical because we do want to make sure that our students can get to school.

But, Councillor, I'm also saying that when I look at that October 1st, I would think by November 1st we would have a very good idea of other savings that we're seeing.

Um, I wouldn't be too quick, I mean, but we'd be reporting to our so-called task force or ad hoc committee and have that added.

That's, that's a good thing to have.

I'm going to yield to give my colleagues— thank you.

Before I acknowledge our other councillors Just as a point of clarification, Councillor Pereira made a good point.

What is the school committee's or your position on how much you need for transportation?

Is it $17 million?

Yes, that is exactly the amount that the school committee passed on April 16th.

It's $17.1 million for non-net school spending.

Okay.

And that has not changed.

That— and that's what we want to know, just to be clear.

And the city is submitting a budget at $16.6 million.

All right, just so we're clear, because I— Councilor Perot was asking some good questions, but I didn't get a clear understanding of what you are advocating for as superintendent for the schools.

It's $17 million.

It is the— it was unanimously passed by the school committee on the 16th of April, which is $17.1 million, and it hasn't changed, although there are very, you know, the variables I just spoke about.

That has not changed.

Okay, I just wanted to be clear before because she made some good points and I wasn't sure what you were saying.

Councilor Kadim.

Thank you, Mr. President.

So I guess I'm in line with Councilor Pereira.

I think if it's $17 million, then that's— or $17.1 million, that's what it should be.

And I appreciate the school department coming before us trying to cooperate with the fact that obviously there are some budget differences and that you're going to live within or try to live within the number that that's, that's funded and appropriated.

However, I'm hearing from the CFO that we have the money, right?

You, you said that if in the future we need to— because we heard it at ordinance that, um, I think it was Mr. Petronio who, who said that, uh, we would have to go to the stabilization.

You corrected him and said that would be the last resort, that we would, we would have some movement in the budget.

So if we have movement in the budget, why wouldn't we just fund the school department, the transportation number of $17.1 million.

And I know there's a discrepancy between what is the actual cost, and we were trying to figure out how they got to the $17.1 million.

But regardless of how they got there, right, it is $17.1 million.

That was what was unanimously voted on by the school committee.

And I think it was Councilor Pereira who said that, you know, obviously we've got open positions, and so by the time we do fillings, there's going to be some savings associated with the salary line items as well.

I mean, I'm assuming that you did 100% of salaries.

No, you didn't.

So the June 30th revised budget, June 26th, whatever date the meeting at June 30th, we had a budget in front of you that now includes vacancy savings.

So there was a detail sheet that was sent out.

So that was done in order to, I'm going to say, amend the budget to account for the million-plus dollars of revenue that was cut from EMS.

So there was a, you know, variety of things that were done, but one of the things that was done was vacancy savings was added in.

So that, I'm going to say, generic wiggle room within the salaries isn't going to be the same anymore because we're already trying to account for that, knowing that it is turned back every year.

So, you know, the idea of the stabilization going back to that thing, that is the last resort.

But, you know, come up by the end of October, we should have our free cash certified for the year.

So that's more of what I was saying.

And then we can transfer from other departments if there's other things.

We could decide to pull back certain services or expenses within other departments at any point in the year if we feel like that's what we need to do to have a stable operating budget, if the transportation costs really are going to be firm.

But that's— so in that sense, yes, there are other areas that we could pull back from if we need to.

So why wouldn't we do that now though, right?

So if we've got to put together a balanced budget, right, you have a number that's coming from the the school department, that transportation costs based on contracts.

And, and again, I know there was 5%, uh, escalator clause in one of the contracts, and I think, you know, there's some variables in other contracts, and especially, uh, special education transportation is a significant variable, right?

So there is a good possibility that transportation goes up, not down, right?

So they could be before us asking for more money than the $17.1 million, right?

So we don't know that that's, that's not the case.

We've heard about redistricting.

Redistricting may provide a savings, but we don't know that.

So this only solid number that we have right now— and I know we can go back and forth, or you can go back and forth and say that you don't necessarily agree with their numbers— but that's the only numbers that were presented to the city, and that at least from one person on the City Council, that I support the $17.1 million.

So why not?

If we have to have a balanced budget, know what their request is, why wouldn't we just give them a 17.1 now, um, and tell the other departments that they've got to find reductions?

Because if you're telling me I got to go do this in, in December, that means you're going to have to find double the, the amount of reductions.

Because if they've already spent half their expense, you know, expense budget, then we're— I mean, it would be before December.

I think we've talked about more of these numbers being firmed up in October, beginning of November.

You're talking about a month, Right?

So I mean, okay, so as opposed to being 6 months already spent, you're, you're 5 months, right?

So you're still gonna be close to doubling, having to make double the cuts to be able to fund what you need if we're waiting for December.

So from my standpoint, let's, let's fund them $17.1 million, and then in November, December, if that number— if the actuals are coming in less, then we can reallocate to the other departments for expenses.

