7.14.2026 City Council

This Forest City Council public hearing will now be called to order.

It is 5:58.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Cadime?

Here.

Camara?

Here.

Canuel?

Here.

Dion?

Here.

Hart?

Peckham?

Here.

Ferreras?

Here.

Raposo?

Here.

President Ponte?

Here.

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

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

Motion to open public hearing.

Motion to open public hearing has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 1, Timothy Long, 1343 Newhall Street, for the removal of curbing.

The existing parcel was previously served by a 15-foot curb opening driveway.

The applicant requests permission to extend the existing opening by an additional 9 feet 1 inch.

The total opening for the location will be 24 feet 1 inch.

This is after the fact— this is after the fact submission.

The work was performed without the required permitting.

Calling all proponents wishing to speak on this item.

Calling all proponents.

Hearing none, calling all opponents wishing to speak.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none.

To be clear, that is 677 Meridian Street.

He raised his hand for proponent right there.

Mr. Long, come down.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, to be clear, the address is 677 Meridian Street.

Uh, you did have a prior address of 1343 Newhall Street.

So for the record, the petitioner is asking for 677 Meridian Street.

I'm going to ask for all proponents one more time.

Hearing none, all opponents?

Thank you.

Item number 2, Glenn J. Hathaway, 46 Bowen Street, for the removal of curbing as follows.

The existing parcel was previous— this is on 46 Bowen Street.

The existing parcel was previously served by a 25-foot 11-inch curb opening driveway.

The applicant requests permission to create an additional 16-foot curb opening and driveway.

The total opening will— for the location will be 41 feet 11 inches.

Calling all proponents wishing to speak.

Hearing none.

Calling all opponents wishing to speak.

Hearing none.

Item number 3 on our public hearing is Joshua Rodriks of 840 Rodman Street for the removal of curbing as follows.

At 840 Rodman Street, the existing parcel is currently served by a 16-foot opening driveway.

The applicant proposes to extend the existing opening by an additional 7 feet westerly.

The total opening for the location will be 23 feet.

Calling all proponents.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none.

Item number 4 is a secondhand article store.

Connor Vendellucci— I hope I said that correct— doing business as Decked Out Trading Cards LLC of 1054 Wilson Road, Fall River, For permission to operate and maintain a secondhand article store located at 1665 South Main Street, trading cards to be sold.

Calling all proponents.

Hearing none.

Calling all opponents.

Hearing none.

Motion to close public hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Cano.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn the meeting.

Oh, sorry, motion to close proceedings.

Motion to adjourn.

I didn't take a motion.

To adjourn has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

The public hearing is considered adjourned.

This Fort Worth City Council— this Fort Worth City Council Committee on Finance meeting will now be called to order.

It is 6:03 PM.

Madam Clerk, roll call please.

Councilor Cadime?

Here.

Camara?

Here.

Cano?

Here.

Dion?

Here.

Hart?

Peckham?

Here.

Pereira?

Here.

Raposo?

Here.

President Ponte?

Here.

I just wanted to let everybody know that Councilor Hart did inform me today he is under the weather and he will not be attending tonight's meeting.

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

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

First item on our agenda is a citation.

Councilor Peckham.

Lauren has it.

So I filed the city citation.

Um, I love volunteerism in the city.

People that come out and help us, people that come out and want to make the city better on their own time and not get paid for it.

They just come out and help.

This one individual I've seen at every event that I've been at with the veterans.

He's a huge help for the veterans.

He does everything they ask.

He's over at the Pine Street location every time I go by there.

He's bringing food outside to the cars, and he's got a group of some very— I don't even know how to word it— they're great, great kids that show up with you, and they put out flags for the veterans, they deliver food for the veterans.

And as a matter of fact, a few weeks ago I had run into a 92-year-old veteran— we both know who that is— who needed assistance in the city and has been left by the wayside.

He had reached out to me, needed assistance, and this gentleman right here went to his house with the veteran service agent to help the gentleman out, and they've been in constant contact with him over the last, uh, 3 or 4 months.

So with that being said, I have a citation here for Jeffrey Sarnecki, if you don't mind coming down.

Jeffrey, I want you to know that I greatly appreciate you.

So the City Council official citation: Be it known that the City Council hereby extends its commendation to Jeffrey Sonecki in recognition of your overwhelming support of our veterans and willingness to continue reaching out to your brother and sister veterans in need.

Be it further known that the Forest City Council extends best wishes for continued success and that this citation be entered into the records of the City Council.

It is signed by myself and Council President Ponte.

And I also want to thank you for your service because you are a veteran as well, and I appreciate you, and I know we all do.

So with that being said, thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you, Councilor Peckham.

Item number 1, citizens' input.

We have 2 people have signed up to speak, 3 minutes each.

Ian Tompkins, 636 Rock Street, regarding a zoning amendment.

Hello, Council.

How are you?

So I just came down to speak about the zoning amendment that I kind of unexpectedly put in on Friday.

I spoke with the Niagara Neighborhood Association president yesterday.

They're probably a little bit opposed to it, so I'm going to continue to talk to them a little bit about it.

But, um, basically the reason I proposed it was because I was going to go to the zoning board about 450 Cambridge Street, as I would like to turn it into a 5-family, and I know that that would meet the lot size requirements under the new A-2 zoning rules.

And, uh, you know, I took a look around and I figured most of the neighborhood probably more conforms to the A-2 rules than to the R-4 zoning rules that it's currently there.

It abuts A-2 to the north and to the west.

It abuts a bunch of commercial and business districts.

There's even more A-2 zoning to the south of it.

So, uh, you know, I figured it kind of makes sense to request to turn it into an A-2 district rather than try to continue to than to just go right to zoning and try to spot zone my parcel, basically.

But, um, and even if you look at the single-family homes in the district, most of them already conform to the A-2 because they're small lot single-family homes.

They're not like single-family homes on enormous things that people could then turn into like 4 or 5 family homes.

So that's pretty much the reason why I decided I'd rather propose the zoning amendment than just go to the zoning board directly.

I probably still need to go and get a special permit because of lot coverage, but that's pretty much where I'm at.

Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dion.

So if you weren't purchasing this house and didn't want to turn it into a 5-family, this never would have come about?

Well, I've owned 450 Cambridge Street for like 8 years, and I've kind of wanted to turn it into a 5-family for the past like 4 or 5 years.

So it's been on my life plan radar for a while.

Um, have you spoken with any of your neighbors above?

I mean, and I get that the Niagara president wouldn't be happy.

I can fully understand that.

Yeah.

Um, well, I tried to explain to him that, like I said, most of the parcels aren't going to be affected.

It's probably only a small handful of parcels, like if there's a Like, there's a couple, um, single-family homes on 8,000-square-foot lot that you could demolish and turn into a 3-family, but the cost-benefit to do that is pretty low or prohibitive.

And then, um, most— you know, there's the new ADU laws, so any parcel that's a single-family that could, could just be turned into a 2-family anyway right now.

So, and density is going to go up in the city no matter what.

So I figured I would just kind of propose this.

I talked to my neighbor that abuts me to the north.

He supports it.

My neighbor to the, to the east of me is a 6-family, and the— to the south of me is a school.

So putting more families close to a school— because I, I, it's a— it's currently a 3-bedroom, a 4-bedroom, and a 4-bedroom apartment.

So I would— I was going to turn my attic into a 2 or 3 bed, and I was going to turn my basement into a 2 or 3 bed.

So getting more families close to a school seemed like a potentially good idea to me.

So above and beyond needing to change the zoning, have you looked into if your basement can become an apartment?

Because a lot of basements can't.

It's got the height requirements and it's got the— it's got the placement for egress.

It's got— I think it meets most of the requirements.

I mean, I've, I've talked to Glenn before I did anything to it, uh, but it seemed— I'm like, feasibility-wise, it's— it seems feasible.

Okay, thank you.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, Councilman Seats, uh, 7, Councilor Pereira.

I did also speak to the president of Niagara, and there are concerns with this, and it seems that this is something you want to do for your property.

Why not just go to zoning yourself and see if that'll pass.

I could.

Yeah, well, why didn't you?

Because— is there a reason why?

I, I figured this would make more sense because there's A-2 to the north, to the west, and there's a bunch of commercial districts around it.

And the city is, you know, the state wants to push for higher density in cities.

This is— if you were to pick a parcel out of the city, this is a, like, a region that makes sense to make go in the A-2 direction versus, you know, going further to the south towards Tiverton and further to the north in the North End where it's big sprawling single-family homes.

Meridian Street, you don't want to touch.

So if you wanted to make higher density, this would be an area to do it, right?

I mean, right now I live in an A-2 district on Rock Street, so, you know, I've got 6 families all around me and it makes sense to transform the historic as long as they're not done in a hideous manner.

It makes sense to transform some of the historic mansions into multi-families.

So now if you made this into a 4-family, 5-family— 5-family, do you have off-street parking?

There's plenty of room.

That's the reason— that's the only reason it qualifies, is because my particular property at 450 Cambridge is one of those— it's one of those rare double lots that has a massive 3-family and then a big yard.

So I just want it rather than split the lot up and make another 3-family on the side of it like most people would do.

I'd rather add 2 units to it and leave the yard nice and spacious and comfortable for people to use.

I mean, because one of the concerns that people have had is if we start doing this all over this area, then we have to have more room for parking, and parking is very tight.

Well, in that area, the rules— if you get it, that's why I asked if you had off-street parking.

Yeah, it's required.

Yeah, I would have to go to the zoning board to get around that parking requirement.

I require to have 10 parking spaces, which I do.

You can have— okay.

Yeah, but other, other properties that are going to be transformed into a 3-family or whatever, they would have to show that they have space to put 3 parking spaces, which is— they probably don't.

Well, sometimes they do a space and a half, which I can't really see that concept.

I don't know anybody that has half a car, but, uh, maybe a motorcycle or something.

Yeah, or bring your horse in.

Thank you, Ian.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just so we're clear, uh, Miss Tompkins, the item that is before us this evening, we are most likely going to refer the item to the planning board.

The planning board would then schedule their own public hearing.

They will go through their process, and then it will come back to us to schedule our public hearings and go through the process like we did earlier, just so you're aware.

So there'll be no real action other than the referral to the planning board, most likely, this evening.

That's about what I expected.

Book.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next person, Alex Silva, 148 Purchase Street, regarding 158 Bedford Street, the Central Police Station.

Hello, uh, members of the City Council.

Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street, president of the board of directors of the Preservation Society of Fall River.

Uh, for several years, the Preservation Society of Fall River has requested that should demolition of the historic former Central Police Station building at 158 efforts become unavoidable, that the city should make every reasonable effort to salvage architecturally and historically significant elements for future preservation and reuse.

With demolition now underway, we just heard actually from Attorney Matt Thomas today that the city has requested the contractor save irreplaceable features such as the carved eagles, the stone emblems, and the distinctive Fall River granite pillar so that they can be incorporated hopefully into a future memorial building project or historical display.

However, the manner in which the demolition has proceeded should raise concern to the Council.

The City has chosen to bypass the City's own ordinance dictating the demolition of municipally owned historic structures that this very Council approved.

Rather than presenting evidence to the Historical Commission and requesting a waiver of the demolition delay, the City determined as early as February that the ordinance should not apply and bypassed a process that was specifically created to ensure transparency, public input, and careful consideration but for the loss of significant historic resources.

The justification for this expedited demolition also raises serious concerns.

The building inspector asserted that the former police station is unsafe and presents an immediate danger to the public.

However, when the city sought demolition proposals nearly 6 months ago, no emergency was identified and no documented inspection was presented to support the claim that the building required an immediate $1.4 million taxpayer-funded demolition.

In order to align with the city's street paving schedule.

When members of the Historical Commission requested evidence supporting this determination, the building inspector acknowledged that no comprehensive inspection had been performed beyond looking through the building's doorway.

Such a limited visual observation can hardly qualify as an evaluation.

Earlier this week, the city announced that demolition would begin without presenting the public with a clear plan explaining how the work would be conducted or how environmental remediation and neighborhood impacts would managed.

The loss of historic public buildings is significant in its own, but the absence of transparency and the failure of the city to follow its own ordinance or provide document— documented evidence supporting the emergency determination is an entirely different issue.

I respectfully urge the City Council to exercise its oversight responsibilities by requesting a full public accounting of the basis for the emergency demolition determination.

Ensuring that all feasible historic elements are salvaged before the demolition, and reviewing whether existing ordinances governing municipal historic buildings were actually properly followed.

If shortcomings are identified, I encourage the council to consider measures that will prevent similar situations from occurring in the future, lest we lose something else needlessly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That will conclude citizens' input.

Item number 2 is a resolution to convene with the Director of Financial Services, the Director of Operations and the interim director of community maintenance for updates on the administration's planning for residential solid waste and recycling collection.

Resolution was filed by Councilor Kadim and Councilor Cannuel, whereas the 4-year residential solid waste and recycling collection contract is approaching expiration, and whereas the City Council seeks to ensure that future decisions regarding waste collection are informed by current Information collections are informed by current information, planning considerations, and financial impacts.

Be it resolved that the Committee on Finance convene with the Director of Financial Services, the Director of City Operations, and the interim Director of Community Maintenance to discuss updates on the administration's planning for residential solid waste recycling collection, including general information regarding anticipated procurement timelines, planning considerations, and any other under review for the and any other options under review for future service delivery.

Welcome.

Uh, please, uh, introduce your, uh, name and title for the record, please.

Anne O'Neill Souza, uh, interim city administrator.

Al Oliveira, director of city operations.

Chris Hathaway, director of community maintenance.

Emily Arpke, CFO.

Before I acknowledge all my colleagues who raised their hand, do the colleagues who sponsored the resolution like to speak first?

Councilman seat 3, Councilor Canuel.

Thank you.

Um, this— obviously we're pretty far along from when this was adopted to where we're at, so I think, um, just to level set, where are we at with the trash contract right now in terms of those finalization of the contract?

Right now there was a memorandum of understanding signed with the company and the city for a 90-day, um, stay of the execution of the contract due to the 112th budget, as the contract called for a guarantee of up to a year of financing being available, which we cannot do right now.

So we are using the current pricing in the new contract, but we have a 90-day extension with them right now before the contract is fully executed.

And what is that pricing that is being used?

It's, it's what's in the budget and the bid documents, but we can send that electronically.

I think we provided it in the past, but we can send what's currently in there.

It sounded like, I think during one of the— I think it was the Orange meeting, uh, that the contract may come in a little bit lower.

Um, is that not the case?

It was, I think, some of the disposal costs for, um, certain items with, um, was it yard waste and the literal other items, so not traditional recycling and solid waste, but the things that fall into that other category.

Um, and I think maybe bulkies were what were in question, but I'm not clear.

I think, you know, just given where we're at, I think originally I had, you know, hoped that I could get some information on, you know, the comparative cost, um, if the city were doing it ourselves, just because I think they're— obviously this is a for-profit company.

And to that point, I think more so I want to talk about the length of the contract that is out there, right?

Because this is a 2-year contract with a 1-year option, correct?

And I think that in and of itself drove up the cost of this potential bid and kept bidders out, because I think we got just 2 bidders.

And I think we— I think we've talked previously that, you know, there are some potentially new trucks being built, you know, as part of this, we would get new trucks.

And, you know, if we had put out for a 5-year contract, I think, or even, or 10, even at 5 years, I think we see more than 2 bidders and potentially a lot less money per year as a savings.

So I think I want to dive in, use this meeting, you know, and that's where we're at, to dive in a little bit deeper to understand why we only went with the 2 years.

And what this strategy might be, uh, moving forward and what, what's changing, I guess.

What's changing after the 2 years or the 3rd year option that we think we needed to make this as short as it is?

Waste diversion.

