City Council - Regular Meeting

for the city council committee on finance meeting will now be called to order at six o'clock on june 1st madam clerk roll call please council's khadim camara here can you all yeah dion here hart yeah peckham yeah carrera

Here. Proposal? Here. President Ponte. Here.

Pursuant to the open meeting, will any person make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Today, June 1st, Monday, we have our budget presentation. The first department that's going to come before us is the school department. You can make your way down to the table now. City operations will follow, which will be the director of operations, facilities, streets, highways, solid waste, parks, cemeteries, trees, and snow removal.

Thank you.

And welcome back. If you can please identify yourself for the record, please. Starting with Mr. Almeida.

Mr. President, motion to lift from the table.

Motion to lift the item from the table. Thank you, Councilor. It's been made by Councilor Raposo. Seconded by Councilor Deon. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Mr. Almeida. Sure.

Kevin Almeida, Chief Financial Officer.

Kathleen Smith, Interim Superintendent. Liz Lago, Interim Deputy Superintendent.

Ken Pacheco, Chief Operating Officer. Any brief overview for us at all, Madam Superintendent?

Yes, I would like to make a statement, President. Thank you.

Thank you.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Today actually marks my one-month anniversary in Fall River. In that short time, I have had the privilege of working closely with the team at the administration building, school leaders across the district, our school committee, and leaders in the city of Fall River. What I have seen so far is a community deeply committed to its students. And I will tell you I got to do some shopping and went to a Portuguese restaurant last week. This is a big week in our district as graduation season is officially here. Over the past several days, I've had the opportunity to attend National College Signing Day, senior awards nights, and a series of celebrations that honor the hard work and accomplishments of our students. All of it leads to Friday night under the lights at McAldrich Field where 650 seniors from Durfee and Stone schools will walk across the stage and receive their high school diplomas. These graduates are leaving a state-of-the-art high school facility equipped with modern classrooms, updated technology, and expand a career and technical education program that reflects our district's commitment to preparing students for the future. And the celebrations don't end there. Next week, I'll proudly stand with students from the Robert L. Madero School as they receive their high school diplomas that they've worked so hard to earn. Although I arrived after the budget process was already well underway, and in fact already presented to and approved by the school committee, I want to acknowledge the strong foundation that has been built. FY27, our operating budget is an estimated $213 million. Our current enrollment is about 11,000 students and just over 2,500 hardworking Fall River Public Schools staff members. And I want to tell you, while many districts across the states are losing students, here in Fall River, we are gaining students. We are not facing a deficit, unlike several neighboring and statewide districts. The district has been physically responsible even during a period of rising costs statewide. We are not laying off teachers. In fact, we are adding some positions next school year to better meet the needs of our students. One of our early priorities has been working with the team to centralize our youngest learners into one location at the former Bishop Conley High School on Ellsbury Street and to convert the space into our early learning center. This will finally allow one central location for our three to five year olds. Previously we had 333 students housed at one spot and students housed throughout the district. You will now bring 600 plus students together in an anticipated, I'm sorry, 33 classrooms for FY26-27. Improved access for these students to services such as occupational therapy and physical therapy. Create space for intervention and acceleration for our students that are ages three to five. Allow for more consistent programming and support in one facility. Over the last few years Fall River has taken major steps to balance enrollment and improve our access. Redistricting to ensure more equitable class sizes, averaging around 28 students in each class. Reopening of Westall as a neighborhood school, and I believe it's the second school year that this school has been open. Purchasing the former Atlantis Charter School building on South Main Street, where the Stone School is currently located, and also houses the Fall River Learning Pre-K classrooms on the first floor. These classes of course will move to Bishop Conley and your early childhood center next year. This year we are implementing updated school boundaries, redistricting. Families will receive notification this week and we are committed to supporting them throughout this transition. We are also working towards greater inclusion for students receiving special education services. This is not only the best practice, but it is also what our students and our families deserve. It requires thoughtful planning, staffing and professional development, and we are moving in that direction. Fall River has made significant capital investments, many of which will include reimbursements from the MSBA, the Massachusetts School Building Authority, National Grid, the Massachusetts CEC, the Clean Energy Center, and other partners, investing in renewable energy with the addition of a canopy at the Pace parking lot on Ray Street. We've installed new windows at the Henry Lord Community School, the Robert L. Medeiros Resiliency Preparatory Academy, and will receive more than $2 million in grant money for energy-efficient updates at the William S. Green Elementary School. I do want to talk about what I call my big rocks. So coming into the district as your interim superintendent, one of the goals for this year is to look at, and I'm going to be meeting with the school committee, I believe for our first retreat on June 17th. I plan to have retreats for the next couple of months because it's important for our working relationship. We're looking at creating a strong expanded human resource department for recruiting and hiring for all positions. selections of highly qualified teachers and personnel, ensure we have Desi licensure in place, monitoring our training, collective bargaining with all our units, educator and staff evaluation, and some of this is the result of a district review and things that we need to improve in the district. I'm gonna be reviewing all departments for efficiency and effectiveness throughout the district. And most importantly, improving relationships among school committee, superintendent, central departments for a high functioning relationship that supports our students and families. preparation again to recruit and attract a permanent superintendent of schools for your district and also creating, and you've heard me talk about this individually, a strong collaborative partnership with the mayor and you, the city council, and across all city departments. I want to thank our educators, our hardworking staff, and our families, and this community. We cannot do this work alone. I look forward to continuing to work closely with all our district and school leaders, school committee, city council, and all for the benefit of our students in the Fall River Public Schools. So thank you for this opportunity this evening.

Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Councilman C-1, Councilor Kadim.

Thank you, Mr. President. Can I just request that the CFO come down, too, because I've got questions from the schools, but I... That's okay. That's the music for her to come down. You have your own theme song. Ms. Arpke? Yes, so I do just have general questions, but I think it's going to go back and forth between the school side and the city side. So first off, while Ms. Arpke is coming down, I do want to thank you for the statement that you just provided. In the short time, I know it's been a month for you, a little bit longer for the deputy superintendent. but I've had a opportunity to meet with both of you on a number of occasions, and I can tell you that the messaging that you've put out there is refreshing, number one, Some of the challenges is that we get messaging, but no delivery on what's being said. And I can see that there's definitely, from your standpoint, the two of you are really looking to make that impact with the statement that's been made and making sure that there's changes on the school side. So as one counselor, whatever you need, the support is always here from the city council to the school department, as we always try to do is have that partnership. So thank you for that. So just in terms of budget questions, I noticed that we are 100% in net school spending. So when I look at the city budget taking the $212,582,416 plus the $85,000 of the city share gets us where we need to be with net school spending. I guess my question is, Did I understand the school committee meeting that I watched that they voted for an additional $2 million to be appropriated? So that was essentially a 1%? So is that a 1-0?

So what ended up happening since the last meeting that we had here was the school committee, the Knight, It was either the night after or two nights after, voted to approve an additional $3 million in the budget, which would have brought the budget to 101% of net school spending. But when the budget was submitted to the mayor's office, it was brought back down to what was initially put in.

So you've already made the cuts that you need to do to get in line with the budget?

Our budget reflects the initial budget, which was the 100% of net school spending.

And was there any of the additional 1% that was in there, the $3 million, was it just looking for a blanket funding, or was there specific allocations that were already being made? Was it like an attempt for additional teachers or programming or anything like that?

We were looking at the additional 1%. It kind of just happened that night. When it happened that night, it kind of caught us off guard a little bit. It was great to hear, but with it not going through the mayor's budget, it never really fully went through. we would have definitely come up with a plan.

