Town Council - Regular Meeting

I can't hear anything. That's why council waterhouse here. Thank you. Maybe that's why Council Mahan Council Mahan. Well, we see him. We'll make note of it when he does come here. Sorry.

Oh, okay. Thank you. All right. So tonight is a discussion and possible action regarding the FY2027 budget council deliberations part six. So we're going to start uh this discussion with our town manager Al Schwab.

Okay. And thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good evening and madame deputy mayor, councilors, um citizens of Bloomfield and staff Al Schwab. I'm proud to be here before you as we continue the efforts to uh complete um fiscal year 2027 uh budget. Uh but before I begin, I I would like to welcome back you, sir Councelor Goodwin. And uh for somebody who I know hasn't seen the the backside of his eyelids in about uh 3 weeks or so, I I say you look fabulous and and you're good good to see you back, sir, and happy to know that you're your family as well and and heartfelt best wishes on on this new chapter. Okay. So, as we uh look to begin tonight, uh I just would like to let everyone uh be aware of the the efforts that took place today. um in our conference room and and and I can tell you there were people uh from from my staff that were engaged as well as uh we had um time uh given to us uh from counselors, the mayor, deputy mayor, councelor Merritt was there today. Thank you, sir, for all of your contributions and and helping to give us some some direction that uh we believe that we're we're we're at a good place so that we can um complete uh this budget this evening. Um we don't have any other options. We have to get it done this evening so that uh we can be on track uh for our annual meeting on on Monday. So, uh, part of our efforts today, uh, did involve the, um, the board of ed. Uh, our council felt it to be, uh, very, uh, important, uh, that, uh, we reached out to, uh, the chair and, um, and, uh, and deputy chair as well as the superintendent. And so, we

had everyone on the line uh, this afternoon. and um and we're came away with a better understanding of our our desires to be part of a a collaborative effort to meet success. Everyone is committed to that. Everyone stated so on the line. I know that um Dr. Youngberg uh was planning on on saying a few words today to that effect. So that uh because we know there's a number of concerns uh related to budget as it impacts the the board of ed and um and she was going to speak of the collaborative effort as well. We had some news today that that came through on on on ECS and the and the impact of the budget to ECS. But unfortunately that that news is not uh solidified yet to the point where it can be a huge windfall for us. but it's enough that we know help is on the way and and we plan to steer our efforts with with that in mind. So, uh once again, just thank you for for the assistance that we had from very dedicated staff as well as elected officials to to get us to this point tonight. So, what I'd like to start with this evening and uh and if we have a um an overview of a program analysis, what I'd like to start with this evening is a a couple of courses of action that we're considering to offer to our employees um as a possible way to help with some uh moving forward cost savings for the town. And um and so if we can please bring up uh the the um the the comparison, I'd appreciate it. And uh and I'll walk you through that. And uh just let me get my bearing here real quick. I'd appreciate it. And um and then we'll we'll get locked in and

ready. Uh give me one second, please. Okay. So, uh what we have here is uh two two models that um that I'd like to present to you. Uh one was uh produced by uh my team and myself and the other one was produced uh with the assistance of of council. I believe uh councelor Goodwin uh spearheaded uh the initiatives. So as you look at the the top one um it it speaks about it in terms of uh how we would implement it uh the the starting date of each implementation uh is the difference between the two of them. And as you can see, as a result of a delayed implementation, the um the actual uh savings themselves and the impact uh to the um fiscal year 2027 budget is uh is reduced. But the bottom line um what you do see in each of the plans are savings. And what the the top one does is uh it starts us off from July 1st. And uh what's important about this the second proposal is that it gives us more of a scheduled uh time to transition. Uh the top one was uh given us 30 days, but the uh the bottom proposal um lengthens out that runway a little bit more so that there will be more time to transition, which I know would be appreciated by all. It doesn't mean that we're we're tied to um that. It just means that we have more time uh per the agreement. So, so as you look at it, um we plan to have

uh compensatory uh incentives for retiring and um and as you look at it uh from left to right on the top line. Um right now that that compensatory incentive would be 172,000 uh for um 11 individuals uh to retire 11 designated individuals of which uh six positions of those 11 would be eliminated. So when we look at the acrruel the acrual payouts that that's money that we would um be paying them uh irregardless of um an incentive program or not. That's that's time that they earned based on their category of employees. And then we look at vacancy uh savings. Those acrruels and the incentive would would come out of there. And uh that would leave us with a um a $768,000 um benefit uh with the um with the eliminated positions and and um and and the retirements which will result in and replacement employees coming in at a at a lower salary and and fringe. As we look to the right, there is an opportunity, as you can see in the top line, the changes between the two for the incentive to change and and that would be uh taken advantage of those who would not want the cash payout, but would benefit by having more time added to their service. Um and you see the uh the subsequent u savings that occurs uh from that down below with the the total budget impact uh being 821 uh versus the 768 in the first example. If you follow down to the next one where there's a delay in the um in in the

actual implementation of it, uh we have a few more months uh into the fiscal year. So as you would expect the uh the reduction of savings is lower by the amount you can see there right but the um the the incentive remains the same uh but the total impact to the budget will be lower because they'll actually be in place ensuring the transition from of of themselves as as new people come on or as um as staff gets trained up and uh and once again uh these are worst case scenarios. Uh I do know that there are some departments that will uh are ready to go and and not skip a beat, but we also have some departments where where a um uh department head and an assistant um may want to retire, right? And um like I said last night, no one's under contract or the rest to stay employed with the town. Uh it's their choice if they're done with their service uh to take advantage of this. but we're going to be doing it in a responsible way and so that there can be some type of u continuity um of of leadership and and guidance to the remaining um members of the department. So um you'll see up top with the reoccurring savings uh that's going to be going on with the positions eliminated. That's the um the over $1 million there. That's real because those positions won't be coming back and you'll see uh what that that equates to there.

It should be the same. I I I figure as much which is the same as the top which is that over um 1 million $49,000 number. Okay. So this right here is uh the first plan that I I put uh towards the staff that I identified that u would more than likely uh be ready to transition based on things that I have heard and um so this was presented to them. there was interest and um and there was also a desire to to make sure that um that the the town and their their staff wasn't left uh in a lurch uh without any ability to achieve success without them. So I know there'll be a lot of people uh interested in and trying to give of themselves until uh the final day. All right. So what we have next is um from the new father himself you know he spearheaded this and this is another approach where uh the incentive uh changes significantly uh based on how that was derived and um so you'll see the incentive in in this uh plan uh instead of looking at the uh the 172 it's at it's 78,000 and um and on the other side uh you'll see uh with the value of the incentive going down because people would be planning on taking time. All right. Once again, the acrruels stay the same and um but the vacancy uh savings are are um and the impact on on on this budget and and and budget impact on this budget is greater as a result to the lesser incentive. Right. And um once again the same concept if it goes into effect

immediately on July 1st or we have that transition time right. So uh and and with the transition time on the bottom you see that that number uh is um is reduced as well and uh but the overall reoccurring savings uh remains the same regardless of the plan. So um I can tell you right now uh we are asking people to make a decision uh without a lot of time uh to really and truly um decide this matter. Most people don't decide that they want to retire within a week. So the way I came up with this plan is I I added some incentives to signing. I tried to make it fair to um to the town and to the employee in terms of what those incentives were. And um so that's how I developed it. And um and I do know that um we'll get a lot more buy in to the top uh two courses of action uh than we will uh to the lower two. And this was done as a means to avoid directly laying people off. It may not be these people who I I will be compelled to lay off. It will be others in the department who are probably along the the more baseline. So we try to cause as least uh pain uh as possible under circumstances and um so these are the proposals that uh that we have right now. I have yet to be able to put it out to staff because it hasn't been approved for discussion to staff yet and um but but that's where we are. Uh this is all subject to legal review and um as as I wrote in my my proposal email last last week and uh so I do want

to get some legal eyes on this to to make sure we're good before we enter any agreement. So, um I I feel pretty confident that we'll have the numbers to make it successful uh under the the plan that myself and the team proposed. Um I can't say anything else about the about the modified in structure that was presented because I I did not present that to the team. There just wasn't any time today. But I can make that for first order business if you if you give me that direction to do tomorrow and and get back to you. So um that's where we stand with that. Okay. So, I know from here we plan on on going through um the so that the council can do their work about the ad drops and um and then um we'll we'll talk about other um items related to the budget as it pertains to um assistance in in the um finance department and and impact on fund balance. and um and uh and then we'll see if we're in a position at that point to to have a vote on the budget. So, yours is not in each job, but I I thank each and every one of you. You've all been uh engaged and and and and expressing your feedback, expressing your passion towards this budget. We know it's unlike any that uh you have ever experienced before. I I can't tell you that I know of any time in which, you know, wage freezes, furlows, and um and forced uh layoffs were a part of any budget in the town of Bloomfield. Um but um this is a challenge we're we're all built to overcome and I'm confident that we'll get there this evening. So, subject to your questions, Mr. Mayor and

Councel, that that concludes my portion. Thank you. We're going to start from right to left. Uh, councelor Deban Brown, any questions for questions? There something I missed. Um, so once again, I'm really conflicted about incentivizing retirees. I really, really am. um the uh town managers proposed for me um if I was to consider is definitely a no-go. Um but I'm still conflicted about this whole situation. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Goodwin.

So, I do believe in incentivizing retirement simply because the most immediate impact that we pay out, the town will glean those savings uh in future bud budget cycles. So, I do think, you know, we want to thank people for their years of service. We want to be able to offer something because we are asking them to exit and in an earlier fashion. Um, I'm not married to the proposal that I put with the tiered amounts. Um, I couldn't support the presentation that was offered at the beginning with flat rates across the board for everyone at the $500 or whatever. But I am willing to have some flexibility with thinking about dollar amounts that I think would stabilize our budget for the future but also be fair um to people who were asking to retire early.

Thank you, Councelor Oliver. Thank you, Mayor. Um I'm not against this because I asked you to save a million dollars and right here we have between$1 and $1.3 million of savings. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Cooper. Um, so I'm also in favor of it. It is what was asked of you and you know, I'm not going to get into the weeds uh with it. We asked you to come back with a number. You met the number and I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. As for myself, I am in agreement. Um, we have some great employees here and it will be tough to see them leave. Uh, but I feel better if we send them off with some incentives. And so that's how I feel. Uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd,

thank you. Um, I've been through this um with the town of Bloomfield. Um, we did not have the financial incentives, but we were also not in these type of economic times. Um, and we're going back to the early 2000s, so things were very different. I do want to thank the town manager as well as councelor Goodwin hitting the ground, landing, waking up this morning and um putting his experience to work and putting a a modification or a modified um proposal together both of you. I really really appreciate the time and effort you put into this. Um I know that initially I will not be shy in saying I was very hesitant about the town manager's initial uh proposal. Um, and I don't want to make anybody feel bad who may be in the room, that may be someone who was um, contemplating the option. Um, but at the same time understanding the economic constraints that this town is in, we have to consider every dollar. And so understanding now, which uh, I I just I'm I'm ever so thankful and grateful. the news about the ECS funding really gives me um a second look at reconsidering my initial position and so with the ECS money I do feel it gives us some latitude to afford the opportunity to support the town managers program. I personally am pushing the directors, right? Give, take. How many times have we heard the town manager say, "If we have to impact the unions, right? Um, if we want to take something, we have to give something." And so, we have nothing but supremely dedicated employees here. And for those that um know that their departments would benefit from them staying a little longer, I am advocating for the October 1st. Although, I understand two things.

um maybe on the good side instead of having to worry about what you're going to do in two weeks. It gives you time to plan if you are departing. Um additionally, it will also give the staff time to prepare for your departure. There's a lot of work to transition uh from a director who's been with us 20, 30, 40 dedicated years of service. And so I'd appreciate um prioritizing the October 1st, 2026 plan if we so move forward with it. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Merritt.

Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I am very much in favor of uh going ahead with this plan and I I would uh the alternative is layoffs and I really hate layoffs and I I think this is much better because it is it's more humane way to deal with the whole thing. I know we lose a lot of very capable people. Some of our best and brightest but I I think we have staff around to handle things. uh generally speaking or we may have to hire a few but we still come out saving money but uh I would prefer staying as much as possible with the uh July 1st early time because and uh the alternative of having the departing person dropping by for 20 hours or 10 hours a week just to help transition works I if that's possible u uh if they're willing to do it that that would allow us to start with 9 and get 91 I mean 71 and get the maximum savings from this um if it's not possible obviously we have to but but to the extent we can start with that and get the maximum savings it's the few at least fewer um layoffs we have to do which I would like to avoid like the plague I've had to do that in my life. Uh other outside this I hated it. So um I I I think if we can avoid that it's important. I I also I mean we we have found some new money um couple million dollars which makes big difference. We've also uh found that um

the uh our finance director who's bending a little and saying maybe we can take a a million and a half out of our reserves additional. So that's that's a lot of money. It's three and a half million new money that we didn't have yesterday. So that should make a big difference for uh how we do it. I always hope we can wait. Did not deal with the bored right up front here. I think we need to see out. We need to see what damage we're doing to the uh town hall before we um see what we do with the event. But I'm sure that we're going to be able to make that look better than it did the other day. So, uh, things are generally looking better at the, um, I I also comment that we we were headed towards the Monday town meeting. I thought we had an alternative of of going to the second Monday of of of May. Is is is everybody in agreement that we can get this all done in time for for Monday?

You are. We have to. Yes, okay. If we have to, we have to. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Councelor Mahan.

Thank you, Mayor Harrington. Um, I am, uh, not in favor of, uh, this retirement center program. I do actually, before I even go there, I do want to thank, uh, the town manager and councelor Goodwin for the work that you put into, um, developing this. Uh, it's very thorough. appreciate the presentation by the town manager and welcome back and congratulations as well uh councelor Goodwin that that is also in order. Um yeah, I'm I'm not in favor of this uh retirement center program. I think that um you know what I'm hoping is that this does not distract from the uh goals the other goals that the council put forward which was to in uh um stealing counselor Death Brown's words here right sizing uh some of our departments. Um I I know that some of these positions won't be filled, of course. Um they're left anonymous because it's a personnel uh issue here. So, we can't be specific about who the exact person is. Um but we had very specific departments that we wanted to make sure we right sized. And I I don't want this to distract away from that overall goal that uh it seems like the council had a consensus on. Um because moving forward that is also going to be a way that we ensure that um uh our budgets are are that we're budgeting responsibly and that we can um we can uh give to uh the priorities that we want to allocate uh funds to. So I can't support this uh this item. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you uh Councelor Waterhouse. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I'm having some technical difficulties over here. No problem. No problem. Are you able to uh speak or you prefer? You can move. You can move on. Okay. Thank you. Can

mayor, can I town manager?

Okay. Thank you. And and please know I I I appreciate the the thoughts uh cuz I know each and every one of your thoughts whether you're in full support, partial support or or um don't support at all comes from a place where you you're ab you believe that you're absolutely doing the best for your constituents and and I respect that. Um but one thing I want to say in terms of right sizing the organization as I had stated in my email on uh Friday when I introduced this I do plan there to be another phase of this concept for next year and um and so there'll be an opportunity to look at the entire town to see where else uh we can find uh potential savings or uh uh overstaffing that that may exist right now. Um but you know I I know uh council with very good intentions um has given some directions about um impacting certain departments and um we are a town with three different unions. And when we talk about uh laying off uh someone or eliminating a position in in in one department uh that can very much have an unattended and adverse impact on another department because if I say for example right um you tell me to eliminate a position in the town clerk's office that clerk that's there has seniority rights over someone let's just say in the tax collector's office. So now they bump that person out of the tax collector's office. It could stop there or it can continue to bump continue to bump. So what's much more helpful for me is to

just know the bottom line dollar as opposed to the direction of the department so that I can make the change based on some analysis that I conduct with the assistance of my team and we can make the best determination for where that same dollar amount is going to come from without having an unanticipated second and third order of effects. by by just following guidance given. All right. But um so I hope you appreciate the perspective because uh I don't work in a place where there's non-union uh personnel and I have to be mindful of of uh the domino effect of of something that that I do. But at this point I I'd like to just close out by saying thank you. Right. um you've done something that uh no other council has done since 2019, right? Uh whether you voted for it or not, we're going to be moving the needle tonight with with this, right? In 2019, there was a study done that talked about the efficiencies of um of town staffing and it talked about overstaffing, right? And um and not a single thing was done by other TMs, by other councils. But tonight we stand on the on the path of of knocking down a target. Nobody else has had the fortitude and commitment to engage in. So I just thank you because it's one thing to just engage in rhetoric. It's another thing to engage in action, right? And I'm about executing action and uh but I can't do it without willing participants. So I just like to close by just saying hats off to you. Salute and thank you so much for your support. will now continue um and I'm sure I'll be back up here at some point and um to to offer some more thoughts, but thank you.