That to me makes more sense as opposed to the opposite of waiting 5, 6 months and having people having to reduce even more.

Yeah, I, I think the, the thought process and opinion was the fact that these departments would be cutting different operations or programs or services that they're providing, cutting it and cutting it off completely to provide a number that they know was in flux and that, you know, has these things that are potentially going down.

So to pull something back that we would change the way we're operating, that, you know, the intent is that this $450,000 wouldn't change the way that the school department's operating.

They're already changing the way they're operating, and that's where the savings is coming in.

It's not like we're coming in saying you're going to stop busing kids to save this.

So that's why, you know, rather than stopping at departments' functions or services that they're providing when there already is potentially a natural savings that's coming from the way that they're choosing to change their operations, it just— to me, I mean, that still takes a vote of the school committee.

There's got to be an analysis done on on redistricting and the buses.

So, so we don't know that there's a guarantee for the redistricting unless it's already taken place.

The redistricting has already taken place technically in the sense of moving students.

It's the bus outcomes that are unsure.

Is that accurate?

The redistricting for this year has taken place.

Okay.

But as I said, we continue to register students.

We have programs that we also, you know, changed.

I mentioned the dual language program has some implications for transportation.

So, so I missed the part that the redistricting has already taken place.

In my mind, it was something that was notified.

Okay, so it's been determined.

So I believe I'm correct.

So status quo, if there were, if there were no students added, are we assuming that there is a savings?

Is that where we get to?

I don't believe we're— yeah, I'm uncomfortable, uncomfortable to assume right now.

I would, I would be in your position too, uncomfortable to assume, but that's the That's the point I'm trying to make is the fact that we've got a redistricting.

We don't know if there is going to be a savings, but we are asked to approve a budget based on something that you are uncomfortable with, right?

An assumption that there is going to be a savings when we don't know there is a savings.

So my take is if it is $17.1 million, that is what we should be funding, $17.1 million.

And I have had this conversation with the administration.

That at that point it should be the 17.1.

Let's regroup from an administration on both sides, come together collectively, and identify how we're coming up with these numbers so that everybody is comfortable and on the same page as how we're making a determination for what the transportation costs are.

Not that we don't believe the numbers that are coming forward, but obviously, uh, there's some differences of opinion from, you know, the city's administration versus the school administration.

But those dialogues need need to take place.

And from my standpoint, well before June, right?

I know these conversations started in June.

That's just, to me, doesn't make any sense.

But we are where we are.

And in the end of July, let's, let's just do the $17.1 million and, and let's figure out where we're getting the money from.

That's, that's, that's where I, I personally think we should be headed in the direction we should be going.

And I also will tell you, as we start to come into a new budget season, which we really start now.

We have a new CFO.

We're going to be working with you.

I mentioned this, I think, when I came before you that first evening.

We will work closely with you.

There will be a state of the schools in November.

We will start our budgeting process if the school committee again approves the process that we will recommend.

So we will be partners with you in this.

We're looking to refine with redistricting.

At this point here, I'm not sure if we'll continue We'll continue to make those efforts.

We'll have to take a look at how this year goes.

It's impacting class size in a positive way.

There are very positives coming out of your decision to redistrict.

And again, I can't say it enough that I was really pleased to call Council President Ponte the next day and to be committed to working together with the City Council and to do this for your taxpayers.

Are there savings that we can look at?

Same thing with the mayor's office.

We will continue.

I know the 2 CFOs have committed to working very closely together in the months to come, and I hope that is going to be the way we do business.

Yeah, and I'm confident in everything you've said because, you know, actions speak louder than, than words.

And you folks have been here more than any other administration on the, on the school side that since I've been on the City Council, I've been on the School Committee, we've seen you more in council chambers than, than anybody.

So I know the collaboration is there.

And quite frankly, I don't envy the position you are in to have to come down and still advocate for the schools on the $17.1 million, but also trying to work with the administration to get a number that makes sense from a budgetary standpoint.

I think the decision is probably difficult for us as councilors to be able to figure out and digest which direction we want to go in, and maybe we all disagree on what that looks like.

I for one support the $17.1 based on the the conversations we're having here and previous conversations, I'm confident that we can get to the table and be more comfortable with the numbers that are being presented next year.

But I think right now, $17.1 million is where we should be at.

If it comes in less than that, then we can deal with it.

If we do it the opposite way, then we're asking departments to make, you know, much more significant cuts than they really should, or we're going to free cash, which, you know, that's— I don't know that that's what we want to do too, but I mean, that's an option.

But at the end of the day, the numbers could come in significantly higher than lower.

So I personally support the 17.1.

That's what I told the mayor I wanted to see, unless we had a commitment that the number was not 17.1.

And I know he had a conversation, and just based on the discussion I'm hearing, what I'm— what I'm hearing from you folks is that you'll work to— you'll do whatever you need to do to work within that number, but the 17.1 is is a solid number, so that's the number I'm going to support moving forward.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Councilor Raposo.