And then my second question, just a general question with regards to, and I just heard the superintendent talking about additional hiring for teachers and things like that. And I know that the Student Opportunity Act has provided some significant increases in funding over the last several years. And obviously, that'll be tailing off a little bit. The school department, I think it was Mr. Aguiar or I forget which committee member asked the question, just looking at from a sustainability standpoint to do a forecast to make sure that the number of hires that the school department has, uh, is sustainable, uh, in the future has, has that been done? And is, should there be any concern from, from the council standpoint with regard to, especially if we're going to year over year, uh, be at a hundred percent in that school spending? I know our, our goal personally is to get above that number, but when we can get above that number, I'm not quite sure. So I just want to make sure that, uh, to the superintendent's point, there is no layoffs in the future. Um, that's possible. So, so what, what's, have we done that evaluation?

Not a full four to five years, no.

Okay. Is that something the school department is planning on doing? Yes. Okay. And then just a majority of my questions are just regarding transportation. So I guess for my colleagues and for you folks, so the two documents I'm going to be going off of is the document that's on page 116 which highlights the educational component for the budget on the far of a budget and then the last page on the on the school's budget which is transportation so I guess before and I've got several questions regarding transportation but before I get into that I think the city council recognizes that transportation is a significant expense for the city that is not net school spending eligible, which has always been an issue for us. So when you start looking at the gross transportation costs, they total approximately $16.1 million, according to the city operating budget annually. And with the exception of the McKinney-Vento, which is the homeless transportation and then the circuit breaker transportation for sped transportation, we receive no reimbursements or direct aid from the state to offset that cost. And I know that's been a major contention with the mayor and I think the city council. When you look at the governor's budget and the house budget, they both have $112.3 million for regional school transportation. So zero transportation costs associated for districts. And that, for me, is a significant concern. And then when you look at the Senate Ways and Means, that number actually increases to $114.7 million for the same purposes. So why I'm on that soapbox is because when we start to look at the actual budget for Fall River, that represents approximately 3.3 percent of our total budget. you look at the tax levy which we've been having conversations about the tax levy that equates to 10 percent of our tax levy with zero reimbursement coming from the state so i know from my standpoint i'd like to make a motion right now that the city council sends to the delegation that they requesting them to take a hard look at funding or providing reimbursement for transportation for at least gateway communities. Because when we start looking at those costs and the competing interests with that, especially for gateway cities that are struggling to meet 100% in that school spending, if we have some type of reimbursement, then we can potentially reallocate that money to the schools so that we can get above 100% in that school spending, or we can have a reallocation of those costs to other departments, whether that's police or fire. So from my standpoint, I'd like to make that motion, and hopefully my colleagues would support a letter going to the local delegation regarding that. Second.

Motion made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. Very quickly on the motion to send the letter only. We are not in full council, but this council would make sure we have that letter drafted, Madam Clerk, for our June 9th next full council meeting, or actually Wednesdays. Can we add it to the agenda and get that done?

You can send a letter as a committee on finance.

As a committee on finance, fair enough. Motion has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilor, Councilman Seek.

I just had a question on the.

On the letter? Yes. Okay, go ahead.

Did we want, I would ask my colleague in seat number one, would we also want to include in that letter the crossing guard cost as well, since that is also very much related to the schools.

Well, I think the crossing guards are really more of an indirect cost agreement between the city. I think the more pertinent piece is the transportation costs. And when we start talking about education and graduation rates, and I've had this conversation with local delegation in the past, we can't talk about graduation rates if we can't get students to school, right? So the fundamental component of education is transportation, especially when you deal with gateway cities and communities, right? That to me is the most important thing. I think we need to address that first so that nobody is losing sight of what the real issue is. And then once we deal with that, then we can deal with some other issues. But to me, that's the pertinent issue.

You yield, Councilor? I do, thank you. Councilor, on the motion only. Councilor, on C7, Councilor Perot?

I like the idea of just for gateway cities, because I forgot how many years ago we went to Boston.

Ten years ago we went on. Did you go too? Yeah, the three of us, yep.

Yeah, the three of us went to Boston trying to fight to get this transportation issue resolved, and it was around the entire state. So maybe just going with the gateway cities would be better, so I'm in favor of that. Without a yield, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor in C1, you have the floor. We've taken them. You're right. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Harry, no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? On sending the letter? The ayes have it.

Councilman? Thank you. So getting back to my question with regard to transportation. So when I look at the city budget, school transportation, we have a number of $16.1 million. Can you just explain how that's derived? Because then when I look at the actual sheet that's provided by the school department, do you have, I'm sorry, do you have that? You do. I'm not sure that the numbers tie out on the school side, which I guess I was going to look for some explanation on that as well. But total projected for FY27 is $17 million. There is a little bit of a discrepancy there, and I'm just curious what that discrepancy looks like or why it's there and what the actual true total projected FY27 transportation number is.

So the number you see reflected in the school submitted budget is what their numbers are for the projected budget. When we had this and we're putting the budget together, there was a conversation between the mayor and I about the numbers that were in there. There was a conversation about the, I'm gonna say reorganization of the school transportation and the way that the plans are expected to change in FY27, and those costs aren't included in that $17 million number at this time. So part of that was where we were falling this year for FY26. The proposed estimates that I had looked at, the projected estimates, sorry, that I had looked at for FY26 showed that we were coming in under and then with the amount of increase that was in there. So we figured between the projection for 26 potentially being a little bit high plus the changes that are expected to reduce it, we would reduce the number by about 900,000 I think it is.

To be clear, are you talking about the redistricting that the school department is beginning to work on?

So part of it, I think part of it's that, but part of it's the transportation changes that would follow.

You're talking about the redistricting that's happening. Yes.

Which would include changes to where students are being transported to. So that $17 million number didn't reflect any of that.

Okay, so I guess, can we take a step back? So can we focus on the school document itself? So you've got a total projected FY27 cost of just $17 million, a little over $17 million. But when I go and look at, so the total salaries for operating transportation that doesn't come over to the to the city side right that's that's captured on the school side it's part of the transportation line so we paid not just so we pay for salaries as well yes okay all right so we I guess I got a question as to, so why are we paying for a transportation coordinator? I thought we would just pay the expense of busing. So I see the couriers, and I guess the couriers would do transportation, right? So the coordinator of transportation, 90,000, we're paying that as well?

Yes, she's the one that oversees the transportation. It's always been that way.

Okay. So I guess that's a discussion for another day, but so that totals 456,000. Then we get student transportation, $11.5 million rounded up. We got the homeless transportation of 2.1 million. Then we got general supplies of 4,500. That total is 13.6 million. So if I add those two subtotals up, that gets to the 13.8. So what is the $4 million difference, so the 17 to the 13.8?

So the difference, it should be about $3.2 million. And so $1.8 million is coming from Circuit Breaker. And then $1.4 million I initially had had in the McKinney-Vento account.

So I guess how do you get into the $17 million, though? Because it doesn't add up. Right? So the total expense for operating is $13.6 million plus the $456 million.

So the $13.8 million is essentially half. We only charge transportation for half the couriers because they spend half the day delivering mail in the district. And so when you take half the courier's salary, so the two items together add up to just over $14 million, the eligible portion versus the non-eligible portion.

Yep.

And so that's how you get to the 13.8 is when you take half the courier salary out. So the two added together equal to just over 14. And half of the courier salary backed out gets you to the 13.8 million.

Right. Then you go, if you go down a couple lines, the total projected FY27 is 17 million.

So where's the- Correct. So the additional money, the 1.8, the 1.4, it's just cost of transportation coming out of those funds for the 17 million.

Mr. President, point of clarification, if I could. Your point of clarification? In the school department budget, it says the McKinney-Vento is $1.4 million reimbursement. The city document says $2 million. Which one is it?