Thank you, Town Manager Schwab. I'm going to turn the reigns over to our deputy mayor. Oh, can I have one second, please? Yes. Yep. Um, when she came in with her group, I was like shaking in my shoes because these ladies I do not mess with, right? So, uh, Dr. Tracy Youngberg, can you come on up? I was telling them about our collaborative efforts today and and how we're working so, uh, strongly together to try and move this this massive needle, and I just wanted them to hear your perspective. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. going this way. Yeah. Do a little dance. Good evening everyone. Good evening.

Good evening.

I can um definitely concur with the town manager's u message. We are trying to work collaboratively to come up with a solution that works uh for the entire town which includes the school system. I have heard the messages about the ECS funds and will be very happy when I see confirmation of that. Um which normally comes to superintendent in a formal document. So, I'm waiting for that formal document and I don't want to get my hopes up until I see that. But I I am excited at the opportunity that there will be some an influx of funds that could help to offset the cost of running a school system. I think last night you heard just how passionate um our students, our staff, and our family members are about the school system and some of the changes that have already started to happen in the last 16 months. We have a little positive momentum. Um, and I know I can help make amazing things happen here. Um, it just needs some time. Um, a little bit of patience and I'm being really strategic about things. So, I can assure you I'm not going to spend a penny more than I need to, but our kids deserve a quality education. So, I'm hoping we'll continue the collaborative efforts and get everybody what they need. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to take a quick moment. I want to acknowledge uh our superintendent because there has now become a collaboration with uh one of our local universities. Uh there are others involved but since I'm uh from the University of Hartford, I'm really really excited that uh uh there has been a growing um uh collaboration. I believe some of our students have already visited there and um and we anticipate that they will be providing possibly some interns for us. I know uh India Rogers office has also communicated with them. So I'm excited to hear that involvement. Uh the president who was new uh comes from the Harford Windsor area. So, he really really wants to do some great things and to recreate some of the scholarships that used to be available to our students in the past. So, with that, I'm just going to move over to Deputy Mayor Lloyd.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you, Bo, for coming to the meeting as well. We know you had a meeting already. Um, so as we move forward with the meeting, thank you, Mr. Town Manager, again for that proposal. Thank you, Councelor Goodwin, for your input on some potential um retirement proposals, early retirement incentives. Uh but we do have some lingering business from last week, and what that looks like are some tabled line items, right? Um and we also have some tabled uh modifications that didn't get voted upon. So, we're going to have to revisit those this evening as we move forward. And then additionally um have to talk about the use of assigned fund balance as it relates to those modifications and whatever we award and the reductions if we approve or not approve um looking to director Hill to give us real time updates on the budget increase as we move through that exercise. Um from that point we have to look at assigned unassigned fund balance. We know that is a um challenging topic whether to use or not use. We've used in the last few years or allocated but didn't end up always using it. And so you never really know. Um so we need to have that discussion um as well before we then circle back to the board of education and the ECS conversation. So circling back now to the town manager as well as councelor Goodwin's

um retirement proposals, I'd like to make a motion, Mr. mayor that we accept the town manager's proposal for early retirement incentives. Second. All right. All those uh excuse me uh any discussion? Yes. Uh councelor Mahan. Um of course this is uh contingent upon legal review. U would which is what the town manager said. Um, would it be prudent of I know that we want to make this decision for this budget, but wouldn't it be prudent of us to get that legal review in before we decide to move full steam ahead with this?

That's a question to my colleagues. Is town manager still in the room? Oh, town attorney. Um, would you mind stepping up? I believe you may have had some cursory conversation with the town manager regarding this matter. Could you I believe you had some cursory conversation about this proposal with the town manager. I did elaborate at its inception. I haven't seen the revised version though.

You came back ring a go, didn't you? The numbers are our business. The legality is yours. Talk about pressure.

Now the next question that comes is wouldn't it be prudent of us to allow the time attorney to have some time to review the document? That's the next question. So, so my review really that's the form um the numbers is the responsibility of finance and I take it from the smile on the director's face that the numbers are um accurate and so as the form I I have no issues with the document it's in relatively the same shape as as uh when I saw it before but for the changes in the numbers. Uh, in terms of um legal sufficiency, I think the document's fine.

Thank you. Um, yes, Councelor Merritt, I I'm going to call the question. I don't see other hands up. I'm sorry. Uh, councelor Cooper and Councelor Oliver. No, I'm sorry. Just councelor Cooper. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so I I just want to ensure which of these uh scenarios are we voting? Is this strictly on uh councelor Goodwin's scenario? So my motion is for the town managers the October program. Mhm. Okay.

I will identify although a little less savings because we have four in front of us. Long story short, if one passes right out the gate, then everything else will fail, right? So, I'll restate then. I make a motion that we approve the town manager's early retirement incentive focusing on the October 1st, 2026 implementation. Do I have a second? Page one to page one. Page is the the synopsis. Everything else is a break October month. Okay.

She's as I'm sorry. I just want to let me clarify only and thank you for that. That does clarify, but I just wanted to to I see that proposal and now I want to associate the numbers with it. That's what it was. Appreciate it. Okay. And I am I'm good. I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Uh Councelor Dean Brown, we're voting right. Well, we're in discussion. If there's no more discussion, then yes, we can vote. Oh, yeah. We can vote. Okay. All those in favor? I I. Those opposed? Nay. Nay.

And any abstensions? Okay. May votes I. So motion passes. Councelor Waterhouse. I'm sorry. Um, did you vote? We didn't hear you. Yay.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on. If I could call our attention back to the document reflecting last week's conversation. I think the easier page to start with is going to be the budget modifications that we just simply did not get the opportunity to vote upon. They are um encompassing the senior accountant position as well as modification requests for ops and comms. So, I will start with a motion to approve the total of the ops and comms increases in the amount of 10,500, 10,000, and 18,505 as discussed last week.

Is there a second? Second. Discuss. Any discussion? Yes, Council Goodwin. Um the discussion isn't exactly on this uh particular motion. What I'm concerned about is the vote we just made not seeing how that would calculate into the overall numbers before we move ahead because if we if that's in play that does shift the rest of the numbers and the bottom line. Director Hill, if you could plug those in as we move through all these exercises, we will not be able to have a total impact. Yeah. Well,

until the end and then we do have the option to collectively accept or not accept the whole thing. So, yeah. Well, I just mentioned that because it's over a million dollars, so it would significant impact and and we'll be looking for him to do that same um thing as we go through the modifications as well as the reductions that we discussed last week, furlows and all those items. Any other discussion?

All questions. All those in favor? I I I those against? Nay. And any abstensions? The motion passes. Mr. Mayor, if I may, um if you would confirm which budget modifications, was it all of them or some of them? All four. Yes, sir. All four. Can Can I stop you for just a moment? We did not hear from councelor Waterhouse. Maybe she did, but I just want to verify. Uh, councelor Waterhouse. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Um, were you able to plug those numbers in? The first one for Councelor Goodwin and for the benefit of the viewing audience, the amount um, identified in the town managers Yes, that would be the 554,000 of savings from the town managers October one scenario. Please,

inclusion of that uh reduces the percentage increase to 4.89%. And on the budget mods, the vote that was just taken, uh, do I understand correctly that's for all four of these or which? Yes, sir. So, I'm taking out these reductions. Correct. They modifications have been approved for implementation. That does not include the U senior accountant. Get to that. Yeah, I was going to bring that. What? Oh, okay.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Madam Deputy Mayor, thank you. And that number is 4.93. 4.93. Okay. Thank you. Is that the number down at the bottom there? Well, one moment. One moment. We also get the percentage of increase too. Um, for the individual items? No. Now that we have the 4.93% increase of the budget, can we get the the tax increase? The tax increase. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Let me get the percentage.

Yes, I think we can. Director Hill, you have the capability to do the approximate or average tax increase based upon this um potential budget increase that wasn't 4.93.

That's the budget. So, in generality, we have been speaking to the fact that coming into this year, we know we're going to start around a 4% because of the reval. And so loosely, if we're at a 4.9, you can know that you can add around another 4% to that that will be reflective of the tax increase. Um, and those are not comfortable numbers to hear. So, we're going through every single item and going to see how the change, the add or the subtraction impacts the budget and then to council debum brown's um question then see the impact to the potential tax increase. And it's an average and it doesn't apply to everybody. It's based on a certain dollar value home or increase. Some people had only a 30% increase in their home values. Some people had a 55%. So, this is not going to be everyone's number, but it is an average.

Council Cooper.

So, um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councelor Beth and Brown. Thank you, um, Deputy Mayor Lloyd. I my only concern is that we are now we are still deliberating and those numbers are apt to change and I don't believe that um throwing numbers out that are not final are conducive to what we're doing. I would be uh better I would be more happy if we were just able to concentrate on the budget getting the budget done uh and then we could look at the other side once all of this is is finished. Um, I I believe that looking at all of this once the budget is finished so that we can see what the tax increase is going to be, I mean, the anxiety of some folks seeing their tax increase be right now, I'm sure it's got to be 10 or 11%, which is not what it is, and that we can go back and all of this can be all of this can be done um after we um plug in the numbers. So, that's my that's my counselor dean Brown. And then

so why I asked right is because we're looking at what the mill rate might be. We're looking at what the percentage of increase might be. So let's look at the totality of the situation, right? So then it's when we start adding and subtracting, we're knowing how exactly it's going to move up. So if you're saying let's not look at what the increase percentage- wise might be, then let's not look at the mill rate. Let's not look at what is what the percentage of of increase for the taxes are going to be. I think in order for us to make a decision, we need to have all the information. And I think if if if we're asking Joe public to trust John Q public, whomever, Jane public, asking the public to trust us, I think we need to be transparent with exactly what we're doing.

So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm not I I just want to just a point of point of um clarity. I'm not saying that people don't need to see it. I'm saying that our job is to concentrate on the budget. We keep moving to the left. We keep moving to the right. Can we stay on track with the budget? Right. Can So, so that and that and the finance director isn't scratching screens and this and that. We've been here six days. We're probably going to be here for another two weeks if we keep moving the goalpost. Can we get to the budget? This is an outcome of the budget, right? This is the point. Excuse me. Excuse me. This is the point of being here is is for us to work on the budget of order. Sorry for that. Point of order. Really?

Uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd. Thank you.

Um, as belorous as it may seem, this is actually um what we need to do to walk through the budget. And this these modifications do play into the budget and we just decided or voted to add them to the budget. So, I think it would be helpful to see the impact as we go through. I don't It's really, honestly, I promise you, it's only going to be a minute or two to do it cuz he just did it really quick. And so, I say that because we only have about six more items on the um reductions page. So, it's not We already did. Okay. So, for those that don't Okay, the LA the list was like 34 items if we remember and we only have about six left, maybe seven. and three of them are redundancies. So, it actually cuts down from there. So, I'd like to see the real-time change. Um, and I do um accept the additional question to the increase in the budget to see the impact on the taxes, but I do agree with you as well, councelor Cooper, to say everyone in the room and everyone watching, as you watch the numbers going up and down, please, you know, don't fall off your seat. be patient as we work through it because there's going to be so many more numbers added and subtracted. So, if we could just go through this exercise, I would greatly appreciate it.

Council Merritt say about the same thing. I mean, we're we're our goal is to minimize taxes without destroying services. So, I you don't know if you're making any progress unless you see what each action does. So, I am very I agree. I'm very much in favor of of seeing the result of each change. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there any more discussion? Can't really call the vote right now because we have some members out of the room. We'll just wait for a moment. Would you like to take a a recess for a few minutes? Three minute recess. It's a little early. Uh let's We're missing folks. We can't even vote. They should be back. They're coming back. They're coming back.

They're coming right back. Thank you for waiting so patiently

motion motion. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So I believe where we left off was crunching the numbers on the last two items. Is that correct, Director Hill?

Thank you so much. And so as we continue on the modifications page, we also have a modification request for the addition of a senior accountant. And so the wording remove or add was a little tricky last week. So, I'm going to call for a motion that we approve that we add the senior accountant with a salary cap of $110,000. Second. There's a second. Uh, any discussion,

council members? Any discussion? We're voting to add it. Is that what you're saying? To add the senior accountant. Correct. Per the modification request. You Mr. Mayor, $110,000 salary not benefits included. Mr. Mayor, if I may.

Yes. So last week the there was a counselor that added removing the senior accountant first and there was a separate counselor that added it back in which is why on this uh page it shows in both the additions and the reductions line. Um in my mind that cancels out uh the counselor's uh both counselor's suggestions to add and remove. Um, but to the the question of adding or including the senior accountant, as shown above, I'm going to block it off here. This very top line that's shown is the senior accountant, which is included in the base case with the cap of 110,000. So I believe that the vote down here would only be to eliminate it because it is already there. So we're not adding it.

But we didn't vote on it at all. So correct. One sought to remove it, one sought to add it. They cancel each other out. So we stay at the base case and the base case includes the senior accountant with a cap of 110. I thought you only included in the modifications in the budget those mods related to it and everything else was a ask and if approved would have to be added into the model or the scenario if I remember correctly. He I think you're talking two

I think we're talking two different things. You are correct madame deputy mayor in terms of the um the its was added to the the budget already. Uh this the proposed um manager proposed budget uh this was not added to it but when we did the ad drops uh he went and and add added it and dropped it. So right now what he's saying is um the decision should be to um remove since we have two courses of action here right you folks had two courses of action identified as adding and as reducing. So at this point if you are in favor of adding it then we have to drop the course of action that was a reduction and then we'll add that to the budget.

Okay. I think we're six on one half a dozen on the other. Exactly. Yes we I really do believe we are. Yes. Yeah. Yep. So, so and I don't think we need to get hemmed up on it. You want the accountant or not? Thank you. That's what you're trying to determine. That's what I'm asking. Yep. So, I don't know if I had a second. You did. Okay. Do we have discussion? Yes. There is one question. Are we Oliver? So, with this uh retirement initiative, are we losing anybody from finance department? So, we're not losing anybody from finance and we're adding a spot. Is that a Yes. like to speak to it?

Yes. Uh, Deputy Mayor. So, Mr. Mayor, I I can understand the concern, but let's not forget uh our the history. Hold on. Yes, ma'am. Cuz you're going to steal my thunder. I'll let it go. Hold on. You can stay there.

You We're both Warhawks. I knew where where I was going. I have been seen as one of the major push backs on the senior accountant and that has really not been true but midy year caused some challenges in and of itself with a finite budget coming into 26. what we had to do because we had work that was lingering, staff that came in, you know, I'm gonna exaggerate and said found stuff in shoe boxes, right? I talk very colloquially. Um, and had a lot of catchup work to do. And in those endeavors, we have had to, in the absence of a senior accountant, hire temps and we've had to hire a consultant to get us across the finish line. We have one audit done. We're very close to catching up with 25 and we will be on track for 26. And so we should have the senior accountant so that we can stay on track, get back on track and stay on track. And this will cause us to not have to spend unbudgeted funds adding temps or consultants because we will have the in-house talent to do so. So I do support the addition of the senior accountant. Thank you. Okay.

So, the question had been called question. I was waiting to ask question. You had another question. Joe Joe was the next speaker.

We wanted to know if Joe wanted to resend his motion. I want well I I was I mean we tried to do this for a year and most of us are sick and tired of our behindness in our accounting department. So we don't want to our credit rating dropped. We need to get up on munus which we're still not up on and it's going to take another year to get there probably. So, I mean, this is this has been very bad for the town's reputation to we we do need top of this. Mayor, I'm I'm doing a point of order. Recalling the question is to add this accountant. So, I call the question. He rescended it.

He just said it. Are you rescending your call the question? That's what they're asking. Are you rescending your call the question? My sending rescending it so they can comment. Oh, and then we can vote if they want to comment. I don't care. So, we'll we'll start with uh Council Mahan and then we have uh Councelor Dean Brown.

