5.13.2025 Fall River City Council

My over my

over hey

pain. Hey, hey hey hey.

Hey,

hey hey.

back. Quick.

over hey.

pain.

Hey

Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat.

Committee on public works and transportation come to order. Clerk will call the rogue. What? Wrong wrong meeting. Read the wrong one. Sorry.

Public Public will come to order. The clerk will call their own. Council Kadim here. Dion here. Hart here. Kilby here.

Perr here. Panti here. Raposo here. Tiff here. And President Camaro here.

Motion to open the public hearing.

Second. All in favor? I do that first.

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 unpersceived by those present and not deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Motion of the public hearing. Second.

Motion public hearing again has made. Is there another second? All in favor again? I as long as we open the meeting and I read the law before we start doing it, it's fine. Item number one, Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid in Verizon, New England, Incorporated for one new jointly owned pole location as follows, Rigenback Road. This petition is proposing to

install one new jointly owned pole number 27-50 in line between existing pole 27 and pole 28 on rigback road. Pole number 27-50 will be set approximately 60 ft southwest of pole number 27 and 90 ft northwest of pole number 28. Pole number 27-50 will be installed 3 feet from the edge of Rickenback Road. In accordance with plans number 31085750. Are there any proponents to this public hearing? Any proponents?

Come on down, please.

Good evening, council president, council members. Good evening. My my name is Aaron Roy. I'm representing National Grid. Um tonight, uh National Grid is proposing to set a new jointly owned pole, um in line between existing, uh poles 27 and 28, bringing back road. Um this will ultimately, um help us feed, um the new commercial buildings, um being constructed at 1350 1350 Renbach Road um overhead to

underground. Pretty much sums it up.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other proponents to this public hearing? Any other proponents?

Seeing none, are there any opponents to this public hearing? Any opponents?

Motion contain a motion to club public hearing has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. City council public hearing is now a journ.

Thank you.

City Council Committee please come to order. Clerk will call the role. Council Kadim here. Dion here. Hart here. Kilby here. Perr here. Ponty. Reposo here. Tib here. And President Camra here. 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 unpersceived by those present and not deemed acknowledged and permissible. We have one individual who has signed up for citizens input time. Everyone has three minutes. We have Colin Dus subject matter school committee.

Thank you counselors. Um so on March 18th and the far school committee took a unanimous vote to forward a request which is on your agenda today which I sponsored and supported that the city council file an unfunded mandate petition regarding the transportation costs in the city. The city through the school department and the school committee adhere to multiple laws that mandate transportation in this city.

Chapter 71. These laws are in chapter 71, chapter 71B, 74, and chapter 76. Transportation is mandated yet underfunded and per the law that makes it an unfunded mandate. So just to discuss the proposal that's before you today under state law, if the legislature or a state agency require a local government to take on a new responsibility, the legislature is generally required to provide funding

for the municipality to implement the new requirement. If the state does not provide local governments proper funding to meet the requirements of the new law or regulation, it may be considered an unfunded mandate.

So, if the council votes tonight to um file this unfunded mandate petition with the state auditor, the next steps would be and if we received a favorable outcome, we can then either go to court to potentially appeal the law because we're not being funded.

That's not something I'm not personally in favor of. However, what I am in favor of as one member of the school committee is that we reach out to our local delegation there's um under the governor's budget, there is a section that has been unfunded for years that will bring millions in my opinion hopefully millions into this into the city to reimburse more of the cost that the city

has to pay for transportation. Um this will again bring back the city to reimburse for the cost without making cuts. The student transportation which this school committee as you s may have seen yesterday voted unanimously to deny.

Um so this is something that everyone wins. I think this is something that we should all get behind and hopefully this will help alleviate some of the burden on the taxpayers. I hope you support filing this petition today. I yield.

Thank you.

Item number two, we have fiscal year 2026 emergency medical service budget.

Good evening everybody.

Good evening. Good evening, Beth.

Good evening. Can you just state your name and what department you're with so the people at home know who we're talking to? Um, my name is Beth Fox. I'm the uh interim chief of EMS. Beth, could you try speaking to the microphone, please? We can barely hear you. I know you're very soft spoken. My name is Beth Fence. I'm the interim chief of EMS.

Emily Arky, interim director of um finance. Okay. Council in seat six. Did you have a statement you guys want to make or you just want to get into questions from the counselors? Whichever way you want to handle it. Beth, um I'd just like to give a brief overview of the um past 12 months with EMS. We recently um signed on to a um non-transporting contract with South Coast Health, which we've been doing

non-emergency transport. So, we've increased our fleet from um five, we have the n five 91 emergency trucks, but we've increased our fleet on the non-transporting side to four. And as of July, at the middle of July, around July 22nd, we'll be entering into a contract with Brown Health to do the same non-emergency transport out of St.

hospital for providing the full scope of um services that we can provide to our city residents and anybody who needs like emergency transport to a um higher level or needs transport home. So we are providing those services. So, some of our contract costs have come from us trying to build the business. And what we've done is this year we've doubled our profit from the previous year just

with the South Coast contract. And we didn't even start until October. So, we lost one quarter of that revenue stream.

So, we feel it's going to be successful.

I think we're going to continue to support ourselves and we're going to continue to be able to provide some support to the city with as much as much responsibility as we can. So with that in mind, our budget has seen some increases this year, but with increases is because our businesses on increase coming in July.

Thank you, Councilman S. Con. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first off commend you. I think you're doing a great job within your department. I'm hearing great feedback. Um and uh thank you for everything you're trying to do to increase revenue uh and rain in expenses. So I first off from my standpoint I want to recognize you for that. Thank you uh chief. So uh first thing is first you know I we had the

water department before us u but before I get into that what I don't think people realize is that EMS is a revenue stream. Every time a unfortunately a a EMT or an ambulance drives by, it's being build, whether it's being build, you know, to the healthcare provider, Medicaid or Medicare, whatever it is, it's a revenue stream. But putting that into perspective, um I recognize that I was a little

critical of the water and sewer department's enterprise accounts with an effort to not increase water rates going into next fiscal year, which the council worked collectively to make sure that didn't happen. However, I'm noticing too that your indirects towards the city is about 25% or so of your budget. Correct.

Um, which tells me that the amount of money that EMS provides back to the city's general fund is probably higher than any of the enterprise accounts. Is that fair to say? Correct. Okay. So, the other misconception, and just clarify this for me, five or six firefighters are um are paid within your department.

Correct. Correct. when the city of Fall River um was in jeopardy of losing the safer grant which funds firefighters, they were going to have to lay off 10 firefighters. What year was that? I want to say it was five years ago. Okay. So, at that time we um made an agreement with the city that we would take and sponsor five firefighters. So, we have those as our drivers on the squad. They

function. in order for us to be able to fund those positions, they have to at some point perform some sort of service to EMS. So, the agreement was they they work on our squad, we pay um five full-time salaries, and we pay their health and pension benefits.

So, that equals about $600,000 thereabouts, right? Does that sound um it's $300,000 and then about about $450 to five close. All right. So, about $500,000 the EMS is paying. So, you know, I' I've I've been pretty I want to say critical, but I've called out the fact that I'm hoping that EMS is able to continue to help our fire stations and continue to make sure that they're contributing to any any repairs and heat

and electric. So, through your through your indirect, can you speak on that?

So, our indirects, we do pay uh electric per square footage of occupancy. We pay our electric, our gas, we pay CSO fees, and we've also recently took out the um bond to do the um repairs in the center station. Um we've passed if you before you go on center station, how much are you paying towards center station?

Um one two 1.2 to 1.5 million.

Is that going to be a Is that just this fiscal year? It's a bond. We took out a bond. So you're paying on the debt service? Um I don't know about that. We're going to have to circle back on that. The bond payments and how that's working in calculation with the indirects. It's not in our indirect, right? It's not. But you mentioned you are going to be paying $1 something million. The co total cost

of the upgrade will be in in the range of 1.2 to 1.5 million. And is EMS contributing to that? It is our our expense. It is your expense. Correct.

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Um does just curious. Is a fire department particip participating in that purch uh repairs to center street center fire station? They've been involved in the um architecture, how it's going to be done, what what repairs need to be done to their their occup occupancy in their space. Then we're going to do all the hallways and floors in the common areas.

M the only thing that we didn't and we're going to upgrade the um showers and restrooms in there to bring them up to to uh meet current standards for separating men and women. And we're also going to um include women firefighters if we bring women firefighters on. Then we're making provisions for them to have sep separate dormitories and separate provisions for occupancy within station.

Okay. So, so you you would think that EMS is definitely pulling its weight when it comes to participating in the cost of construction and repairs to the fire stations. We try. You try. Okay. Um Emily, I I guess my question to you is, you know, I spoke to you and I know it's only been, you know, um since our last meeting when it comes to financial policies when it comes to our um

enterprise accounts, right? So in the situation that our interim chief continues to do a great job in increasing doubling and tripling revenue, what kind of financial policies do you foresee occurring between EMS and the city that the indirects would either go up or they would go down if their revenue doesn't isn't sustainable. So um you know at this point we haven't you know started the process of kind of

formalizing those agreements given where we are already at in the budgeting process. Um it feels kind of for especially for these budgets it's kind of after the fact to be working on those agreements at this point in time. So it's something that we do plan on working on you know next I shouldn't say next summer this summer coming up so that you know before we get back to this budget process next year we have that

all set up and and in play. But you know it's something that the way the indirect cost agreements work is first of all it's covering their share. I mean that's the the plan for water sewer you know EMS it's there is an exact cost that you can calculate for health care for the pension portion that is related to those specific employees. So that'll always be a part of it. Um, and then the

administrative side of things, you know, it's it's something that would always kind of be the last expense paid if the revenue isn't there to cover it on, you know, on both sides because they're it's work that our departments are already going to be doing in the general fund regardless. Um, and then as for the share of the, you know, work being done in the fire stations that they also

occupy, I mean, that's something that again, as the revenue is there, you know, we'll try and cost share between general fund and EMS, but I think that's going to be a project by project kind of look at to make sure that we're utilizing all of our resources available, whether it's general fund or enterprise fund. I get that. It's just what I want to see consistency, right? I think I think from a financial practice

perspective that if we're looking for fin consistencies within the enterprise accounts, we we've been kind of doing behind the napkin kind of math essentially that says, "All right, well, they're they're doubling their income.