Well, I was getting there.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah. So I had put in the $1.4 million. That's what I had put in.

Council C-1 has the floor. Okay. I believe that our colleague in seat one is going down that road with a question. We'll make sure we get the clarification. Thank you.

So, Sean, Council Kadim, because we fund a portion of transportation out of the Circuit Breaker account and the McKinney-Vento account, it's not shown in your totals above?

So that's what I'm saying. So that's all net, the reimbursement. That's the difference. Correct. Exactly. Because the math does work out when you get the total projected, the $17 million minus the $1.8 million minus the $1.4 million gets you to $13.8 million.

Exactly.

But then when I tied up, I thought we were seeing all the costs associated with it. No, it's not. So it's net of the... Those pieces are backed up, yes. Okay. All right. So... Now, can you I guess Emily, can you explain again? So if the total projected for FY 27 was 17 million, and then we've got the 16.1. So where's the million dollar difference?

It's the 900,000. So it's I don't have a specific necessarily line item. It's it's just in general with the total transportation costs potentially being reduced. I think it's that the 11 plus million dollar line item. Like the general transportation costs being less with the changes that are expected.

So you're saying you're just expecting less transportation, is that what you're saying?

Correct, with the redistricting. I mean, that statement, that didn't come from me, that that would change the transportation costs. That was something that had come out of meetings, that that would potentially change the costs, and this number didn't reflect for it.

So how did you get the $900,000, I guess is what I'm saying. So if we're saying we're redistricting, where's the documentation to show that it's a $900,000 savings?

There isn't anything. There's nothing that factors in any number at that point. So yes, it's an estimated reduction, but it's also based on the fact that what I last saw was that we are also coming in under budget from the FY26 budget to what we're actually landing at as the projected budget for 26. So between the two, it felt like amount that wasn't unreasonable to expect a savings of in that time period there's also a commitment from the administration that if if these estimates are wrong since we don't actually have any of those documents at any of those numbers yet that we will come down and revisit this but where where are these numbers coming from right you folks have contracts do you know so I would I would assume that the more accurate number would be coming from the schools then

from the city in terms of just randomly reducing 900,000. So you've got bus routes, you know the number of buses that we have, there's a current contract that you have for transportation, correct?

If any, Mr. Almeida, somebody on the school side, please answer the question.

I think the hope would be that through the redistricting, we'd see some of the savings, I think is what the hope is.

So the hope is the redistricting, but we don't know if that's going to be realized. Or is it guaranteed that it's going to be realized? Do we know when the redistricting is going to take place? How long is the redistricting going to take? I mean, can we do this mid-year? Is there a tiering? I understand what we're trying to do. It just seems like we're trying to balance the budget, though, on transportation. So that's my concern.

All I can say is we can certainly report back to you as we go along and watch this budget with transportation in timely manners. But we do not have that information. So my understanding is just what the chief financial officer has stated, that the understanding on the city side is if it is not able to take us to the end of the year, we would be back here requesting that additional funding.

Well, before then, once we knew that that wasn't what was taking place, we would come back down.

And you're assuming that the city council is going to vote to support that, right? So that's the problem. We're here building a budget with actual costs associated with it. So it's one thing if it's an unforeseen circumstance, but to, I guess, make... projections that we're gonna have a savings when we don't really know where the routes are gonna go or the redistricting's gonna take place or even if the school committee supports the redistricting, there's a lot of unknowns and that's a million dollars. So it's a million dollars there. And then when we start talking about the circuit breaker funds, so it seems like the only number for the reimbursement that matches the schools is the circuit breaker funds for the sped transportation, so the $1.8 million. The McKinney-Vento, when we get into the McKinney-Vento, that is $2 million versus the 1.4. So...

I guess the 1.4 is actual? It's roughly about $1.4 million, yes, from this past year.

So I asked because the state level funded the McKinney-Vento transportation. And so it originally, so they level funded it from FY25 to 26. That was at $28.6 million. This fiscal year, they put in an additional $6.5 million, getting it to $35.2 million. So that's a 22.7% increase. So if I apply the 22, again, not knowing, obviously, where the transportation population, I mean, the homeless population's gonna be, but assuming that there's some consistency there. If you apply that 22.7% increase to the reimbursements, we would be closer to the 1.4, which is closer, it would actually be 1.5, which is closer to the 1.4 that you folks have estimated. And then you're at $2 million. So you're taking an additional $600,000. So the $900,000 plus the $600,000 gives us a $1.5 million swing in terms of where we're hoping we're gonna have some savings.

So there is also a fund balance in the McKinney-Vento account that's old, outstanding money of a few million dollars that hasn't been necessarily utilized at that rate. So it's not like it's an expected increase in one year from the state. It's the fact that there is money available. And then if we are able to, if the costs are actually coming in lower this year than what was originally projected, we could take less of that again and have even more of that money remaining in that account.

So it's based on... And who appropriates that money? The McKinney-Vento money. Where's that money?

I don't...

Parks. Is it on the city side? Is it the school side?

We shift the expense over for what was originally budgeted for in the previous year.

It's a special revenue fund.

So that would require an appropriation.

My understanding is that it doesn't.

No, it doesn't. The money that comes in is used specifically for transportation.

I think it's the way that it's, I'm going to say, I know it's not necessarily a grant, but it's set up in the sense of like a grant fund that was.

So you're charging the account directly?

Yes.

so i know that there are some accounts that can get charged but there's also special revenue accounts so we just talked about peg access right so the peg access is a special revenue account requires an appropriation which is specifically for cable related services out of the special revenue account and um that's a conversation for another day i mean we the city council has never appropriated that money so we need to start appropriating that money but i don't know that i thought that that was appropriated through a revolving fund each year What's that?

The cable access money.

Cable can only be a special revenue account or an enterprise fund.

Right, so a revolving fund is a special revenue fund.

No, it's a separate. So the revolving funds are separate under Massachusetts general law. This one's specific to special revenue.

Okay. It's on the list for the revolving funds each year, I thought, is cable.

I'm pretty sure the cable one is part of your revolving funds on the city side.

Yeah, so revolving section 53 PEG taxes is going to be 54 and like three quarters or 54F three quarters, whatever it is. But that calls for a specific special revenue fund. It's not a revolving fund. So it's got to get appropriated out of there. That's my understanding but that's not the conversation we're having here so i guess if we can get a clarification that we that the city has the ability to charge off that revenue account without having the appropriation that would that would be appreciated but i i still guess i'm concerned with the difference that we have uh in terms of projections so two million dollars versus the 1.4 i'm not i don't know how much is in that account a balance would would be helpful to to know and I think what's the the regulations is that you can only have one year's worth in that account yes so I don't know are we close to that not close to it do we know um as of as of today I checked the account and there was just over 800 000 in the account so yes I just don't know that I'm comfortable with how this has been projected. I just think that we're We're just rolling the dice. And I'm not suggesting that this was done intentionally, but it feels like we're just balancing this budget based on transportation, hoping that things change, that we're going to utilize them. And if the intent was to utilize the additional McKinney-Vento, we should have pulled that money and then put it in this budget so that we know that's what it is. And I guess how do we get to the McKinney-Vento in terms of the appropriation? Who makes that determination in terms of the reimbursement portion of it? So you've got the $1.4 versus the $2 million. What's the logic behind it? How do we identify how much is going to be used for the reimbursement?

Typically, I base it on what was received in the previous year.

That's what I base the number on. And when you say what we received in terms of what we received for reimbursement?

