5.26.2026 Fall RIver CIty Council

former city council public hearing will now be called to order. Madame clerk, roll call, please.

Council here, Camara, can here.

Dion here.

Hart here.

Peekom here.

Carrera here.

Here.

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

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

Motion to open the public hearing.

Second.

Motion to open the public hearing has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by council Pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. Item number one, Massachusetts Electric Company doing businesses National Grid and Verizon New England Inc. for one jointly owned pole location. This is on King Phillip Street. This petition is requesting to install is proposing to

install one new jointly owned 45 ft class H1 pole P16-50 on King Phip Street which is approximately 250 ft easterly on the center line of the intersection of King Phillip and King Phip Street between existing pole 16 and pole 17 in accordance with plan number 31293970.

Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item. Calling all proponents.

And just let the record reflect this meeting did begin at 6:02.

Scout approved.

Good evening, city council members. Mr.

President, to scout.

My name is Aaron Roy representing National Grid 1250 Braen Point Road in Somerset. uh tonight. Uh this is the first of uh three proposals that we're asking uh the city to um vote in favor of. Um there'd be three or in this case just uh this one job, just one midspan pole between existing poles 16 and 17 King Phip Street. Um I've been here previously and uh this is an ongoing project uh where we're installing new

devices where we need new poles. Um this happens to be one of them. This poll will be located directly in line between like I said in um 16 and 17 in the sidewalk on King Phelp Street.

Thank you very much. Any other proponents wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none. Calling all opponents wishing to speak. Calling all opponents. Hearing none. Item number two, the Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon New England Inc. for one jointly owned pole location as follows. This is on Meridian Street. The petition is proposing to install one new one new

jointly owned any midspan pole P3-50 on Meridian Street approximately 100 ft southerntherly on the southern line of the intersection of Meridian Street and Alda Street in accordance with plan number 313691.

Calling all proponents Aaron Roy 1250 Braenpoint Road Somerset representing National Grid. Um this this project has the same idea. We're looking to or proposing to install a new midspan pole uh between three and four uh Meridian Street. Um this will allow us to uh install a new reliability device um as an ongoing project.

Calling all other proponents wishing to speak on this item. Hearing none.

Calling all opponents. Hearing no further opponents. Me item three.

Massachusetts Electric Company doing business as National Grid and Verizon, New England for one jointly owned pole location as follows on New Boston Road.

This petition is proposing to install one new jointly owned pole midspan pole P32-50 on New Boston Road approximately 100 ft easterly of their center line of the intersection of New Boston Road and Charlotte Street. This is in accordance with plan number 313697.

Calling all proponents.

Aaron Roy 1250 Brightenpoint Road uh representing National Grid. Um same same idea as the first two. Uh looking to proposing uh new midspan pole, 45 ft pole in line. This will be at the intersection of Charlotte and New Boston. Allow us to uh install a reliability device there.

Thank you, Mr. Roy. Calling all opponents wishing to speak on this item.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none. Motion to close. Public hearing has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pekham.

All those in favor opposed. To the eyes have it. Thank you.

Former city council committee on finance will now be called to order. Madam clerk, roll call, please.

Housecad here.

Camara.

Canuel here.

Dion here.

Hart here.

Heckham here.

Carrera here. Reposo here.

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

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

6:06 p.m. This meeting has officially been called to order. First item on our committee on finance would be um what I got here. Excuse me.

Citizens, is there citations? You want to give citations at this time?

It's not going to be given here. I have it.

Okay, very good. Uh, any other counselor? Councelor Raposo.

Thank you much. Want to have our EMS team come down if you could please and scout.

transfer.

What's up, buddy?

So, last week was emergency medical services week. Um, and it was appropriate to make sure that we recognize our EMS team here in the city of Fall River um during this week. And of course, the meeting fell after it, but that's okay. We want to make sure we honor you all anyway. So the official city council citation be it know the city council hereby extends its accommodation to our first responders of

the city of Fall River in particular our EMS department in recognition of emergency medical services week which was May 17th 26 to May 23rd 26. Um we extend your best our best wishes for continued success and of course we appreciate everything you do for our city along with our public servants uh and the police and fire departments as well and of course the scout for making sure we all knew he was here today. So,

thank you very much, Beth Fonts.

Congratulations. A job well done. Thank you so much.

You want to speak?

So, um, EMS week this year was kind of important um because we had a very challenging year. It was my first year as chief, so I'm sure that uh brought some challenges for my EMS crews, but um we've had a challenging year with the Gabriel House fire and 41 inches of snow.

And um we completed our mission and we served the city to the best of our abilities and I think these guys did an amazing job. I think it's time too that we recognize that their families too, the families that allow them to come and work with us days on end and try to make sure that we keep everybody safe. So, it's much earned, much deserved. Um, EMS employees of Fall River do serve the

community well and we will continue to do so and we'll see you next year.

Thank you.

Good job.

Next order of business is citizens input person. One person signed up to speak Sarah Gil met 121 Eastern Avenue regarding Connley.

Yep. You can sit right there. Just bring the microphone close to your face. The other thing is um for those who are department heads and city councilors, I've got a couple of individuals who have reached out to me asking having a hard time hearing. So I'd ask the counselors speak into their microphones and those uh in attendance, especially department heads, also speak into your

cell phones. I can hear most people, but sometimes at home other people can't. So I'm just asking of that as well. Miss Gilmet, your three minutes begins right now.

Hi. Uh thank you for allowing me to speak. Um, I don't want anyone I do not believe this is the correct time to invest any money in this Bristol Connley school. This should go on the tax payer rule and not us funding it. I understand the idea of expanding the uh three-year-old to prek and I have to agree that that is a good idea. However, not at the cost of the average citizen

who is having a hard enough time paying rent, paying mortgages, buying food, and surviving. I believe that we have enough projects that have fallen by the wayside where $29 million could go.

I listened to a couple of the past meetings. I believe Mr. Hathaway brought up the fact that the Nagel Auditorium has classrooms there.

Why can't we refernish some of those to deal with some of this the WY school or has that fallen in disarray over lack of attention to keep up our city buildings?

Um besides that, I do believe it's good that the younger kids get involved.

However, um in an article in the New York Times dated uh May of 8th of this year, it stated that they forecast that populations will go down, not up.

investing this kind of money in a project like this when we could be getting taxes if something actually developed there and paid us taxes is a better idea. Um we the fire department on uh Befford Street every time I drive by it I remember hearing it mentioned on during one of these meetings how much money it's going to cost to do the abatement there. I don't believe spending $29 million on the school that

might have its own set of problems is the best thing to do now. So, I urge you all to consider this that the average taxpayer is having a tough enough time.

Rents are high now. They're only going to go higher if you end up raising people's taxes. Um, I don't know how much more time I have.

About 60 seconds.

60 seconds. I do want to thank all of you for the jobs you do. This has to take up a lot of your time and you have to investigate these things and I do appreciate your jobs and I do thank you but I do consider that this Bristol's Conley school at this time is not the right thing. Let's get taxes from that property instead of investing more city money in it. Um, thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on our committee on finances, transfers and appropriations for discussion. Miss Harpy, Miss Anony Suza, anybody else who's down here for transfers and appropriations. Any questions on the transfers and appropriations? Council on seat for council vice president Dion.

Do you want them to um as always? Yep. Introduce your name uh and role for the record, please.

And O'Neal Soua, interim city administrator.

Emily Arky, CFO.

Nick Malini, director of human resources.

Councilman C4, you have the floor.

Thank you. Good evening. And so it begins. the diamond stabilization transfer on the sheet that we received for tonight FY26 appropriation transfer number analysis under fund balance $4,764,553.98.

So that's stating that that's what's in the fund at the present time.

Yes.

And when the transfer is made, we're going to have 5,861,55398.

Correct.

Okay. Then I have some serious confusion on this because if you look at the FY 26 third quarter review under the diamond stabilization fund the actuals as of March 31st 26 which is only two months ago showed a zero balance.

Correct.

How do we have zero in March and we have 4.7 million now? So the diamond stabilization fund is a whole separate fund. So what you're seeing on there is the general fund bringing in some of that revenue. So we had budgeted to bring in 600,000, but we haven't actually made the transfer yet. So that's why the fund balance is still as high as you see it. So the diamond stabilization fund is a whole separate

fund and what you see on the quarter 3 report is money coming in from that fund into the general fund.

Council vice president, what what sheet are you referring to? Um, actually it's here tonight. Um, hang on.

No, I know what's on our agenda for the appropriation.

No, no, no. I'm trying to explain. The paper is here that you can see. Okay.

So, we got this sub one of about 10 supplements we got on our desks tonight.

Yep.

Um, and in here shows the actuals. Um, they were adjustments that were made um because the original numbers were off.

But anyways, I printed this from what was sent in an email. Okay. So then I'm still confused even with your explanation because Okay, so you're saying the fund. Now, if you look at PA, and I know we're not in the budget yet, but if you look at page 142 in the budget under expense detail, diamond stabilization fund is 1.7 million. So, I ask again, how can we be at 4.7, add

1.7, end up at 5.8, but yet in the budget book, we're still at 1.7.

So, the letter that was sent down with this appropriation order kind of walked through that. So, we initiated the fund with $4.6 $6 million last fiscal year.

Correct.

In the 26 budget, we used put in to use 600,000. We haven't made that move yet, which is why you're seeing that fund balance looking high. So, in the letter, I explained that we will be using that 600,000. We just haven't made the transfer yet. So, that would bring it down to the 4.16 for the balance. So, just subtract, you know, 600,000 off of it. Then from there, we are proposing in

the budget currently for 27 to use 4 million more. So with that, when we transfer the 1.7 would be really what's left in the reserve. So I tried to walk through that in the letter that accompanied this order because I know that it appears confusing in that um analysis, but that analysis is a true point in time grab and I didn't want to change what was really there when that's where it's at at this moment. So

what's that mean? So it's diamond stabilization fund and then it's diamond stabilization. Diamond stabilization is different from diamond stabilization fund. No councelor and c want your point of clarification.

So they're two separate accounts. So you're looking at the actual I guess the savings account for diamond is reflected in what you see in that trans uh transfer and appropriation order. What you're looking at in the budget is the money coming from that savings account into the operating budget. And so the the city has not transferred that money of $600,000 into the operating budget

which is why it's showing a zero. So you got to you got to look at the savings account. What she's that the one that's highlighted in pink in your left hand that is showing you the actual savings account for diamond what's in that account now. So they transfer money from that account into the operating budget to offset coming in as revenue to offset the cost associated with the balance.

So the account is going to have a balance of 5.8 million and then you're going to take 1.7 of that 5.8 and put it into the general into our budget. So yeah, it's So there's two lines. If you're looking at the revenue sheet, there's a revenue sheet and there's an expense sheet. So we're saying that we're going to transfer 1.7 into that savings account.

That's what that that 1.7 that you're reading. And it says projected because I knew that I was going to send this order, but obviously it hadn't gone down yet. So it's not in the revised budget.

It's just in the projected because I knew that I intended to send this down to you.

Okay. With that, I yield. That's all I have right now, councelor. in seat seven council of prior.

In other words, this 1.7 should have already come down before the budget was done.

No, when you were working on the budget and that would have because now this is this was going into from stabilization to diamond stabilization fund this 1.7.

Yeah, that was that was always the plan was to send that down.

I wish it would have come down a little bit early, but with that I yield.

Anything further on this item on transfers and appropriations uh in full counsel tonight, Mr. President.

So, I'm I'm comfortable with what's taking place. I I think it's just free cash. So, we've got a couple of different things happening with diamond and I think we're just getting a little confused. So, the free cash, they're just looking to appropriate the free cash into the savings account. And then you've got also another action going from the savings account into the operating budget at at some point. So, that's

is that correct, Miss Ar?

Yeah. the the 600,000 for FY26 was approved during last year's budget process. There's another 4 million proposed for the 27 budget currently, but that hasn't technically happened yet. It is before you in the budget hearings, but it's not happened yet. So, it is kind of confusing because in one way we're bringing money into the budget from that fund and another ways we're putting other money into the fund to

rebuild that savings so that we can do this again, you know, in future years as needed.

Thank you. Councilman C1, do you yield?

I yields.

Thank you very much. Uh, all right.

Hearing no further discussions on transfers and appropriations. Tonight, we're going to begin item number three, which is discussion for the fiscal year 2027 municipal budget. Um, what we have decided to do this year, uh, thank you, Miss M, Mr. Mady. Um and the city council has a memorandum from me uh breaking down um the items that are going to be heard before the committee on finance. Um and

for the public's own edification today, Tuesday, May 26 at 6:00. Uh we had uh we're going to be speaking to the committee on finance uh with a very brief presentation from Miss Arkey followed by revenue, general government, administrative services, and financial services. What I intend to do instead of inviting everybody down from general government is which I've done in the past is just call uh anybody who has

questions for the mayor's office, anybody who has questions for the city council, city clerk, elections and veterans um like we've done in the past, at least I've done in the past when I was here. So, uh we're going to do that.

The next meeting is going to be Thursday the 28th of uh May 28th um where we will begin community services, community maintenance. And then June 1st uh next Monday the school department will come down for its presentation education, city operations and facilities. And then on Tuesday, June 2nd, uh we'll have our public hearing uh which is required.

Then the committee on finance will have a discussion with public safety personnel. Uh and then Wednesday, June 3, uh we will have insurance and other governmental expenditures. Uh and then we have a meeting scheduled if needed for June 9th. Um the committee on finance will could continue followed by a full city council meeting scheduled for June 9th. So the public doesn't have this memo. So I wanted everybody to be

aware in terms of transparency. Uh Miss Arkkey, Miss Anon Souza, do you have a presentation for this council?

I don't have a specific presentation.

Um, a lot of everything that would be presented is included in the budget book um, including in theformational tabs um, before all of the department expenses um, begin. There's also a mayor's letter that kind of introduces the whole overall budget. So um, given that we have, you know, set hearings to review everything in detail, it felt like it was redundant to kind of review the beginning of the budget book summary.

Understood. Um, I do got one quick question before we recognize. Are we going to get any more supplementals?

So, um, the supplemental that you were provided was just, um, we usually after each hearing, we kind of get notes and questions for more detail that we then kind of send back to you. So, we were just trying to get ahead of some of that and provide some additional detailed information um, just to answer some of those questions. Again, I'm happy to speak about any of those items um, you know, during the hearings as

well, but they're a little complex.

I understood when there's questions. I just I want to the counselors do a lot of work especially this council in their in their in their research and I I want to try to avoid unless it's discussed here tonight supplementals um especially before a meeting if I if if we can and I know a lot of work has got into this but supplementals we don't want to be changing numbers after they've been presented

nothing's changed it's just additional notes on the numbers that you've been given that's all it is understood I just want to make it clear if we were getting any others council for council vice president Dion uh By the way, before we go into any further, you're all done. Before I acknowledge our colleague, are you all done? You have nothing else to add in terms of a presentation.

I mean, I can I can highlight some of the things that are in the budget if everybody would like. Um I do have notes on some of the summaries, but I don't necessarily have a formal presentation.

That's fine. We we'll we'll hit all that uh as we go through. First item we're going to discuss is general revenue.

Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion, general government, you uh we are going to do general uh we're going to do revenue first. Revenue General fund revenue. Mr. RP, what page is that on?

Um, so the general fund detail revenue starts on page 23.

Page 23 in your budget.

Council Vice President, do you want to speak on revenue or do you want me to yield the floor and go back to you?

Um, no. I will wait on that. I will allow let other people speak first on that and then um I'll jump in on general government.

Fair enough. Councilman C8 council repos.

Thank you, Mr. President. Do you want to just point of information? Can I can I just ask for clarification for everybody when we go through this? The state a numbers are they based off the Senate numbers? No, the the um we Oh, sorry.

Yes, the Senate. I'm sorry.

The most recent.

Yes, the most recent published numbers.

Okay. Thank you, Councilman City. Councelor Reposo.

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh few questions regarding revenue. Page 23 on the solid waste revenue item. It mentions school department share. FY26 projected was 302500.

FY27 proposed blank. So, um, with the new solid waste contract, that's one of the bigger changes. Um, the school department is now going to directly pay all of their solid waste expenses. So, in the past, we had been billing them quarterly based on what um, we kind of knew were their charges. Some of them were estimates, but moving forward, it'll be completely um, covered by them.

So, that's why that revenue line is no longer going to be coming in. Um, before that, some of the solid waste expenses, you know, you'll see in some of the lines slight decreases because it's being um, charged directly now. Awesome.

Page 24 on um parking garage fees.

I guess I'm concerned that there seems to be FY26 revisor 390. It obviously came in projected lower about 70,000 less and we've kind of leveled it to 350.

Is there a r we having less income coming in? Is there an issue we can be concerned?

It's the closed spots. It's the number of closed spots. Um, I think when we were setting the budget in 26, we kind of assumed that we may be opening up more spots again. We weren't sure when the construction timing was going to start. Um, clearly, as we all know, it has yet to start. So, that's why we're falling short from where we are. We know that at this point, um, we do have the

bids and we should be coming down um, the next meeting with appropriation order to get that work done. So, um, it will be actively being worked on in 27, but the timing of exactly when the spots will reopen, I don't know. So we, you know, try to be more conservative this time around.

Fair. On uh the next item is city hall rent. Can you clarify who pays rent?

Um in city hall, RDA, um CDA, and BCTC.

BCTC.

And have that has that rent ever increased? Yes. Over the number of years?

It did. Um I believe last fiscal year was the first year of an increase. Um where there were some new contracts done that increased it. Um I I say last year so 25 FY25 there was an increase from what the prior years were. Um at this point I don't know of any other increases that would be something that's managed by facilities those agreements.

So um if there's further out scheduled increases I would have to get that detail from him.

Okay. Um and as far as I know there are some offices held by our our state representation. Are those paid for?

No.

Those are freebies.

Correct.

Gotcha.

And there are any other offices that are rented in that 89 85,641?

No, it's just those three.

Just those offices. Okay. Um other departmental revenue on that same page under departmental revenue is also blank for FY27.

So those are audites. So um as you can see the departmental revenue that's a pretty specific code that money comes in from. The departments that are listed are ones that we kind of have known schedules of what is coming in for those departments throughout the year. Um the other departmental revenue are I'm going to say random things that happen to come in um you know onetime expenses,

something that wasn't really anticipated or isn't reoccurring that would come in through those lines. So as you can see in 25 it's you know $6,600 but then in 26 right now we're we're upwards of 30,000. So that kind of is I'm going to say undependable and and inconsistent to budget for it. So we typically don't it's usually like a thousand here, you know, 1500 here between all the different departments. So

makes sense. Um and then on that same page is electrical plumbing permits. I found it odd that it dropped significantly considering all the different building we're doing in the city and the development. Um so is there a rationale to why we feel it's getting cut significantly? I think it's um some of it's the placement of the permits. So I think that was one of the things we weren't

quite figuring out was you know where the lines should really be increased at.

We know that there was a spike in building permits um kind of postcoid. So 25 into 26. Um they're just not staying up that high. You know if you can you can see in 25 we had almost 1.2 million for building permits. So we you know went up on that budget to the 910 and just aren't staying that high. that these numbers that you see are are much more typical to what they were I'm going

to say prior to 25 we were much closer to this average um that we're showing of like the 900,000 um for building and whatnot but I think some of that um the department could speak to a little bit better detail and then on page 25 um I'd ask sorry what department's going to speak into better detail on that um inspectional code enforcement inspectional services Did out of curiosity, was there an like a an

analysis done on that like ran through your office at all or just to I mean I have all of the detailed historic but it was it was just because I mean 25 was a huge spike and we didn't know if it was going to stay that high based on the amount of construction being done and the I'm going to say the rate um that's charged because a lot of it's especially for building permits

it's based on the amount of work that you're doing um is how much you're charged in that permit. So we weren't sure how much that would stay at that level.

Councelor.

Yeah. And I guess too you can't really quantify what is to come essentially. So that number is really conservative and it could it could be very well much higher than that.

Correct.

Fair enough. Um on page 25, last question for um general fund revenue. Um can you speak to the investment income?

I know over the past number of years we've talked about um about this and particularly the fact that the um investment income was going to slow down as time went along. So I don't know if either of you can speak to this and um you know kind of looking ahead. Do we do we consider this the level out situation where that's what we're going to consider or is this really God only knows at this point?

Yeah, go ahead.

Well, I always like to start with the caveat.

Speak into the microphone please.

Sorry. Um I want to start with the caveat that you hear a lot of financial um investors and planners say that um past performance is not indicative of future results.

So if I had a crystal ball for investments I'd be like a billionaire and it would be you know I might not be sitting here but um what I do we're very conservative with our investments. you know, it's I keep everything safety first, liquidity second. We need to have access to the money, so I can't lock it up into really long-term things. And then yield is third. So, that's like the third thing

I'm thinking of. So, safety first, liquidity, and then yield. So, the last few years, um, we've gotten, you know, kind of lucky with higher interest rates. We were at five and a quarter for a lot of our money markets, and we also had, um, a lot of ARPA money kind of banked up. So, we had a higher cash balance and we had higher interest rates. Um, and then the day-to-day

moving it around and and working with um banks to to keep the rates up and if one goes down and another one's available, I'm moving the money. I'm always looking for this. Um, but in terms of does it level up? Like we thought that the rates were going to drop pretty significantly this year. They they kind of held I mean we were at five and a quarter. We're now

at about 4% in most of our banks for the big money. So, um, again, we've been kind of holding steady. I can't tell you if the rates are going to drop a quarter%, a half percent, but, um, we can control what we can control. And, um, this this does show, I mean, we year to date, we're about 4.1 million for investment income for this fiscal year.

So, um, we're doing pretty good for this year and, uh, we got a couple months to go and we'll do our best for FY27 to hit those numbers.

Do you feel that you're going to fall short of your projection of 5.1 for FY26?

Well, the budget is 4.4.

Yeah. And projected is 5.1.

Projected. Yeah. So, as of So, we're averaging like 300 to 400 grand a month right now plus ARPA. So, isn't that 4.1 from April?

Yeah. 4.1 is April. So we got May and June to go.

Okay.

And they No, 4.1 includes the ARPA.

Okay.

So without ARPA, we were at about three and a half.

All right. So two so a two-fold question. Do you feel that you're going to you're going to meet the projected 5.132420 for FY26 at this point?

I honestly when I was looking at this this morning, I was more focused on the budget number. So let me um do some like arithmetic and I can get that back to you.

Okay. because because it leads to my second question as far as how you came to the 3.250 2550 for FY27. Again, what seems to be a very conservative projection.

You know, almost a a million and a half reduction from what you projected because we're we're I mean, we're acknowledging that rates might come down. We also don't know if they will or not.

Um and we're spending that we're spending all the ARPA money. So, it is gonna it is going to come down.

Okay. So, you'll be able to provide uh as far as you're going to be on target for that projection for FY26.

Yeah, I can take a look at that. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I yield on this topic.

Thank you, councelor in C3, councelor Kenuel.

Thank you. My c my colleague in C1 asked a lot of the questions I'll ask. I think just in general, the local receipts uh just seem to be dropping in general. I I don't know if that's a a trend or if there's been any analysis. I know you mentioned the building inspector ones uh particularly, but I think just in general across the board, it looks like they're coming down. So the the largest

impact is um if you're looking at the 25 actuals to now. So it was the investment income. I mean that alone is coming down almost a million and a half from um 25 and to 26 projected. And then like we talked about was the building um permits is coming down you know upwards of I would say 300 to 500,000. So that part right there is um a big part of it. that

the local receipts in the sense of the budget. So it's recommended from do so the department of revenue from the state that we don't budget anything more than 90% of the previous year actuals. So they kind of push us to be conservative in that sense. So we always project a little bit under from what you know is actually coming in to make sure that we are able to meet these receipts. Um

because if we you know make them higher and then they don't come in our balanced budget is actually not balanced at all.

So, um that's where the conservative amount comes from within those numbers.

Um this is actually probably more aggressive than we had been for the last several years before. Now, um the budgets I think in 24 and before were not even at 25 million a year. So, we have kind of come up some to be more realistic, but can only go so high.

So, like when we look at on page 23, the cannabis excise where the revised budget is 1.65 65 million and we're projected to exceed that. We're proposing a 27 budget that is $50,000 less than the revised budget rather than keeping it flat.

So if you look at the 25 actuals to the 26 actuals, they came down and I don't know if that trend is going to continue.

It's hard to tell if that's going to remain level now at the 6.8 or if it the 1.68, sorry, or if it's going to come down again like it did from 25 to 26. So that's why, you know, again, just trying to be conservative, make sure that we hit our marks for what we're budgeting.

Okay. Um, miscellaneous revenue drops pretty dramatically. Uh, it's page 25, non-recurring miscellaneous. Uh, the projected 1,75,000, it drops to 160,000 in the FY27 budget.

Yep. So the the miscellaneous non-recurring um is non-recurring. So it's not dependable. It's not going to stay at that amount. Um I actually did just provide after the last meeting when we did the quarterly um quarter book review. I did provide the detail of what makes that up. So you can see what's in there specifically that makes it not recurring revenue um from that insurance recovery, the um money from the state

that we got um for the unclaimed um amounts of almost 300 plus thousand. So there's a lot of, you know, things in there like that that we don't get every year and we can't depend on and if we could, it wouldn't be under the miscellaneous non-recurring.

Thank you. The rest of my questions rest. I yield.

Thank you, counselor. In seat one, councelor Khadin.

Thank you, Mr. President. So just in terms of the I guess let me take a step back. So the the budget is balanced from a revenue to to an expense standpoint. Okay. Uh can you just talk a little bit in terms of where we are this year with with revenues and I know it's not unique to the city of Forever but it it runs the gamut throughout the state in terms of expenses exceeding our revenues and

things of that nature and I heard you say that you've been a little bit more aggressive which is which is fine uh with the projections that we have here uh but can you just talk about the sustainability moving forward uh and the reason I'm asking that is and you touched base on this a little bit, but the total local receipts has dropped $2.1 million. Um, you've got $4 million in the diamond stabilization fund, which

uh once we have that transfer, we're only going to have $1.8 million. So, that leads the question to how do we make up the 400 I mean the $4 million uh for diamond next year? Uh assuming that the trends stay on on par with the uh the revenue projections. So, I just want to kind of get your sense on that. So, I think that the the way we plan to I'm

going to say absorb that is the fact that some of our increases that we've had over last year and this year have been large increases between the health insurance, you know, increasing at a rate much higher than we had been. Solid waste last year and this year um with the new contract coming in um were much larger increases. The diamond obviously coming on the pension assessment. So,

things that um and then net school spending. So this is the last year of the Student Opportunity Act to have the net school spending increases at the rate that we have been. So with those starting to level off some of those increases that we had over the last two years, we also added on, you know, 17, not 17, 12 firefighters onto um our budget this year. So we've had a lot of

kind of big increases at once that we'll hopefully be normalizing moving forward.

And that's going to be how we absorb, you know, that diamond over time. Um, to not have that, you know, net school spending increasing at 30 plus million a year, I think is going to be a huge way that we're able to absorb all of the changes that we need. We also have debt dropping off. So, a lot of little things that um were happening at once um will slowly, you know, level off.

Yeah. I I guess I I I hear what you're saying, but I I I think from we if we're banking on I guess chapter 70, I mean, chapter 70 is always going to increase, right? There's going to be maybe not to the extent that we've seen, but I don't know that that covers the the $4 million for the for the diamond stabilization, especially if local receipts come down.

Um, and I understand you're leveling off. we're adding the firefighters, but you know, you're still going to have collective bargaining agreements in place that are going to have those um automatic increases, whether cost of living adjustments or contractual adjustments that need to be made. So, I guess I'm just um I only ask now because we've got a balanced budget now. I'm just, you know,

I'm more concerned about next year than I am tech technically this year, right? So, I'm I'm looking at next year, the year after, uh and potentially the next five years in terms of where we are. I just don't see new revenue coming in. And and what I do see is significant increases in what we typically see, significant increase in education, right? It costs a lot to uh educate our our students. But

I'm also starting to see a little bit more of a shift in public safety. So it's becoming more and more challenging, number one, to recruit, retain public safety, whether that's police and fire.

Um, with that you've got communities who are now competing to retain and recruit people that are actually I've had this argument before with with my chiefs um where they go to the chief's meeting and and we try to get this competitive advantage for a short window, right? So one to two years. So they'll increase salaries, they'll give stipens, they'll do everything, but then the communities

that are trying to be fiscally responsible in order to be competitive now need to catch up uh to those communities, right? So, it's it's kind of one of those things and and just seeing the cost for public safety skyrocket, it just creates a a significant concern. We start talking about salaries, um you know, salaries are again skyrocketing when you start looking at uh other communities and and

we're on the low ends uh in the city of Fall River. So, I I just I know we're trying to make these adjustments. I'm just concerned about the sustainability of this moving forward. And I know we've got some uh stabilization accounts, rainy day funds, but those are all onetime money similar to the to the diamond.

I think that our local receipts is going to I'm going to say not go down again. I think this is a unique thing. We knew that we were kind of going high on the investment income because we still could with some of these changes. But I think the rest of the local receipts um and every other area does continue to grow each year um at a steady I'm going to

say dependable rate um closer to that 3 to 4% um overall. I also know that we've been talking about looking at our um fines and fees structure citywide. So, we did start some of that last summer, but um the timing of everything else, you know, led that to fizzle out, but I think this year we're really hoping to revisit that with the council um and looking at what we have for fee structures departmentwide. Um I also

know that the, you know, parking garages being fully, um repaired and operational again will be somewhat of an increase.

So, I think we're trying to be thoughtful with all of the other pieces um to make sure that we're capturing what we can. We've had some longerterm conversations about the pilots, too.

Right now, we really only get it from the housing authority, but um there are opportunities for us to add on pilots for some of these nonprofits um that have space in the city. Obviously, it's all in agreement, but there are things that we haven't quite broached before that we're hoping to um push forward on.

Um the other thing is you know thinking about the tiffs and ties that we've talked about many times if we start you know giving out less of those and as those start to drop off or decrease you know those are increases that we'll see and again in the long-term sense of the picture. So it's not necessarily saying in 28 you're going to see a massive change but those are the things that

we're working on to plan for the future better.

Right. And then the other and and I and I hear what you're saying, you know, we're let's just call it um I don't know what's the percentage 55 60% of state aid, right? Is our our revenue.

Yeah.

Um I didn't do the actual calculation.

I'm just looking at it quickly. I'm not that good. Um so that that becomes a concern too, right? So if the economy starts to shift and the state aid uh becomes impacted, we got 9C cuts, things of that nature. So those are just the concerns that I have. Uh, I just don't I know there's a lot of u discussion surrounding New Befford and where New Befford currently is. So, I just want to make sure that No,

I I know that now, but I I I I still always just get a little concerned about the revenues with the outpacing or our expenses outpacing our revenue numbers and and just I know you're mindful of that. I'm just trying to figure out how we can do a little bit better job of either just trimming some of these some of the expenses that we have in the operating budget or come up

with some additional revenues that which is hard to do uh that that are going to support what we need, especially when you have uh a $4 million one-time uh aotment coming in to offset some of the the costs. That's Yeah, I think the the other big part of this in the being creative is is thinking about capital um you know, that hasn't been in the budget that wasn't in the budget because of ARPA. You know,

obviously we we need some capital come back into the budget, but figuring out how we move forward with our capital plan and how much is actually funded from this operational budget versus funded in other creative sources to again help offset some of the need for increasing that within this budget if we can fund that in other ways. So, there's certain things in here that we don't

really have ways to be creative or to do anything other than what we really have to do or are mandated to do. Um but the areas that we do have control, we're trying to at least lessen that burden so that we can you know cover other things um in other ways. So I think it's a lot of things. I think the long-term planning doing the 5-year projections um keeping those updated um you know trying

to do that more with the anytime we send down you know CBAs would be probably helpful so that everybody can see how you know the trends are moving and and what these impacts have. So, I think, you know, getting back into using the capital improvement plan and the 5-year forecasting um and making decisions um as an administration and a council, I think are going to be what helps us stay on top of it.

I think my colleague in CD8 might have asked this question, but I I tuned them out because I just had an ordinance meeting with him, so I said I had enough of them. I stopped listening. Uh the fact of the matter is I just can't multitask. So, I'm He was talking I was I was calculating something. So, I I might have missed the the response on it. uh he he had asked the question

solid waste. What was the school department share?