So, are we going to double down on our indirects?" That's not how the calculations. I know that. But my point is there's no true financial policy in place that says there's a formula that is determining how you're going to determine your indirects. I recognize you take your administrative costs. I recognize what you've done, what you just said. I'm just saying there's no consistency amongst other enterprise

accounts on how you generate a formula if there is any by determining your indirect. So there is a formal calculation. It's just not a policy that says we have to follow that. But there is a formal calculation that it's literally done with it's in one sheet.

So the same exact process is done and it's got all three of them broken out onto it. So it it is done the exact same way. Again, whether it's formalized that every person in my role has used that and done it that way, you're right, that policy doesn't exist. But the way that it's been calculated at this point in time, it is a formula calculation that's being done the same way across the

country. Okay. So, if they double their income, let's let's just say in next fiscal year, the income that they generate from the work that she's continuing to do with the police with uh with Brown Health and Charlton and everything that they're trying to do to increase revenue for their departments, they're also going to have some capital needs, right? So, what are we going to be looking at in terms of a long-term

capital project within making sure that the apparatus is sustainable? So, what we're doing is what we're doing is we've always done a rotation. We've always been really responsible in EMS with making sure that we have a rotation policy for our frontline apparatus. And um recently we came down and we asked for you to give us some money out of our stabilization to account for our lease

line because it kind of got away from us. That was all those new trucks that we needed to to honor these contracts.

But we're going to be fiscally responsible. We we are um eventually going to need a a space and we're kind of in a unique situation where we don't you say space are you talking about a headquarters for EMS something okay we're kind of outgrowing the we're out growing it but it's premature and the city has always been very upfront and we've always been very upfront when what their needs are and and we're always

been willing to um make sure like we live in that building too and the paint's coming off the ceilings. It kind of seems like the right thing to do for the right reason and it is we're all working together and as long as the enterprise fund can support what we need for our employees, our overtime and our trucks and between the city council and the mayor, you've always been very generous making sure that we have what

we need. That's um that's that's good enough. I want to put some money in the bank, you know, that's me. But, you know, do you have a stabilization? We do. I'd like to I'd like to I'm a How large I'm sorry. I know you have a stabilization. How large is your stabilization? Right now it's 1.1. Are you collecting interest on that? We are.

I try to use that money as a last resort. The interest or the stabilization? Interesting money. All of it. All right. You want to say so the capital portions that you know the trucks that would be needed and the the building work that would need to be done that is a direct part of her budget.

It's not part of the indirects. And so in some ways if her revenue continues to increase the indirects do increase but that's because part of it is based on essentially how much of their cash in and their transactions that we have oversight over that we need to now increase the amount of transactions and and money that we're overseeing. So it does have a direct correlation but not it's not a just a random amount that

says oh you have more revenue so we take more. And then the other part of it is the pensions and the health insurance.

The reason that her portions are so much higher compared to the water sewer ones is because of the number of employees she has. She has about 106 employees. So there's obviously a lot more pension and health insurance to cover for that versus the water and sewer departments together don't even hit 100 employees.

So that's why their portions are much smaller in that sense of things. So, you know, it is driven by if she does continue to double her revenue and and needs to have more trucks and more employees added for that then directs are going to go up just to match the costs that have gone up with having them there. All right. So, let me take a step back then very quickly. So, you are this

department is going to see an increase in personnel needed. You need more you have whatund6 FTEES or thereabouts right now.

Okay. So obviously the liability for the pension costs are going to continue to increase, right? So we were speaking earlier today, Emily, about the trust fund uh for um for the pension trust fund or the for OPED op. So within your financial indirects, does any of that money go into that trust fund from this department? At this point in time, no.

How come? There's no policy around it.

It's just not been done before now. So that's something that, you know, we could we should definitely be considering in general with OPED. I can tell you that it's not something I've seen other communities do yet. Again, not that we shouldn't and couldn't. It's just it OPED is very much an afterthought right now in general, and we're as a state and in our individual communities are working towards changing

that, but we're we're still getting there. So, okay. Well, I I'll wrap up and just say I recognize that EMS has seen about a 16% increase or thereabouts, $3.9 million in the budget book, at least the budget book that I saw in my email this weekend. But I want to just also recognize that the amount of revenue that you're generating and the in the efficiencies that you're trying to bring forward in that

department to me is setting milestones for future growth within the department and and and setting expectations for the future. And that's that's exactly what our departments need to be doing. I have a really young team and um we all got kind of promoted together. I'm lucky that I have some brilliant talent behind me and I think that we can I told you before if you want an empire, we'll

build it. Just give us the tools, right?

So, I have some great young people behind me. We don't do it alone. So, thank you. I have some good guys behind me. Thank you. I yield, Mr. President.

Thank you, Council One Council. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh the only real question I have is uh just an explanation on the salaries. So, we're up about a close to a million dollars, so 11.6% increase. Can you just explain that? Yeah, I can. So, last year, um, when we did our budget, we did it in March and we found out in like July that we were going to be doing the South

Coast contract. So, the South Coast contract, um, I have the numbers here.

My glasses on. right in. So, the South Coast contract is bringing us probably we last year we did um 2,143 calls and we started the contract in October and we've done 5,213 calls so far this year. So, we had to increase our truck base in order to be able to um honor that contract and the needs of the contract. So what we've done is we've we um try to incorporate basic EMTs and paramedics. Our frontline

trucks maintain that double paramedic status, but our um non-emergency transport trucks can either be double basic or paramedic basic which um includes those salaries and they come for the the basics are not salaries not quite as high as a paramedic. But we did have to put on three new trucks which is 24 employees. So we added how much? So we added 24 to this fiscal year. Um between last fiscal year and this fiscal

year we went from 70 to 13. So So that's I guess that's where I was going. So just looking at the position breakdown every seems like every position's filled. It is. So then I guess if you did a midyear higher last year, I would I guess I would expect to see the catch up for the full year salary, but you're still FY25 is is still lower than F. Oh, it's a revised

budget I was looking at. Okay.

So you were 5.7 million in 24 6.9 and 25. So that's the 24 new employees. And we had to hire um we do our own um dispatch system. Um, we do our own uh MIH coordinators who handle our our home visit program and our non-transporting service. So, that was for employees because we had to cover that service. They make sure that we honor the time frame for which we need to respond. So, it's all inclusive.

Um, we didn't add any um other positions other than um street personnel. So, I I guess it does. And what's what's the base salary for? Which which position?

just the average the average seller there's a difference between um a basic EMT with full package is about 60 60,000 55 base and about 60,000 with holidays and a paramedic is somewhere around um 70 yeah 72 or 77 72 yeah top holiday yeah top from FY 24 to 26 how many how many new FTEES do we have we put on from 25 to 26. No, no, 24. And the reason I'm

asking is is when I look at the salaries and wages, FY24 was 5.7 million. Then we had an increase of $1.2 million, right?

So going 24 to 25, it was $1.2 million increase in salaries. Then we have another 1.2 million or another 1 million. So you got $2.2 million over a two-year period for additional. So what happened was like I explained last year when we had our budget approved in March, we had no idea that we were going to take on the Charleston contract. We handled the St. An's contract with two vehicles. So that's 16 people. And then

we needed another two vehicles to handle both contracts. So we've been doing Brown Health. Um but we were never the primary um you we never had the primary contract which we will be starting in July. So we had to put on another 16 employees plus four dispatches which is 20 positions. So I So that would that would be captured in the FY25. So that would explain the the million right. So 25 to

26 I think from 24 to 25 it was like 7 something 75 76 employees up to 91 and then sometime mid year between 25 to 206 we added on to be at 106. Part of that, the reason that there's such a big jump still from 25 to 26 without necessarily increasing from that 106 that we're at today is that they weren't all on for the full year of salary. So, it was a

lesser amount that we really added to the budget. The catch up on that. So, but from 24 to 26, I believe it's almost 30 plus employees that have been added.

So, that's really the $2 million jump.

So, 30, we had 30 from 24 to 25.

Correct. Because each truck is eight people. Each truck in order to do 24-hour coverage is eight employees. 24 to 26 is the over 30 count. Oh, I'm sorry. 24 to 26. Yeah, because that 25 it's kind of a peace meal, but then the official count that we started with FY24 to FY26 is about just over 30, maybe 35 in total.

But just to give you kind of a a picture is the um first year we did the St. An's contract in uh FY24, we made 800 we made $800,000. This year um and we didn't start the South Coast contract until October. We're at 1.6. So we've already doubled our money and covered the salary overages in that contract without seeing the full fruition of the contract, without seeing a full year of that contract.

But you're I don't know. It just the math isn't mathing for me. I'm sorry. I mean, it's it's okay. I'm just I mean, I'm just I can get you those numbers. It's a It's an eyeball test because I'm I'm just looking at education. So, the education hasn't increased significantly, right? So, unless we're saying that we hired 40 individuals without any educational stipens coming in, right, is the educational that's a

salary line item. I'm assuming it's a a stipen. So, we've got it's $350 per employee. Did I not do the right math?

I don't know. Maybe if it's only 350, maybe it does does make sense. But it just seems the educational statement in 24 was 26,000. So, call it 27,000. Then we went to 30,000. We're at 31. Um we're at 35,000. So, I mean, it's only a $5,000 increase and we're talking about close to a million dollars in salaries.

So part of the positions though that have been added are outside of EMTs and paramedics that get that educational stipen. So I think the um dispatchers that have been added don't get that same stipen is why and those have been additional positions that were added in at the same time. Okay. So where in terms of staffing levels is this we're at 106. So what are we looking for?