So McKinney-Vento, it's always delayed. So I filed, for example, I filed the FY25 end of the year report in the fall, this past fall. we won't receive the funding until sometime, hopefully before the end of the month, and depending on timing with the state, sometimes it's beginning of July, but that's like typically like the timeframe, but we would have already spent the money last fiscal year in FY25, so it's like a year behind.

Where are we with FY26 and then FY27? I know 25, it was 75% of, I think like 68% or something like that. above the cost now? It's supposed to be 100%.

They're trying to get as close to 100% as possible, but we haven't heard yet as to what the exact number is yet. For 27 or for 26? For 26. For 26. Yeah.

All right, that's all the questions I have for now.

Thank you, Consular. Before I acknowledge our other colleagues, I want to just ask a point of information. The school committee, Mr. Alameda, or Madam Superintendent, what did they vote on for both two items, net school spending? I believe that was 101% of net school spending, correct?

Yes, they voted. The school committee, a couple nights after we've been here, or the night after, voted an additional $3 million on top of the $212 million figure that you have here in the budget. And what was submitted to the council was the $212,582,416.

And just for my own edification and to the public, what changed between the school committee vote and the vote that you sent? Was it the mayor's decision that sent it to us, or did the school administration have another meeting with the school committee?

It was changed at the city level.

Okay, and same thing for transportation. What did the school committee vote on for transportation? What amount? The 16.1?

So the school committee voted on a total, the total transportation of 17 million with the two reimbursements backed out. The Circuit Breaker and the McKinney-Vento reimbursement backed out for a total of that. I'm sorry, I don't have it right in front of me. 13,850. Yeah, 13,850,048 is what the school committee voted on.

And we're at 12-350-048. Yes.

Councilor in Seat 8, Councilor Raposo. So I guess to my colleague's question, which number are we actually going to go with when it comes to this budget right now?

What the appropriation order says is what the administration sends down.

Okay. So it's going to be short, right? That's... what I'm gathering here. Mr. Almeida?

Hey, it's less than what we had moved forward, yes.

Yeah, okay. So we're running the possibility that it's going to be short. And to Ms. Arkby's point, there's a situation where it may very well be a situation where you have to come down and ask for additional.

Point of clarification, is it going to be short of 100% in-school spending or 101% in-school spending? No, the transportation is not eligible. No, I know, but I thought you were talking about the overall budget.

No, no, I'm talking about the transportation. Councilor? yes so I guess I mean I I guess I'm confused at this point I would rather be in a position where we fund it versus run the risk of it being short and then having come out to have that conversation to counsel get Eames point we're gonna have to assume the City Council is going to support a transfer for that so I don't know if anybody has an answer for me now. I don't think anybody does right now.

Well, I think this is important. If I may, Councilor, for a moment. You may, sir. The school committee voted on one number. I'm not trying to make this complicated. I just want some clear answers from the city side. The school department voted on one number. and then the administration changed that number, and I don't know if any of my colleagues understood or was clear on our colleague in seat one's question, what analysis was done to take a difference of value from a school committee vote in the city side? Are we just banking on a redistricting?

No, it's also the fact of where this year's budgeted number is falling to what looks like it is actually going to happen. So the current so that everybody wants to talk about what's projected for FY27, but if you look at what was projected for FY26 to what we're actually looking that we're gonna land at, it's not the same number either. So that's the other part of the basis that we're talking about.

So you're referring to the fact that FY26 revised was 13,238, and then FY26 projected was 12,483. Correct. So you're counting that difference. in the projection of the following FY27 projected budget?

Correct.

Okay.

Point of information, can I just? You may, sir. But what those conversations had with the school department, I know that the numbers are coming in, actuals are coming in lower, but did you folks have conversations to figure that out?

Not in advance of submitting the budget, no.

Council in seat eight has the floor. Yeah, so my larger question on my list of questions was, when we talk about the redistricting, and obviously there's a lot of parts involved, Madam Superintendent, I guess the question becomes, how do we predict what the savings is going to be?

You know, at this point here, we would have to go back and, you know, certainly come up with a solution to share that information with you. I don't have that right now. We're talking, but I don't have that figure.

Okay. All right. I think that's something we're going to have to revisit because I think that has a lot to do with, I mean, obviously, redistricting, the whole idea of it is to have some savings, you know, clean up bus routes, you know, put kids in, you know, less places, things like that.

We're still registering students. We're in the process right now.

I know that process is complicated in and of itself, but I guess it's tough to understand. The idea behind registering was to save money, but we're not exactly sure what at least an estimate or somewhat of a ballpark prediction of what that could possibly be, even if it's lowest level.

Some of it was saving money. Some of it was, as we said, balancing equitable class sizes. Correct. And there were a number of reasons.

Sure. All right. I guess I'll revisit that. Maybe you can get back to us on that. That would be helpful, most certainly. We will do that. Thank you. I want to move on the same page, on page 116, in regards to the diamond regional tuition. And I'm not sure which CFO wants to answer this. That would be me. Ms. Arpke, if you could. So the projected for FY26 of just over $4 million and then the FY27 proposed budget, which is over that number, about $300,000. With the new Diamond Building, did we anticipate additional seats opening up for Fall River?

No.

No. So what is the change in that number, essentially?

costs go up every year. The increase typically happens each year. I think that there was some additional funding, as it was mentioned, for the regional school transportation that's been happening. So some of those numbers seem to be going down a little bit. It's based on the per pupil enrollment, and that is almost a year offset. But when they built the new school, I think that they said that the total number of students that was going to be increased in the school was, I mean, nominal, maybe 100 students total. So it wasn't like they were expecting a huge population increase. But then the biggest part of the diamond is obviously the debt is increasing. So it is a full year of debt payments coming on, and that's the debt schedule that accounts for it with that $5.2 million.

Do you know what the per pupil allocation for that number is? I do. The diamond regional tuition?

I do. If you could give me one second.

Sure.

As you do this, the number that, I'm sorry, this is confusing for the council and the public. The number you presented to the school committee, did that not include the number for redistricting? For the school committee vote? Mr. Pacheco? Mr. Alameda?

Can you say that one more time, please?

Yeah, the amount of money that the school committee voted on for the transportation item in the analysis that you did in your budget deliberations with the schools, did that include the redistricting savings?

So the redistricting has not been incorporated in those numbers. Unfortunately, it's a very fluid situation, redistricting. So we do know that we're going to have students who are currently getting transportation that are not gonna receive transportation. One of the schools, for instance, probably the easiest one would be the Vivera School. A lot more students are gonna be allowed to have that as their home school in their neighborhood due to us moving a program that was taking up quite a few classrooms. So that alone should, we're going to see that difference. We also should see the difference on the pre K piece, because we are putting everything in one location. So what that will allow us to do is take these routes that are spread out across the city, have a more concentration in each of those neighborhoods and allow those buses to be coming to Bishop Conley with 15 to 25 to 35 students as opposed to 10, and 12, and 14 students. OK. Thank you. You answered the question.

So those kinds of things have. So the answer is no. It does not include the changes.

It does not include the changes. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.

But we do have information.

Consulate? Proposal? Just waiting on Ms. Arpke's answer on the per pupil.

So the per pupil for, I'm going to say the base of the budget, just the foundation, it's about $3,734 per student. When you factor in the debt, we're paying about $8,797 per student.

So the base is $3,734, you said? Yeah. Per student? And then?

Once you factor in the transportation and the capital. So the total actual regional assessment is $8,797. $8,797. $8,797, right? 8797, yes.

Got it, okay. And what about for Bristol Aggie? Do you have that information as well?

I do.

Because obviously that number hasn't changed much.

No. Sorry.

Of course, there's more people in that pot when it comes to Bristol Aggie.