So they they we've been billing them for their solid waste expenses. They haven't been on a separate contract. They don't we don't have all of their exact expenses um build directly. Um so we've been estimating what we think it costs for them to dispose of it. Um that increase hasn't really been made um because it's some of the tonnage is really hard estimated. They do have a lot of carts at some of their schools,

the smaller schools. So to really know what their cost is um has been difficult. So moving forward in the new contract, they will be um as much as it's with this bid and with the city contract, it is going to be completely separated out. So it'll be a direct payment. So it's coming out of the expenses, but then also coming out of the revenues.

All right. And then I guess my final question, can you just speak a little bit about the indirect costs? So significant increase from 26 to 27. So we're just call it $8.8 million in 27, but in 26 we're at 7.2.

So um the biggest piece of that is one, we kind of got back to that indirect calculation sheet. Um I know we've talked about it in some terms with um water and sewer budgets. Um we hadn't really done that last year with EMS yet either. So this year we kind of went back to that. EMS has had um rather significant employee ads over the last two years. Um they've added over 20

employees in those two years. So some of those cost shares haven't really increased at the same rate. Um some of the other part of it too is the general fund um use. We kind of did recalculate that as well. What was being included and not included. Um so in reallocating and recalculating based on their changes and their actual budgets, um that's where that increase comes from. So I can

share those calculation sheets that we have.

Okay. And and no concerns with uh during the recap having the do review this in terms of the No, because I I mean I have a full calculation sheet that breaks it down and matches to this across the board. So um I'm not concerned at this point with that.

All right. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. Councilman C2, Councelor Camra.

Thank you, Mr. President. I mean, I agree with my colleague um who was in C3 that said, you know, the total local revenues seem like they're a lot less than they were, especially if you look at the actual from 2025. I mean, food licenses went down $41,000 from 2025 actuals. And the vinyl records $40,000, parking meter fees, $50,000. Just those two right there. Do you you anticipate

be less parking meter fees going on or So, the parking the parking meter fees are you looking at under license and permits or Yeah. Page 23.

23. Sorry.

No, not 23. 24.

25.

I am these are 24.

So parking meter fees underneath fees.

Um that is the people paying at the meters. So I mean again I could these are estimates too. So it's $50,000 less than it was actual 2025. And if you want to be conservative, okay, but these seem to be quite a bit past. Well, so if you look at the projected actuals for 26, we're actually coming under the 25 actuals at this point in time. So that's where that decrease comes from. It is still an

increase from the 26 budget, but um the FY25 actuals are at 460,000 for the parking meter fees and then the projected for um FY26 is 440,000.

So we are seeing a little bit of a decrease there. So that's why the budget's at 410, right? And in 2026, it was at 460 is what the actuals were, right?

50,000 less, which is what I said from the actuals from 2025.

I mean, I I don't know why the revenues have gone down $20,000. So, you're saying it's it's it's I don't know. I mean, look, overall the total revenue receipts from actuals in 2025 is like 5.15.2 million less, right? So, the the biggest part of that though is the investment income alone. I mean, that's of 1.5 million. You touched on that. I get it. I'm just saying it's it's good to be

conservative. I just hope that revenue is coming higher so we'll have more money. But it's I the philosophy be conservative. I just think it's a little too much. We might need some of that money and hopefully uh it'll come in.

So when we do tax rate recap, you know, based this is based on a point in time grab, right? We we've been working on the budget, but we really are working off of March, maybe April actuals. Um and so with that being said, as these trends adjust and if the revenues come in higher when we do the tax rate recap, we can adjust these um you know, budgets to increase them accordingly. But with

the information that we have now and and the trends, this is kind of what we're I'm okay with it. I'm like to be conservative with that. I yield. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, councelor. Uh counselor in seat 8, councelor Raposo.

Yeah. One one follow-up question on page 25, the onetime money surplus revenue free cash $350,000, which is very much less than years prior. What is that $350,000 justified for?

So, um I can speak to the 350, but I would like to also address the prior years before then. So, every time that we come down with a free cash transfer, um it goes in there. So, if we're transferring to stabilization, if we're transferring to um the healthcare trust fund, all of that is reflected in that surplus money when we brought it into the capital to buy the fire trucks, that's reflected in here. So, that

number almost always starts at zero and then as every transfer comes down, it just continues to go up. So, we did start this year with 350. Um and that is directly related to law. So, um, as you recall, one of the first free cash, um, transfers we did this year was 350,000 for the law department, um, to account for increases in cases that they have.

They have two cases that are going to trial. So, um, there was a sharp increase in what they need for that budget. That's going to continue into next year. So, um, it is really between these two years aime expense. Um, that won't continue after 27 at this point in time. So rather than waiting till we get certified next year with the free cash and then coming down for it since we do

know we are going to need that, we thought we would kind of just be upfront and say we need it um and plan ahead in that sense um rather than coming down and have you guys say how didn't you know you needed this? We we did we did know and so we're trying to send it down now.

Understood.

I yield. Thank you. Thank you councelor in C1 council.

Thank you Mr. President. Uh just in terms of I know there's been a lot of discussion about the investment income coming in. Do you know what the average investment income was prior to CO? So I know we had the ARPA money coming in after CO. So that's driving uh our balances a little bit. So I'm just trying to get back to more of a baseline in terms of what we're

you mean in the terms of rates or how much the total amount was coming in.

Total amount coming in based on what we've had for fund balance. So, so part of that problem from what I understand, let's be clear, I obviously wasn't here, but I know that a big conversation that um you know, the prior CFO would constantly have and and conversations we've had with Ian is that um aside from the rates changing, the focus on investing um how much work he's put into it, how much he chases it

around and moves it around and finds the best rates, that wasn't really done as aggressively prior to co um it was really over the last, you know, three years that um the prior CFO and and Ian really worked to change the way that that was done. So, if you look back at those numbers, I mean, they're significantly lower, but it's not necessarily due to the rates. It's due to the investment strategy

as well as the rates.

It was both. I mean, we used to get I mean, during co it was like it was 0.0 something like we were getting almost nothing on our money.

Um, plus the strategy. So then the rates went up and then I also started focusing more on it on a day-to-day like moving money around into higher yield accounts like bringing money in to just like a a basic checking account and then y you know forcing into a higher rate and then monitoring daily and um so that made a big difference. Um when I I I did pull numbers from FY24 is

when I started but so I don't have anything from before then. I can I mean it's it's available but it was it was a lot less.

Yeah. Yeah, if you can just send me an email. I mean, I I just I'm just curious.

How many years are you looking around?

Listen, I I would probably do if you could do um I don't know, 15 to 18.

Sure.

Or 15 I'm sorry, 15 to 19.

Sure.

So, get CO out of there because it's not much. But they're low. I mean, it's probably around a million or less, right? I I And that's where I would typically anticipate the investment income to be because I mean, opera was the the biggest chunk of our money coming in for the fund balances. using all the upper money that wouldn't it's not it's it's the it's the rates changing in the the way that we were

managing the investment.

If rates are below 1% again we're not going to do much.

No no I recognize that but I understand rates play right. So we we've got that continuity but but when you look at fund balance we had a significant fund balance because all the opa money was coming in right. So you had well that that was all separate monies that were in investment accounts and in separate bank accounts. So we have exactly how much investment income was earned off of those ARPA monies.

So So that's not you're not using any of the that So we do have that broken out. So we have it I mean you Yeah. I mean I guess I guess the money coming in for the investment that that included that OPA money as well, right? Or you kept that investment income in we kept it separately but then but we do have the broken out details for you.

So like in year to date as of the end of April for this year we've ARPA at all we're about 3.5 million with ARPA again as the end of April we're like another 650 grand so that brings up to 4.1 um I did the back of the math calculation for that it's it's about five um to the end of the year if everything keeps going okay um and then last year we we ended with

like 6.7 million two of that was ARPA.

Mhm. Okay.

And then the prior year it was only like 1.5 million that was ARPA out of $6 million. So it's it's really not the majority of it.

Okay.

Yeah. Rates and strategy were a big part. And then Yeah. And then having cash on hand, right? Okay.

But I'll get you the 15 to 19. No problem.

Yeah. I'm just curious to see what that looks like.

Yeah. I think when we we pulled it out, if we went back to the interest rates that we were getting, I'm going to say prior to co the the normalized ones of that like 2 to 3% and then now what our cash balances are. I mean, every year that the budget goes up, the more cash that's flowing through here. Um I think the the 2 to 3% estimate would be to be

at like 2 to$2.5 million um a year.

Okay.

Um maybe upwards of three. So this year is a little bit higher just because we know what the rates are. So I think when we forecast anything past next year, you know, we would go back down to that lower number, but as we get closer in setting budgets like this, we know where rates are at and and what we can kind of estimate from there.

So you'd be anticipate about 2 and a half, three million. Is that what you're saying?

I think after in 27, I would if I had to give you a number right now, I would say 2.5.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. I council in C7. Council Per Ian answered the question that I I had.

Um, thank you Ian for that explanation.

But you know, uh, Emily, you were talking about the parking garages and next year you anticipate getting more money from the parking garages.

So after 27.

After 27, correct?

But when you talk about that, if you look at Pearl Street Garage that there's a contract on with an individual that they pay for so many slots of parking, I think it's like 250.

That is going until 2043, correct? and they can go up to 466 spots. So, if we're going to rent those spots, why are we going to invest money to repair that garage when the money that we're going to get from the 466 spots isn't going to pay? So, let's sell that.

We we are working on all of those options right now. I think that's um going out to bid. So, the what I was talking about coming down for preparation is the other garage right now. But even still, even if the other one is done or not, the fact that we can't actually even rent out all those spots right now is is more of what I was referring to in the sense that if we do

make repairs, revenues would increase just because all of the spots are now open in either or both garages. So, that's more of what I was trying to say is that spots are just closed and if we can open them all, that would change.

I don't want to spend money repairing something that the person that is renting it isn't even going to be able to give me enough money to pay the debt service that I owe on the repair. That makes no logical sense to me.

And there there's an RFP being prepared to sell the put the the Pearl Street garage out for sale.

Good. I think they should. Uh when you were here last, Emily, you spoke about uh the snow account that we were going to get money from FEMA on. Do you have we received any of that?

No, absolutely not. And we won't anticipate any amount of money that we're going to get?

No. So the so I can say that the FEMA MIMA idea of a reimbursement we're looking at at least a year out from the snowstorm before we'd receive anything.

Um there is conversations from the state um to do supplement supplemental money to cities and towns for this year's costs. We don't have that finalized yet, but I imagine that it would be before we have to fully close the books for 26.

Um, so I'd say by September and they'll give us full guidance about how to account for it and what to do. So, um, at this point in time, we're we're hoping to have more guidance on that before the end of June to come down and figure out, you know, if we should be closing something or not, how we want to close that gap. So, I know that we can carry over, but

we really don't want to to be honest with you. So, yeah, the goal is to not carry over, but we also don't want to act before the state gives us more guidance.

Thank you. With that, I yield.

Thank you, counselor. in seat for council vice president Dion.

So on uh page 23 under local receipts I'm a little confused as to why real estate taxes have dropped off by $62,000.

So in 2025 330 330 337,000 and in FY27 you're projecting 225,000 275,000 rather oh penalties and interest. So that's penalties and interest on Thank you. Are you talking about page 23 under local receipts?

Yep. Real estate penalties and interest. penalties and interest. So the penalties and interest means when somebody hasn't paid their bill on time.

So it's dropping off because more people are paying it on time. The interest rate also decreased on what we could charge, right?

Well, that's on the tax lanes.

Oh, just on the taxes, but the in a perfect world, we we get zero.

Should be zero, right? Yeah. So I mean I was just a little confused. So people actually getting better.

Yeah. And then honestly, sometimes it's it's one or two big bills that you miss for like a week or two where that could really add up to a lot of money. But if that bill gets paid right on time, then I mean if it's a million dollar bill or a couple hundred thousand bill, that's a big difference. So we don't want to rely on like Walmart being late.

Yeah, I should say.

Um and on page 25 under littering fines, does that include because I know didn't we increase the fines um in terms of the illegal dumping, etc.

So, the littering fines, we are we are working on cleaning up some of this, right? So, there's a true littering fine when somebody throws trash out their window, and then you have the fines for um actual yard waste violations, um you know, the disposal being incorrect, mattresses. So, um that's kind of where that is at. Um, I think the littering fines, that line item historically was

littering fines written by police, not necessarily by litter enforcement team.

I think those ones are reflected within the criminal and non or and then the noncriminal code violations. Um, so I think that that's the confusion on that.

I don't know if I nudged.

Yeah, I believe you're correct.

Yeah. So it's it's the literally So we have se separate categories for throwing a cup out your window when you're driving in your car and a police issuing the violation.

A police issuing the violation versus litter enforcement yard waste tickets.

Yeah.

And illegal dumping.

Yes.

So So we don't Go ahead.

Sorry. Illegal dumping. Now, what we've done is worked with the police department and our litter enforcement so that we're going after people for criminal violations so that when they go to court and they're charged, restitution will come back to the city.

If we've been responsible, if it's on our property and we are responsible for the cleanup, we are seeking restitution, putting the bills together for everything that it costs to clean up and then the courts will see that that money comes to the city. But that would just essentially just started that recently.

Yes, we have we're not realizing those numbers yet.

Not yet. They they've been in the court now I'd say maybe close to six months and we have not uh deputy chief has been very instrumental on the police department um along with Chief Fado at the time um assigning an officer. So we have in the city if we have an illegal dump on city property, Joe Kennedy is the lead from the city side, there is an officer assigned on the police

department. They make sure the proper uh police report is completed. They're filing that with the clerk's office and those cases are going before a judge seeking restitution for the cleanup costs which we've already estimated and itemized for the court on the DCM side.

So will we eventually see that in a separate line item? How will that be reflected?

I think it'll be under I think right now it's in this the criminal violations. We could we could talk about setting it up once those start coming through to be more clear under the criminal violations. We could call it criminal violations, litter or trash. Um but right now I think any of that that's been captured might be under that different line. You can also see that there's another line item in there for um

um what is the other one? So there's solid waste violation fines that also have um that's a newer one that we kind of broke out. So there's revenue under that one. Um and then like I said under that same section that you were in separate from the littering fines, the criminal violations and the noncriminal code violations also probably have things related to more of the the code enforcement um side of litter.

Okay. Thank you. That I yield.

Council in C3 council.

Thank you. One quick follow-up question.

U my colleague in seat 2 was discussing the credit card uh sorry it was discussing the parking fees um and how we were using conservative uh estimates that we were reducing by 50k on that. But when I I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves but when I get down to the credit card fees uh for traffic and parking we actually are increasing what we are showing for that.

So for example are you talking about in the expenses?

Yeah. So, it's like we're underestimating in one area, but then on the credit card side, which is tied to that we're I think that's a better conversation to have when she's here on Thursday night.

It's complicated and I don't want to Sure.

Sorry.

Understood.

I can defer then. Thank you. I yield.

Y counselor in seat six. Council of Heckup.

Good evening.

So, um I want to go back to the parking garage really quick because it was brought up. You stated there was an RFP for an RFP being drafted.

Being drafted. Yes.

Okay. Um are we going to fix because I think we put 6 million is allocated for that property for the repair of that in the capital improvement. Yes. Yes.

So we re are we repairing it first and then selling it?

No. No, we wouldn't do that. We're Okay.

Yeah.

Have we got an appraisal on the property to write the RFP?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um the question I have is and it's been touched upon. if you were to take this budget and segue into 2028, how do we look next year?

So, I think if I think the biggest concern is obviously if education the increases don't slow down the way we've been anticipating. Um I have documents from you know the last two years where school department is consistently kind of saying 3% increase for 28 and on. So if that doesn't happen um things will be I'm going to say a lot more tight. The other thing is if health insurance continues to increase at an 8

and a half 10% rate rather than again normalizing back down to that three to five percent um it's going to be a lot tighter than I think any of us want. But if those start to level off I think we're going to be okay in the sense of this isn't always ever really going to be an easy not tight budget but we'll be okay in that sense. Um I do want to

update the projection models based on these new numbers. So, I think when we did the last projection that I gave you in I think March, um it was estimating obviously what 27 was going to look like. But I I want to update that model and put in the 27 budget um either as proposed or even as adopted to show you um kind of what to expect with all of those assumptions baked in. But, you

know, I think I think we're going to be okay otherwise. Um it'll be tight again, but I think it's manageable um the way we are kind of progressing right now.

Okay. because I have the same concerns, the state aid and our revenue. Um, and then I'm afraid that school spending is going to eat the majority of our state aid and then we're going to be left with what's left to pay our bills. Um, we keep talking about the decrease in revenue.

I don't understand how this is going to work and we keep putting on the tax, you know, the back of the taxpayer. We have a very small tax base in this city that has been dedicated to this city for years and we keep going back to them.

I'm one of them. So, you keep going back to them. we're all one of them. And at some point, we're going to have to look at this budget and really pick it apart in the best interest of the taxpayer. I don't see that happening going forward.

Um, and that's a no, that's just from what I'm seeing here. Um, I would have seen more, but I did request some information in an email last week and I have not received it. I don't know what the issue is, but maybe if we could rectify that. Um, that's with the IT division.

No, negative. Um, I was sent an email saying that for in order for me to receive the documentation I was requesting to make a decision on this budget, I was going to have to pay $661.92.

That was referred to law through the public records request, but it was not a public record.

No, I'm a city.

To be clear, let me just interject for a moment.

Councelor Peekham did ask for some information. an incorporation council did reach out to me uh which I know I've communicated I believe with you counselor uh and he was in the meeting with the individual who said that you had to pay that I took exception to that when a counselor needs information we need to get it corporation council did agree with me that if a counselor's asked for information they should be

treated as such and um I had a meeting with him today briefly and it you know the request isn't within his office it is with it to get you the information that you need but to be clear I don't want anybody to think that a counselor is going to need to pay a dollar for information.

Point of information that you got quoted.

Yeah. 66192.

It seems like a Firestone quote. They hit me with everything after the oil change.

I'm sorry, Mr. President. City council asked for information and he got quoted a charge for the information.

He did. Let me just let me just say he did get he did get quoted a charge. To attorney Ramse's credit, he called me when he got that information and he clarified the situation with the assistant corporation council. To to anybody's credit, I why why does anybody think they're going to charge a city councelor for information?

I I agree and that's why I jumped in at that matter when I saw it when councelor Pekkham called me and then attorney Rumsey called me and said that's not going to happen and we will get the council the information he needs. So I have never in my life ever heard a city councelor asking for information and then been giving an an estimate on what they have to pay for for information

noted and that's why I took exception to it.

I believe it was a a very broad request with a number was up to close to I think 9,000 emails for the period of time that was asked for for so for all those to be pulled and such. I listen I I guess I I recognize that but I I think at that point that's a conversation with council Pekkham to I guess streamline his request. I mean just and and that was the point of that I

believe was just to get the request streamlined to see so I can I just want to make one thing clear. I don't want anybody to think counselors need to pay for any information that that when that happened I immediately addressed it and corporation council did call me and we're working through that. I don't know if you've got your information or not.

That's a whole another problem.

No, I did not. So, I can tell you it was like 4,000 some odd. That's what I was told by attorney for debt that it was 4,000 and change. So, then I agreed to work with him and cut that number down by streamlining lining it.

And then I proceeded to get a bill after streamlining the information. So, I'm not ask I'm not going to play nice because I tried, but wait a minute. Now, I want all 4,000 some odd pages because I was trying to, you know, work with you and it didn't act it didn't go that way. So now I want 4,000 out.

Yeah. I got two that day.

Um 4,000 piece 4,000 uh in total because I was looking for past projections, you know, and how to go about my research on this budget and I still yet to receive it.

So I did provide you with actual documents though.

Might as well be.

I did send you you did get the emails.

Yeah. I did get a few and then I get I was reached out by it and they told me that uh they were told to stop because attorney for debt somehow got involved.

Now for the record and I'll get off this topic because it's not that big of a deal. Attorney for debt was not involved in my original email. It wasn't a foyer request. I had sent it to the mayor's office. It um your office Msafi I believe and somehow attorney for debt ended up with it told me it turned into a foyer request and somehow we're here today and I don't have the information. So

yeah. No, the request was who was going to pull that information because it was not a p public records request. Okay.

Or had he received one through the portal? Because everything goes to him, it did come to Emily, it came to myself and it went to Tyler and hair. Okay. My question was who's getting this information for you and then I questioned attorney FedET to see if there was a public records request. So he then spoke with Tyler. Okay. So we appreciate you communication.

Thank you. So to get further into the budget, my question I have I have the issue like I said state aid the revenue decrease that we're seeing here that several councils have brought up. How are we going to pay for diamond with all of this? So um like I said I can update those projection models. I did do one in um March February I think it was February sorry I

think we talked about it in March but I think it was done by the end of January.

Um so I can provide all of that in the specific detail to give you those forecasts. I didn't have that in front of me today because I was obviously focused on 27, but I definitely have all of that and and can talk through it more. Some of it is in the capital plan as well. Um that's in the do the back of the budget book to, you know, discuss what those um estimates look like in the

year-over-year increases. Um I know that the local receipts is going down and that's not I'm going to say ideal at all, but it's truly because we had such high numbers. Um you have to remember that we are still significantly up. I want to say that the local receipt budget for FY what was your projection for 27 originally for local receipts when you did first projection I and how different is it from what we're

actually you know what your projection was today um I don't think it's that different um but I could say okay so local receipts FY27 projected was 27.9 um but that's the other thing with that is that is still probably the actual projection, right? We will come in probably at least a million dollars higher than what we're budgeting. Um, like I said, the state requires us to be at 90% of the previous year's amount.

So, we can't we literally cannot budget to the full extent of what we've received the previous year. So, in that sense, you know, we are likely to come in a little bit higher than that, but I can't fully budget for that.

Okay.

At that point, now my other concern is trash.

I've spoken to Joe Kennedy four times in the last week probably.

There are way too many people living in this city. I've said it multiple times over the past month. When are we going to get a handle on that? Because if we don't know how many people live here, how are we going to service this city?

How are we going to service the people if we don't know how many people we're servicing from a revenue perspective?

Yeah. From a revenue perspective, how how are we going to how does how do you make that work? So, we thought figure we have 96,000 people. we come out at 116.

What are we making up all the extra everything that comes along with that?

So, you're saying in your questions to Mr. Kennedy, he doesn't know how many households I'm not saying Mr. Kennedy in particular. I've called him because I've seen trash overflowing all over sidewalks.

There's not enough. There's too many people living in these apartments and we really have to get a hold of that and start, you know, addressing it. We can't allow it. There's too many people living in these buildings and it it's going to cost us the s the city's just getting dirtier. Um when are we going to get a hold of that? Well, I mean that's what we have been working on for a good part

of the last year is working with the litter enforcement division mass D through Missy Hollandback which we talked about when we were here last week and um trying to get some ideas in ways to improve because one of our biggest issues Tuesday Thursday especially with our recycling is cost prohibitive at this point. So we have to start doing things. We talked about poss uh working with the board of health to be able to

pull bins if people however the ordinance is set and if individuals continue to violate whether it's three times four times whatever the decision is then those bins are pulled someone would have to go to private so it's going to be a matter of education and a matter of enforcement and we're hoping that DCM can take over some of the litter enforcement as far as fines and such input of that from a clerk's

perspective to allow our litter enforcement officers to be on the road more because right now they're writing their own tickets, but they're also inputting their own tickets too into the system.

And I'm sure they already do. Um maybe they can keep track of these nuisance properties and we can address it with the homeowners to see how many people are living in these, you know, dwellings. We actually have a meeting next week again followup from last week's meeting in which we've targeted a number of properties who have had four or more violations working on those um such as we did in past years with

nuisance properties to see what we can do immediately to target those those areas.

Okay. Um Miss OPI, what's the necessity to go to the prop two and a half and not lower all of these increases that we're talking about? So, um I actually had pulled data from for something else um and I was looking back at it. So, since 2020, the inflation rate has gone up um 30.3%.

And the 2 and 12% increases that were allowed over the same 8-year period brings us to 20%. So, as we keep talking about a lot of things are, you know, the costs are going up much higher than um were able to bring in in revenue across the board between, you know, local receipts, between um the state aid. So all of these costs are going up in the sense of the goods and services we buy.

I forget even the salaries of the people that we pay that work here. So we are, you know, struggling to keep up with that. The um net school spending, I mean that's up just in 20 um 26 to 27. The increase is $23 million in net school spending. The total um general government, I should say this, the total state aid is up 20 million. So right there alone, even if you were

banking on that, we still have money to cover. And that's just one line item.

You're not talking about the health insurance increases. You're not talking about the pension assessment increase.

So I mean, the pension assessment is set to increase. I think it's 6.5% every single year. So that alone, I mean, again, we're not even close to meeting that with a 2 and a half%. So there's so many increases that are going up higher.

So since 2020, it's been a massive a drastic change. Then that's what you just said since 2020.

Yeah. that the inflation increase is a 30% increase um just in the actual like cost of goods is the inflation increase not necessarily within our budget.

So my problem is if we seen this trend starting in 2020 whose bright idea was it to move all these extra people into the city after 2020. We couldn't afford ourselves and everything was just getting more expensive and we just added it to our population. I'm sick of putting on the taxpayer. I'm going to make a recommendation. I have some numbers here. Um I'm not okay with the

with the prop two and a half. I'm not at all. But I've done some numbers and I know at one and a half we generate about 2.1 and it saves the taxpayer about 1.4 and then roughly 1% we generate about 1.4 and we save the tax play payer 2.1.

Um I would like to see us go to 1% if anything and not a prop 2 and a half. I would also recommend that we frontload the budget with all of our essential city services, fire, police, water, trash, and we really structure this budget for the future and we we put a foot down and stop it. Structure the essential services, go to a 1% and just make it work. We can't keep going to the

taxpayer. So, council president, I'm I for one um and I don't know the appetite of the rest of the council. I'm not going for the prop two and a half. Um, I would like to maybe send this back to the mail with a recommendation of a 1% increase and see if they can structure the budget that way and then bring it back to us.

So to refocus the question, Miss Ary, how much does a 2.5% uh increase generate according to your budget? Is it the 3.5 million?

Correct.

Okay. So, how much would you generate to be clear for no confusion? Uh, if you your suggestion, counselor is a one and a half.

I would like to go Oh, I'll go to 1%.

1%. If if we would not go to the two and a half and go to the 1% to the base of the tax, what would that generate for income?

I I honestly think that the number he estimated was accurate, but I What was that number, councelor? If I might write the one point I I my number might be off. I apologize. 1% 1% was generation of 1.43 and then a savings of 2.1 million million. Yes. Yeah.

So we would at 1% it would generate 1.4 4 million plus or minus and they would have to find $2.1 million.

Yes.

To cut.

And I would recommend that it not be from public safety or any of the city essential services in a structured well-running society. That's our main focus is our city essential services.

So it is it is 1.4. I just very quickly did on my calculator. So that number is um rather accurate. But I I guess I should go back to some of the other you know comments on the you know I think in the last the joint meeting we talked about the you know areas that we have discretion over increases and not um so just to go through some of the numbers

alone and what the increases are. So the total budget increase from 26 to 27 is um $28.4 million. If you pull out that one time free cash it's really a $30.3 million increase. Um, like I said, net school spending is up $23 million of that 30 million. Um, the health insurance is up $6.6 million. Um, the pension assessment is up 1.9 million.

The vocational assessments are up 1.1 million. Um, and then the state and county assessments are up 3.2 million.

So, we're already at what is that? 27 27 27 million. So 27 million of that 30 million increase are strictly from that.

So if you talk about now what's increased in the um the other amounts um it's actually more than 27 million. I'm sorry.

Okay. Well well all that's great but I believe the counselor just mentioned that it is his suggestion. I don't know if he's going to get a second if he if puts a motion on the floor to go to the 1% instead of the two and a half under the revenue side. So councelor is there a motion that you're making?

Motion so made. Motion still made.

Motion made by councel Kadim to refer the I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Motion by councelor Pekkham to refer the budget to the full council to reject it asking for them to adjust their revenues to only go to the tax levy to 1%.

Yes, sir. 1%.

That's a motion made by councelor Peekham. Do we have have a second?

Is there a second on that first? Is there a second? Can I ask you something before that point of information cost?

Um, is that are we so for us to go to one and get the motion and get send it back to the we're actually rejecting the the entire budget.

That's we would have to we can't take action in full in the No, I understand. But I thought councel Pekkham said we should go see if they can see what they can do with it. Yeah.

With the 1% and not reject it right now.

Well, if I if I send it back to them, then it's a rejection.

Well, technically it's a rejection.

Okay. All right. I just Is there a second to the motion?

Conserency one, your point of information.

Point of information, we we have 45 days to to act on this. I mean, how many what's How many more days do we have left?

July 1st.

It's not 45. I made that up.

It's less than 45 now.

About 30 days to act on it.

So, what's what's the actual date? So, if you if you don't reject it and you just send it back, then June 26th.

Yeah. So, you just kill the clock.

That's that's the only thing.

this clock stops. Is that what you said?

If you you you need to reject it so that that clock stops. If not, it's automatically approved.

Yeah, I would reject it anyway. I'm not doing anything without the information that I requested. So, let's just reject it and go forward with the 1%.

Is there a second on councelor Pekkham's motion for the purpose? We're going to the point of order is I will recognize one more counselor in C7, but we have to councelor your point of information. Just a point of information, during Ed Lambert's term as mayor, we didn't go up the two and a half percent a few years in a row. We did 2%, we did a percent and a half and

then you can go back 10 years and pick up the percentages that you never used and the residents of Four River got banged hot. Do you remember that? I don't know who else was here. I think Joe was here. So if you think you're going to do it at 1% or one and a half% and you're going to have to make cuts somewhere to do that, then next year if you're really short, I mean the problem

is you did contracts with, you know, different departments, police, fire, should you cut their contracts? I don't know.

I don't. But I just want you to know that they can go back after and recap all that because I agreed to cut it and then Michelle I was a little surprised. I think Joe may be able to give you a better explanation of it. With that I yield.

You want me to clarify? I will.

Sure. Constency too. I just want to recognize Lambit was elected his first year because they didn't raise taxes 2 and a half% prior to him being in office. When he came in he had a lump sum that he could go up to like 8%. At that time taxes hadn't been raised in four or five years or so. So he had a lump sum that he can tap into. And people were saying

back then we know our taxes are too low.

We know you got to raise it. The first time I ran for office people saying to me raise our taxes they're too low. It's hasn't happened since.

That's what happens with that.

Do we have any other point of information?

Yeah. We would have to councelor I'd like to second councelor Peekham's motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Discussion.

Discussion.

Uh, President Pont.

Thank you. So, look, I I don't think there is any harm in the city council rejecting the budget, referring the budget back to the administration for the purposes of finding out if they're able to cut $2.1 million. Because for the last couple of fiscal years, the amount of money in free cash that has been certified back to the city council that we've certified has been upwards of over $2.1 million. And I believe my

colleague in seat 876 is trying his best to save the taxpayers money without having to go to the two and a half. very similar to what not similar but along the same wavelength as this council did two years ago with the water and sewer rates for years the water and sewer rates could not be increased could not be increased and then when I was on the floor I made a motion with m with the

water department and the council last year did not increase water and sewer rates by looking at the indirects so why not as a body refer the item back to the administration I support my colleague in seat 6's position and if they could cut $2.1 million of this budget to not go to the full two and a half and finally say we're not going to increase taxes. I don't see the harm in that.

M I I would also like to remind the council that you all also have the ability to cut $2.1 million yourself when approving this budget by going through the appropriation and cutting that amount. So that is also very much an option here. And and I think at this point, you know, we've spent months as a an entire building to put this budget together that um we would probably really like the input of this council to

see where you believe we could also make these cuts. So, I would just urge you to consider that as an option that you have full control of cutting $2.1 million or more yourself from this budget.

And that's fair and I and I hear you.

But what that is is a diversion tactic to the council who doesn't have the ability with the exception of these hearings to meet with the city to meet with department heads and say, you know, in the assessor's office, would you be able to cut $600,000? And in your department, could you cut $200,000? And in your department, could you cut a couple hundred,000? We have the ability to do that. I know that we can reduce

the point of these hearings.

I I get that. But listen, if the council is taking a position, and I don't know, I had to take the floor to second the motion, so maybe the support isn't there. But I would hope that the support would be there to we know I know and the council knows that if you if we reject the budget it goes back over to you for you to save the taxpayer money and not

have to go to the two and a half. We have the ability to sit here and reject the appropriation order and reduce reject or approve by line item and we can do that. But will we be putting the city in a uncomfortable financial position going down the road without having the all of the facts like I know your predecessor city of New Bedford has done in many many years. The city of New

Bedford cuts their budget for year over year. And I also recognize that New Bedford's in a financial horror show because they haven't gone to the full two and a half. But for years over years over years since you've been here as the um director of your role prior to being the CFO, this your your team has certified free cash in the millions.