Yeah, just one follow-up question.

So after 10/1, and once all the— once the DESE report is submitted, if you have students who enroll after 10/1 and they need busing, how does that operate?

Do they— that does not impact the busing.

The busing is— I'm sorry if I confused you.

The busing is provided to the students no matter when they move in.

If they move in June 1st, yep.

Okay.

That answers my question.

That is just our enrollment figure that we give to the state.

It does impact our Chapter 70 funding.

Okay.

And, and I caught a bit of the school committee, um, they were discussing the rolling over of the SIS.

Have— have that— has that happened yet?

It has not happened yet.

So you don't have an exact number of how many students you have at this moment?

Actually, we have a rough estimate.

We have some numbers.

We just— we pulled them before we left.

If I can, uh, Deputy, if you could just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Liz Legault, Deputy Superintendent.

Thank you.

As of 7/27/26, we have 10,563 students, and we have not rolled over in the SIMS.

But I can tell you the register— so as of 7/27/26, and some of these registrations have not been put in the SIMS, is 604 new completed registrations for the new year.

For last year in comparison, at this time, at 7— at July 27th, '25, we had 566 new completed registrations for the new year.

Do you know your enrollment was at that time last year at that moment?

I don't.

I didn't pull that up.

Do you know what you ended the school year with?

11,000.

I think it was 11,000 students.

Actually, our October 12th— 20th— on October 25th, we certified our enrollment with SIMS at 11,184 students.

So that was what you based your Chapter 70 off of.

Okay, thank you.

I yield to Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Canuel.

Thank you.

Uh, Miss Arkey.

Yeah, here we go.

Um, sorry, we can hear you, Councilor.

Thank you.

Uh, Miss Arpkey, can you just walk us through how we got to the number we're at today?

Because since the last budget, it's gone up $450,000, which is halfway between where we were and where the school committee, uh, approved the number.

So I think, can you walk us through the logic of how you got to that number?

So I think, I think there's been a very clear conversation that we don't have all the data to come up with these numbers of how redistricting is going to impact that.

I think that's been a very clear conversation here.

So given that, you know, we had had conversations about putting the full $900,000 back in, but I then had figured out and heard information about Riveros going back to a community school.

So I looked at the buses that were going to that school that would no longer be needed.

I also understand that what they've talked about, that some of those students have now shifted to these other schools and other programs.

So there might be more additional students that need busing somewhere else.

That could change.

They could need another bus, they could go on to an existing one, and how enrollment could go up.

And so there's all those variables that are in there, but just taking those 5 vehicles— I'm going to call them vehicles because I know it's vans and buses— that number specifically to that one school calculates about $543,000.

So given that there could be others added in somewhere else and there could be other changes The other part of it is the fact the electric buses, there's a lease payment that— so I don't know how many people are familiar with electric buses— that was bought for the school district on a grant.

So there was 10 electric buses, they started going to operation at the end of last year at some time, but we get a lease payment for utilization from the transportation company of $25 per day per bus.

So those numbers haven't really been realized in the budget either.

So those are some things that I know would be savings that aren't necessarily factored in, but there's also other things that keep going.

So with all of those numbers, it, it seemed like that $450,000 was potentially a very real number given some of that other data.

So that's where the $900,000 went to the $450,000.

Okay, but as everybody has stated, it's not a final number.

There's a ton of things that could still continue to change with that.

So if you were to go back and to do what Councilor Kadeem and Councilor Pereira have suggested would be to fully fund it, do you anticipate just raising revenues?

Do you anticipate going back to departments to make cuts?

What's your— I think it, to be honest with you, it'd probably be a combination of both.

I understand that there is, you know, the potential that we could just increase the investment income revenue, but I want to be clear that if we increase that investment income revenue by $400 $350,000, that would put us at the exact budget that we ended with this year in total actuals for the general fund.

So not including the ARPA money being transferred in, we ended around $4.1 million.

So adding the $4.5 to the $3.6 is, is $4.1 million.

And from my side of things and from my experience with budget, you don't— that's just a very bad idea.

So I could increase that maybe a little bit more and be super aggressive with that number, which isn't very comfortable at all, but the other side of it would have to be, you know, pulling expenses from other places.

I've, I've continued to go in and try and adjust the revenues as much as I can.

It's part of how this $450,000 that was added back in was already accounted for.

I'm running out of areas that I feel like we could comfortably take in additional revenue and exceed, you know, the budget and meet the budget.

So So I think it's, it's just getting— it's a very tightly budgeted budget as it is.

I know that we've had conversations in the past, you know, 2 budget cycles with me that it is a much more aggressively budgeted set of revenue than we have been doing.

So we are already kind of pushing the bar, and so we would just be pushing that a little bit closer and closer at this point.