I don't think that one made it into my folder. But I do have it in a general sense. I can get it for you. But that didn't seem to make it into my folder. I'm sorry.

Okay.

Of everything else.

That's fine. Yeah. I mean, obviously, the number hasn't changed much. I'm just curious, in comparison to diamond, obviously, it's apples and watermelons, but I'm just curious more than anything else. If you can get back to that on that. Madam Superintendent, now that you are in place currently, the indirect cost agreement has there been any movement on that about revisiting that situation?

We actually just had conversation about it today. Not only do I think that is required and very important, the other thing that I insist on going forward, you heard me talk about it a little in my opening statements, is regular and ongoing collaboration and conversation with the school CFO and the city CFO.

Okay, excellent. One question I did ask when the presentation was first made, and this was before you came in, was the reduction of the 11 paraprofessionals. And at the time the discussion was, it was the reduction of the 11 paraprofessionals, particularly around special education, and the plan is to hire special education teachers in place of those powers. Is that still the plan going forward?

Yes.

OK. Yeah. And I did ask at the time, and the deputy superintendent did give me some information. I was curious of where the reductions were taking place and where the planned new hires for special education were going to be placed. do you have a sense of where those would be? You may not have that answer now.

I don't have it right now.

I actually thought I provided it, but I'll get that for you.

Yeah, because you had kind of given me a breakdown of the reductions plus the additions, but it didn't specify where those were. Thank you, Mr. Almeida. The next question is around the lunch budget, which tends to be a pretty decent-sized account. What is the plan to spend down that money for the lunch budget?

Can I, sorry, I do have that Bristol Aggie number.

Go ahead, Ms. Harkin.

Sorry, it's $9,917 per student. Say that one more time, $9,000? $9,917. Per student.

Per student, yep. The tuition is $4,617 and the debt is $5,300.

We just have naturally less students at Bristol Aggie. Yeah, we have 56 students versus 1,102. 1,102, that's very helpful. Thank you very much.

All right, back to my question about the lunch budget. Mr. Almeida? Or Mr. Pacheco, sorry.

So it looks like it's going to be initially a lot of major renovations in the schools, new lines, new equipment in the kitchens. And that could amount to anywhere from 250 to 300 per building. 18 buildings, other than Durfee, 17 buildings will have some work to do. We do have some small work that we're going to do at Bishop Conley and some major kitchen renovations will go on at some of our middle schools. Talbot, for sure, with the full renovation, which could be well over a million, million and a half in that one kitchen. Between all of those kitchens, we do have some other equipment needs, some transportation needs within the kitchen and nutrition area. And that's probably we're going to get to at least somewhere around 3.5 to 4 million. Okay.

Because as I was going through the school department budget presentations in the binder, I noticed that there were some outside requests that necessarily weren't. maybe not funded. I wasn't clear if they were requested and not funded or they were requested and funded, but essentially there's enough money in that lunch budget to cover any sort of renovations when it comes to any kitchens across the district. And the goal in that particular budget pool of money is to spend it down to a certain level? You have to, correct? Yes.

You're supposed to keep at least three months in reserve within the account, so three months of operating expenses.

And what is that operating expense?

It's roughly $4 million, you know, $4 to $5 million. For three months?

For three months, yeah. Okay. Awesome. My last question was in regards to the Fine Arts Department. There was a request for a $10,000 stipend. Was that granted out of curiosity?

The school committee approved it through their budget deliberations.

Awesome. That's all I got. I yield. Thank you. Councilman C7, Councilor Pereira.

Yeah, the questions that I have pertain to the healthcare insurance. And I would like the city administrator to come down as well if that could be allowed. I'm really confused on how the city side budgets healthcare and the school side budgets healthcare. And I think it should be premium based versus claims based. And I don't know why we have to pay for some that are under grants, how grants are paid out differently. And I'm wondering, I know we have Gallagher that assists with the healthcare, and I'm wondering what Gallagher's recommendations on this, if anybody would know.

So I can just touch base first on the, um, school grants. So the school grants are not funded through this section. It is funded through the grants at that point in time. Shouldn't just say school grants, all of our grants. Um, they do submit, um, money in for their employees that are enrolled in different programs. So, yeah, so that is covered by, um, the grants at that point. Do you wanna?

Has there been a conversation with the Gallagher? Yes. What's Gallagher's position on this?

We just had a meeting the other day with a few of the council and this member of the school committee with Gallagher spoke with them about how they do their computations which includes a working rate and how they come to that rate. And there was some talk about the rebates and the reimbursements, because there's been quite a bit of discussion about that.

Can you share that with us? What are they thinking we need to change?

Primarily, they're saying that those go back into the healthcare account to lower the cost of the premiums for the employees. This year, without those rebates and taking into consideration that money going back into the account, the increase would have been as high as 15% for the employees. With the amounts for the reimbursements and the rebates being taken into consideration, the insurance went up 8.6%. 8.4. 8.4, sorry.

Are we changing that? Are we gonna look at that?

Well, I mean, we've always done it the same way. I mean, the rebates and it's always gone back into the healthcare at 75, 25.

And they weren't keeping some of the rebates or stop loss and all of that? That wasn't?

No, that's never gone over to the school department side.

No, when we talk to Gallagher, just so you know, what they give us is a number that they think we need to budget in a total sense. This is what we think your health care costs are going to be.

What's Gallagher saying the number is for this year?

So I have all those documents. I don't have them today because we were doing the full health care presentation on Wednesday, but I do plan on having and sharing all of those documents the way I did last year. I'll have copies sent to you guys beforehand but I have this this snippets of each of the pages that reach out to it but I can say that we are fully funding to what they've suggested this year okay I'll wait till Wednesday the other thing I don't know who can answer maybe Kevin when you talk about transportation what are the contracts like with transportation so even if

we're going to do some redistricting and we're going to be saving or assumed saving on transportation. What does the contract say relative to the price of gas? Because sometimes in the contract it says if gas goes up so much, you pay more. So in the end, we may not be saving as much as people think we're going to be able to save. Can anybody comment on that? Madam Superintendent? Sure.

So we do have an escalator. There is an escalator in the contract. the gas goes over a certain diesel, any fuel goes over a certain percentage, that we make up that difference. We do have a little bit of a break with the electric buses in play. which would curb some of that cost, but there is an escalator in place. I have to say that a few of the bus companies have never charged us the escalator at the end of the day, but it is in place, and the fuel prices now are pretty hefty.

Even diesel. Yes. I never stopped paying more for diesel than premium. New world we live in, I guess. The other questions have been answered primarily budget related, but one of the, I received a few calls, three actually over the weekend, regarding pink slips. And I called one of the school committee people and said, What's going on with pink slips? And they said, well, I think it's about people getting licensed. They have five years to become licensed as a teacher. So we're not giving pink slips. So the money that's in the budget for teachers, can somebody

I'm gonna have you deputy superintendent we've been working again as the Human Resource Department we're reviewing licensure you heard me mention that and I will tell you know Liz will talk deeply about it but I will tell you every employee is valuable to us we're going to work closely with them to make sure and I'm sure all of you are aware when you talk about accountability we have to have highly qualified teachers that's the goal you look around the districts that surround you that is the goal of every district

It's about five years. Five years to get your license.

You're talking a new teacher coming in to get their master's degree to become highly qualified. So it's a little bit more complicated than that. And Liz will talk about the numbers. But we are, again, invested in making sure every teacher that is working towards the licensure we're going to support, whether it's passing MTEL, whether it's courses they need to take. So we are looking at this number. I believe the number was about 175? 178. So I'll let Liz talk about it. She worked deeply with the HR office. But please understand that, and I want to say that publicly, that every teacher is important to us. We're going to work with our professionals and make sure that we can get them properly licensed. Thank you.