So I'd like to be clear on that. I already had warned last year when we were adopting this 26 budget that that was going to change. I recognized that it was really high and that that wasn't going to stay that way with the increases we had last year. I mean, we had millions of we had diamond came online in the FY26 budget. It was a $600,000 bill for the prior year in the

um debt assessment and it went up to four plus million this year.

We also had that um solid I thought we have a bill looking at for9 million.

The total bill is but just the debt assessment alone is what really increased. We've been paying about $4 million for the students as it was.

Um, let me ask you a question on that topic. What happens on the revenue side that the city can't pay the diamond bill?

What do you mean?

What if we can't pay the $9 million diamond bill that just got thrown at the mayor to, hey, pay this $9 million bill?

What if we can't pay it?

I' I'd have to call the state and see.

It's technically an assessment. It's not a cherry sheet assessment, but it is an assessment that we receive. And I don't I don't really know what I don't really know what would happen. I I don't I'd have to figure that out.

I I hear what you're saying. I just They would just point of information council seat one.

They would take take your chapter 70 money.

Right. So, but here here's my problem though. We got a bill that just got thrown on the desk of the city and said, "Here you go. We were expecting to pay five or six million. Now we got to pay nine." And I don't hear I don't know where where the the loud noise is from the city saying that's not what was discussed.

Why? Where is where is the push back on Diamond?

It was I mean Diamond was in front of you two years ago to vote on to have um go to the debt debt exclusion. So, but that whole debt approval and them doing the school um there was some sort of well before my time where that it was voted on um to take on the school the building a new school in general. So, I don't know. I mean, I think that that

ship well past when that project was approved years and years ago now.

Sure. Look, I I I'll wrap up and yield to my colleagues because I know other people want to speak. I think what the counselor is trying to do is to save taxpayer money and not go to the full two and a half. It's unprecedented. I know that. But if the council rejects the budget and not goes not go to the full two and a half to save taxpayer money, if you can go find $2 million to

cut because you said you've been doing this for months with department heads, then let's go. Let's give it a shot.

We've already been highly aggressive with what we can remove from this budget. Like I said, the the amount of this increase that's in here that is mandated versus what's in here for the departmental increases is almost strictly salaries. I mean, the we voted for the ask me contract, it's 2 and a.5% cola increase. So, right there, that's a 2 and a half% in most of these departments that we we can't pull that

back. We'd have to cut positions. Um the fire department, the police department, those contracts haven't even settled.

But just with the added positions in fire, I mean that fire positions being added, that's almost $3 million that we added to the budget. So, there's a lot of things in here that, like I said, I think it would be helpful for all of us to work through all these departments and review this budget in detail with all these department heads to come up with, you know, a review and and thoughts on, you know, what could

actually be removed and what couldn't be because we have done everything we can to be conservative um and to make sure that we're mindful in creating this budget. And so, I just I would ask the council to to review this with us first before you make that action.

Understood. I'll yield for now.

councelor in seat 8, councelor proposalo. Yeah, I guess my only comment would be and I don't disagree with my colleague in seat six to try to save the taxpayers some money, but at the same time, we're going to go through this exercise and I think we as a council should be able to look through the entire budget and see what we can see to be cut and then at the end what we can

always say, well, if we're going to reduce it by this amount, then we can go back to the administration then say, well then drop that tax levy by x% to level it out. But I I would like to go through the exercise of this because again and in respect to the administration, they're doing that in their meetings upstairs, but we as a council will be able to do that here uh

for full transparency sake. So I yield council in seat too council.

Yeah. Thank you. Listen, I I agree.

Right. I want to save taxpayers money.

Who doesn't, right? Who wants to pay more taxes? Nobody does. So the department heads are here now before us.

We don't have to go back and have them asking the questions. Let's ask them.

How much money can you cut in your budget? the assessor in the assessor's budget, there's probably not much that that can be cut. I mean, I think I added $15,000 this year for a new software.

Yeah.

Other than that, it's it's um it's just uh salaries, right? So, did you do a base a zerobased budget?

We did.

Great. And I know that cuz I asked the question when I met with the mayor if there was a zer based budget. So, you're telling me you can't cut anything other than someone's salaries in city hall?

Correct. I had one.

We can't the the council's motion was not to touch police, fire, essential services.

So, what name them? Which ones? a trash police fire and city essential services what we need to live EMS who's left let's just close city oil cuz that's where who's left I mean you have the whole finance team so I don't I don't know how any of those things function without payroll without bills being paid without tax bills so I mean it's a complicated there's not there's I know it's complicated that's why we're

here that's why we're looking at the budget and every department has go to be before us so you can't give us any money other than taking someone's salary away from them correct lay off a couple of people maybe in the department. You have a vacant spot right now and you're not going to fill it because you can't especially when you Well, you'd like to, right?

Correct.

It's newly vacant.

Newly vacant. How about can you No, I'll just department. No, nothing.

It's mainly probably 90% salaries.

90%.

Can't give us anything. Can't give his expense budget is $13,650.

Look, I understand I understand how everyone put their budget together and there was zero base and they're working lean and I understand that the public thinks that there's a lot of fat in city hall and everywhere else and sometimes in some departments there are and sometimes we fix that here. But overall, I'm not sure where we can get $2 million from if we can. Do we have the departments before us? Can you make any

cuts in your department?

I was just looking. I've already cut expenses from last year's budget. it would be salaries and and honestly every body in my department generates money.

So if I didn't have the bodies to make phone calls to linguin taxpayers, we're not going to collect the money. If we I mean the people in my department are necessary for the revenue that you're seeing there. So that goes down if we lose people in my office.

So if you make any cuts to the other department, it's going to cost the city even more because we're losing.

I truly believe that. Yes.

Okay. So you can't give us anyone money either right?

No. So there you go, Emily.

I mean, my I think my expense budget is um $1,000 in my my department itself. So I mean, but you're also talking about a finance team. The biggest thing that we have are people to run the finances of the city. So that's a little bit of a complicated one. I think you could go into some of these other departments and look at the expenses. And again, I think that that's what would be helpful here

just to go through and say these are certain softwares or services that we offer. You know, what would we like to reduce in the city? this is presented to you as keeping all of the services level. So if we want to reduce other certain things that we do, you know, I just would like to have it as a group discussion is is my only ask at this point. I'm not opposed to it. I just

want to ask every department when they come before us is if it gets to that point, what can you do to save his money? Because we spoke about Ed Lambert earlier when he first got elected, how he was able to go back and raise the fees because they hadn't raised taxes prior in 1995. the council that was there prior to me being there. I wasn't here in 1995. Maybe councelor Pereira

was. They made 10% cut in expenses across the board in everything. The city council did it only to have to have a special meeting two days later when they realized that that was unrealistic and they couldn't do it. But they were happy when they did it and they had to have a special meeting two days later, maybe a week later, and come back and reinstate the money that they cut in that 10% cut

in all expenses across the board.

So, it's a dangerous tactic you're going down to. We I I want to save taxpayers as much money as possible. That's why we go to zerobased budgeting every department in city hall. But if you can't touch police, fire, which I agree, I don't want to touch EMS, police, fire, trash disposal. If you can't touch any of them, you might as well close city hall because there's no one left. I don't know who's left.

With that, I yield for now. Thank you, Councilman. Seat six, Council Pek. So my my rebuttal to that is with that what I see here we don't look good going into 28 and 29. It's like a oh you know what moment. That's what I see here when I look at this. So at what point are we going to stop and re-evaluate the budget and structure everything that is needed immediately our essential services and

then worry about everything else after.

We're going to kick this can down the road. And you know where that can's going to end up? Receiverhip. I see that out of this. We're going to be in trouble in a few years. I'm going to tell you why I know that. I met with the mayor last week.

Okay. And I asked him, well, he asked me, "What do you think about the budget, Chris? 27. It's good, right? You're voting yes." I said, "No." And he goes, "Oh, come on. You're going to heaven if you vote on this budget." And I said, "Fantastic. I'm not voting on it." I said, "How is this budget?" He said, "Fine this year, Chris, but when I leave, it's not on me." So, I said, "Oh,

that's interesting." I kept that one in my back pocket. And then fast forward about 5 minutes later, he said it again, which provoked me to start doing some digging because when you're rat on yourself like that, I got to go look into it. And that's why I requested all the paperwork that you guys haven't given me yet. And that's why I'm going to the 1% because at some point all of

this has to stop. We have a $300 million net school spending bill, right? That's going to take up all of our state aid.

Why do we get state aid? To send kids to school? That's what we do, right? We get state aid for all the people we receive, but it all goes to our school department. At what time are we what point in time are we going to get an administration that calls Boston and tells Miss Mora, "We can't do this anymore. You're burying us." At what point do you guys do that?

That's actually happened, counselor. The mayor's had several um conversations with the state about transportation and the cost of transportation and how that's not included in net school spending. I mean, that's how kids get to school. I understand.

So, we we've tried to have conversations with the state changing formulas and things along those lines.

It just doesn't work. These liberal policies do not work and they bury our cities. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on. You can be a Republican, Democrat, an independent, drive around Fall River. The only thing you're going to be is aggravated.

Right? So, my proposal for the 1% is so they can really look at this budget and cut what we don't need. We need the essential services. Save them. cut everything else because at the end of the day, the way I look at this, it's a D-Day. If we don't balance this correctly and look at the future, we're all in a lot of trouble here.

What departments counselor do you not see as essential?

Um, I'm looking at if this if everything was burning down, right? Or whatever we need to survive. That's what an essential city services. It's essential.

So, anything non-essential, if I can live without it and not die, look into it.

I anything. We're not going to go to the taxpayer anymore. We have to set this budget to where we're not going to fail next year. So, we might as well do it now.

Like right now, just structure it to where we are set for the future. Not like, hey, I'm going to throw haste to the wind and just see what happens because that's ultimately what Mayor Kogan told me in that meeting.

But, but that's not what's here. I know that he might have said that in the meeting, but I wasn't in that meeting to to say that and I would never say that.

We do have a five-year forecast and it's it's showing as that we are making it through and I can update that with these numbers but right now with everything stands we are going to be okay right now. So I'm not sure you know we're always looking forward and and I can't say that it's going to be perfect forever and I can't say that something big isn't going to change within this

but if you look at the the 5-year forecast that was provided to you in the CIP I mean that was literally from less than six months ago. we are not falling off track at this point in time and that's with us adding in a lot of this capital and some of this debt. So, you know, I'd like to be able to update that even better from this 27 budget and to

re give you that forecast to talk through that better, but I I would I understand your concerns and I want to say that we do all have them and we discuss them often. It's something that I mean it's my whole job is to look at that stuff. It's not to get through each fiscal year. it is to make this sustainable and looking at it in a long-term picture. So, all of these

decisions are done with that in mind.

So, I I just I I would like to say that it's not necessarily as as urgent in the sense of we're not going to make our budget by 28. Um, and I know that I'm not trying to kick the cane down the road because I'm young and I'd like to be here for many years. I also own a house in this city. So I I am looking towards the future and I'm trying to do

the best for this entire population, not for the administration or you know people who are here temporarily. It is for this community. So I just would urge you to give this a chance. Let me update the 5-year forecast before we act. Even if you want to wait till Thursday night, I just I would really urge you to give us a chance to have some of these conversations to give you that five-year

forecast before we make a decision.

That's my only request.

Okay. I appreciate that. But the motion is still made. Um, do do you yield?

Yeah, I yield the floor. Thank you, councelor. I mean, President Pont in four.

Thank you. So, I I I just we can get through this. Um, I don't know where the votes are going to be for this. I think what we're trying to memorialize here is a very simple ask um to save the taxpayers $2.1 million without having to go to the tax levy at that higher amount. For the last couple of years, you've certified good amounts of free cash in the millions. And I know you

might not be looking at that in fiscal year 2026, but in fiscal year 2025 and other fiscal years, you've certified large amounts of free cash. And certified cash is money that wasn't used in your municipal budget. Right.

I can Yes. But I can tell you exactly where that was coming from and where that's going, why that won't be the same moving forward.

Very briefly, why wouldn't it be the same going forward? We I mean if we slashed expenses last year, expense budgets that were not being used were completely pulled back. We went to zerobased budgeting again last year that hadn't been done here in several years.

And we dramatically reduced a ton of expenses um from these departments that was not being utilized to make sure that we were only funding what was needed.

Almost every department was like, well, I might need I might need I might need I might need what if I need what if I we pulled all of that back and said, if you need that, we will come down and ask for that at that point in time. So we already did a lot of those changes within this budget to make this more conservative in 26 and moving forward.

So we did reduce a lot of those expense budgets. We did increase the revenue budgets and then again some of those big expenses came online in the millions last year that ate up a lot of what that previous free cash was being certified at. We now have expenses that make that.

Are you budgeting for u increases in collective bargaining negotiations in this fiscal year?

So the the ones that have been agreed upon already, right? So we have none nothing is technically due to be renewed in 27. It's all stuff that was supposed to be renewed as of this July one that maybe hasn't settled. So we do have obviously anything that was settled in ask me was included in here. Any of those colas um are in there, but the ones that haven't been settled, we do

have a reserve set aside of 400,000.

It's not necessarily enough to cover everything, but we don't know what those are going to be and when they're going to settle at this point in time. So it's not necessarily perfectly budgeted for because we don't know what they're going to be at this point. All right, I'll yield and I'll look forward to a roll call vote on the motion.

Ready for a roll call?

I yield. Yep. Roll call.

Roll call on referring the budget to full council with a rejection to adjust the revenues for the tax levy at 1%. Councelor Scadm, no.

Camarra, no.

Can no.

Dion, no.

Hart, no.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, no.

Raposo, no.

President Ponti, yes.

Motion fails.

Okay, back to general government. um on this item or revenue. Any further discussions on revenue at this time?

Councilman seat six council Pekkham.

Council President, I'd like to make a motion to go to 1.5%.

And that'll be a generation of 2.1 and a savings of 1.4.

Say that again.

So at 1.5 levy of 1.5 increase goes to a generation of 2.1 million and a savings of 1.43 million to the taxpayer. I'd like to make a motion. We reject this sitting before us and go forward with that.

Motion made by councelor Pekkham. Is there a second?

I don't have a second.

I know any further mo council in C4.

No, I'm just I had more revenue questions. I'm just waiting.

Is there any further discussion?

No discussion and no second.

I understand that. Is there any further discussion on revenue consc?

So, um, how much debt has fallen off in the last five years?

I know I've asked that question multiple times. So, hopefully we know what that is.

So, the the debt payments um I I they haven't that much decreased because of some of the other debt coming on and the payments increasing. They're going to decrease moving forward. So, if you're looking at the total outstanding that's decreased, I could give you that. But the payments haven't necessarily decreased um at that amount yet. I mean, the payments each year, we have not bonded in easily five years.

That's not that's not the case.

Okay. What what we have not issued new debt in the sense of we have not come down for necessarily new authorizations in the last several years, but some of the authorizations that previously existed for the schools, right? So, we've had a lot of school projects that were, you know, approved many years ago that we only bond them once they're completely completed. So, that's been some of those have been

trickling on. I mean, I think we issued what, two years ago? The last of the dery debt was two years ago that was issued. So, technically we have issued but based off of a prior authorization.

Okay. Can so can you please please please let us know how much it increased, how much it decreased, and ultimately how much debt has actually fallen off because we're talking about bonding for Third Street.

We're talking about a a few projects and we need to know where we are.

So I I mean I I did provide to you part of the supplemental information because I know we've been asking for it. It's the debt schedule um by department for the next it's from 2026 all the way to 2030 20 sorry 51. So it does show everything that's going to come off. I just I didn't go back 5 years before that on this schedule but I can get you all of

that to show you but this is also based on debt payment not necessarily the total amount outstanding. So those are two obviously very different numbers. We have an outstanding amount that's you know upwards of 140 million but then the actual payments each year are obviously very different from that amount. So, and then tonight's not the night because we're not talking about health care

tonight. We're not talking about healthcare till a week from tomorrow.

But twice tonight, I've already heard you say that health care has gone up which has increased our expense our expense side.

Correct.

Okay. In the last five years, including this year, we have seen a surplus at the end of the year after all the bills were paid in healthcare.

2026 so far is the only one that perhaps we're not going to have a perhaps we're not going to have a surplus because of the GLP1s.

And I have all the information at home.

Didn't bring it with me today.

Okay.

Yeah. But there have been when you start talking the rebates etc etc. We have budgeted x uh you know uh x number of dollars for health care for the year and at the end of the year have actually come out ahead.

So I think it's a little bit I I don't think that health care is driving expenditures. I think there's more to expenditures and um we'll get into that a week from tomorrow like revenue point of information constency one some confused looks I think she's discussing the uh Gallagher reports that come out in the funding ratio versus what's in the trust fund so that's that's what she's speaking to I just want to I don't

yeah and I have that and I have that and I just want to clarify that so example how much is healthcare going up this year if I may interject for a moment I'm very sorry to do this but if I allow this.

I'm going to have to allow this all the time. We have to discuss revenue.

Please. Revenue only.

I only said it because she brought it up twice.

Totally get it and I and I hear you. But if I let this happen, we're going to be here for 6 weeks.

You're right. I'm until 11:00 at night.

I yield.

Any further questions on revenue?

Council seat one. Council.

So I I just have a I guess a general statement, not necessarily for the administration. Um, so I I know there was a a motion to reject the budget at and reduce the tax levy to 1% and then 1 and a half%. Can we just get a consensus of the council? Was it rejected be I guess was it voted down because uh we're going to reject the budget or was it voted down because there's no um

willingness to entertain it? cuz I I think there's if there's a willingness to reduce the tax levy, I think we should know that in advance because our line of questioning changes drastically as we move forward with, you know, department heads. So, I just want to get that clarification if that makes any sense.

Yeah. Who would you like to ask that clarification from?

Every council.

Listen, I I I I don't know why I know why I voted no. I I don't support a reduction of the 2 and a half%. But if there's some type of appetite to go below the two and a half% I think we should know that well in advance so that we can have these conversations with department heads what that looks like because if we're not going to send it back to the administration and the

intent is is that we're going to be looking at this. I I think it changes the way we ask and frame questions.

That's my only if any councils want to opine on that it's up to you. You yield counselor council seat four council vice president.

Yep. I'll respond to that. So I think I'm So whether you reduce um reduce it by one and a half% or we ultimately make cuts in the budget that reduces the budget by $2 million is the same outcome. Correct.

No, it's not.

No, you still get taxed. Correct. You're just going to have a surplus.

Uh no, we would have to balance the budget. So we would have to reduce the revenue budget. Yes. Technically, I can reduce it from whatever lines, but I I would like to say that we would have conversations about what that would look like um and where it would be reduced from, but if that's if the will of the whole council is to not to do the 2 and 1 half%, I think that'll be a very

active discussion. So, it's not necessarily a requirement that you'd still be taxed at the 2 and 1 half%.

No, just and just point of information to your logic is is that so we the only thing we really appropriate is the tax.

So, we appropriate the tax. So, if we're not reducing the tax, if we reduce $2 million, that can come from local revenue, local receipts, and then that just generates a $2 million surplus. So, if we go and we have uh the appropriation audit before us and it's still at 2 and a half%, that that's Yeah, we could also reduce the diamond stabilization. We could reduce the debt exclusion. So, we could reduce from any

but her question is it's not the same if you just reduce $2 million on the budget technically, right? because the appro because the we're still being raising an appropriate on the tax. So there's a big difference on that because ultimately was because it was said that if you reduce it to 1% you're going to be cutting the budget.

You you would have to you would you would have to but the there's a difference between cutting the budget and having the other revenues get reduced, right? As opposed to the taxation. We get one bite at the apple at the taxation and that's the raise in the appropriate.

Um so I don't know that I wouldn't have the appetite to do it. I do however feel like we should be go looking into this budget going further into it and just making that decision on a different day not necessarily right out of the shoot but that's just me and with that I yield.

No problem counselor. Thank you. Any further discussion on revenue?

Thank good.

Next department is going to be general government.

General government will begin on page.

It will begin on page 26 in the budget and the first department will be the mayor's office. Counselor in C8.

Councelor Raposa.

Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so I guess my only question in the mayor's office is your former position. That's kind of your position still, I guess, right?

Um, so your appointment ends when? For in city administrator?

I had a 90-day appointment that started March 31st, so the end of June. And then there's an option to extend it not to exceed 60 days.

Okay. And is do we know I guess I have to ask you the mayor's not here but is there an intent to extend you past the 90 days.

Do we know the mayor and I had a conversation but again that's would be subject to the approval of the council and I think the mayor would rather have conversations with the counselor.

Sure. That's that I respect that. Um so as far as your position your former position I guess it's currently vacant.

it the plan is to remain it as it is until some decision is made as far as your future for now.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's all I have for the mayor's office. I thank you. City council office city consency for council vice president.

Yeah. I only have a comment for this. Um so I know that we cannot increase the budget. We can only uh reduce the budget. However, um number one at precedent was set before I would like to see a line item in city council um the city council account for legal services in the amount of $40,000 which can be accomplished by reducing line items elsewhere in the budget. So we would not be increasing the budget.

um precedent was set 21,22 and 23 fiscal years we had $40,000 in a line item in our budget.

And I know it's been stated on one more than one occasion that that was because the law department was short. They didn't have enough staff. Um I'm going to call that a misrepresentation of what it was.

I have a copy of city council um city council's um account from 21 22 and 23 all three years. So I know it wasn't a misprint. All three years it was legal services for outside legal counsel. It was never to help the law department. It was for outside legal counsel for the city council. Um, and I would that adjustment I would like to see made and that's all I have for the city council.

Thank you. You that I yield.

Thank you. Council C2, Council Kamar.

Thank you. City council through the chair to council seat 4.

Just curious how much of that money in those years was expended for outside legal services.

So the answer to that question is see let's start with 21.

and 20.

Oh, I don't see the uh it just shows that the projection for 21 was 40,000.

Um Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. And then it $787 was spent. The following year, not on legal services.

On legal services.

For what purpose? Just curious. I wasn't here those years.

We had um KP Law.

Yeah.

Um that would per that we periodically brought here to ask questions. They would look into legal issues for us.

What was I'm just curious. I wasn't here. What was the issue? That's why I don't know.

Ordinances.

Ordinances to the to advise on ordinances drafting.

Mhm.

Okay.

So, that was $787 in the um fiscal year 2022. We didn't expend any. So, the reasoning was they took it away because we didn't spend it.

Well, I don't think the issue should be whether we spend it or not. Because if we didn't spend it, we were frugal, weren't we? We didn't spend it unnecessarily. We spent it when we felt we needed to spend it. How many things do how many items in this budget do we have that the money is never expended?

I didn't ask that question. All I asked was how much we use spent in legal services those years that I wasn't here.

No, you weren't.

So, it's all So, I got my answer. 78.

$787 in that one particular and the rest of that money was in the budget and it ended up in free cash, I'm assuming, because it didn't get used and it's money we could have used and could have taxed people less money if we hadn't had it in there and could have saved the taxpayers money that year.

With that you thank you.

Anything further for city council?

Council seat 8 council or poso.

Sorry. Um I guess this through you Mr.

President to the city clerk. It's a question kind of city council and city clerk kind of blends in together here.

Um and it's more just from my understanding. So under the city council budget, you madam clerk, you had a stipen for being clerk of the committee, right? The council secretary is also here. Just I guess I'm curious where does the assistant city clerk lie into this? There's there's nothing, right?

It doesn't exist at the moment.

It doesn't exist at the moment. Okay. Is is there any I guess any conversation that it should exist for these?

Yes, I have spoken to the mayor as well as the council president and the director of financial services. Okay.

Um to work on creating um a stipen or a version thereof.

Okay. So yeah, the the it was brought up. It was um one of the enhancement requests because um as you can see that essentially everybody else but the assistant um city clerk gets it right now. So um we are more than happy to.

The problem is is these other ones were set in ordinance. So we just wanted to follow the same mechanism. So we're on board with it. But because that hasn't been done um we didn't obviously put in a budget for something that hasn't been changed in ordinance and that hasn't been approved. And once that's done, if if that ordinance goes forward, um after that's approved, we would come down with

an amendment for the budget accordingly.

Um city administrator, is there an intention to send that ordinance from the administration?

Yeah, we talked about it in our budget meeting. We're there. It's it's being worked on. We just talked about that and just because I measures on maternity leave, it's it was a little bit of an extra late conversation. So, I think before the end of the fiscal year, we're the goal is to send that down. Um, it just obviously was not going to be in time for this to be submitted. So,

correct, madame clerk. So, I guess history when you were the assistant city clerk, it's it's been like this for as long as I can remember in my predecessors as well.

Okay. All right. So, hopefully maybe we're going to see that sooner rather than later.

Yes.

Okay. I yield. Thank you.

City council council in seat one.

Council, thank you. If we're just tallying scores, I agree with my colleague in C4 on the uh legal service for the 40,000.

So, with that, I yield. Thank you.

Council in seat three, council.

I will echo that as well and I did convey that to the mayor directly as well when I spoke to him about the budget.

Me too.

Yep.

Anything further on city council? Is there any bit of an appetite from the um inim city administrator and the CFO to send a new budget appropriation down to the city council for city council uh legal services for $40,000?

I I understood the corporation council to say that he had taken it out of his budget previously for outside legal service. Are you looking for it to be appropriated from somewhere other than the legal department budget? I I believe our council vice president's point and you can speak for yourself is you want it in the city council budget to be operated because it was in the city council

budget previously. So that's where the money would be. Okay. So, is there an appetite for that at all? It sounds to me that there's a little bit of a consensus here.

Yeah. I mean, I'm again just would like to ask operation council Ramsey if that then came out of his budget to pay for that. Did he reduce a line item to then appropriate? He did not.

We are going We are going to have him here tonight so we can ask that question.

All right.

Yeah. I would say we're not necessarily opposed. We we just have been having these conversations in the last month came from.

Understood. All right. Thank you.

Anything further for city council budget?

None. Good. City clerk. Any questions for city clerk budget?

City clerk council seat 8 council repos.

Real quick. The improvements being done in the office. That's all funded FY26.

It's also in the facilities.

So either way, yeah, we're good. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. And it was sorely done. And for full disclosure, it was very much needed. Um, and the next thing that needs to be done so nobody's shocked by it is the carpets outside in front of here because they're are terrible and the there's schools that do uh we did this a couple years ago and that needs to get done as well. So that's on the wish list.

Amen.

Um, anything further for city clerk?

None. Elections. Anything for elections?

Councilman seat for council vice president Dion.

I only have one question.

Could

just state your name and your uh role for the record, please.

Ryan Lions, chairman and director of the board of elections.

Good evening.

Hi, councelor.

Under expenses on page 37, R&M equipment, uh the projection in in 26 was 6,900 and in 27 it's going up to 19,000. Can you explain what that line item is and why that much of an increase? Because it's only $100 short of $12,000 increase because I think we had merged two line items together, Emily, on that one.

I mean, that's still why you didn't expend that.

Yeah, I think something was was not expended from last year and then two line items were merged together for FY27.

I think part of it maintenance and for for the TS200 voting machines and the maintenance on the machines as well.

Can you speak to the mic?

Sorry.

So what items were merged together?

I think it was two line items that were merged together. One for the overall maintenance on the machines as well as for the coding on the machines for each individual election.

But all of that's merged within all of that would be wrapped into it.

Okay.

So all of those expenses I think it's part of it is just the repairs. I mean you can see in FY25 what was needed was almost 15,000. So this year I think it was fortunate that there was less repairs needed on the machines. Um, so you're anticipating we're going to need a the repairs are going to significantly significantly increase a little bit more counselor for the two elections.

They're also aging more I think was the conversation that was put forward. Um, there are estimates it's it's $225 per machine and there's 26 machines. So I think that's where that came from.

There's also programming costs. So because there's two elections in this one that that's needed for that has to be done twice. So those are it's done by I mean we have totals here that shows it's um 200 120 in the sense for the programming coding for the flash drives for all of the elections between the primary and the main election um that's needed.

Didn't we recently and when I say recently last two or three years purchase new voting machines?

They were purchased by my predecessor in 2019.

Oh it was that long. Wow. So they're slowly that with with that I yield. That was the only question I had.

Question state councelor Raposo.

Yeah. Just a question on the building rental piece. Um did something change? I know it's it's so such a small number, but did something change as far as building rentals are concerned for Yes. You're actually very happy to hear this counselor. Precinct 7A is part of the consolidated list that's coming before you probably next month. Is moving over to Derby High School. So, it's going to save my It's United

Methodist Church is saving me $1,000 per election cycle.

I'm I'm the happiest man on the earth now.

I yield. Thank you. Council in C3 council.

I just want to revisit that. I think you quoted $225 per machine. Is that correct? And there's it's 200 I'm sorry.

And there are two sets of flash drives.

One for election day and one for the advanced processing of the mailing ballots. Are you the 225 though is for the maintenance, right?

The the coding is a separate breakout that we have um for a separate cost.

What does that cost?

I could tell you right now it's $115 per program and coding cost.

So flash drive.

Yeah. So it's it's a programming encoding. So, we call it a flash drive, but it's obviously it does a lot more than it's not like we're just buying a flash drive from CVS. It's it's the coding and all of that that goes behind it. So, that's $115 per um one that's needed and it's um in here for for 120 that are needed between the two sets of flash drives that are needed for both election day and

and the automark machines.

Yeah, that's this all that detail has to come from. You have to speak to that more.

They're not understanding why it's 120.

Yeah, you had it in here. 120 that are needed.

Not sure about the quantity. Oh, for the quantity. I'm sorry. Because there are two sets of flash drives for each um election and there I'm sorry, two sets of flash drives. One for election day and then one for the advanced processing of the mail and ballots as well. And then there's one specifically for programming the machine per election. So that's where the 120 came from. Plus,

there were 33 automark machines that we do program as well.

Okay.

I think I would just like as a followup a breakdown of that $19,000 um more granular. I think it's hard to follow. Um I guess you know maybe maybe up to 17,000 if I was following that but I think it would be easier to have a breakdown with you.

Thank you Councilman C2. Council Kamar.

Thank you Mr. President Ryan. You said 7A is moving to Dery High School.

Yes, counselor.

It's a big school. Main entrance.

Oh, it's going to the Nagel side of the old auditorium section.

Old auditorium.

Yes. Which will be separate from the high school.

Yes.

Okay. Cuz people are going to be thinking it's in the high school and it's not. It's in the old auditorium.

They go correct.

Okay. And that's the only change. I heard rumors BCC is going to go back to working.

There are a few changes that I'll be recommending to the city council next month. Coming down to you next month.

Probably in a couple of weeks for this next collection that's coming up this year.

Yes, councelor.

Let's try to get that out word out as quick as possible.

Oh, yeah. It's coming to you in a couple or not. But um another question.

I think that's it. With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further for elections? Councilman C6. Council Pum.

I would like to go back to council Kadim's question. Is there an appetite here to go less than 2.5 because I don't want to sit here and go through this if there's an appetite here to go lower than the prop 2 and a half because we're going to have these conversations and like councelor Kadim said the questions change if we change the percentage. So I would recommend rejecting and going to a 2%

instead of a 2 and a half where it generates 2.86 86 million and saves us about 717,000 in the taxpayers's pocket.

Motion uh by councelor Pekkham to reject the budget, refer it to full counsel with the recommendation that this administration uh only go to the 2% tax levy has been made by councelor Pekkham.

Is there a second?

I will second the motion. Is there any further discussion?

Roll call on the motion to refer the appropriation order to full counsel rejecting the budget and um having the tax levy at 2%.

Councelor Scadin, uh, no.

Camarra, no.

Canuel, no.

Dion, no.

Hart, no.

Pekkham, absolutely.

Yes.

Pereira, no.

Rapos, no.

President Ponty, yes. Motion fails. Anything further on conserv Council Pereira?

Yeah. Uh, Mr. Lions, is there anything on your budget that you could cut or are you to the bone there? It's kind of to the bone for this election cycle in addition to the change with precinct 7A being merged to Jery High School.

So there's nothing that you could cut.

He he did cut 15,000 from 26 to 27 off my printing services because we don't print the ballots for the state elections only for municipal elections.

Well, thank you Mr. Lions.

Of course I yield.

Anything further for elections?

Councilman C3. Council Canuel.