How gracious of you, Joe. Thank you. Um to uh councelor Oliver's point, that was sort of the uh the concern that I had um with the incentive program was that we're not right sizing certain departments. I do actually I am actually in favor of us having the accountant because of how backlogged we've been uh with our um uh oh jeez I'm forgetting the verb audit with our audits sorry thank you um Director Hill once again thank you um but uh because we have been backlogged with our audits and I do appreciate my colleagues for capping uh capping the salary but um councelor Oliver you're bringing up a really good point with once again we're we're going to be adding uh and we're not going to be targeting the real issue and this incentive program I think brought us off track. We were doing really good in the first few doing really well in the first few deliberations where we started talking about right sizing departments and we're starting to move back in the other direction and I I think that this incentive program has kind of brought us off track. Um, so councelor Death and Brown,

thank you. So I think I'm just trying to get clarity. I think the um finance director said we're capping it at $110,000, but that's not including the load. Is that correct? The load benefits. Is that correct? No, it is not. So, is that is it we're capping it at $110,000 salary and then you add all the fringe benefits. That's what I was I just asked. That's what that that's what I just said.

So, the 110 does not include I call it the load, you call it the benefits. It's the same thing. Does the one is it a 110 salary including everything that we're capping it at? you know, the the salary would be capped at 110. We would post for the position and hire either at or below 110,000 and then the fringe benefits would be added on top of that. Thank you. Question, Council Oliver, are those fringe benefits roughly like 25 30,000 roughly?

Um, the fringe benefits include uh taxes at 7.65%, 65% retirement at 10% uh and medical insurance. Uh depending on the employees selection, we assume that they would need uh non-teamsters of course is a non uh a management position. Um at 26 plus,000. So the taxes, the insurance, the retirement uh would gross up to the neighborhood of that 173,000. Yeah, it's like 50 grand. any more? Yeah, I do have I mean I was hoping that we can cut in every department, but if we're going to be

How much are we saving from not outsourcing? We're not outsourcing. Um so the the temporary staff and consultants uh it is the the b the total is still uh counting as the temporary staff and consultants are still assisting average. Um the last time I looked we were I think in the neighborhood of 220,000. I'm good with the 110. Exactly. Thank you Council Oliver. Uh there is may I make it make a comment? Sure.

Um I may say the bottom line number of 5.5% uh tax increase that we're working on. This is already included. This is already in there. So it's a real question whether we even have to vote on it. But um just a formality uh let's vote on it and you you know but it is is already in there. So this would not be should not make our condition worse. It's it's already in the current plan. So, I call the question now.

All those in favor? I I those opposed. Any abstensions? May votes I and the motion passes. No, I think I think you'd have to record me as a nay on that one. Did we have to? We were just voting on calling the question. I thought so. Who second it? I didn't hear a second. There was a second. Okay. Thank you. So, now we have to vote. Now it's good. All those in favor? I I I'm going to those oppo those opposed nay. Any abstensions?

Okay. Motion passes. Thank you.

Can you do the update if you haven't already on the impact on the budget as well as potentially the average tax increase 4.93 or it's not in there yet? Okay.

Yes. Yes, it is in there. The senior accountant is included here. So removing the wash out, the add and the reduction leaves us in the same place at 4.93%. Um I believe that the um 35.02 02 is unchanged from the last time we looked at the uh estimated impact on taxes, but I will show it to remind everyone. 35.02% for both example one and example two with the distinction between example one and two being uh the home value. fiscal year 26 at 250,000 plus the second uh 25% revaluation phase in and similarly for example two with a home value of 400,000 it is the yellow highlighted area that I'm updating And for those unable to see online, it is showing a tax increase at the $250,000 value of $58, the $400,000 value of a $93 increase.

Both of those numbers are per month. Yep. Thank you. So, that is it for the modifications. If we could quickly move over to the reductions page. Most of these have been voted on. A few were tabled. There are redundancies that I'd like to make mention of as well as some possible adjustments uh for council consideration because of those redundancies.

Remember what we haven't done? This get to that yet.

We haven't added when it happened. Okay. So it bears mentioning that while we talk about the reductions, we have redundancies in this as well as some uh items of impact whether it is a removal of management and non-union GWI remove the 1% merit. Um we had on the list that was tabled a 4 days management only furlow as well as on the list a 3 days furlow for all employees. Um I believed on yesterday's conversation it was made clear to us as well as the session before that that we are not able to immediately um implement something like that with the unionized workers. It would have to be negotiated and the time is not right for that. We do not have the time to do that. So I would say that this body should decide and with the town manager's recommendation from yesterday in mind which was the 4 days management only furlow how we would like to proceed and I would like to direct our attention to those two items so we can get rid of the redundancy. make the motion that we accept the town manager's um recommendations of the furloss.

Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? And just to clarify, that's the management only. Yeah, management only. Yes. Yes. And um I'm sorry. And how many days? My apologies. Four. Four. Okay. So we're going to now go back to starting on the right end. So uh councelor de and brown any discussion. Oh

on the 4 day no councelor Goodwin. Yeah, since I proposed the 3-day furlow for all without that knowledge, I'm willing to completely take it off the table and support the 4-day or five. But thank you, Council Oliver. No, I'm good. Thank you, Councelor Cooper. Yeah. Discussion. No discussion. None. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I have no discussion. Deputy Mayor Lloyd. Thank you. I will pass my comments.

Councelor Merritt. Uh Council Mahan.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Mayor, I'll take a stab at it. Um actually, I I was originally in favor of this. I think I was in favor of favor of the 3-day management only initially. I can't remember. Four days. Um, I I mean I think that's a a good way to maximize savings with the least amount of impact overall. The only thing that I want to know and the question that I asked previously and we still don't know the answer to was how will these days be allocated to ensure the um the least amount of impact on services and um just overall town hall or townwide operations.

Thank you for your question, Councilman Bahan. It'll be done the same way. All leave is granted. Uh ensuring that the job can still get done. It's not going to be any different. Okay. So, is this is it going to be at the uh request of the individual or or are is it going to come from the town manager saying, "Hey, these are your date." Like, how does how does that happen? I'm proposing and and I'm sure there probably will be support from the staff um as they're going to be taking a day off without pay that um that they'll have the opportunity to make it in concert with a um with a holiday, right? And um whereas they still would have gotten paid for the full day, but uh we may have um uh only held them here for a half a day. So some of those things I understand are are done and and other organizations such as at the state level and uh we'll do that. But the bottom line is you know whenever you take time off it's done with an awareness that the job can still get done and there's not going to be any change from that practice which is very standard. Yes, custom merit.

I understood that the the week where a manager takes a day off, he has to go to a a 40hour week by state law. And so that makes it awkward if it's during a holiday week, but uh it so that means he he isn't going to come to our meetings, for example, at night without being paid. is that I mean that kind of he no longer is making sure the job is done that week. So

and and you're you're exactly right, Council Merritt, and uh we will be very much on top of all of the uh ways that this is managed to make sure that uh we don't uh get caught in in an effort that that undermines the intent of the furlow, which is to save a day's pay. So, um, that that's that's what we'll do. Okay. And it's not not that difficult, people. All right. So, I I can manage it. So, thank you. Yes, counselor. Uh, councelor Waterhouse. And then I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no comment.

Okay. Thank you. The deputy mayor did raise her hand and then we'll go with Council Gillan following that. Um just a point of clarification when you do the calculation that there's um an accommodation for unemployment. So when we look at this 92 58 598 there will be an adjustment there will be adjustment for the potential of the employee to claim unemployment. Not that everybody will, but he will show and it's showing on the screen now um an accommodation for unemployment if claimed by set employees in the amount of 37039.

Well, if they work one day, then they can Thank you, Madam Deputy Mayor. Thank you both. Speaking question, councelor Cooper. Yeah, just point of clarification that unemployment benefits do they do does a town pay for that? Because the town already pays a unemployment tax in into a pool and so that money should not um affect us in any way. We we carry about u a line item for unemployment. I'm sorry. We carry a line item for unemployment. So yeah, that'll that'll come from us. Okay, Council Oliver.

Well, you kind of answered the question. Um, I know it's like based on percentiles and if you have a heavy like construction, you get laid off a lot. So, they're mod I mean not moderate, their insurance rates go up. Um, don't we pay for like 40% of the weekly unemployment check? I don't know the particular percentage of what you're asking. What I can tell you is uh here's one guy that will be impacted me. I'm not putting in for unemployment for one day, right? I can't tell you what others will do. They're entitled to do whatever they like. No, no. I I agree. I'm just trying to think that that will

We We did give us some thought through this. And um I I I assure you if if folks can get the day off before Christmas, uh they're probably just going to be very happy to do so. Last thing will be to try and get back $50 from the state of Connecticut or town of Bloomfield. No, I agree. I'm just looking at they took four days straight. I I know. No, no, no. There won't be any four day straight. All right, then you answered. I'm all set. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah, counselor dean Brown. So, am I director Hill? You're saying the unemployment adjustment is for 60%.

Um, thank you, Councelor Debon Brown. Uh what I'm saying is that there is an offset to the value of a furlow day and with our from our HR director's conversation with the Connecticut Department of Labor, it's not simple and straightforward. Makes me think of the superintendent's comments about ECS funding and what we know about state and federal government's calculations. Um, as we understand from the state department of labor, each individual application for unemployment is evaluated and based on the level of compensation, the number of uh days that they are seeking unemployment, those percentages vary. Um, I believe there's also a threshold that you reach that you would not receive unemployment, right? So the 60% is the suggested offset to allow for what may be an expense of the town for the furlow days that would reduce the value of the furlow days. If the council's desire or belief from experience here or elsewhere is that the 60% is too high, I'm happy to change it. Um but wanted to make sure that the council and the public were aware that the prior value shown for the value of a or multiple furlow days uh is not just the value of the salary uh not being paid um that there is an expense that goes along with it.

Thank you. Because what it seems like to me on here is like it's a wash. 37039 debit. 37039 credit. Well, the a counselor. It's okay. You can talk to me like I got a I I got a doctorate, but talk to me like I'm two, so I understand. I Thank you, counselor. What I don't want to say is that I've said it three times tonight. So, a counselor added in their cuts and ads to have three or four furlow days for management

and then another counselor added to uh stated to remove it. So, one said add, one said cut, which is why it appears in both columns. Right? But the the number that I'm looking at, and I might be wrong here, the number that I'm looking at for number 28 was 92598. That's what I'm saying. With the 60% adjustment, it brings it down to 37039. Yes. Okay. That's So this 37039 is 40% of the prior number. Yep. That's that's I was just trying to get that number. Thank you. Thank you. All those in favor? I I

I I uh those opposed any abstensions. The motion passes.

Movement. So, Director Hill is adjusting the numbers right now. That's me. for efficiency sake. While he's moving those numbers, can we move on to the next one? I think it's 8 o'clock and we see taking a lot of time.

Okay. So, I'm told So, while the numbers are being they've been updated,

crunched, um, we need to go back to number six, deferred. It says reduce town attorney 43,640. That vote was deferred. We received clarification last evening regarding our concern about the town attorney and how his contract was um modified uh giving higher compensation per hour based on equalizing him having come in at a very low rate um almost a couple hundred of dollars normal uh less than the norm. I know my attorney's over $500 an hour. So um I believe the number incoming number was 175 per hour. So that decision was made and it was explained cuz I had a concern as well as many on the dis that that may have been some type of charter violation that the council had the purview to approve that. So in actuality I did forget and I knew but I forgot that town manager is the purchasing agent for the town. So, as explained on last evening, we do have the purview to appoint the town attorney, but the town manager is the purchasing agent and he handles contractual increases and then learned that it was handled that way in the past. It had never come before council every time the former town attorney wanted an increase. So I think it bears level setting with that because many of us had questions and concerns about this prior approval. And so based on last week it was entered on this modification or this excuse me scenario as a reduction for those that have the paper. Okay. So I think that bears explaining before we entertain a motion. So, the motion is to reduce the town attorney $43,640.

So moved. So moved. Uh any discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry. U counselor Cooper. Yeah. So, so based on our action yesterday, is this even a discussion? I don't believe it is. It is. We have to vote on everything on the budget scenario. That was a council meeting. It was a different action. Okay. So, I mean, that was legal clarification. This is a budget entry. True. True. All right. I'm gonna I'm just So, if we vote no, then what?

It goes back to how it was and it that is removed. How you going to go back on the contract that you approved yesterday? You can't. I think it's a wash, but we point of information, Mr. So, I just to clarify for councelor Cooper, voting as as I've as I'm understanding the motion, voting um voting no uh will vote to not reduce the town attorney's Yes. uh contract and to uphold it.

Voting yes would vote to reduce the town attorney's contract. So if you would like to if you if you would like to keep the town attorney's contract the way it is, then you vote no on a motion. Now we're going to now we can we still have to vote because and then to continue as as you even stated, councelor Cooper, we are here to discuss and vote on the budget. You you said that in one of your previous comments and this is a budget item. So we do have to vote on it. Call the question. Thank you. Second. Question is called and second and seconded.

All in favor of calling question. All in favor of calling the question. I I. Those opposed. Any abstensions? motion passes. So, repeating the motion, I make a motion to reduce the town attorney $43,640. All in favor? All in favor? I All in favor? I I Those opposed? Nay. Nay. I'm sorry.

The motion is to reduce the town attorney's budget. You vote yes if you'd like to reduce it. You vote no if you do not want to reduce it. Can we start voting procedures over again, Mr. Mayor? Can we do a roll call, please? Councelor Cooper, no. Councelor Death and Brown, no. I don't think you can vote against the contract. Council Mahan, yes. Councelor Oliver, no. Councelor Merritt, no. Councelor Waterhouse, no. Councelor Goodwin, no. Uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd,

no. And Mayor Harrington, no. The nose have it. The motion is denied.

Okay. So while the numbers are being added right now there was a tabled item number 13 reduce human resources 127,353. It bears mentioning that if I'm not mistaken there may be some um impact. So so let me back up. There were last week two items on this reduction scenario relative to HR. One was regarding training and education. There it is. There it is. Yep. And we realized that that was not something we could do because of union contractual obligations for people that had already been in school and are looking for reimbursement and will endeavor school tuition reimbursement in this coming fiscal year 27. And another item that was brought up relative to whatever the town manager and the department so chose was to reduce human resources by 127,353. So as like the last um motion, I make a motion that we reduce human resources 127353.

Is there uh any discussion? Uh, councelor Deb Brown, did we put the training money back in? Okay. So, this 127,000 is a body. It's tuition, right? No, it's whatever the administration would allocate it towards. I I think that um human resource Sorry, councelor Oliver. I I thought that the human resources that was contractual training. Is that the same item?

No, we had two items. So, one was for training and education and we took that off the table and this one was a specific number called out I believe by councelor Betham Brown based on the increase from a previous year budget. If I remember correctly, that's how a number of these recommendations that got on the table were going in. It was based on a previous year budget number and it was the increase. Okay. Thanks, Council Goodwin. Council Cooper. So, if we we've already restored the contractual monies that um needed to be for human resources. Correct.

Yes, we have. And I will also add that while there seems to be confusion around this, if you look at for example number 26, remove one FTE that was specific. That's why we're we're asking the question, is that a body? It was not identified as a body. It was not identified as an FTE. The request was for 127,350 fee with no 353 with no indication that it would be an FTE. Okay. So that's how we left it. If that's not what was intended, but that is what we said and what was captured.

Okay. My just follow up. So if if we don't know what it is, that's just money that's laying out there and and I'm going to vote that we um do um remove that. Madame Deputy Mayor, Council Merritt, I I I'm wonder double counting here because I I believe that department's involved in um the u uh early retirement program. So it is it is it suitable to put in this way as well

or are we double counting? I mean is that isn't that savings already in the the plan for the human services.

Yes, it would be part or is part of the retirement incentive program. Um, you know, the the comment I was going to share is this 127 353 is the town manager's proposed budget increase from fiscal 26 to fiscal 27 and the majority of that increase is the tuition reimbursement. I thought we already took care of that. She separates that it's the increase which is primarily for tuition reimbursement. Okay.

If that's not the case, I think that's how a counselor a few minutes ago suggested that it might be an FTE, although it is the increase from 26 to 27. I'm confused. Deputy Mayor,

thank you. Um, and just said he's confused. So, thank you for that clarification. The confusion comes in is that we had it put on twice. It was specifically put on as training and education and then it was put on redundantly by reduced human resources by 127 353. It wasn't indicated as an FTE. What was indicated is that the increase from one FY to the next was requested to be reduced. So now we do find as we discussed this that it's a redundancy. So if the counselor from last week who put that on the table wants to remove it, then I think we'd be amendable to that because that's why we're voting on it. Is that counselor amendable to that change?