So we have 178 teachers that are on a waiver. And so what we've done is we've gone through each employee, each teacher, and found out where they were on the waiver process. And so we can ask for a waiver each year from the districts, from the superintendent's level, and we ask for it through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. So what I did is I went through all 178, sent them a letter saying, where are you in the process of becoming HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED AS A TEACHER, THIRD ELEMENTARY CERTIFICATION, THE SILOS OF HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY TEACHER, BIOLOGY TEACHER, PHYSICS TEACHER. WHERE ARE YOU IN GETTING YOUR CERTIFICATE? WHAT I'M WAITING FOR IS, AND WE RECEIVED AFTER THOSE LETTERS WENT OUT ON FRIDAY, RECEIVED PROBABLY OVER HALF to maybe three quarters of a lot of teachers sending back information on, you know, I just took my MTEL three weeks ago. I'm taking my MTEL in two weeks. I am in process right now at Bridgewater State finishing up my master's degree so that I can get my certification in this area. As long as we, the district, see progress towards certification, We will accept that and we will continue to work with that teacher to make sure that they get a waiver and that they stay with us in Fall River. We want to. We want to work with our teachers. We want them to be part of the Fall River community and the school district. However, we need highly qualified, certified teachers that work with us. So our goal is to make sure that when we hire and we recruit teachers that we're bringing in certified, highly qualified teachers. There are times that we can't find a certified teacher in chemistry, but they have a general science degree and they may be at Bridgewater State, they may be at Assumption, they may be at Stonehill getting that, UMass Dartmouth getting their certification. So we can waiver them as a general science teacher to teach chemistry in hopes that they will progress into certification in the area of biology chemistry so this is not an I gotcha this isn't I gonna cut you I'm not gonna cut you loose from the boat and throw you over that's not what we're doing what we're doing is to make sure that we have certified teachers teaching on them our most vulnerable students the kids of Fall River we want to make sure that we are highly qualified that we have a teaching force of that can maintain certification and to move forward with professional development and everything else that we offer in the district of Fall River. I'm meeting with principals tomorrow in regards just to this. I can tell you this, we've got spreadsheets that are out whether a teacher was where they were in their certification and their progress. Tomorrow I'll talk to all the principals. We'll know every teacher by tomorrow. My hopes are, next week is the 10th, my hopes are Wednesday is the 10th, Friday the 12th, that pretty much every teacher will know that we'll rescind and then they'll be back. As long as I see progress and someone says, you know, I'm in my last course at Bridgewater State, I'll have my, or I paid for my course and here's my bursar office slip, I want to make sure that you want to be a teacher, that you want to be here in Fall River, and that you want to be part of the solution. And that's what we want to do. We want to be part of the solution. We don't want to be anybody's problem. What we want to do is how can we help you get certified? We're gonna offer, we've already talked about offering a class in MTELs. We wanna offer courses for our paraprofessionals. We're offering safety care training on a weekly basis right now. So we are certifying people ongoing, all times, and we're not gonna just cut people loose from our deck.

And usually, I mean, even to take the certification test, you can go to Dartmouth. Pearson is the one that really does all the supervised testing or what have you.

And our chief academic officer is working with two colleges right now to see if we can offer that course prior to, to start that course prior to next year's opening. for september 1st so we're we our goal is that you belong to fall river public schools we want you to be here so let us support you let us find the great avenue for you to take and let's get you certified as soon as possible that's our goal

And those are difficult to do. I did all of that up at UMass Dartmouth and the Portuguese certification in math and science and history. They're in a closet right now, but thank you for that explanation. Now, I do see on the screen here in our packets, are you going to be doing a presentation on Bishop Conley?

I don't believe there's a presentation. I wanted to just to send you the updated information that we had. We did a presentation about a month ago, my first time here. This is an updated presentation and there was some questions asked when we invited you a couple of weeks ago to come up to the school district to sit with us. And many of you did to come up and we talked about it and we got some information from the CFO from the city side about what was coming off your debt. for the city, and I added that to the presentation.

Just because a lot of people, now that we're in budget season, you know, I'm hearing people say, oh, we don't need to buy it, let them continue to rent it. And I just wanted to have, you know, Mr. Pacheco obviously would know the cost. How much do you think we can get from SBA as reimbursement and things like that? I just think that it's good for the public to see you know, weighing both sides, which is more beneficial to the city, because we do have to do repairs there, we understand.

But so the I mean, obviously, the MSPA component is after the fact. So we have to own it in order to to get involved in MSPA.

Right.

But but if MSPA was involved, that building is is going to be an 80% reimbursement of the reimbursable items, right. So anything that's, that fits the criteria, and most of the work that that that building needs, we've done in other schools, windows, roof, heating systems, that kind of work. So those items would be definitely reimbursable. And on the building already has elevators, which is good, but you know, fire protection, things like that. So all of those items are reimbursable items that MSBA could be involved in. So I would say if we have a $20 million price tag, you know, then we should be able to get $16 million of that from MSBA.

Do you see the value in us acquiring that property to both the superintendent, Superintendent Smith?

I think it is a huge value to the city, never mind the location, the opportunities that I shared earlier in my opening statement about developing a pre-K three to five center, all of our services in one place, all of our students. It's a wonderful gift to the city if you're able to do that, certainly.

Just a point of clarification. So you said the reimbursement of 80% is at the end of the note?

That's separate from the purchase. OK. Separate from the purchase.

The purchase is not allocated. I want to refocus the conversations to budget, please. We're not really talking about Conley right now.

We do plan the next full council meeting to have, when this is on finance committee, we'll have a full presentation and be prepared to answer all of this.

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. President. My other questions were answered. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor in seat three, Councilor Cagnall.

Thank you. I have a few questions. First, on the McKinney-Vento reimbursement, the FY26 revised budget was showing $1.2 million, but the projected is $1 million, which is a $227,000 difference. Are we expecting less money from that this year?

I think it's based on the idea that if the projected costs are less, we would transfer less of the expenses. So it's not that we expect to receive less from the reimbursement. It's more about utilizing less of it if the costs are less than we anticipated.

Okay. And then back to the overall transportation cost, have we looked at like a per student transportation cost compared to peer districts?

I have not, but I don't know that that is readily available amongst other districts, but it's something I will look into.

Okay. I think it would just be as we think about where we are spending our dollars, you know, what they're spending per pupil. I know there's obviously geographic and other factors, but I think it would be good just to have a sense of where we are at from a spending perspective and the best way, you know, when you guys are thinking about your routes and things. Do you use technology or is someone manually trying to figure these routes out? no it's it's through technology okay yes um my third question is around vacancies how many vacant positions do you guys have right now um i would say probably over

at this point probably over 40. Okay.

And then someone, you can bring up the slide, I don't know the slide number, but just a minute ago you had the net positions up on the.

Yes, yep.

You can bring that back up. And the reason I'm asking is just it doesn't quite match the document that was put in front of us in terms of.

Is that the foundation enrollment in that school spending?

So positions for 27 positions, I think the net positions where you add it and subtract it Number 34 Yeah, this is the one here. So when I look at this, the paraprofessionals matches with the negative 11, but like if I take FREA unit B, you show 10 FTE net positions up here. It's 13. Unit A was eight positions on this, but it's five up there. So can you just help me understand the discrepancies between what I'm looking at on the slide and what's in front of me?

Sure, so this slide presentation was the original slide presentation we had done to the school committee. And through the school committee process, there were additional positions that were added. So the net number of positions went from 15 to 20 through the process. And I can share with you an update in an email with a document as to what the.