What's the I guess what's the goal over the next three years? Are we maintaining the 106? We adding additional.

So, um in order for us to be able to um handle a Brown Health contract, we're looking at putting on um two trucks. Um we're going to start with one and see how it how it goes. And if we are able to I'm a slow and steady wins the race kind of guy. So, if I find out that I put on one more truck and we can handle the contract well, then we'll do that.

But if we need to go up to that second truck, then what we're doing is we're not necessarily putting them on 24 hours. We're doing kind of prime time shifts. So, we will put on um another truck. But keep in mind that some of those trucks are not staffed with paramedics. As a matter of fact, a lot of the trucks that are on the IFT sty are we probably have two or three

paramedics per shift. A lot of them are basic EMTs that are doing some of those.

We do uh psychiatric transfers. We do the high acuity transfers, we need paramedics for, but taking um some of the patients home to residents or home to nursing homes, that can be handled by basic EMTs, which their salary is certainly lower acuity than the paramedics, but I certainly won't um my intention is not to go above my means. I always try to stay within I I appreciate that. I I think just from a philosophical

standpoint, you and I just I guess disagree in the operational standpoint.

I I don't I don't think the city of Far should be in the uh the business of doing you know private transportations from you know Charlton and and you know Brown University Health. That that's just my take. I think there's there's a lot and I know there's revenue that comes in. I there's just a lot it's not even about the revenue. So here's the problem. They had a here's my philosophical take. I'm going to give

you my opinion. So what happens is they had a private service that was honoring those two contracts at both South Coast Health and Brown Health and they were underserving the people of the community and the people of the community were waiting in the emergency rooms for anywhere up to three to three and a half hours to get transportation to where they needed to be. It's not that you're

you're going into the private business to make money. You're servicing the people who need to, god forbid, get to a higher acuity. They've been in an accident. They need to get to our own hospital. Those patients were waiting anywhere up to three hours for transportation. But that's not that's not the business but that's not the business we're in. We're in we're a municipality, right? So the services

that we provide are emergency medical services to the residents of Fall River.

So what you're doing is not limited to if you told me that we're only doing transportation for city residents, then I'm okay with that. But our vehicles are driving all over the place and it's not just city residents. We're taking anybody that's coming out of the hospital. We're not in the healthcare industry in terms of making sure that transportation is taking place. And I don't want to get into it because it's

it's aside from from the budget. That's just my personal opinion. I fully recognize that that's where the industry is kind of headed toward um in terms of from a federal standpoint. I just, you know, it's we have we have enough services that we do not have adequate support and funding for. Um and and again, I know you're getting some enough revenue coming in. I just when you start

looking at trash, we privatized uh solid waste collection, right? We we're trying to get out of those types of businesses and we're just adding an additional business that terms of transportation that I don't I personally don't feel that we should be should be doing. But that's just I appreciate your opinion.

That's just my opinion. Really has nothing to do with the budget. Other people that would probably agree, but I I I value your opinion. No, I appreciate that. Uh with that, I yield.

Thank you. Thank you, Council. Another question I have is when you're doing the transportation for those private individuals, is there a different insurance that you would use or is it insured through the city?

if something were to happen for the liability both those based on the patient's health insurance the reimbursement or you talking about no in general if there's an accident and something happens who would cover the we're not self-insured we we have an insurance carrier okay so it's a different Thank you council seat 7 c thank you Mr.

President um question on the org chart.

So is this this is the most updated org chart that the department has? Correct.

Okay. Do you anticipate any changes going forward as far as what this looks like? The only anticipation I have is the addition of employees to um honor our contract with Brown Health. Okay. Do you have a sense of how many employees you may be looking to add in the next 6 to 12 months? We would add eight employees for the Brown Health contract.

As long as we can fulfill our operational needs, we'll maintain that.

And if not, we may go up to 16, but it all depends on operational needs. You never know what that's going to look like until you're there. Of course. Talk about the EMT school for a minute for me. Um, how successful is has that been and do you look to grow that with this new need of of new EMTs? Actually, it's we've had actually a 100% success rate, 100% pass rate with our EMT school. Um,

our deputy chief of roof started that school and it's been very successful.

Um, we actually use those that program as a guidance or a guise to some employees that want to come on to our service. Some do and some don't, but it actually has um we've gotten some really good students who have been taught by our administration who come on to be full-time employees and it's really worked out well for us. Generally speaking, just a ballpark. How many of them who get trained through the EMT

school here in the city remain in the department? Threearters. Okay. And the rest just go for other opportunities elsewhere. Correct. Okay. Or we don't have enough positions. That was my next question. So of that one quarter, some of them just there's no positions available. They come on what we do is we offer them the opportunity to come on PDM and they can come on PDM and wait for an opening for full-time status.

Okay. And as far as the EMT school is concerned, that's something that obviously those candidates pay for and go through that process. Okay, awesome.

And then you mentioned obviously all your positions are filled at this point.

If anything, you're going to be growing them. And then the last question I have is the maintenance on the trucks. So with the expanding fleet that you have, how is maintenance handled with the fleet that you currently have? So we are currently handling it through the maintenance division that we've had. Um, we've been having some talks that um there may need to be some additional

staffing there that EMS will have to um try to work into the enterprise fund, but that's something we're in talks with the city about. Okay. So, something in progress, correct? In in in the future.

Awesome. Keep up the good work. Thank you. I yield. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. There be enough for the questions. I want to thank you very much, Beth, for what you're doing. You do a tremendous job out there. You always have for a long, long time. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Motion to refer to full counsel.

Motion for full council has been made and second. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item number three, fiscal year 2025 quarter three budget report referred on 4225 for hold discussion. Any questions? So, do you want to give us an overview, Beth, in the report or I mean, Emily, or um I mean the the basic overview at this point is that we we are on track um kind of with where we need to be. The the revenues that need to be at 75% are

there. We have um a lot of revenues in the local receipts that are far exceeding um where we should be at and where, you know, we had budgeted for.

So, that looks um healthy at this point in time. Um and then on the expense side, everything, you know, we we have a couple that we know um are running short from certain expenses that we're looking to cover, but in an overall sense, we're we're tracking at the 75% um actually a little bit less than the 75% of where we need to be for the expenses. So things are, you know, going well in, you know,

year-to- date budget at this point um of the quarterly book. Thank you, Council C1. Council, thank you, Mr. President.

So the only question I have and just speaking to the local receipts, can you just speak to the investment income? So, uh, the original budget was 800,000. Um, revised budget was showing 700,000. We've collected an additional $2.6 million above that. So, total 3.3.

Yes. Um, um, so I I guess so just if you can two-part question. So, if you can speak to that and then um, do we do we expect that continued uh, type of collection for the investment income?

because if if not if if you remove that if we say it's a it's an offset it's a one-time increase for this year then I think that significantly you know shows a different story in terms of being close to that 75% that you would expect for the for the third quarter. Yeah. So um you know looking specifically at the investment income I can tell you that the $3.3 million number that's in here right now

is actually only through February. It's not through the end of March. Um, so through um the end of March, we're actually at 3.6 million. Um, the timing of when that's recorded to when this book is published is is off um because of bank statements and and the timing of that closing. So um that's why it's not included at this point. This also um it has been decreasing from you know July, August, September to what we've

got in July uh January, February, March um because we have seen rates decrease some. It is still significantly over the budgeted amount. Um we we did kind of know that the rates might be coming down with all of the economic changes that are taking place um with the administration change that happened. So we kind of knew some of that was going to come. Um but we don't see it, you

know, we know the $67 million amount is going to come down and was going to come down. Um but we still think that, you know, looking at next fiscal year that we should be upwards of, you know, 3 million to three and a half in total by the end of the year um for FY26. So as much as for investments or total for investment income. So as much as you

know we are coming down in that you know $67 million amount was I'm going to say an anomaly it's it's also still greater than you know 700 800,000 so in that sense it's it's adjusting the other thing to look at for the local receipts that you're seeing I mean there are other numbers so motor vehicle excise the timing of that again when the bills were due for that main issuance um

and then the fact that we do have different commitments that go out other than the one um large one. So, year to date, we're actually um 555 550,000 over budget already for motor vehicle excise. Um and then the meals and rooms tax and cannabis excise, those are quarterly payments. So, what you're seeing there are, you know, three quarters worth of payments. So, all of those still have another quarter of

payments that are going to come in. So, they are coming in healthy overall even without the investment income in here.

Um the Medicaid reimbursement is also only two quarterly payments. Um not even three quarterly payments. So in general the whole of the department or the section I said it's not a department. This whole section is still doing well overall.

Yeah. So I I guess the question would be and I haven't seen the budget but um I know we have it. What are you budgeting for next year in investment income? Um, it's I I don't want to say off top of my head because I was I played with it a little bit, but it's definitely three or three and a half million. Still pretty close. Yep. Okay.

All right. Thank you. I yield. Thank you, Council. Any further questions?

Council C2, Council Dion.

Um can you explain under um administrative services the city administrator um it shows that 102% um 186,000 paid. Can you explain what how how that how that works out? Yes. Um so there's a two-part answer to that. Um the timing at this point because we are now two months a month removed from this is a little bit mixed in my brain but I know that at one point um so we do pay

for the grant writer salary out of this budget as you're aware. We pay for 50% of it. The school pays for the other 50%. Um um I'm talking about the city administrator. It's paid out of the city administrator salary budget is the problem. So the city administrator salary budget is the full city administrator and then half of the grant writer. But the way that we actually operate it is technically the full

amount of the grant writer comes out and then the city the school reimbures half of it. So I believe when I looked at this that half reimbursement hadn't happened yet. So there's that part of it but the other part um this salary is going to be over budget this year because of the payout that happened when we lost our city administrator. So while there was you know a couple of months of

salary that we wouldn't have to pay, there's still the payout. So it's it is probably actually going to land right around this. But this isn't the full picture at this point. So will will it'll all be reflected. We'll see it in the fourth quarter. Yeah, absolutely.