So that's why I had asked about the training because I heard that the training was contractual. Then I was told that the training's in but then I'm told that this is a part of the training money. That's why there's clarifying questions asked. If this is contractual contractual something that we signed that's legally binding, we can't take it out. Right? if it's legally binding. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Uh

so I would say I agree with you, Council Deam Brown. However, there's still money in the overarching budget. So 127 could be representative of an FTE. However, when the increase was asked for, I believe I understand director Hill to say that the increase was attributed to training education. So, I think we need to clean it up. So, with that clarification, if you'd like to take it off the table, I think we're all okay with that. most particularly with the early retirement incentive that has been discussed and understanding that HR has some plans to vacate a couple of positions. Once again, if it's a contractual obligation of the town, we can't take it out. So, if it's a contractual obligation, it yes, I'm take we take it off the the and that was the question before when we were said when we were told that

yes, forget it. We don't we don't need the town attorney. It the way it's worded. I appreciate what you're saying, but it's not worded that way. Okay. So, if we say just blanket the way it was said, take 127 off from FY26 to 27, take that increase off, that is not contractual. He's saying that the increase is caused because of the contractual obligations. But on the overarching budget, we can say take off 127 and that will not impact the training and education. It may impact widgets, paper clips, human beings. Right. So the way it's worded is not affecting the contractual obligation. Right. But that's why I asked the question. Yeah.

Right. Because there was a discussion that it was a contractual obligation. And I'm not in favor of trying to put the town in a legal bind. So if I'm being told that this is due to contractual obligations for this department of information moving it

of information. Uh Mr. Mayor, I'm I understand which I think we're getting a little confused here and I'm going to restate what you said. This this has nothing to do with the contractual services. It's just whether or not we want to see $127 reduced from HR or not. If you do want to see $127,000 reduced from HR, you vote yes. If you do not want to see 127,000 reduced from HR, you vote no.

That's what this is. This has it's not about the contractual service. We can't do anything about that. They'll just have to find it somewhere else. As um the deputy mayor said, pens, paper, widgets, whatever. They got to find it somewhere else. It's just Mr. Mayor want to call a question. If everyone understands, I would like to call a question. All those in favor? I I voting those you just voted to reduce. Call the question. To call the question. Call a question. I'm getting confused. No. Once again, Once again, all those in favor? I I Any opposed? Any abstensions? The motion passes.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we remove the $127,000. Is there a second?

I I opened with the motion so we didn't need we didn't need to do it again. I didn't hear you. So we just No, we I opened it as a line item as a motion and then we went into discussion and so the question was called. So we need to do that by two/3 vote and then once the calling of the question is approved we can just go into are we approving reduce human resources by XYZ all in favor all opposed abstain that's so I've made the motion before the discussion in suit and it was seconded yes call the question we call a question has been called and it was approved to call the question now we're voting on the motion

I'm happy to repeat my motion that was seconded to reduce human resources by 127,353. All those in favor? Yes. Yes. No. I vote no. I'm I'm going to call uh council Cooper. Yes. Uh councelor Deb and Brown. Yes. Council Mahan. No. Council Oliver. Yes. Council Merritt. Yes. Councelor Waterhouse.

I abstain on that one. I'm still Okay. Councelor uh Goodwin abstain. And Deputy Mayor. No. Mr. Mayor, it's it appears that folks were still confused. Yeah. And and so I I so let's I let's reiterate this that if I may. be my guest because I'm I'm having no success. Okay. All right, folks. If you would like to reduce the human resources budget by 127353, vote yes. Yes. Yeah.

If you do not want to reduce the human resources budget by 127,353, vote no. Is everyone clear? Any clarifying question or you can abstain clear at this point? So let's go. Everybody clear on on what which one is which? Are we clear? Take away is yes. Keep is no. So okay. I just want to make sure. So we will go again. Uh, Council Cooper,

I am voting to uh, take away that money, whatever that translates to. Well, there was no confusion. Uh, Council Debin Brown, so I think I'm Uh, council Mahan. No. Council Oliver, yes. Council Merritt, no. Councelor Waterhouse,

no. Councelor Goodwin, I'm still abstaining. Uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, no. And Mayor Harrington, no. So one, two, three, four, five.

Okay. So one, two, five, six, six. No. Two abstensions. And

one in favor. So the motion does not pass. In resources, you keep your money. Moving on to another tabled item 33, which I would, if you don't mind, take liberty to make a comment that prefaces voting on this item. It was previously moved and voted upon to remove the management and non-union GWI and remove management 1% merit. And the answer was no, just to be clear. Okay. So, just as you think about the salary, what they're paying extra, I just I want that to be top of mind. So, the answer was no to remove the GWI. It was no to remove the merit on number 33. OPED increased from 1 and a.5% to 3%. I make a motion to increase this is the management nonUN non-management as well. Director Hill.

Okay. Thank you. I make a motion that we increase management oped from 1 and a half to 3%. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Starting with uh councelor dean brown. Discussion voting. Madam deputy mayor. Correction. Yes. Um, you asked if it was management only. It is all employees, but only those that are currently contributing less than 3%.

And not inclusive of union employees. Correct. That would require negotiation. Got it. Just wanted it to be clear. Okay. Um, and that's important for him to say that there's a few people that are at some varying rates depending on their dates of hire. So generally they're at the one and a half. The motion is to increase OPED from 1 and a half to 3%. The contribution to OP their contribution to increase from 1 and a half to 3%. For retirees medical oped to be brown.

Are you all set? we're discussing. So, it may it might have a um a factor on this. You need to be a little closer to your mic.

It might have a factor, right? Because we voted not to remove the GWI or the merit increase. Correct. We voted not to remove it. So, that's in the budget. Are we how comfortable are we with this number for the um from 1.5 to 3%. Mr. Finance director.

Yes. as the last week at deliberations when the counselor uh requested I calculate a uh quick number that is what is shown here at 355,000 using the actual employees uh salaries as opposed to an average salary this $35,000 increases to $45,000 and as this is a employee contribution as opposed to the town's contribution uh this would not have an impact on our budget unless council's direction is to reduce the town's OPED contribution by this increase.

And that's important to know, right? It won't this will not have an impact on our budget unless we decide to reduce the town's contribution. I don't know if we can do that midstream. Can we do that midstream? Only council can appropriate. Okay. So, it might be that we need to look at reducing the town side and not the adding the employee side. But so, if this is not going to benefit us, I don't want to vote. Councelor Goodwin, I'm just clarifying that we have to vote because it's on there.

Pass my comments. Somebody else. So, we're voting to remove the 35,000, correct? No. 45. Oh, sorry. I'm looking at the paper down here. Um, I would say I'm just confusing how we control increasing. We don't. So, I'm voting to remove it, right? I mean, it doesn't make sense to me to be vote even voting on this kind of because They come back contractual.

I want 3%. This I'm going to vote no. Cooper. So, yes, sir. Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, we are voting to

to increase the OPED from 1.5 to 3%. Um, I do have a question um relevant to Council Me and Brown's question. Uh, Director Hill, are we able to in conjunction with the increase to the 3.5% uh decrease the town's uh by 1.5% um contribution because the employees now paying 3%. Can we decrease the town by 1.5%. I think this is a matter of $45,000. Am I Am I correct? It is.

It is. And you know, so the employee contribution is the employees contribution, not the town's. The town contributes to OPED and the council makes that appropriation. So if the council chooses to appropriate $45,000 less for fiscal 27, only the council can appropriate. Is that is that feasible, you know, or is it doable? You know, legal, doable, however you want to say.

I I believe it is. Um I I believe that the town had a number of years ago developed a plan to arrive at a funding level uh for OPED on an annual basis and removing this 45,000 would deviate from that. Okay. Um thank you. I I'm going to support the 3% increase but the my question of course can be left for later. I I I have no issue with approving this.

Deputy Mayor Lloyd. Thank you. Um and while I don't relish al although I think many of us in this room have been through it, I don't relish increasing any contributions to anyone's paycheck. However, um I think a lot of people in this room, including the employees, understand year after year after year since I've been involved, most particularly by councelor mccclary that we have to get a handle on our oped expenses. that is one of the main drivers that is um significantly impacting the town and its liabilities. So I know that the police department is paying more than 3%. And I do not with that in mind as well as a difficult year think that 3% is an unfair amount. This is an investment in their future for a benefit that they should be able to enjoy when they retire. and we need to ensure that we can sustain that so when they do retire they'll be able to access their retirees insurance if it is underfunded we don't know how long we'll be able to afford that benefit so I am in support of the increase of oped from 1.5% to 3% thank you

councel merit yes sorry okay councel mahan I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what they're voting on uh for this item that if you would like to increase OPED from 1.5 to 3% that which will yield uh 45,000 in savings uh you've no not savings cost you can't make the employ not understanding it's not the town's expense how would the town save Got it got it see and I was gonna actually ask you to clarify a bit there

we have a word So once again though, if you'd like to increase OPED from 1.5% to 3%, you vote yes. If you would not like to vote no. Okay. Uh Councelor Waterhouse and then Councel Goodwin. I have no comments. I vote for it.

Thank you, Council Goodwin. Okay. Well, my request was going to be to propose to ask councelor Ward House to remove it as a suggestion to resend it again because again, I think we're confusing the issue here about what we're voting on. We can't we're we're not taking a vote to tell employees to increase their contribution. So because the suggestion was made, I think misunderstanding maybe what the vote would be about, then I would just ask councelor Waterhouse to remove it, rescend the putting it on there in the first place because otherwise I think it will continue to contribute to the confusion about what we're doing here. Thank you, councelor. Councelor

Woodhouse for your So this has nothing to Are you telling me this has nothing to do with the budget? No, it's a then we will talk about this offline and see how we can address our oped issues. Yes, perhaps she intended to reduce our contributions. Okay, which I think outside of budget. Please, one person at a time, please address me and then we will go from there. My apologies, Mr. Mayor.

No, no, no. You were fine. you were already asked to to respond. Um, Council Oliver, we Let me Let me just say this. We're doing one clean sweep, one opportunity to respond and then we're going to take the vote. Okay. Yeah. I I was just asking is she is is Councilwoman Waterhouse going to rescend the motion or is she not rescending the motion? I will rescend it. That's all I had to ask. Thank you. Amen.

Okay. So, if I am missing anything on this page, please let me know. The last item that was tabled is number 34, further BOE reduction 878520. that was introduced uh from a previous scenario which started over 1.5 million and a recommendation was made to reduce off of that and to the amount of 878520. So, in following councelor Mahan's lead, cuz I obviously wasn't explaining it well, if we make the motion to further BOE reduction to 878520, then your vote is yes. If you are not in favor of it, vote no. If you don't want to vote, then abstain. This does not preclude us from determining a better number or a number at all for BOE. So the action that was tabled is further BOE reduction to 878520. Is there

If you do not like that number, you may vote no. Point of clarification. Second. I'll second. Excuse me. Um I believe I I heard you correctly. It's reducing the board to this $878,000 number. It's reducing what is currently shown on the calculation of the mill rate page for the board of education of 1.578 million reducing it by 878,000 which would result in a an increase of 700,000 for the board of ed

yes would be to remove that bring it back million times Am I right? So from the original scenario, it was put 1,578520. There was a motion or or put on the table an action to further reduce BOE down to 700,000. Can I remove that? You may. Just remove. Thank you. We don't have to vote on it. We do not have to vote on that. Okay.

But we will need to revisit that item to give the BOE a number towards their budget. And so at this point, I just want to call our attention to the screen right now. With all the ads, drops, and modifications, it brings us to a 6.75% increase mill rate of 35.56. Mahan has a question. Council Mahan,

I just I just had a quick question because I um I missed the uh beginning part of this meeting. I believe there was some conversation around ECS and so just want to know if you can reiterate that. I know there hasn't been any concrete um figures but out there or at least formally announced, but um I don't know if if you could provide that information again. I I think we will when we come back to that part of the conversation. It definitely bears repeating. Yeah. Okay. I I definitely agree. Um at this point, can I have that information so I could think about it while we discuss other things? I think the overarching number may be somewhere in the vicinity of 2.2 million. Okay. Thank you.

Total combined. And so a couple of items in addition to the BOE is the consideration of the use of unassigned fund ballots as it relates to um a tool to impact this budget. Originally on the scenario that was a amalgamation, a combination, a collaboration of all the counselors over the first few days of deliberations. We came up with a number of $1.5 million subject to change.

Uh, councelor uh, Merritt. And then,

uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I I brought this up after a long discussion with our finance director and when it looks like all the extra money we're getting for closing out on 20 five and and 26. Um there should be enough reserves to not violate our minimum u and or sacrifice the next few years. um which we have two more years of uh problems. Um but so we it looks so safe to take a million five uh from reserves to help us with our present problem. So uh I would move that we increase.

Did you move that? No, we're just in discussion about a number. Okay. If you I I would move that we uh increase what we're taking from reserves by 1.5 million. 1 to a total of 300 million three million. I'm sorry. What? 3 million. Okay. So, you're can I ask a point? I'll second that. discussion. You want to start down this?

We're gonna we're going to start first with uh Councilman Councelor Waterhouse. No comment. Council Mahan. No, we're we're starting on this end now.

Start on this end now. Um I I can't support that number. I mean, we jumped up from 1.5 to 3 million. I didn't want to take the money from that source. I wanted it to come from the uh um the uh uh center uh development fund uh trust fund that we have there and not um not our general fund balance. So I I just can't support that especially jumping up to 3 million. I think that's a bit irresponsible especially, you know, we of course have these projections of uh unodudited projections of what the figures uh would look like and um they do look like we won't be in violation um of our self-imposed um quota there, but still unawited. We still haven't uh fully flushed through these numbers. So, I I just can't Yeah, I can't support $3 million.

Thank you, uh, Council Merritt.

I could support Hold just to just clarify our finance director was he's very hard to get him to give up any reserves. So, but it was he he had to admit that it would not probably violate our our minimum and it would not I mean nothing's for sure because all of this budgeting is for future. We don't know if we're going to be able to collect taxes. I mean everything is an estimate. It's just what we have to deal with in coming up with a budget. But uh I I I would we have such a serious problem here where we really do not want to increase taxes and we also don't want to devastate our uh our town government services. So it's it's a real it's the most I mean I have been involved in this 50 years and this is by far the worst problem I've ever faced and most of us are having real stress problems as tell you are have trouble sleeping and because we don't see easy way out well this is happens we make our situation is 1.5 million is is is it it It would it would be a shame to increase taxes. That would be that would be a percent and a half in taxes or and it would be a shame to to fire that many people. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. And so, uh, and I I would I would give up the the four million that we have that is has to be kept there if we want. I mean that would if we gave up that 4 million would utterly keep we have to bring the whole center project

to a complete stop. I mean there's no way continue without that 4 million. That's our key to getting more money. Uh we need it for matching and uh it's just our skin in the game. So if we don't care about it, we might as well call up and I mean all these people have done so much work on that project and it seems to be well thought through and it would be a rotten shame to sacrifice our future by stopping that. Well, that that was what we would do if we use that 4 million if it becomes that 4 million is still available if we need to use it uh for reserves. We made that provision in there. So,

uh, but and we don't but if so, if Senate project bombs anyway and we can't get any other money, then then we could put in there. But, uh, uh, just just it's no reason to take it because we we do have those extra reserves. We don't need to take it. So, that's why it doesn't make any sense to not take them 1.5 million out of reserves. It does us no harm at all. Thank you. Um, Deputy Mayor Lloyd.

Thank you. Um, I would add that the exercise we just did on the reductions page were things that we had discussed and opined on and and weighed and discussed again and that's how they found their way onto the list. So, right now, I recommend this is not necessarily a motion, but a conversation. And as Director Hill plugs and plays, we can adjust that number. It doesn't have to be 3 million. Um last year I think we were at 3.5 million and we don't 3.75. Um the year before we were over 2 million and so starting at 1.5 obviously we're trending down. Um but do we need to use the increased funds? I think we plug and play and we see what it looks like. There is a significant concern that I have if every year we need to keep reducing and reducing and reducing the fund balance. That's basic math, right? But at the same time, there's many years that we completed the audit and did not use the allocation that we took from fund balance. So we have to keep that in mind. Although unodudited, I hear all day unodudited unodudited unudited from director Hill. But we can look at the trends and we know that we don't usually spend what I've seen over the last few years that we have allocated. And so I think that if we plug and play with the 3 million and see what that looks like and we start the conversation there.