Just one more question. We've made a lot of changes over the years to election polling places. um shuffling people around and our continued turnout continues to decrease. Um I know just in particular where I live right across the street is a polling location yet I was having to go all the way to BCC um which is even farther than my previous polling location. Um with the upcoming changes

are we looking to get people back to closer to where their polling locations are or we I think you know I'm just worried about the impacts of continued lower voter turnout.

It depends on the location of where somebody might live. Counselor, I mean, you might live closer to an old location, but you know, for example, like precinct 8B, 8C, and 9A was previously at BCC and before that were at Tansey Elementary School in Spencer Bordon. Um, so it just depends on where somebody might live within a particular zoned precinct.

I think I I've just heard a lot of feedback uh especially as I went door to door last year. um people who maybe don't drive who used to be able to if you were on County Street they used to be able to walk to the fire station now you know they they have to try and find transportation you know to St. Anthony of the desert as an example so I think

people are just looking for ways to you know get to the nearest polling location to them well St. Anthony will continue to be the centralized voting location in the Flint section of the city and I do offer a transportation to the polls on election day. I have the bus for the duration of the day and that will be on the notice is going out to the general public once the list has been adopted by the city

council.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anything further for elections? Just budget questions? None. Thank you.

Veterans counselor in seat 8 councelor Raposo.

After this, we're going to take a two-minute recess. Just restrooms. I know there's some people been sitting here for a little bit. So, right, it'll be very, very short, though.

Good afternoon, Taylor Ferris, 602 Dwell Street, Fall River State.

Thank you, Taka. It's a question on the veterans aid non 115 nonchapter 115 and I'm I'm very happy to see that increase.

Um can you explain some edification exactly um the situation we find ourselves in when it comes to certain veterans who find themselves very slightly out of the eligibility for chapter 115 and how this funding here really extends some extra support to our vets.

Absolutely. Um, one of the things that I found, uh, after coming on board and seeing how the CO funding was handling, uh, my department didn't really use a lot of the CO funding. Uh, but one of the things I noticed is that there was a need for instances for emergency assistance outside of what some of the nonprofits could provide. um under chapter 115.

The program itself is kind of set up to help those that are living below the poverty line. Uh and $50 to $200 will disqualify you for assistance. Um and I found times where some of the nonprofits were in a position later in the year where they didn't have the funding to assist with some of those emergency things like people being evicted or needing assistance keeping their gas or

lights on. Uh and so that is where uh I kind of reached out and look around the state. There are several veteran service departments that have kind of a discretionary fund for emergency uses for situations like that. So that is what I'm requesting. Uh we've cut our budget drastically over the last two years. Uh and I think we can um still support our veterans in a way that's meaningful even though we're cutting.

Do you do you feel that the 49805 is appropriate? And I and I asked simply that in comparison to your neighboring uh cities and towns with similar structures, is that an appropriate number? Do you feel?

I feel with the need for us to kind of be a little bit more stringent with the budget. I feel that number is sufficient.

Okay.

To the elderly and veterans ride service. Um, so FY25 34370 revised budget in 26 was 50,000 and they're projected as 35192, but yet we're still proposing a budget of FY27 of 50,000 again. Um, has the need for the rides decreased? And I realize that some of this is council of on aging as well because it runs through your department.

So do you see there's some decrease in in the usage of this? What's your thoughts on that?

Absolutely not. And I want to kind of restructure the way we kind of look at this because this used to be a council on aging ride program. Uh it is no longer that. It got switched over to my department shortly shortly after I was uh hired here at the city. So we call it the elderly rides program and veterans ride program now. Um but no, there's not a decrease in usage. We actually lost a

driver uh over the course of the last year. Um, and what I've tried to do is at different times of the year increase the number of rides that are available to the elderly for shopping and for medical appointments during certain times of the year like during the summer. Um, there's a need for more grocery store trips. So instead of going two times a week, we try to increase that to three. So that is the reason for

the request for 50 pretty consistently.

Okay. And do you have a sense of between elderly and veterans?

Can you differentiate that number? I can uh majority of the riders are for the elderly program to be honest with you.

Um we take veterans to the Brockton VA and to Providence VA, but those rides don't compare to the number of folks that we take to uh local medical appointments in the elderly program into grocery shopping.

Correct. To the interim city administrator, I guess my question, and I I've thought about this before, too.

Why is it that this program is in the veterans office? that happened prior to this administration I believe. Um I think it was the issue of getting draft.

I can answer that Mr. Fris or not. Um just so so that way no no one's misunderstanding anything.

Um this program actually came into the veterans department the council on aging version of it came to the veterans department uh during my predecessor's term here. Um there was a need um I believe for the program to continue since our department had the vehicles.

Uh that is the reason why it switched over. There was a point at in the beginning of that transfer where the council on aging was actually reimbursing us for the payment to the contracted drivers. Um but again shortly after I got here that was a full-fledged switchover.

Yeah. So we essentially removed the budget from the council on aging budget and moved it over to the veterans um department at that time in 2025.

We did that was moved over full. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. I mean I think a further discussion needs to take place about you know it I know it's grouped into elder and veterans ride service. I can understand that the veterans office supplies rides to veterans, but I'm I'm I have a hard time the the other side of it that the council on aging on the elderly piece seems to be more appropriate, but that's that's a question and a conversation really not

for today. I think for another day. Um that I yield. Thank you, Council 3.

Council Canuel, thank you.

When it comes to chapter 115 veterans aid, uh it increased substantially from FY25 to FY26.

Uh would you say that chapter 115 case loads are increasing due to economic conditions?

So it was just the uh amount that was requested or budgeted for that was increased. The actuals actually did not.

Um just the I don't know that this number here is accurate, but I believe it is. But if you look um going into 2026, that number was actually reduced from uh 1.3 to 1.176 and a lot of that has to do with what's been happening with the program itself across the state over the last 20 plus years. The number of people that are eligible for that program or that take advantage of it is just significantly

decreased. I mean, we're down to 65, excuse me, we're down to 64 because we lost another um member of our community that was on that program. So, we're down to 64. I mean, people are either um financially finding their way out of the program or they're dying off.

I was going to say that that projected number could be off because I think the veterans aid is given out monthly, correct? And monthly checks. And when this projection was grabbed, it I could have been off on if the payment had been made or not. So that could be potentially a little bit high in the projections. So we can review that and and give you a better update and make sure that those projections are

accurate. I think the other line items within there, not the veterans aid one, you know, that that comes in as needed, but the veterans aid is a monthly payment. So I can confirm if that projection is accurate.

So I guess then the question is when it comes to the 1.3 revised budget, that's also what we're proposing in FY27.

um even though FY25 and FY26 are far short of that. Um do we think we still need it that high or is a buffer or what's the I guess I I I've been we're being told this is zerobased budgeting but then I see these numbers well this this department's a little bit more complicated because this is fully that anything that's chapter 115 is reimbursed for what's expended. Um, you know, even when we decreased the budget

last year from FY25 to 26, we did do a significant decrease in that budget. I think it was upwards of $200,000. Um, a lot of people, to be honest with you, didn't really like that or support it because they felt like we were cutting the aid to them. But to be honest with you, we're still actively, you know, agreeing and supporting giving out all of that aid that is eligible. It's just

you, as we've talked about, the eligibility is dropping off. So, um, you know, we're trying to find the balance of making sure that the money's there so that, you know, as it's needed, it's able to go out the door and not shortch changing it. But, um, we are trying to trim back and be more accurate to what the numbers are. So, that one line didn't necessarily increase in that overall aid, but you can see that the

other, um, line items did slightly decrease. So, like the medical and surgical, we've only been getting out like $30,000 and it was budgeted at 175.

So, we did decrease that significantly um, to try and adjust for that. the same thing with the burials um and then like the dental. So we are trying to adjust it some if there's you know an appetite to decrease it some understanding that obviously if the need is there that we would need to increase it again. Um but that is an area that could potentially you know it does have a rather

significant turnback um each year. I think the notes that I gave you said that historically prior to 26 it was about 650,000 on average that was being turned back just from that chapter 115.

Um, so the budget before you brings that down to um a lot a lot lower, a lot closer number from what we've been doing. So I think we could entertain more knowing that if a need in an eligibility comes in, we would we would have to come back to you and ask for it.

So thank you. Um, veterans quarters $10,000.

What is that? It doesn't look like it's been used the last uh fiscal year or the one before. Yes. The uh prior iteration of the council was educated during the last budgetary meetings um that my mass general of law there's a certain way quarters is supposed to be given out.

The $10,000 was an arbitrary number that was put out there. Um I've done a lot of research on this and the way you get to your number um is by looking at the city valuation. So any city that's evaluated at $500 million or more, um the way you come to your overall number for quarters is is 150th of 1% of that $500 million.

So the actual number if we had the number of organizations to support the number is closer to $100,000 that would be divvied up between the different organizations. We don't have that many organizations that are eligible for quarters according to Mass General Law.

So that's why that number has stayed static on top of the fact that it's not been given out because of the confusion that was created. Um but I do have an organization uh that is uh that rates it and that has put in for it. So you'll see a reduction there and we'll notify the other two organizations that rate quarters here in the city um for their opportunity to go ahead and request it as well.

Okay.

memorial monuments, $5,000. Um, also a number that hasn't been used the last couple years as I was putting flags on graves, Oakrove Cemetery. Um, there's a lot of graves that, you know, could really benefit from this. And I'm sure this is restricted to uh those who are veterans. I just want to make sure that um if there are any veteran graves out there that are in need of this money

that we would be finding it that way.

But I'm you're nodding your head. So I would I'll defer to you here.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Uh so that trip where we were out flagging graves, uh I definitely identified a few graves that need to be touched. Um and so myself and Victor Faras are going to be working to try and spend some of this money this year before the budget close out.

Perfect. And then my last question is just around subscriptions. Uh FI and 26, there was no money spent. Um we're we still have $450 here um set for FY27.

Again, just back to the zerobased budget. If we're not spending it, what is this for?

All right. So, you will see uh that spend. We actually just spent our um aotment on a system that we use to do VA claims uh through Tyler. It's called TVB. So, we have our receipts and everything for that.

I think it's just a timing because there was nothing in there. It didn't pull through, but it it is spent each year and that was just something we missed in putting in the projections.

That's helpful. Thank you. How are you?

Council L7 council prayer.

Yes. Thank you.

Yes.

How many people are receiving chapter 115 now? How many veterans do you have?

Currently, we like I said a few minutes ago about 64 cuz we just lost one of the members.

64. What do they get paid per month? Is it the same standard rate for everyone or it varies?

It it does vary. It depends on their income. So, some people are getting over $1,000 a month. Some people are only getting fuel assistance uh which is the category it fits under for $131 a month.

It varies from person to person depending on what their finances are.

So when we submit these monthly down to Ian, what do we get reimbured from the state? Because I think Emily just said we get it totally reimbured.

It's 7525. That's correct.

It's 75%. So on the veterans um aid non chapter 115 that 50,000 are we eligible for reimbursement?

It would not be reimburseable. It's for emergency purposes. Have the VSOs in the state talked about the fact that sometimes people are over by 10 or $20 absolutely and ineligible. Is there any work on the state level to get that reimburseable?

So as a executive board member for VSOs with the state that is at the center of several things that we have going on right now. Um the program itself is dated. There's not a constant increase to the amount of money that these people get over the last I'd say 15 years. So, it's been pretty static and we've been expressing to uh MMA and the secretar's office the need to alter this program so

that it is more supportive of the people that are on it. Uh we're actively working on that.

If somebody's getting chapter 115, if they're eligible for food stamps, does that disqualify them or put them in it, you know, like they look at that amount as well?

That is looked at. Um, and depending on your financial situation situation, you're actually encouraged to go and apply for food stamps depending on your situation.

But if they didn't apply, they'd be eligible for more money. But you they have to apply.

Well, that if if it is recommended, if it's indicated, you have to go and apply.

Okay. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Anything further on veterans counsel for council vice president?

I just have one question. Yes. Um on the ceremonies in 2025 it was 1127 26 revised budget was 1,500 and then it quadrupled to 6,100 and for FY27 it's at 6,500.

Um my I guess my curiosity is is it because we're doing more ceremonies? Are you being charged for more things? And what what do you get charged for? So, it's a combination actually. We uh since I've taken over, I've recognized more days that have previously not been recognized in the past and the simple fact that the cost of services has increased over the last two years.

But what exactly are the charges?

So, there those charges can be anything from uh sound systems to vocalists. Uh it just depends on what we're or how we're commemorating something or recognizing something.

So people don't do it on a volunteer basis.

They get paid to do it.

Absolutely.

Interesting.

I wish I could get more things on a voluntary manner to help us celebrate our veterans and the different days that are surrounding uh the veteran community. But in the real world, it does not work like that.

Yeah. Because that's what I would anticipate. Um while unfortunately.

All right. That's all. That was the only question I had with that I yield. Thank you.

Point of information council 7 council per yeah I maybe I misunderstood. Did you say the ceremonies some we have to pay vocalists? Did you say vocalists?

That's correct.

We can't get any kids from Dery to sing or That's not what I'm saying. So when we bring in vocalists depending on the situation and what we're celebrating the vocalists have fees. Some of them are instructors or teachers or they run their own businesses and they look to be compensated for coming to see.

Wow.

Or to come to play.

I attempted that for this Memorial Day actually and neither of the uh and it's not to bash them. I'm not trying to be negative. Um but neither of those young ladies sing our previous Miss Fall River team. She actually was brave enough to sing and it didn't cost us a dime when we used her.

So, it's some It depends on your talents, I guess.

Well, we always had people that sang. Rachel, you don't do it all the time for nothing.

I think you might be surprised there were people that were singing. They were getting paid.

Maybe I'd have to start learning to sing.

Please don't. With that, I yield.

Thank you, councelor. Let's see six council.

They've got nothing. Um, so I have a question. I'll go back to earlier. OPA opa was brought up. What'd you give OPA money cuz you said you didn't spend much, but I'm wondering what happened.

And I don't I don't want to misspeak, but I believe our department received 225 or $230,000 somewhere in there.

225 230.

Yes.

Did you spend the 225?

We turned over I think $185,000.

You turned over 185. So when I after I took over um I looked at the way that the funding was being made available to veterans to take advantage of and I was um not okay with the manner in which that program was working. Uh I felt it was too stringent and it defeated the purpose of the the reason for the funding. Uh so I raised the ceiling for eligibility on the income side and that

allowed me to spend at least $20,000 of that money. Okay. And again, that was after I took over. Um, had I known then what I know now, I probably would have been able to spend about $100,000 helping more veterans. Just things are different. I'm in I'm different in the position now. Um, I'm very well tied in and connected and understanding a lot of different things than when I first started this job. Uh, and the ARPA

thing, you know, like I said, that's the reason for the request for the $49,000.

I think there is consistently opportunity for us to help veterans outside of Chapter 115, but not charge the taxpayer too much money. Again, we've reduced our budget uh year over year since I've been here uh $200,000 and then we're dropping it another hundred and something thousand this year, but in doing so, I still feel like we can meet a need. Again, the nonprofits cannot do it all. Um, back in

February, I attended the states conference and before we lost Secretary Santiago, one of the things I proposed to him was the state spends $20 million on housing for veterans, but they do it through giving the $20 million to nonprofits here in the state. Okay? And when you look closer at that, the nonprofit organizations actually spend majority of that money on staffing. So, what I proposed was spend half of that

with the nonprofits and give the other $10 million to the veteran communities that are suffering with veteran homelessness more than the others and look and see what we could do with that money. Uh, again, that was under a different secretary, though.

Okay. Um, so you kicked back 185 of the ARPA money, Miss ARPY, where did that go?

Uh, I don't have all the ARPA detail in front of me, but I can find where it was reallocated in that um budget and get it back to you um tomorrow. I'm just trying to figure out why we we would reallocate from veteran services 185 and instead of trying to find something positive to do with that money. I know that he said he was stringent on the plans, but why wasn't there an attempt to keep the

money in the account and do something?

I believe that all of that changeover was before ARPA was passed over to the finance team when Cara left. So, I can find out what that was. Um, I would like that because we sit here and council Dion just said that we have to pay for vocalists, right? We found that to be a little excessive. And then we're kicking back 185 grand from veterans. How many other departments in this budget have you padded, if any, um

to pull money from? I'm just going to ask a question. Are there any departments in this budget for fiscal year 27 that you've over budgeted for with the maybe anticipation to be able to use it as a kickback in the future?

To be honest with you, this is the largest overpatted. You can see it clearly through the actuals and the budgeted amounts. This is by far the most significant turnback that we have every year and it has historically been on the expense side for many years now.

Okay, with that I yield. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything further on veterans? Cong two council.

Thank you. Tell us is any any money you can save in your department? Any cuts you can make?

Um I think I've done a really good job of going over this budget and trying to reduce the amount of money that we are asking from the taxpayer. I mean, you even look at my office supplies line.

We're not trying to get anything fancy.

I mean, we get the basic of most basics.

Um, maybe I cut from the parades budget a little bit. I I you know, there'll be no bands.

You tell me. Look, we're trying to save taxpayer money. You tell me. Is there anything you can contribute to saving the taxpayers any money?

I I feel like I've done that.

Okay. I I'm not saying you haven't. I I understand you say the $100,000 this year and I just want to make sure I'm going to ask every department here the same question. Um if we're going to be making cuts, I'm going to ask all of you. What what can we cut? What can we live without?

If you could find a better solution for the the rides program, but I don't know that that would necessarily solve the problem. I mean, truly and honestly, I think this program should be outsourced, but I imagine that's going to cost us more than what it is now. what we pay the contractors is very cheap and I don't see that being something that we can get away with if we were to

outsource this this ride system uh this ride program. So I think we're doing really good with what we have.

All right. Thank you. Fair enough. With that I yield.

Thank you. Anything further for veterans?

Hearing none. We're going to take a twominut recess.

Hey.

and gold.

for a city council meeting and now be called back to order at 8:41 p.m.

Councilman C1 council Kadeim.

Oh, thank you. Of course.

Uh I guess while we're moving on to the administrative services, just a general conversation regarding salaries. So just looking at the salaries. So, so human resource uh director was seeing a 7.5% increase. The I the IT uh director was seeing a 5.3 and then uh corporation council was seeing 3.2. So, do we have a target in terms of cost of living adjustments or salary increases?

So, um those are you talking about their total overall salaries or specifically the directors?

No, no, the directors. So, I was just looking at individuals, I guess, on individual contracts, what they're seeing for increases compared to the to the unions.

So, um those are contracts that those those three department heads that you specifically just listed all have employment contracts that that's detailed out in. I I don't take part in those agreements. So, I can't speak to that. I don't know if So, we don't know what the average increase is then for those contractual positions. I mean there's we could provide a list of what departments have um follow the cola

versus which ones have contracts with set amounts in them. Um some of the contracts for employment are you know come in and start at different times. So th those I'm going to say could be all over the place given the time period of when they were agreed to and and what was going on at that time. But um we could provide a list that's like that um from the HR department detailing out who

gets what based on cola versus CPI versus So some of those also have I think the I don't know which ones have CPI. Some of them have CPI that would have been I think it was 3.3% this year.

Yeah. I just said it's just a big range from CPI and I just looking at the human resource IT and then law it's going from 3.2% increase to 7.5.

So it just it just there's a range. So usually when you negotiate contracts, I would think that you're going to see a 3% increase, right? That that would that's what you would have across the board. I I guess that's that's what I'm trying to figure out.

I I don't know if HR could help speak to these individual positions in the contract. I'm not involved in the contract.

So I'll just ask the questions as we I guess we go through individually. I I was wasn't sure if there was a strategy behind the increases or other than the CPI and or the cola that's added. I mean, as far as any increase in salary base salary, I mean, that would be negotiated between the mayor and the department head and that's not a conversation prior to this role I was involved in.

Okay. And then just I guess just while I'm talking about it, so for the collective bargain agreements, what are what are they typically seeing? So, I know they're all over the place, but Well, we only have one that's been agreed to. Okay. It's 2.5%.

So, that's ask me it's 2 and a half% um there are some um non there are some management non-management what's the terms um positions that are in ordinance I should say that follow the cola. Um but otherwise, that's literally all that's been settled at this point.

Okay. We don't have um fire teamsters, police, um police superiors or poor patrol. Um EMS as you all know was you rejected it and so that one's still waiting to come back before you. Um law um for the custodians I believe is close to being sent down any day now. Um so we're anticipating I think at least one or two others to get down to before the end of the fiscal year, but because

they're not settled, they're not in here. Mhm. I guess my just my concern and I understand we don't have a say in it but you know when you have asked me at 2 and a half% and then you've got other individuals at 7 7 and a half 5% and stuff like that that just becomes a inequity in that.

Yeah. All I can say is that anything that's in here is is either contractual.

There's nothing estimated. So it's either it either has the cola or it's based on an existing contract. Um nothing else um in that sense for some of these. There are a couple that were enhancement requests during this budget process that we can talk about that do have specific base increases that they just aren't those positions that you discussed just now.

No, I was I was just Yeah, I was just starting to look at, you know, the the increases from FY26 to 27. And I just saw that, you know, you have one that's getting a 7 and a half% increase, one that's getting a 5.3%. So, I was just trying to figure out that's just not how I negotiate. That's that's all. I'm sorry.

I can't. I'm sorry.

No, it's okay. I yield. Anything for city administrator? City administrator under administrative services. Councilman seat 8. No. Councilman seat three. Council annual. City administrator.

Thank you. Uh just when it comes to the grant right position, I know that we only have one person. Um is that the only person we have in city government writing grants or do other departments?

No, I think some departments do their individual grant writing. Um and some of them partner with her to do it. But as of as the job being a grant writer, yes, she is the only one. Um, like I said, there are some department heads that do a lot of their own or big parts of it or smaller ones. So, in that sense, um, there are some other departments that I

should say work on it, but it's not necessarily that their full-time job is being a grant writer.

Do we feel I know that other cities, municipalities, I think Brockton specifically, uh, tend to spend I think uh, more on this like two people. Uh, do we think that if we, you know, spent a little bit more in this area, it could net a a greater amount in terms of return?

Um, I will say it's a a longer term goal that we would have to increase that, but to be honest with you, even if we do increase that, it would never be in my from my perspective felt in the budget.

We would use whatever grants they're bringing in to help cover that cost of that additional grant writer. Um, a lot of these grants do have admin costs um that are received with it and sometimes we are even allowed to put in, you know, a grant writer amount specifically into that. So, if we do increase it down the line, we would look to fund it completely from those grants as well.

We'd obviously try and display it in the budget, but not necessarily that we'd be raising it. So, if we are able to increase it to increase the number of grants we get, we would look for that to fully support the position at that point.

Okay. Thank you.

Human resources consular repos Mr. Mle human resources begins on page 46 council on seat 8 councelor repos you have the floor thank you Mr. President Mr. Mle. So along to my colleagueu's question from seat one, your speaking about you your particular contract are you have built-in increases as a percentage. How does that operate?

Uh it's a flat amount. So CP there's no CPI, no coder and that's a flat amount that I've negotiated with the mayor.

Okay. So so the increase from the 115 350 of last year to the 121875 is just built into that contract.

That'll change the end of January.

How so? Um my contract runs in January.

So January 27th is when that increase will go through.

Okay. And and you have what? Another is it another year on top of that right now.

Yes. Okay.

So to my colleague in seat one, the three positions he particularly referred to are those all the same? Do you know built in versus a percentage increase?

All three are different.

Okay. So looking down the line and we've had discussions about the system that you're looking to put into place. How's that how's that going to play in I guess long term? Is the change going to line up with the end of some of these contracts or we're going to we're going to have a little bit of a kind of thing to clean up here.

I think there's a little bit that we'll have to clean up.

Okay, got it. Um to your particular department, you have a vacancy currently. Um how new is this vacancy? Uh, I had a retirement in February, the end of February.

Okay. And is it your intention to fill this position?

So, what I would like to do is get through the summer. Um, I have it budgeted in there. One of the things that we've looked at is switching to um an employee navigator system, which would be to um, you know, go electronic as far as enrollments go. Um, so I would just like to see how we get through the implementation of that. July 1st is when it actually kicks in. We're doing the

backend stuff now. Um, and then if I could cut that position, I would.

Do you have a sense of what an employee navigator system would cost HR?

We are not paying for the employee navigator system. Um, so the the way that we do it is by making um this company that we've partnered with, which is Fidelity, the broker of record, they're making commissions off of offering similar um voluntary benefits.

So there's no cost to the city for this benefit.

Okay. So, ideally, go through the summer, see how it rolls out, and then it's very possible that you could be saying, "We're going to cut that position."

Cut or do a um a less paid position, but I'd like to reevaluate once we get through the summer.

Okay. And Okay, I'll hold my question.

I'll I'll get back to us and after the summer and feel how you feel on that. Um that's it. I yield.

Anything further for human resources?

Hearing none. Thank you, Mad. MIS MIS page 50 counselor in seat 8 councelor I'm sorry can I just councelor in seat 8 I I I'll yield to my colleague first council seat one I have questions yeah you went too fast sorry oh I'm sorry can't multitask for Mr. My apologies. Constant seat one cons.

So the it seems like at least two positions got 7% increases. Were they what what are the increases? Are they wage adjustments? So when I when I look at the employee benefits administrator that that looked like it was a 7% increase as well.

the actual percentage right there.

I don't have there were two positions that were 2 and a.5% and then I asked to go slightly over on that. We did consolidate um one of the so I had a much higher budgeted position a few years ago um and just one employee benefits administrator that salary was dropped. Part of those duties were split between two employees. Um, so I I am down over a few years ago. Um, but as they've taken on more

responsibilities, I do want to increase.

Um, so it's slightly over the two and a half%.

Yeah. So you were at the 7.5. The employee benefits administrator, one of those positions is at a 7% and then another employee benefits administrator is at 5% increase.

That's the two colas. That's two and a half and two and a half. So last year when this was voted on, there was no COLA in there in the budget cuz there was no COLA voted on. So what you're seeing between the the um COLA that was approved of 2.5% for the current fiscal year and 2.5% for um that was the rollup for July 1. So it would be 5% total.

But you wouldn't have that in the Oh, because I'm pulling from the FY26.

Yeah. So as adopted in 26, there was no cola baked into that at all.

Okay, I yield. Thank you.

Anything further on human resources?

Thank you, Mr. M.

Thank you again, MIS counselor in seat 8. Councelor Raposo.

Councilman City.

Good evening, Tyler.

Who?

Few questions. Um, page 51 on you particularly. So, to like I asked Nick, I'll ask you the same into your contract is built in flat increases or percentage.

It was a flat increase.

You speak into the microphone, please.

Sorry. It was a flat increase.

Okay. And that is for another year. You have is it you have a year under your contract?

Correct. I believe it expires November 18th. of 27.

Yes.

Okay. Got it. Um on page 50 is cell phone expenses and I I just wanted a clarification. Is the cell phone line item the service itself, devices, a little bit of both. Can you clarify what that exactly is?

So it's um we've migrated a lot of our phones from Verizon to FirstNet. So it's really just paying for these services uh with FirstNet.

Usually when we get new devices, they're just under contracts. So, we don't pay for any of the devices and it's just a locked in two-year contract of we're going to pay you two years of service.

Okay. So, as far as the the revised budget 196 196 No, try that again. 196,000 in FY26 and then it's projected in this new budget just a slight increase over that.

Is that just what's the reasoning for it?

Um really was just using uh monthly averages. There's been people that have been asking for new phones, hotspots, and it's just slowly been creeping up.

That's not like a huge increase, but um I guess that probably that's a total increase of $2,400.

Really? Okay. So, the Apple business manager was something that I probably was putting under software. Um, not sure why we put it under cell phones or what my decision was behind that, but that 2400 for Apple business manager was under software. Now it's under cell phone.

Yeah, makes sense. Do you do you have a sense of how many cell phones are out there as far as city departments are concerned?

How many individuals have a city issued phone?

It's really not a huge amount off the top of my head. I don't though.

Could you get that?

Sure.

Possible. That'd be great. Um, and that's obviously separate from telecommunications. Correct.

Correct. Telecommunications would include all of the fax lines or the VoIP phones that we have throughout City Hall, please and fire.

And what explains the boom? Um, what is from FY25, which is essentially almost triple um, fast forwarding to today, what what what's behind that? Is it migration to newer telecommunication systems like VIP or Yes. So the VO you're saying the 59,000 actuals.

Yeah. From FY25 and then we fast forward to projected FY26 of 156. We're proposing a budget of 1455.

So I do know we are still paying for some copper lines. Those being faxes and a bunch of random data lines that I'm not even sure we're utilizing. And one of the projects that I'm having MTSI work on is taking inventory of all of our Verizon bills. I think just from those alone was uh 80,000 before. I'm not sure why this is really low for that actuals on 2025, but um I know for a

fact that we were paying a lot more than 59,000 to Verizon. I don't know if it was a incorrect assignment of line items when the invoices were getting paid, but um I could definitely look into that for you. Yeah, I guess I'm curious in in the idea of still using fax machines in in the generation of secured emails and and what have you, why are we still using fax machines unless it's a requirement, but

so for some places, specifically health and police, they do use secure faxing.

Uh we still have fax numbers that are under Verizon. One of the things I'm actually looking into is similar to the VoIP, moving the fax lines over to just digital. Correct. U that would be a huge amount of savings right there. Uh I did take an inventory recently of all of these city departments that do use fax lines and a lot of people were saying are you taking my fax lines away? You taking

um moving them over to the like VIP fax uh would reduce a lot of those costs and that's a project that I'm working on for next fiscal year.

Okay. Are all the city departments at this point transitioned over over to VIP services for for phones for Yes. landline phones.

Okay. online line filters other than the effects.

Other than the facts, obviously. Okay.

And then obviously like you know I know like elevators for example need copper lines. You don't you don't really get away from that at this point. So you're kind of stuck in that. I know some of them. Yeah.

Yeah. Some of them. I know that life so that makes perfect sense. Um can we go to software for a minute? Um obviously and I and I recognize this having knowledge in the background. Um software costs tend to increase. I'm assuming that increase subscription rates.

So or is it more product or a little bit of both?

So historically most of the softwares go anywhere between two to 7% of Munice alone went up $60,000 and that's something that we really can't get rid of.

Is that defined in a contract or is that just an annual increase that they just say, "Hey, by the way, it's increasing."

Yeah. They kind of just give us a new bill and say, "Hey, yep, by the way, in next year it's going to cost you $60,000 more." That doesn't shock me. Um is there any additional softwares that we have been um looking to purchase for a variety of city departments at this point or is we pretty well maintained?

So one of the big things that gets introduced into the next fiscal year budget is the open gov the online permitting that we've used for building fire health licensing uh that was previously paid for with ARPA for three years. That's getting introduced to the budget. That's the $140,000 right there.

Mhm.

Um along with the software additions line item, I use that for small additions to any one of the existing softwares if they like, oh, we have an extra user here or we need this extra feature uh as part of the software that we already have. Um that's what I use to typically um fill in any of those gaps. But um no real projections to add bigger softwares.

Yeah, open Gov does have a replacement for Munice.

Could be substantially less than what Munis is charging us, but uh be it would just be a massive undertaking. I'm not saying we're not opposed to it, but that would take a lot of planning and coordination.

It's a transition. It's a huge transition going from one system to another. That makes perfect sense. Um as far as um Gez, what was it? I had I forgot that question. It was in there, but then it was gone. Um, one other thing. Oh, MTI, MTSI, what what how much is their role at this point? So, um, their role really hasn't changed a lot from what we've been having them do over the past like few

years. I have my team of four network admins that handle all of the day-to-day break fix, front end, like, oh, my computer's not working. Oh, I need help with this. Uh MCSI handles a lot of the backend maintenance, firmware updates, um and overall security posture. They're the ones that get all of the alerts for, oh, looks like this vulnerability is out. We need to immediately disable VPN.

I'm sure you guys have seen emails about, oh, VPN is disabled. Oh, this is disabled. This is disabled. A lot of those uh that intel comes directly from MTSI and a lot of the times they're calling me after hours. Yep.

And we're making those adjustments. So really it's a lot of the behind the-scenes stuff that uh substitutes what my team doesn't do.

Yeah. Back on and I know what my question was on the open gov. There's obviously a fee that's associated that's charged for people to use that. But clarify for me and Emily I think you can probably answer this. That fee is just credit card.

So yeah people only pay a fee to use that when they're paying for a permit online. And at that point, whatever amount is being charged to them um is just to cover that transaction fee, which isn't related to this. So, the amount that's in his budget is strictly the software to use that company. Um and any of those transaction costs are are coming from the vendor and it's kind of

coming off of the top of the revenue.