And then there is a projected number in the budget book now that includes the reimbursement from school department. Um and then the payout is included in there. So the number that's in the budget book that you'll see for the FY25 projected is what we expect for the full year.

So at that point we'll have the reimbursement as well. Yes. And the numbers will be accurate. Yes. Okay. Um the water enterprise I think I don't know if it was a um typo if something with the formula.

So the revised budget was 16,17394. The actual is 11,856414. So we've actually received uh 73% of the revenue. But yet total available remains at the revised budget amount of 16 million. It's definitely a formula error. Yeah. Yeah. So we have that issue. So that's with the water enterprise and it's with EMS rate revenue as well. Awesome. Yeah. Uh sewer rate is accurate but yeah I noticed

there was some a problem with those two.

Okay. We should you should review these before we submit them. I said we should have these you review these before we submit them. That'd be helpful. Um I think we get we get so used to looking at these numbers, you know, on repeat and we, you know, check the detail amount of them and and then sometimes we just oversight and so we're we're working to um change that and also the

way these are formulated so that there's things that will help catch those errors in the future. Okay. Yeah. Hey, we all we all make mistakes. Uh with that, I yield. Thank you. Thank you, counselor.

Thank you, Council C1.

Thank you. Can you just speak a little bit more to the uh city administrator's buyout? So I'm just looking at the munus report. So the retirement buyout is listed as just under 50,000. So was that a salary buyout or was that vacation like a crude time? So and if so, how much was the buyout? I that buyout that you see there is is what the full buyout is. So retirement buyout is a term that

needs to change. It's really just an employee buyout. So when they leave the breakdown of that I don't have um and it's not something that I oversaw at that point in time. So it's something I can you know we can work to get you offline but I don't know the breakdown of that. It's not so we we don't know if it's 100% salaries or 50% vacations.

Yeah. I I don't know at that point you know what it what it would include and what that agreement was. Um I just can tell you the number that was charged in there because that happened. Right. Can you I guess can you just forward that to the city council?

Yeah. Thank you. I yield. Thank you, council.

There being no further questions.

Move on to item number four.

Communication. The mayor and school committee request the init initiate to file an unfunded mandate petition with the state auditor's office relative to the city's obligation to fund student transportation referred on 482025. the whole discussion and refer to m full counsel for action or we can give it leave to a draw.

Any questions? Any comments? Motion to referral full counsel. Second. Motion refer to full council as made in second.

All in favor? I any opposed? Motion carries.

Move on to item number five. In accordance with the provision of chapter 44 section 32 of the Massachusetts general laws. I recommend a follow appropriation to the honorable body that the sum of 2,500,000 be and the same is hereby transferred to the employer health trust fund from the fiscal year 24 surplus revenue.

Is there a motion? No. I'm sorry.

Council T2. Councelor Dian, you have a question? Yes. Um, so this transfer is for what purpose?

So um the amount that the healthc care um was funded at in that FY25 budget is short from what was needed. So we did do a transfer back I want to say in January or February for 2.5 million. Um we funded it that short. So um right now we've been kind of battling off every month a deficit in that fund um because the expenses are coming in higher than the revenue is. So, this is hopefully

the last transfer that we'll need from um the free cash to help. So, what you're saying is essentially we were $5 million short in this budgeted item.

Yes. And how much what percentage has it gone up?

So, FY 24 to 25 expenses um have gone up about 6% I believe it is. Um thought it was eight. So that's from FY 20 to 26 is 8 and a half%. So FY 204 to 25 it it was a 5% increase. Um we are running a little bit higher than that 5% increase in actuals right now. Um just because the cost of things are kind of coming in higher than what we

anticipated it being. Um, and if you look at the budgeted numbers, um, from the FY24 appropriation to the FY25 appropriation, there was not a 5% increase in appropriation. And so, that right there is is why we're shortfunded.

We knew there was going to be a 5% increase in expenses. And granted, like I said, we're we're running a little bit higher than that right now, maybe 5 a half%. Um, but we only funded a 7% increase in the appropriation. So, we are we just underfunded I don't I don't know how else to put it at this point.

So, we're strictly we're strictly talking in the FY25 budget. Correct. So, that 5% increase based on what you're saying in terms of dollars and cents represents $5 million roughly.

Yes. And it the five million and the 5% it just happens to be five and five, but it it's not. So in in that sense when we're looking at now FY26 you know I talk about an 8 and a half% increase but we also if you look at you know the FY25 original appropriation to what FY26 needs to have as an appropriation.

It's almost a $10 million difference because we not only have an 8 and a half% increase but because we have to still make up what we were supposed to have increased in 25. So it's a it's a very large jump because of that.

Okay. Thank you. I yield. Thank you, Council. Constant C5 comes back for the program. Yeah. Coming off on that, it's the 2.5 now. Um, correct. For the health insurance, but are you going to be coming back again? I thought we were going to need even more than this. So, we had already done another two and a half. And so with yeah, with those with those two with that $5 million transfer,

I will say that at this point in time, we are still projecting to be a little bit short, but there's other revenue sources that we're looking to kind of take in that are outside of the general fund to make up that difference.

So, we still may end up short. I know I talked to Kevin Almeter in the school department and he talked about how much their health insurance went up. Yes.

Um, so and the city side the same thing.

All right. But you're not sure. You may come back and ask for more. There's always a chance before June 30th, but you know, at this point in time, we we do think we have it covered. Covered.

Okay. I yield. Thank you, Councy One.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, the the shortfall, so the $5 million, Blue Cross Blue Shield comes through with claims, right? Anticipated claims. So are are you saying that Galla did did our consultant Gallagher make a recommendation not to fund it that we we felt that the trend analysis wasn't going to be where it should be with the 5 million or was that an internal conversation in terms of I guess let me

step back. Was this decision based on a trend analysis? So did we see the increase? So Blue Cross Blue Shield runs our analysis. They they look our at our claim projections and they said you've got to increase this by 5%.

So internally we we have conversations and we're saying well the trend analysis is really showing us it's more like a 3% and so we're not going to go to the 5% put $2 million at risk whatever the case may be. So to be very clear from my side of things I was not here for any of those conversations when that budgeting was done last year. So I don't fully know but from the conversations I've

since had with the administration and from HR um you know Gallagher did provide an amount saying you know we recommend you fund at this amount. Um, historically, you know, even prior to 25, they've always set an amount and we've always come in a little bit under that. Um, knowing that, you know, they're more conservative than we feel like we need to be and we usually have a fund balance that we feel like we can

risk some of that.

Um, and this I mean, we came in about 5 million short. Even if you I'm going to say played those games of they said this amount we want to come down a little bit. I mean, we came in upwards of five million $6 million under what they said we should fund it at. So, I don't know.

I don't know if there was an error made.

I don't know if there was a misunderstanding in what they provided.

I don't know if it was a conscious decision. I I wasn't here for part of that. But, you know, I know that from the administration side, from HR side, they said that we thought we were funding a 5% increase. If you look at the 24 appropriation to the 25 appropriation, it's not a 5% increase.

So, I don't know where that broke down.

I don't mean to interrupt, but I I mean it $5 million is a big swing. Yeah, if you if you told me that we were talking about a million dollars, then okay, I I recognize it was self-insured. We've got claims that we have to pay for, but I just I I struggle with the fact that we've got a budget presentation before us um with regard to healthcare and we we already know healthcare has a

significant impact whether or not we have 100% of net school spending and and things of that nature. So there's there's a whole lot that kind of goes into into this situation, but at some point we have a consultant that I'm I'm assuming, at least based on my experience, comes in at a monthly basis, shows you where we are, funding ratio, um exposures that we potentially have, reimbursements that you might have from

uh prescription drugs, things of that nature that's going to net it off. So at what point do we do we realize that we're 5 million off, right? So we're already in the third quarter, right? So, so and this is and this is where I struggle with um proper notification to the city council and and I had this conversation uh with the prior um finance director in terms of making sure

that one, you know, at at the end of the day, the city council is all about appropriations right?

So for a while there, and I'm not saying that it's happening now, but you know, there was there was a disregard for the city council and the funding appropriations and and folks really didn't care whether or not they were overspending their line items, right? So not coming down to the city council for transfers, coming after the fact, forcing our hands to we either make a transfer or you you're running a deficit

which is just going to hit your free cash. So you're putting us in an awkward position. So, I I'm just trying to figure out, you know, I guess I would like an answer from you and it doesn't need to be here in in a public meeting, but at least a response to figure out what really transpired, right? Because it just gives me a little bit of a hot burn uh knowing that we're going into,

you know, budget season again. And, you know, if we if we had that issue this fiscal year was to say we're not going to have it again, and I obviously you're new, so I'm sure you're going to tell me that you're gonna assure us that it's not going to take place again. But there there's this check and balance that takes place every month. I mean, yeah, you know, I I experience it every single

month. So, I I I recognize that when Blue Cross Blue Shield comes in, they're they're typically higher. But when you're talk talking about a 5% swing, that's that's an increase, an annual increase. So, that means we completely ignored. Yes. A full year's increase for healthcare and essentially level funded health. If you look at the budget, it is it is level funded. It was it's like I

said, a 7% increase. We went from about a 37.2 2 million appropriation to a $37.9 million appropriation. I mean, in the scheme of health insurance when we were supposed to doing a 5% increase, I'm going to call that level funded, right? I don't disagree. That is what happened in the budget. How and why that decision was made, I don't I wasn't here for that. And again, everything that the

people who still work here now say, well, we we all talked about a 5% increase that the messaging was 5% increase that we were budgeting for a 5% increase. We were doing a 5% increase.

So when you look at the math, it's not a 5% increase. So how that I don't know how that happened and and nobody else seems to know either. So So it was it was either a a big error, right, in an oversight, which is significant to the tune of $5 million or it was let's turn a blind eye and let's go through get the budget passed and let's try to figure

out if we can come up with $5 million because yeah, I don't at the end of the day June 1st you have to have a balanced budget to us, right? So I I don't know.