We wanted to firm up ordinances as is before you tonight for second reading, is the removal of any parcel that has more than 4 units on it to be collected by the city.

They will now be required to get a private vendor.

Um, Matt Thomas, when he was here, spoke about, um, in August coming down with a comprehensive revamp of ordinances regarding solid waste collection and disposal.

So that we have been working with the Board of Health to try to— we have a number of issues with contaminated recycling, especially on Tuesday and Thursday, and people are being fined on multiple occasions, and the fines you know, go up— $100, $200, $300.

But if the problem isn't corrected, it still continues, and the fines in a number of cases go unpaid.

And we are now starting to lien properties and try to get the collection of those fines by people not being able to get permitted or licensed if they have outstanding debt with the city in that regard.

But what we are looking to do is to stop pulling bins.

So if people are not following the ordinances and properly disposing of the trash, we are looking to then pull the bins and have them go after 3, um, citations have been issued, pulling the bins and having them go with a private vendor.

So if I think this through, the disposal costs are separate from the actual contract though, right?

The actual collection of it, right?

So from what I'm hearing from you, that would address the cost or potential savings on the disposal.

But at the end of the day, we still have the same number of trucks driving up and down streets.

They're still going to have to do that whether it's, you know, whether we're servicing less or not.

They're still having to go up and down every single street.

So I'm trying— I'm still trying to get to how— why we wouldn't go 5 years, because it sounds like what you— what you're saying, it would be the savings would come from the disposal piece of it.

I don't see the savings on the collection side of it.

The numbers that you had asked I do have the, um, the amendment here with me.

For the first year, it's, uh, $5,086,468 for collection of municipal solid waste, and then the disposal of curbside collection is $125 a ton.

Point of clarification, can I get that first number again?

Yes, it's $5,086,468.

Thank you.

Is that just for the solid waste?

Yes.

What about recycling?

Municipal solid waste.

So I thought that's what he was— to kind of go down this path a little bit, if we are saving— if we go down this path, we— if the ordinances that are before us get adopted, um, where is— what's going to change on the collection side in 2 years that would result in a material need to rebid, I guess?

Well, as you said, Councilor, I mean, we have to go down the street, so the collection cost is pretty much going to remain the same.

But what we will save per ton— because what we're seeing is that people are mixing their solid waste with recycling, there's just, you know, the ordinances just aren't being followed.

So if we can reduce with waste diversion, and as we've already taken away commercial Um, bins from mixed use.

We also— I mean, I'm sorry, from just commercial use.

We now also have the ability where we're going to be reducing the number of units for the disposal purposes.

So we should see a significant change in our disposal costs, which is within our control.

The collection of it, I mean, really is not because they— we have to pick up on streets.

So the trucks are out there, they're still needed to run the routes.

But if we were locked into a 5 or 10-year or longer term, even per ton, we'd have a very predictable number.

Isn't there a chance that in 2 or 3 years the per ton could go up as well?

So yes, we might have a better compliance rate, which is less solid waste, but ultimately costs keep going up elsewhere.

Couldn't that number still be higher in the end on us in 2 years?

I mean, when we had a discussion initially, this was what everyone felt was most beneficial to the city, was to go with a shorter-term contract to be able to have more flexibility with the, uh, the 2 with the option to renew.

Yeah, I just think that doing the short contract really left out bidders, right?

People who would have, you know, put in for the contract, potentially save the city money because obviously the more people bidding, the better price we're gonna get for the taxpayers.

I think this short term really impacted us in terms of what this number is coming in at.

And now we're gonna, in 2 short years or 3, I guess, with the option, we're gonna be back.

I'd always take any day of the week a 10-year because then I can predict my cost over the 10 years.

It's gonna be fixed like we did I guess with Easy, right?

I guess it wasn't financially beneficial for them, but it was predictable for us.

Well, that contract when it was written was based on Page and Throw too, and Page and Throw left kind of at, you know, in the middle of the contract, and then things kind of— but they still generally served out them pretty much most of that contract up until that last year with that last transfer.

Well, it was 2 years.

Yeah, we amended the last 2 years of the contract.

Yeah, so 80% of that, even though Page and Throw happened pretty early into that, I think.

Thank you.

I mean, Councilor, if I could just interject.

We believe that within the next 3 years that we'll see some change in waste diversion.

The Tuesdays and Thursdays, our compliance folks have really battled.

They've been up and down the streets focusing on those 2 areas.

And we're seeing a major change in those Tuesdays and Thursdays.

So it's working.

Just getting the information out to the public and just making sure that we continue on that path.

And we believe that in 3 years, there will be a savings in our waste.

So that was the mindset.

And going out, there's a lot of new technology coming out, again, that we were looking into.

So we believe that that is the best method for the city in the timeframe.

So you think there's going to be a savings?

What type of savings do you think will be here in 3 years?

Well, again, so as we, as we mentioned, the, uh, the solid waste and then the recycling component and, uh, just going out to bid, it's a cycle.

Uh, bidding is just a cycle.

Uh, we believe that that was— that's going to be a benefit to the city by not locking ourselves in for a longer term.

And you think that savings will add up to the potential savings we could have had in years 1 through 3 had we had a better price all along.

Again, the bidding is— there's no guarantee, Councilor.

When I've bid multiple projects out, and there's just no guarantee.

Depends on— I mean, it's a double-edged sword.

Sometimes you, you get lower prices, sometimes you don't.

So do you think we would have gotten a lower price if we put a 5-year contract out there, or more bidders?

At a minimum, we could have— we, we could have stayed the same.

So there's no way of telling at that point.

Okay, for now I'll yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Before I acknowledge other councilors, Councilman C1, you co-sponsored the resolution.

You have any questions?

Uh, no, I guess more of a statement.

I agree with my colleague in terms of the length of the contract.

So you mean to tell me that we're going to have some type of new technology in 3 years?

Well, there's things that we're, we're looking into right now that could potentially come down, down.

So we'll be able to execute new technology.

So we'll be completely revamping solid waste delivery and services as we see it in 3 years.

Uh, Councilor, I've, I've been, uh, working this for many, many years, and when I was here last time, we brought, we brought multiple people to the table to, to see if there's any new technology.

Uh, we're looking at something right now.

It just, um, that could be a potential, but I guess nothing written in stone.

But I guess to my my colleague's point, a 3-year contract versus a 5-year contract, even if you did a 10-year contract, a 5-year contract with 5 1-year renewals at the option of the city and the vendor, so it's a win-win after 5 years.

I, I don't see any new technology coming in 3 years where the City of Fall River is going to be delivering or disposing of, of trash or recyclable any different than what we're doing today.

So to my colleague's point, when we start looking at a cost-benefit analysis, I I don't see the probability, high probability.

If we're going on CalShee or any type of betting market, I would say that the odds are against you if you're telling us in 3 years we're going in a different direction.

I just don't see it.

So I think my colleague brings up a good point in terms of just the cost savings associated with it.

It's, you know, I don't want to belabor the point, but I agree with him wholeheartedly.

I just don't see it.

And I'm not trying to be negative, but, you know, we've, we've been talking about a lot of technology with, with trash and solid waste and recycling and all that other stuff, and just nothing has come to fruition for us.

So with that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

In seat 7, Councilor Pereira.

I think if you're looking at the disposal cost, you also need to look at the fact that every area around us has a trash fee or bags, and those individuals bring it to Fall River if they own a house here, if they have a relative here.

They're bringing it here, and that's something that's not even being addressed.

One of the, one of the issues that we spoke about when, uh, Mr. Tom— when Attorney Thomas was here and he wanted the 5 and 6 families get their own trash pickup, private, the city wasn't going to pick them up.

Did anybody think to call all the haulers around the area and see who's doing private?

Because Republic's not, Wind's not, Waste Innovation's not.

The only one is Harvey, and maybe Waste Innovation may have a few bins.

Republic will pick up a container for a commercial.

Where are we going to put these containers?

Because there was a house on Bedford Street that had a big dumpster in the driveway between 2 houses.

And the woman that lived in the other house, an elderly lady, couldn't open her windows during the summer because all she would do is smell the trash.

So there's people calling these companies, and I did today as well.

They're not picking up trash in Fall River.

So if you can't get a private to pick up trash, what's going to happen?

Is the Board of Health going to step in?

Where are they going to put their trash, just on the sidewalk?

Where are they going to put it?

I don't think that that was well thought of, because tell me what companies are going to come in— Waste Management, whatever— they're going to come in and pick up a bin in front of your house?

They're not.

They're not doing it.

They're not coming in.

So call around.

I think this is going to be an abysmal failure.

I think you need to slow up a little bit and find out more of what's happening.

If you're thinking that rail is going to be the answer, much more expensive.

I mean, according to the people that work in this business and know this business.

But I'm telling you, Mr. Oliveira, I call these places today myself just to verify what somebody told me, and they're absolutely right.

Republic's not going to pick them up.

They're not going to have a truck coming around.

With Republic trash bins and picking them up.

What are people going to do in these 5 and 6 families if nobody will come and pick it up?

And if they're going to put in a dumpster, what are we doing as far as an ordinance to regulate where the dumpster can be, how much space around the dumpster does it have to be to not inconvenience other people?

I hate to say it, trash is a big ticket item.

Every community around us has a fee or bags, and I know that it's probably not popular with my colleagues.

I don't want to pay.

I hate to pay taxes too.

I don't want to have to pay for trash.

But if this lady that called me and I asked if I had a 96-size container and one recyclable What is that going to cost me a month from Harvey?

Know what it was?

$100 a month.

So you're saying 5 and 6 families can do that?

They're going to have more than one.

I mean, this particular person only has one individual that lives in each of her units.

But I think we need to look at how are we going to fix this.

It's got to be fixed.

And when my colleague says, you know, have a longer term on a contract.

I agree with that.

But when we got rid of the purple bags for somebody's political gain, we had to pay and buy back all the bags that were in all the stores in Fall River because people paid for them, and that cost us a lot of money.

I mean, we're still using them when we do cleanups around the city, but I, I think there needs to be more thought into this, and I know Looking at a trash fee is not a popular thing, but everybody around us does it.

They do it, and we're getting their trash into the city.

And, you know, I mean, I think Councilor Dion and I had looked at— what was that machine we looked at that you could even put a couch through in it?

A grinder.

The grinder.

Are we looking at that for The, you know, near where the incinerator was?

We haven't.

We have talked about that.

We haven't, we haven't gotten any quotes because what happens is the— that will change within, within a matter of months.

But getting back to— we did, we did make some phone calls to some, some firms, and at probably about 6 months ago they were okay with, with, uh, working around the areas.

Uh, we'll make some phone calls again to make sure if, if those companies have changed.

Um, well, then they're not now because I called them today.

I can give you phone numbers and things of people I talked to.

Another thing, Councilor, at one point this was the will of the council as well, was to, to do the 5s and 6s.

So no, I voted no.

You can say the will of everybody else.

Okay.

I mean, that's, that's what we initially went off, that, um, that recommendation.

Recommendation?

I, I think that's discriminatory.

I think everybody should be treated the same.

If you're not recycling the way you should, then your barrels get removed.

That's one issue.

Uh, you know, if somebody's from out of town and they're using it as a business, then maybe we need to look at that.

Um, but you know, if these people are not going to have enough people to come in— and once they're coming in and they know they're privates, they're going to gouge them too.

We're going to gouge them for more.

You know, we've put trash committees together.

I think I've been on every one.

We've met twice.

This is serious business.

This is going to cost us a lot of money, and we need to look into it.

We do.

You've got Diamond, that's going to be pulled out of the budget.

You got the trash, that's going to be pulled out of the budget.

But yet we sit here and say our clerk should be getting more.

Know what I mean?

So we really need to look at this.

And I know it's a tough decision, but sometimes the right decision is a tough decision.

But I would check into that because I have concerns that if this is implemented and these people are not going to be picking up trash, then what's going to happen?

Are we going to look to the Board of Health?

What, what are they going to do?

Then it'll be, you know, you can't leave trash on the street, right?

I mean, I don't have it with me here tonight, Councilor, but I know that when we stopped the commercial pickup and they had to go to privates.

I mean, a lot of those commercial establishments did not have the ability to place dumpsters on their properties, and they have the commercial pickup that are coming in right now with the bins to pick up the bins.

Yeah, right.

But now these companies, they're doing private in different areas as well.

They like, um, Waste to Innovation.

They only have a few bins left in Fall River.

They're not doing it.

Harvey's doing it.

Republic's not doing it.

They're not gonna get a driver with 2 men and, you know, do all these bins all over.

They will come and they will do, you know, um, a container of some sort.

But with that container too, it needs to be a place that they have the room to empty it, you know.

I mean, we can make sure that we get a list together to provide to individuals.

We can't recommend anybody, but when we notify them, we can send them a list.

List of companies that are available who service the city of Fall River.

I'd like to see a list of what companies are available, because when I talk to companies today, they're not willing to do it.

Yeah, because I mean, the ordinance that was passed that will require that they pick up the same day as the city— there are a number of companies that are in the city that are, that are private vendors, that are not capital, that, that are picking up our trash, that are picking up other residents' trash.

So we can do that, absolutely.

Absolutely.

And if though you have those companies and now they're going to be picking up more, they got to get another truck, they've got to hire more drivers, and some companies just don't want to do it.

They've got enough business.

But I would look into that because if you implement this without knowing what companies are around— and I would also look at where people are going to put a container so that that container is not, you know, ruining the quality of life for other people in the neighborhood.

And the Board of Health does regulate that, where dumpsters can be placed on property, and we have inspectors that go out to make sure for the cleanliness and such that things are being disposed of properly, lids are closed, whenever we get complaints.

So we absolutely will make sure that that is— well, I know the one on Bedford Street across from the Boys and Girls Club, that was in a driveway, and the lady complained about it.

There was nothing they could do.

They had it on their property in the driveway.

And, you know, the poor lady couldn't open her window.

There was another one down north, the same thing.

So I don't know what the ordinances are around how much space around it, how much, you know, space you have to have, the size of the container.

Maybe we need to look at that.

Yep, we can, we can absolutely have the Board of Health regulations given out.

Well, with that, I yield.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor.

Councilman C6, Councilor Pickle.

Good evening.

I have a few questions.

Um, one of them is I've received several complaints and I've been in constant— well, quite a bit of conversation with Mr. Hathaway regarding the amount of people living in apartments in the city of Fall River.

Illegal apartments, basement apartments, attic apartments.

We're dealing with that right now.

I have a building in my— on my block.

I think there's 12 people in a 3-bedroom apartment.

So how are we going to rectify that at the end?

Because I've had to call Joe Kennedy.

There's been trash all over the sidewalks— Bay Street, Bradford Avenue— because we have multiple new people that have moved to this city and they're living in these apartments 8, 10 at a time.

I got a phone call from a firefighter that couldn't get into a building, an apartment, because it was a bunk bed against the door.

So ultimately, we're going to have to admit that we have those problems in this city, and how is that going to affect our trash pickup?

Well, I mean, the, the ordinances require that the number of containers provided per household are not by the number of occupants of the household, they're by the number of units in the household.

So if a person has a 2-family house and in one apartment they have 12 people living there, I mean, that would more be a concern for code enforcement to see, are they all members of the same family?

You know, when they're living there.

If you're saying that multiple people are like renting out rooms in their homes, that's what's happening.

That would be— I just sent Mr. Hathaway a screenshot from Facebook of a gentleman that was renting a bedroom in an apartment for just Brazilians.

He had this post on Facebook.

So that's what we're dealing with right now in the city, and unless we're honest about it, nothing's going to move forward.

I believe trash is going to be hindered by this.

Because if we're telling them that we have a normal haul like we've had for the past few years, and then they're showing up to places and there's trash overflowing, you know, the more people in an apartment, the more trash we have.

And that's where our litter enforcement officers come in, because if people again aren't properly disposing of it, we have to cite them so that they are aware.