So then if we did go that step of increasing the number and we put the $17.1 in, right, we have to wait then.

Let's assume there is a savings.

Let's assume it does come in lower.

We have to wait till when to be able to utilize that money savings?

I don't know.

So it depends on how we handle it.

So if we put in the $17 million number, I'm going to say today.

The numbers from there to say that there was a savings, we would have to come back down to you to reduce that appropriation.

So depending on how we get there, we could decide to— I'm going to say reallocate it to where it was pulled from.

We could decide to just release it.

So if it's before the tax rate setting process, which is usually mid to end November, then we could just kind of release it in that way.

But if it's done after taxes are set and the revenues are set, I mean, it's you could kind of move it around, but it— or it would just be surplus that would be certified and turned back.

So it's, it's kind of a tough question to say when we would be able to utilize what's being turned back.

It depends on the process that we go through.

If we don't come down to you to reduce an appropriation and to transfer it around, it would just become surplus.

So I hear the concerns of my colleagues.

I think in terms of the— we're talking about $450,000.

The reality though is this is 1/1,000th of this budget.

It's a small number in the grand scheme.

I think that that's a number that can easily be absorbed in other areas if there is a shortfall.

I think we'll know by— sounds like at the end of Q1 of the fiscal year with when the transfer— when the headcounts and the school redistricting, how many buses you have, how many vans you have.

Etc.

I think it's a small enough number that we can potentially absorb.

I'd be surprised if there was any denial by this council or the mayor to fully fund transportation, whatever that true number ends up being.

I get a lot of concern at the prospect of asking department heads to cut back further, potentially cutting services, because once we cut services, we won't be able to restore them for the fiscal year, likely.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Council Vice President Young.

I guess my first question is— well, my first comment is, in terms of the $1 million cut we did in indirects that you had to reduce the budget by, not all of that offset came from funded vacancies, am I correct?

$400,000, I believed, was a reduction on the city side in pension liability to offset that number.

That was part of it, yes.

So there was— there were several things, but I was— I was just— he had spoken about how there would be vacancy savings to turn back and cover some of this, and I wanted to be clear that we had already eaten that up, was all I was saying.

It's not that we didn't do other things to adjust for the million, but that was one of the tools that I had already used to cover that other vacancy the other savings that was needed, so I couldn't use that again for this.

Correct.

However, um, did you use all funded vacancies or a portion and then offset with the $400,000?

So in other words, are there still some unfunded vacancies in the budget at the present time?

So, so the vacancy savings that was added, it's not like I pulled out vacant positions and didn't fund them in the budget.

That's not the way the vacancy savings was applied.

It was applied in sense that there's turnover that happens.

So if a position is, is or was, right, the timing was vacant at the time that the budget went down, that doesn't mean it's even still vacant at this time.

There's turnover, there's gaps that happen, but then usually we fill it again and it cycles around.

Usually when somebody leaves after a couple of years here, the next person coming in is hired at a lower rate.

So those are what I call just like a general vacancy savings that takes place every year that we see in salary turnbacks every year.

It's just the timing of of positions turning over.

So that's what was kind of applied generally.

There was a percentage based on if they have current vacancies, there was a 2% vacancy savings added to the department.

If they had no vacancies but aren't a, you know, but are a department that has more than one employee or that has, you know, that's in a block group, we added up half a percentage vacancy savings based on, you know, kind of what we're historically turning back in a general sense with the general fund operating of salaries.

Okay, so let me try to— I want to make sure I'm clearly understanding what you're saying, because what I'm hearing, I could, I could be entirely— so you're saying that the savings based on vacancies is based on the vacancies you think we're going to have, some turnover we've had, but it doesn't mean those vacancies won't be filled, right?

So it's, it's just a It's a number if you look at— so I had sent out a sheet before the June 30th meeting that detailed out how the vacancy savings was applied, what departments had it, and what amounts it was.

But the way it's being done is saying the base salaries, I'm going to say, of just HR is $100,000.

Because of the positions and the turnover, we're going to say it's about a 2% savings that could happen throughout the year because they currently have a vacancy.

So then now they're budgeted at $98,000.

That's— it's not like we cut a position and said you can't fund it now, but given the fact that as of July 1st they didn't have somebody in the position, the reality is there's likely going to be a savings that we're going to realize in the year on that salary budget that we won't need because clearly there's turnover that's happening and it needs to be replaced.

So that's kind of how that— okay, so basically the savings and the cuts were made on, to a certain degree, assumptions.

So if we've got 100 employees in a department, there's 5 funded vacancies, those 5 funded vacancies are still there and still being funded in the budget?

Correct.

There's a percentage that's taken off of the top because the odds of them being filled perfectly for the full amount for the full year clearly are slim at this point.

So then I guess that tells me that we certainly can cover an additional $400,000, um, where we still have unfunded vacancies.

Because, because you're not funding it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It just means you're not funding it at this time, right?