Right. Okay. And and the council has questioned the number of, you know, things that have come down before us in terms of the budget and, you know, the sustainability of the budget and whether or not it truly is balanced. I just I just find it hard to believe we're in, you know, the third quarter and we're talking about a $5 million transfer over to it. So, you know, I I don't want to

belabor the point. I I would just like to know one if you can give me or at least the council, you know, what Blue Cross Blue Shield's recommendations were. Yep. uh what Gallagher had recommended for a funding ratio and then if you can give us the you know the last uh what do we um eight months um of Gallagher's analysis that they give you and to show you where we are for each of

the uh yep the plans that we have to show where where we stand in terms of the fund ratio that would show us exactly where the deficit is. So I'm just curious to see in in you know July uh is is the first month showing a significant you know fund loss in terms of of the overall year. Yeah. I mean we started the year with a negative fund

balance too because I I yeah we it's I I have I'm going to say theories and speculations on kind of where it went wrong and I can tell you that I don't think any of it was intentional. Um but I also am just looking at data and and kind of comping exactly what you're asking for. I can provide it all because I've been studying it to try and figure

this out and and I can show you exactly where I think you know some of the breakdown happened and so it seems very unintentional again you know based on conversations you know meetings I've heard presentations I've heard you know it was under the mindset that we had increased it by this amount and so where that broke down at you know we can talk about speculate but it's and can you

just also make sure that and I I know you're probably already doing this but we're not missing reimbursements from, you know, whether it's CDA or whoever else is supposed to grants that we're supposed to be uh getting reimbursements for for the healthcare. Yeah. And so I will say that in the budget book that you were provided with, I did kind of add in more data that's not been in there before in that way to

show exactly from Gallagher to the math of where we're at. I kind of added some of that in because of what I have found and what I think has been happening. So to try and help prevent that in the future. So we can definitely have further conversations on that. Um provide more data. I'm not looking to point fingers at who we're going to blame. I'm just looking to make sure that it doesn't happen again. When we've

identified what the issues were, we've addressed it and we're not to your point where it's not going to happen again.

But I I also do have concern in terms of timing and notification to the legislative body that's responsible for making transfers. Right. So, yeah, I know technically you can make a a legal argument there's not a there's not a deficit until the end of the year, but I' I'd argue with you know what your projections are. So, the minute you know that there's a deficit, you should number one either be putting a some type

of spending freeze or hiring freeze to make sure that the deficit is not uh continuing to grow or come down to the city council uh in an appropriate amount of time uh for additional transfers. And I and I know this is again you we've come down before us come down before us in the past to get this and this is a second time for for a transfer and I I recognize we've done it a couple times

but I I just I I think we just need a little bit more transparency. That's all. Agreed. All right. Thank you.

Constit.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, I wanted to kind of break into this a little bit.

Um, not not to be repetitive, but is is is this an actual shortfall or is this a result of health care costs increasing 8 and a half%. No, the the 8 and 12% increase is what we are saying from FY25 to FY26. So that amount, so for the full FY26 from the full FY25, there should be about an eight and a half percent increase. So that 8 and a half% increase I'm going to

say is being set aside for right now, right? The 5% increase was supposed to be from all of 24 to all of 25. There was supposed to be a 5% increase. And again, if you look at that appropriation order, it was not a 5% increase on that.

So that right there is is that discrepancy to begin with. So it is funded short from that part. The other part is that now what they said is expect this 5% increase. We're coming in at about 101% from what they told us July 1 to expect. What they told us, you know, in March before that budget was being put in of what to expect. We're coming in at about 101% of that amount

right now. So in that sense, that 1% is obviously over what they had expected.

So those costs are a little bit higher than what we anticipated. So a very small portion of this is from that. So you don't think this is a shortfall because you spent money elsewhere?

Absolutely not. Or you you spent money that was allocated elsewhere? Absolutely not. If you look at the appropriation order to what we have been putting into it because of that, you know, because of that was was budgeted and that was what was anticipated. It is it is it is just short from what we were supposed to have put into it.

I really I don't know if councelor look requested that but I I'd really like to see that in in an Excel document or in I have I mean I have a copy of one of the quarters that he's asking for right here. It is something that I mean we sure we do get it every month and we do look at it. So I I definitely I have that information readily available to

you know share with all of you. I've been, you know, from day one of me stepping into this role. It was something that I had just before been made aware of and already started kind of digging into in my previous, you know, role with the city. So, I was already starting to look at it and I I just knew I mean it was a a big flag that had already kind of

been raised that I've just been diving into as much as possible over the last couple of months to really figure out, you know, what happened. And then there's a part of it that you know whatever happened that we kind of came up this short in the budget but you know just figuring out also how to move forward from that because the reality is we're we're short right now. So and it's

not because of the increased cost of health insurance because the city runs usually what is 8% in comparison to the state's average of 15 to 20 25%. That's just for next year's increase. The state right now is looking at a 15% increase.

Well, wouldn't you wouldn't you feel that if you keep spending if you keep budgeting the same amount you have this year, it will impact next fiscal year, but I don't see I don't see the I don't see the the deficit with the exception of the money that you're talking about. So So because what you're looking at there's there's two different data points. So the healthc care is funded through a trust

fund which is not the general fund. So the general fund pays money into that and so that's the $37 million appropriation. So you're right right there. You see no deficit and we don't spend over that. So if if the trust fund expenses needs 40 million and we only have 37 appropriated, we don't put a penny more than that 37 over until we come down for more. So in that sense,

you're right. We don't you will not see anything going over in that sense on the general fund. On the healthcare trust fund side, if you look at the quarterly report in there, I mean you can see that there's a negative number in there. We are very short now in that trust fund because of the timing of these expenses.

So I will say that we didn't obviously let a bank account go negative in that sense. So there are transactions that happened that are dated for April because it was the portion that we typically would have done you know April 1st, May 1st. We've been putting that in early so that we don't run short. So we've been kind of burning through our monthly appropriation. What's Gallagher's role been involved in this?

They tell us what we need and and where were they last year? They told us what we needed and it's up to us to appropriate. I I mean they don't send down the appropriation orders. They don't make our budget book. So if they say this is what you need to appropriate and we don't do that. That's not on them to dictate. Sure. But I just remember and this is just speaking out loud now.

I remember because during the budget presentation last year, if you recall, I was pretty hyperfocused on the healthcare account and unfortunately I didn't get the necessary support in that department to see it because it didn't make any sense to me then and now it makes more sense to me now. But I was, it was warranted to us, not your problem, but it was warranted to us that Gallagher reviewed the documentation

prior to getting it sent down is what the former CFO said, but clearly that didn't happen. I mean, they they reviewed this type of document that they sent us. Yes. And how we translated that into this, right? But that's in the third quarter of the current fiscal year that we're in now. Well, we get these monthly. We get these before the year starts saying this is what to expect next year. No, in that sense, that's

what I think Gallagher had reviewed before it went. So, Gallagher doesn't review your onset offset budgets before you send them down to the city council.

No, I mean they give us this that we put take their numbers and decide to put it into here. So, what is their role exactly? May I just point of information, Mr. President? Sure. Just to my colleague, so the only edification is is that Galaga doesn't have any insight into the trust fund. So, that's the trust fund is a checking account, right? So, we don't see the checking account. So, all we're doing is taking

the money from the general fund, depositing the money into the trust fund, which is the checking account where all the bills get paid. Gallagher is solely looking at the claims, what the health uh cost, health care cost, the insurance increases are going to be, and then they make a recommendation based on information coming from Blue Cross Blue Shield, what the funding mechanism is. They're not looking into

the checking account saying you're in the deficit, right? They expect us to know how that needs to be funded. They just say you're going to have I'm going to just make up a number so it's not specific. They're going to say you need a hundred million and so how you fund the hundred million is is up to us whether we charge this person or that person or this outsource if it's from

general fund. So in that sense they don't they're not there to dictate to us you know who's responsible for what portion and that's where I think the breakdown all right I just wanted to make sure that the increase isn't because of the cost of healthare it's it's like I said it's it's a nominal it's 101% of what they told us. So there's that 1% that is truly just from the cost spiking higher than we

anticipated, but it it's mostly because it was not funded properly. Thank you. I yield. Thank you, Council. There be no further questions.

I want to thank you, Emily, for coming down and as always getting a credible amount of information back to our counselors.

A motion to adjourn finance.

Second. All in favor? Any opposed? City

Council, Alison. Yes.

City council meeting will now come to order. The clerk will call the role.

Council Kadim here. Dion here. Hart here. Kilby here. Pereira here. Ponty here. Reposo here. Tip here. And president here. Will everyone in the council chair please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

Please remain standing for salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for 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 through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and not deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Before we begin, I just want to welcome our newly sworn in city councelor Ricky Tith. Congratulations and welcome to your first city council meeting. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam clerk, Mr. President, can I make a motion to take six and seven out of order? Motion to take six and second out of order has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Clerk, start with item number six. Item number six is a communication from the mayor and a proposed home rule petition regarding the appointment of the chief of police.

Motion to adopt. Second. Motion to adopt has remained seconded on the motion.

Council C2, Council Dian. Yeah, I just want to comment that um from my standpoint and I know other people also spoke to it. um that what I wanted was a process um that going forward I thought that was something that was important something I want asked looked for for years and now we thankfully are at the point where we are we have received um step one in creating a process

and I I'm I'm I'm glad we were able to get to this point and um perhaps take a lot of the politics out of the problems And with that, I yield. Thank you, Council. Councelor in seat six, Council P. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so, uh, I concur with my colleague in seat two.

Um, when it comes to the home world petition to appoint a future future down the road, not the current police chief that we have. Um because you're right, it takes politics out and it creates a process through civil service that is I I think much more complex than I think we realize. Some of the conversations that I've had today uh makes the process fair. Um the candidates have to not

necessarily pass an exam, but go through a rigorous interview process. And I think it accomplishes exactly what this city council is trying to accomplish by having a process by which how we we we select our future chief to lead our our our men and women in law enforcement.