We give them a warning, then we give them a citation.

But it's very clear in the ordinance that the trash needs to be in the bin, the lids need to be closed, that they can't commingle recycle with municipal solid waste, and that they're only allowed so many bins.

Trash that's left on the side of the bins is not normally picked up.

It's left behind.

In the following week, they need to put it in there.

So if there's a household that you're aware of that is improperly disposing of their trash, if you give the address to litter enforcement, Joe Kennedy, or call Chris, or we'll call the mayor's office.

We send them out all the time because we're always getting emails of people who either put their bins curbside too early or not properly disposing of their trash.

And we have the code enforcement officers go out— the litter enforcement officers go out.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Yeah, I know Mr. Kennedy has been very responsive, very responsive, and I've had to call him numerous times, as well as yourself, Mr. Hathaway, already in your position.

I've had a few times, not for trash but uncleanliness on city sidewalks.

My concern is that's just going to grow and get worse, then eventually we're going to have to pay for this.

Second question is bulk item pickup.

This would be a question for you, Mr. Hathaway.

So commercial properties aren't allowed to bring their bulk items to Lewiston Street to dispose of?

No.

Okay.

At a time where the city is absolutely broke, I think any revenue stream would be fantastic.

So I was going to file a resolution on this to see how commercial properties can bring their bulk items to the lowest entry lot and then pay us to take it.

I don't understand why we're circumventing that and not wanting the money in return.

It doesn't make sense.

Is that something that could come to fruition where we can make that happen without me filing a resolution?

We can look into it.

We can work on what the ordinances and what we can do to, um, make that possible.

Okay, because it is actually helping us by getting rid of— through a private hauler that we're not picking up the tonnage, we're not going by their property.

I think we should be able to take their money if they have to get rid of a TV.

So we weren't— right now we aren't, I'm going to say, making money off of bulky items like that.

It is a cost that we, I think, at one point were more breaking even on Um, and as the costs have gone up, the bulky item pickup fees haven't gone up the same way.

So at this point in time, it would probably cost us money, but we've already talked about looking at that and revising that.

And I think if that was the case, or if we came up with even different rates for commercial and, and we were able to have it be worthwhile, I absolutely think it's something that we could look at.

But I think the reason it was a no-go before was just the cost benefit.

It was— we would be losing money.

So Okay, if I could just piggyback on that one.

The only rates that we've increased within the last few years has been the mattress.

We were losing a considerable amount, $21 I believe, when I was on the council.

Correct.

So that's the only one.

And we have, we have been in communication with the team just to make sure that we do increase that so that we can at least not lose money at that point.

Other communities, their rates are— and we have a spreadsheet of what other communities have and what we, uh, what we should be going up to.

So that, that's coming down, down the pike.

Thank you, Miss Oliveira.

So I just want to touch upon the worthwhile part.

In a position where we can't balance a budget and we don't have any money and we're fearful over the next few years that we're not going to have enough revenue, I think that's worthwhile if we increase the fee.

Yes, right now we would be losing money with the current fee structure, and then that amount of tonnage, we would be losing money.

So that's why I'm saying that's not worthwhile.

If we adjust it, it was absolutely worthwhile.

That's something I am working on, is looking at surrounding communities and putting something together.

Okay, it's definitely something that has to be looked at.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Let me see here.

How many bids did we get to go back for the trash?

How many?

2, right?

2 bids.

Again, in a position where the city is broke, why wouldn't we go out to 5 companies and see who the lowest bidder was?

So it's— it goes out as we went— we've put that out as an RFP for a bid.

Uh, 2 returned the bid.

We, we've contacted a few contractors to make sure that they did bid, and, uh, 2 were the only ones that went out.

Okay.

I think we had inquiries from, I think it was 6 or 7 different companies.

So there were multiple other vendors that were looking at it and ultimately didn't submit, but there were more vendors that were that did get the bid and reviewed it.

Okay, thank you.

Um, just one last question.

In all honesty, Miss Aubrey, do you think we're in a position where we're getting close to have to bring in— to have to bring our trash back in-house, where it's going to be too expensive to pay for it and it would be more cost effective to have our own trash service?

I honestly don't think that we're close to that.

I think we're closer to implementing something like a trash fee before the that would be worthwhile.

The costs on the liability side for that are, are much, much too high at this point in time, in my opinion, and from the numbers I've seen.

But that's, that's where we're at.

I mean, I think you're— we do have to do something now and, um, have a plan for, you know, a couple years from now.

We are okay at this moment, but it's not going to be sustained like this.

Okay, Councilor, if I could, um, We have, we have tossed that around many, many times.

Um, the thought that really came to my mind was, can we start taking little bites out of the apple?

Can we do some yard waste collection?

Can we take care of, of other things that we could do right away?

And then I'm not sure if we'd ever be in a position to do the solid waste component.

But just taking certain bites out of that apple to reduce the cost wherever we could was something that we entertained, and we're still, still communicating with one another just to make sure that we could do that.

Okay.

The one word that scares me is fee, because we constantly go to the taxpayer to fix our mistakes.

That's what we do.

So with the position that the city's in over the next 5 years, how many times are we going to have to go to the taxpayer to increase fees?

Do you have a hypothesis as to that?

I do not.

I know that a lot of our fee structures we've been having, you know, in the last year and a half that I've been down here, we've been talking about the fact that most of our fees for businesses or commercial things just in general citywide, not just with trash, haven't been revised or updated.

So that's just a general structure basis that we need to look at as a city.

We've been pulling data and looking at comparable communities, and we are not in the place that most other communities around us are at.

So that's, I'm going to say, a one-time kind of structural look at that we're doing.

We may do it, you know, in pieces over time, but it's a whole picture that we need to review as a city in that sense.

Thank you.

I lastly, I'm going to say that I agree with Councilor Pereira in the sense that I remember when we increased that mattress fee.

And then I drove by Shep's Cove Apartments and there was mattresses, mattresses in the parking lot.

So they're going to do the same thing with the trash, and that's worse.

So we have to have rectification to this right away.

There has to be some type of plan.

Well, we did talk about for apartment buildings that do have dumpsters, they do not require that their residents recycle or don't provide them an option of getting rid of their bulky items.

That's a lot of the problem the city sees, where they'll take it to a family member's house, have them get rid of it and things, which only increase our costs.

So we have been in discussion, um, when this new contract came about, to possibly in the ordinances coming down in August start talking about these condominium units or larger apartment units that have the private vendors, requiring that they recycle cycle and assist their residents with disposal of bulky items.

Because for the city to be able to do that, I mean, it— that just increases our solid waste.

We don't have a permit anymore at Lewiston Street for municipal solid waste.

There have been a lot of homes being built in that area, single-family homes, since we went out of the trash business.

And if we went back and got permitted again, I mean I don't know that those people would be very happy about their property values, um, if we started taking in municipal solid waste there again.

Yeah, well, I've, I've had my concerns about that property to begin with that still haven't been answered.

So yes, I wouldn't, I wouldn't dump a trash facility right into their neighborhood, especially with the questions that I've asked in the past.

With that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Seat 8, Councilor Raposo.

Thank you.

Miss Olivera, do you have any update on the pilot program, the Harvard?

Yes, we're, uh, we're terminating that at this point because there was no benefit to that, um, and we're looking to see what else we can do at this point.

Okay, effective when?

We haven't discussed— we haven't discussed that.

We're in communication with Attorney Matt Thomas to see, um, how we can— but at least at this point there's no future of it?

Correct.

Been determined?

Correct.

Okay.

Do you any curiosity, do you have any data that you can share with the council of how the program went overall?

I'd be interested in that if possible.

Sure, we can find something.

Okay.

Um, all right, that answers my question.

So as far as the bins that exist for the pilot program, are they going to eventually be collected and reused in some way?

They'll be collected, reused.

Okay.

And then, um, to the interim city administrator, I know you, you've said a few times that ordinance is coming down in August.

The chairman of ordinance would like to know when, when in August.

We only have one meeting in August.

We let Attorney Thomas know that, so we asked him.

He has been working on them since we've been working on the new trash contract, so I would say at your meeting in August.

Okay.

And, and more of a statement, because I think my counselor to my, to my right mentioned about the Board of Health.

When we make the ordinance for the essentially 3 strikes you're out rule of pulling your bins.

I'm curious, and I— and if possible, I'd like to have the Director of Health and Human Services available for that meeting, because I am curious what teeth the Board of Health does have if we get to a situation where a resident decides they don't want to get a private, and to Councilor Pereira's point, just stop putting trash on the sidewalk.

What teeth does the Board of Health have to ensure that does not happen?

So, you know, it's more of a statement to you if, if we can invite, um, Miss Current to that meeting as well, um, and get some more information on what, what power the Board of Health has and if we get to that situation.

And Attorney Thomas has already started conversations with the board, um, and its chairperson and the Director of Health and Human Services to discuss those.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

I yield to Mr. President.

Thank you.

Councilman C1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you.

Just I guess piggybacking on my colleague in seat 7 with regards to her concerns about the 5 and 6 families, um, if, if there is a concern about private not coming in, private companies not coming in to do the bin pickup, which I don't know that it is an issue, but if it becomes an issue, why wouldn't we just come up with a fee for the households and just figure out what our costs associated with it and just charge the 5 or 6 families if they want to stay with the city?

Because it's— we're driving down the roads anyways.

I would, I would just suggest that we identify what our internal costs are plus what the cost would be for the new company coming in to pick it up, whether it's on a per-tonnage basis or whatever the case may be, and we just charge a fee associated with that.

So if it's higher than a private, then it's higher than a private, but at least the 5 or 6-unit family homes have the opportunity to figure out if they want to stay with the city or not, but it will be generating additional revenue.

Um, and then just, just to confirm, the— when we took the vote, I think part of the conversation was the savings associated with the, you know, the, the 5 families and up.

That was about, I think it was $600,000.

Yes, $600,000.

Okay, so with that savings plus, uh, potentially additional revenue coming in if they do want to continue the service with the city, I think that could generate some additional revenue to potentially offset some costs associated with that.

So, um, I guess just to comment on, uh, removing privatization, I would say that I don't know any other community that's trying to bring trash in-house.

In fact, if they're not privatizing, they're already stopping the service for trash.

So you either have to have a private or you have to bring your trash to a landfill.

So I don't know that, um, the city should even be entertaining bringing this service back in-house.

We've got out of the trash business business.

I think we need to stay out of the trash business.

I don't disagree, uh, with Miss Opke in terms of the liability associated with just, you know, providing that service and, and workers' comps and things of that nature.

It's, it's significant.

So I would look at something completely different before we even try to entertain any of those, those moves, even if it's yard waste or anything like that.

And then just in terms of my colleague in Seat 8 with regards to the, uh, pilot program.

Did we have any statistics at all in terms of that pilot program and if it was working, or was it really just an eyeball test?

I'll find out tomorrow.

Okay.

All right, with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Councilman Seat 3, uh, Councilman Seat 3, Councilor O'Connell.

Thank you.

Uh, so just to Miss Sarkey, you mentioned, I think, that there were 6 or 7 bidders Um, for the trash contract?

Um, inquiries?

No inquiries.

Sorry.

Yes, my apologies.

Uh, did they leave any feedback on why they didn't bid, or was there any like scoffing at the length?

Was there any, any type of suggestion?

I don't, I don't think so, but I can pull that.

I, I just know that we received questions and obviously we record all of that, but I can pull that information from purchasing and get that over Okay, I think that would be helpful as we think about, you know, 2 or 3 years from now and, you know, another bid out and seeing what, you know, people may have said or not, you know, suggested, you know, why they didn't bid.

I think would be good for us to know in advance.

Since the 5s and 6s were brought up by my counselor in seat 7, I did get a call from a lady who owns a 6-unit studio, which, uh, yes, and she spoke, I believe, with my colleague in C7 as well as yourself.

And the concern was really around equity.

She has 6 people living in 6 units there, 1 person per unit, and she's concerned about the cost.

She was quoting, I think it was $300 per quarter, potentially would be the cost that she's been getting now from several different vendors to pick up her 6-unit.

And her argument is simply this: there's 6 people, they're producing in many cases less trash, and particularly less trash than her 3-family neighbor who isn't going to be impacted by this.

And so her question is, you know, what exception process if somebody has a 5 or 6 unit that is producing— that can live basically within the same bin we provide a single family or whatnot.

What is the process for her to stay on the city's trash at no cost?

Well, as I explained to her yesterday, she is the exception, not the rule, because there are very— I would say I don't know any other 6-family in the city of Fall River that only puts out one bin a week.

If we stop making exclusions for individuals and 6 families, I mean, what we're giving them is locations that they're no longer going to cover.

If we're going to say, okay, because you only put out one bin, we'll pick up your trash for X amount, and then another household and they want to buy bins— we have people that call all the time asking us to buy additional bins, whether— and it's never for recycling.

It's always for solid waste.

We're trying to keep the disposal costs down.

What we do is we send Mr. Kennedy and his group out, and they go out and do an audit.

They see if people are recycling to the fullest or if they're just throwing away material that could potentially be recyclable.

So that's what we're trying to do.

So if, again, if we make an exception for one individual who only puts out one barrel, what about the other one that puts out 2?

And then how, you know, how do we change things?

Could people buy bins if they wanted to from the city, as Councilor Kadim suggested?

I mean, that certainly is something that could be looked into.

I just, I did not, she did not quote me a price that she had received.

She hadn't reached out to anyone at that time.

That seems an awful lot for one bin, for 300 a quarter.

Quarter, but we'll gladly— did she tell you who she reached out to that maybe we can— I don't recall.

We can check that out to see because that was not the amounts that we were seeing from individuals was $300 a quarter for one container.

I guess to her question, she quoted you as saying she's the exception to the rule, so how does she get an exception?

Is there something you know, if this ordinance, which is not fully through, it's on the agenda tonight.

And we— and I mentioned that to her.

I left her a message yesterday letting her know that it was on the council agenda this evening, that it hadn't passed yet, and that, you know, her input— definitely continue to reach out and, and voice her concerns.

So is there something the council could do potentially later to make an exception, to put something in place that says if there's— if they can live within one bin, just like any other household in the city, they're paying, you know, their taxes.

And if they have— if they're producing equal to or less than anybody else who's getting it for free, why not?

Why can't they have it?

I mean, it's within your purview, Councilor, to amend the ordinance if you choose to amend the ordinance for someone in a 6-family who only has one bin or 2 bins.

Um, they normally would have, what, 3?

4, 3, 3 95-gallon.

Correct.

So I, I mean, it's within your purview to amend the ordinance as you see fit.

I guess I'm, I'm asking more of what would be the impact, uh, potentially if there's, you know, just a handful of these.

Is there particularly— back to the contract that's got this 90-day delay— would that materially impact if there were exceptions made?

I mean, when we were looking at this contract, we were looking at having anything with more than 4 units per parcel, pickup would cease.

So, so how does— just take me through that.

How does a trash truck— they have a list of here's the addresses I pick up, here's the ones I don't?

Well, with the bins that are outside, those are the ones that they're picking up.

But I guess larger units, like when we stopped the commercial pickup, What we did is we followed along the last day of the pickup, their last pickup.

We were picking up the bins after they were emptying the trash.

Okay, that's what I was saying.

And so we made sure the bins were reclaimed for reuse.

Okay, that's what I was trying to figure out.

Yeah.

Like how does this get— Yeah, otherwise they're just putting it in the back and we're not allowed to grab it in the back.

So we have to follow that truck during that day or days.

Okay, all right.

Um, I, I think I'll explore maybe a potential for the exceptions to the rule that, you know, are, are looking at a very small production of trash.

Um, I think they make a valid point.

Um, and we can look at that in ordinance.