Thank you. Uh I am in favor of this move. Um we have two current proposals in congressional and senatorial hands. Uh one for 4 million and one for 11.4 million. In addition, we have another proposal to be submitted in June for CIF, which does look very favorable, but the issue is that we have to present uh a proposal that says we have some skin in the game and it's based on the 4 million. So, we do anticipate that there will be some changes uh soon uh during this administration. We're we're prayerful of that. Um and so if we absolutely need additional funds, we have it. But we're trying very hard to make sure that we put ourselves in the best possible position to get these uh proposals through. Uh again, we have gone through CIF several times, but each time we've been closer and closer, and we have established a good relationship uh with with the governor. Hopefully, he he wins. Uh but we do think that uh we've established good uh relationship with our state and senatorial um um um elected officials. And so I I think uh that we're in a pretty good position to uh fare much better as we move forward. Councelor Cooper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um thank you. Uh I am certainly in favor of uh the proposed $3 million being used. We can always go back, correct if if it's not

if it's not all necessary. And as uh deputy mayor said, we can start with that point and do further reductions. Um I I also I do I think it's probably good to remind um you know my colleagues and and others uh who may ask the question why don't you use the money from the uh town center the economic development fund. um that money is restricted to the town center economic development fund and so we cannot um use that money for any other town operations. Um and that is written um it's an written into our uh policies. Uh and so that's not something that um I would take lightly. U it was done for a reason. Um there are a lot of constituents uh who have asked um that we do something with the town center. It it hasn't just been and I I'm not calling out any. It hasn't been just been um garbage. It hasn't just been the swimming pool. It hasn't just been the board of education. It hasn't just been senior services. It hasn't just been leisure services. is we are responsible for 22,000 people and all of their interests in the town of Bloomfield. And so it is a massive undertaking um when you have two people in the house, never mind 22,000 people in the house. And so I for one am, you know, for putting this $3 million there. And we can always work backwards and we can always make more cuts, right, to those things where we believe we can make cuts. of course humane cuts um where some may need to be made and also service cuts where some may need to be made but um cuts nonetheless and additions nonetheless. Also, let's remember that some of these additions are in in order for us to ensure that the services that are

provided to this town so that our audits can be done on time. We have hire professional staff. People have asked that, you know, um um that, you know, uh positions be cut. Um and I'm going to say this, our town manager, we gave him a number. He came up with some cuts. Um I'm happy for that. Um you know, we're not we're not here to pick and choose. We're here to say that this is a number that we need to meet. Folks have asked for it. Folks have cried for it. Folks have, you know, hollered and screamed for it. folks have um you know brought their kids out here to talk about what they need. And so let's continue along that line, right, for everything. It's not just your one thing. This town is about more than one person. It's more than about me. You know, and I want to add that I pay taxes here, too. I support this town. I've lived here for 19 years. I am assessed a tax on my home. I pay taxes here. And so if people think that um you know we're sitting up here and that these folks are all wealthy millionaires, you know, we're not. We're you. We're your neighbors and residents, plain and simple. And so I find it, you know, I just want to ensure that, you know, folks know that we're trying to do our best. That's my diet tribe. But I think I needed to cover all of that. I do. Thank you so much, Council Oliver. Oh,

I'm not really feeling speech time. I just want to get through this budget. Um, speech time. No offense, Mark. I'm just all right. Um, but um I I I am supporting dipping into our unsigned fund balance savings, what whatever you want to look at it as. Um hopefully it can offset and allow time for people to be trained up if that helps too. Um and we won't lose everything that we're asking for. So I'm okay with it. Thank you, Councelor Goodwin.

I'm I am supportive of using the unassigned fund balance. We of another way of describing this is often quote a rainy day fund. As I've said, it's raining, it's pouring. we might say that we're in a tsunami at least over the next couple of years. I appreciate the admonishment not to abuse that and not to build in future bud budgets where this is always dependent upon. But I think while we're still in this valuation phase over the next couple of years, it has to be something that we're considering and something that's in play. And you know, since everybody's preaching, let me preach. I'm going to say this last thing. What I would hate is to have any of us not do what we need to do for the economic development of the center of town, but then be there to celebrate and sign and say we were a part of it. This is a public declaration of whether or not we're willing to do what's necessary to gain grants or other funding for the center of town and that matters. So, I want us to be clear. If we are supportive of it, we're supporting it today. If we're not, don't come to the photo shoot. Thank you.

Well, I might be busy that day, so I may not come.

However, however, um, my issues are manyfold, right? We talk about the 22,000 plus people that live in Bloomfield. We talk about a rainy day for the next couple of years, but we want to rape and pillage the unassigned fund balance. So, I don't even understand that, right? We're not putting the money back once we take the money out. So, if you keep on going to the fund balance and not putting the money back, you're going to go one day and there's not going to be any money. And yes, it's raining. But I honestly believe that floods are coming the way things are going cuz I went to the gas station the other day and bought gas and my car is probably still on empty. So, I think we just need to be very mindful. I am not in favor of taking $3 million out of that fund balance. Not at all. I didn't say I was touching anybody's money for whatever project. We're all hopeful and prayerful that something will happen. Miracles happen every day. I'm here for it. But I'm not here for saddling our residents with something that's not sustainable. So either we cut some more stuff because this number has just gone back up. We took the time to take things out and then we added them right back in. Am I upset? Because time is the only commodity that you don't get back. A little exercise is what we're doing. But we need to be mindful. I am not in favor. I'm not saying that we can't use some of the unassigned fund balance, but I'm not in favor of using $3 million of that unassigned fund balance. We are taxing our people. We're taxing them out of the town. Right. So, we need to be very mindful once again committed to trying to see something happened here in the center of town. So, I wasn't asking for that

money, but while everyone is protecting that money, I think we need to also protect our unassigned fund balance and protect what's going to happen down the road. Because by the time we finish paying for the phase in of the revaluation, guess what? It's time for revaluation again. So we're paying a phase in for another two years. In that two years, as soon as we could probably breathe and say, "Oh, we can save a penny," revaluation happens again. So once again, I'm asking this council not to plan a budget just for FY27, but be thoughtful and forward-looking. Thanks.

Thank you. Call a question, Mr. Mayor. need a motion. We don't have a motion. We don't have a motion. It's not a motion. We got to get a consensus before we can move forward. I've made a motion. Somebody second my motion. What's the Hold on. Hold on. I move that we take another million 1.5 million out of reserves to support this budget. So that we don't have to tax people for that. He wants three. So to come out of deliberation yes he's ending discussion

discussion we got to come out of deliberation. Yeah. So, if we're looking at another number, please identify what that other number is that that you would prefer to move. How much is in there total? We don't know. We don't know. It's like 20 something million. Correct. Can you give us the exact number? Sorry. Director, may I say the chair?

Hold on. Hold on. Please. Let's have the director respond and then I'll go to you next. Uh, Mr. Merritt. No. Mr. Mayor, Madam Deputy Mayor, this is uh from last Tuesday's meeting. Um all right. Um the fiscal to I'll make it larger. Apologize. Um all right. So um as of the end of fiscal 2023, the unassigned fund balance audited was 19.6 million. Um that's the beginning balance. Um, working through this middle column, fiscal 2024 audited numbers, add 2,52,000 to our unassigned fund balance. We arrive at 21.7 million audited as of the end of as of June 30, 2000, excuse me, June 30, 2024. Uh, fiscal 25, as all are aware, we're in the process of u preparing our uh audit uh working papers to our external auditors. So this is an unaudited number. Um there's 2.75 million of fund

balance appropriated was 2.75 million appropriated in the 20125 budget. Our current uh uh munice year-to- date including the 13th period where we make adjustments reflects uh revenues of just over 111 million with expenditures of 108.5 million which results in 2.9 million being added to the fund balance. I say added to the fund balance because the adopted budget does not require us to utilize the 2.75 million that was appropriated. So this ad would be an ad without any reduction based on the appropriation in 2025 which would increase the unassigned fund balance to $24.7 million unawudited. um working that number against the subsequent year's revenue budget, the 113 arrives us at 21.7 million un audited. Um and then for fiscal year 2026, the current year, we're in the fourth quarter. Um so we don't know where we're going to end yet. Um was it last week or yesterday? I provided um I think it was last week I provided uh year-to- date as of I think last Tuesday budget to actuals um we are very close to breaching our revenue uh number which is and I apologize take a step back fiscal year 2026 as is shown on the right hand side I call them the bookends there's a 2026A which is the low end which need to show That assumes that the 3.75 million appropriated in the 2026 budget is needed. We are using 3.75 million. We

utilize that 3.75 million appropriated in the 2026 budget uh as well as the 4 million down here that is was transferred in the fiscal 2026 budget for the economic development trust. If we need all of the appropriated fund balance, we are estimating that we would be at $17 million of fund balance or sitting at 14.5%. The other book in is that we do not need any of the appropriated fund balance. So zero reduction for the appropriated fund balance in the current fiscal year. After the $4 million transfer to the economic development trust, we would be sitting or estimated projected to be sitting at 20.7 million or 17.7%. Now, both of these bookend percentages are utilizing the town manager's proposed FY 2027 budget. That is because the town's policy, the calculation takes the audited fund balance number and uses as a denominator the next year's revenue budget. So until we have a 2027 budget, these are all projections, which is why I'm showing it against the town manager's uh proposed. Um where we are sitting right now uh with council's deliberations, uh we have a total budget of 119 million. So that is a slightly higher number which will pull the percentage down some. So, in response to Councelor Oliver's uh uh question, uh yes, we are uh in the neighborhood of $20 million. Um the last

comment I'll make about fiscal 2026 is that um we are uh with the the state's transfer of the third and final ECS payment for fiscal 2026 which typically occurs in mid late May. um we will breach the lower book end, right? And we will not need all of the appropriated fund balance, which changes the question to how much of it will we need, if any. Um depending on where expenditures uh end up, and we are working to uh pre-close fiscal 2026 early to capture any savings uh that we can. of course they will fall to the the bottom line. But on the revenue side um between now and June 30th in addition to the ECS or education funds coming in that third and final payment uh the tax collector will continue to collect um and history suggests that the tax collector will bring in somewhere between$1 and $2 million. So, as I sit here this evening, um my best guesstimate of how much of the 3.75 million appropriated in the current fiscal year we will need will be between uh 1 and 1.75 million. Thank you. We're going to call the vote. Roll call. Council Cooper.

Vote yes to use a $3 million um council Susette uh Death and Brown. No. Okay. Council Mahan, no. Councelor Oliver, yes. Councelor Merritt, yes. Councelor Waterhouse, yes. Councelor Goodwin, uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, yes. And Mayor Anthony Harrington, yes. Uh, the motion passes. What's that number look like now?

Um, I believe he inputed the 3 million. Is it possible to get an idea where we stand currently? Oh, 4.82%. Just one moment. Let me um iterate the motor vehicle grant. 4.95% with with an unchanged mill at 35.02. 02.

Okay.

The tax increase be eight something, right? 8.49 or 8 8.95. Still have still

um Mr. Mr. Mayor, Madame Deputy Mayor, um in in thinking about where we are with all of council's work this evening, including the last piece to adjust the um unassigned fund balance uh general application. Um I was just I thought that we have not made any adjustments for what we believe to be pending ECS. So we have not made an adjustment on the revenue side um based on the best available information with regard to ECS. How how can we if it's not

just to uh to follow up on the finance director's uh statement there. No, even if we if we don't make uh any adjustments on that tonight. Yeah, we did. Um we did we do have one more stab at essentially at our annual town meeting where hopefully by that point we will have all those figures. Uh they'll actually be concrete and then we can uh do any adjustments from there if need be.

Tone. Uh what I would like to say is uh tomorrow the governor will be in Weathersfield and he will comment on the municipal assistance to towns. The uh uh the other going toward education has already been determined, but they're still in the process of making some different moves. As far as we know right now, uh the town of Bloomfield, uh cost per student is changed from uh $11,525 to $13,070, which with 1740 students equivalates to uh $2.3 million. um of which I believe 1,600 goes to the town and then the remainder is with the board of ed. So we're still uh I'm sorry 1.6 million. Um so we're still in the process of trying to work that out because we want to make sure that uh BOA is made whole. um you know, as witnessed by uh all of the uh students that came and spoke uh heavily in favor of the programs, the new programs that uh are currently being offered. Um so we are definitely um taking into account uh their service and uh and commitment to improving our educational system in Bloomfield.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Um, in the interest of providing council with just a little bit of perspective and then I'm hopeful I can turn my mic off. Um, let me get to sharing my screen. So, uh, with the numbers you just provided, um, which again is the best available information, you indicated that there would be upwards of 1.6 6 million in ECS funding that would hit the town's uh side as opposed to the alliance district that hits the board of education. Um that 1.6 million to give you a conservative perspective, we are looking at this non-ax revenue line which is currently sitting at 13.3 million. Um, and to show the 4.95%. If I go in and add 1.4 million, 13.4 becomes 14.7 and the perspective is a 3.39% increase at a mill rate of 30 34.51. That is with 1.4 4 million of being applied to the town's revenue for ECS funding.

Oh, and um as it's great to be part of a team with people whispering in your ear when they iterate the motor vehicle just do that refinement. Yes, director Hill. I'm sorry. You said 1.4 or 1.6. I said 1. Your number is 1.6, But to make it conservative, I'm using 1.4 in case the number is a little bit off. Thank you.

Um, so the mill rate at 34 34.54 third 34.55. It waffles back and forth, so we leave it low. So, $3 million of fund balance, an additional 1.4 million of ECS funding coming to the town would leave us at 3.51% and a mill rate of 34.55

with what built into the assumption for BOE. Can you scroll back up? The one still the 1.578520. Okay. We're going to call for a fivem minute recess. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh my goodness. Councelor Mahan is uh going to feed the audience.

Wow. Well, we are about to begin once again. with our budget deliberations number six. So we thank you all for your patience. Things are moving. And it's been out. Okay. Ready? Are you ready?

Okay. So, I would just call the council's attention to what we're discussing now, which I think the concern um on the table is um hesitation on adding in the ECS money to the budget. I believe you came up without the ECS funding included a 4 point it was high four.95. Um I want to say I'm troubled to put it in there. It's not a guarantee. Um looking back to the scenario from council's conversations last week, we're starting off with a 1.578520 that we have not yet um addressed for the board. So we also have to speak to that. Um but I would say Mr. Mayor, I feel uncomfortable building in the ECS money to the equation if we don't have it yet. Um obviously it will significantly drop the budget increase which will reduce the overall tax increase and my other concern is that we have to vote on this on Monday. Best case scenario we find out before Monday that pie in the sky we get 1.6 six million to the town side of the ECS funding. That would reduce the overall budget increase. But what if we do not? I don't think it prudent to bake that in. Although it's not the as favorable a um budget number or budget increase that we're looking for. And I'm concerned

that we don't build it in, we vote on Monday, and then we find out on Wednesday that the money has been awarded. We're stuck with the 4.95. Or if we make a few more cuts, maybe we get the 4.95 down. We're stuck with it because we cannot change it at the May 11th council meeting. So that is that is my concern, Mr. Mayor. Councelor Death and Brown.

Thank you. So, a couple of things. Um, I do believe by the weekend the state will have their budget, right? Because they also have a deadline and I think their deadline is Wednesday the 6th. Um, and from everything that I've heard thus far between Friday and Saturday, they should have their numbers. And while um there is talk of the ECS, I do believe that we'll have those numbers before Monday. And I also believe based on that we can amend our budget by Monday night if we have some numbers. Um so it's a possibility, but I'm a little bit more concerned that I believe we still have some fat in our budget. Right. I believe that we have not done due diligence to our budget. Councelor Goodwin, if your eyes get any wider, your your eyeballs are going to drop out. I believe that, right? I also um I'm all for savings. I pray that we find money and not see that the cushion money, but some real money like councelor Mary is telling me there's $10 million that we're going to find or so. I go back to saying if we do have savings, it would be beneficial for this council to start a CIP budget. I'm going to harp on that because we don't have anything in the budget now for CIP and the projects are just going to pile up. So, I think we can amend the budget once we find out what the ECS money is going to be. I would say that we can look at some other things and make some other cuts in the town. I would also say if there are savings, we need to come up with a CIP

budget. That's just me. I'm one vote, a very vocal vote, but just one vote. Thank you, Councelor Goodwin. Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Uh, councelor Deban Brown, what are your recommendations? I know you mentioned CIP. Are there any other fat? Oh, you want me to talk about the fat? You want me to talk about the fat cuts? Yeah.