So, so, so there's no there's no fee associated to using a digital system at this point. Like so the end user who who goes apply for a permit through open gov doesn't get charged any fee to supplement the use of the system, right? It's not like they're paying $5 to do it online instead of coming in in person and doing it for free. It's so there is no fee like that built into it.

So there's no convenience fee I'll call it essentially to use the service.

What do you mean when they pay the 3% on top of that? On top of that 3% there's no convenience fee.

Correct.

We don't charge people to use this. No, there's three. We don't charge that.

And I'll use the example. I I filed for a permit for the church and there's no fee because I just come to city hall with a check and you go, here's here's the fee. But there's no there's no fee associated to the end user to use this service that essentially costs the city money versus just coming to city hall and filing the paperwork.

Correct.

Correct. Only when you use the credit card, it's that 3%. But I think at some point, I don't know if either of you can answer this. At some point, are we going to transition fully to the system to do all permitting?

I think that would be ideal, but I think that would be a conversation with the departments that are utilizing it, how possible they feel that is, but um I mean, I think it's definitely something that we could discuss um with each of those departments on how possible that is.

Like what departments did you have in mind?

No, it's more of a general statement. I know I know the the push and it's been really good that more permits have been added to open gov and it's been really useful I think on on the user end but I guess at some point are we getting toward the point where we're just going to completely do all of that through that system.

So we've started with city clerks I think we've gotten a majority of their permits online and recently just started with minimum housing. We got their keeping of animals online and slowly starting to transition them to get all of their permits online like uh tattoos, dumpster stuff.

Um it's a slow process and I'm the one spearheading all of those creating those uh creating those myself. So um as much as I would like to dedicate all my time to it, it's you know when I see fit that I can.

But we're also not turning people away from coming to city hall to do those functions yet either.

Yeah. Last last point is to the city website. Um though the actual budget for the city website is just the hosting cost.

Correct. It's repay revise. Um believe it's like 6,500 and then whatever the remaining two line items were. I think it was the SSL certificate and there's one other thing that falls under the the website. Uh the domain hosting.

So pretty much just how much like fall rivermma.org or fall over rings. We pay yearly to maintain domain hosting.

Who who maintains the back end of the website? You do when you say maintain backend uh we handle the like updating of the content on the website.

Um but like updating it and making sure that there's any like uh you know redundancy or any of that is all handled by revis security as well.

Correct. That's all revises responsibility and we just update the content.

Okay. I I just want to offer you while I have the moment to offer you a piece of feedback on the city website and I noticed this especially on the mobile end of it. If you go to the city website and try to look at the calendar and let's just say there's like six meetings all scheduled on the same day. You try to click one of the six and it's always

the first one that comes up. You can't get past that and there's no way. It's drives me bananas. So just for food for thought definitely looking to um at that point we would have to look to a new vendor or see if revis can do like a revamp of the calendar function but um I wasn't involved in the initial um selection of of the the website vendor.

I think that was sort of a project when I had first started my role as director and it's sort of just inherited it.

Yeah. And I don't know if there's just because I know on on a laptop version it's easy to click and but the mobile it's impossible. So I don't know if that's something you guys can look into.

Just try to clean up.

I could definitely do that.

Thank you, sir. I yield, Mr. President.

Thank you, Council C3. Council Canuel.

Thank you. Uh, first I want to just talk to the current status of your budget for this year. Right now, I'm showing the FYI revised budget at 3.22 million and the projected uh looks like it's going to be 105,000 over or three and a quarter%. So, I think that some of that um I'm going to I'm going to take responsibility of it. So, it is a lot of lines. I think if you can see the detail

of the software that we gave you, um the timing of when some of that hits, um a lot of it isn't equal monthly payments.

It's a one-time payment. So, in trying to add those projections in and and do that, I think some of it could have been skewed on what was actually being paid monthly and what's fully been paid. So, to be honest with you, I actually think that that number is inaccurate. I don't think he's projecting to be over budget at all. So, I caught it afterwards. Um, and I think I initially had a note in

that supplemental notes, but I was trying to trim it back so that people weren't upset about the notes that we were given last minute, but I do think that that's a mistake. He's not projecting to be over budget, and I only caught it um after this was published.

So, we can provide you an updated um amount in a document tomorrow of what the projections actually look like, but I think that those are high. Just so you're aware, like um a lot of the like what she was saying, a lot of my software is frontloaded in the first month of the fiscal year. Um by the end of the first month, 60% of my budget is usually accounted for. So if you were to

project for the second month, I'd be 120% over, but obviously that isn't the case. Uh and really I think just the the projections are just hard to calculate.

I think I think I tried to capture some of that and then when numbers updated again I think I didn't recalculate that line because looking at it it doesn't it I know it's not accurate from what I remember looking at. So I think something just went wrong with the way this was published. So um by that point but I can definitely pull those numbers and and work with Tyler to go line by

line and say what really needs to be expended still but I don't think that that number is accurate.

Okay.

Um, when we look at the software and how much it's gone up over the years, I know you said it's munisk and went up 60,000 this year. Um, pardon, I wasn't here.

What was the half a million dollar jump from FI25 to FY26? That was that was Munis as well.

We didn't pay for it in the operating budget. So when I inherited this uh munis we had on premises we had a server that was hosting Munice I believe with the car's act they had moved it from onrem to cloud they paid for that three years and uh it just so happened that when I started my job I inherited the uh munis into my budget at that point.

Okay.

Do you know how many licenses go unused annually? licenses as in for what?

Sometimes like with businesses, you'll buy, I don't know, 100 licenses, let's say, and you may only use 95 of them, 90 of them, and you're still paying for a certain contracted amount to get a certain price on them. Have we done an audit of the licenses that we purchased versus what gets actually consumed?

So, really, the only two things that I can really think of that would fall into that category are Adobe and Microsoft 365. and 365 we are pretty much onetoone uh with our license usage. Um we're always in a case where we have to add additional licenses and we don't have any free ones that we really have. Adobe is the same thing where every single one is accounted for because everybody wants

uh Adobe Pro but um we don't dish them out as freely as that.

Okay. when it comes to records um and recordkeeping it I feel like the records management responsibilities are spread across MIS law police clerk library like when a record comes in there's no central public records request you mean yes so there is a centralized uh software that it comes in through that software itself is paid for through this budget because every department does utilize it

so that software that is being utilized is paid from here the management of that. That's a whole different discussion point if you want to have that. But the software is included in this budget.

Yes, I think the management of that is where I'm going.

So I don't I mean do we want to talk?

Um so right now the responsibility of like the records access officer I believe it's called is uh done by uh Ken Kenlaw.

So all of the requests initially come from him get uh all of the activities get distributed by him. So in case for like emails which would be my responsibility he'll say this person is asking for emails for this keyword date time yada yada I get that export and hand it over to Ken. Um there's a lot of redactions in uh exemptions that I'm not aware of because it isn't really like my

expertise. So I hand those over to Ken for him to review and then disperse.

So that's the case with essentially anything that's also not emails. So if it was for you know financial documents and data you know they he would come to whatever appropriate department we would provide what we have and then he's the one that turns it over. So we have been working over the last year to centralize that somebody is managing that process and it does live in law um given the

legal requirements around public records um and then the things that are eligible and not eligible. So that is right now being spearheaded through the law department. Um, but it every department if there's certain requests that are obviously related to their department has to be the one that answers them.

There's no one department that could answer every question for every department. So, okay, back to this budget page 50 in front of me. When I look at computer equipment versus computer equipment rentals in FY25, we were spending 113,000 on rentals and 190,000 on computer equipment, but that's flipped now in the FY27 fiscal year where we're actually spending more on rental equipment than

we are on actual equipment. Why would we be doing that? So, the computer rent uh computer equipment rentals. Um I don't really like the description of the line item, but that's all of the printer leases and the plotters for planning and engineering.

So, it's computer equipment rental. They could just be printer printer leases for that matter. Uh that includes the lease itself, maintenance, and ink all included uh under that like one line item. Like I said, I don't really like the name description, but that's just historically where it's been.

Okay. So then my subsequent question to that is why have we spent so much more money in that category? We're up $57,000 in the last from FY25 in that one category.

It's like a 50% increase.

I'm definitely going to have to get back to you on that because we really haven't added any new printers. A lot of the releases that we've had are just renewals. it might have just been a case of incorrect categorization of like invoices.

So, I want to be clear. I know that you you have a reaction to this. So, we talked about this last year during this budget process of the departments that we have. This is probably the most inconsistently charged expenses um in FY25. We've been working on improving that in 26, but when you look at year-over-year comparison data, it gets to be wonky. So, um things weren't necessarily being charged where they

were being budgeted for. So sometimes you would have I'm going to say the cell phone line item and it would be charged under the telecommunications but it really was a cell phone. So because it is both obviously telephone communications it was kind of being charged incorrectly in that sense and because they're really held to their overall budget it just doesn't line up correctly. So we've been working on

improving where things are being charged to make sure they're being charged where they're budgeted at. So um we could pull that detail and and confirm exactly how much was being spent on those printer leases then versus now. But um we've been working to improve the categorization so that it is comparable between all the de the line items year-over-year the way every other department really is.

Okay.

Advertising. We have $500 budget. We haven't used anything in FY26. What are we advertising?

So that would be for any bids that I put out. And I know for next fiscal year we're going to be putting out another managed service bid which would be like the MTSI bid. Uh, so I know that's going to be for this year, but we didn't put out any bids um this fiscal year.

All right. Um, summer hours. Uh, I think I as I was going through, I didn't see I I can't remember if I saw any other um There are a few.

There are.

So, it's it's an old contractual agreement. So, there's certain people that were in the ask me contract um that were grandfathered in. So, that's since been removed, but there are a handful of departments that still have employees. I want to say that we're down to like five employees in the city that actually are eligible for it. This employee actually happened to just leave um the

collector's department and moved over to his department. So that's why he hasn't had that line item and now he does because that employee moved over. So if you look in collectors, you'll see that that number was budgeted prior fiscal years and is now long no longer being budgeted. So it's really just the employee moved and the hours still stand. Okay.

Has the administration evaluated AI assisted tools for administrative efficiency, document management, procurement review or resident service functions beyond what our current capabilities are?

AI is a pretty uh interesting topic. Uh we do use a little bit of AI uh in my department ourselves just for basic troubleshooting.

Um, one of the things that I've been looking into that I've heard from clerk's department or anyone that really has any meetings uh is using AI to record meetings and you know transcribe those. I feel like that's like a big contention point for a lot of clerks uh throughout uh city hall. Um really that's the only thing I've looked into as of now for AI.

Okay, I'll use I'll yield for now and hear my other colleagues. Thank you councel C1. Councel Kadim, thank you. Just a question with regards to the salary. So we have network administrator. Is that a union position or is that it the um network administrator is only in this department?

Is it under ask me? Is it Oh, I'm sorry. I Yes, it's a non-union um position.

It's a non-un position. So what what's the discrepancy with the the salary? So, we've got four network administrators.

Salary ranges from 82,000 to 64,000 years of experience in service. Correct.

Yeah. Um, for the most part, you know, we have one employee that's been here for over 20 years. One employee that negotiated when they first started for a specific rate. Same thing for, you know, the remaining employees. It was what they negotiated with HR when they started.

But are they all doing performing the same duties?

same duties for the most part. Some of them have a little bit more expertise.

Some of them are newer. Uh we did just uh hire somebody from the engineering department who it's their first IT job.

Obviously, we're not going to set them at uh the same rate as someone who's been doing it for 20 plus years.

I guess that's where I disagree. So, if we have So, it's it's about valuing the positions, right? So, if we don't have steps for those positions, then a network administrator who's doing the same job as somebody that's been here for 20 years shouldn't be paid, you know, $20,000 less. They're still performing the same function, right? So, I from my standpoint, that's that's what I talk about the equity across the

board, right? We we shouldn't be valuing people coming into the positions. We value the position itself.

Right? So, if we're going to go back and say okay you know, somebody was in, you know, the collector's office and they were making 30,000 and they're coming into MIT, you know, we should and and somebody's getting paid 82,000, right? That's been there for 20 years and they're going to perform the same function because they were only getting 30,000 in the collector's office, we should just give

them a salary of 50,000. Like, to me, that doesn't that doesn't make sense.

It's it should be what the position is valued at regardless of listen, you you folks hired them, right? Or or the individual. So you obviously feel like they're serviceable in that position, so they should be paid what that position is. That's just my take.

Yeah. To be clear, I know I keep saying this, but I don't I don't have purview over that. I'd love it if anybody wants to give it to me, but I don't have that.

Um but we have been talking about um I think you know Nick has had several of these conversations with certain counselors but we are looking to change that structure and ordinance so that it is equitable across not just departments but across all of non-management I mean all of non-union positions so that we have clear consistent you know equitable grades and steps and and rates of pay.

So, um, we are looking, it's something that I've been talking about since I started to get the city on so that it is more equal across departments, but in the meantime, this is the way it's been set up. And so, I I don't disagree that we're looking to make these adjustments.

I think the administration agrees. Um, I know HR agree agrees. It's just a a rather massive undertaking to completely overhaul the ordinance structure on that section. So, it's just taking time to get down in front of you.

So, but that's those those I guess that position is not to exceed. Is that correct?

Is that where it is? So, I guess that's always and I know we talked about it today in ordinance. That's that's my major concern with the not to exceed is is that you get that fluctuation and there's no real correct, you know, consistency across the board in terms of of what that looks like.

That's that's my only take. I I I think from my standpoint, you know, when we start talking about structure and and you know, increases, I'd like to see some consistency across the increases, right? So when we start talking about collective and I know we can't do parody bargaining but when you get into collective bargaining you always have the union saying well you just gave 3%

to that unit I want 3%. Um so you know I I think there's that consistency needs to take place for your non-UN employees as well whether it's not to exceed or in the contracts. Um, and I understand there's going to be fluctuations in terms of whether or not there is, you know, a a salary adjustment that's made due to um, comps that are being uh, put forward for other communities. That to

me, I understand that piece. But overall, I think if it's a 3%, it's a 3% across the board. Uh, just for that consistency. I just hate to see, especially when we start talking about ask me, don't want to get on that boat, but you know, the under the most underpaid uh, employees that we have and they're at a two and a half percent increase, right? and you've got other folks that are seeing north of, you

know, 3%, you know, 7% in some cases, 6% in other cases. So, just the equity across the board is what I would like to strive for in the future. That's all I yield.

Thank you. I just want to urge my colleagues that we have about 40 minutes left. Um I want to stick to finance budget related questions if we can please council in seat seven council per just just 10 o'clock we wanted to but we want to end our budget deliberations and we're going to and we start the regular council meeting at 10 correct council seat seven council of prayer I just have one question tell me about

the cyber security there's a security data destruction police what do we have for cyber security on our computer system. Yeah.

You talking about like uh what we use for cyber security software to ensure that we're not getting, you know, hit by ransomware, stuff like that or are you specifically talking about how people get hacked?

So now they have insurance so we don't get hacked. Do we have that insurance?

Yes. So we do have insurance. That would be the part of that line. It's it's under security services. It's 40 about $40,000 for that piece of it.

And that's here.

Yeah, it's security services. Um, it's about midway through the budget.

Security services and that hasn't gone it's gone up.

It goes up.

I think the projected that's probably another one that was it's paid at a lump sum and it was probably when do you pay that? Usually it's usually like January February that I pay the No.

because I think that's when we had initially gotten it with Bridget.

Yeah, I think. Yeah.

Just for the city side. The school has their own.

No, it's this is the cyber security. The insurance is for the whole city.

The whole city. Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

Yes, that was my only question. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you, Councelor. Conscice President D.

Yeah. I just have one thing. I want to circle back to the cell phones again.

So, the cell phone line item is strictly exactly that. Cell phones.

Correct. Nothing else is in there. How many cell phones do we have?

Off the top of my head, I don't have that number. Um, we really, a lot of what the cell phones also include are the police routers that they have inside of their cruisers for their like laptop connections. Also includes uh the data connections for all of the uh cameras that are on like light light pulse or uh traffic traffic lights.

So, essential like hotspots. Yeah. So, so, so, so I'm really curious as to how many cell phones we have, how many are being used because I know people think say city councils have them, but we don't. We have cell phones, but we pay for them.

They're ours. City's not giving them to us. So, let's take that out of the equation.

So, it's $198,000 line item. I would really like to know how much goes to actual cell phones, how many we own, how many people have them, and separate. Okay, if it's for the the police department for the computers, if it's for this, that's fine. That should should be a whole separate line item so that we have a true picture of how much are we paying for so far.

We can get you that that data probably um in the next so after all these meetings, we take down whatever notes we're looking for for additional detail.

So, within the next I'm going to say 48 hours, we'll turn that around to you. So we have that as a note.

That's reasonable and I would appreciate that. Thank you. With that I yield.

Thank you councelor in seat eight.

Consular reposo.

Yeah. Just a quick note. So you're you're first of four network administrators. Uh the base salary is at the cap of ordinance at this point.

The very top one is the ba is the cap.

Yes.

Correct.

Councelor in seat three. Councel.

Thank you. One final question from me.

Uh, has the city ever conducted an independent operational technology audit?

Not recently. We used the MTSI to sort of do a cyber security audit which we just uh finished a couple of months ago, but we haven't had anybody external review us yet.

Do we think that would be a good idea?

Yes.

Can we arrange it?

Yes.

All right. How you? Thank you.

Anything further on MI mis next law.

Thank you.

Law Department is on page 53 and 54.

And if I may, attorney Ramsey, as you um as you before you begin, I just my just overall question. Attorney Matt Thomas, is there a reason why he's not paid through law department when he's a lawyer and does law work?

Um he is paid through the law department for the work I hire him to do under profession other professional services.

That's correct. I don't know what contract he has with treasures department, but I I I I've heard that he has a separate one with him.

So, I I think I did just share um Yep, you did.

Okay. Sorry.

Just to be clear, she shared with me because I requested information in terms of what he was getting paid. It's just he's here all the time. He's here. I see him more than I see assistant corporation counsel. So, I'm just surprised um that it's kind of like hidden. not hidden but it's in other professional services and in the assessor's office. So questions for law council seed 8 councelor reposo.

Thank you. Um so my first question was answered. Um I would assume outside of attorney Thomas' contract what else finds itself in other professional services?

There's a lot in that category. I mean the the majority of it is outside legal but that also includes things like experts which this year was significant.

I think experts alone was probably in the ballpark about $75,000. Deposition costs were outrageous this year. If I can just give a a very brief overview for the city council. I think it might help streamline things. So, this past fiscal year that's quickly coming to an end. We had three we were defending three lawsuits that involve fatalities.

As of about 3 weeks ago, we're down to two. So, we got out of one of them without paying a dime, which is great news for the city. Um, we are still going to be defending the next fiscal year to uh lawsuits that involve fatality. So, if you recall, in about February of this year, I came down before the city council and I requested an extra $350,000 for expenses, which is largely outside legal. Um, I believe

that I will need that same amount this year. So the there is approximately a $300,000 overall increase in my budget over last fiscal year, but it's actually very similar to what if when you include the 350 I asked for in February, it's pretty much the same. There's not much of a difference there. Um the the two cases that I'm referring to, one of them discoveries done, expert discoveries

done, um dispositive motions have been filed. That's all very expensive things that just mentioned. So there'll probably be a slight lull until the judge gets to ruling on the motions, but it will be u it is believed it's not scheduled yet for trial, but there's a strong belief that it will be tried in the next next fiscal year. As to the second case um that involves fatality, I mean these are the ones that cost so

much money here. It's uh it's also expected to be tried in the next fiscal year that there's some uncertainty that but um we believe both will be tried in the next fiscal year. So this increase as you call it of 350,000 which we've actually already incurred for fiscal 26.

I'm asking for fiscal 27. We're hoping in fiscal 20 it disappears.

Makes sense. Um with with the vacancy in your department for the parallegal records officer. Is that a new vacancy?

Yes. Brand new. I'd say probably three weeks. We've just posted for it. Um I'm starting to get some applications, some resumes. And and how long is that that individual used to be that individual did that work?

Jennifer Benjamin was here I would guess a year and a half to two years.

Okay. And who's who's taking that work on now? The assistant corporation council.

Um yes. So what's largely happened in our office I I one of the changes I guess is organizationally historically there's always been two positions there.

One is more like a legal secretary and another one is a parallegal workers comp clerk. um the existing legal secretary that had I've had for many years, she does an excellent job. She has essentially taken over the workers's comp clerk because every time I've lost that other position, which I think has been three times in the last six years, um the legal secretary has handled that. So, um

she has agreed to take that on permanently, which opens up the parallegal should have some extra time to help with uh public records. public records have become more and more involved um over the years. It's um you know all the departments have to be able to handle public records. It gets elevated to the law department traditionally when it's something that is such a broad search that the

department head can't just hand you that document. So for example when an IT search has to happen it will get elevated to law because there could be a redaction kind of thing. I mean, you know, nine times out of 10, the law department doesn't really need to look at it, but it's been so intensive recently that um the law department is the the people that had the capability to understand how to properly handle

public records. So, we're kind of dealing with it right now um until we get a better solution. So, this new person I'm going to hire is going to get trained. The idea is that Ken Ferdet will train this new person to handle it.

Of course, the lawyers will be there to supervise. Um, but it'll be this parallegal who can hopefully handle that.

Okay. And clarify me for for one point.

Attorney Burke, what exactly does he focus on or is it just part of the part of the team? Essentially, he is he's part of the team. He's great.

He's he does a really excellent job.

He's very efficient in what he does. But I would say in general, he handles some of the claims that go to trial. Some of the I would say more easier cases um just due to his hours, not his capabilities. he could handle much more.

Um he handles I think all if not a majority of the gun cases um the gun appeals that we have on a regular basis.

Um chips in on anything else I need for him. But those are the main things he does.

So So his hours are are significantly less than attorney how he acts.

Correct.

Okay. So that's what would explain the discrepancy in the salaries.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Anything further on law consu uh just a simple question. I think um earlier tonight the during the city council budget um discussion it was mentioned that we would like to see $40,000 as a line item for um city council outside legal council. U when I had mentioned that to the mayor he said that you would have to sign off on it.

So I just wanted to ask you if you support um if the mayor is willing to put the $40,000 in if you will support that as well.

I personally do not. I don't know what the mayor's position is. I don't speak for him, but I personally would not.

So, if the mayor were willing to give the city council the $40,000, you personally would oppose it.

That's correct. I mean, I'm happy to state my reasons. It's not a secret. Um, I think first and foremost, it's very important for the city to have a unified legal voice. That's true for any any corporation across the country. I think if you have two different legal opinions, it opens your city up to more lawsuits. It opens the city up to more friction. it causes problems, but it's

more than just that. I think that having somebody that is not employed by the city creates another layer of problems.

Um, you know, for example, you know, I think people like to compare to the school department and I don't know that that's I understand it, but it's not exactly a fair comparison because there's two things that's different about the school department. One, by statute, they have that position authorized in two separate sections of the statute. Secondly, um that position is a city employee and that position

from day one before I knew who Bruce Assad was. He said that he understands the importance of having a unified uh singular voice in the city and that if he had anything that he even thought was possibly gray area that we would coordinate in advance so that you know I can tell you we have not disagreed over the last six years but if we did you would not know about it and that's the

way it should be. Um there has to be one voice that comes from the city that this is the way it is. it just creates chaos otherwise. I'd say lastly, and you know, I wish I thought of this at the time. It was an unintended consequence. When this city council hired um an outside law firm, I believe, well, I I I believe it was $275 an hour. It might have been $

250. I know that it instantly created a problem in the law department. We every single law firm that I use for years, we had years that go by where there were no requests for increases. They wanted to keep the city business and I heard over and over again, well, if the city council can pay us 275, you can pay me more. So, right there, tens of thousands of dollars were lost over the next few

years. I I I'm not in favor of it. Um, I think that my office has been receptive to the city council. I don't know that there's any city council that's come to my office and has asked for a legal opinion and have not received responsive um answers to the questions. We're here for you. We are the law firm, the law department. We have four lawyers ready to work for this city council.

I'll yield.

Councilman C4, council.

So, I guess my question is um two questions at the present time because we don't have this in in a line item in our in our budget for us to obtain any outside legal or legal at all. Um you have to you have to um say that yes we can do it. If you don't say we can do it can't happen is how it stands right now.

I believe that's correct.

Okay.

Now if the mayor chooses to put that in a line item so that we can have legal um legal counsel like we did before because again like I said precedent was set.

And I I'm not I don't I don't want to sound fresh, but he doesn't need your permission for that.

So, that's not true. Um, and why not?

At the time, I gave my permission. At the time, I believe when it happened, it was I was the only full-time employee. I had one part-time employee. um you know and and frankly if if we wanted to reach some kind of compromise and I'm not saying we will but I think the discussion would have to be somebody that is retained by my office that would show up I just want you to go back one second if

you don't mind point of clarification council so our ability to hire legal outside legal without you is contingent upon what how busy you are in your office and how many employees you have or is it just a law that you go by a set standard that you go by because you just said that at the time you approved it, you were in your office. You were the only full-timer and you had one part-timer.

So, you accepted the council's uh request for outside counsel. That was only because you were too busy, right? You ready for me to answer?

I I'm waiting. Yeah. A couple seconds by Ramsey.

So, no, that was one of the factors. I know.

Well, let them finish.

That was one of the factors.

Mhm. Um, I can tell you that I had many people tell me, lawyers tell me that it was a terrible idea for me to agree to it. Um, I did anyway. I thought that I could have used the help. Um, there were a lot of promises made by the lawyer that was retained by this council. Um, that I don't believe were followed through with. I feel like it was a bad

experience. I think it was not helpful to the city. I think it was costly to the city. And if I may add one other issue that I think is also important, we're talking about saving money where we can. And I'm not suggesting that the work you do is not important. It's extremely important.

But to pay somebody an hourly rate of $275 an hour to sit here in case an issue of point of information.

Hold on. Consc your point of information. I want to remind our colleagues council seat 4 does have the floor. I I recognize that I heard about $275 per hour and that this is the only time that this city council is the only one that hired an attorney for $275 an hour. You mean to tell me that the corporation council, the office of corporation council was $700,000 in outside legal has never paid more than $275,000.

I mean $275 an hour for an attorney for Please tell me that's the case. I I believe that we have not retained a lawyer for a lawsuit.

I would like records of all the attorneys we've had for the last 10 years and the hourly rates associated with it. Thank you. I yield. Cons4, you have the floor.

As I was saying, I I think that there is a much better use of financial resources than have a lawyer sit down for ordinance meetings in city council meetings in case they are needed. when this city council needs somebody on make that determination what the city council needs or uh should have or how much we should pay whether or not I was asked what my opinion would be on this issue. You're

so the mayor the mayor can pay $500 an hour for an attorney. But if we need if we need an opinion we can't have it for 275. Is that what you're telling me?

That's not what I'm telling you. I told you I I I said what I meant.

Councilman C4.

So um I guess my difficulty is it's you know we have a charter that lacks specificity in so many areas and in so many discussions.

Are we going to discuss the charter now?

Nope.

Well because because it has to do with this Can I ever just speak pass and see park? You have the floor.

Let's discuss the ch.

So this is where a lot of this comes from. So you give an opinion.

We don't agree that the opinion is accurate. We believe maybe we're reading it differently.

So, yes, we'd like to be able to have legal to be able to ask an opinion.

I don't think that shouldn't be a problem in my world. That just shouldn't be a problem.

And I don't believe it was ever in the conversation. And as he stated, he wasn't here then, so he wouldn't know that the outside legal that was going to be hired by the city council was was going to work or perform any duties in the law department at that time. And that's why on on these on the 21 22 and 23 FY accounts uh FY yeah years it's specificity stated outside legal city council legal

services outside legal I don't know you believe me I respect your opinion I respect what you say Um, but I can't completely agree and with that I yield.

Cons. Thank you. Consuency one. Council Kadine.

For the $700,000 that you have in other professional services. You mentioned that there were three lawsuits that the city had to take. How many lawsuits have you represented this city in at in court as corporation council?

I don't know off hand. One, two, five.

Probably I don't know. I'd say probably somewhere there 5 to 10.

5 to 10. And you've been here how long?

Oh, I thought you meant current. I've been here over six years.

Six years. And so how many times have you outsourced those cases to just point of clarification five or 10 over six years that's probably right.

Yes.

And how many would you have said like percentage- wise you've outsourced to outside legal I don't know if I could put a percentage on that. I'd be guessing, but I mean I would say generally speaking, um 1983 claims um and we don't have somebody in our office that um deals with uh real estate on a regular basis. So, real estate claims and so you it's corporation council.

We've got a part-time corporation council making $110,000. We've got an assistant corporation council making 90,000. We've got another assistant corporation counsel at 47,000. We got a parallegal making 57,000. We've got par another parallegal that you're going to hire for public records at 50,000, which I'll remind you that you're also charging uh the counselor over there for public records request.

Well, that's not really true, but I'd have to address that.

That's not true.

That's fine, but I I still have the floor. So, you've got $522,000 coming out of the salaries, $700,000 in outside legal, and you're going to sit there and tell this city council that you don't want to pay $275 per hour for this city council to get an opinion when we disagree with you. Is that what you're telling me?

No, that we That's what That's what I heard.

That is not a legal opinion. You can you can disregard that completely. As I said, I don't think it's a great idea, but you may disagree. And it's not my opinion that matters on that issue. And where in the chart or where in the ordinance does it and I had this conversation with you before where you get the authority to tell this city council what is a waste of taxpayer money?

I was asked my opinion whether I would support it. I gave it. That's all. I wouldn't have given my opinion but for I was asked it.

So how many attorneys have you hired above $275 an hour?

I don't believe I have hired a single one counselor. The exception, the only exception you may find, and I don't know, is on investigations.

But if you're talking about litigation, about um lawsuits, which is predominantly, I mean, that's almost all that I hire, I don't think there's been a single one.

So, we've got 1 point we've got 1.2 million in total legal expenses. 1.3 million if you want to include it. How much is it with Matt Thomas?

I can give you a ballpark. I don't have an exact figure. I can give it to you probably as of February.

And so the question I'm also going to ask is a followup of this that we got Matt Thomas doing tax title.

He's doing assessor work.

Yeah.

What else is he doing?

So he's in he's in I can just give you the detail real quick that I emailed and we can share it with everybody tomorrow.

But assessors he's in other purchase services for $10,000 for legal services related to ATV hearings. TIFFs and ties.

Treasurers he's going to stop there. tips and ties.

There is nobody in the $522,000 salary line item that is employed by the corporation council that can do tips or ties.

I don't believe that I've hired him for tiffs or ties.

Well, he's been down here before us for tiffs and ties.

I'm not saying it's come out I don't believe it's come out of my department.

I So, I can't speak that. I think but I've hired Stop.

Okay, stop one second. You said you're the only one that can hire attorneys.

So, you've hired Matt Thomas. He does tiffs and ties.

Am I missing something? Is there somebody else that's hiring an attorney that you don't know about? Because we definitely can't hire any attorneys without you knowing about it. So I I would really like to know who is hiring Matt Thomas to do tiffs and ties if it's not you.

All of the legal services outside legal counsel if it's somebody. So Matt Thomas has been in existence doing these specific things working with assessors, working with treasurers, working with collectors. any outside legal services that are paid for including in water and sewer is approved by him in that sense. So anything that comes through he just told me he didn't hire Matt Thomas to do tips and ties.

I don't know specifically this is just the notes that I have in there that that's what he has been used for.

So I'm going to ask I'm going to ask you tiffs and ties.

So my original question is 520 I'm I'm sorry I was off because this longevity $524,481 in salaries. We've got five full-time equivalent employees. There is nobody in that office that can do tips and ties.

Is that what I'm being told?

Burke does real estate.

Car working on tiffs and ties when she was here for a while and so was Matt Thomas. Matt Thomas has been before us. He's been down before the tiff committee. He's He's been there. Like, so let's not So, what I'm saying is is when the council wants an attorney, we can't have it. It's a waste of taxpayer money. I've got $524,000 in salaries. I've got the gentleman in front of me telling me I can't spend or

the council can't spend $275 per hour to get a legal opinion if we need a legal opinion, which maybe, by the way, might only take an hour, hour and a half, maybe two hours. Right? So, we're talking about $500. But I've got a $524,000 line item for salaries for people who are employed by the city and yet we still continue to contract outside legal to do tiffs and ties to work with our

foreclosures and our tax title to work with the assessor's office. You mean to tell me that there is nobody in this that is employed currently employed that can do that work with a with a salary of $524,000?