But, um, let me see, the final question I have, uh, just I couldn't help but notice as I was walking in, uh, there's a sign on the window of City Hall that says effective July 1st, if you're looking for stickers, you can no longer get them here at City Hall.

You have to go down to Lewiston Street.

I'm just kind of— I know I've run into a couple people now looking for where in City Hall to buy those stickers.

I think a lot of people are going to show up here.

Just kind of want to understand the thought process there, why we wouldn't continue to have that available, particularly when, you know, we have a lot of ability to collect money here.

So due to vacations, um, there was only one clerk here anyway.

So due to vacations, we're short a clerk.

To get the coverage for lunches, to get the coverage for vacations, things weren't working out while having this clerk split up.

By having them all under one roof, it was easier to manage.

Yeah, I get that it's easy to manage.

I'm just concerned we're going to have people, you know, coming here because it's been that process for so long and have to go somewhere else.

We're in the process also of allowing a fillable form online.

We're hoping that that gets off the ground soon.

I mean, that would be really great.

Yeah, and it'll allow credit card payment and so on and so forth.

So we're hoping that'll be going soon.

Yeah, we're looking to add it to our existing systems that we use for that, so it'll— it would be an extension of that.

It's just figuring out So I guess my question is, could we, rather than just eliminate the pickup here— not the pickup, the ability to buy the stickers completely— could we not just look at another department, maybe say the collectors or another department, to have that ability, keep that ability here until such form is on purchases online?

We can talk about it internally.

I mean, they also have the option to print the form off online and mail it in.

As well.

Yeah, I just— I've, like I said, twice in the last probably 2 months I've had people like, where do I buy the stickers?

So I know people are coming here.

And it was on my— it was— I recommended it due to the fact of the lunches coverage, lack of a clerk at the time.

So yeah, it makes sense, I think, for your department.

But when we think broader, there are other departments maybe that could handle that particular transaction and take care of that.

So I would just request, I think, just for the residents I know who are coming down here, saving them a second trip to Lewis Street, maybe there's another department that could take those payments and just start handling it.

One of the issues, it's not just the collection of the money, it's also giving out the bulky item ticket with the items that people want to select, and then they have to get it on a list to be able to give to capital so that they know that it's on a bulky item pickup list.

So the collector's office, they handle so much else and all the other bills that are coming in that we had thought about that quite some time ago, is having individuals who went to pay their bills being able to get everything at the same location.

But that was the point of the sticker.

That's why we're trying the online way to do away with a sticker, because in a number of cases you get a sticker, you put it on an item someone takes the item before you even have the pickup and you don't have your, your sticker on there anymore.

So you're describing an internal process of how to get on the schedule, but what's the online process going to do?

Is that going to do that in an automated fashion, or— Yep, we're going to remove the stickers.

What will happen is when individuals pay the fee online, they will then— somebody will get the trigger that they have paid for a bulky item.

They'll get their address on the list so that Capital will have an updated list when they go out on your regular trash collection day to pick up your bulky items.

So you'll select from the list online what your items are.

The only thing missing will be you'll no longer have that sticker that goes on one of the items that you're disposing of.

And currently— sorry to interrupt— currently, if you mail in the form, you don't get a sticker, you just get a phone call saying put it out.

We received it, put it out on such and such trash day.

You are on the list for that day.

How far away are we from this online implementation?

Very soon.

Yeah, we're working right now just with the collector's office for the banking piece of it, for the finance piece, and the right company to use to be able to allow people to use the checks as well so that people don't have to— credit card companies, they charge a fee So with the, uh, the checks, it's only a 40-cent charge.

So if individuals prefer that over their ATM card or a credit card, it's going to make it easier.

So, um, this will also help with— at the Lewiston Street facility, allow us to accept credit cards or e-checks at the same time.

So it'll— a lot of people walk out of the building after they come in to go get cash.

Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council on seat 2, Councilor Camara.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I don't envy any of you for having to do what you have to do with the trash problem.

It's been an existing problem for a long time, and it— every day it doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive.

One of the things I do want to point out though, I also received a phone call from the individual that talked to you and stuff, and I kind of agree with her.

And I think what we probably could do to solve that problem is just if you are a homeowner and a resident of Fall River and a 6-tenant or 4-tenant or higher, but you're a present landlord, not an absentee landlord, you get a bin for you, for your apartment.

And if your tenants— you need more for your tenants, then you can do whatever you got to do to get them more bins.

I don't think my colleague in C1 was saying charge them, sell them more bins.

I think he was saying charge them every time we pick up those bins.

So I'm— there's going to be something in place so we can pay for what we're doing with the services.

But if you are a homeowner and you own a 4-tenement or a 5-tenement or 6-tenement, you shouldn't be denied a bin to take out your trash.

If you're not a— I mean, if you're a present landlord.

Absentee landlords, 4-tenement, 5-tenement, 6-tenement houses, that's different.

Make them get their stuff because no one from Fall River, no resident lives there that owns the building.

It's just people that renting it to.

So that's one option.

I, I agree with her.

I think she shouldn't be denied a bin if she lives there and it's her house.

She should at least have the same rights as everybody else.

And if we're picking up the person next door that's got a 2-tenement or a 3-tenement, this house is right there, just take one bin.

If there's trash nearby or bags, fine them, as we should, because it has to be in the bin.

But if she can pull that off, one bin for 6 people or 4 people, and you live in there, you're absent— you're not an absentee landlord but a present landlord, homeowner in the city, resident— give them a bin.

Just give them one bin and take care of it.

Can't be that expensive.

That's one solution that I think would probably work.

Although my colleague in seat 7 pointed out that, you know, some places you can't put these.

I can think of one location on North Main Street.

As you're driving north on North Main Street before you get to Weaver Street, there's a cluster of 4, 5, and tenement houses there.

The yards in the back, maybe 20 feet deep, but to get to that backyard, there's a 3-foot, maybe 2 feet, 3 feet narrow walkway.

It would be impossible— they can get the bins out if they have bins, but it'd be impossible to get commercial trash there unless they put it on the sidewalk, and that's not acceptable.

So what do we do with locations like that that is congested area where people— and there's a lot of other areas that I can think of— there's just no way to get a commercial trash bin on the side of the house, on their property, without putting it in the backyard.

And once it's in the backyard, there's no way of bringing it to the front.

They can't— you can't get it there.

What's the solution to that?

You mean a dumpster?

A dumpster?

Well, what's it— they're being denied bins, right?

What's that?

Most companies who have dumpsters for residential have bins as well?

Also have bins as well, yes.

Yeah, because there are a number of— we saw that with just the commercial properties, uh, when we stopped picking up business trash.

There were a number of businesses who didn't have the space to be able to put a dumpster, so they had to go to bins.

It's probably going to cost them more money.

As far as the cost, I think it was— that was a long time ago.

I mean, it was a while ago, right?

Well, so, well, that's good.

I didn't that, but that's good.

I don't know if they're gonna be willing to do that though for a few people that might want to resort to that.

I don't know, but like I said, something they're gonna figure out.

But I think honestly that individual that called me, and I agree with her, if you're a present landlord and you're a resident of Fall River, you shouldn't be denied a bin.

I know one thing that Attorney Thomas did mention at the ordinance committee meeting that night was it's very difficult to determine without a lot of intense labor who is an owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied property.

Yeah, I don't know how difficult that is, honestly.

That's probably a 1-year check of their tax bill and where they mail it to and who's living there.

It's not that hard.

Mr. Thomas— Matt Thomas does a lot of wonderful things when he wants to, and there's a lot of nothing when he wants to as well.

So he would— he wouldn't be doing it, right?

That's my point.

So he's not even gonna be involved in it.

So it's not— I don't think it's that difficult.

I disagree.

I don't think it's difficult to say, here's your address, you live here, we'll send you the tax bill to you, to you where you're living.

So, and it's, it's just something to verify once a year.

Um, I don't think it's that impossible.

How many addresses did we say it affected?

500?

700?

It's close to 700, yeah, different addresses.

I understand some people have their tax bills go to another address.

It's it's not necessarily because they may not live where they want, and maybe because they want their bill to go somewhere else.

So that's— and we have some people who— right, so, so if you're a resident and you're living there and it's not going to your name, to your apartment right there, they don't qualify.

But people could also have their bills sent there without living there too.

If they own the building, they could have the mail show up there and doesn't mean that they live there.

So it, it doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Their address is on Patriot Properties.

I'm not saying that it's not possible.

I just want to be clear that their tax bill going there doesn't mean that.

It needs to be, quite honestly.

I mean, if we can show an electric bill— does— do they have electric?

They pay an electric bill there too?

Well, they own the property, so they likely have a bill for the house in their name.

Yeah, not if they're not paying electric bill or gas.

Gas or gas.

All right, well, if we can't figure that out, then maybe you're right, maybe we shouldn't.

I just think it's more complicated.

If we can't accommodate someone who lives here, is going to prove that I live in this building, then we have more issues than what I thought.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor.

In seat 1, you good?

Councilman seat 4, Council Vice President Dionne.

Good evening.

To piggyback on the, uh, bulky items I recently had somebody who had to go to Lewiston Street.

With the construction that's going on there, we're actually putting people in dangerous positions.

This individual was like, we pulled in the yard, we weren't sure where to go, we get out of the car, this— I don't know what— I don't remember what they said.

It wasn't a backhoe, but it was a sizable piece of equipment, was backing up, almost ran them over.

I don't know that it's the best idea while we're under construction to have people randomly walking around that property trying to figure out where they're going and what they're doing.

Um, I certainly hope somebody doesn't get hurt.

Um, go ahead, Councilor, if I could.

Um, yes, you are 100% right, and, um, Mr. Hathaway and I have had numerous conversations with the contractor.

That point in time was a picture, a snapshot.

It's not happening all the time right now.

That was one of the main lines that were going in.

They, uh, they trenched it, and very, very shortly that's going to be eliminated.

So they are working on it, and it's just a little snapshot that we had with that situation.

Obviously it's construction area, and it's going to look a whole lot better very shortly.

But yes, that was, that was a hard time at that point, and Mr. Hathaway had brought that to my attention on numerous occasions, and we, we had conversations with the contractor to remedy that situation.

Okay, that's good.

It's good to hear because that could be really ugly.

Um, the $125 a ton for disposal for solid waste That's just the first year?

Is that locked in for the, uh, yeah, I think it's just the first year.

It was FY27.

Yeah.

And you have any numbers for second and third year, or is it going to be adjusted year by year?

$132,500, $28,000, and $140,000.

45 and 29.

Now that's for the disposal of curbside collection municipal solid waste.

And what's, what's, what's the disposal rate for, um, um, recycles at this time, at this point?

115.

And that's only if it's clean?

That's the clean.

There are 2 rates.

There's a rate for contaminated and the rate for the clean is 115.

Which is the majority of the curbside right now.

Now, I certainly don't see the price of disposal going down, but in that we would have a freak year that it would, is it in the contract that that number would be reduced in that particular year?

Well, it's based on the tonnage, so if our tonnage goes down, we'd still pay the same per ton, but our disposal costs would yes be reduced.

So I— but I guess my question is, even I know it would be a strange phenomenon, I understand that, but let's assume in year 2 it's not $138 and actually the cost to dispose that year is only— stayed at $125.

Are they going to charge $125 per ton, or are they going to charge— whether our, whether our amount goes up or down, the dollar amount, will that change?

These are the rates they're locking in with where we're disposing of now in advance of that time.

Okay, so they already know.

So there's no adjustment to our favor if it's less expensive, and it wouldn't go up any higher if we're locked in with this rate.

This is what we would get at this time and, and continuing.

Okay.

Now the other discussion that's been had that I've mentioned on multiple occasions to multiple people in terms of offsetting the cost of, um, disposal would be there's a formula whether it's a one-family, two-family, three-family, etc.

How many carts, what size cart each residence is supposed to have.

And I know we discussed that there are many, many more carts out there than are supposed to be out there.

You're in the process of evaluating that, pulling in carts so people don't have more than they're supposed to have.

How have you looked into the people who truly do recycle a lot more or do have or do need a second trash bin, that whatever meets the formula, they get that for free.

If they want anything more, anything above and beyond that, they can have as many carts as they want as long as they're willing to pay to have the extra carts.

So if you say a cart, for the sake of numbers, uh, is $30 a month to dispose of, well, you can have 10 carts, but you're going to pay $300 a month.

Or one cart and pay $30 a month.

There's people— it would be worth it and it would offset the cost.

Has— is that being considered at all?

We have not spoken about that, but that, that is a good idea.

I think part of that complication would be it could change what we have currently specced out in the bid.

So I think, you know, we would have to revisit the contract at that point, making sure that they're still collecting the number that we had agreed to or close to it.

You know, obviously there's a slight range that comes with that collection, but you know, if we are at— I'm just going to say, you know, 1,000 bins right now, and that goes up to 5,000, that could change the scope of the contract.

Well, I guess my point is, so as it exists— listen, I know how— and this isn't an argument, this is just a matter of reality.

Just near where I live, there's a single family that's got 3 recycle bins, 2, uh, trash bins, 3 people live in the house, and guess what?

It all gets picked up every week.

So they're out there.

That's the point.

These carts are out there.

I bet you there are— if you go and you see the ones with the large number versus the ones that just have maybe one extra whatever, I bet you there's double the carts than you think are out there.

No, so my point is, if you're charging for those, you want to keep them, keep them.

But you're going to pay for it.

Yeah, I want to be clear, I'm not saying that we should use up— but it could change things if we, you know, don't— if we talk about adding more, not just keeping what we have.

So I just wanted to be clear on that, that it's not a bad idea, but we, we would have to make sure that the dollar amount would increase, but you'd also be taking in the revenue to cover the cost.

No, absolutely.

Okay, with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Sinaita.

Councilor Raposo.

Yeah, the only comment I'm going to make I think my colleagues bring up some good points, so I'm wondering if, if this— the proposed ordinance were to go back to ordinance, would you be able to get that additional information to justify some of my colleagues' points?

For the record, we're planning— I'm planning on having an ordinance meeting next week.

So if— would that be something that you can collect that information and then possibly present that next week to us?

As far as the suggestions made by my colleagues this evening, we can, but the, the only issue is too that when this contract was negotiated, we spoke with them about removing the anything more than 4 from the waste stream.

So we'll want to talk to Attorney Thomas in that regard.

And, um, yeah.

We were trying to, trying to find ways to reduce the disposal costs, which is within our control.

I understand.

And that has been a conversation that's been had for several years about lowering the number of units we pick up and removing the commercial which we have.

So, um, but we can get numbers as far as vendors.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

All right, Councilor, if I could.

Yes, the ultimate goal is waste So if we can just reduce the amount of solid waste that we have and just try to pull all the recycling out of the solid waste, I mean, in 2030 we're going to have the organics kick in.

So that's another MassDEP component that we have to deal with.

So that's 3 years away.

So we're very close to that.

That.

So our— the bottom line is, is we want waste diversion, and however we can do that, that's the key, key goal.

And the litter enforcement officers have also been closely monitoring the properties with the contaminated recycling, which is costing us more money.

And those are the houses that have more than 4 units and have the contaminated recycling, which is driving Okay, yeah, I think that's fine.

I, I think my, my colleague, especially in seat 1, brings up a very good point that should definitely be looked into.

But I don't want to close the door on that just by the ordinance passing and then we just don't talk about it anymore.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

Yeah, I mean, and, and I guess, and not a question that you need to answer right now, but if we were to go down that route, to, to Miss Harpkey's point, you know, how do we then make that adjustment if we need to in a contract after the fact.

So again, a point to ponder for another day, but just out of curiosity, that information would be helpful if we can kind of come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem that I think we've all heard about at this point.

Thank you, Councillor.

And seat 2, Councillor Khumaira.

I'm all set.

I think we've done enough trash talking for tonight.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Nope.