That means the department will have to go the entire year without that position.

That's correct, right?

Which, historically, how many departments have had vacancies that have never been filled?

So those ones we went in, but those ones we went in and cut, I would like to remind you of that.

So the ones that— the 2 in facilities, the plumber and the electrician, we did cut those, the full vacancy amount.

We did pull that out.

Um, the other one was in planning, planning or engineering, one of his departments.

I'm sorry, it's one of the departments that he has.

He's had a clerk position that he hasn't filled in over 2 years, so we did fully cut that one out.

So the ones that have been chronic for more than a year, we did pull whole at that point.

So, but you would agree this, this— there are still a number of funded vacancies that could be unfunded to compensate if, if we need the money?

That's a choice that the council could make, yes.

Yeah, okay.

Um, that's interesting.

That's an interesting way to cut a budget by projection and assumption.

Um, I hope it works out.

There are other cities that do that.

It's not an unheard of idea.

Okay, um, now in terms of the electric buses, what did you determine the offset might be?

It's $45,000 for the 10 buses for the 180 days of the year.

The calculation is $45,000.

And you came to that number how?

It's $25 a day per bus per day, and it's 180 school days that they bus.

So that savings isn't already calculated in transportation and, and the school department's numbers?

My understanding is no, because the buses didn't— weren't online for most of last year.

The timing of receiving the buses and getting them up and running, it wasn't online for most of last year.

So that, that's why it hasn't, hasn't been realized yet.

Would everybody agree with that?

I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but, you know, I feel like some of this assumption, some of it isn't.

I want to know what's rock solid and what's assumption.

And if it's not a completely accurate statement, I think we need to know that.

So from a financial standpoint, would you be able to opine on that?

If you can just move the microphone to you.

Should we make a motion to waive the rules and bring Mr. Pacheco to the table?

We already did that, but Mr. Pacheco can come down.

We waived the rules already.

So you, you want to, you want to speak on Councilor Dionne's comments, or at all from a financial— I don't know.

I didn't know about the $25 per bus.

Understood.

Mr. Pacheco.

So it's an accurate state— it's an accurate statement that it is $25 a day on the electric buses and all the days that they're in service, and it is the numbers that Emily said.

The $45,000.

We did not have it.

The buses were in service for about 27 days, 28 days this year, but they will be in full service.

So you're realizing a savings this year that you didn't have last year, is that what you're saying?

Yes.

And do you know what that fully amounts to?

Like, it's, it's the same as Emily said.

That's a full year, $45,000 for a full year.

All right, well, that's still a far cry in a $17 million budget, but I— okay, I appreciate that.

And then I have another question.

Um, and the savings per bus, how did you determine that number?

And what, what did that— what was the totality of that per bus?

And you said, so Vivera School's gonna be a community school, they have 5 buses, so that means they didn't need X number of dollars because they don't have the 5 buses.

So where did you get those numbers, 3 buses, 2 vans?

It's 3 buses, 2 vans, but again, as they've stated, that's not necessarily a final thing.

Something could change with that, but that is what is the— at the time it is a community school.

Obviously that can change.

That's been a very clear statement that that could change.

Transportation needs could still change for that.

Um, but with that, those numbers, it's, it's $543,000.

I have that.

So I pulled the actual invoices that were coming out from those— from that school from last year.

I pulled it in June.

The way it works is it's 180 days of schooling that you transport kids, so there's a per bus, per van rate.

There's a monitor rate, you know, that is charged based on those usages.

So I pulled the actual invoices of what was currently being done there for FY26 and calculated that with the rates that are provided by each of those vendors for '27, and that's where that $5 543.

I have it somewhere in front of me.

I just have too many things.

We'll call it 543.

But so in reality though, to a certain extent, that number is based on assumption— assuming we're not going to need those buses or vans, assuming things aren't going to change, assuming we're not going to get students that are going to require that transportation.

Is that an accurate statement?

Correct.

And that's why that number could change completely.

Correct.

Which is why, why I was only comfortable putting in an estimate of closer to 450, knowing that that number could change.

There could be something else needed somewhere else.

Other, you know, needs could arise just within where those students were moved to and whatnot.

So that was part of why I then took a very clear calculated number.

If you really calculate those buses, is an exact number you can come up with, but the reason that I didn't put that in front of you is because there are other variables that could come into play.

So I was trying to pull it back and be safe.

And then the $45,000, so that leaves at least a whole nother bus or 2 that, you know, could potentially— a bus or a van that could be added in without a single need.

So I guess my final statement would be that as one counselor I can't say that I'm completely comfortable with cuts in a budget that are based on assumption, cuts in transportation that are based on assumption, minus hard facts, minus variables.

I— for me, I find that to be a bit of a problem, and I don't know that I'm comfortable with the number at this point either based on that.

That.

I, I mean, you know, when I— when you figure out a budget, you generally know how much you have, what everything's going to cost, and then you can come up with a rock-solid budget.