And then I've got I've got to hear that whoever you're talking to in terms of attorneys are saying that you shouldn't give the city council a council or representation at $275 that they want more money.

Please tell me who these attorneys are.

I'm not sure what your question is.

You said that there were there there were now attorneys because we paid $275 per hour for outside legal that there were attorneys saying that you should have never gave it to the city council.

Correct.

That was beforehand. Yes.

Okay. And that it was a waste and now that they want more money. Who are those attorneys?

No, they weren't they weren't necessarily the same person, but I can tell you that the lawyers we used, I would say across the board and it wasn't it didn't feel like it's an annual increase like some lawyers do. And I had had one specific lawyer tell me, well, if you can pay the city council, you can pay us more. We were trying to keep our rates down for Fall River for years. I

don't think they raised the rates for six years.

It could be coincidental. They could have been exaggerating, but they use that as as part of your argument before us.

I believe that it did cause an increase in my budget because all the rates went up significantly soon thereafter.

What else does Matt Thomas do?

So, he also is in I'm talking in the budgeted sense that I know of. So in treasurers um other purchase services um so there's about just under $60,000. So there's consultation for the tax title.

There's legal services for tax possessions and then legal services for the bankruptcy cases within the tax.

And so I'm going to ask the same question.

Point of information point of information. He also was um involved in the the um trash contract and and all the discussions surrounding the trash contract. So I believe anything that I don't when I was pulling bills the departments were that's paid out of his department.

That's out of my department.

That's out of his department.

Conty one. You have a four.

Thank you.

So there's nobody that could do that.

I think uh could do it or or should do it or may maybe two things. Matt Thomas has a ton of experience with uh solid waste um in his you know 30 plus year career. I think it was it was it was my decision to use him obviously with approval of merit.

Is that a waste of taxpayer money?

I don't think so at all.

How much does Matt Thomas get paid?

$150 an hour.

It's 175.

175. Okay. So $100 less than what outside legal would do for for a special legal counsel. So we're paying him $150.

Assistant corporation counsel for debt gets paid $110,000.

What's that equate to an hour?

It's like a $100.

It's probably more like 65ish is my guess.

Okay.

What is it?

It's closer to I don't know. I don't I'm doing this quickly. I'm sorry.

110 divided 52 divided by 20, right?

No. Divide by 35.

No, part-time.

No. Um, can full time?

Oh, fulltime. I'm sorry.

It's Yeah, it's about $60 an hour.

$60 an hour. So, we've got an attorney who's paying $60 an hour. We're going to pay Matt Thomas $175 an hour. Uh Gary Howak is making $90,000 for part-time.

So, that would be 90,000 divided by 52 divided by 20. What would that come out to?

He's I believe 30, but yes, he's also part time.

Take a minute to calculate all this before I give you wrong numbers. I don't want to misrepresent this.

Can we give me the hours for both while we're at it?

15.

$69 an hour.

$69 an hour. Thank you. So, you're going to sit there and tell me that the city council, the audacity that you have to say that this city council is wasting taxpayer money when you're paying Matt Thomas $175 an hour when you have somebody who's making $60 an hour, somebody who's making what was it?

$69 an hour and I'm wasting taxpayer money.

You have to look at the expertise.

When does this end, Mr. President?

I don't know, counselor. I' I've been trying to advocate for the council to have a council for a while and it doesn't seem like it's coming out of this law department at least at this point.

And if you want me to keep going, if you want to continue to say that I'm wasting taxpayer money or the city council is wasting taxpayer money, I will go through this entire budget. The entire budget. Matter of fact, I might support council Pekham's motion.

I make a motion right now that we reduce $700,000 from outside legal services from the legal department and that everything be done any legal uh requirements come out of the salary of $524,481.

That's my motion.

I'll second that.

Motion has been motion one second.

Motion has been made by councelor Kadine to reduce outside uh hold on one second.

Other let me just pull this back up here. I apologize and move to another department.

Motion has been made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councelor Pekham. Discussion counselor in seat seven. Councelor Pereira.

Look, I know that there's, you know, tempers flaring off. You know, people have strong feelings one way or the other, and I'm not going to get into a debate about having outside uh legal or not, but the money that's for outside legal attorneys here, we have two cases. Having worked with attorneys, there are attorneys who are versed in different sections of the law. If we're dealing with two cases

where there were homicides and those attorneys are already working on the case, I believe that the money in this budget is to continue paying them through trial. So to cut that money out and if that's their expertise, I'd like to know uh is money that is there for outside attorneys part of that for the attorneys that are right now fighting cases? There couldn't be a much worse outcome than to, you know, spend the

amount of money we've spent to defend these two cases to then with have them withdraw their appearance. It would be an awful situation for the city and the law department.

We would definitely lose a case if we are not going to go in and fight it. I understand that many councilors feel they want to have their own attorney. I had a lousy experience with the last time the council got an attorney because I had to ask permission to use the attorney. There's nine of us here. I shouldn't have to ask permission. So, we're complaining you're going to give us permission to get an outside lawyer

or to get money from your department. I had the same thing with council president at the time. I couldn't get a lawyer because they had already spent the money or whatever. I had to say why I wanted to speak to the lawyer.

But I think we need to calm down and continue this at another date. It's already five of 10 and we've had people who are still waiting here. And if we have to go after 10, it's not fair for the people that have been here waiting.

I don't know who's the last one is.

We can make a motion to wave the rules after we finish entertaining this motion.

I just think we're just maybe a little tired. I don't know. But you can't cut your nose to spite your face. I Marilyn used to say, "You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

So to just say, "Yep, let's cut money."

Then these guys are dismissing these attorneys, male or female, are this not going to have the case anymore.

Point of information, the only thing that I'm tired of is the responses that we get from corporation council. Just for the record, that was a point of information. Do you yield? Councelor, I yield.

Okay. Thank you. Councelor in seat six, councelor Pekkham. And before we on the motion, is there a motion to wave the rules to extend past 10 o'clock?

Motion wave.

Motion to wave the rules to extend budget past 10:00. Has been made by councelor Pekkham. Seconded by councelor Dion. Discussion hearing. Not. All those in favor?

Discussion. Up until what time?

10:30 or midnight 1:00. What do we start council meeting? Four more people need to interview him.

Understood. I I mean, how much time we going to give them?

Half motion. We leave the rules. We go to 10:30 and half hour. We'll go half hour by half motion to move the rules to extend the 10:30 has been clarified by councel Pekom seconded by councelor Dion hearing. No further discussion. All those in favor opposed.

The eyes have it. Council in seat 6.

Councel Pekom.

So I just have a question while I got you here because a few minutes ago you said that I was it wasn't true that I was charged. So I just wanted to read this. It says, "Chris, this is the list of emails that contain language which hold on. I'm talking I'm talking. I'm talking."

Interruptions.

I'm talking to your point of order.

Are we going to get into things that we were told? He was told they were told question or we going to ask about this department's budget.

We're asking about this department's budget because I feel it's the council's position that we want an outside lawyer and I believe counselors have all been advocating for that for the last half hour.

I agree.

I'll allow the question. Let's stop the interruptions. Counselor in seat six has the floor, please. So, this all plays into it. Just for the record, I'm not voting on anything until I get this information. As a matter of fact, first time it comes down to me, I'm rejecting it right off the bat. Just so you know, it is true that he tried to charge me, right? Because he needs a lot. He needs

more on top of that 110,000 a year. What is the reason I'm not getting this information? Tell me why it's not true.

Okay. I I think there's a misunderstanding. When I first heard about that, uh, Attorney Fet told me that you had a public records request.

No, I did not.

I'm talking about my conversation with the attorney for debt.

Okay. Attorney for dad told me he had a public record from you. And I said he's entitled to that information. He has to evaluate the budget. He said, "But I have to treat everybody who makes a public record request the same. I can't treat counselor Pekkham in a public records request fashion any different than I would anybody else in the city."

I said, "Well, you should call councelor Pekkham because he's entitled to the information. He probably doesn't have to go through the portal if he didn't want to." And then I said, "How did it come in?" And he I think he said he got it from the mayor's office. And I said, "So he probably didn't intend it to be a public records request." So I said, "You know what? I'll make the phone call on

speaker phone with you right now." So I called you. You didn't answer. And when you didn't answer, I called um um council president and I said, "Hey, just so you know, you 100% all the city council is entitled to all this. They need to evaluate the budget. We are 100% on board with it. So, you know, if you do talk to councelor Pekkham cuz I called I think your phone was actually

didn't work. It was disconnected. So, it wasn't like you didn't answer. It said something like your phone is disconnected.

Okay, we'll get to the point.

So, in any event, so I I agree with you that you're entitled to it. Uh I think the confusion was that um attorney for debt thought it came through the portal and I understand it's concern to treat everybody equally, but you're I mean then you immediately apparently clarified once somebody got a hold of you it wasn't a public record request so there's no issue.

Yeah. And I appreciate that. I I have a question for you, Ann. How did it get to attorney for debt?

I went over to ask attorney for debt if he had received a public records request through the portal cuz we had gotten an email in our office.

If I went back and searched through my computer for Bridget's email messages to me, I wanted to know who was handling it. Was it going to be it? Is it a public records request? Is it not? Do I take my time? Do I go through all my emails? He said he would look into it and get back in contact.

Okay. Fantastic. So, my problem with that is I sent an email to you, it Tyler.

Yep.

And Emily.

Yeah.

In no words in that email did I ever say this is a public records request. I never CCed Kenny for debt. I didn't do any of that. So, how did Kenny end up calling you on a Friday morning?

We receive requests for information all the time from various individuals. Not everyone mentions Mass General law that applies to public records requests. I went to ask him did he have in addition to what I I didn't even have the email with me that we had gotten an email. I know that there are a lot of emails if it's not a public records request. Um I responsible to produce that information

through the mayor's office or does it do it? I went and I spoke with Tyler in IT.

Tyler said, "I don't have a freedom of information request, but I have the email." I said, "Well, I'm going to just talk to attorney for debt to see if this is a public records request."

Okay. Okay. If I interrupt, are we going to get counselor Pekkham the information that he needs and when? That's all we we've talked about this.

I'm not aware it is right now. I don't know if it is pulling that information.

I can tell you that it was told to stop until Kenny was paid.

Well, that was not something that I said. I have it in an email from attorney.

So when I'm going to ask this, when do we think we could get councelor Pekkham the information that he needs?

I'll have Jay Tyler still here.

Okay. He's not here. So by tomorrow morning, um um I mean last I heard there were 9,000 emails.

There's 4,000 4,814.

Okay. If they're printed up, I would say tomorrow.

Let's get back. All right. Thank you.

Let's get back to council Pekkham and email by tomorrow.

So I I just want to clarify this. I do have the email and this was sent to me after you spoke to council president.

So, attorney FET actually emailed me later that night still saying that he the first two hours are free and I was going to have to pay. That was after you spoke to him because then I reached out to council president and I said I thought this was squared away. I thought you talked to attorney Ramsey and he said I did. So after your conversation I still got another bill. I have two emails here.

That's news to me. I mean I that shouldn't have happened.

Yeah. So, it's so in-depth that the time necessary to review each email for exempted or privileged information at a conservative estimate of 20 seconds per email would be 26.477 hours. Billing at a rate of $25 per hour would cost me $661.92 to do the public's work. That's what they're going to charge me.

$661.92.

We didn't have a discussion about charging. We had a discussion.

You might want to have a conversation with attorney for debt. Why? He's sending me a bill without your permission.

All right. I have to interrupt. I yield.

Thank you, council president.

Thank you, counselor. We have a we we've made it very clear councelor Pekham has asked for information. Um, Miss Anony Soua mentioned that she's going to work on getting that to the counselor tomorrow. Yes, we've exhausted that topic enough tonight and we're going to get back into the budget deliberations here. All right. There's a motion on the floor right now to be clear to cut uh or

reduce other professional services in the amount of $700,000 counselor in seat one. What was the second part of your motion?

Like the office of corporation council does their job.

So all right. So that's not all right.

So the motion on be before us if we counselors if we can stop talking while other people are talking it's extremely distracting. Councelor in seat one, your motion on the floor is for $700,000 to be reduced from other professional services in the law department, which we will refer to full counsel when we have the appropriation order before us. That motion has been made by councel Kadim,

seconded by councelor Pekham. Is there discussion any further on this item only? Councelor in seat 2, councelor Camara.

Thank you, Mr. President. Attorney Ramsey, how will that motion affect your department? What's it going to do to it?

What's going to happen to those cases?

How are you going to manage to hire anyone to do outside legal and defend the city against the lawsuits that are being uh opposed upon it? Now, I honestly can't even imagine the devastating effects it would have. Um aside from um you know, just because you have a law degree, it doesn't mean that everybody's capable and competent to hire to to have any case. I mean, I I wouldn't do a murder case right now. I'm

not qualified to defend a homicide case.

Um it would be malpractice for us to try it. So, you know, potentially we would be putting some of the attorneys at risk in my office of being charged with malpractice. Um you know, it's it's I don't know how we'd get another lawyer to to work for the city of Fall River. I mean, I understand the point that's being made. I think the draconian result is not anything anybody would wish for.

With that, I on this subject only, but I do have my hand raised for next subject.

Noted. Um, to be clear, this goes away if the city council gets $40,000 for outside legal in the budget.

Is that blackmail?

That that it's not threatening. That's Is that blackmail?

That is a compromise.

Excuse me.

Is that what is that?

That's what the council has been discussing. threat goes away if I'm saying that the city council is asking for outside legal majority of us with the exception from what I see.

How do you know that goes away if you didn't make that motion and council C1 did? You didn't make the motion. So now what what are you predicting what's going to happen?

I'm saying that the council is advocating for outside counsel is what I'm advocating our colleague in seat 4 started this discussion tonight by asking for $40,000 in outside counsel. Were we all here for that?

Say three did it. Yes or no counselor.

So that's where that number came from.

That's where it number came from and and we and the council is pretty clear asking for outside counsel with the exception of a handful of people in this room. That's the direction that the council is trying to go.

Yeah. No one's denying that.

Okay. Thank you.

You just made a statement that that'll go.

Have you not yielded the floor, counselor?

Excuse me.

Have you not yielded the floor?

I did. And you're you're speaking. Did you take the floor?

No, I'm not. And I'm not going to.

You if you're supposed to take the floor speak?

Not yet. Not now. You reopened it.

So now you just made the statement that that goes away. The money the threat goes away if he gives us $40,000.

The council wants outside counsel.

I understand that. I think everybody understands. I think what the council doesn't understand is that he is not going to change his mind. And by you, everyone here trying to convince him to change his mind is not going to make him change his mind. Why can't people disrespect that fact and say we totally disagree with you but we understand you are not going to change your mind. We're

trying to I don't know what you want to do else to next to him but to try to make him change his mind. I don't see it happening.

It's a compromise counselor happens every day in politics.

Every day.

Can I finish or are you just going to keep interrupting me?

I'm going to keep interrupting you. you are. That's very in inconsistent and very unpolite and very rude and obnoxious quite honestly to keep interrupting someone speaking.

You just told him a while ago that council shouldn't speak. Correct. I just heard you say 10 five minutes ago counselors Oh, don't worry. I'll remind you of that every time you turn to your colleague to the left and talk throughout the whole meeting going forward.

Your left is right.

Left, right, whatever. It's going to end. Go ahead.

So, as I just stated, I don't believe there's a counselor here that's going to change Attorney Rumsy's decision.

They're going to change his mind. He disagrees with us. We disagree with him.

Why can't we just accept that and move on? Why do we have to beat this dead horse over and over and over? We're not going to change his mind, Mr. T. We're going to change your mind.

I haven't heard any reason to. I mean, it's He's not going to change our mind. We're not going to change his mind. That happens. You might say there's a compromise. Well, no. The compromise is over. There is no compromise on this issue. He's not going to change his mind. We're not going to change ours.

Point of clarification.

I think the compromise, answer your question. I think the compromise did happen years ago and I think it was a total failure.

Okay. I can live with the fact that he disagrees with us. I wish others would too. Let's move on. It's a it's a it's a dead issue.

With that, I yield now. And you can say whatever you like.

Thank you. Councilman C4, Council Dan.

So, the money didn't go away because it was a failure.

The money went away because the mayor said we didn't spend it. So, I guess we should have been less prudent and spent it every dime every time so we could have kept the money and then we would still be there today. We can have outside legal for everything except the city council. So, you said you're supposed to approve all outside legal, but yet we've heard tonight you don't approve all outside legal. Outside legal

is used for all kinds of things all the time without your approval.

I I and yes, but you know what? None of us could just h could just make a phone call. You weren't the only one who was restricted from KP law. There was a process. Seven counselors couldn't. It was under the way it was set up. It was the president, vice president that made the determinations. So that affected everybody. That's crazy. But that effect or not, I think this whole discussion proves we

need outside counsel.

With that, I yield.

Thank you. Just so we're clear, the city council at that time approved the rules and regulations on how we were going to handle outside counsel. It wasn't the council president and vice president who decided how we were going to dictate things.

I know you did. I just wanted to hear it because I've been hearing these things that it was up to me and the vice president. That wasn't a policy adopted by the full council. Councelor in C6, councelor Pek.

I just want to clarify to excuse me, councelor Camarra. Now, you had said that he doesn't agree with us. We don't agree with him.

I don't see it.

We just move forward.

No, we keep fighting.

But what do we do? At what point do we stop this? When do we grow a set and stop this? That's an honest question to you.

Excuse me.

Did you just hear me? It wasn't council. Just direct your question directly to the colleague. Consul C2, please. That was a question.

What is What was the question? Repeat the question please.

We don't agree with him. He doesn't agree with us. So, what do we lay on our back? We give up. If you're at that point in your career, council, then this isn't for you.

Let's not. Let's Don't worry about what point I'm at in my career, counselor.

Let's not.

You worry about where you have to worry about. Don't worry about where I'm in my career.

Okay, stop. The personal attacks don't need to continue.

It's not personal attacks. I'm clarifying.

Yeah, they are.

It's not. Listen, listen, listen. You We're in a threeminute recession. Thank you.

Take your seats, please.

Former city council meeting will now be called back to order. Look, I'm going to be completely direct with everybody. We have a lot of work ahead of us. The passions are strong. We get it. The council is advocating for something within the law department. I get that, too. So, what I'm going to suggest that this council does, while we do have counselors that want to speak on the motion before us, that maybe we send a

letter to the mayor asking him to fund $40,000 for outside legal within the city council budget. If you would like to make that in the form of a motion after we currently dispose of the motion that's before us, before whatever you want, we'll entertain it.

So, moved. Motion to send a letter to the mayor by the council to re uh to have the mayor fund in the city council budget $40,000 for outside council has been made by councelor repos. Do I hear a second? Seconded by council vice president D. discussion on sending the letter only hearing none. All those in favor I.

Roll call.

Should we wait for the other counselor to show up? She took a recess and she's probably not here right now.

She's here. Uh, Councelor Pereira, there's a motion on the floor right now uh to send a letter to the mayor uh to ask him to fund $40,000 for outside council in our budget. And that is a roll call vote at this time. Roll call.

Madam clerk.

Mr. President, would you like to entertain the other motion currently on?

No, not yet. We're going to entertain the motion that's before us right now, which is to send a letter to the mayor asking for $40,000 for outside council in the city council budget that has been made by council repos and second by council vice president Dion. Roll call.

On the motion, council, yes.

Camarra, no.

Can yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, no.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, no. Rapo.

Yes.

President Ponti.

Yes. Next order of business before us right now, Madame Clerk, if you can send that by tomorrow morning, please, and send it to all councils, that'd be great. Next item before us is a motion that has been made and seconded by made by councelor Kadeim, seconded by councelor Peekham to reduce other professional services when we get the appropriation order before us at the full council meeting. That has been made

and seconded hearing. No further discussion. Councilman seat 3, councelor Canuel, followed by councilman seat one.

Council L Council Leno.

Thank you. So, the majority I I think of the $700,000 we're discussing is tied up in two potential cases because I think you came back for an additional 350,000 related to that. Correct.

That's correct.

If the city loses those two legal cases, what is the current um amount total we're being sued for for those two cases roughly? Well, being sued for doesn't mean they're entitled to it, but I think they're asking for like approximately four million in one of the cases, and I don't even know if there is a figure in the other one.

So, would it be your opinion that if we were to pull the money from this that our odds of losing these cases and being on the hook for potential judgment exceeding $700,000 is high.

It would just be an awful idea. I can't overstate that. Um, aside from the fact that, you know, you get somebody up to speed on a case like this, you're talking about countless upon countless hours, it would be um, I mean, the number of depositions alone that were taken in one of the cases we're talking about, I mean, I think we have file cabinet after file cabinet of depositions alone. You're going to try a

case without reading every single word of that and summarize it and taking notes. It's it's it would be near impossible to do. I mean it's I think the point I'm trying to make is the likelihood of saving $700,000 is extremely low.

The my request for the $700,000 for this next fiscal year is in the best financial interest of the city in my opinion, without any question, without any reservation. Um, the lawyer I was hired to handle um was actually on both cases absolutely phenomenal. In fact, he was the lawyer who got out, which is almost unheard of. He got out on the other fatality case on motions. So, it's he's an excellent lawyer. He's worth

every penny.

And how much are we paying him per hour?

I believe on one case is it's either two or 225. I'm not certain. And the other one, I believe, is 250.

Okay. Thank you. I councelor C1 council.

Thank you. I just want to remind my colleagues for those that weren't at the ordinance meeting or did not watch the ordinance meeting. We were having a discussion between um corporation council actually was uh attorney Matt Thomas that was before us discussing the ordinance that was submitted by the council president regarding um contracts and lease agreements. And attorney Thomas said at

that point at the end of the day um he didn't feel like the ordinances needed to be put forward. And then we said okay so what's the safety net in terms of you know circumventing the city council and what we were told by Matthew Thomas who is outside corporation council right outside legal counsel for uh for the city was that the city council ultimately has the purview because we control the purse strings. That might

not be an exact quote, but it's pretty close and I can get you the exact time of the the meeting and the statement that was made. So, if we want corporation counsel or outside legal, we control the purse strings. So, I don't disagree. Is $700,000 probably not the smart move? Maybe.

But if we reduce $700,000 and the corporation council really wants $700,000, maybe he might consider giving us outside legal for $275 an hour, which I find is kind of high. I'm sure we can get we can get uh legal counsel for $175$200 per hour. So with that, I am just reminding the folks on this committee on this council that that's exactly what was said by somebody who was representing corporation uh council.

With that, I yield. Constant C3 council annual I would just say that it appears that corporation council is not going to change our minds and if we cut $700,000 and he still doesn't give us the money and we go on to lose those cases this council will then own that responsibility and whatever those judgments are without yield.

Council in seat for council vice president Dion.

So this vote right now does not reduce the budget. This vote sends the motion to full counsel where it ultimately would be decided. Is that correct?

That's correct. We don't have an appropriation order before us right now to vote on it.

Correct. Because we're not in full counsel. It has to be sent to full counsel for action. And that's what this does is send it to full counsel for action.

No, the motion is that's not what it says. The motion before us is to notify the full council that we are going to when we get the appropriation order suggest a $700,000 reduction under other professional services and legal. We have not referred the full budget to the full I didn't say we referred the full budget on this question this one specific question. That's right.

Correct. Okay. With that I yield.

Thank you. Uh who else? Councilman C1.

Council Kadini.

Thank you to my colleague in C3. If we don't take any votes and we go your direction, we'll never get anything from corporation counsel because all we get, especially when you're at ordinance committee and you ask a question and you get yelled at by corporation counsel because he doesn't like your response or your line of question. This is what we get. You never push back. At the end of

the day, if this gentleman feels like he needs $700,000, then he's going to give us $40,000, right? Which one is easier to give up?

I so with that I mean at some point I don't disagree with my with my colleague at some point this this city council needs to take a stand an actual stand as opposed to just having these conversations listening to the back and forth and just being satisfied with what's being given to us because at the end of the day the only reason and I want to remind folks the only reason we

are looking for outside legal is because the charter is not being followed the city council is being circumvented our authority is being taken away from us and the only thing that we have which we're constantly told is this budget right here that's before us. Okay, we won't be dealing with this budget for another year and we're going to be listening to the same thing and we're going to say, you know what, we can when

budget time comes because I've heard it all. When budget time comes, we're going to show them. We're going to show them.

Okay, here it is. I'm calling you all out. Let's show them. Move the question.

There's a motion to move the question.

Is there a second second to moving the question?

There's a motion to move.

I'll move it. I didn't know he was on.

Council C2, Council Camaro. We'll draw the motion to move the question.

So, I just like someone anyone to explain to me because I wasn't here last time we had this attorney with the city.

Do I get a right if I have a question? I don't I disagree with corporation council. Can I hire an attorney to represent me outside legal or do I have to get a vote from this council or do I have to get special permission from someone? How does it work? Someone tell me what does this $40,000 outside legal for the city councilors do as far as I'm concerned to help me or any other

counselor that might want to get a legal opinion outside of the attorney for the city. Tell me how it works, please.

Any policy would be created and adopted by the full council. We would put out a policy.

Do we have that policy in place right now?

We don't. We have the old one that was voted on which I don't have in front of me.

Do we have in front Do we have a policy in place? We do not at this we just argued a week ago because we're trying to put someone in position but yet we're going to change the position and creating a whole or audience thing.

Are we doing the same thing right now as a counselors putting money in front for a position yet we don't know what the policy is? What the we had a big uproar about it? We didn't know what the restructuring of government was going to be but yet we hired someone at a certain salary. Is this the same thing? Just curious. Somebody tell me how this works. I just want to know, do I have a

right to outside legal? If I have a question, I I disagree with the answer is that there'd be a policy adopted by the council and if the council wants to if the if it's the will of the council if we go through with this that all of you is calling.

How can anybody vote on something spending $40,000 without even know what the policy is?

We have a policy. The old policy is the council president and vice president would channel all questions to the outside council. That's what we did.

That's the policy. I don't have the you'd have to get what if what if you you so we'd have to get your permission to do it or you just going to chair whatever we want.

That was the old policy counselor.

All right. What does the old policy say again?

The old policy was that the president and vice president of the city council would get all questions necessary or set up an appointment with the corporation council, the city council's attorney at that time to have it done just through structure and it was adopted by the full council for my recollection.

So they'd have to go through the president, the vice president.

Council leadership. Yes.

Can't do it on their own.

That was the policy at that time that was created. We can certainly change.

So, but now what's the policy now? We don't know yet cuz we haven't voted on yet cuz no one's seen it.

Right.

Just tell me what the old policy was.

Okay. Can you tell me what the new policy is going to be?

No.

Can anyone tell me what the new policy is going to be?

There's no money. What do we need a policy if we don't get any money? When we get the money, we'll create a policy just like we did last time.

Like I said, it's kind of like what we were arguing about a couple of weeks ago when we said there's a position being created and we're going to put someone in this position yet. We don't know we're going to restructure the government. And so, it seems like we want to have it both ways. I don't I don't agree with it that way. Like I said before, I don't think we're going

to change his mind. He's not going to change our mind. So, we're steadfast.

With that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Constituency 7. Council just a point of order. That old policy, we never voted on that. I got we got a copy of what the policy was going to be after we put in the 40 grand. And I would like the city clerk to try to research that tomorrow. Tell me when we voted on that and get a copy of that policy because I didn't agree with the policy and wouldn't have voted for the

money had I seen the policy and I don't believe we voted on it.

Nevertheless, move the question.

You need a Let me just add this. To win the cases that we have, we need a David Yianetti. That's who we need. Somebody who's versed in criminal. If not, you're going to lose. Michael is right in seat number three. you to take his 700,000 out and we're going to lose those cases because it's hard for an attorney to catch up. With that, I yield.

Motion to move the question has been made and seconded. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it. Motion to move the question. Did you object to that? Council opposed.

Council seat eight opposed to moving the question. The item that is before us is a motion right now. We're going to hear the motion and we will vote on the motion. Hearing no further discussion right on the motion. Council seat 8 council repos.

Yeah.

Attorney Ramsey of that $700,000 in that line item. Can you clarify the breakdown on that please?

Any more the question? Keep going with discussion.

Approximately no there's there's the motion on the we we pass the motion to move the question at this point the motion that was made and seconded uh for the mo council and seat one followed by council in seat six's motion. I'm allowing the question.

We do a roll call.

All right. Fine. Roll call on moving the question. Phone roll call on moving the question. My apologies.

My goodness.

Hold on. Conf.

I'm moving the question. Councelor Scadim, yes.

Camarra, no.

Can yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, no.

Pekkham, yes.

Pereira, yes.

Reposo, no.

President Ponty, no. That's on moving the question. Did the motion pass or fail?

Motion carries. Five naysay, four nays on on moving the question.

On moving the question.

Roll call.

Sorry, councelor.

They were right. I'm wrong. Want to be the first. Certainly won't be the last.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Roll call.

So, to reduce $700,000 from the law department expenses budget for under the other professional services line item and that legal services needed from the law department be rendered through the salaries and wages line item instead.

Councelor Scadine.

Yes. Camarra, no.

Can no.

Dion, yes.

Cart, no.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, no.

Raposo, no.

President Ponti, yes.

Motion fails. 54.

Is there anything further for law?

Council seat 8. Councelor Raposo.

Attorney Ramsey, can you break down the $700,000? It doesn't have to be right now. Can you can you provide that to me or to the council tomorrow?

Absolutely. I mean, I would be you got to remember for the future, it's it's of my best guesstimate. So, it would be in the past.

Yeah. Because the only thing I will add and advocate for if there is a way that we can bring some of that $700,000 back into the corporation council's office as opposed to having $700,000 over professional services considering if that line item only becomes particular experts and things like that.

Yeah, I can I can tell you that I don't think we can um the one thing we can do is you know when there's another hire um I'd say the one kind of basic skill that we lack to some degree is uh real estate as far as you know Matt Burke is very good but he's limited so we could maybe increase his hours to then take on more cases but the rest it's outside the expertise.

Yeah. So if you can get that for me that'd be great.

Sure. Thank you. I yield.

Anything further for law judgments and claims? Thank you attorney Ramsey. It is now 10:29. Is it the will of the council to go for another 15 minutes?

Motion to wave the rules.

Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor repos for another 15 minutes. Seconded by council vice president Dion. Discussion hearing none.

All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. Next department is going to be the director of financial services under financial services. Director of financial services on page 57.

Discussion.

Hang on. Still turning pages.

Anything?

Nothing.

Thank you. Hearing none. That would be uh next item would be city auditor. City auditor. Council on Cday. Councelor Rapos.

And actually this this question is more direct to the CFO because but it just falls under the ca the category of city auditor. um the finance finance analyst and compliance manager was dropped from what was 118,000 to 70. So I wondered if either of you could speak to that and and the rationale because obviously it's still a vacant position. I think it's your intention to fill the position at some point.

Yeah.

So so how do we go from I mean it's great it went down but why? So my understanding from when this position was created um which was I think right before um and the conversations were with me to take the position it was to get the departments the finance financial services departments in a general sense off of the outside consultants that had been used um I know that there was outside of attorney

Thomas um a lot of consultation that was being used to support the knowledge gaps that existed on the team. So then my former position was created to do that.

I think um a lot of the other duties that are in there it's just to in general support the um financial analyst in the all of the departments across all of finance departments across um the whole you know area as needed. So part of it was to reduce it at a to do it at a lower level. I think um you know the position I was hired for I do have a lot

of the you know knowledge base that's needed to support these departments.

I've been a city auditor. I've done debt issuance. So there's a lot of things that I do know that I, you know, have been able to support that I don't need outside consultants for anymore. Um, so some of that salary we actually when reducing it moved it over to purchasing to hire a full-time purchasing agent and a full-time um project specialist. At this point, I think it'd be ideal to keep that position. Um,

but we also need another position in auditors is our opinion at this time.

So, um I think depending on the will of the council to keep this funding in there, we would either hire in that position first and auditors um and not use this money. Yeah.

Um if and when it becomes available. I know there was a lot of talks about long-term planning. So, um in time in the next three years, if we can afford to have both in the departments, I think it'd be best for city operations financially to have that. But at this point in time, you know, I think that we can only really fit the one in well. So we would like to use that.

Yeah. Do you think that the the role of the position is actually going to change though with the and I guess I mean the way I look at it very quickly is go from 118 to to 70 essentially would mean maybe it's a lower level lower level less scope right the job description is probably going to change right yeah so it it would be it would be really the similar job description to

the financial analyst position I would say with some of that pulled back. So it in that sense it's the same but it would be a lesser scope. But it's not like we would add in different duties. It would be what's there. It would just be reduced.