Is there an act this council wants to have on this item?

Motion to table.

Motion to table made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Dion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

All right, next item on our Committee on Finance is transfers and appropriations.

That is already in full council.

No referral is going to be needed to full council, which will take place shortly.

Um, go to item 4 on your agenda.

First item would be $586, $600 and be the same hereby appropriated to and from the PEG Access and Cable Related Fund.

Any discussion on this?

Councilman C1, Councilor Liccini.

Thank you.

So we're gonna establish the special revenue account, correct?

Yeah, the item 4A is to accept the MGL first.

And then B would be to then appropriate according to the acceptance.

Okay, um, so how much, how much of a balance do we currently have?

And I guess, what was it, a revolving fund?

It's just, it's a fund, it's a special revenue fund, um, that has the word revolving written on it, but it's just a special revenue fund.

Um, so the balance is, uh, of course, of all the things I have printed, that's not the one, but it's it's just over the number that is presented there.

So the way this revolving— or the way this, um, law was written is you cannot appropriate in anticipation.

You can only appropriate based on current cash balance.

So it is just over this, but that doesn't include any of the receipts that we will receive this year for the fund.

So that is the technically the current balance, but, um, we would have to come back down to appropriate as we receive receipts for this year, right?

And then, and that's why I was asking.

I, I know we can't appropriate, but I, I know there was a conversation about how much was in the account.

So do we, do we know?

It's about, it's about $10,000 to $20,000 more than what's on there.

It's not much more, but there is.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then just in terms of— so FRC Meteorite, I, I, I understand, right?

So that's BCC.

We we take $150,000, we give it to them, they, they deal with it.

Fred TV, is, is that a nonprofit?

Are they— where's the money go?

So the school department.

So the school department oversees that?

Yeah.

So it— and I, I realized after the fact that I just put Fred TV, but it's also the FRGTV, right?

They, they kind of— I'm going to say cooperate in that sense.

So it is really both of them.

Um, but it's operated out of the school department at that point.

So we, we transfer— we'll be transferring out of this cable-related special revenue over to the school department?

No, they expend it out of that fund.

Oh, we, we send out a check for FRC media, but then they, um, the school department operates out of that fund directly.

Strictly out of— yeah.

So does the— after, once we make the appropriation, do the schools have any say over that, that money, how how it's spent?

Yes, in the sense of how they kind of oversee the salaries and the expenses within that operation, because I think there is other funding that they have within the school that might support some of it.

But I'm not 100% sure how they've been doing it.

I know that they've been expending it, obviously not through this body and through, you know, MGL as we discussed it should be, but they have been overseeing and managing that, those expenditures.

Okay.

And so do we, do you see about, do we see a budget?

Do we typically get it?

Like, how's the— and I didn't read the MOA.

I know the MOA is in there.

I don't know if it really spelled out.

No.

So it's, it's very much based on user fees.

So there is one portion that we kind of get that set amount, that $106,000.

No, no, I'm not talking about the revenue.

I, I understand, I understand how the revenue comes in.

So we've got the capital and then the, uh, I guess revenue sharing based on number of subscribers.

But so how did we get to the $330,000 and the $106,000?

So I was looking at the past, um, last year's payments that came in, and that's about what they were.

So it's about $140,000 to $160,000, um, each quarter to the school side, and then it's about, um, $60,000 to $75,000 on the BCC side.

So that's where those numbers come in.

So like I said, the school one might be a little bit short, but that's also because they have that capital influx that first time.

So, you know, I would expect by November, December, we'd be back down here for another appropriation for that.

So I guess I would just say for the next appropriation, I, I for one would want to see at least from the school committee what they're requesting, as opposed to us just turning it over.

Um, you know, because my concern— and we talked about this at the Um, the May 26th, I think, ordinance meeting regarding just the revenue.

So I don't know that the revenue is going to be there after this 10-year contract.

I think a lot of communities that are currently in the cable contracts that they have recognize that, you know, the revenues are going to be going down.

So we don't get any revenue on, um, any internet or anything like that.

So as, as all— as everything starts moving to streaming platforms, you know, the cable revenue is going to dwindle significantly.

And I would imagine all the cable providers, whether that be Verizon or Comcast, are going to make an argument that they're not willing to pay for or provide any revenue for internet, in that the streaming services are no longer cable, they're internet-based.

So the concern then becomes is how are we capturing these costs and is it sustainable moving forward?

And I guess the real— I mean, because a real community benefit.

So I think we need to start planning for the real, real near future in terms of what this looks like, who's going to cover the costs, and, you know, where's the revenue going to come from.

So that's, that's just my concern.

But I do think that the school committee should have some, some oversight in terms of what that looks like so we can start seeing the actual line item budgets for these Um, and then the capital— I mean, the capital is pretty straightforward.

I know that's a fixed amount in the contract.

So, uh, just in terms of the, the guidelines that you provided to us— so I was familiar with this and I hadn't read it in a long time.

Um, I guess I'm just gonna turn to page 3.

Did you read this?

The guidelines?

Yeah.

Sorry.

So just in terms of this, this special revenue funds.

Item number 4, the effective date.

And I guess this is the concern that I have.

It says the fund will begin operations for the fiscal year that begins the next July 1st.

So yeah, I talked to, um, oh my gosh, the, my, the DOR rep before June 30th about the whole thing and the timing and, and all of that.

And he said that the meeting in July would be fine and it would become effective, um, upon adoption for the first year of it so that it— we weren't going to be an issue and that we could bring it into compliance that way.

But I can follow up again and make sure that, you know, that's still the case and that if, if we need a legal opinion from DLS on that.

But he, he had no concern since it's the first time that we're adopting it.

So he's, he's going against what the, the guidelines are suggesting from DLS?

I mean, because it says the effective date, so the fund will be beginning the operation of the fiscal year that begins the next July 1st.

So he's saying he's— they're going to overrule what their, their guidelines are.

I— yeah, I can clarify with him.

Like I said, I, I had asked him about the timing before the last meeting, and he said it wasn't going to be an issue to do in July.

So I will confirm that again.

Okay, so I guess we would just need to get that— in my opinion, we, we would need to, to get that in right in because I, you know, the council would then not be able to appropriate something until from the fund until next July 1st, as it, as it states, based on the guidelines that have been issued by the DLS.

And do we know, I mean, what, what's the impact?

Do they have funds currently, like FRG-TV, Fred TV?

How, how are they operating?

Currently, I'm going to say probably the same way that they always have been, but I I'm not 100% sure with.

I know that it seems like some of the salaries are split; it's not 100% coming from here, so I'm not sure if that's during this time of year when there's less people there.

If that's how no, I guess what I'm asking is is so we we recognize that we didn't have the proper proper account.

So if we if we if we're creating the special revenue that aligns with what the Department of Local Services has, has suggested, they're still operating, right?

So before, I'm sure they were just charging something, but we know that was the inappropriate way, so we would have to stop them.

So how are they getting funding to currently operate, I guess, is where— is what my question is.

The same way that they were.

So we didn't stop operations.

Again, with my conversations, it was just, you know, we were already out of compliance.

I know that you brought up the concern about doing this before June 30th, um, as we were almost done with a fiscal year to bring that year into compliance.

And, and, um, the response was that, you know, we already had been out of compliance and it was likely not a material, um, out of compliance, which is why it had been flagged before.

And so that we should just bring it into compliance and move forward from there.

So I can, I can look into halting operations if that's No, I guess what I want to make sure we're not halting operations, right?

You know, I, uh, but I also want to make sure that we're following the rules that we need to follow.

So I guess that's just— I didn't know if there was any additional revenue that's coming, or yeah, I guess an appropriation, or well, 1/12 budget, or continuing appropriation, or whatever it is that's covering them from this on the school side.

No, this is, this is— I mean, if there's already stuff in their operating budget that covers some of this, then then sure, but otherwise no, there was nothing additional added in to make up any changes with this.

Okay, to Councilor Kadim's point, just so we're aware, the order that's before us this evening does, does specify fiscal year 2027, which begins July 1st.

Correct.

So to Councilor in seat 1's point, I just wanted to make it clear that 4A in our agenda does speak to the PEG access and cable-related fund.

So you, Counselor, you were speaking on a specific year going into next year.

That's what it— that's what the Department of Local Services has issued a guideline, right?

So the effective date, when you accept it, it says the fund, the special revenue, the fund will begin operation for the fiscal year that begins the next July 1st.

We're already in July, so the fund wouldn't be established until next July, a year from now.

And my point is, the order that's before us is incorrect?

No, they're trying to get it for this one, and I'm saying that what the guidelines that are being provided by DOR is in conflict of what we're trying to do now.

So I'm saying as a city council, we should not be making these appropriations because it conflicts with the guidelines that are before us from the DLS.

Okay, very good.

I know that part of the guidelines that we're reading and that was initially released was released in 2016 when they were changing the way this fund was supposed to be operating, because these funds have been around for well before that time.

And so it was done in January.

I think it was— the intent was to bring it, you know, everybody starting clean that year, that next year, and that could be why that language is in the guidance that way.

So I can reconfirm with him, um, you know, that this will be fine and that that effective date was more speaking for, you know, municipalities moving forward when this change rolled out.

But I'll confirm that and make sure that we're I don't read it that way because then it just, it goes into the revocation of the statute to terminate because you don't have to accept it, right?

So, right, you could have accepted a, um, an enterprise fund.

So it could have been 2016, '17, '18, '19, '20, whatever it is.

It also could just go into the general fund if we don't establish this, right?

But you can't appropriate from the general fund, right?

So, right, it would have been part— it would be part of the general operating budget at that point, correct?

So I guess that's just my concern.

And from my standpoint, we— and in the general operating budget, we don't have a line item for, for this.

It's under the school department authority, right?

So yeah, but I, I, like I said, I thought that they still had some funds that were in there that operated that program.

So, but I, like I said, I'll reconfirm with him, you know, again to make sure that— and point out that specific portion of the guidance to make sure that we're in compliance.

Okay, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything further on this item?

Hearing none, thank you.

Item 6 in full council, which is another appropriation in accordance— um, actually, item is $331,636.27.

It's item 6 in full council that the sum of $331,636.27, being the same, hereby appropriated to the Opioid Settlement Revolving Fund.

The transfer is coming from the Opioid Stabilization Fund.

Questions?

Hearing none.

Also, 7A appropriations.

These appropriations are necessitated— this is 7A in full council— necessitated due to the rejection of a free cash appropriation.

To cover the deficit in fire salaries.

The deficit was created when the administration worked with the fire chief and the fire union to increase minimum manning to 4 additional apparatus in the city following the tragic Gabriel House fire on July 13th, 2025.

The following appropriations will assist the city in meeting its fiscal year 2026 obligations associated with that commitment.

That's for a total of $1.4 million.

That's coming from veterans expenses, financial service expenses, facilities expenses, community maintenance expenses, fire expenses, reserve, reserve for employee benefits, debt service, to fire salaries in the amount of $1.4 million.

Questions?

Councilor in seat 6, Councilor Peckham.

Thank you.

Um, in regards to the $1.4 million, and I sent you an email yesterday for confirmation, um, as to why we didn't receive extra money from the governor's office, although they came down in July of 2025 and put a— I guess they had a press conference here.

What happened there?

So at the press conference, there was, you know, funding announced that was being released to provide relief, but the press release in writing stated that it was an early release of the funds that we typically get for the following calendar year, and it was just an early release of the funding for that year.

So there's 10 communities that are eligible for it each year.

We go through an application process usually in the fall.

It's awarded for that next calendar year, but this one was adjusted.

It was moved up and expedited, and then there was a list of certain communities that were awarded that funding early.

So some of them still have the regular January time frame of spending, but I want to say that there was 2 or 3 communities that then were getting it in August to begin immediate spending, but it was the same amounts that we had typically received and that we were already set to receive for the following calendar year.

Okay, so after that press conference, the administration here walked away under the assumption that they were going to receive money for new firefighters, correct?

Yeah, but within a couple of days, we, we were— we had figured out that that wasn't the case.

Where are we getting the money from to pay for these new recruits, the last 2 classes over the next couple of years?

What is your plan to make sure that we didn't offer them a job only to turn around and take their livelihood in a couple of years?

So it is built into the budget now.

So we did, um, you know, the big cost that there, you know, was coming in for this was on overtime.

Um, the majority of this $1.4 million um, was all done in overtime.

It wasn't really from the base salaries at that point.

So we did move forward with hiring because that is, you know, a rather significant savings in that sense.

And so it is baked into the operating budget, and we, we do have plans to continue it.

Looking at the 5-year forecasts, it is something that we are building into it.

And as much as, you know, I've stated that the budget is sustainable, you know, with all of the things that we've discussed we're working towards in a whole city sense.

This is part of it, and we plan to keep them on.

Okay, so you're comfortable saying that, that they will have a job in a couple of years here?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I find it just ridiculous that we have to take this $1.4 million from surplus revenue to attach to Faya's salary.

So, and on top of it, we took $500,000 in surplus— what was it— kickback from last year from Veteran Services.

It seems every time that you come down here with something that has to be moved, Veteran Services is hit right away.

And I understand this is surplus revenue.

Do you plan on taking any money from Veteran Services in the future?

No.

So this is, this is from not surplus revenue.

I just want to be clear on the terms.

It's not free cash.

This is just from '26 unexpended.

So it is surplus in the department, and I don't disagree with that.

I just want to be clear for everybody's sense, it's not the free cash appropriation surplus in that sense.

So this is after the fiscal year has ended, there are no more expenses in that department, there are no other encumbrances.

There was— it just in the expenses alone, there was $508,000 unexpended.

So rather than having that certified into free cash, we just are using it to cover this other department's deficit.

Okay, and I forget, what did we hire?

How many firefighters achieved the last 2 classes?

Uh, 15.

15.

Okay, so going forward, we have enough money to cover all their benefits because they, they start with 2 weeks vacation, right?

They earn, they earn 2 vacation days a month.

Okay, have we planned for that?

Yes, so we added 16 positions into the fire department this, um, for '27's budget.

I, I know we don't have that budget, but let's just say for the sake of conversation, we added 16 positions, um, when the very technical response is that we added 4 people on per shift.

So we really, you know, added in enough in that sense and are making sure that we're covering retirements and all of that.

So we've been working to build up that number in that sustainable way.

We've always used some overtime to cover some of these vacations, so we are working to fill some of these, you know, positions and making sure that we're keeping, you know, if we see retirements coming, to bring people on you know, in a timely manner so that we're not short-staffed again.

And, and we're working towards building that number.

I mean, we've been in conversations about adding in, you know, additional staff in the future and what it would take to make sure that we're comfortably covering vacations and not depending on overtime.

But we're trying to make sure that we're also then adding on these bodies in a sustainable way so that we're not giving somebody a job and then laying them off.

So that's the other part of the conversation that we're having.

Well, I guess we'll see.

And I'm going to hold you to that because it would be devastating to the city to have to lay off firefighters after what happened last year.

Right.

I want to be clear that we're all on that same page and that we are trying to do this in a way that is— we're ensuring that it's sustainable as much as we can ensure anything here.

We don't want to end up in a position to hire on firefighters to lay them off.

Um, or to have to reduce the numbers.

We see what is happening in other communities, and we've decided to make this commitment to move forward with these positions.

We can't commit to more right now because we don't want to end up in that spot, but it is still a goal, and we're trying to make sure that everything we're doing is sustainable because it is a priority.

Thank you.

Um, and if you don't mind me asking, did the mayor ever reach out to the governor to find out what the miscommunication was when they were here?

I think that it was just reported incorrectly.

I mean, at that press conference it was announced there would be monies coming.

Uh, Miss Susan, can you speak into the microphone please?

Sorry.

Um, I, I think it was just the way that it was reported.