Yeah. So, I'm honestly still struggling with $800 and some thousand for operations income. I'm still struggling with that. And once again, just one vote, but I'm struggling when we're asking for lean that we're still that heavy in that department. Sorry. So, thank you, uh, Council Goodman.

Um, I also support running with the scenario and then making changes accordingly. So adding it in now for consideration and then shifting by Monday if we need to council Oliver.

So I we're going to but we can't we can add in but we can't take out. Correct. If the e if we vote on this now and we get the money or we don't get the money from ECS, we can add into the board of education's budget with that money, but we can't take it out if we vote on it today. Is is that clear or is that not how it

up to Monday? We can change anything up until Monday. So, where I said I'm reluctant to add in ECS money, councelor Goodwin said, "Let's add it in and if the money doesn't arrive, we can take it out." Agreed. Either either way, I'm I'm agreeing with that. Thank you. So, you could pick Cooper, mine or his. We're council Cooper. Um, let's Don't Let's Let's My recommendation Let's is let us, but my recommendation is to vote on the budget as is. We can always make adjustments.

Thank you. I believe very honestly and sincerely that the uh ECS funding will be available. Been communicating with uh uh state leaders and I do believe those figures are correct. I don't know about the municipal piece that will be found out tomorrow at their press conference. So in my view, we should add and then uh if there's some difference to that number, then we can make the change on Monday. Uh Deputy Mayor Light. Councelor Merritt,

I agree with you. I I I mean, we could wrap this thing up pretty quickly if we put that one point, not 1.6, but 1 14.4 million in. And uh I mean, nothing's sure in life, but that looks like it's pretty likely to happen. Um and I I mean, why not? I'd like to see where we'll be if we do that. So, is there a way we can just do that and see what it does to the 4.93? We can show you again if you like. We We did We did show that, didn't we?

Oh, I'm sorry. What did I bring the number down to? What would our tax increase be? 3 um I'll show you again. So again, the 14.7 is what's changed by 1.4 million. 3.5 3.51. Wow, that's nice. Like our what our plan was. I mean, we're there, right? Folk, we could go home tonight. Council Mahan,

thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I I if only it was so simple to just, you know, go home based off of that number. That number doesn't exist. The ECS money does not exist until an actual announcement is made. We're we're dealing with numbers that are just as it stands right now couldn't be changed at any moment. Um, you know, I understand that we've received certain communications that give us uh some assurance that um that we will receive this funding, but that funding does not exist until uh until the actual commitment is made. Um, so I I'm very wary of us basing our budget off of off of this money because this money isn't here and that money can change. We don't know uh if it's going to be um well prudently the uh the finance director used I believe uh was it a 1.4 right and the mayor thinks it's 1.6 we can't even agree on that whether that number is real and which one which one it is so 1.4 the 1.6 I mean you're prudently using the 1.4 for I just do not feel comfortable baking this into our budget without us actually having that money. Um and so therefore I think that we do need to go back to the drawing board and find a few more cuts as you guys have said. We can always adjust that come Monday if that money comes. But if it doesn't come, we're going to have an overinflated budget. We're going to be right back where we started with a uh high mill rate, crazy tax increase in residents that are not going to be happy.

What's your suggestions? So, my suggestion is that we go back to like go back to the drawing. Thank you, councelor Goodwin. Um he's back and he's right back on it. There we go. Um for us to go back to the drawing board, find uh find some more cuts. Um, but you know, as uh, council beat Brown said, I'm I'm just one counselor, one council, one vote. If the body feels differently, then so be it. But I don't think it's prudent for us to use money that doesn't exist. Thank you. Uh, what are your recommendations? Rather, I'll reiterate for us to go back and find some more cuts.

Oh, okay. One of them I I agree with councelor Debean Brown uh with the communication department. We also added a bunch of things that um originally we reduced and we through the up up down votes we added back in. I I would recommend that we see some of those things uh reduced again. But like I said, I'm just one I I voted consistently to keep those items out. Um, uh, there's a couple items that I added to I think the human resources. Um, but for the most part, I want to keep those items out. Um, that would help us to bring things back down. Now, if we do get the money, then great.

You know, you can restore some of that, but we don't have the money. It doesn't exist yet. Thank you. Uh, Council Waterhouse. Councelor Waterhouse. Sorry, my button doesn't like to work tonight. I agree. The ECS funding is not guaranteed. We don't have a letter stating we're getting it. I understand we have assurances, but unless you're ready to pass a budget that's going to be higher, then I think we need to not count it in.

Thank you. I believe there was other questions on this side. I know we wanted to just have one pass, but we'll allow a couple. Yeah, I I I can't help but to agree with Shamar right now. Sorry. Got to agree with them. I got to agree with him over there. I I'm not that hard. I'm not good with using a number that hasn't been passed in a committee's budget yet. So that's just how I feel. Councelor Cooper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I, you know, I can understand that, you know, the trepidation of of some of my colleagues on um because I was actually one of the first champions that the ECS money has been a pie in the sky ever since I've I've heard it. I'll be honest with you. Um but I also know that um we are under time constraint to at least pass the budget now and certainly we have to approve a budget um Mr. Curtain so that we meet the mark so we can make our Monday announcements if that's okay with you.

Excuse me. Excuse me. So again, I'm going to come back to what I said was that we need to make do have an action tonight in order to um be to meet the charter mandate that we have within the five days. And and so I would like for us to just approve what we have now contingent on changes that may or may not come. And so it's as simple as that. We everyone here knows that you can make changes. Everybody knows that. So I don't see the difficulty in simply doing what we have to do, meet our mandate for the charter, and then in the coming days when we receive the information, we regroup, right, and come back and do what we have to do to make those changes. I I you know, maybe I'm wrong. I it's a s simple thing to me. Um but if there are others who have you know other ideas that make the difficulty level arise to you know higher than I'm understanding please inform me. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I just want to say something. Um, I have been reviewing this uh ECS uh situation for the last several days and the individuals that have contacted me regarding it, the numbers have been consistent. Now, I did say something yesterday in reference to a percentage, and it was based on what I thought was $167,000, but in fact, it was 160 million. And so, anyway, the numbers have been consistent. Tomorrow the governor will be making another uh statement regarding the um the funding for municipalities which it's anticipated and I don't know if this number changed but it was $259,000 that was going directly to uh the town of Bloomfield. um it may change but as far as I know those numbers on ECS have been consistent and it's based on the change in the in the in the amount that students uh that they're paid from the state the allocation rights so it's it's changed from 2013 I believe it was where they've been paying only $11,525 The hope was that they were going to put much more into it and raise it to 16 where it needs to be, but they did raise it a bit to $13,070. So, I am pretty confident that uh this is going to um move forward. They're just working on other elements of the budget. There was 500 million to to work

with. So, um, at any rate, um, yes, um, Council Merritt, I mean, nothing, sir. I mean, we've basing this budget on the fact they're going to be able to collect close to hund00 million from taxpayers in Bloomfield. And that's not sure. Who knows? Um, we we estimate we are going to get certain percentage of that, but uh, you know, I I I it's a reasonable expectation. And of course, if if Tony doesn't isn't right, he's going to back it up with his own money, so that's not a problem.

I didn't hear that. I I I I just can't see. We're never going to know things. Definitely. Let's put this out and if something changes. Now I have a question now. As far as I'm concerned, we still have a May 4th. U tell me I heard May 11th few minutes ago. Well, we have the annual meeting this coming Monday. It is. It is for the 4th, right? Okay. Yes, I heard the 11th mentioned. So then there's going to be another meeting to basically adopt it at that point. Two So two town meetings. No,

it's not referred to as a town meeting. The second one only. The first one is called the the the annual town meeting. Yes. And and then the second one will council will have a a meeting to adopt it. Direct. Yes. Director Hill. A council meeting. Okay. Council meeting on the 11th to basically adopt it. Is it possible to give us the two scenar excuse me uh counselor can you provide the two scenarios with ECS and without and give us the uh the numbers?

Um the only question I would have is what you mean by numbers if you could run the 1.4 4 million conservative assumption ECS in the model right now where it is and then without so we can look at the percent of budget increase tax increase for both scenarios. Thank you so much. I just really want that reiterated on the record.

If I may continue I I I know there's some people that feel it's one of the important things we do is rightsize whatever that means. That's of course different people's different definition rightsize town hall but u I I think we've gone a long way to rightsize uh by our this early retirement plan we're going to cut the number of employees we have and uh I mean this is the biggest reduction in town employees that I ever remember and I go back away so uh this is I know you may want to get rid of some other people, but I I think there's other ways of doing that over time

without getting involved in the budget. So, um I mean I like the idea of when a vacancy deliver arrives, don't fill it automatically. Consider some other way of taking care of it. That way you reduce your people. That's a much more humane way of doing it than just going out there with an axe at one point in time. So, I I really think I think we're there, right? Let's go with it and and have a long-term plan for always looking for ways of of reser reducing our headcount, you know, and being more efficient. Thank you.

Let's not do it tonight. I mean, it's go in there with an axe. Do we really know what we're doing? And I I just don't think it's necessary. We're there. We've got something. Let's do it. Thank you, councelor Goodwin. Um, yeah, I just want to say this is back to the six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Um, because we if we don't do it, I just think my concern would be because of how things are communicated, there being some confusion about this being a vote tonight

for a budget to be passed when it's not, and then somebody reading that and thinking, well, they decided to move with this. So, I think being able to be clear about whatever decision we're making. Side note, I have a question and this is just because it's come up and I'm still confused about it and I don't know if in this process Oh, I think she left with superintendent a question.

Okay. I would like to ask about the alternative school and the fact that when we were giving the presentation um not before the budget I think there was a presentation that we were paying $400,000 for 12 students for alternative schools to outsource them but if we were bring them inhouse it would cost us $1.4 million. Um, but over time we would end up recouping that cost because then Bloomfield would be housing that and I would like some clarification about that because to me that is a different programmatic infrastructure. But when we were presented the alternatives, it was either cut staff or cut programs. But we did not have a specific conversation about what would be a new initiative that actually isn't immediately necessary in the town of Bloomfield. That's something that could happen at some point, but it doesn't have to happen right now in this budget cycle. So, I would like some clarity if I'm misunderstanding the numbers or misunderstanding the desire. That would be beneficial.

Can I speak to that? Thank you. The before the super mayor before the superintendent answers, let's clarify the town meeting. The annual town meeting will take place on Monday the 4th where the budget will be presented and the residents get to ask questions on the budget. It has been Bloomfield's practice to adopt the budget at that time, but you can per the charter adopt it the uh following Monday the 11th, but again, it's been your practice to do it at the same night following the um annual town meeting. Thank you. Thank you. I knew I wasn't saying

I'm going to ask um Dr. Youngberg to come up to uh to answer counselor Goodwin's question. But I excuse me. Also, I'm not saying, which is nice, Joe. I just wanted to um give the council uh some assurances that we're not done yet.

We're not done on our side. Uh we had meetings yesterday to ask our department heads, where else can you find? I was talking to the chief today. Where else can you find? I gave him a specific number. I do believe that we'll probably be somewhere around um 300k with additional savings by the time Monday comes. So um but that may be offset a bit by some who may not be taking the um the retirement incentive although you know we're very appreciative of of what was offered. I think at this point you know that was either yay or nay. if you're not interested in that and then and they're just committed to staying here and continuing to serve, which is a good thing. But um you know, we'll we'll take this as it goes. But I'm continuing to work and um and trying to find savings and I just wanted you to be assured of that. Thank you so much.

Yes. I think I picked the bad time to use the bathroom, so I'm not sure what I'm answering. Thank you. I was going to say, okay, I had a question on the floor director Hill was working on, but I was going to defer to you. Okay. Thank you. I was No, I had asked him to do the numbers, but you brought that up, so I was going to defer to you anyway. Yeah. Thank you.

So, um, in one of your excellent presentations, um, you brought up, uh, and I might have the numbers wrong, but the cost for our for educating the students who are a part of our alternative schools program, outsourcing them, I believe the number was around 400,000. But if we were to bring them in-house, it would be a little over a million at the beginning with the intent that once they were rolled in and so on and so forth, we could ultimately bring that cost down andor revenue generation for other students who might join those students in Bloomfield. Um, when we presented the scenarios about the budget, the alternatives were cut teachers and staffing or programs, but the alternative school wasn't exactly brought up. And I saw that as a desire to bring something in house versus something that was immediately pertinent to the welfare of our children or education or what have you. And so I just wanted to know if you could offer some clarity because as we're having these budgetary deliberations. I think it might be helpful if people understood that desire which has a pretty significant price tag is something that's an aspiration as opposed to immediately pertinent to the welfare of education in Bloomfield because that it wasn't on the table when you presented the two alternatives.

Okay, I think I can explain it all. So, first of all, it it sounds like there's some misperceptions about the alternative school in general. So, maybe I'll just back up for a minute. So, the district for historically has been spending about a million dollars a year. They've been kicking in about a half a million to $600,000 a year to operate GEMS, our magnet school, which we are in the process of closing down at the end of this school year. In addition to that five or $600,000 that we've historically been kicking in to to manage that magnet school, which by the way had almost no students from the town of Bloomfield. So, we're using general budget money to support students that were really not ours, right? So, the the magnet school, the concept of the magnet school was not fiscally sustainable.

In addition to that, we were spending about $400,000 for our contract with OP, which has proved not to be very successful in terms of getting students to graduate on time or to provide the students that are attending that program with what they need. I believe we can manage a program inhouse that will give us the opportunity to meet student needs, to actually make sure they graduate on time, to make sure they get the skills they need to go on and have successful careers, um to be contributing members of the community. And I think I can do that to start off for about $1.2 million. We were already spending a million. So, I want to just make that crystal clear. We were spending a million without getting results. You can look at our accountability index on the GEM side. You can look at I can give you data on the OP success rate. So, we're already spending a million with no results. I'm saying that I can spend $1.2 million to open up the alternative school and start to bring kids back who are outplaced and start to provide actual results for kids that need it most out of all of our students, the ones that are most struggling. What I'm saying is that I see it as an investment. I can't just bring kids back to district without having a program there to provide them what they need. So, we've already started that process of trying to figure out what kind of program do we need to design in this alternative school so I can start bringing students back. I have three students already who fit the profile that I believe I can program for. Their tuition alone is about $300,000. If I can make that whole thing happen to start this school year, I will already have saved the district money and I know I can prove to get the results I'm looking for. So, it's not a $1.2 $2 million. Like people are saying I'm wasting money. I'm actually spending money to benefit Bloomfield kids and get results. I know I can make it happen. I did the same exact thing in my previous district. You can go and visit the school if you'd like. First year we opened up the school. Six students who weren't supposed to graduate graduated. It has a huge impact on the community.