Would it would it be worth would it be worth to eliminate that position as it stands and then rewrite a new position going forward with a better alignment of what you're trying to accomplish?

I would say potentially. I think I think to be honest with you at this point it was to see the will of the council to leave I'm going to say that funding in the financial services department to fill the needs that we have. Um, and if that's maintained, I think we can have better conversations about exactly what that position would be doing. Um, I know that we would like to do more in um,

auditors with auditing day-to-day checks going out the door and with AP um, managing a lot more specifically where things are being charged. I know we've had many conversations about what lines are being used, um, how vendors are being paid, whether, you know, they're being paid with past due charges or current. So, there's a lot more day-to-day auditing that that the person that's currently in AP is responsible

for um cutting every check for the city and school and water, sewer, like all of the departments, all the checks that go out as one person. So, we want to increase that.

I understand that, but I guess as this moment stands, that position's been vacant since you were in CFO and now CFO.

Correct.

And it's continued to be vacant. And it doesn't, and correct me if I'm wrong, it doesn't seem like there is an immediate plan to fill the position because really the scope of the position is probably going to change. Correct.

Okay. So, it probably would be a good idea to eliminate go back put a new ordinance in for a revised scoped position maybe titled differently to really accomplish what the orderer needs.

I think well there that position exists.

We would do another project specialist.

Correct.

So if for the immediate but I think long term the position as described would make sense. So I think the ordinance stands. It's just that we may not need it right this moment.

Yeah. I mean, I think allocating 70,000 for it right now is probably, considering we're talking about a lot of money here, right, at this point. I mean, it may be worth zeroing that out and then revisiting once you and and the auditor have a plan as far as where what direction you want to go and let's and put it on the shelf when when the time is appropriate.

Yeah. I mean, I think the I think the whole point of leaving it in was to see what what the interest was in the council to retain another position within the finance team. Like I said, we didn't want to hire for it. Do it. You know, at first it was being held because obviously I was interrum. So yeah, we couldn't eliminate the position I needed to go back to.

But obviously this Yeah. And that's not the case anymore because you're permanent. But this position that you formerly held was non-un. The project specialist in the city autos department union.

No, they're not. They're all non-un personnel. Okay. So that that actually makes I think a little easier.

Yeah. I mean, I think if we do hire it for that AP position, it would obviously be less than the 70,000. Um but again, I I wasn't sure what the comfort was. I didn't want to just add a whole another body to that department.

Yeah.

If that wasn't, you know, the will of the council. So, so I don't know if it's a possibility where you could maybe advise us on what your plan is maybe in the immediate future for this particular either position or somewhere in city orders before we get to the end of the budget and and make a motion on it. So, we can discuss and put put that plan together.

Yeah, that'd be great. This this way because again, if it doesn't need to be there, let's move on from it. kick the $70,000 out and then figure out what the real true plan to make the department the most efficient as possible. I yield council fight uh council on C4 council vice president Dion.

Yeah, I'm going to weigh and weigh in on this. Um so as you said last year when we had this discussion um there were some of us who wanted to eliminate the position then you had not been appointed as as CFO. You asked that we not eliminate it because you wouldn't have a position to go back to. So, and it wasn't the discussion we just had now.

It was just simply be it was like a placeholder, which I thought was crazy.

But, so that situation doesn't exist anymore. I'm in favor. This position only came only happened because you came to Fall River. This position didn't exist before that.

Correct.

Okay. So, I would want to see this position eliminated and get an assistant city auditor like we used to have an assistant and an auditor because what has happened in the past, the auditor leaves, you've got nobody in a position to step up. We put oursel in a bad situation. We have an assistant auditor. They help the auditor. If the auditor decides he's going to move on, we have somebody who's

been training and can step up and we don't find oursel in that situation again, which we found ourselves in that situation many times in many positions.

I would be okay with an assistant auditor. I'm not okay with keeping this position. And with that, I yield.

Council 8 council repos. And I would just ask as part of your discussions when you have this discussion about this, if the and I agree with my colleague, if an assistant city auditor is what's in the best interest of the city to make sure we're doing what we need to do, then so be it and present it that way.

Definitely.

Just so it's clear about what we're going to do because leaving this as it is ambiguous and vacant and and not knowing what's going on is is a reason to get rid of it out of the budget. So I yield. Anything further? Councilman C2, Council Camara, what happens if you leave? Who's going to take your position? another CFO at this point in time the the other department point of order did you say that we

shouldn't talk when people are talking but yet you allow it to happen I had to tell you to say you heard it I heard it so coming from someone that says earlier let me speak please they so you know your question the nonsense just grows direct question on finance direct your question I did ask a question then I was someone chimed in direct your question to the CFO please I already did she know the

So, so none of the current um other department heads in finance are unnecessary counselor.

Very unnecessary.

You don't need to throw your glasses.

Unnecessary.

Answer the question that the councelor has. Miss Arkey.

None of the department heads that are in finance right now, I believe, feel ready to take over if if I were to leave the city. So, um obviously I would be happy to support somebody if they wanted to learn that and take that on, but I think the appetite as of the past 3 months has not been that. So, I mean, you would have to find an outside person. It's my

intent in a long-term vision to make sure that there is a contingency plan to make sure that there are people that are trained up to take it over, but I can say from the people that are employed right now that nobody has wanted it and feels ready to take it at this point.

So, I think the goal would be to build a finance team structure that builds into that. Um, you know, I think over the last year, we've have we have an internal document that I've been working on for the finance team that looks at, I'm going to say a 5-year goal of what the finance team structure would look like that we would work towards. Um, and so I think without trying to change too

much in it, we wanted to be able to come down with that full plan to make some of those structural changes. So that was kind of why I had left that position in there because it is in there and it is vacant, but um, we do want to change the structure, but I wanted to do that through conversations with the council rather than just moving it around in the budget now. So, um, I don't necessarily

disagree with that being I'm going to say cut, but because we would need another position somewhere in the finance team. So, I'm more than open to that. I just, like I said, wanted to make sure I was doing it the right way through the council at this point.

How soon do you think it'll be before you can start to maybe find someone to try to fill in and cultivate for this position?

Um, I mean, I think they're conversations that we we kind of actually talk about actively about how we would restructure that office. So, um, I think we could have something, you know, sent over to you of what our long-term vision looks like and what the more immediate plan looks like. Um, and then we can go from there. I think it was seeing how this budget approval went. If there was money in there to

hire a position, we would start working on that. But because we weren't sure, we didn't want to obviously look for somebody if there was no position.

With that, I yield. Thank you.

Anything further on this department?

Harry? None. Thank you very much.

analysis and compliance.

I mean, we kind of just did that.

We kind of did. All right. Thank you.

Purchasing questions on purchasing.

Which is on page 63.

Any questions? Councelor in seat 8.

Councelor Reposo, the um project specialist procurement vacancy. Trevor, um where does that stand currently?

Because it's been it's been vacant FY26 and now FY27.

Yeah. So we started interviews about two and a half months ago. We did offer it to an outside candidate. They declined.

Um so now we kind of just restarted the process.

All right. But it's your intention to fill it.

Yes.

Okay. I yield. Thank you. Councelor in seat one. Council Kadine.

Just a quick question. Who who reviews your documents from a legal standpoint?

Um, I mean I a good question. I mean I I essentially go off of like templates that were created from like predecessors and I kind of adjust and then sometimes Matt Thomas has been involved with certain certain ones. I have had um we have like a mapo program that we use just like a mass procurement like throughout the all the like procurement officers throughout the state that we would use sometimes if

we have like questions or whatnot we would use. So it's kind of like different programs essentially.

So it would be Matt Thomas not really that he reviews them like he's helped with the solid waste one um parking garage and the parking garage. Yeah, those are the two that he's really been involved with. So, do you ever go upstairs and to cooperation counsel?

I may have asked like one question since I've started. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion.

So, essentially obviously procurement is very important in your department. So I mean does is this an indication that we we aren't up to speed and don't have exactly what we need in terms of procurement at this point or is this an additional set of eyes for procurement purposes because I know it's a lot of uh legalities surrounding procurement and and and how it's supposed to be handled.

Sure. So, um, in my opinion, I don't feel like the cities utilize it the way it should have been, right? I mean, to think that my position was given to Rebecca, who was the assistant treasurer who did this kind of part-time. When you look at a city of this magnitude, I mean, just just since I've started, I've put out 32 bids.

That's a lot compared to like what other surrounding towns. If we look at like a New Bedford or whatnot, and there there there's teams of like five or six on those. I'm one and I have a head admin clerk. So essentially it would be getting the city to where we kind of need to be as far as to be as efficient and effective as we could.

Yeah.

So this person is going to have to um come with procurement uh capabilities and and if not is going to need to know the law.

If not we are we actually have it budgeted so they go through and get the um MCPO certifications.

Okay.

Yeah. To be clear, all of all of the finance functions that we have follow a lot of mass general law. So I know I would be very clear I am not a lawyer but I do know how to read the laws that are associated with what I handle through you know mass general law for this purpose. So there are certain things that you know sometimes we ask corporation counsel for things but in

that sense probably more than most departments we know how to interpret our own laws that guide what we do every day.

Right. I have it printed on the side of my desk and I go through that daily. So if I have questions, if I can't find it on my own, we'll do the outreach.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I yield.

Thank you. Anything further? Hearing none. Assessors. Assessor's office.

Questions on assessors.

Councilman seat one. Counceling. And we are at uh can we extend for another 15.

Motion to wave the rules.

Motion to wave the rules for another 15 minutes. Has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councel Pekkham.

Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

What is the one?

Thank you. Uh, what's the management consultant for 45,000?

So, hold on. Sorry. Um, we're on page 66 of our budget books.

It's broke up into a couple different things. Um, so the $45,000 we were trying to hire um Patriot Properties to do cyclical inspections before I started. In 2022, I believe we paid um outside service around $300,000 to do part of the city measure and list, which is required by Department of Revenue to visit every parcel once every 10 years.

Y So that's the that's that 300,000 you said. Is that over 10 years? Is that did you say 300,000?

So that was in 21 and 22. I believe we used ARPA funds for that. That was before I started. Yeah.

Um and so this $45,000 is just to kind of continue that effort so we don't get hit with that huge uh lump sum again.

Okay. So that's all just Patriot Patriot properties at this point.

And then other purchase services.

So other other purchase services is a a combination of a couple things. So $52,000 is RRC, our personal prop property contract. Um, I have $10,000 slotted for attorney Matt Thomas and then $5,000 for Randy Mercier Mercier, which is is our MUNS consultant.

Yep.

And then you said Matt Thomas does So Matt Thomas um I since I've started in 2023, I've um I've cut Matt down quite a bit obviously just with my knowledge. Um, but when I started, Matt was, I guess, filling in kind of in the assessor's office as part as a part-time role. Um, it was vacant when I started.

Um, but, uh, Matt helps with the ATB cases and then with the tiffs and ties generally, um, outside of me. Uh, when it gets to me, it's already came to you guys and stuff. So, he pretty much represents the city, I believe, in like the um, tiff and tie meetings and stuff.

So, uh, in terms of the ATP cases, does he actually go to land court on those?

Uh, he did. Like, we just settled one this past week. We had one ATB case from 2025 and he just settled that.

Has anybody from Corporation Council ever attended an ATB case?

I mean, they're pretty straightforward.

Not to the best of my knowledge. Not since I've been here, right?

You would agree that they're pretty straightforward.

The the ATB cases. Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Corporation council left. I just wanted to let him know that they are pretty straightforward. With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Anything further? Council NC7 council.

Yeah. I mean, we were all talking today about saving the tax payer money and I would like uh Mr. Lane on this council had voted for, you know, exemptions for different people, veterans that were 100% disabled, others below that, um people that have lost their sight or people that are widowed. Can you tell us the difference on 20 from 25 to 26 what the totals were?

So, and how many more or less people did we have? It looks like we had more.

I can kind of sum it up for you real quick.

Sure. Um so in 2026 the council approved um to increase the 17D which is the senior exemption from 175 to 180 41 C's which is the elderly um from 500 to 750 22 um clause 22 which is the um veteran that's um 10% to 99% 20 um sorry they went from 400 to 800 22E ES which are totally um uh 100% disabled veteran went from 1,000 to 2,000 um and um I believe

that's the only exemptions that were increased. So in 2025 uh we abated $490,000 um in exemptions and in 2026 we abated $99,692.

So, it's, you know, an increase of about $500,000 um in the year. And it's the numbers are up, obviously. Um the elderly, we went from 352 exemptions to 405 exemptions.

The 22s went from 174 to 200. Um the 22E, which are the 100% went from 105 to 132 exemptions. So, the exemptions are up quite a bit um as we increase the exemption amount.

Thank you. you. I just want the people out there listening that we do try our best to help people in this tough economy and and to our veterans. So, and I believe all my colleagues supported my resolution on this. So, this helped some people. That's what we're here for. So, thank you.

You're welcome.

I know it was a lot of work having people come in and getting all the paperwork done. So, I thank you and your staff. I heard wonderful things about the staff.

With that, I yield. Thank you. Council consular repos.

And on that line, um, as far as the 909692, do you anticipate any more or any more pending between now and what you have until June?

So, no, so you have until April 1st each year. So, it starts July 1st to April 1st. Um, we've actually I've actually handed out um new applications already this year. So, I know the numbers are going to grow. Obviously, we have people move, people deceased, but I I would expect the numbers to continue to grow.

Got it. Thank you. I thank you. Anything further? Hearing none. Treasurer treasurer 69 to 70 page 69 to 70 questions councelor in seat date councelor reposo yeah my question revolves around the org chart um and just a clarification comparing last year's budget to this year um last year's budget you had three administrative assistants but here in this new budget you have an administrative assistant two project

specialists um for treasury so just clarification on on that yeah so that was part of a collect ive bargaining um process.

Okay. And anything more to that or Well, ju I mean just the fact that uh the people in this department um they assist every other department in the city.

Um they touch everything, every dollar that comes in and out. Um there's payroll involved, there's there's checks, there's banking, there's proprietary information.

So the scope of their jobs is pretty much increased.

Yeah. And it's it's kind of a higher level than some of the other clerical positions in the building.

Okay, that's what I needed to know.

Thank you. Council in seat one. Council Lady, thank you. Uh so when we go out for debt service, you do you handle that?

Yeah, we do it as a as a team.

As a team. Who's our bond counsel?

Uh uh it was Lock Lord. They changed to Pepper Lock. Uh Troutman. They changed their name. It was Lock Lord. It's now Troutman. Pepper lock. Something like that.

So that would be outside council. Nobody upstairs in corporation council.

Okay.

Uh other purchase services tax title $89,875.

What would that be?

So um we have um attorney Matt Thomas helps with a lot of the uh with he is our tax attorney.

So outside legal again remind me Matt Thomas.

Yep. he is an outside legal and um that his his rate um every it's reimburseable through the tax collection process. So everyone that's puts into tax we add a legal fee on under the bill. So when that does get paid we we recoup that.

Yeah.

Be great if we uh could actually just recoup what we were actually paying people upstairs in the uh sixth floor at corporation council. Uh without a yield.

Anything further? Councilman C4, council vice president. Yeah.

Yeah. I think this is more for Miss Arkkey than anything. So basically, you're doing two positions, treasurer, collector, and your position has been called treasurer collector. The number of years you've been doing it.

I'm just curious why we're paying longevity under both positions when it's one person doing one position.

We don't. No, that's not what So, um, what you're seeing, I think, is the assistant treasurer. So, there's an assistant treasurer and an assistant collector, but the city treasure collector is only listed under one budget.

Yeah, I'm in the collector.

The org chart does show both because he oversees both. And to be honest with you, I would love to just combine both of them because that's how it is. Most places that are combined, but I can't if it was under one. And not that it's mine.

Is that a request to change it? Because I'd love to.

It was more of a curiosity thing, but you're right.

It's confusing. I mean it they they operate as one department in that sense.

Yes, there's two sides of it, but ultimately he oversees all of it. Um other places that have a treasure collector, typically you see one budget for treasure collector. Um but this is how it came in and I think I have already changed a lot of things and I was trying to not shly change too much more, but I'm happy to please.

Well, if you would like to see them combined, we can. But it's nothing would change in the dollar figures. It would just be shown together.

I don't think it's something that's completely necessary. It's Yeah, just sometimes Yeah. It's just easier, but that's okay.

Yeah.

Um it's only two two different pages, right?

So, and other than that, uh I think and I don't say it too often, but I think he does a great job and he's uh very receptive when you need help. So, thank you, Dad. I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further for treasurer collector treasure constency, one collector as well?

Yeah, we'll do collector as well. Y um just a question in terms of expenses.

Uh recording registry fees tax title $37,900.

What is that?

Get to my So yeah. So that's the recording fees for when we um when we actually do the tax taking. So the um instrument of taking it's like $105 each.

Um and then also we've added uh a new con. We have to pay for constables now.

Y before they go out. So that's in there, too. Um and then the final part of that is um when I actually do the taking before the they get recorded there. Um there's like a legal review. So um just to make sure everything who who does the legal review and then who who actually title attorney?

Who's that?

Matt Thomas.

Matt Thomas. Outside attorney. Outside legal. Who does the uh recording at the registry?

Uh we do in our office.

You do it?

Yeah. I mean I have uh Sandy Froman in She just goes down.

Yeah, we we use simplify. It's electronic now.

How much of that is uh Matt Thomas that of of that 37,900?

2500.

Yeah. $2,500.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I yield.

Anything further? Councilman Cateo.

So, similar to treasure, I'll ask the same question about collectors in the ORC chart. Um so, last year four administrative clerks. This year, one administrative clerk, three head admin clerks. Can you clarify the difference?

Also, part of um collective bargaining that's actually kind of a recent change.

We had a um we had a person there who's um since moved to a different department and it was basically a municipal lean certificate specialist and did a couple other different tasks.

Um and uh through collective bargaining, we're going to um basically spread that duty out over the three increasing their role and we're going to keep that position.

And I will give the caveat that right now we're able to handle this.

Mhm.

In large part because we have Beakos's bank taking payments for us. Like the people that want to pay in person, they're not in front of us at the like we we definitely have people coming through all day every day, but it's less than it used to be. There there were days where I mean wrapped around the building just people trying to pay their bills, but it's different now. People are paying online. People are paying

through our lockbox. We're not doing every single piece of mail. We're doing plenty, but um I'm using them a little bit differently than we've used to.

We're doing thousands of tax certifications. We're doing phone calls, which are extremely effective. Um and other decision processing like when payments come in through the lock box, but it doesn't match the bill, we're reviewing them. There's a lot of new things that they're doing. And um I think we can as long as Bay Coast keeps going, we can handle it. I just want to keep the caveat that if that ever they

ever decide that, you know, they've had enough that we might need to revisit this.

Is that a necessary agreement, a sort of term that they do that or they just doing it as a public service?

It should be a public service.

That's good.

Last question is on page 73, the administrative clerk vacancy is zeroed.

Yeah, that's what I was just That's what I was just talking about. Okay, just want to clarify that. So it it's also written in the CBA agreement that it's it is to be technically left as a position but that we may not be filling it and funding it at this time but we can't technically eliminate the position. So that was part of the CBA agreement. Yeah. So and that was the agreement to increase those other

positions to then have that one lowered and not really fill it. So that's the basis of that zero. Um what union again please?

Ask me.

Ask me. Okay. And that's a contract to be negotiated. No, it it just was it's um it was it was not done through the everything else that we talked about before was done through the base CBA that you guys approved. This was just done through a side letter change um recently.

Understood. I yield. Thank you. Anything further? Treasurer and collectors. Is there a motion to adjourn the committee on fin motion to adjurnn the committee on second?

Motion to table.

Motion to table what?

The budget.

Motion to table the budget in the committee on finance would be appropriate. has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by council vice president, by councel Hart.

All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Motion to adjurnn fin.

Motion to adjurnn finance has been made by councelor reposo. Seconded by councel pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. We're going to roll right through f councel.

Can you take that out of order?

Yes, I will take it out of order.

City Council meeting call to order at 10:59. Madame clerk, roll call.

Councelor Scadim here.

Chamra here.

Canuel here.

Dion here.

Hart here.

Peekom here.

Pereira here.

Pereira here.

Raposo here. President Ponti here. Everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

Thank you. And a salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and they're deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Motion to take item 8A out of order please.

Motion to take item 8A out of order has been made by councelor Roboso seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor opposed. The eyes have it. Hey you don't have to come down. Oh close.

Madam clerk if you could introduce the item. I got I got This is 8a.

Yeah.

Uh councelor council long, if you you have some information for the council.

Yes.

Okay.

Madam clerk, while he's doing that, you can introduce the item.

Thank you, sir.

It's a communication from the mayor in an order appropriating $51,000, excuse me, $51,300 from the Community Preservation Act, FY27 funding, community housing funds to the Fall River Preservation Society.

Mr. President, is there a presentation attached to this this evening?

No. or or I make the motion we have a 20-minute recess to read the packages you just put on our desk.

Motion to have a 20-minute recess has been made by council. Do we hear a second?

Second.

Seconded by councelor Raposo discussion cons4 council vice president Dion.

Might it be more expedient and to have them just explain to us what's in this packet?

Pretty good. We can do that. Motion to wave the rules to have them come down or you want to do a 20-minute recess.

I would make a motion to wave the rules and have them come and speak to us.

Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor Dion. Do we have a second?

Yep.

Seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? I oppose. The eyes have it.

Please introduce your name and uh role for the record, please.

My name is James Souer. I'm the vice president of the preservation society of Fall River. We also reside at 300 Stson Street in Fall River.

My name is Steven Long. I work for the Preservation Society. I live at 1147 Meridian Street, city of Fall River. I'm also hired help. Um, this project that you were looking at here uh is coming under the uh out of cycle funding. Mr.

Brandt had to leave. He had a f family situation that was developing. He had to leave. Um, this is pretty self-explanatory. You look at the table of contents. This is the uh the uh present portfolio of the uh preservation society where they have been purchasing and renovating historic buildings and also providing uh affordable housing within the city of Fall River. And if you go through that, you'll see there

were a couple of buildings that we've purchased with community development block grant funds uh which provided uh uh numerous uh affordable housing in in the different neighborhoods in the city of Fall River and we were able to uh also accomplish uh some historic preservation at those sites.

Now this the reason it's funding we've been we've been at this since April. Um, and today, just prior to getting to this meeting, we finally agreed on the purchase and sale agreement. I gave you a uh aended copy um basically stating the price and the signitories to the uh to the contract. There are some things within the purchase and sale agreement that were somewhat uh uh the seller did

not want disclosed publicly. Um, so we uh kind of honor that. Um, the next piece would be the MLS listing. That was the actual listing for 604 Rock Street.

Um, I don't think that's the right, was it? 605 604 604 Rock 604 Rock.

Okay. And then I also have the uh CPC eligibility application that was was uh put before the CPC uh which they approved and and approved the funding of this project which we've been talking with them for quite a while on that.

Also, um we have a support letter from the community development from uh Mike Dion telling that we have have uh uh completed uh a couple of projects with them. Uh they were very happy with the uh with the projects being completed. Um and uh he just gives us his support for this project, but there is no community development block grant funds in this project.

Right. We're uh we're looking for 500,000. Uh we had gone in front of the CPA board and they approved it themselves and obviously we have to come before you uh for the final approval. Um it's we're looking for it under the community housing category out of the four categories in CPA. Um this property is part of the local historic district and we're we're really excited about being that part part of that district.

um because preservation is our our thing and we're we're wanting to see this property done done uh you know be a be a an icon in in the uh the Rock Street area. Um it's there's eight units in the house. 50% of the uh units or four units would be under um affordability affordability housing be under affordability 30 years. Um, we also have a uh commitment from Bay Coast Bank for $600,000.

And the final piece in in the in the uh project is a performer as to how the funds are going to be spent, but the the $500,000 coming out of CPC will be spent specifically for acquisition.

One thing too um with CPA um under the uh allowable uses in um community housing whenever possible one of the ma ma major things that CPA looks for is adaptive reuse of old buildings. So that's kind of key and this is exactly what this building is.

I make a motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt. Uh there is councils who want to speak. Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Pereira, seconded by councel Hart. Discussion councelor in seat 8, councelor reposo on the adoption.

Yeah. So just a clarification. So 600,000 of bayost funding in the form of a mortgage.

Yes, correct. Correct.

Conventional mortgage.

Okay. That will be paid over 25 years.

Correct.

And through their budgeting process.

Correct.

500,000 through CPC.

Yes.

And that's a total of 1.1. The purchase and sales is a million. So what makes up the makes up that difference? The rest the rest of the financing is for all the additional costs that come in. And if you look at the uh and I can show you that the you look at the uh proformer Yep.

you'll see halfway down I believe the $100,000 for soft cost reserve and developer fees.

Correct. And we try to what we're trying to do is make this a a project that will not fail. So when you look at that, you can see the uh uh the uh we got the soft cost being in insurance, um paying for the taxes, that type of stuff, but we also have uh closing cost, um commitment fees, appraisals, uh clarification, all that type of stuff.

Constant C3, a point of clarification.

What's the address you're speaking about right now?

604 Rock. Okay. Okay. The order before us in 8A, the letter from John Brandt, chairman, would list the request to purchase property at 650 Rock Street, Fall River.

Well, he made a mistake on that. It's 604.

I don't know that the council was able to vote on this with the letter that we have here listing 650. I think he would need to send a new letter down before us. But could would it be possible just to amend the address?

We're talking about half a million dollar.

But but you're looking at you're looking at a listing that is 604. You're looking at everything else that's been approved on this is 604. And I really have to stress that we are under a tight tight time commitment on this. We have to close this by the 30th. I can't submit this to the bank unless I have everybody else in place and just to get it through the bank is going to take me. So you're saying

30 days.

We'll be here Thursday.

Yeah.

What's that?

Just to be clear, the appropriation order that we have before us does not indicate the address. It's just in the letter.

Say the agenda doesn't have the address either.

Correct.

Just so we're aware. So I would I would allow it to be appropriate to move forward because the appropriation does appropriation order does not have the address. But if a council adopts it, we'll make sure it's on the record of the correct adoption of the correct address.

Consent seat 8. You still have the floor.

Is there a deed restriction as part of this?

It will there will be 20 25 years. Is that what it is?

Yes.

I'll be 25. Yeah. 25 years.

And the and the current building as it stands, is it vacant?

It's fully occupied.

It's fully occupied. No, no tenant is going to lose their uh nobody's going to be evicted.

One thing in any of the apartments we've ever or buildings we've ever uh renovated, especially the first one, no one was ever evicted. We fixed them up as they left to attrition and um that's the way we I appreciate it, gentlemen. I yield, Mr.

President.

Thank you, Constant C3. Councelor Canuel, I don't have anything.

Did you yield, counselor?

I do.

You're good. cousin seat for council vice president.

Um if I ask anything you can't answer that's okay. Just say you can't answer it. But uh so so the building is fully occupied. It's going to be 50% um affordable affordable immediately.

They already are. Yeah. because you have people in there who are already they're going on once we close on this and we're going to get the stoppple agreements from all the tenants and then the landlords and it's a lot of stuff that has to get done. um they will be requested to review our lease, to sign our lease and to go by the the how we it's a no smoking area, no no no no no

pets, that type of stuff. And if they can't abide by that and they want to move, then that's that's what that's what will happen. But we're not going to go in there and just start evicting people and say, you know, I think the first thing we're going to address is the outside of the building.

People we and again, back in our first house, we did the same thing. people had pets. We they stayed the pets stayed until they left and the pets died. So, it's like we we we don't go in and try and be like, you know, uh uh and ultimately there'll be a transition to correct.

Ultimately, and the the original plan here is to do the facade of the building. That's going to be the first piece. Um there's a bunch of different colors on it. This is a this property is right by the uh what's the name? Agassi.

No. Anti Antioch school.

Antioch school. It's right next door.

Um, beautiful historic building and we just want to bring it back to its glory.

I think it'll be a uh a feather in the cap to the preservation society and to the CPC. I think it'll be a beautiful, beautiful project when it's done, but it's going to take time. First, we have to acquire it and then we'll and then we'll get into the rehabbing. The other thing too, even with with our other properties, I mean, as we obviously get rent, we we're a nonprofit organization,

no one is paid or as Steve is paid, but as far as our board members, none of us have paid it. The the money we get on our rents, we put it right back into the property.

I mean, if you went by any of our properties, you would see it. And actually, in your uh pamphlet, you will see work that we've done literally with our own hands.

I have.

Yeah. So that they're always maintained.

Uh everything is taken care of. You're not coming back looking for more money to replace a roof. Uh that type of thing like some people try for two three bites of at we actually we have come back with the fiscals house for for a roof. We have and actually to do some windows through CPA but um we again with ourselves with our own um funds we get through the rents we we put back into it. Mhm.

And now and now that we have a purchase and sale agreement and hopefully by we leave here tonight with with your blessings, um we're going to be doing an inspection on Thursday and it's just going to start to click click click click and we're just going to start expending money. But we didn't want to expend any money until we had all the ducks in a row as they say. Um tomorrow

morning first thing we're going to be at Bay Coast and start that process off where we can get the appraisals done and those types of things. So, so what do you think if you weren't purchasing this, what do you think would happen to this house?

I think it would just sell to someone else.

And I don't know. I I don't think uh right now it doesn't fit the original uh design as far as the the structure itself.

I think someone would just use it as a income property form of income and and it would be an absentee landlord for sure. The landlord's not going to be there. the landlord's not going to be in the city. Um, again, part of it is because it's part of the uh the local historic district, too, and we want to bring it back. We're going to try and find photos and try and

bring especially the facade back to what it used to be and maintain that area um as a historical area.

Yeah. I don't know if you're familiar with our our other properties, but um I am.

We take we take pride in them as simple as that.

No.

And we want tenants to take pride, too.

Well, and that's why you have the leases you have and and it's as stringent as it is so that you can maintain control because as soon as you lose control, you lose the building. So, with that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything further? And just for the record, uh, council along, your role here is exactly what you're getting paid by CP I'm getting paid by the preservation as a consultant.

I'm an employee. Um, and uh, what I do is I I put these projects together for them and get the financing in place and those types of things. Um, they're all non-paid. They have their own lives.

We have two employees, Steve and we have another young man who does maintenance for our properties.

Understood. Very good.

It's a part-time job. His I get the role. Thank you very much.

Anything further on this item? Motion to adopt has been made and seconded. Roll call.

On the motion to adopt the order.

Councilor Scadim, yes.

Camara, yes.

Canuel, yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, yes.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, yes.

Raposo, yes.

President Ponti, abstain.

Motion carries.

Thank you everybody.

Thank you very very much.

Sorry you had to wait so long.

No. All right, guys. Doing your job.

Next order of business, Mr. President, the first item After this one before you is a request from the mayor for the confirmation of the reappoint of three uh current members of the council on aging. The first one being Barbara Jean.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm the appointment of Barbara Gan has been made by councelor Raposa. Do I hear a second?

Second.

Seconded by council vice president Dion.

Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor? Oppose. The eyes have it.

Next appointment is for Susanna.

Motion to uh confirm. Motion to confirm the appointment of Susan Robero has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pereira. Is there discussion?

Hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it.

The next appointment is for Lorraine Sherry.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm. The appointment has been made by council Pekom. Seconded by councelor Raposo for Laurian Sherry has been made and seconded hearing. No further discussion. All those in favor.

The eyes have it. Item two is a request from the mayor for the confirmation of the appointment of Ken Shade to the historical commission.

Motion to affirm the appointment has been made by councelor Hart, seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Item three is a request from the mayor for the confirmation of the appointment of Orlando Rodri to the planning board.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm the appointment has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion?

Hearing none. And all those in favor I opposed. The eyes have it.

Item four is a communication from the mayor regarding the post commission's division of police standards review of the facts and circumstances outlined in the documents provided on March 31st of this year to their division.

Motion accept place on file.

Motion to accept the communication and place it on file has been made by councelor reposo. Seconded by councelor Hart. Is there discussion? Hearing none.

All those in favor. The eyes have it.

Item five is a request from the mayor for a loan order in the amount of $29,800,000 for the purchase of the former Bishop Connley High School property located at 373 Elry Street.

Is there a motion?

Authorized to publish and refer it to the committee on finance.

Authorize the item to be published and referred to the committee on finance.

Has been made by councelor Pereira, seconded by councelor Hart. Discussion hearing none. Roll call.

Council Scadm, yes.

Camarra, yes.

Canuel, yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, yes.

Peekom, no.

Pereira, yes.

Raposo, abstain.

President Ponti, yes.