I mean, I could assume that my electric would go down $100 a month for the next 6 months, but if it doesn't and I don't budget for it, I'm in trouble.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Khmera.

Sorry, the McKinney-Vento fund, how much money is left in that fund?

Just curious.

So the, the current balance as of— I think I pulled the number last on Friday at about 5 o'clock— was, um, it's $700,000— $779,000.

Thank you.

$634.68.

All right, so some of that's already factored into this budget.

I want to be clear.

How much of it?

So there's probably about $600,000 that's factored into this budget already to be used from that fund balance that hasn't— that's been sitting there.

All right, thank you.

Without a yell.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilor Kadim.

All right.

So in terms of the appropriation order that's before us, so under education and transportation is $12.8 million.

So I don't have my budget book in front of me.

What makes up the $16, what's the difference between the $16.6 and the $12.8?

That is $2 million of McKinney-Vento, $2 million flat.

And then the number from Circuit Breaker that the school committee had voted on for transportation, which is, thank you, $1.816652.

So $1.86 was what?

Circuit breaker, sorry.

Oh, circuit breaker.

And then you said $2 million from McKinney-Vento, but— The school committee had voted on $1.4 million.

So $2 million is with, you know, assuming we would spend spend some of that savings, the fund balance that's in there, of $600,000 of that fund balance.

And then they commit in $1.4 million for reimbursement that's coming in in FY27, is that— yeah, so it's $600,000 that's already there.

The $1.4 million is the estimate of what's going to be coming in, so that's what makes up the $2 million.

And then it leaves obviously a little bit of— wow, a little bit of wiggle room.

Sorry.

So what are we anticipating for McKinney-Vento?

Coming in for next year?

Around 1.4 is the number.

So you're using 100%?

Yes, so in this past year we did use 100% as well.

It's the balances in there from previous years that we weren't using 100%.

Okay.

And then just, I'm just struggling and I, heard one of my colleagues, and I appreciate not wanting to see additional cuts, but I, I think from, from my standpoint, it's hard to, to say that if we approve anything less than $17.1 million, we're essentially approving a budget that's not balanced, right?

Agreed.

So you agree with that?

I agree with that.

That's what's been stated at this point.

I think it's, uh, I, I can't speak on my opinion on how everybody should move forward and view the budget, but I put down a balanced budget that is balanced with everything that's in there.

And I— there's always going to be variables.

Even if that $17 million number was down, other things could come in and other things could change that would change that number.

So it's, it's always going to be that way.

Listen, I, I recognize that.

I've, I've put a number of budgets together myself, but when you make reductions and And I don't disagree, budgets are, are all based on assumptions.

It's a living document.

I recognize that.

However, when you, when you're making reductions, you've identified what the expenses are.

In this, in this case, we can't go back to the school department and say that you need to reduce your transportation from $17.1 down to the $16.6, right?

So let's just call it $500,000.

So they're not cutting buses.

They're not telling kids you got to walk to school.

Or find another mode of transportation, right?

So at that point, to me, it's an actual expenditure.

So we shouldn't be starting there to make the cuts.

But they're already doing things that are changing the number of buses that are needed.

It's not that we're telling them to do that.

They told us that they are doing that and it is changing the number of buses.

I've heard that, but I've also heard the school department say they're not comfortable with anything less than $17.1 million.

So I don't know how we— say that this is a balanced budget.

So we've got a department that's coming back before us, and they have no way, if that number comes in at $17.1 million, to be able to cut expenses in transportation.

So if we go anywhere else, any other departments, I mean, we can cut— the police department can cut overtime, the police department can cut training, they can cut a number of different areas.

The treasurer's office can can go and cut expenses, the fire department can cut expenses, but the school department can't cut transportation, right?

There's a mandate associated with transporting students to school.

So from my standpoint, anything less than $17.1 million is approving a budget that is not balanced unless we find other ways.

So in terms of the local receipts, I know you're conservative in terms of the local receipts coming in, Where are— are you at 98% of the local receipts?

Are you overly aggressive with your estimates?

Is there any room in other areas?

I believe that the calculation that, um, it states it in the mayor's letter, it's, it's 88, maybe 0.6% of local receipts.

So, so pretty much yes.

And then, uh, the reserve fund, the $578,000 $517.

That's— so we don't have a contract with police, fire, Teamsters that's been settled yet.

So that's intended to help cover contracts that are completely unfunded at this point.

But it's not going to cover the entire contracts.

Would that be an accurate statement?

I have no— I couldn't say.

It could at this point.

It would never cover the retro and the new year contract.

To say that it couldn't possibly cover the year that is taking place, I can't say that, but I can tell you obviously it wouldn't cover the retro, but we typically would pay the retros from one-time money anyhow because it is really a one-time payment at that point.