And I'm not wasting money. I don't you you can talk to my team. I don't spend a penny more than I have to and every penny we use is for the students. I'm trying to save money everywhere to give it back to the kids. So, I do not when people are characterizing that I'm we're spending too much money on the alternative school. I don't see it like that at all. I see it as the opportunity for us to start generating money and at the same time getting kids what they actually need. And I know I can do it in this first year. I'm going to show you I'm going to spend less than we spent in the last 10 years and I'm going to have kids that get what they need to show for it. So I I the I think there's a misperception because no one's been tracking what's been spent for I don't know how many years now but you can go back and look at our books about a million dollars easy without any results

and I just want to if I can continue um framing is significantly important to me. So I want to clarify I did not characterize wasting money throwing it away. What I am bringing attention to is the desire to make a shift because it is the desire to make a shift. That is one solution to making a shift. It isn't the other only one. And I do appreciate that you saying this is the option I think is best. I think it can work. I've done this someplace else before, but I think it's fair to name it is one solution to how to address the best needs of these particular students. To me, saying that you brought one solution isn't the same as saying you're wasting money, you're throwing it away, or this is not helpful for our students. So, I just wanted to be clear

and I apologize that there's been several conversations going on about this very thing. So, it's my sensitivity to things that have been said inside conversations. So, I do apologize for that. Um, I will I'm open to solutions. I listen to feedback all the time. Like for example, during my presentation when there was a mention about the gems building, I've already started thinking about how can I actually get our get us out of that building and how can I do that? What what are the next steps to make that happen? I I take feedback constantly because I'm trying to do exactly what you're all trying to do, right? Get the job done for equal or less than what you're doing it. Like that's literally how I think. Um the problem that I have now is that this was a I mentioned that I was starting this proc process about 14 months ago. I had to give 12 months notice to OP just to get us out of the contract. I had gave them notice in June of 2025 that we would be out of the contract in June of 2026. So this has been like in the works for a really long time. And all of the decisions for alternative learning placements are PPT decisions. You have to have those discussions with families long before you can bring kids back. So you can't just do this. I can't just suddenly say, "Oh, I'm sorry. the programs we've started to develop for your kids, they're not available anymore because we I've been asked to change a course of action. I'm not saying that that doesn't sometimes happen, but in this case, I don't think that's the best way forward. I also like I'm trying to balance it all. We are overstaffed. We are absolutely overstaffed, but again,

those for the last however many years that's been allowed to happen. I I didn't create this issue. What I'm saying is I do think I'm probably going to have to lose some staff members. I don't want to take anything away from the kids. That's literally opposite of the way I think about every leadership decision I make is about how to get opportunities and access and results for the kids. That's literally how I think. Um I'm trying to do it with the minimal damage to the human beings in the organization. We did clarify with our insurance company that for every employee that we lay off, we could be on the hook for $18,765 per employee. So obviously when I when I showed the screen the other night about a million dollars in cuts, I I didn't figure in the unemployment cost, but I did say that there's likely an unemployment cost. And actually that's a really low unemployment cost. I even had them I had my finance director call twice because I said this doesn't sound high enough for me. My previous policy in my former district was much higher, closer to 50% of the of the salary. So I'm considering that as well to save a million in staffing. I have to consider now almost 20k for every employee that I could be on the hook for. We're also trying to figure out are there any any options for specific pieces of our bargaining units to offer some retirement incentives, but we don't have extra cash laying around. The board of ed doesn't have a contingency. So, I have to figure that all out. But I am trying to trying to think about what is the best way forward. I also will let you know that this is all very late in the game to then lay to lay off staff. So, there's another layer to it. But I I heard like everybody heard how uh powerful it was to listen to the students tell you about the impact of the programs and some of the programs that we've just put in place. They've literally just started. So to hear the kids talk about them and the staff members and the families. I don't want to take those programs away. That is not the intent. I'm just trying to figure out the best way forward. And I also am not thinking about just this year's budget because you don't budget like

that. You have to be thinking two and three years ahead. And being shortsighted puts you in a position where you can't get out of the cycle. Like the whole conversation about the capital improvements. You're not funding capital improvements this year. We're not going to get out of that cycle. We're just going to be in that chaos cycle putting out fires and trying to plug holes and duct tape things together. It doesn't help us actually provide what the kids need. So I'm Trust me, I I haven't slept in days. This has like been a rough couple weeks as you know, right? um because there's people's lives and livelihood are on the line and and our kids are at the center of the whole thing. So, and I and I I implore you I I beg you to please think about the school system as a service you provide to the community. There is I to me I mean all the services that you're discussing are important but if you don't do a good job with your schools then a well-developed downtown and you know a nice pool doesn't matter. No one's going to want to live here. like this is we could be the the key to all this and I want to work with all of you because I know I can get it done. I I came back here because I love this place. I I worked here for 16 years prior to so I feel like we can get this done. Um but the alternative school there's a series of decisions that have already been made many many months ago that I think if I stop now I'm going to get ourselves I'm going to get the district in a little bit of trouble because we've started to have the conversations about how to bring these kids back. And you want me to bring the kids back, by the way, not only because kids deserve to have programs in house, but because we're spending $6 million in outplacement costs. And every year, if you go back five years and look at our data, we were spending three million five years ago, and now we're spending six. It's not getting any better unless we do something about it. That's what I'm doing.

Thank you. Uh, Councelor Lloyd, I mean, uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd. Close enough. Um, so I reiterate what um, councelor Goodwin said. I'm not sure who made you feel that any of the programming that you presented was not worthy. And I know we conversed earlier. And so asking questions should not give rise to feeling that way when as I had expressed that I simply really need to understand and I'd be remiss if I didn't ask you. Oh no I want you to ask me. That's not what I meant. Right. Well you said somebody is putting out there that

No. I said that I was feeling I I was feeling overly sensitive about it and I apologized about that because the the discussions we were having was about taking $1.2 million off the top because it could be done. You could just take it off the top and and come up with a different solution and that's why we asked. Yeah. I just think there's a lot more

you don't want us to not have that conversation, right? And it unfortunately is late in the game. Um and and there were some missed opportunities, but that's water under the bridge. We had them and I thank you for that greater understanding. Um I did have the same questions in my head that um counselor Goodwin um had and and we all had some of those questions. There was never anybody I conversed with on the dis that invalidated or thought it not be a good idea if you could to bring them in house. Um I will say that I I do worry that it may or may not be profitable, right? I do worry about the kids who you're trying to attract to come back in Bloomfield, but they're already situated for a couple few years or more in a program that's working for them. And so I kind of kind of look at

I don't know that that's true. I don't you don't nor I there's there's several programs that are not working for our kids and yet we're paying these top dollar tuition amounts. So it's an unknown. That's why the questions were being asked earlier and then I think on the DAS again today. And so we hadn't spoken. We had not spoken. This man just got back from I'm not going to say where out of country on last night. We have not spoken. So good. It was a concern. I I appreciate the the explanation. I want you to know that perspective because it wasn't even like we colluded against you know you to say let's ask. Oh no. And I wasn't thinking that. And just so you know you don't

we're all getting to know each other but I assume best intentions always and then unless you prove to me something different and then I'll know. But I do see things to be running like I apologize. And so you just need to know the information so we can make better, more informed decision. Understood. And you just need to know I'm really passionate about doing right by kids. Really passionate about it. Council Oliver and then councelor Merritt.

Um I do agree. My I have a 22-year-old brother who just graduated from OP. And I'm going to be honest, I don't know if I get in trouble for saying this. It was a joke. It was a joke. He went in as he wanted. He slept till 10:00 in and I'm like telling him you got to go blah blah blah, but I'm at work, right? Um, so I agree with doing the alternative school. I think we need a place to save money in house, but with everything we're doing right now with all these budget cuts, I I I would prefer to put that off to next year. That's just my opinion. Let me talk. Okay. You want to pinch your nose? Go pinch your nose outside in the hallway.

Let's try not to have conversation with a Let's just um So, you're saving 400K from OP. You're saving 627K from gems. That's a million dollars right there. And then you want 2.5 million. 2.7 million. So, that's 3.7 million. and then we're saving on the board of ed costs. So, I I think right now is a bad time to ask for that because we're cutting everywhere and I will support this next year and that's just where I stand and I I would like to, you know, I and I I I feel a little frustrated that, you know, we're we're we're we're saving so much money, but yet the board of ed uh town council kind of got put in a position yesterday where we're risking all these programs from band to choir to sports. Yet we're increasing offering 1.5 million but savings of more than a million in other areas and I I just think that was a real bad look and a bad move and I I just thought it was really uncalled for.

What was uncalled for? just, you know, it just the pot got stirred yesterday and we we got pointed at as if we're closing down programs because we're not giving you 2.7 million more than last year. So, the fact that people came out to speak on behalf of the school district, I actually thanked my staff and my students for what I thought was a very respectful exchange and it was it was sharing their their the impact of the school system. Um, what I what I wanted and and by the way, no one actually asked them to come out. We just I'm a union carpenter and I've been through organizing training. I know what yesterday was. Can she finish her? Thank you.

Excuse me, counselor, please. Matter. Yes, I'm done. I'm done. You can speak to the chair, Council Mahan. Thank you, counselor. I do support giving you money.

I have a whole different take than we discuss. Um, we have this building that is being vacated by uh and and that's worth money and I I wonder if we really need to keep it. Uh, and I mean I don't see any savings this year, but like with the present uh uh board building, we hopefully we we will get rid of that eventually. And I've been told that uh that I I know that you've made room for in one of the schools the board to move in and that's great but with a shrinking enrollment and everything I've ever heard is that we still have more space and that I hear well it's busy. Well, space being busy is a relative thing. And I it may be because we have smaller classrooms that we need more classrooms um and more more smaller class sizes. You need more and I I remember one time recently and maybe it was during the rebuilding of schools um they were making smaller classrooms because of that. But um but I I wonder if there really isn't more space that we could use for this alternative school program in in the buildings instead of keeping this extra building which we really I don't think need. I declining enrollment I can't believe could make space. Now we had a situation with the old three park where we had we had senior center using so many space it was there. So the space is filled. I mean nature of horror is a vacuum and but they had some programs where they had once a week deals but they tied up a whole classroom for that. So I mean it didn't make sense. It wasn't good space

utilization. I wonder if that's happening or and I I had heard that the upstairs in the high school where I went to junior high some 70 years ago a long time ago. uh is is full. And I thought it was empty. I've been told it was empty. But what I'm what I'm saying is can't we figure out a way of putting this alternative class inside the buildings that we already have instead of taking up this expensive building with relative few people. Does that change the bottom line? It would be another move. Yeah. So I'm not saying this year, but um

I've been here for 16 months. I have already done things that no one other superintendent would do in in the amount of time that's been done. I just want to make that statement. So I I I question whether we really couldn't make space. Yeah, I think it could be done. It would be another move like I'm moving the fifth grade next year to metacad. I'm moving central office future for ways to save money too and it'd be nice to not use that building.

Understood. And I took that took that to heart. I'm just looking for good efficient long-term plans. But the other point I'd like to make is this is I've heard this whole thing about bringing special ed in. I thought maybe it was 10 years ago and maybe it failed because of co I don't know but I that was it sounded almost the same as what you're talking about but it didn't succeed for some reason. I'm not sure how long ago it was, but u it made sense then. It makes sense now. But uh I I just wonder what happened and why why we were that one failed and why we're having to do it again. Do you have any memory of that? I've only been back for 16 months. So

no, nobody's brought that up. Council Mer seem anyway. Can we move forward? Yeah. I think you're wonderful. I think what you're doing is wonderful. I have no argument with it. I just wanted to point out the possibility maybe we can get rid of that extra building. Selling buildings. I got it. I heard you on April 9th. I thank you. It's on my list of things to accomplish next. Councelor Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dr. Youngberg, thank you so much. Right. I love educators and I'm going to give you some context. Um my one of my parents was an educator. Sisters are educators. As a matter of fact, um, one of my family members was the principal of, um, Laurel, okay,

vice principal of Bloomfield High School. My youngest daughter is a product of Bloomfield High School. She went on as a presidential scholar to Tuskegee University in their veterary medicine program. Nice. She is now a publicist in LA. All right. Yeah. Separate, but that's good. Whatever your path takes you,

right? So, um, but you know, I sincerely, you know, I I'm maybe not necessarily into the figures, uh, because that is is your purview, right? How you spend your money is is your purview. It truly is. Um, you know, but I I do want to talk about the program. I you know, and in you know, in my world kind of we we will stand up a program, but it kind of ramps up, right? it ramps up over time. And so, you know, I know that you you spoke I think you said you had just a few students right now that you you're able probably 12 or 14. Well, if I bring back the three 15

Okay. And so they're they're in the they're in the school, right? Um you they're not now. They're not where are they? They're in various programs. They're going to come back into the school. The alternative school doesn't exist yet. That's another thing. I'm closing a school and opening another school. also something that isn't taken on um normally. So it doesn't exist yet. I'm building the program to start in September, August 27th or whatever the first day of school is. So So forgive me then because I am going to ask about numbers. So if you say 1.2 million for those 12 um right bringing them in, how much are we paying?

So the the 1.2 million is if we leave the alternative school with the fulling the full staffing structure. I believe it was 17 staff members. I've already said that I I can operate the building with less than that. I'm I'm already saying that I know I have to reduce staff. It's already on my list of things to do. I'm trying to avoid major layoffs. Thank you. And so this is how my brain works. You introduce that, right?

Um and I this is the perspective of the the town council, right? The perspective of the town council is that um the town council has has right directed town manager to make drastic cuts. These cuts to here, they're drastic. We have one of our members, our senior member um here has said that he has never seen this before, right? And so my thought is that if you say you're overstaffed, overstaffed um and and I'm going to say this, overstaffed means that there are more than enough staff, right?

That's correct. And it also I will note that you know I've looked at you know Bloomfield uh um I've looked at the data that's put out. The administrative staff in the Bloomfield schools has gone up. It has gone up. That's not correct. You Oh, so it is correct. I I'll pull it up. But the administrative staff you talking about central office or what are you talking like who So this is in your book. It's it's administrative staff is what it says. And so it's gone up over the years. Oh, I thought you meant like I I was raising it because I've already reduced like six different five positions and two consultants from central office. So, I I know that my numbers are going down because I want more money.

That's fair. Maybe the data is a little stale. Um, but I also want to say that if if that is the case and if there's more staff and overstaffing, um, maybe and and let me help you because I don't want you to mischaracterize your staff as being overstaffed. If these are programmatic staff for the children, if they're not programmatic staff, then they can be cut. If they're admin, I mean, they can't be cut because then that would, you know, mess with all the programs that kids have. If they're administrative staff, then they can be cut. I can't tell you what to do, but I can tell you that from the Bloomfield Town Operations side, we are making and still making drastic cuts. I think we all need to be in this together. I don't think that um the town council can rise to all the money that you want. We are not going to make cuts to the money that you're asking for. I just don't think we can rise to the level that you're looking for. So, so when you know the language counts, it counts. And I think and I'm hoping that you're able to come back, right, and say, "Okay, here's a more palatable number because we are in this together." And that would for me that would really help go a long way in what I see, you know, for Bloomfield High School. I want Bloomfield High Schools to be as successful as any other function in this town. I really do. Education is important to me. It is. It's the only way out of some situations and places and surroundings that some of us have. Some of us, you know, didn't grow up with a silver spoon in our mouth. Right. Right. So, I want to ensure that, you know, people have that opportunity. But again, I just want to reiterate, right, that if you're overstaffed, if they're not programmatic staff,

so if you recall when I presented the budget, the board of education approved budget, I was asking for a 4.75% increase, but I was planning to make a $1.7 million reduction in staffing through a nutrition model. I was already committed to doing that so that I didn't have to lay off a ton of people. And that's so I could slowly work the way exactly what you're all talking about. When there's a vacancy, you don't fill it. You try to figure out a better way to to to solve the problem. That is the plan I came with. It is true that 200,000 or so of that dollars that in the 4.75% is what I need to run the alternative school, but we were spending a million before that and no one said anything. So in my mind, I was coming with what I thought was a reasonable way forward. I understand the council wants to take a million dollars off the top. I still have the $1.7 million of commit committed attrition that I already said I was going to make. I was already making those staffing adjustments.

So you just my last point, right? Thank you, Jeff. My last point, if if on the town side, right, there are folks who um really if they don't take the the the retirement option, right, their position is going to be cut. Yeah. So, and the same is true for the board side. If we're if we're shorted a million dollars, that's what I'm telling you. It's a hard decision. It really

It is absolutely a hard decision. It's the discussion I was having with the board members before I came here tonight. So even if that million isn't cut, even if that million isn't cut, right? I think that those are things and I cannot reiterate enough to the, you know, everyone here that that I can't say to do that. All I'm saying is is that that's what's happening on the town side and I think it is drastic enough for us all to realize and recognize that drastic measures are now on the table. Right. I was already well aware of that before we even got here. Trust me, I can't operate this district overstaffed and spending money like and not getting results. You can't continue that way. I won't be successful and the community won't get what they want. I am well aware of that and have been always

I'm you won't get an argument from me. I told you we're spending more money. We're not getting the results that you deserve. I'm I'm trying to fix that. But I also can't fix it overnight. That's my only point that some of these decisions you have to make them in advance before you you reap the benefits of what you've done. So I want to make my point that the town of Bloomfield right now and this is it for me the town of Bloomfield is making those decisions that they have to do them. They're not overnight but they're within weeks within weeks. And so it it's it takes the courage, right? I am all for I am all for, you know, for the working man and woman, but certainly

But sir, some of the decisions you're talking about have to do with special education decisions and there's legal ramifications and things that I don't have the ability to change. So I don't think it's as simple as as that. But I think there's more to it, some nuance to this to the board of education's uh concerns.