Or is this what, this is the correct one is what you're saying.

It should be 20. This is 20. Yeah, that's the updated one.

Okay, so this is the correct one.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilman C1, Councilman Kadim.

So I'm still struggling with the discrepancy in the transportation. So just going back, so fiscal year 25, we had a budget. The actuals came in $600,000 and higher. FY26, we had a budget amount and the actuals came in close to $1.4 million lower. And then if I look at FY27 to 26, we're projecting, well, FY26 is $1.6 or $1.7 million lower than what's being projected in FY27. So, I guess my issue is at no point we have significant swings in terms of what the actuals are based on what the projected budget is. And there's been no conversation between the schools and the city to identify what those, the difference is. I mean, it could be a one-off, is it reoccurring, that there's zero conversation with that?

I'm going to say that I'd have to re-look at the projected numbers that are here. I don't know that I fully agree with the projected numbers that are there, so I'd have to revisit that.

But I guess on the city side, I mean, what are we doing? I mean, if a department came in, any other department outside of the school department, if there was a $1.4 million difference between what was budgeted and actual, would we not have a conversation to see what the driving... factors were guarding that surplus? Or we're off on our forecasts?

That is typically how it works with the city departments. We do have those conversations frequently, but we also, through the whole budget process, have a lot more conversations. It's a lot more of a joint effort with every other department. I'm gonna say used to operating differently. I think everybody at this table agrees that we wanna shift how we operate together, and I don't think there's any discrepancy on that, but we just haven't worked in that way for,

Yeah, but I guess that's not an excuse. I mean, this is this is 3% of our entire budget. And so I mean, we're talking about anywhere from 14 to $16 million, I just I can't fathom. Anybody who puts together a budget that would not have a conversation, even if it's with a different department to have a sit down and say, my projections are often compared to yours. What is causing that? And where do we need to be? And I think At the end of the day, obviously there's a balanced budget that needs to be presented. And for the schools, they are just, they don't need to necessarily present balanced budgets, right? They're looking at an appropriation coming from the city, but it is, it is a partnership and as cooperation. And I think even, even just that, that I think there would be somebody, and I know the mayor serves as the chairman of the school committee, but I would think that there would be some conversation. regarding transportation, how we can reduce costs, what that looks like moving forward, and just challenging what's being put forth in a good way, not in a negative way. I struggle that we are now here, presenting a budget, the numbers are off, we don't know why they're off, what the actuals are. I'm hearing from the schools that they don't know if they necessarily agree with the actuals that are being presented here. That to me is just concerning across the board.

So to be clear, those conversations about reducing transportation costs and what we can do, those have been conversations that are actively happening with the school committee, with the school administration. That's been happening for at least a year now. So it's not like a new idea that was popped into this budget. That has been a conversation that's been taking place. There's just not hard numbers from it. And I think that part of the problem is there isn't going to be hard numbers until more things happen.

Okay, so then I guess I'm gonna ask the question for FY26, we've got $15.8 million in the projected actuals coming in at 14.4. What's driving that? I mean, you keep saying that there's discussions, right? So when you have quarterly budget meetings, are you not looking at this and saying, What literally is driving the fact that our projections are higher than what it is? You don't pick up the telephone and have a conversation with Mr. Alameda and say, why am I off? Am I missing something? I just don't know that I, I don't know how I, I personally, I can only speak for myself. I personally would not accept that I'd be having a conversation saying I need to tie out why our numbers are at $15.8 million. That's what we projected, and we are now coming, we're expecting to close the year at $14.4 million. If I am looking to forecast, talk about missing a number. You missed a number completely, so there's gotta be something that is driving this. And year over year, we've got two years that 1.7 million, 1.4 million, and the year prior we had to, you know, the actuals came in 600,000 more, so. population didn't change that much. There was no change in, in roots or anything like that. So there's, there's gotta be some discussion, some conversation.

I can tell you that transportation over the last several years has increased mainly due to two factors. One, the pre-K expansion and the growth in pre-K. And two, our district cost of special ed has increased. And so those two factors in general have caused the increase. We've also seen additional increases within district transportation, additional kids going door to door and things like that that have happened over the last several years. So that's what's caused

But the budget book that I have before me is not showing increases. I guess that's what I'm saying.

I understand.

So we're 25 actuals, 14.8 million. We're projected to be 14.4 in 26. We projected 15.8. We're now projecting 16.1. You're at 17.8. We're thinking that, are we gonna be a million dollars off? Are we gonna be a million dollars higher? I don't have faith in the numbers that are before me, and I just don't know how you expect the city council to vote on something. So from my standpoint, there's a lot of conversations or questions that I have with regards to what conversations were had with the school committee? Is the school committee aware of the transportation? Is there any changes in transportation? How were those conversations had between the city administration, the school administration, and then to the city council where we are? We come here and we're a legislative body and the expectation is that these budget conversations are had well in advance to these meetings that are before us. I don't know that I'm gonna get an answer. I don't wanna belabor the point other than to say that I'm extremely disappointed in these numbers that are before us. It's nice to say we're gonna communicate, but we've had two years of close to a million and a half dollars and we can't explain why it happens. With that, I yield.

Council in seat five, Council Hart.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good evening, everyone. Just a few questions and maybe one point or one statement, but we're talking about transportation and getting students to the schools. And my question is that I wanted to know, because when I was on the school committee, Chronic absenteeism was a big problem when I was there. The percentage was very high. When I left, I think they were going to be forming a committee or some kind of group to make it better. I wanted to know if that has been going on. Has it been improving? What's the chronic absenteeism right now? Do we know that? Or have an idea about it?

Yeah, Dr. Bernard has been working. She has a full task force on this. Attendance has increased. They're doing much better. There's always work to be done in attendance.

And it's more so in gateway cities. I get it. But I know that that was a big deal that they wanted to work on because it was pretty high six years ago possibly, maybe a little bit more than that. And I know that they had a full-court press and wanted to do something about it. But obviously you want to we want to get those kids to school and they weren't getting there So I just wanted to see if that was improving and by what numbers do you know?

I don't know.

Okay.

I don't know the numbers but I can tell you that In transportation meetings as we as I'm getting to learn the district What I'm hearing is we're picking up, you know almost door-to-door Which is unheard of And we're picking up a lot of kids to get them here. Our Tier 2 and Tier 3 buses are packed for middle and elementary schools.

And I think, too, the key component was getting the attendance officers obviously involved. And they are. And they were heavily involved. They are very heavily involved. I know that they are, and I know they're doing a good job. Within the school department budget, have we looked to hire more attendance officers, or is it still the same number? this time it's the same number same number okay all right um and the other the other question i had was superintendent you mentioned about the uh the pre-k and how the um we're gonna put everybody at conley which is a great idea i'm all for it when with those places where they were it's that they're no longer gonna be there i know there was one school was it at the on eastern avenue church um I can't think of it. St. Anthony of the Desert, was it one of them there?

We haven't been there in two years.

So where were they, if you can remind me?

They're now at Bishop Connolly.

No, I know, but where were they before? Now we're getting them out of those particular buildings. What buildings were they, Kenny, do you know?

So they were in St. Anthony of the Desert. They were also at, and they currently still are at 2501. So we do have classrooms there, so they will be also moving. And then we have classrooms moving from Fonseca also, and I want to say Sylvia too. So those, in total, we're moving 13 more classrooms into Conley.

Okay, and that number at Conley, you said, superintendent, is about 600 plus?

I think it's over 600.

Is that the full capacity, or can you have more?

We're close to capacity is what I'm hearing, because we have some room.