Right, so why wouldn't we just take the reserve fund, fund that transportation, and then obviously through negotiations come back down to the council for an appropriation order because you're gonna have to do that anyways, right?

So it's not gonna cover the entire amount.

That's again also a a choice that could be made and that could work.

I'm going to say the same way, but from my standpoint then, at least we have a balanced budget.

We've got money that's going to the schools that are going to be used, and then any type of negotiation— that in the form of a motion?

Well, I, I could make— I could make that in a form of motion.

Make it in the form of a motion.

So moved.

But I, I don't know that we have the authority to, to make the changes.

But I would say that that could be the same thing though, using that reserve fund to cover that $450, whether it's to today or whether it's a month from now, that could still be the case that we could send down— I'm going to say amend the appropriation and revise the appropriation before you if that's the will of the council.

So I just would say that you're right, I don't know if we can move that line item today, but if that's the will of the council, we could send down an order for the next meeting to move it over.

To me, that's the cleanest way to do it.

And then, because I— because you can make an argument that negotiations is a variable right now because you don't know where it's going to end and you're going to have to come down from appropriation.

So for me, it's the cleanest way to do it.

We have the ability to give the $17 million, $17.1 million to the schools, and then we'll just deal with how we're going to handle the negotiations for, for the various collective bargaining groups.

I mean, at that point, there might be known savings from transportation that we can move back.

So, right.

So, and it's not unusual for municipalities to use one-time money for the first appropriation of the contract and then build it So that's, I mean, that's pretty standard in other communities.

So to me, that's the cleanest way to do it.

It gives the schools the transportation number that they need.

And then to your point, you know, when we get closer to quarter 2, we can make a determination if there's additional money.

And then if we have contracts that come back before us, we can make transfers internally and then also offset it with some free cash stabilization and then just, you know, fund those contracts and move forward.

You know, I think that to me is the, is the cleanest way, and we get this budget behind us.

And, and, you know, I think the council is comfortable with the fact that we're approving a budget that's balanced.

So, so there's a motion on the floor by Councilor Kadim to send a communication to the administration on getting the amount from where?

From the, um, reserve, the reserve fund, for the amount of how much?

So zero out, uh, I4 to zero.

And it's only short $450,000 right now.

Oh, whatever the— yeah, it's— they're only short $450,000.

So, so reduce by $450,000, correct?

Okay, we can, we can do that.

Actually, if that's the case, we can do that when we have it, uh, in our appropriation vote, so it wouldn't be necessary.

But I don't think you could put it into another line.

Reduce that one.

Yeah, which is also fine.

I just wanted to be clear.

Motion as made by Councilor Kadeem, uh, to suggest to the administration that they send down the transportation line, um, taking out, uh, out of the $570,517, $450,000.

Was that the correct number?

Yes, $450,000 has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

I know Councilor Lapekka needs to speak, but on the, on the suggested letter, any further discussion on that?

No, to be honest with you, I would like to— sorry, to be honest, I'd like to table it, let her fix that tomorrow, and let's come back tomorrow and get this budget done.

I wouldn't be able to do that tomorrow because we have to post it.

Yeah, well, if we table it— yeah, can we table this meeting and come back?

I mean, Mr. President, if I could— you could take a recess if the Director of Financial Services would like to provide a new financial order, appropriation order.

Move it like that.

That's fine.

Submits a revised appropriation and the council could vote on it tonight.

If we can do that tonight, I'll allow it because it's not anticipated as well.

Good.

We want to take a 5-minute recess.

This Farver City Council meeting is now back in session after a brief recess.

Um, at this point, um, who had the floor?

I don't remember.

Uh, Councilor Kadeem.

Councilor Kadeem, you had the floor.

You haven't yielded yet.

I'll give you the floor back if you'd like.

I'll yield it to you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

Uh, Councilor Peckham.

Actually, I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

No.

Um, Madam Clerk, uh, if you could please introduce this item into the record, please.

Be it ordered that the annual budget for fiscal year 2027 from various funds is $483,583,582, of which the amount of $471,937,983 be raised from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts for appropriation.

Any discussion?

Just— Councilor Locatino.

Just quickly, so to go over this, so you moved the $450— Yeah, so I moved it from I-4 to G-2.

And so that new number is $13,250,048, and then the $2 million from McKinney Vento, and then the $1.8 from Circuit breaker, correct?

Yeah, they reduced 17.1.

Yeah.

Okay, I yield.

Councilor Peckham.

Actually, uh, good evening.

Just one question.

So as far as our ARPA expenditures and the deadline of September 31st for all projects, where are we with that?

So there's a— the deadline is mixed between September and December.

Between depending on what the funding source was.

So Bristol County has an earlier deadline, and then there's certain categories that qualify for ARPA that have to be spent on that earlier deadline, but then the rest of it is December 31st.

I don't— I apologize, I don't have any of that in front of me to tell.

I know that when we've been checking in, departments seem to be on track.