I mean, they, they— when the press conference was held and the governor came here, they came here to give us that money that we get each year earlier, as Miss Apke already said.

There was a misunderstanding that there was a different award, but I believe— I wasn't in the position as interim city administrator at that time, but what I believe is was the way that it was reported, that it was additional funding in addition to what we were getting.

And that was clarified right after, um, by the governor's office, that we were getting this, the award, only earlier.

Okay.

Yes, to assist with the operations.

Thank you, Miss Arkey.

Um, so they gave us that money 2 months earlier.

How did that break down, the allocation?

What was it, the money that they— that we— the grant that we, we applied for, we got?

So yeah, the grant that we applied for and we got, we've been getting it, um, for several years now.

Um, it's technically the application that goes in from the city of Fall River is for police and for fire, so Um, there was about— it's, I think it's $803,000 for fire and $803,000 for police, um, previous years.

So before all of this had happened, I think, you know, we had already talked about changing the application.

We were submitting for $900,000 for fire and $700,000 for police.

So I think that that application had already kind of adjusted to equal out before.

That was the only additional money that we were getting, so it wasn't— it's about $800,000 and $805,000 that was received for the fire department.

And again, we've— we had been spending that, so without this change taking place, we would have spent $400,000 through January to June of this calendar year.

We would have spent the other $400,000 from July to December.

Instead, I'm pretty sure we expended all $800,000 before the end of January.

All right, with that I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything further?

Nope.

Uh, conclude our appropriation discussion, correct, Madam Clerk?

Just one second.

Yep, the other one was a loan order.

Yep, that would be it.

6.7a would be it.

You also have item 6.

Uh, item 6 is a transfer in appropriation for the opioid stabilization fund.

Yeah, we just did that.

You did that one?

Yeah, I introduced that item.

That's for 331,636.27.

Yeah, that's 6.

I introduced that item.

Thank you.

And I guess that is it.

Item 5, revolving funds.

That's not a transfer, that's establishing funds.

That's in full council.

No, it's not establishing that, it's just— yeah, I didn't know if you wanted to talk about the appropriation amounts.

Okay, what is the discussion?

It's setting I didn't know if there was a discussion.

I don't know if we're going to do it in finance or— yeah, no, usually the council doesn't.

Normally it's the will of the council.

It's the will.

You want to, you want to ask your revolving fund question now?

Oh yeah, yeah, I'll introduce the item.

Item Mayor, establishing spending funds for revolving funds for fiscal year 2027, uh, item 5 in full council.

Councilman C1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you.

So, uh, just going through this list.

I know in ordinance we have a number— it's got to be established in ordinance.

So I was just going through, I noticed that there were a number of revolving accounts in ordinance that are not currently on this list.

Just curious why.

So it's facilities, vehicle trade-in, solid waste recovery, streetlight repair.

We've got the trolley slash handicap bus, and then culinary arts.

So the culinary arts, my understanding is that that is the CVTE.

I don't know why it's called that.

I was— yeah, because I was, I was going to ask that.

That was going to be my next question.

I don't see the CVTE revolving fund.

It's the culinary arts one.

I don't know, to be honest with you, I don't know what the CVTE is, but that I know that that is one and the same.

I don't know what those letters stand for though.

Okay.

Um, so those other funds, it's my understanding that they just haven't been in operation as of late, and that's why that they're not included on it, um, because they haven't been utilized.

So are there no funds associated with those in those accounts?

There, there could be a balance in them, but we haven't been utilizing it.

So I can pull that information, um, and just and let you know, but there's been no request to utilize those funds, um, by those departments.

I don't think they're very active in receiving new monies needing expenses to go out, and I think that's why.

Okay.

And even the trolley, do we not have fees for the trolley or no?

Yes, we do have fees for the trolley.

So do those not get deposited into the revolving fund?

Uh, they should be.

Yeah, I'm not— I can look into that.

Again, this is— I've been working off of, you know, what we've been doing.

I know we added the library one in, and so I can confirm what's— how that's operating, if those fees are, you know, operating the general fund, if we are doing the revolving fund for them.

If you don't mind, just, you know, look at the— I guess the 4 that I, I just mentioned, make sure that we just don't need that for the future spending.

Can you just repeat the other 3?

So it's, um, vehicle trade-in, but it's specifically for facilities.

Then there was the solid waste recovery.

I'm not sure.

I think that was from when we had the Enterprise Fund.

Okay.

And then there's the streetlight repair, and then the trolley slash handicap bus, and then— not sure.

So, and then I guess in the other accounts, do you, do you have the balances associated with, with each account?

I'm just curious to see where we are with regards to where the limit is versus what the, the balance is.

So, um, I do have all of those numbers, um, in front of me.

It's, it's a point-in-time snapshot.

Obviously we haven't fully rolled the year, but I do have those numbers.

Um, I want to be clear that all of the departments that are listed on here, um, with the exception of the community maintenance one, um, I sent out the fund balance to all the departments to confirm what they wanted for their amount for the year.

So So, you know, if there is a higher balance in there, these numbers are coming from the department, so I can't fully speak to why they may want or not want to use more.

Sorry, these are in fund order number, not necessarily in order of the list.

Just give me a second so I can make this less confusing for everybody.

So the first one on the list is for the fire department.

There is a balance in there of $131,000.

The cleaning and securing buildings, so that's the— I'm going to say vacant and blighted lots— there's a balance of $105,000.

Um, demolition, there is a balance of $100— I'm sorry, $1,631,000.

Um, community maintenance, the home composting is a balance of $7,000.

The moorings— is that the next one?

I'm sorry.

Moorings maintenance, um, that has a balance of $41,500.

I'm rounding these, to be clear.

I can get you the exact reports if you want them.

No, the round is fine.

Um, I just don't want people to think that they were that perfect, because they're not.

Um, the police cruiser fund has a balance of, um, $547,000.

The— can we just, uh, so what makes up that, that revenue that comes in there?

Is that like details?

Do we put vehicles in there?

It's the details that either— I think it's— I'm not sure where this one— I don't have it fully in front of me, but I think it's when they are requesting a cruiser to be on site specifically.

There's a certain fee that they're able to charge, but then there is also a portion of the admin fee in a general sense with details that we're able to charge that also goes into here, is my understanding.

And do you know how many— how many do we use this account every year to purchase vehicles, or So, not necessarily.

It's kind of, before now, my understanding is that they would just say when they want to, and they would use the money in there.

So, I think they've been buying about one a year.

That's about what has been appropriated towards it.

I plan to, you know, I started having conversations already with the police department in the sense of the capital plan and how we're forecasting and planning to make sure that we're factoring this in.

So yes and no, there isn't.

I think it's just been about one a year is what they try to do.

But if there was ever more available, they would come down for an increase for that year to spend it.

I am going to skip the school ones for now and just give you the library one since I think just on the school, were they included?

So you, you asked the schools about?

Yeah, and I have all those reports.

I just wanted to give you the balance for library.

I was just asking about sending.

You said you sent out.

I did.

I sent it over as well.

Department.

And they confirmed the limits?

Yes.

Okay.

So library revolving fund, there's a balance currently of $1,900.

Oh gosh, all right, these are all out of order, I apologize.

School department summer tuition, there's a balance of $245,000.

Um, which probably is due to the timing of it being summer, but the athletic events, there is a balance of $47,000, $48,000.

The music revolving, there's a balance of $20,500.

Um, let me— the school store one, I believe, is in with one of these, so give me a second to go back to that.

The daycare services is a balance of $213,000.

The school building use, I believe that that is the one that is combined with the school store, the revenue.

It's in 2 different line items, but that one has a total balance of $686,000.

And you said that that's both school store combined?

I think so, but I'd have to look back at my emails.

I had that same question, um, when I was going through this, so I can confirm that.

But I believe that is where it's combined with, but I can confirm that again for you after the fact.

Um, and then the last one is the CVTE, um, and that is a balance of $303,000.

I'm sorry, what was it?

$303,000.

Okay, and I think that's all of them.

All right, thank you.

I yield.

Anything further?

Uh, Councilman Siegfried, Councilor O'Connell.

Thank you.

Can you just repeat the Police Cruiser 1, uh, balance?

I'm just gonna flip back through.

I'm sorry, $547,000.

$547,000.

Yeah, $547,000.

Okay, that's what I thought.

So my question is, the request is an authorized spending limit of $80,000 for that fund.

So, what would happen to the other, the difference?

Well, that's why there is such a big balance right now, is because I'm sure each year, so I can see right here, just for '26, 'cause I only pulled, you know, for '26 at that point, the revenue that came in was just shy of $180,000.

And so, I believe last year the limit that was set might have been $60,000.

So with that, you know, if they even had spent that, there would have been surplus.

It doesn't seem like they did expend that this year.

So with that, all of that's being turned into the fund balance.

So they can increase that at any point.

This is the whole point of the revolving fund is you set this limit, and so then as long as they have enough money that's in there, they can spend that.

But if they want to do more, we could come back down.

So I mean, the demolition one is in there for $1.6 million this year.

Year because we have that demolition, but that limit is normally lower.

So rather than coming down in a separate time and amending it, we just left it at that higher amount given that current demolition plan.

But if we, um, want to, we could come back down at another point throughout the year and say, you know, we're requesting to increase that spending limit for this year to spend down some of that balance.

Yeah, thank you.

Are you okay?

Anything further?

Motion to adjourn the Committee on Finance has been made by Councilor Canuel, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

City Council meeting will be called to order at 7:55 PM.

Madam Clerk, roll call.

Councilor Kadim.

Here.

Tamara.

Here.

Canuel.

Here.

Dion.

Here.

Hart.

Peckham.

Here.

Carrera.

Here.

Raposo.

Here.

President Ponte.

Here.

Once again, Councilor Hart is, uh, not, uh, going to join us.

He is sick.

He did, uh, call me earlier today.

If everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

Thank you, and a salute to the flag.

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

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

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

Madam Clerk, good evening.

Good evening.

The first item before you, Mr. President, is an item that was objected to at the last meeting.

It's a communication from the mayor and an order appropriating $1,400,000 from the FY25 surplus revenue to fire salaries.

Motion to lift from the table.

Second.

Lift the item from the table is made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Kadim.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Motion opposed?

Motion to grant leave to withdraw.

Motion to grant the item leave to withdraw has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Canuel.

Roll call on granting the financial order leave to withdraw.

Councilors Kadim?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Peckham?

Yes.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 8 yeas.

Item 2A is a communication from the mayor and a request for the confirmation of the reappointment of Joyce Rodricks to the Historical Commission.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm the reappointment has been made by Councilor Cannuel, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And item 2B is for the reappointment of Maria Connie Sewell, also to the Historical Commission.

Motion to confirm.

Motion to confirm the reappointment has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Cannuel.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

Ayes have it.

Item 3A is, uh, communication from the mayor and the original July continuing appropriation budget order for FY 2027.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Supposed to be approved one.

Hearing Councilman Seat too.

Yeah, I just want to clarify the reason that As I understand it, we're rejecting this because you use the terminology free cash and we can't use free cash.

What item are you talking about?

I can't hear you, Councilor.

What was that?

The item that we're going to vote on right now, 3A.

Okay, that's right.

The original appropriation has— is there a motion to waive the rules?

What is your question?

I, I know it's a point of information.

I made a motion to reject because 3A has the one with free cash.

3B is the one— is the updated one that does not have— we can't approve both.

We have to— just want to make it clear.

Yep.

Motion to— any further discussion, Council?

No, I'm good.

Motion to— thank you, you're good.

Motion to reject item 3A has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr. President, Um, how would you like to take the vote on rejecting the order?

The prior appropriation orders were rejected by line item and then reduced down to zero to avoid any issue with the interpretation of the council's vote.

Um, my suggestion would be to reject by section so that you don't have to go by line item.

You're talking about 3A that we just rejected?

But the section would include A and B, correct?

No, she means 3B is a separate vote.

Uh, I'm going to take your recommendation, Madam Clerk, and we'll do that.

Is there a— what is the will of the council on the appropriation?

I'm fine with that.

Okay, can we, uh, hear a motion?

Motion to take it section by section.

Motion to take section by section has been made by Council Vice President Dion, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

Councilman, we need to do a motion to reconsider first.

Uh, we just rejected it.

Now we're going to reject it in sections.

I don't necessarily think it's necessary for reconsideration.

Motion to now reject it by section has been made and seconded.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Madam Clerk, Section A, for the purpose of general government, in the amount of $268,394,000.

Excuse me, $268,394.70.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section B, for the purpose of administration, in the amount of $1,729,917.42.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section C, for the purpose of financial services, in the amount of $176,561.49.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The have it.

Section D, for the purpose of facilities maintenance, in the amount of $379,474.03.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section E, for the purpose of community maintenance, in the amount of $2,155,960.93.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section F, for the purpose of community service, in the amount of $339,158.39.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section G, for the purpose of education, $377,000.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section H, for the purpose of community protection, in the amount of $3,909,000— excuse me, $3,905,116.77.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section I, for the purpose of other governmental expenses, in the amount of $11,520,135.61.

Motion to reject made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Cannuel.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Ayes have it.

And then the next section are the funding sources in the amount of $24,794,922.51.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Raposo.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And then is it the will of the council to reduce the appropriation order to Motion to reduce the appropriation order to zero has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

And then adopt as amended, if I could.

It'd be the will of the council to adopt the item as amended.

So made.

Motion to adopt as amended has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Council in seat 4, Council Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, I have one question.

And I might have to, um, make a motion to waive the rules.

I'm a little bit confused.

Um, so the other budget, because of $150,000, was rejected.

That dollar amount is not in 3B, but yet the total dollar amount remains the same in both appropriations— $24,794,922.51.

And on the— and in B, it's $24,794,922.

How can that number be— Motion to waive the rules has been made by— Can we finish the— well, can we just finish this first one?

We're rejecting it.

Yeah, we reject— we just, we just, we, we have a motion on the floor to adopt it as a— that was a yes then.

I didn't vote, so I'm just— just to be clear, uh, Councilman C4, you have the floor, but we have a motion on the floor to finish 3A.

Which is to— we did, we reduced it to zero.

Motion has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adopt it as amended is correct.

Madam Clerk, item 3B is the revised appropriation order for the month of July as a continuing appropriation budget for FY 2027.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve has been made by Councilor Raposo.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Council on C4.

Councilor Vice President Dionne.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to waive the rules.

Second.

Motion to waive the rules has been made by Councilor Vice President Dionne, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

3B.

I could be missing something, I could be misinterpreting, but those 2 dollar amounts are the same, but yet it was reduced by $150,000.

So when you say the 2 dollar amounts are the same, the operating budget amount is the same, is that, is that what you're talking about?

The general fund and operating budget are identical, correct?

Correct.

So that is the budget.

The $24 million number is the budget.

The funding sources is to approve outside sources.

So what number would be changing, and it is different, is that from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts.

So that does go up by $150,000.

So that was just— I mean, literally the line was left in there and it shouldn't have been.

That was purely an oversight when I was amending the order to send it in, and it should have been pulled out.

Everything else is pretty formulated within these spreadsheets that I use.

And that— all right, so I guess my question would be, so from ordinary revenue, municipal receipts was $20,920,000 in the 3A appropriation with the $150,000, but we took it out so it no longer exists, but the other number went up.

I could just be being confused.

So the expenses stayed the same, the full plan for expenditures remained the same.

So everything above the total general fund operating budget did not change.

There was no intent to change it.

It's just the funding sources line, which is honestly— it's an informational piece at this point because I wasn't requesting free cash.

I can't request free cash at this point.

There's nothing in there for stabilization.

And then the revenues from the EMS, water, and sewer, you actually approved on their appropriation orders.

So it's just an informational piece that that revenue is coming in.

So then whatever's not funded with that is funded with ordinary.

So the rest of the general fund funding, and that doesn't require— how we fund these items does not require a vote.