That's just referring the item and referring it to the committee on finance.

Yes. Motion carries. Seven Yays, one nay.

Next order of business.

Item six is a communication from the mayor and his veto of the proposed ordinance authorizing the council to hire outside legal counsel in accordance to the charter with the charter. The uh veto would be laid on the table until the following meeting.

Motion to lay the item on the table would be appropriate by virtue of charter. Madam clerk, yes.

Motion to lay the item on the table has been made by councelor repos. Do I hear a second?

Do I hear question? When's the next meeting? This will be next full council meeting is Tuesday, right?

Uh special meeting on Wednesday. The the next meeting after that is June 9th is your regular meeting.

So June 9th would be the next June 9th.

Can act on it um before 10 days. Okay.

Is there a is there a second to the motion to lay the item on the table?

Second.

Seconded by who?

Councel annual. Is there discussion?

Hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed?

The eyes have it.

Item seven is a communication from the mayor in the following appropriations.

Item 7A, the transfer of $2 million from the FY25 surplus revenue to the employer healthcare trust fun.

Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by seconded by councelor Hart. Is there discussion?

Council C3. Councel Canuel.

Yes. Can we just have Miss Arkkey come to the table to talk about this for a moment?

Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor Cano. Do I have a second?

Seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor?

Opposed?

The eyes have it.

Good evening.

Evening.

Good morning. Almost.

Uh just on this $2 million, this this came up because the council or some members of the council had requested this previously, but you had sent down $3 million and we had adopted that. Is this really necessary at this time?

I this is per the request of council to send down another 2 million. So um yes, in general to get towards the goal of a 10 plus million dollar fund balance that we want to have, we are working towards that and 3 million does not get you to 10. So yes, it's necessary. Does it have to be done right this moment? No. But it was requested that it was sent down. So

I sent it down at that request.

I just want to confirm what happens at the end of a fiscal year with regard to the employer healthcare trust fund.

Does that money stay in that fund or does it Yes, it has to. It's it takes a twothird vote to remove it from council would take more than a two3 vote to have any chance of moving anything from that fund.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you counselor. Anything further hearing? None. Miss Arpi dismissed.

Motion to adopt has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion.

All those in favor?

I opposed. Councilman seat four. Council vice president. Roll call.

On the motion to adopt the order.

Councilor Kadim.

Yes.

Camaro.

Yes.

Can yes.

Dion.

No.

Hart.

Yes.

Pekkham.

No.

Pereira.

Yes.

I said no.

Raposo.

Yes.

President Ponti.

Yes.

Motion carries. Seven yays. Two naysay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Item 7A is a transfer in the amount of $1,700,000 from the FY25 surplus revenue to the diamond stabilization.

Motion to adopt.

Second.

Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Hart. Discussion. Council on C6. Councel Pekom.

Can we have Miss Arkpy come back down?

Motion to wave the rules. Invite Miss Arkkey back down to the table. Has been made by councelor Peekom. Seconded by councelor reposo.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o. All those in favor?

I opposed. The eyes have it. Miss RP.

Welcome back.

Tired.

I I'm just I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm just confused, too. I thought we talked about this during It's okay. The counselors have questions.

I know. I just I'm sorry. I wasn't mentally prepared for that part. I'm happy to answer it.

Councelor Peekham, your question. So, just for my the final clarification here, where are we with Diamond? Are we in good standing with the bill coming up and what we owe Diamond yearly with the revenue decrease and all of that? Are we in good standing?

So, I just want to take a step back because you weren't here when we set up this fund. So, the whole point of the fund was we knew that the first couple of years when the diamond payment was coming online that it was going to be tough.

So, we intentionally set up this fund to ease that payment on over the next I'm going to say five years when this was originally set up. So, we are good, but I feel like we do need this to make sure that we can continue to be good with this. Um, I do think that we can handle the payment in time. I know that these first couple of years, it's just bad

timing coming online with some of these increases and some of these unknowns.

So, this is like a dedicated safety net.

So, think about how we have the general fund stabilization, but we know that we're going to need this support. So, while we have it, we should build it up so that we can handle this payment fully for the future.

Okay. Now, just really quick, I know council president said earlier 9 million.

So, so the total payment for the debt portion, I of course left my book over there, but I believe it's in your budget book is 5.2 million for the actual debt portion.

The total payment that we make to diamond for the assessment is 9 million.

So, we have always paid about $4 million for student attendance separate from the debt portion of their assessment. So when we get their assessment, it's actually broken out between transportation um enrollment and um capital. So I am able to break out that capital number for you because of this big change. I wanted to show it, but technically we get an assessment that just details that out for us. So I broke

it out for you. But so the total payment is just over 9 million. The portion that is debt related is about 5.2 I think.

Now, was this the best avenue to go with paying for this or should we should we have gone to the people to the to be honest with you, I don't think that that was needed. I don't think a debt exclusion was needed. Um, I think if you want to talk about on the backs of the taxpayers, that is over and above the 2 and a half% that were allowed. So,

I think that this is the best way when we have this surplus to kind of save it to build it up and to plan for it so that we are doing it within our appropriation limit or our levy limit.

Okay. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you for your time, Miss Hopkins.

Should I wait for the next one?

Anything further?

Hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed?

What's that?

I'm opposed.

Roll call, please. On 7B. Motion to adopt that has been made and seconded.

Roll call.

Council Scadm, yes.

Camarra, yes.

Canuel, yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, yes.

Peekom, no.

Pereira, yes.

Rapos, yes. President Ponti.

Yes.

Motion carries. A yays. One nay. Item 7 C is a transfer in the amount of 2,336,175.90 from the FY25 surplus revenue to the general fund stabilization.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart. Is there discussion? Hearing none.

All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. Item eight is a communication from the mayor and the treasurer collector informing the council with regards to an acquisition of a property and the tax possession at 308 South Main Street.

Motion accept file. Motion to accept and place on file has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Pekum discussion councelor in seed 8.

Councelor Raposo.

It's not a question I'm going to get an answer to right now but madame clerk if you could. um on the document talking about the property and it mentions that the appraisal for the for the property fair market value $500,000 but I was doing some research on it and there was an article in 2025 that mentioned that the property was valued at $665 so I guess I'm just confused it did it

lose value I don't know if we can get some clarification on that would be you want to refer the item to the committee on real estate uh or you want to accept no I'll just I just I just want some clarification that's all the treasur collector for that.

Yeah, please. Thank you. I yield constency 7 council.

It's lost value because it's all fallen apart. Windows are broken and the structure of I'll take the official answer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Why lost value?

Yield, counselor. Very good. I motion to accept and place on file has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it.

Item nine is a number of recommendations from the traffic commission.

Motion to refer to committee on ordinance and legislation. Second.

Motion to refer the item to the ordinance committee as made in sec made by councelor Peekham. Seconded by councelor reposo. Is there discussion?

Hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed. The eyes have.

Item nine is a proposed ordinance for second reading and enrollment for miscellaneous traffic.

Motion so made.

Motion to refer it for second reading and enrollment has been made in by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councel Pekkham. Is there discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Whereas public concerns have been raised regarding unsafe conditions at and around the Serta bus terminal, including reports shared on social media. And whereas a recent social media post documented a large fight at the bus terminal with commenters noting that Serta currently lacks security presence due to a contract issue and whereas the absence of dedicated security at the terminal has placed an additional burden

on the Fall River Police Department. Now therefore be a resolved that the committee on public safety convene with a representative from the city administration, the state representative of this district, a representative from the Serta bus company and a representative of the Fall River Police Department to discuss these safety concerns and begin developing a remedy.

Motion to adopt.

Seconded.

Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart discussion. The sponsor of the resolution, councelor in seat six, councelor Pekkham.

Thank you, council president. Um, I just find it pertinent to file this. There have been many issues over the past few months. I've had conversations with the mayor. I've had conversations with acting chief Um, there is a lack of security there that's being provided by SERTA and we need to come up with a plan um before it gets worse.

That I yield. Thank you.

Sure. Yep.

Thank you, councelor. Any further discussion?

No.

Councilman C3 council. Uh I thought it was my understanding that they've recently got service uh security. Is that not the case?

Yeah, they're not there. They're in some type of contract dispute or something along those lines. Regardless of that, I just got a call from a property owner over there. Um and there was an assault on one of the neighbors there. It's just starting to get really bad. So, it needs to be addressed. I've spoken to acting chief hall, like I said, and he's somewhat in agreement that there has to

be a discussion made because we're there all the time. Our calls have doubled. I believe we're at 402 calls for the year or something like that. I don't have the uh the numbers with me, but the numbers have doubled at that location since the security lacking.

Thank you.

Yeah, it's going.

You have the floor.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, this will be resolved, I think, when the new contract takes effect, but um I I won't oppose it. I Thank you. Hearing no further discussions. All those in favor?

Opposed?

The eyes have it. Um, for item 12, would it be the will of the council um, not to discredit the resolution, but due to time, would it be okay if the clerk reads, "Be it resolved down," or would you like the whole thing read?

Sure.

Be it resolved down.

Be it resolved down.

Whole thing red.

Whole thing read. Council, we'll do the whole thing.

Okay.

Madam clerk, what's another 10 hours?

Whereas the far city council has an obligation to ensure transparency, accountability, and the proper stewardship of public funds. And whereas in 2022 in an investigation alleged that a city employee misappropriated cash revenues that the employee was responsible for collecting and managing in connection with bulky item stickers and bulky item disposal services within the department of community maintenance.

And whereas those revenues involve direct cash handling at city facilities which presents inherent risks if proper internal controls, oversight and policies are not consistently enforced.

And whereas the city council has an interest in determining whether similar practices have been continued after the 2022 investigation and whether current policies and procedures are sufficient to prevent future misuse of funds. And whereas the city council has appropriated funding for audit and related professional services within the FY2026 operating budget under city council audit services and will have

similar funding available in FY27.

And whereas an independent outside forensic audit would provide an objective and comprehensive review of cash handling practices, internal controls and compliance related to bulky item fees and disposals. Now therefore be a resolved that the city council hereby authorize and request the engagement of an independent outside audit firm to conduct a forensic audit of community maintenance operations

related to the collection, handling, accounting, and management of the bulky item sticker revenues and disposal fees from the fiscal year 2022 to the present. and be further resolved that the scope of the forensic audit shall include but not be limited to a review of practices and controls in place at the time of the 2022 investigation, an assessment of whether any improper or illegal activity occurred and whether

similar activity may have continued thereafter. An evaluation of current cash handling procedures, internal controls and oversight mechanisms at community maintenance facilities and recommendations for policy changes, procedural improvements or additional controls necessary to prevent future occurrences and to strengthen accountability and transparency.

and be a further resolved that the funding for this forensic audit shall be paid from the city council audit services account as appropriated in the FY2026 operating budget and be a further resolve that upon completion the audit firm shall present its findings and recommendations to the city council subject to applicable legal personnel and confidentiality requirements.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart. discussion. The sponsor of the resolution, councelor in C6, councelor Peekham.

Thank you. Um I just think it's we need to do this. I'm hearing, like I said before, rumors of anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million were missing. Um I was told it went to the DA. There was a refusal to prosecute. I'm just looking I want to make sure, like I said the last meeting, if we're going to do a reorg, then policies, procedures, every we're going to do everything. We're going to

make sure that that department is squared away and stuff like this never happens again. um how this wasn't a bigger deal up to $2 million of tax taxpayers money is it's a lot of money to disappear without looking into so that was the reason for this resolution that I thank you thank you councelor in seat 8 councelor reposo through you Mr. President to my colleague in seat 6. I'm just curious um

in not notes to appropriate in the FY26 operating budget. Do we do we face a reality where this is actually going to get off the ground before June 30th for FY26 or should we change it to FY27's operating budget?

Madam Clerk, we have roughly what I want to say $12,000 or they are so available in our budget for audit.

12,500.

12,500. So I mean I I can't answer that question how quick this will be. I'm not sure the procurement. I'd have to check with I don't know Matt Thomas or Ren Ramsey or somebody.

Yeah, I mean we're talking let's it's about 35 days. We're probably not going to get it in the FY26 budget. So I'm wondering if we should FY27.

I have no problem amending to the 27.

Motion to motion to amend the resolution.

Yeah.

To show the 2027 operating operating budget has been made by councel Pekham, seconded by councelor Raposo. Discussion on the amendment.

Councelor Nothing on the amendment. I'm fine with the amendment hearing on the amendment only.

What's the amendment again?

The amendment is to just change be it further resolved uh the FY2027 operating budget versus the 2026 on the amendment councelor in seat three councel.

Thank you. So there is $12,500 left in the FY26 budget for the audit line. I would assume that in the FY27 budget, the item uh line item for an audit is a cost estimate. That would leave probably a balance of no more than that amount. Um we're talking the word forensic audit was used. That that tells me this is $12,500 is not going to be sufficient whether we're saying it's FY26 or FY27.

Um, I think if we're going to be changing the year, you have to be getting additional funding in that line item for that to work. With that, I Anything further? Councilman C7, Council La Perau, this is the way I look at it. We're going to spend money to do an audit on a situation where we don't have the records for that. When this all came down, the person that they alleged did this is deceased.

There's no records.

The police department was notified when this investigation was done and so was the district attorney, but there was no way for them to figure out if somebody came in with a bulky item, how much was paid day to day to day. They couldn't figure it out. And the individual was deceased. This should not have happened.

And there should have been policies in place that this couldn't happen.

Wouldn't it be better having had this occur bringing it to you have a new director of community maintenance have that director come forward to some committee and say what are the policies you have now for bringing in bulky items why spend money on one hand we don't want to raise taxes two and a half% we want to save money save money and and I'm not opposed to doing an audit but

now we're going to do an audit about we don't have any of the information.

I couldn't do an audit on this. I have nothing to go by. There's no paper trail. But I understand this should not have happened. Maybe just have it go to a committee and make sure that those policies are in. I'll ref I'll yield to the chairman to the uh my colleague that filed the resolution to see if he agrees that I yield. Before we do that, I'd like to acknowledge all the councils

will raise their hand for us. Council on seat 4, council vice president Dion.

So, um, as far as a forensic audit, I I I won't support a forensic audit personally. Um, and again, for some of the reasons that were stated, there was an investigation into this. Unfortunately, the recordkeeping was deplorable. Um, from what I understand, it was pieces of paper. they couldn't connect dots, so they couldn't file criminal charges. I don't think this is looking um I could

be wrong and please correct me if I'm wrong. Um I think this is more is less about criminality and more about an audit getting to the bottom of it and making sure things are done properly moving forward. And if we can discern what they did wrong in the past in the process that we would want that. I would also like to add that um November 25th 25 city council meeting there was a

resolution at that time that was filed uh council kadima and myself co-sponsored it uh whereas the city council recognizes the importance of ensuring that all municipal departments operate efficiently effectively and in the best interest of the taxpayers performance audits serve as a valuable tool and went on to be be it resolved the committee on finance convened with the administration to develop a

comprehensive plan and cost estimate to perform performance audits of all city departments. I bring this up because it hasn't happened and it's this goes back to November. I know that you have brought it up to the administration.

It's never come on our agenda. We've never had the opportunity to discuss it.

I believe there should be an audit. I don't believe anybody's going to follow through with it. So my suggestion would be that this be amended that the city council and it's free of cost that the city council send a letter to the state auditor Diana Daglio and ask her to audit this department.

I'll second that. I yield. And that's there's a motion on the floor right now to amend the resolution to re and also send a letter to the city uh state auditor uh to audit this department.

That has been made by councelor Dion. Is there a there is a second to that motion by councel canuel. Discussion on that amendment. Councilman see I just want to amend the amendment and say at no cost.

at no cost to be clear. Yep. Thank you.

Point of information, the city, the top state auditor does not cost. It is free.

Content C2, you have the floor at no cost.

Noted.

Thank you, Lieutenant.

Thank you. Constency one, Council Kadin.

Uh, thank you. I I guess I don't have necessarily have any issue with it. Um, the only item I would say is is that if the administration decides to tell the state auditor that they don't they don't want to participate in it, the state auditor won't audit. So that they they need to have some type of okay and cooperation from the city. They got no authority. So I think she

then I I know she'll do it. I'm just saying if they just come back and say no, it's so I just want to throw that out there that I I know she offers these services, but it's very limited in scope. um if she decides that that she wants to go down a different road and look at it, you know, and and the and I'm not saying that the administration would do that, but if the administration

was okay with the initial audit and then they start digging into somewhere else, they can push back and then the audit stops.

So that's the only thing I would say. I yield.

Constant C4, Council Vice President.

Yeah, I think um so I don't believe an audit was ever done. It was a request for an investigation and the police department didn't do the investigation because they don't do financial investigations and that's why they turned it over to the DA who couldn't do it because they didn't have the evidence one right who didn't move forward with it because there was no evidence to charge any crim any uh so and yes I am aware

that the administration clarification councelor in seat six your point of clarification have we ever heard that from anybody other did the DA say That have we heard that from the DA or is that just hearsay?

No, I don't have the answer. Council I will tell you it's not hearsay but I am not going to disclose where I got the information from. But I can tell you the person I got the information from was in the thick of it. I guess that's the best way I can put it. But I'm not going to disclose it because that would be up to that individual whether they want their name. the the city

administrator's here. You want to wave the rule? Maybe shed some light on it.

There's a counselor who has the floor and I've lost sight of exactly who that is at the moment.

So I I don't know. I do.

You do? Okay.

So, and and I am aware that yes, the administration can block it. So, and down the road I'm going to be making another motion to send something else to the state auditor as well, but I'm going to wait on that. Um, so I say let them say don't do it because then that tells then that presents a bigger problem.

Right now it's not a huge problem that we're asking for a simple basic let the state auditor order the department and if the administration has a problem with that then that would lead me to say okay what don't you want people to know and what are you hiding and at that point that's what I would be that would be my argument whether it was reason you know that that that would just be my opinion

on the whole thing. Um why why don't we want performance audits? Why don't we want to audit departments? We're not saying anybody's doing anything wrong now, but people agree that things have not gone well in the past. So let a set of eyes look at it who's independent of this city. That's all I'm I'm saying.

But I don't care. It's whatever the council wants to vote. And with that, I yield.

Thank you. Councelor in seat 8.

Councelor Raposo.

I forgot my question. I yield. Councelor in C6. Councelor Pekkham.

I got nothing. I yield. Thank you.

Constant C2, Council Camarra.

All set. Okay. There's a motion uh to um amend to send a letter to the state auditor to audit the department at no cost. Therefore, we would strike out be it resolved that the funding for this forensic ought to be paid from the city council audit service account as appropriated in the FY2027 operating budget.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay. That's on the on the amendment.

Would we also be striking out the language about engagement of an independent I can't hear you.

Sorry. Would we also be striking out the language the sentence that requests of an independent outside audit firm piece as well?

Yes.

They're just changing the date.

Yeah, that's fine. If that's is that is that the motion on the floor? I'm not going to make motions up here. Is that the motion on the floor to strike both?

Be it further resolves the last two.

Is it to be clear? Can somebody make that motion?

I'll make the motion.

Make the motion to strike. Be it further resolve the funding for the forensic audit part. Be it further resolved that upon completion of the audit firm. Those two items will be the two paragraphs before that. Be it resolved that the forward city council hereby authorizes understood. Thank you. Be it be it resolved that the former city council hereby authorizes the request and be it

further resolved that the funding for this forensic audit be struck struck from the resolution and that it be replaced with the city council send a letter to the state auditor to audit the department at no cost.

Correct.

That has been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion on that?

Councelor in seat six council Pekkham on the amendment.

Yeah. So my only problem with this is is what councelor Kadeim said the state we're waiting for an audit that we voted on. same auditor and the state house is telling her no and there's nothing she can do about it. So if we send her a letter and Guggan follows the same path as his buddies up in Beacon Hill, what do we do? Do I file another resolution and request her forensic caught it then?

Cuz I think you're right. I think he's just going to say no and you know and then we're going to be down here, you know, crying again that we can't get anything done. I want this forensic audit done so we can actually make headway. It's everything we tackle is always it's a disaster. I think we need the forensic audit. I need the truth to that story. I want to know if it was $2

million. Somehow they found out the amount and it wasn't because of lack of evidence. How did they find out if it was anywhere between $200,000 and 2 million? That's two large numbers. I would like to know clarification please.

Who found out there was 200 2 million?

Who I don't know. Coogan said $200,000 once and then I'm being told closer to 2 million. I don't counselor. I don't know.

Yeah. I mean, saying they found out, they know. Who is the Who is they? Who are we talking about?

I don't know. That's what I'm trying to get into with a forensic million.

They're not going to find out.

Okay. Constant.

Listen, you can say they're not going to find out, but we won't know unless we do it.

Everything here is here saying everything that comes back to the DCM gets blocked. And it's quite obvious.

Just like the last time. Why now? Well, why now? Because we got millions of dollars missing. You people have been here, some of you, for 25 years. And why now? Why now?

It's ridiculous. It's actually It's disheartening is what it is. I yield the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there on the uh adoption on the amendment?

Roll call.

Council Scad.

No.

Camar.

No.

Can Yes.

Dion.

Yes.

Hart.

No.

Peekom.

No.

Pereira.

No. proposal.

No.

President Ponti.

No.

Is there a motion to adopt on the floor that has been made on the original resolution? Correct, Madam Clerk?

Yes.

Motion to adopt has been made and seconded.

As amended as a what?

The amendment fails.

The amendment FY26. Motion to adopt as amended would be appropriate. Made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Peekham.

Motion to adopt as amended has been made. Roll call, please. So the amendment the amendment is a 2027 fiscal year.

26 and 27.

26 and 27. I'm sorry. That's what that what that amendment was.

Shouldn't Shouldn't that amendment be taken as a separate vote?

Didn't we do that as a motion to uh to adopt and is not? Let's do that. Motion to adopt the amendment would be first made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham. Roll call. To be clear, it is the uh changing the fiscal year on on changing the fiscal year. Council Scadm, yes.

Camarra, no.

Can no.

Dion, no.

Hart, no.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, yes.

Proposal, yes.

President Ponti, yes.

Motion carries, five yays, four nays.

Motion to adopt as amended has been made by councelor reposo seconded by councel peekum. Discussion council see two council kamar.

So this is the motion. The district attorney had this case before them and they said that there were no findings.

They couldn't charge anyone with this case.

Correct.

I'm not sure. I I don't have I have no idea.

Can we make wave the rules?

Motion to wave the rules has been made by councelor Camra. Seconded by Can you come down please? I don't know if you can clarify that or not. Is there a second to councelor Camar's seconded by councelor Pereira? Discussion hearing none. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it.

Councilman C2, you have a floor.

And I don't know if you know or not. I'm just hoping that you do. Can you shed light on this with the district attorneys?

I cannot. I mean, all I know is that there was an investigation that was done and in the process of that investigation, there was some evidence turned over to the police department and then that evidence was, I was advised, turned over to the district attorney's office. I've never seen a letter from either the police department or the district attorney's office as to what action they've taken, nor have I ever heard a

dollar amount that was attached to um any concerns of $200,000 or $2 million missing. So, thanks for clarifying that. I just didn't know if you were doing that.

Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cat 3. Council King, thank you. Um, do you know if there were any reforms ever put in place as a result of that investigation?

Yes.

And those reforms are in place today?

They are.

Okay.

They are.

Thank you. AO.

Anybody else?

Thank you.

Constant C4, Council Vice President Dion.

It just occurred to me um and I don't know if anybody else will remember this.

Uh so Chief Fertado had gone on WSAR one time and was questioned about this and said that she had what's his name? Ata Lieutenant No, Lieutenant Ot was one of the officers that brought the information to the police department. the interview with her with Otar and another officer, I don't remember the other one's name, was recorded stating that the evidence that the evidence that they had was brought

to the uh district attorney's office and that the investigation that they never they couldn't have a finding as to be able to proceed with criminal charges. Now, I don't know if anybody else remembers that or not. Um, but that would that was one source that it did come from and it was on the radio uh for people to hear and and the other person who told me has nothing to do

with that. So, with that, I yield.

Anything further? Motion to adopt as amended is being asked for a roll call, please.

Councelor Kadim, yes.

Camarra, no. Canuel, no.

Dion, no.

Hart, no.

Pekkham, yes.

Carrera, no.

Raposo, yes.

President Ponti, yes.

Motion fails. Four yays, five nays.

Next order of business.

Let's continue. Whereas the city council has engaged in discussions over many years regarding the naming of city buildings, parks, facilities, and other public properties in honor of members of the community for their significant contribution, service, and dedication.

And whereas such recognitions serve to celebrate local heritage, foster community pride, and inspire future generations by per permanently associating exemplary citizens with public spaces. And whereas recent occasions have arisen in which it would have been appropriate to name or dedicate a city building a property memory of a deceased community member whose lifetime achievements merited such

an honor. And whereas past conversations on this matter have stalled without resulting in a clear, consistent and transparent policy. And whereas it is in the best interest of the city of for river to establish clear, equitable and dignified criteria and procedures for both onomastic and postumous names namings of city assets. Now therefore be a resolve that the committee on ordinances and legislation convene to

amend section 66-186 of the city code to include among other possible needed changes that the ordinance apply to any member of the public, public official or city employee.

Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by council repos seconded by second councel Pekkham discussion the sponsor of the resolution council in C6 council Pekkham I just know there's been a lot of talk about this over the years and I' I spoke to madam clerk um there is an ordinance on file it just needs to be amended I guess the way way it reads now is this

private citizens can request um and I'm looking for the language change to include city councilors and city officials um so I'd appreciate if the amendment was made um I know we just had firefighter Leage age passed away and he was a huge asset to the for a fire museum. So that kind of sparked this. So you might be seeing that in the future um if this goes through. With that I yield. Thank you.

Thank you counselor. Motion uh councelor and seat three. Councelor Canuel.

Thank you. Yeah I have the audience in front of me. I'm not seeing what modification would need to be made uh because it doesn't say any it does say by a member of the public but we are all members of the public. So any one of us could point of clarification. And I understand that. But I after discuss discussion with Madame Clerk, like I just stated, she recommended that it be changed

because it says private citizen and we're actually elected officials. So it would be nice if they were both in there. So there was no questions in the future. So that was the reason for this.

Thank you, council. The ordinance has been interpreted that to mean uh in practice that member of the public does not include elected officials. Hence the reason why I suggested the amendment.

Thank you for the clarification.

through you, Councilman Cate, Council Repos, through you, Mr. President, to council Pekkham, if you could possibly um provide a revision to the ordinance committee. We can discuss it at our next meeting. I'd like to put it on the agenda. Uh but we'll need a a revised um ordinance that we can work with. Great.

I appreciate that. Anytime.

Thank you, Council Council.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Madam Cler, can you repeat that again? As a member of the public, once you're an elected official, you can't act as a private citizen. The ordinance reads um this section establishes a process and criteria for consideration of a request by a member of the public to name or rename and then it goes on and it has been interpreted since the establishment of the ordinance that this does not

apply to elected officials. So in other words just to the members of the public someone who comes forward with a petition.

Is that because they don't look at elected officials as members of the public?

That has been the interpretation. Also, point of clarification, in 2021, I had a naming of the dispatch room at the Fora Police Department shot down on me with the family sitting in the audience because I was told that there was no clear concise path to this ordinance and it needed to be amended. So, here we are today amending it.

C2, you have before.

Thank you. So, for instance, if a council files an order naming a public building or a um a room, then it it overpasses this process. So, by adding that into the ordinance, then everyone would would have to follow this process.

Okay. So, let me just ask a question. If a school committee member comes before the council says, "I'm not here as a school committee member here as a city counselor. I've been a private citizen."

Or if the mayor wants to come down and speak and say, "I'm not here as a mayor." as a private citizen. Is he accepted to do that as a private citizen or is he elected official?

That's not up to me to decide just tell you that this is how it's been interpreted for this specific ordinance.

So that's separate.

That's the will of the council.

Point of clarification. Who issued that opinion?

You know, it wasn't an opinion. It's just that in practice that is how it has been applied.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

You Thank you, councelor. Anything further?

Roll call.

On the motion, councilors Kadim, yes.

Camarra, yes.

Canuel, yes.

Dion, yes.

Hart, yes.

Peekom, yes.

Pereira, yes.

Reposo, yes.

President Ponty, yes.

Motion carries, nine.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Item 14 is a citation for police chief Kelly Fertardo who uh received the 2026 Spirit of Massachusetts Association of Women and Law Enforcement Lifetime Achievement Award.

Motion to accept place on file.

Motion to accept and place on file as made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Pereira discussion hearing.

None. All those in favor?

Opposed? I have it.

Item 15 is a citation for the first responders in recognition of the emergency medical services week. Motion to accept place on file.

Motion to accept and place on file has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? The eyes have it.

Motion to take 16 through 18 together.

Motion to take 16 through 18 together has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Hart. Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it. Madam clerk, items 16 through 18 are joint own pole locations uh filed by the Mass Massachusetts Electric Company, DBA National Grid and Verizon New England, Inc. at King Phillip Street, Meridian Street, and New Boston Road. All for one new jointly owned pole location.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt 16 through 18 after has just been read has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councelor Pekham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed the eyes have it.

Motion take motion 19 through 22 together.

Motion to take items 19 through 22 together after reading has been made by councelor Raposo. Seconded by councelor Hart discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Item 19 is the police chief's report on licenses. Item 20 is an auto body shop license renewal for Daniel Aguar TBA advanced collision center and sales at 3911th Street.

Item 21 are auto repair shop license renewals for Joffrey Brisbane DBA Brisbane Diesel Service Inc. 2524 North Main Street. Jonathan Manchester DBA Manchester Automotive at 67K Street. And item 22 is an auto repair shop license transfer for license number 359 located at 59 North Quarry Street being transferred from James Andrews DBA 508 auto sales and repair to Pablo Davidid Rodriguez Silva DBA brothers Auto Sales

and Services Inc. Motion to motion to adopt 19 20 21 and 22 has been made by councelor reposo seconded by councelor Hart discussion hearing not all those in favor the eyes have it 23 is the number of claims motion to refer to motion to refer the item to corporation council has been made by councelor reposo seconded by councel pekkham discussion hearing none all those in favor opposed the eyes have

Item 24 is a communication from the uh an assistant attorney general with regards to an open meeting law complaint that was filed by Patrick Higgins and Reena Brown regarding the April 8th, 2025 city council meeting.

Motion motion acceptable on file has been made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor the eyes have it.

Item 25 are drain layer licenses. Motion to approve the drain layer licenses has been made by councel Pekham seconded by councelor Hart discussion hearing none.

All those in favor opposed the eyes have it.

And those licenses are for Daniels Asphalt Services Inc. Geologic Earth Exploration Inc. Perfected Construction LLC, Soliva Construction Corp. and Thermo Mechanical Systems Inc. Item 26 are planning board minutes.

Place on file. Motion to accept the planning board minutes made by councelor Raposo, seconded by councel Pekkham.

Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Item 27 committee on finance city council minutes for April 28th.

Motion to approve the committee approve minutes has been made by councelor Raposo.

Second.

Seconded by councel Canuel. Discussion hearing. None. All those in favor?

Oppos. The eyes have it. Item 28 are minutes for the regular meeting of the city council held on April 28th, 2026.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve the minutes has been made by councelor Pekham, seconded by councelor Canuel. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

Is it the will of the council to lift item 9A from the table?

Motion made.

Motion to lift item 9A from the table has been made by councel Pekkham.

Second.

Seconded by council vice president Dion.

Discussion hearing not. All those in favor?

Opposed? The eyes have it.

Would you like me to read the resolution?

Uh the resolution, you could just do it 9A, the intro, where it says it on our agenda. I think we all know where it clearly says. Item 9A is a resolution that the city council pursue legal action to get a legal determination from a judge on the city council's authority to confirm reappoints, the city council's jurisdiction to investigate city departments, and the city council's authority to hire outside agencies to

assist with investigations.

Motion to adopt.

Second.

Motion to adopt has it made by councelor Rapos. Is there a second? Second.

Seconded by councelor Pekkham. Is there discussion? Council C3. Councelor Canuel.

Thank you. Uh it was my understanding that we were going to get find out from corporation council today whether or not he was going we had tabled this um so that he could think about giving us the third opinion I guess uh outside opinion. Uh it was indicated to me in a meeting with the mayor when I asked what that position would be that he would be doing that and providing that. So, um I

I know the council's itching to vote on this, but if you know the corporation council was looking to provide what was asked for at the last meeting, uh I would suggest it remain tabled, but that's just want to provide that. I yield.

Council seat one, council.

Uh probably makes sense to give corporation council what he wants since we don't get what we want. I yield.