We are definitely dwindling down on it, so I don't have those numbers in front of me at this time.

I would I apologize, I've been very in the weeds of the budget instead.

Yeah, go ahead.

What I was doing this week is going through the book.

When Kara Hum left us as of March 31st, she reconciled all the numbers, and we're going to be asking— the mayor asked me this week to get a report from the city auditor to show where we are right now, and we're going to be following up with everyone who's got any outstanding funds.

To see that all is expended according to the guidelines of ARPA.

Okay, good.

So no question as to projects right now?

Everything seems— because I don't want to hit that deadline and then we're giving the federal government back money.

Yeah, no, we don't want to do that either.

And, um, I've spoken— the biggest number of projects is with Mr. Oliveira in facilities.

Spoken with him, he said his projects are all on cue, so we are going have a sit-down with everyone, find out, um, especially include the OPM of the project at the Lewiston Street facility and make sure we're on target because that is, um, September 30th.

Yeah, September.

And what do we have into that project already, do you know?

Funding-wise, I don't right off the top of my head because I haven't, um, gotten together yet with the city auditor to see where we are now.

I think they want to say there was I thought there was like $8 million left.

Yeah, point of information, when, when, um, Attorney Hom left, uh, $8.1 million had been expended and we still had $8 million in ARPA funding because it was a $16 million project.

Okay, and there's no questions with that because I drove by recently and it doesn't look like much has been done.

So from now until the end of September, we're going to get that project done.

And that's what I am told, Councillor.

And what we can do is we can provide an update to the council as well once we know what the new number totally expended as of, say, July 31st is, and then what the deadlines are from there.

We'll be glad to provide that information.

I appreciate it.

Is there a way to reach out to Mr. Oliveira Porras and get me a response by Thursday, sometime on Thursday?

Absolutely.

I appreciate it.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Vice President Dion.

You good?

Oh yeah, I'm good now.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Is there a motion?

A motion to adopt the order as amended.

Motion to adopt as amended.

The amendment is the amendment— the appropriation.

I'm sorry, motion to approve the appropriation.

There's no amendment necessary because we haven't amended anything, right?

To be clear, Madam Clerk, motion to approve the appropriation before us.

The new appropriation that has been introduced by the clerk has been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Councilor McAdams.

Discussion on the approval of the appropriation?

Hearing none, roll call on the vote, please.

Councilor Kadim?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

No.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 8 yeas, 1 nay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Next order of business.

Motion grant leave to withdraw on that.

Just ask her, introduce it, and we'll certainly do that.

Item 4 is a communication from the mayor and the second revised proposed fiscal year 2027 municipal budget July continuing appropriation order.

Motion to grant the item leave to withdraw has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. President, if I could just for a question of, uh, procedure.

I'm not sure if granting the, um, order leave to withdraw equals a rejection.

There was a, a question that had come up in the past.

Let, let's just do both.

So motion to reject would be appropriate, made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Canuel.

Discussion on the rejection?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Item 5 is a communication from the City Council President and the policy and ordinance on the use of outside legal counsel.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Canuel.

I'm just going to speak on this very briefly as, as a letter for you all.

The reason I drafted the letter and added it to the agenda tonight is because many colleagues, and I know Councilor Pereira and Councilor Camara both spoke on having a policy policy in place so that everybody was on the same page when it comes to utilizing outside counsel.

I made this letter to you all with a copy of the already approved policy that was had when we had KP Law here.

I want the council to have the ability to give their own opinions, to provide any kind of written communication to the city clerk on what policy— what part of the policy you would like to see changed.

And then this council then would be able to vote on the new policy policy as a new council at a future meeting.

So I just wanted to offer everybody that fair and equal opportunity, and that's why I sent this letter, added it to the agenda tonight.

Councilor Peckham, did you want to speak?

I saw your hand raised.

No, no.

Councilor Raposo, he answered my question.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

No.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made and seconded.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And then is it the will of the council to reconsider the proposed ordinance related to the salary amendment of the Director of Health and Human Services?

So moved.

Motion to, uh, pass the item through second reading and enrollment as amended.

Motion to reconsider.

Well, motion to reconsider would be first.

Is there a motion?

Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by who?

Councilor Kamara.

Uh, will you— that would be appropriate.

Yeah, a motion to reconsider has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussions.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Just to be on the safe side, Councilor Camara wasn't on the prevailing side.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking about that, but maybe— yeah, no problem.

Motion to reconsider.

Let's do this again correctly.

Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to pass for second reading and enrollment.

Motion to pass the item through second reading and Enrollment as amended has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

If we could have a brief recess to sign the ordinance, please.

3-minute recess.

For our city council meeting is now back in session, Madam Clerk.

And the last item before you for passage to be ordained is the salary amendment ordinance for the Director of Health and Human Services.

Motion to pass the item to be ordained as amended has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

That's all we have, Mr. President.

Motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Good night.

Thank you.