What requires a vote is funding stabilization or free cash.

That's what— and then obviously from the EMS, water, sewer, you approve those within those fund appropriation orders.

So even though we took $150,000 out, the numbers all stay the same.

It's a revenue source that you took out.

So the expenses stayed the same.

It was— and like I said, it was a typo.

It wasn't like we actually put an expense in and decided to pull it out.

It just shouldn't have been in there as a funding source.

Okay, then I yield.

Thank you.

Councilman Seat 1, Councilor Kadeem.

Thank you.

I guess so my first question is, when can we anticipate the budget coming back down before us?

So, um, we have heard your concerns about know, what is outstanding and why we don't have a budget at this point in time.

Um, so I don't have what I think would be sufficient for everybody to answer all 3 of those items.

So that would be the MOA, the, uh, school transportation, and then the, um, information from PARAC on the pensions.

So once we have that, um, in hand, we would be resubmitting it.

My goal has been and is still before the end of July, but I also recognize that there's not another meeting until August 11th, so the goal would be to have something in front of you by then.

But without any of those pieces of information back and provided to all of you, you'd be getting the same thing that was rejected on June 30th, and that felt like a waste of everybody's time.

So how close are we on those 3?

So I was told last week— no, I was told before the 4th that I would have it from the pension stuff from PARAC, that I would have it by Friday of last week.

So I followed up again.

Remind me again, what's the pension issue?

The liability amount and the funding from that.

So it's not the biggest issue, but it's— part of it is just making sure that the pension liability and the appropriation for that is correct by department at that point.

So it's a, it's a minor thing, to be honest with you, but, um, that's the timeline on that that I have then.

Is there.

So I— we did have a meeting with school department, um, a big meeting with several people in it.

So, um, there is a follow-up meeting happening this week, um, between myself and the new CFO over there.

The problem is he's not here full-time right now, so the timing of being able to schedule that isn't as easy, I think, as everybody would like it to be.

So we're just working on, you know, scheduling those meetings and getting that firmed up for you.

And then the MOA is obviously between the mayor's office and city council, so I don't have a timeline for you on that.

Okay, so my, my first issue with even approving this is that the school department doesn't even have an appropriation.

So there's— if we approve this budget, they've got— and I'm not sure how they're operating now— so they're $377,000 for transportation.

There's, there's no no appropriation.

So the opinion that was provided is that the approval that happened on June 3rd for the school operating budget and for the school assessments was approved and nothing was done to rescind or recant.

Whose opinion was that?

It was between Corporation Counsel and the state.

That's the one we had a conversation.

So, and the state?

Yeah, we talked to I spoke specifically with Ken Woodward myself.

Alan did as well.

So, so we, we voted a line item on the expenses with no appropriation.

We zeroed out the appropriation, and they're saying that they have an appropriation.

How's that even possible?

We zeroed it.

There was, there was no— even when we— on June 3rd.

So I made the motion, right?

And I was, I was a little tired, right?

So I wanted to get the school department their budget.

So we approved their line item expense.

Then we subsequently took a vote to— for the appropriation.

We zeroed out the appropriation.

There is no appropriation whatsoever.

We said that to legal counsel.

That's why I said that I had no confidence in legal opinion.

I mean, I don't know how you can have a budget without an appropriation.

There is no appropriation that has ever been voted on by the City Council.

All the appropriations have been zero.

So the school department is operating without without an appropriation.

I, I'm not a lawyer and I can't speak to the rules provided, but that's, that's the basis that I'm operating on.

That's why it wasn't included.

I understand.

I'm not a lawyer.

I don't need to be a lawyer to understand finance.

No, I just meant to respond to that, that it's— no, no, I, I get it.

And this is not appropriation stood.

So this, this is not directed to you.

This is directed to the attorneys who tried to play things other than they should really kind of focus in on.

And give an opinion to say that there's an appropriation when the city council zeroed out an appropriation is just absolutely ludicrous.

I don't even know how we sell that, right?

I really don't know how we sell it.

So I'm going to be rejecting this budget until we get an appropriation for the schools.

The schools need an appropriation.

Every other department has an appropriation, and I've heard some argument that, you know, Chapter 70 is in there.

Well, unrestricted local aid is in here as well, and And, you know, we have to appropriate every single department that's before us.

So the schools are no different.

It requires an appropriation from, from the City Council.

And I maintain and stick by the fact that there has been $0 appropriated to any department on any City Council meeting that we've had in June and July.

There was $0 that have been appropriated.

So right now, the Department does not in this 1/12 budget, which we don't have to approve.

The only thing we need to do as a city council is reduce or reject.

There's no approval required for us.

I would suggest that you just submit something back down to us with an appropriation from the schools, and then we'll take it up at the next meeting.

And if we don't have a meeting in July, you automatically have your 1/12 budget that you need.

But from my standpoint, I'm, I'm not supporting this as it stands because the school department does not have a budget.

Without a yield.

Thank you, Councilman C4.

Council Vice President Dionne.

Yeah, and, um, that was spoken about at the last meeting, and I want to piggyback on what Councilman Seatwell was saying.

We made it very clear.

So to the— through the president to the clerk, um, when we did the zero appropriation, we never ever ever amended the appropriation to keep the money for the school department in the budget.

All line items were at zero, amended to zero, with the, um, the subsequent appropriation orders.

The, the first one, the council did approve those 2 appropriations.

Then the mayor subsequently submitted a new appropriation order with those same line items.

Ever since that meeting, the council has reduced those down to zero.

We did.

We performed the same function twice, line by line, rejection, $0 appropriation.

So on June 3rd, it was not— yes, both meetings, absolutely, after June 3rd.

So I was stating that the June 3rd appropriation is what is what I was told stands, not the June 23rd and not the June 30th.

The June 3rd, the first one, that Wednesday night, that those 2 line items were approved, not rejected.

Just a point of clarification.

Were you told that by the state or by Attorney Ramsey?

Well, okay, it was conversation.

So the state doesn't make the final determination on it.

They said the corporation counsel does, but there was conversations with him that I had myself about this, and I had shared the orders, and it was ultimately the decision that he said that corporation counsel had the final say, but he said he had seen something similar, and there was no act to rescind the vote that was taken so that it would stay the end.

Councilman Seat 1, your point of clarification.

Point of clarification to the clerk: what was the appropriation on June 3rd?

I understand we— I understand we approved the expense budget.

What was the appropriation?

The appropriation was zero.

The, uh, on June 3rd it wasn't.

The appropriation order was the mayor's original budget.

The council rejected all of the line items with the exception of the 2, but what appropriation funding source was zeroed out?

For the school department.

So what—that's what I'm saying.

We're back to what exactly what I said.

There is no funding source for the school department online.

No, the funding source is the appropriation.

There's no appropriation.

Correct.

We we how my question is: How do you send expenses to the school department?

We appropriate, right?

How do you get an appropriation to the school department without an appropriation?

Yes, we agree.

We agreed with the appropriation.

The individual lines, the expenses that we're going over, right?

We rejected the entire amount.

We've never appropriated any dollar to the budget.

Point of clarification, on it before June 3rd.

June 3rd, all of them.

And June— this council has never appropriated any revenue.

That is correct.

Correct.

That is correct.

You said without revenue, how can you appropriate something?

You can't.

But you don't appropriate the revenue part.

We— oh my God.

Councilor in seat 4, council Just to be clear, Councilman C4, you have the floor, and then I'm going to acknowledge other councilors who raised their hand.

Councilman C4.

Yes.

Um, first of all, you keep saying we approved 2 line items.

What were the 2?

G1 and G3.

So that's school operating.

So for 2, it's 212.

I don't have the exact order.

And what's the other?

The school assessment.

So what we paid to Diamond and, um, Oh my God, Bristol County, Aggie.

All right, because I knew he kept saying 2 and I wasn't clear.

So the 3rd one that wasn't is transportation, which is why it's included on the 112th in that way.

So again, if that's wrong— but the bottom line to the story is, and I don't know how you can— you know, I can say, gee, I opened up a savings account today with 10 cents and I'm gonna put $50 in it and then never put the money in.

If the money's not there, it's not there.

That's what happened.

Yes, we made it.

Yes, we said yes for the school budget in a line item.

Approving a line item is not appropriating the cash to subsidize that line item.

What we had to do and what we didn't do— it was actually a mistake on our part, but in the end result, it is what it is.

The next step we should have taken if we were going to approve a budget for the school department would have been to deduct everything from the appropriation except the school department budget, and it would have been approved with whatever dollar amount was going to fund the school department.

We did not take that step.

We never did that.

We voted on a $0 appropriation June 3rd and June 17th, both times.

There is no money, never was, and still isn't.

And maybe that needs to be explained to DOR, because if it was explained any other way, they're not going to tell you the funding's there.

Trust me.

I just— I had shared the orders as they were shared with me, so again, I can't— I think they understand zero equals zero, not a million dollars or $2 million or whatever dollar amount needs to be applied.

Um, and then I— and I have one more, and I One more question on this.

So we also, prior to doing the budget, did the EMS indirects, and we reduced those, correct?

I don't— I apologize, I don't have it with me.

I should have it with me, I don't.

What was— what we reduced the pension liability to, what dollar amount?

Do you remember?

Do you have it, the exact number?

I don't.

It's something around $600 $600,000.

It was reduced by $600,000.

So let's assume it was, and the pensions where it was at, what, 2.3?

So it should be 1.6 it was reduced to.

Yeah, something about that.

Yeah.

Okay, well, if you multiply 12 times the dollar amount you here— you have here for EMS pensions, it comes out to $2,346,000.

$2,954.40.

So you're taking out too much money.

So this, this funding source isn't what we're necessarily taking.

We're taking whatever is appropriated in their budget.

So, okay, but $2.3 million is not appropriate in their budget.

We reduced it to $1.6 million.

Correct.

So whatever that number was approved at is what's in their budget and would be coming over in the one So the pension liability is going to be— if we stayed— I know we can't stay on a 112 for 12 months, I know that.

We can do it for 90 days.

But if we stayed on track for 12 months, you'd be at the $2.3 million original dollars.

So what are you going to do?

It's going to— the pension would reduce with this amount, would adjust.

If I made an incorrect calculation on what this funding source number is, it would come down.

I would adjust it, but But it's not adjusted in the August one either.

There isn't an August one.

There's no August continuing appropriation yet.

I have not, I have not completed that.

So if you have one, I don't know who you got it from.

Well, then it needs to be adjusted in August because the $192,000 is way off.

I, I don't— I'm, I, I'm not saying no, I'm not saying yes.

Yeah, no, no, absolutely look at it and I'm happy to correct it.

I I did this at 8:30 at night after the meeting on June 30th, so I apologize that mistakes were made.

Yep, no, that's fine.

And I wish I, I should have brought it with me.

I didn't.

With that, I'll yield to my counselor in seat 1.

I mean, I don't, I don't know that we need to continue to go on, but it's zero appropriation with the expenses.

I don't know how we get an opinion that there's an appropriation, so So I personally don't believe that the school department has any appropriation whatsoever, and with the budget that is approved before us, they will continue not to have it other than transportation, which is paid for by the city.

So at that, I yield.

Councilman C8, Councilor Raposo.

Yeah, through you, Mr. President, to the clerk.

So I'm looking at the minutes from the June 3rd meeting, and it states that G1 carried unanimously on voice vote, and G3 also carried unanimously on voice vote, and that's on the appropriation order.

That's on the expense side, yes.

Yeah, but how do you spend expenses without revenue?

I'm just, just stating the fact.

That's what we— nobody's arguing that.

Yeah, everybody agrees with that.

Um, that's what I'm, I'm just trying to clarify here.

Who said that?

Is that correct?

Yes, I understand.

I just wanted to ask the question.

Thank you very much.

Field.

Thank you.

Councilor in seat 7, Councilor Pereira.

I'm good.

Councilor in seat 6, Councilor Peckham.

Um, I just want to mention that I was going to reject this too, and the reason being I sent you guys an email on July 6th questioning similar to this discussion and nobody got back to me.

I, I, I thought I responded to your emails about the 150.

I'm— no, the only, the only person that responded to me was the DOR because I included the DOR on this I, I couldn't look back because I, I swear I sent something.

I, I don't know what happened.

And I had— and I have emailed you quite a few times in the past couple of weeks, so that, that's fine.

Um, but it doesn't make sense.

And I'll just touch upon what Councilor Khadim is 100% correct— there's no money to use.

So where— what are we doing?

I mean, money is still coming in.

We sent out first quarter tax bills.

We are still getting our state appropriations in, so money is still coming into the city.

I just want to be clear on that.

It's not that money is— so yeah, but we're strapped.

We haven't appropriated it.

Correct.

That's the separate issue.

But I just wanted to be clear, money is still coming in.

Okay, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Sieg.

3, Councilor Cannell.

Thank you.

Through you to the clerk, if the motion to reject was made and move through?

Does government just shut down tomorrow?

What's the process?

It's a very good question, Councillor.

No, I would, I would submit an appropriation order tonight as soon as I leave here so that we don't do that.

Could we, uh, could you not just send an amended one, I think, to the point that the school department's not in here?

I could as well.

So you could act on this and then I could send down another one that includes those amounts, um, to increase that and include schools.

So that is another option.

It's obviously the will of the council, but I could also do that.

Either way, I'll be sending something down pretty much immediately.

So, so will of the council from there.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor C1.

Councilor Lakadeem.

Thank you.

So government doesn't shut down, they're gonna just submit the continuing appropriation tomorrow, and then it continues.

What I will say is that it's July 14th, and there seems to be no sense of urgency from the administration with regards to a budget.

So that's the bigger issue and bigger concern that I have.

The fact that we continue to get legal opinions that make absolutely no sense whatsoever is another issue that I continue to have with Corporation Counsel.

So I'm going to reject this, but the fact that the administration does not have a budget before us and we're talking about July 14th, is extremely concerning.

So with that, I yield.

Councilman C7, Councilor LaPera.

Yeah, I think what Emily said was she was waiting to get some information from PARAC, from other people.

You're saying the financial officer over at the school department, he's only part-time?

Did you yield?

I just raised my hands to get the floor.

Oh, I thought maybe you didn't.

Yeah.

Um, that you hadn't yelled.

Um, and it's only part-time.

Well, you just got hired, for crying out loud.

You can't come in?

He's not— he's not hired officially yet.

He has not left his former job.

He's not hired?

I, I don't— I don't know.

I'm not here to speak to that, but my understanding is his employment has not ended there yet.

He has accepted clarification that he has 2 minutes— like 2 jobs within municipalities right now.

He's working— that's what I'm saying.

I don't think he is fully here that We have offered— can we find out?

Because I don't think the retirement board would like that too much.

Correct.

I, I don't believe he's getting paid, but we can clarify that.

Like I said, it's not mine to speak to, but I know he is not here full-time at this point.

So thank you.

Okay, I thought that he was here, and even though he's working part-time, maybe you could meet with him on a day that he comes in.

Well, we, we are, but it's just not as easy to just meet whenever we want is what I was trying to say.

He's not hired.

Why are we meeting with him if he's not hired?

We're going to meet with people that aren't hired, and that doesn't make sense.

What I was going to say is, as soon as you can put a budget together and you can rectify, you know, the MOA and the PERAC and school department transportation, etc., even— you don't have to wait till August, correct?

As soon as we have it, we will.

As soon as you have it, bring it in so we can get this.

We will.

No, we have to have a special meeting to do it, so be it.

But if you're waiting, you know, for information I, I understand that, and that's fine.

I was a little confused about the finance person on the school department.

I thought that person had been hired, didn't realize they weren't.

But if he's not hired, why are you meeting with him?

I mean, now I'm a little bit more confused, so maybe I shouldn't have even asked this question.

I should have just sat back and relaxed.