With that being said though, the time period that it's going to take for the general court to get through this is how long do do we have any idea generally speaking? I mean this is a this is a process. I don't know. I'll defer to anybody how long it's going to take for this to go into effect. Does anybody know? Because the reason I asked this question, I don't know if if corporation

council or anybody's here was be able to prepare to speak on this. I'd like to know that because it's going to affect the decisions going forward with the current contracts before us tonight.

Well, the rules come down to on that point. Um, it's my understanding that Senator Rogers is going to carry this up. Um, they're going to file a home petition, but to the council's point, how long will that take? Well, like I said, I'm trying to explain. He he's he's going to send it up. Um and of course I I believe all the other reps fall River are going to sign up. So I

would think um with his um his authority up there it it'll happen as soon as they take it up. So it could happen um I think within within six months to a year. I don't know if they're out they're out now, right?

Um, so I'm sure when they reconvene, um, they it'll should be taken up right away within I would think within definitely within a year. There's another item on agenda compromise with regard to a one-year contract. I'm sure it's going to be exactly correspond with that motion to wave the rules, Mr. President, to ask corporation second one. So just uh so CCON we submitted a home rule

petition just to change board selecting to select board that was done November 11th. So committee hold on hold on hold on yet. So the committee is um hearing that home rule petition now so next week. So it's it's six months before that's just in committee. So once the committee hears it, I don't know how many uh meetings they're going to need, but um you're talking about at least

what council Kilby said, it's going to be six months to a year to get that out of committee at least.

Okay. And that's assuming there's no issues with it. All right. Um fine. Um I appreciate that to my colleagueu's point. if there's no issues, if there's no opposition, if there's everybody can agree up there to figure it out and get along and and do this. Um, I I guess I will reserve my comments on the proposed ordinance in the reappoint for the next agenda item, but I'll just I'll just

summarize by saying I think it's a great step in the right direction. And I know some of us have been possibly criticized by making the votes that we took to delay the process or or see that this process get done the right way. If anything comes of this, the process is going back if it gets done through civil service, which is the right process because we don't have the same problems

as we do with the police uh with with uh the police chief as we do with fire. And I know councelor Pekkham spoke about this. he tried to get this done prior to leaving, but it's a process now that I think if anything good comes of this unfortunate political turmoil that we've been going through. We've all maybe come together to make sure this process gets done correctly going forward. Um, but

I'll reserve my comment on the ordinance and the current process for the next agenda item. I yield. Thank you, Council. Council T5, did you have your hand up or not? No, I was you're asking me. No, I was just going to say I did make phone calls today to state representatives and that's what I was also told that it would probably be six months to a year um to pass this

through. Okay. Oh, thank you. With that, I yield. Thank you, councelor.

Motion has been made and second to adopt. All in favor? Any call on that?

If you want to roll call what is this on number one or number six to set a home?

The home petition. The home rule petition.

Yes. Roll call. You don't need to on adoption. Councilors Kadim, yes.

Dion, yes. Hart, yes. Kilby, yes.

Pereira, yes. Ki, yes. Reposo, yes. Tip, yes. President, yes.

Motion carries.

Want to pick up item number seven.

Item number seven is a communication from the mayor in a proposed ordinance regarding the appointment of the chief of police. Motion to refer the committee on ordinances. Second. Motion refer to committee on ordinance and legislation as made in second. On the motion council seat two council. Yeah. Can I make a motion to wave the rules have cooperation council come down? Second.

Second. Motion to wave rules as made and seconded. All in favor? I opposed.

Motion carries down the change.

Council C2, Council Dian, you have the floor. Good evening.

So, um I know that the reason that this is on our agenda is because our ordinance at the present time violates Mass General law. Is that correct? That's correct.

So, we need to obviously change our ordinance to be in compliance because uh Mass General law supersedes any ordinance. So, my question is, I know we're shortly going to be voting um to amend the contract to a one-year contract as opposed to a three-year contract. My question is, are we able to do that prior to this going to ordinance and legislation, or is the fact that the ordinance violates Mass

General law give us the ability to do that? Now, I think you're fine going forward for a number of reasons. one just exactly what you said. Um, but the the idea is that the ordinances are created by this body and it's not something we've missed. It's not something that we forgot about. The fact that this body here, knowing that the ordinance exists, knowing that we're trying to change it, then takes a vote,

you know, in if you wanted to vote in favor of a one-year contract, I don't see any problem whatsoever because, as I said, they're your ordinances. You could, if you wanted to, change them right now. And that's essentially what you're kind of doing here. So, so beyond the vote, sending this to ordinance and and legislation is basically just house cleaning. Correct. Correct. And and put

bringing us into compliance. Right. And there's nobody that would be able to challenge it. I mean, I I the the proposed chief would be on board. This this body would be on board. The mayor would be on board. Everybody has full knowledge of what we're working with here. So, nobody can claim that they uh didn't understand what's happening.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I yield.

Thank you, council. Council one, Council Kadim, thank you. I just want to claim that I have no idea what's happening. Uh cuz because I don't I so I mean the information that we received it just says attach please find a revised ordinance 2-41 as it relates to the position of police chief for your review and consideration. So unless I missed it and then it just goes in striking the ordinance and I didn't go

back and see what we were striking. For whatever for whatever reason, our ordinance had a minimum. It was a three to fouryear contract mandated by ordinance. Although the state statute doesn't have any term of years. So what we're taking out is the fact that it has to be a minimum of three and not more than four years. Also that the terms and conditions shall be determined by the

mayor and approved by the city council.

Okay. So I I will say that it's not unusual uh police chiefs and fire chiefs all if they're not in civil service have all received uh multi-year contracts, but it it conflicts with Massachusetts general law because Massachusetts general law says it's up to three years.

No, it's uh it's a one-year contract subject to funding. So, even though you're giving a three-year um contract to a police chief or a fire chief, the legislative body can decide not to fund the position and that contract is null and void. That's that I mean that that's the real issue. I don't know an ordinance that's going to change that.

Yeah. So, the only the only individuals that are allowed to have multi-year contracts that are not not subject to legislative uh appropriation of funding is uh city managers, town administrators, uh business managers. I I think nurses might be in there. Um and then I think finance directors are the only ones that are really called out for multi-year contracts. All of the contracts, even you know, directors,

every department head that we have is is technically a one-year contract. It's all subject to appropriation.

So, I'm I'm okay with I just did I personally when I was looking at this, I didn't know what we were changing because it seems like again, shame on I should have went back and seen what the the ordinance currently read, but I realized if you want to take that's okay. I just didn't know that we were saying that there was a violation or conflicting language that was in there from general law. That's all. I yield.

Thank you, councel. Any further questions? No. Thank you very much, Mr.

Ramsey.

Motion to adopt. I'm sorry. Motion to refer to command ordinance legislation has made and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Madam cler.

Item one on the council agenda is a communication from the mayor and the request for the confirmation of the appointment of Kelly Fatu to police chief and the order request. Motion.

Motion to lift from the table. Motion to lift the table. Hasn't made seconded.

All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Motion to uh Motion to adopt. Second.

Second. Motion to adopt hasn't made and seconded. On the motion, Councy 2, Council Diana. Um yeah, I believe the clerk was going to um point out and discuss the amended contract. Yes. So um the first matter would be the confirmation of the appointment and second would be the contract and we did receive and council all should have on their desks an amended contract which is um for a term of one year. So we're

voting on the first one now. Excuse me.

Yeah, we're voting on number one um to appoint or not appoint uh Kelly Fado with a one-year amended contract. Um, so I I would just like to say that and I'm speaking only for myself. As I said earlier, my argument has been a process, wanting a process, needing a process.

Obviously, with the fact that we're probably not going to accomplish our goal for anywhere from 6 months to a year. We cannot have a vacant position.

We can't have a temporary chief for a year.

Um so as a result of that we need to determine who will serve as chief for that year until the process um becomes a reality. And with that I yield. Thank you council president. Thank you Mr.

President. Um, so I I I hear what my colleague in seat 2 just mentioned and I don't want to go backwards here, but I want to bring into perspective the importance of an interim chief or somebody that we're giving a one-year contract to. Okay.

The city of New Bedford is actually doing their process the correct way, which is to have a screening committee commenced that has a United States uh an a retired assistance a retired assistant United States attorney, a counselor, a president of a bus company, former secretary of Massachusetts economic public safety, a judge, retired judge, retired judge, sorry. Um, retired former Massachusetts state police trooper,

a president of a neighborhood association, the chief of sta, a former chief of staff to the White House Office of National Drug Control and Policy, and Mayor Mitchell in New Bedford is working with his city council to make sure that the street screening committee gets together and brings the correct chief for the department.

Why should we be any different? We talking we're talking about a process that needs to be a transparent one and to give somebody a one-year contract. We're we're we're we're saying the complete opposite of what we really want. And that process isn't a fair and transparent process. It is a process that is being forced down the council's throats because all of a sudden we have to hurry up and bring a police chief who

is there in an interim basis already.

I'm not going to go backwards in terms of my thoughts on cred credibility and integrity. I've already expressed those. I'm talking now strictly about the process. So for a year or six months, it doesn't make a difference to me. If we're going to appoint a contract for a year, why can't we do it the right way?

That's all I'm asking for. I I I I don't The the the department has an interim chief right now. Counselor in seat one said that it might be six months, it might be a year, it might be two years before the legislature gets this home world petition passed. We don't know. It's all an opinion. But from my standpoint, we have the ability to do this the right way. And we're not doing it the right

way. We file uh ordinances or or or resolutions at our prior meeting that say, "Let's make sure we have a committee together." And then now it's back before us again, an amended one-year contract because we have to hurry up and get this done. And I'm struggling with the fact that why we have to hurry up and get this done. Why?