Council Mahan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And um thank you, Superintendent Youngberg. That was the most frustrating line of question I've uh witnessed in my time. I'm sure it could not have been too easy on your end. Counselor, do you have a question? I do have a question and I'm going to speak just like everybody else did. You Okay, but we don't need

do that to everyone else. You only do that to me. Can you please not do that? Not tonight. Especially after all of that. um you know a few things and I'm going to go line by line from the uh questions that I heard and uh the challenges that my colleagues raised unfairly I believe uh because there this fire um and and want to cut at the board of education and question everything with the board of education which we have no jurisdiction to determine how they spend their money. We didn't have that same energy on our side. We had many opportunities and we did probably a few deliberations ago, but today we put everything back. Now we're telling the board of education, hey, your uh your

I'm sorry, that's unfair to be able to ask further questions is reasonable. I'm I'm speaking councelor Goodwin. I'm speaking. I would prefer you stop. Point of order. Thank you. Okay. point of order and you cannot speak from the audience please.

So uh thank you. Um you know the fact that we had um my fellow counselors consistently dig at this program which the superintendent is trying to bring students back into the district, save money, and we're not looking at this investment. instead were we're we're uh cutting at or or or trying to dig at the cost and and grill the superintendent on this. I mean, it's it's a little insane to me, especially because um I've seen this council allocate money to things that don't benefit a lot of students. I mean, if we want to talk about plugging some of our budgetary gaps, I have an idea. We have a trades program that we can find some money in to help plug some budgetary gaps. In addition, I mean the superintendent in previous but in a previous budget session has uh has talked about the success of our aggra science program and how that has a potential and is bringing students into our district. Yet here we are. We're when when that was brought up uh what was uh what do councelor uh

Thank you. Thank you councelor. No, hold on. Whoa. We have other counselors that would that would like to speak as well. Everyone else got Todd asked three separate questions without any interruption. Directed to the board. Directed to the board. You're talking about counselors. Your colleagues. Yeah. I'm talking about my colleagues. One council, one vote. Just like you, Mr. Mayor. You have I can take it cuz I'm going to give it back when it's my turn. As as you should. Um anyway, I'm not even going to go there. But um Oh, let's go there.

But please stop stop. We have we have money in that trade program. Let's use that. That that was that was a proposal that was a proposal that was brought up in a previous deliberation. Why don't we use that money to help plug some of the budgetary gaps instead of trying to dig at the board of education's budget? Thank you, Council Mahan. I'm not I'm not finished. No, let him let him let him finish. Thank you. I mean, this is not Germaine. It It is Germaine. I'm talking about the superintendent's budget here. No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. And I I don't We're talking about spending 30 grand for eight students for 1.2 million

12 students. Big difference in counselor. This This is a pattern. This is a pattern. No, the pattern is The pattern is that you continually take over. I disagree with you guys vehemently and you do not You can have your questions, counselor. You can have your questions, but please finish. But I'm doing it. Please don't interrupt me as I disagree. I believe you guys are wrong. That's okay. You believe I'm wrong. That's okay. I am currently running this as a chair. So, listen, I'm saying please finish up your questions.

I'm going to continue without interruption. You're making this take longer. Please. Thank you. Now, what I want to what I'm what I'm hoping that we can see, if I'm allowed, is more support for the superintendent's vision here. As the superintendent mentioned, uh there's a number of things that have happened that we have not seen with previous superintendent. We've seen, of course, a a decrease in staffing um um in um in central office. Uh we've seen a goal hopefully to bring more students in and we see the trajectory of what our spending looks like for out of town tuition. I don't think the superintendent is throwing numbers out here that are just out in the wilderness. I'm imploring my colleagues to see this budget through. We heard very clearly from our from our students yesterday. We heard very clearly from um from our teachers, from our parents. What I'm hoping is that my colleagues can see if you can support certain budget items for town operations, I'm asking you to also see that you support the board of education in their endeavors.

Thank you. We could have we could have finished that like three minutes ago if without not with you, but anyway. Thank you. Um councelor Oliver. Um, and these

like I said, I am not opposed to the alternative program. I am not opposed to shifting inhouse. All I'm asking in my opinion is to hold off to next year for the program. Thank you. So I Oh, okay. Counselor Death and Brown like you know until what time of night? So here's the thing. Here's a couple things, right? I understand that we are all

we Yes, we are all tired. The investments that we make as a council will let everyone know what our priorities are, right? And we have to understand that. And if we're looking to attract people, no disrespect, but younger people, we need to make sure that we have what is attractive for them. Because when parents come to Bloomfield and send their students out of district, we also pay for that. So, we have to be very mindful in what we're doing and this budget will tell our residents what's important to this council. And if this council is not in alignment with the parents, it's going to be a very acrimonious situation. Number one. Number two, I think it's really important that we ask questions so that we can get clarity. and in asking questions and getting clarity, we can make more informed decisions. So, I just want to put that out on the on the table. It's it's it's it's worse if we get into a back room and make assumptions and make decisions based on assumptions. So the questions are okay, absolutely all right for clarity sake, but this council have an opportunity to let our residents know what's important for the town of Bloomfield and hopefully we are coming out on the same side. Hopefully.

Thank you, councelor Goodwin. So I want to begin by apologizing because it is not within my character to want to interrupt. What I do want to say publicly is I never want to be mischaracterized. In political theater, it is necessary to attribute negative attribution to other people who you believe that you're opposed to or that you're against. I'm going to say again as a counselor, it is my responsibility if I am confused or not clear about something to ask. That doesn't mean you're being digged at. That doesn't mean I'm challenging you. It doesn't mean I don't support your fight for education purposes. Not everyone in this das has the same background. I personally have spent the majority of my career in education. Left education to then continue that in ministry. So I know what it means to put a budget together to work with your students to try to advocate on behalf of your direct reports. That was not the intent of my question. it was to clarify something that has been brought up multiple times. If as counselors we do not invest in asking clarifying questions, we are failing at our responsibility. It is our responsibility also to respectfully hold our own words and opinions without the need to try to trash everyone else so that we have a moment of political theater that says I am always the champion of the underdog. You cannot always champion the underdog if your favorite word is I. My I I I my my. We all have a vote. But we're all trying to do something collective here. One thing I will commit to everyone in this DAS, I will never use my voice or my time to try to mischaracterize you so that I look better. My questions are because I want clarity. I'm not going to talk behind your back. I'm not going to do it in the secret or I'm not going to do it for a sound bite on the news. I'm going to do it because I want clarity which you provided. So, thank you for respectfully answering the question. And

again, I sincerely apologize if the engagement you have experienced has made you feel diminished or disrespected or unheard for the advocacy that you're trying. As a fellow educator, I respect what you are doing and respectfully I would be okay with a question and not feel as if I was being attacked. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry if I came across, you know, that way. So I apologize. Thank you. All done with questions. I don't believe so. Are there any done? Am I done? I asked. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. So,

if I might before um conversation clarification um I thank everybody for their dialogue. I I think it was robust. I I think everybody here is very passionate and really just wants to be as clear as we can before we make these decisions because there's a lot at stake. Before that, um, we had asked Director Hill to pull up the numbers regarding the ECS and show the budget impact with and without it as well as the tax increase with and without it, if you do not mind, because um, at some point this evening, we need to get to a resolution that we can bring to the meeting on Monday. And I will say again, as many have already, doesn't mean it's set in stone and it could be subject to change. U this scenario shows the additional ECS funds included as evidenced by the 14.7 million of non- tax revenue. It was 13.3 million um without the additional ECS uh funding included. It is uh the 3.51% that we have seen previously without

I just opened it. It's not going to let me undo it. So I've got to switch files. was out. Including and with uh without the additional ECS money uh 13.3 million is the non- tax revenue and it is the 4.95%.

Can you give us the um tax increases the Senate another four additional four um this without scenario is unchanged from the previous three times I've shown it I'm happy to do it again the mill rate is 35.1 on2 yes do it again please thank you

I'm asking you to reiterate because we're moving into the resolution so I want this clear at this tail end of this session so that we'll know exactly what's what for the public that's jumping in midstream they'll know what's what and then we can get this resolution done whether we add ECS or not please thank you this 35.02 2 is without the additional ECS funding. With the additional ECS funding, the mill rate falls to 34.55 as shown two screens ago. 34.55.

And we have the percentage of tax percentage. you know, the phase in and this together.

Uh, I'm happy to respond to that question. I'm going to stand at the podium for that, though. This reflects with with the additional ECS funding, uh, which is the 34.55%. I'm sorry, 34.55 mil rate. And um both of the these scenarios with and without the additional ECS funding are in your inbox. Counselors um um could you repeat your question just for Bloomfield? So, thank you for sharing the mill rate um as it relates to the budget percent increase with and without the ECS. Thank you for showing the mill rate with and without the ECS as well as we saw the dollar amount changes and if I heard councel to beam correctly, she's looking to know what would the approximate percentage look like. So, we know it could be 93 or $58 a month. I wrote it down verbatim from the screen. Could you quantify what the percentage so people can maybe walk away and say, "Wow, with ECS we're at a 3.51% increase on budget and I'm making it up, y'all." And we're at a 6.5% increase in my taxes. Um, we know that's based on two different scenarios and everybody's going to have a little different scenario based on their home value, but that is the question if you can quantify it. Um so my professional opinion is that it is quantified that percentage at the bottom right of each scenario is after

equalization and includes the increase uh in the in the mill rate. That increase in the mill rate is the increase in the taxes after equalization. The equalization is important because we equalize as I've uh described previously. We take the assessed values and the revenues generated this year fiscal 2026. We add the growth which is any incremental growth but also the additional 25% of the 2024 reval. And then we equalize. The equalization is to determine with the additional assessed values next year what mill rate generates the exact same revenue. equalization different assessed values generating the same revenue. So that equalized mill rate is where I believe the reval is addressed. So the increase from the equalized mill rate to whichever scenario council uh is looking at includes reval. I understand that there are others out in the community and respect their professional personal political opinion um based on their calculations that there is an ad to that. Um I've engaged in that conversation. They've not convinced me otherwise. I respect uh that they are um entrenched in Bloomfield and have chosen not to challenge that they're suggesting and add a four or 5% to the equalized increase in the mill rate.

So just for clarification, excuse me. Who said excuse me? I did. Oh, councelor Deben Brown. It's late, dude. I understand, but we're trying to keep things in order. We looked at a scenario

and after you showed us the scenario with the mill rate and the uh percentage of increase, you were able to give us I think we were at like 5 something% of increase and you gave us the tax increase number. I think it was like 8 point something%. Am I Am I I don't remember any 8% numbers from this evening. Hold up. Hold on. Councelor Cooper.

Uh D. Um thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think director Hill she was asking the what's the tax increase for the um the town's person if if you if you have it for the $200,000 home or if you have it for the $400,000 home with this budget what would the tax increase be for just individual? So the counselors have answered that question uh when they were asking the question right there is variability um in each individual property. Right. So, I'm working off of averages.

The scenarios for the $250,000 uh market value or assessed value example and the $400,000 assessed value example. The growth in the assessed value is on the average and the average increase from the current fiscal year to next year I believe is 9.7%. Okay. So if you factor asking for

well but but that's not what the increase is. That's the increase in the example counselor said it when they asked the question different properties are going to have different increases. If my taxes went up 20% my increase is going to be different than somebody whose taxes went up 70%. So my point in responding is the example is going to generate a 9.7% increase because that's what the assessed values have increased. And that would be misleading for me to suggest to you that the increase in both of those examples are anything close to any resident's home that isn't at the average. And that's what and and so I understand that right everything that we're doing right now 35 mills is going to affect him differently than it's going to affect me differently based on the value of my home. We all understand that. But the other night when we were looking at scenarios we were at a 5.82% increase which gave us a 8.7% increase in our taxes. This is what this is what we had the other night. This is straight from your Excel. Straight from there. That's what that's what that's what we got. So tonight when I'm asking you what's the increase, I'm asking for the same thing. So if we're at a whatever it is that we're at, what's what's going to be the increase? And I know that the increase is going to be different for everybody. My 5% and your 5% is going to be different. It's not both going to be $200. I thoroughly understand that. So, um I I don't know what you're referring to, um that I presented last week or or yesterday that showed the percent increase.

Excuse me. Can we can we I'm happy to pull back up on the screen the example one and two and calculate what that increase in taxes is. Could you do that please? I just said I would be happy to.

That's what I was asking from from the beginning. Listen, the level of foolery after 10 is ridiculous. Jesus. Look at this.

New taxes by the old tax.

Mr. Mayor, the requested information is on the screen now. That's with the ECS uh funding added. Can we have it without the ECS funding? Thank you so very much for the information.

Anybody want to take a picture of the screen? It has been sent to you. Yeah. other.

Oh, okay. Watch the video. Oh, why can't we just take a picture of our screen right here? Oh, I'll I'll send pictures if if I need to. You have pictures on an angle, sir. I'm sorry. We can just get No, we we have You guys got screens and you have cameras with phones, right? Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Mayor. Uh, okay. Point of information, Mr. Mayor. So, what is our uh what what is what are we trying to do now? I was just getting to that. Okay. Thank you. Cuz I you know,

so I I think it bears mentioning it's very late, but you know what? This is what it takes. So, everybody who's here this evening and have been here evening after evening after evening, for everybody that came out to advocate for themselves, the students that came out, the educators that came out, the board that came out, everybody that came out and showed up, um this was not an easy process. Director Hill, thank you for real time crunching the numbers. Um I think we have what we need at this next point. Um we're we're going to need to determine what we need to put on the record for the resolution. And so with those two numbers in mind, we've heard two conversations. Add the ECS and then take it out if we don't get it or or don't. So at this point, I think we should entertain a motion.

Uh Mr. Mayor. So second. What is a second? Let him talk. Let him talk. Right. So go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we accept um the town manager's um proposed budget with the ECS rejections and our adjustments and our and our adjustments um as presented subject to changes before um adoption. Second application. It's no longer the town manager's budget. The

council still the town manager's budget until we adopt it and ratify. It's going to be our proposed. Right. She's right. It's our proposed. So, if you don't mind, if you don't mind, for the record, if you don't mind, if he could just There you go. Thank you. I was gonna Thank you.

Thank you. and and I do um I'm sorry I'm joking with my uh fellow council woman um and so forgive me. I move to endorse the following FY2027 budget for our annual meeting. uh an overall tax increase of 4.9% 95% which equals 119,268,170 and sets the mill rate at 35.02 02 allocating $55,900,414 to the board of education, a 2.91% increase, which equals $1,578 and52 1,000

a million one million 1 million.

Huh? We want to win. Yeah. So, it's the way it's written. It looks like that. We'll be right back. No, that's one.5.

Yeah. 1,500 Chevy. You can Bless you.

We're tired. Chat live. I went to that here.

This is That's what I think. So this

was me

with 1.4 Okay, we're back and with some corrections. Thank you for your patience. So, I am moving to endorse the following FY2027 budget for our annual meeting with the additional ECS dollars of $1.4 4 million included. Uh with an overall tax increase of 3.51% which equals $119,268 $268,170 and sets the mill rate at 34.55 allocating 5500,414 to the board of education. a 2.91% increase, which equals 1,578,520, allocating to town government operations a 4.43% increase, which equals 1,585,000. Not $585,000.

Second. Hold on, Joe. Yes.

Okay. which um to the town uh government operations which equals1,585,915. I'm going to make a course correction. Um the overall tax increase of 3.51% equals $119,268,170. And authorizing the town manager to provide retirement incentives to eligible employees, directing the town manager to stay within the 72,000 incentive budget given utilizing a $3 million uh amount of unassigned fund balance for general fund balance applied. Can I second it all?

Yes. Thank you. A second. Roll call. Call again. I don't want to discuss. Don't look. Roll call vote. Uh, councelor Cooper. I read it. I councelor Debe and Brown. I heard it. No. I knew that. Councelor Mahan, I don't have anything clever to say. No. I knew it. I knew it. Uh, council Oliver. Yes. Council Merritt. Yes.

Council Waterhouse. Unfortunately, no. Okay. Council Goodwin, no. Uh, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, yes. And Mayor Anthony Harrington, yes. Um, so see, no have it. It's a five to four. Did it need to be higher than that? No. No. Majority.

Okay. Council majority 5 to four. The motion passes. I can go home now. Motion to adjurnn. Second. I thank you. Council Mah. You took his job. Exactly. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you all and