Um, but when you have it ready, let the president know, and we'll see how many councilors can be here.

You yield, Councilor?

I yield.

Councilman Seat 1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you.

Just in, in terms of conversations with the school finance director, is there nobody else on the school side?

I mean, what— the budget should have been built back in December.

We're having a conversation about transportation.

What, what is the issue with transportation that we can't get rectified?

Any information on how it was built?

Than 5% was added to the previous budget.

There's no additional information.

I know, I know I got one contract, not all the contracts, but there's one contract that I've seen that says it's a 5% escalator clause.

That's on one of them.

That's not consistent across all of them.

And what you're saying is, is accurate.

But I don't understand, like, how are we still nowhere close to having information on transportation?

I would— I— that's a great question that we've been consistently asking.

So I— it's not my information that I have.

I didn't build that budget.

So that's what I've been trying to get.

So I, I don't have a better answer for you than that.

So, but when, when did you start asking those questions?

We started talking about this at the beginning of June.

But that's, that's the problem.

That's the problem that I have.

I don't know about my— any, any of my other colleagues, but I have a problem that we're asking transportation questions and how it was built in June, right?

That, that's the issue that I have, right?

So now we have a CFO who is— or a business manager, whatever the title is— is now leaving, and we've got to wait for the new guy to come in and have a conversation, and we're gonna go to August without a budget.

I don't know.

And then to the council president and vice president, has any discussion been had about the MOA, or is that just— were we ignoring the MOA?

What are we doing in terms of that?

Is that any discussion?

Has anybody picked up the telephone?

Has there been any dialogue whatsoever, or are we just going to continue to try to blame the council for taking our sweet time on approving the budget?

Uh, there hasn't been any meetings that we have scheduled yet on the MOA.

The mayor has, uh, did call me when I was in the building last week asking if I could come up, and I couldn't.

He asked me yesterday at the— at an event if I could come today, and I couldn't.

Other than that, there has been no dialogue with me.

I don't know if there's been any other dialogue with other the councillors.

All right, so the administration is good with the continuation appropriation.

Well, he's asked them twice.

Cool.

All right, so I guess we'll just continue this until next month.

Stay tuned.

I yield.

Um, out of councillor in seat 7, you can't go because you have something else to do that you can't go.

Let's— yeah, yeah, no, I let councillor, um, the vice president go.

At least we'll get something.

Totally.

I, to be clear, the mayor just asked me, do you have time to come in and chat?

That wasn't like, hey, can you come in and speak on the MOA?

It was just, he often asks me, if you're around and you're in the building, come upstairs and let's chat.

And that's all it was.

Well, send him an email saying pick a day, we're going to come in and we're going to talk.

Got it.

What do you have?

That's what you do.

He's usually— I mean, if I call and say I want to come in and talk, he gives me a date.

So get a date or let the vice president go in.

You bet.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Out of curiosity, Ms. Arkey, I believe the mayor did vote on $17 million for transportation on the school department when he was as chair of the school committee.

Has there been any dialogue from that $17 million vote that the mayor had to now you presenting a completely different number on what changed between his vote and your numbers?

Yes, the, the budget that is sent down is the mayor's.

I know.

Yes, I put in work to but that conversation happened in the submission process with the administration before anything was presented to council in May.

I just didn't understand why there would be a yes vote on $17 million for transportation and the mayor's budget that he presents to the city council has a completely different number to it.

I'm trying to understand that.

That's a conversation with the mayor.

Understood.

I'll add that to our agenda clarification.

It seems like it's circumventing the school committee.

Thank you.

I asked a question.

And so is, uh, is there a motion?

Councilman Seat 1, Councilor Kareem.

I'm just going to follow up.

So the question, did you have the conversation with the mayor why he voted on a $17 million transportation number, and if he had any documentation?

I mean, you submitted $16 million.

Clearly you're having conversations with the mayor.

You said that's a conversation for the mayor.

Did you have a conversation with the mayor as to why he voted for $17 million versus $16 million, and did he provide you the documentation that would show why he voted on $17 million?

No, he did not.

He did not have documentation on voting for the $17 million.

They don't have that, anything more than what is in the school budget that you all have for that $17 million.

So that is— it's always been voted on in that way.

So after that was done, there was conversations about the number and, and where the number comes from and what the figures look like, and that's how the number was then amended with the mayor.

But he voted with the $17 million feeling comfortable that the number is $17 million, right?

I cannot speak to his decision-making in the voting.

No, I don't know.

I do not know.

And what his comfort level was when he made the vote, that's not a conversation I've had with him.

Okay.

Isn't there an assistant person that worked under, uh, Kevin Almeida?

A woman?

We have been asking.

We have been asked.

I want to be very clear.

We have asked.

We We have talked to school administration.

We have talked to a number of people there.

Like I said, we had a meeting there with— I want to say there were 7 of them in the room.

Nobody can give me numbers and figures and calculations on how the number was created.

Everybody refers to Kevin on that.

Maybe he's not in the room for that conversation.

So I just— with that, I yield.

Thank you.

Further— thank you.

Just for the record, I want to just make make it clear.

I know the interim city administrator is here.

If you could just please reach out to myself and Council Vice President tomorrow so we can schedule a meeting.

I am not attending a meeting without the other council leadership.

Council Vice President, we've done this before, we'll continue to do it.

So if we can get that done, certainly like we've always done, we'll accommodate any kind of an appointment necessary.

Okay, so what is the vote?

Is there a motion?

A motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham.

I believe this motion on the— there's a motion on the floor right now to approve that has been, uh, made and seconded.

The motion to reject, I'm going to hear, has been heard by Councilor Peckham.

Is there a second?

Was there a second to the motion to reject?

Seconded by Councilor Kadim.

Is there discussion on the motion to reject?

Hearing none, roll call.

Mr. President, is the motion to approve, uh, being withdrawn, or are you first considering the motion to reject?

I, I Well, is there a— is there a will?

Well, you know, that's a good point.

I'll take that back.

There is a motion on the floor to approve that has been made by Councilor Raposo.

Who seconded that motion?

Who?

Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Pereira, is there a will to act on— let's act on that.

Motion to approve has been made and seconded.

Roll call.

Councilor Skadeem?

No.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

Yes.

Dion?

No.

Hart.

Peckham?

No.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

No.

Motion fails, 4 yeas, 4 nays.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Roll call.

Like the first order, is it the will of the council to take the appropriation order line by section by section?

We can.

We can.

Is there?

Is there a motion on the?

Let's let's do the first one.

Let's do that.

Let's let's make a motion to reject them, and then we can make that vote like we did last time.

Motion to reject has been made and seconded.

Roll call.

Councilor Skadeem.

Yes.

Camara.

No.

Canuel.

No.

Dion.

Yes.

Hart.

Peckham.

Yes.

Pereira.

No.

Raposo.

No.

President Ponte.

Yes.

Motion fails to carry.

4 yeas, 4 nays.

And just for the record, there is no appropriation for the school department.

Can I get that on the record?

There is not.

Okay, so, all right, just saying we've made that clear.

Okay.

So, you know, I, I don't know.

That's just mind-boggling.

It's okay, whatever.

Madam Clerk, is it necessary to go section by section?

Can I— Councilman C1, your point of information?

Fair enough.

Councilman C1, you have a point of information?

Not, not a point of information.

I got a statement to make.

Okay, go ahead.

We have a responsibility not to just one department, to all departments.

I don't care what anybody says, we never appropriated for the schools.

So how are we gonna say that we advocate for education and not reject this budget to get funding so that they can just resubmit a 1/12 budget tomorrow to give us appropriation for the school department?

I guess we're all status quo with, you know, we can do whatever we want to do, we just ignore the rules, we don't need to follow, you know, Mass law, forget Massachusetts general laws, let's throw everything out.

We got legal opinion opinions that will say the opposite of everything that, you know, the legislature has— legislation has put in, right?

We have zero appropriation for the schools.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Ferrara.

Do we really have to vote on a 1/12, or it just goes in the way it does without our approval?

No, it goes in as it is, but there is no appropriation for the schools other than transportation.

That's what I'm saying.

First came in, we were told we don't need to have a meeting we don't have to approve it or disapprove it, it just automatically goes in.

I understand what he's saying.

There's nothing there, but quite frankly, we don't really need to approve it.

If you want, I'll reconsider, take the vote, and can she have something tomorrow?

If she has something tomorrow, we're gonna come in in 48 hours.

No, she doesn't need us tomorrow.

That's the point.

That was the point.

She doesn't need us to approve the budget, the 1/12.

She'll submit a continuing appropriation tomorrow, which will include the school schools, we don't even have to take a vote.

Motion to reconsider.

Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing discussion, Councilman Seat 3, Councilor Cannuel, on discussion, uh, on the motion to reconsider.

Uh, Miss Harpke had indicated that if we took a— if we did not reject it, she would send a revised one down tonight including the school department.

Mr. President, if I may.

Madam Clerk, since the motion to reject failed, with absent a council vote to reduce or reject, the appropriation order is in effect.

It continues to be in effect until she sends it down tomorrow.

There is no need— the next appropriation order that is needed would be for the month of August or the annual appropriation.

But if she sends one down for a revised July one, as she indicated she that included the school department that would take effect over this.

Can I just— no, can we— Councilman C1, just, just, can we play the logic out for a second?

So we're gonna hope the administration does something.

You know how long I've been hoping?

I've been on this council for 10 years and I've been hoping for a whole lot for the last 10 years, that we would have good government.

And guess what?

We haven't had good government for the last 10 years.

So we're gonna do this again and just hope that something comes comes down, as opposed to rejecting what's before us, and then she's absolutely going to submit a continuing appropriation which will include the schools, right?

This is not a difficult decision.

I'm just saying, without a— yes, Constance, seat 3, on the motion to reconsider.

I guess if something happened And Miss Harpkey did not submit it tomorrow.

What happened?

Back to my original question through you to the clerk: does government shut down?

No.

No, the motion to reject failed.

So it's my understanding that the provision order.

If we reconsider this and then it gets rejected, then what happens?

If Miss Harpkey doesn't submit, if she does not submit something, what happens tomorrow?

I know the intention is that it will happen.

What if it doesn't?

Doesn't?

I don't have a clear answer for you, Councilor.

I wish I did.

Okay, great.

Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dionne.

The way things stand, we have not approved a budget and we have not object— and we have not rejected the budget.

However, we have a budget that's not a budget because it's missing a whole portion of the budget.

We have no school department.

She said she will absolutely submit an appropriation, correct?

I heard that correctly.

So we reject it, she submits it, and we move on to August.

I think it's that simple, but whatever people want to do.

I yield on the motion to reconsider.

Hearing no further discussion, roll call on the motion to reconsider, please.

Councilor Skadeem?

Yes.

Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

No.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Peckham?

Yes.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 6 yeas, 2 nays.

Motion?

Motion to reject.

To reject has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Roll call.

Councilor Kadeem?

Yes.

Camara?

No.

Canuel?

No.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart?

Peckham?

Yes.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 6 yeas, 2 nays.

Council President, if I may— motion to reject, uh, A1 through 10.

Motion to reject the appropriation order A through 10 has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

2 and 3 are opposed.

On the record, the ayes have it.

Councilor in seat 6.

Council President, if I may, I'd like to make a motion to maybe as a council send the DOR a letter with our concerns so far, both with the budget and the original one from 12th and this 1/12th.

I would like to cover our you-know-whats in the future if we go past 3 months or hit that 3-month mark.

I would like to— well, I know we can't go 3 months, but before they start asking questions, I would like us to notify them of the hardships that we faced while trying to decipher this mess.

Um, and if it's the will of the council, I'd like to come from a whole body.

You want— and you asking for an opinion?

Nope.

I want us to just notify the DOR of all the the, um, hiccups that we face both with the budget and the continuing appropriation budgets number 1 and 2.

And that way it isn't able to be thrown back at us that it's our fault that we're carrying this on.

I just want to notify the DOR of what is taking place here.

Motion made by Councilor Peckham to send a letter to the Department of Revenue has been made.

Is there a second?

Seconded.

Is there a second?

I'll second the motion.

Is there discussion.

Councilman C2, Councilor Camara.

Yeah, we're going to tell them, we're going to identify the hiccups.

Yeah, absolutely.

I got emails where they've been responding.

One of them at a time.

Councilman C2 has the floor.

I just want to know what the hiccups are, whether we just— tell me what the hiccups are.

I can answer that if you'd like.

He'll let the council finish.

What did I hear?

Great.

Councilman C7, uh, 6, Councilor Peckham.

The original appropriation came down with $150,000 of free cash cash that we can't use.

The second appropriation came down with a school department budget that we don't have money to pay for.

So obviously there are some issues here that need to be addressed, and it seems to be on the administration side.

So I would like to send a letter notifying them that it's not us, it's them.

Councilor Peckham?

I yield.

Any further discussion on sending the letter?

Roll call.

Councilor Kadeem?

Yes.

Camara?

No.

Cannuel?

No.

Dion?

Yes.

Hart-Peckham?

Yes.

Pereira?

No.

Raposo?

Present.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion does not carry.

4 yeas, 3 nays.

Motion to reject Uh, line item, uh, appropriation B1 to 3.

Sorry, motion to reject, uh, B1 through B3 has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Motion to reject C1-2.

Opposed?

Councilor in seat 3 opposed.

Councilor in seat 2 opposed.

For the record, the ayes have it.

Next order of business, Madam Clerk.

Section C, for the purpose of financial services.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject, uh, C1 and C2 has been made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by— second— Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

C2 and C3 on the record are opposed.

The ayes have it.

Section D, for the purpose of facilities maintenance.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject Facilities Maintenance 1 through 3 has been made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Khadim.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilor in seat 2 and Councilor in seat 3 opposed.

The ayes have it.

Section E, for the purpose of community maintenance.

Motion to reject E1 through 3, uh, has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Seat 2 and Councilman Seat 3.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section F, for the purpose of community service.

Motion to reject.

Second.

Motion to reject F through— F1 through 3, made by Councilor Kareem, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Seat 2 and Seat 3.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section G, for the purpose of education.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Kadeem.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

Councilman Seat 2 and 3 opposed.

The ayes have it.

That's 1 through 3.

That 1 through 3, that's correct.

Yep.

Section H, for the purpose of community protection.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject H1 through 8 has been by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Kadeem.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Sieck II and III.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Section I, for the purpose of other governmental expenses.

Second.

Motion to reject ayes 1 through 4 has been made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Sieck II and III.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to reject funding sources.

Motion to reject all funding sources has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor Peckham.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Seat 2 and 3 opposed.

The ayes have it.

Motion to reduce the appropriate to zero.

Motion to approve, uh, reduce the appropriation to zero has been made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Councilman Sieck, 3— 2 and 3 opposed.

The ayes have it.

Motion to— what did we do last time?

Adopt as amended.

Motion to adopt as amended.

The rejection has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Is there discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Roll call on adopting the appropriation order as amended.

Councilor Kadim?

Yes.

Camarah?

No.

Cannuel?

No.

Dionne?

Yes.

Hart?

Peckham?

Yes.

Pereira?

Yes.

Raposo?

Yes.

President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries 6 yeas, 2 nays.

All right, onward we go, Madam Clerk.

Item 4 is a communication from the mayor in the acceptance and appropriation of several orders with regarding— with regards to the PEG Access and Cable Related Special Revenue Fund.

Order 4A is the acceptance of such fund.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion on Table 4B.

Motion to table 4B, made by Councilor Khadim.

Seconded by Councilor Peckham.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item is tabled.

Item 5 is a communication from the mayor and an order establishing the spending limits for the revolving funds for fiscal year 2027.

Motion to adopt.

Motion to adopt, made by Councilor Khadim, seconded by Councilor, uh, Vice President Dion.

Discussion?