What is the rush? We have an interim chief. Council president said uh the uh at two meetings ago, the police are still reporting to people's houses. 911 still picks up the phone. People are still the detectives are still working.

Police details are still occurring. It's not this atrocity that's occurring in the for police department. We have the ability to do this the right way right now. And we're not. if we have to hurry up and get this done for a quick one-year contract. And again, it's like, hurry up and do it.

Hurry up and do it. Hurry up and do it.

We have an interim chief that she's she's she has deputies. They're they're doing fine, but there was no milestones that were prepared or created. There was no evaluations done. None of it is being done the right way. And it's just wrong. Like I really want us to think about the process here. So, and and and I am really unsure and I know we objected to this before, but this

contract is up before us tonight as a as a new item for a one-year contract. It was presented to us last time not at a one-year contract. So, we'll see where the debate goes here tonight. But to me, this is new again.

I don't know if we want to keep kicking the can down the road, but maybe if we keep kicking the can down the road, we'll all develop a process which is the right one, which is a fair process and a transparent process. That's all I want here. It's all I want. I ask my colleagues to really think about this right now because that's where we're at.

I yield for now. Thank you. Thank you.

The only thing I think you forget to mention, council, is that city of Bford had 21 applicants apply for that position, right? If I'm correct, if I may, Mr.

president because they posted the position and they interviewed people. I mean, it's a touchy subject. I get it and people are but I just want to point out the fact that there was 21 applicants for the city of Memphis Counc.

No, just move the question. Okay, we debated this at Nauseium.

Okay, let's move. Are we doing item one for the three-year? Because as my colleague said, they objected on that.

We're giving that leave to withdraw and go with the one year. If it's the one year, then it's going to be another which is a one-year contract which is amended. One year we're doing a one-year amended contract. Voting on the voting on the appropriation on the appointment.

Say it. I'm sorry. We're voting on the appointment. The appointment. You're voting on the appointment. Okay. Right now for the one year. Yes. Just the appointment. They're two separate.

There's an appointment and then there's the contract. Very good. That's what I thought, but I they keep saying one year. Thank you.

So there's no amendment on the appointment. Still the same individual.

Yes. Just asking. Make sure it's not a new individual. Okay. Motion to adopt hasn't made and seconded. Roll call.

Okay. Roll call. So this would be the appointment of Kelly Fittado as chief of police. And this would be a motion to confirm. Councelor Scadm, no. Dion, yes.

Hart, yes. Kilby, yes. Pereira, yes.

Ponty, no. Reposo, yes. Tip, um, no.

President Camra. No.

Motion carries. Motion carries.

And the next item before you is that the appointment by the mayor of Kelly Patado as chief of police be in the same as hereby confirmed and be it further ordered that the contract attached here to and incorporated by reference is hereby approved as amended. If the council so wishes as amended for one year for the Sure.

point of information. This is new, right?

This is a new This is a new appointment, Mr. President. Madame Clerk, this is the first time I've seen a one-year contract. We're not amending anything.

It's new. Well, the term of the contract being amended, it's not a Everything else is the same except for the term.

So, I don't I don't know if I would categorize that as new. It is. That's right. Fine. Council C1, Council, new. I just got a number of questions. Uh maybe there are legal questions. I don't know if somebody can answer them, but um so if this contract's not approved or there's an objection to this contract, how is the police chief getting paid? Um and then what what's what's the police chief been getting paid?

I don't have the answers to that question though. Motion to wave the rules. Second. Motion to wave the rules and made second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Come down, please.

Hello. Uh, can I repeat the questions for you? No. Uh, Nick Mlean, director of human resources. Uh, the police chief, the interimm chief's currently getting paid $190,000. It was an interimm appointment, so the salary was set at the interimm appointment. Uh based on what though? So I I guess the outgoing chief had a contract that was approved before. So there's nothing in ordinance

that says the individual gets paid. So I So how is just operating? Where's the where's the mechanism for payment of 190,000? Just operating as interim chief. So um no longer a captain filling the role of interim chief mirroring what um is set in ordinance as a chief is paid by contract. So, or per contract, right? I guess that's that's my that's my concern, right? So, we have an ordinance

that says paid per contract. We have a chief who's been filling in and I appreciate, you know, service out of rank and I'm not trying to suggest that quite quite frankly, I don't disagree with the $215,000 for a police chief.

Um, I did not support the the appointment for a number of reasons.

However, I don't I don't think the the salary itself for a large municipality the size of, you know, the city of Far River, New Beford, Taon, uh, Brockton, uh, that the salary is out of range with what I think a police chief should be paid for. Um, but my question now is how the individual has been paid if ordinance says that it's per contract and there's never been a contract established for an interim police chief.

Um that's just the basic question. So I don't I don't know how an individual gets paid outside of what they've have either through a collective bargaining agreement and collective bargaining agreements are pretty straightforward in terms of what who gets service out of rank when they get receive service out of rank. Individual contracts I mean we don't have you don't carry an individual

contract over to somebody that fills another position. Individual contracts are based on individuals. I hate using the phrase that's how it's always been done, but the city has a long-standing practice of when there is a vacancy and an interims put in there. Um, they have to pick a salary at some point. It's not their current salary. I guess there's all sorts of different ways that you

could take your base and then add to that for, you know, the added responsibilities, but the the city has typically followed the same process with countless other interim appointments.

And I know it's not directed to you. you just unfortunately the individual again that history repeating myself that you're at the table. However, again I think it's a you circumventing the city council and the ordinances that we have before us that basically say we've outlined salaries for individuals and when it says per contract how an individual is then paid outside of what their individual contract has been

approved by the city council or a collective bargaining agreement. I don't understand. And that's this has been going on for how long now? Um since the interim chief was appointed. She's had two different appointments here with the with the extension. So, back to October.

So, just bear with me, right? I just had a conversation about a $5 million deficit in healthcare. We've known that since apparently the beginning of the year. You know, we've got another situation where an individual is being paid that's not in accordance with the ordinance or a collective bargaining agreement. Um there's been obviously no request uh coming down before us to address an interim uh police chief. even

when it was sent back rejected uh you know the the mayor has taken it upon himself to put that individual in the in the same position pay that individual uh I guess in accordance with uh an individual contract that has expired or no longer uh exists because that individual is no longer employed with the the city. So I just that's my that's my concern. I don't know how we continue

to do this. Um the only thing I would suggest is just the safeguard of there being a limit to the temporary appointment. So, I I know that doesn't address how they're paid, but it's not a long-term thing that, you know, it's not to circumvent you. No, I don't I I I know where you're coming from, but it is a circumvent, right? So, at some point, the mayor made an arbitration arbitrary

decision to pay the interim police chief a salary of a prior police chief. That was a per contract, right? So, there is and by charter and in the ordinance. So, the ordinance says per contract. The charter says that any contracts have to be approved by the the legislative body which is the city council. That that goes with you know collective bargain agreements. You know the mayor has the

authority to negotiate uh all the collective bargain agreements with all the various bargaining units. Uh but it does require the city council to approve the funding mechanism associated with it. So one that we have an individual who has been paid. There is no funding mechanism that has been appropriated.

You can say that there is a line item on there. Uh but then I would just then point back down to the uh to the to the ordinance that says it's per contract.

So, show me where the contract is, you know, and from an auditing standpoint, I you know, I I question the internal controls, you know, that the the city auditor should be when a when a salary or or any type of personnel adjustment is made, the city or auditor is signing their name attesting that, you know, there is a contract in place or it's in in line with ordinances and bylaws that

um you know, the city has. So, you know, there's a there's a number of breakdowns that have taken place. I'm not I'm not going to belabor it. I'm just curious that if if this either is objected to or is not agreed upon that individual is still going to be paid the same amount though right now they're making she's making $190,000. Okay. I yield. Thank you. Mr.

President6, is there a buyout here?

I don't believe she has any comp time that would result in buyouts that were previously done with other chiefs. Do you know if the individual is going to So, you don't know if there's going to be a big $80,000 check? I don't believe there's going to be a buyout. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I I'm I don't believe she has the comp time that previous chiefs have accured.

She has no comp time at all. She's used it all. I can't say that she's used at all. It's just not I know it's less than what's been paid out to other chiefs. I don't think there's much there.

So I guess I'm just curious because from a financial perspective in prior years you've we've paid out the police chief once they've be they've become a chief from their service in in in um civil service and their crew time and all that other stuff. So but in this one it seems very odd to me that this individual h doesn't have any sick time comp time. She wouldn't have sick time.

Officers don't acrue that. Um, officers have the ability to utilize the time they've accured, but my understanding is she's utilized the time she's acrewed.

So, she's used all of her time. Again, I can't say she's used all of it. I just know that it is nowhere near what other chiefs have acred and that it would not be a significant bio.

Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Point of Mr. President, uh, Deputy Chief is also here. He may be able to answer that question. That make a motion. Wave the rules. come down.

Motion to wave the rules. Motion to wave the rules and made in second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Just identify yourself for the record. I know we know who you are, but others might not. Deputy Chief JT Deputy Chief of Operations. So, I oversee uh the staffing and personnel. Um currently, Kelly Ferado has 43 hours, I believe, that would be eligible for buyout.

So, a week.

Thank you. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you, Chief.

You good? Thank you very much. Thank you Nick.

Just

a motion to adopt.

Correct. And seconded. Roll call. Roll call. Roll call.

So, this would be adopting the order that I that I read previously um which would approve the contract um at the council's request. It would be the one-year contract.

Council Kadin object.

Councelor in seat six objects. Council, I'm not sure objection is in order today because we're the contract has been done before you. The only difference is the term the the length of years. When did we we've never discussed the contract?

Well, we discussed it was before us. It was presented before. We we were just told it was two separate issues. We have an appointment and a contract. So, everything that we've objected to has been the appointment. We've never had a conversation on the contract. This is the first time we've had the contract.

And quite frankly, it I it says revised.

I I mean I just I think we got this maybe over the weekend if that I know that's when we get our our package but that's madam cler can you just clarify I thought it was the same contract on whether or not this is the first time and I I'm I'm under the opinion it was presented to us before only thing that's been revised is the length of the contract that we have seen before it's

not a new contract it's not clerk so the item before you is the order which adopts well excuse me which approves the contract. The contract that was objected to previously was the three-year contract. The mayor did submit a one-year contract which was forwarded to the counselors last week um on Friday. Um and it's it's the council's wish to vote on the three-year contract, then you vote on the three-year contract.

I object. I you know, I I respect council president, so I I'll let you make the ruling.

I you're the man in charge. So I respect it. Just I appreciate that. I respect your decision as well. I just disagree.

I think this is you cannot we cannot clearly say that this is the first time it's been for us. The only change is the length of the contract. And listen, that's not my doing. I'm just saying that's what it's before us. You can object, but we're not going to uphold the objection. Motion to override the chair's decision.

Motion to override decision made. Is there a second? Roll call. Roll call.

override the president's objection. He's saying that they shouldn't object. It's been before us before the contract.

Although it was threeyear, now it's a one year, but it's the same contract. So now there's two objections on the floor for that. But I can hear what he said.

Okay. Motion has been made in second to override the president's decision. Roll call. Council Kadim, yes. Dion, no.

Hart, no. Kilby, no. Pereira, no. Ponty, yes. Reposo. No. Tip.

We repeat that again. We just motion to override my decision to whether this is a before us for the first time or the second time. So you mean like overrides?

Um not sure what at this one. That's why I'm just want to make sure that it's not approving. It's just my decision to say that this is not the first time it's been for us. So not approving. Okay. Um I mean yes, right? Not approved. Uh yes, President Camar. I think you're confused, but that's okay. No, the override fails. Point of information, the uh contract that's before us that there's a motion on the

floor to adopt is a one-year contract.

Correct. Correct. Thank you. Roll call.

Motion to adopt the one-year contract that's been made. Is there a second?

Second. Roll call.

The motion to approve. Council Kadim, no. Dion, yes. Hart, yes. Kilby, yes.

Pereira, yes. Ponti, no. Reposo, yes.

Tiff, no. And President Clara, no.

The motion carries.

The next item before you is the mayor's request for confirmation of the appointment of Edward Gemont, PhD, as a member of the board of library trustees.

Second. Motion to confirm has remained second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Item three is a communication from the mayor in a proposed ordinance amending the salary of animal control officer. Motion to further the comm. Second. Motion further to comms and legislation is made in second. On the motion, council seat seven council proposal. Mr. President, just a quick clarification. Other than change of salary, is there anything changing for the position itself or just

a change of not to exceed just the salary? I believe it's just a salary.

Okay. Thank you. I yield. Thank you, Councilman. Motion to defer to commun ordinance and legislation is made in second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Item four is a communication from the mayor in an order approving a conservation restriction between VMD conservation FRLC and the trustees of the reservations regarding approximately 1/2 acre parcel of wetlands located in the industrial park. Motion to adopt.

Second. Motion to adopt. That's a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item number five is a communication from the mayor and an order that the sum of $2,500,000 be and the same is hereby transferred to the employer health trust fund from the FY24 surplus revenue.

Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made. Is there a second? Second.

Second. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries. We have a number of requests from the traffic commission to amend ordinances. Motion to refer to ordinances. Mot motion to refer to the committee on ordinance and legislation has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Whereas the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority commuter rail train is now operational within the city of Fall River and whereas residents from neighboring areas near the MBTA commuter rail train tracks have expressed safety and noise concerns regarding the commuter rail and its tracks. And whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the city of Fall River must work together to remedy any new or

ongoing issue related to this development of important intercity transportation. Now therefore, be it resolved that the committee on public safety regularly convene with representatives from the the MBTA, the city of Fall River, and any other interested parties to discuss neighborhood concerns, transportation improvements, and ongoing updates regarding the MBTA commuter rail. Motion

to adopt. Second. Motion to adopt has a made and second, Mr.

on the market. A question through you to the chair of the public safety committee. Is this in addition to the the meeting scheduled on the 22nd essentially? Uh yeah, pretty much. But but the one that's more most important is the one on the 19th where we're going to have the meeting with um uh the chiefs of uh police, fire, MBTA, and I think some of the transportation folks down and some also the north end

neighborhoods uh to uh talk about hopefully mitigating some of the noise that the uh train uh creates during the late hours of uh of the early morning.

Perfect. Thank you very much. I yield.

Thank you. Thank you, council.

Yeah. Motion to adopt has been made and second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Item 10 is a citation for Thomas Quinn, district attorney of Bristol County. Motion to adopt. Second.

Motion to adopt as a meeting and second.

All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 11 is the order granting permission to Mass Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England for a joint pole location on Rianback Road. Motion to adopt. Second. Motion to adopt has been made and second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We have the police chief's report on licenses.

Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the chief's report on licenses. Has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We have the application for renewal of an auto body shop license. Motion to adopt. Second.

Motion to adopt. Renewal has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries. Have a number of claims.

Motion to refer to corporation council.

Motion for the claims corporation council has been made. Is there a second? Second. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

We have an application on behalf of Greater Full River Symphony Orchestra for permission to um to add a structure on a public way on Bedford Street.

Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve as made and seconded. Madam clerk, just what is the size of the ban?

I'm just curious. Um it is it is a very good question.

We do not have dimensions. All right.

And how long are they going to have it up for? Just curious. Um June 1st to June 14th, so two weeks.

Motion to approve has remaining second.

All in favor? Excuse me, Mr. President.

I'm sorry. It says Bedford Street. It will span the street width. Okay. Thank you.

Motion to approve the remaining second.

All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 16 is a communication from a resident regarding road repairs on Grenell Street. Motion for the committee on public works. Motion for the committee on public works and transportation has been made and is a second. Second. Second. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 17 is a thank you card from Jack Hackett regarding the softball. Motion to accept and place on file. Motion accept. Mr.

President, uh, at the meeting when Mr.

Hacket came during citizen input time, uh community development contact. So, shout out to community development for helping out and getting that uh mesh that he needed. I guess he has good ball players up there. Very precisely. Shout out to all the councils that push for it as well. Yeah. Motion to adopt. That's made a motion to accept and place on fire as a made second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

18 are a number of applications for drain layer licenses. Motion to approve.

Motion to approve. Has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries. Have minutes of the zoning board of appeals. Motion to accept. Place on file. Seconded. A motion to accept and place on file has been made and seconded. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Motion to take 20 through 26 together. Second.

Motion takes item 20 to 26. Has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Motion to approve items 20- 26 has been made and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Item 27 is a bulletin from the Mass Department of Public Utilities notifying of a hearing that's being scheduled for June 6. Motion accepted, place on file.

Motion accept and place on file hasn't made. Seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

The Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on May 12th voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance accompanied by an emergency preamble be passed through first reading, second reading, passed to be enrolled and passed to be ordained with conflict deem absent and not voting.

Motion. Motion to adopt. Second. Motion to adopt has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? This would be on the preamble on the emergency roll.

Motion to motion to adopt emergency preamble. On adoption of the emergency preamble. Council Kadim, yes. Dion, yes.

Hart, yes. Kilby, yes. Pereira, yes.

Ponty, yes. Reposo, yes. Tip, yes. And President Chimera, yes. Motion to pass through all readings. Second. Motion to pass all readings as made in second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Committee on Ordinances and Legislation at a meeting held on May 12th, voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading as amended with councelor Kadim absent and not voting. I just want to mention that on this uh miscellaneous traffic ordinance, there was a section that related to a portion of Pine Street being changed to one way that was separated in committee

and tabled. So this would be for the remainder of the ordinance. Motion to pass to first reading as amended.

Seconded. Motion to pass to first reading as amended. has made and seconded. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. The committee on ordinances and legislation at a meeting held on May 12th voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying proposed ordinance be passed through first reading as amended with councelor Kadem absent and not voting. This would be the uh zoning amendment on the apartment district. Motion made. Second. Second.

Motion made and seconded. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion carries. The committee on regulations had a meeting.

Do you have an opposition? Oh. Oh, sorry. That's all right. C2 opposed. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, we got you. Noted. Do we noted clerk?

The committee on regulations at a meeting held on May 13th voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying order be adopted. This relates to the denial of a licensed taxi cab driver license application on behalf of Robert Allen. to adopt the committee's report. Second. Motion to adopt the committee's report has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Committee on

regulations at a meeting held on May 13th voted three days to recommend the accompanying order be adopted. The this order would be the denial of the application for taxi cap driver license for David Carrerero. To adopt committee's report. Motion to adopt the committee's report has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries. The Committee on Public Works and Transportation at a meeting held on May 13th voted unanimously to recommend that the accompanying resolution be granted leave to withdraw.

This relates to the underpass renovations for Interstate 195. Motion submitted. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? Any opposed?

Motion carries. And finally, as I I skipped it on the ordinance apparently on the agenda, the proposed fiscal year 2026 municipal budget was also submitted. Committee on Finance Second Finance is made and seconded on the motion. Council, you have your hand up. Council, I don't have anything on that motion. I mean, I voted for that, but I was looking before when we had the resolution that councelor Hop

filed about the train. There is a meeting about the trains and how things are working at Morton Middle School on the 22nd on a Thursday at 5:30. So, if people want to go down, express their concerns, they can. Absolutely. It came in as an email to us. And we're also having a public safety meeting on 19.

All right. Great. So, let's finish this.

We're in the middle of a vote for us, counselor. Let's just get all our answers. Motion to adopt as made second.

All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Now, you can tell us about the meetings.

I said it. We will. Council will take a two-minute recess to get the paper sign.

Yep.

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat.

Take a seat.

City council committee will reconvene.

There's nothing before us on motion to motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn has been made and seconded. All in favor?

Any opposed? City council meeting is now adjourned. Good night everybody.

My

over hey

Hey, hey hey hey hey hey.