That'll be 33 classrooms. 33, right, okay. Now, where the priests are staying, you mentioned, I think someone mentioned that, maybe Liz, you did, when you were here. Is that going to be, are we still considering that for teachers to reside there?

I think there's going to be an ongoing conversation with us. We'd love to do something like that. However, we do have children in that building, so we just want to make sure for safety purposes what we're going to do and how we do that.

I want to redirect the questions for budget-related. We have a discussion on Conley, so if we could just Yeah, right.

I just wanted to know the it's kind of part of the budget a little bit. But so the other question I had, thank you, your honor. I'll rephrase my question. The other the other question I had was kind of important because we're dealing with it tonight is that and I wanted to, you know, wish Kevin fairly well. I'm really, really going to miss you at the school department and for the city. You're always a class act when I was on the school committee. You're a good person, honest, and very good at what you do. Thank you. And you're going to be missed in this district severely. Thank you. Now, since you're leaving, and there seems to be some kind of a communication not there, and hopefully it'll get improved by what Councilor Kadeem was saying, what's the transition? What are we doing when you're leaving? What's gonna happen? We're gonna hire someone else, but what's the?

Presently, there is a job ad that has gone out. We have applicants. I actually went to MSBA. They had a recent conference to talk to their executive director. We've reached out to organizations to make sure. It's not an easy position to fill, and I'm so glad you said that. I just recently got to know Kevin Almeida. I knew his reputation before I even came here. I would say I came here because I knew he was gonna be here. So again, we are trying to attract candidates. We'll be interviewing, obviously, with our school committee. It's a very, very important position. And any of you that know my history, unfortunately knowing Brockton early on, we had very, very difficult budgets. And I would say I was tied to the hip to the city CFO. We had plenty of arguments and discussions about funding, but it was on a very, very regular basis. And that is what I intend to make sure happens between the city and the schools so that we're putting forward a budget that is a budget that not only makes sense money-wise, you know, fiscally responsible, but also that we both understand, you know, the movement in some of those figures. So I will commit that that will happen this year.

Yeah, I think it's important to have that smooth transition. There's no question about it.

And as far as the transition goes, you know, Kevin is available. He and I have had this discussion, and we will continue to make sure that there is as best transition as possible.

Thank you very much. I yield, and good luck, Kevin. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor in seat six, Councilor Peckham.

Good evening. Just to touch upon what Councillor Kadim was saying. Ms. Apke, when you came up with this number for the McKinney-Vento reimbursement, you said that you had taken your own notes or your own paperwork.

It's from our accounting system. So it's one joint accounting system. So it's not my own paperwork. It's from the system that shows the numbers in there.

Okay.

And that was a conversation that you didn't have, right?

Correct. They're just numbers in the system that were pulled. It's not.

And you don't have those with you?

I don't. I have a lot of other things with me, but apparently not.

Council President, can we take a five-minute recess so she can go and retrieve those up on the sixth floor? I'd like to see them.

Sure. Five-minute recess it is.

Thank you.

as far as city council meeting is now back in order council of peckham you have the floor

No, I just wanted that information. If she has that, I'll yield the floor, Council President. Thank you. Ms. Arpke, do you have that?

Do you want me to pass copies to everybody?

Sure, if you can, and then maybe clarify it.

Yeah, clarify it.

And if you can just please state your name and roll for the record, please, because you're at the table. I just need to have it for the record, please. My apologies.

Yes, sorry. It's Debbie Sardina. I'm the communication specialist for Ballroom Public Schools. Thank you.

Well, while we pass that out, Councilor in Seat 8, Councilor Raposo.

We'll pass them down. Just give them all. OK. We'll pass them down.

Councillor Raposo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just had two quick questions on the, I think it's page 50 in the school department budget book. It's the list of the unfunded positions and expenses. So just two quick questions on that. Mr. Pacheco, I think this mainly applies to you, I believe, was the proposed custodial shift that was in there that I guess didn't happen, essentially? Can you just explain that to me? It looks like there was a look for 14 custodial additions, but 16 subtractions, part-time.

So it's a five-year plan. So we're going to move a few each year. And we're just going from part-time to full-time, which will be a reduction in what we currently have now. So the part-time custodians are second shift only. What we're looking to do is sometimes that need is first shift. So when we go with the full timers would they would end up being floating in nature and move around. It wasn't a dire need to do it this year. Okay, we would have liked to do it. But we we have sufficient custodians in all the buildings. This was strictly for coverage purposes. Okay.

And my other question was actually the last item. Madam Deputy, I don't know if you can answer this. I know obviously Fall River had an issue cybersecurity-wise a year, two years ago?

Last year.

Yeah, last year. So looks like that particular position was not funded. Just out of curiosity, more than anything else. Mr. Almeida?

Uh, so we had spoken about it and you know, we, I had spoken to the, our chief operating, um, chief information officer and, um, he has, you know, staff that he can, he's going to delineate some of the duties to with, with not getting this.

Got it. Thank you. I yield. Consulate C1, Consulate Kadeem. Did you want to speak?

If you want me to. Yeah, sure.

You're the last one I have on my list.

No, I thought I was done, but I guess, Emily, can you walk us through the... Yeah.

So there's two different pages that I gave to everybody. So there's a trial balance, and that one's specifically for the McKinney-Vento Fund. And then there's also a year-to-date budget report for transportation. That's the second page that was provided to everybody. So reading some of this accounting... Stuff here so that the fund balance for McKinney-Vento is about just over 800,000 like you said I know I had referenced a couple million dollars that was in the sped Account that I was looking at so I was just I misremembered at that point so there are the two funding so it's from the circuit breaker funding that that is the one that has like the three to four million dollar balance and I didn't print that trial balance report for you just because that is misleading because I know it's used for more than just transportation so I didn't want to Share that with everybody and have you anticipate that that's what that was for So those are just the two documents that are before you So guess the transportation homeless students so is it a deficit of seven hundred thousand so with the encumbrance if you if you put the full encumbrance in there plus the year-to-date expended that's what's reflecting that negative seven hundred thousand but i will say that when i look through the detail of these um even today as well as a couple of um weeks ago the bills are paid through april already so you're missing may and june bills

So you're saying the encumbrances need to be removed, is that what it is?

They will probably end up being a little bit less than what is in there. I think that encumbrances are based on the contracts and obviously all of the contracted amounts may not be fully expended each time.

And then,

And this doesn't include the transfers from the circuit breaker, is that correct, Kevin? The circuit break transfers aren't in here?

The circuit break transfers are not here, no.

Correct. So when I look at the McKinney-Vento account, this is the special revenue account? No.

So I'm sorry, which one are you talking about, the year to date or the trial balance?

Year to date.

The year to date. So that is just this expense. It's all living. I believe it all lives in here, and then it's done at the end of the year, just so that we can keep a better track of it in totality, which is why it looks like it'd be over budget, but there are other funds that would be really covering that.

Right, so the account is not in the negative. Correct, not at all. Just the expenses for the year.

I mean, technically, even the expenses for the year are not negative yet.

I guess based on this report, I guess is what I'm saying. Correct. So I recognize that you may not have lower the encumbrances that you probably should have and things of that nature. Okay, I yield, thank you.

Anything further for the schools? Thank you. Councilman Seat 2, Councilor Kamara.

Yeah, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that I know this committee is not going to be around. I just want to say... Good luck to you, Mr. Almeida. I've known you for a long, long time, and you've never been nothing more than a professional, great at what you do. We don't always agree on the numbers. Sometimes it goes back and forth, but overall, I think you were a godsend to the city when they needed it, especially in the school committee when there was so much turnover with superintendents and city administrators and everything going on, as it is right now. I mean, think about it. We had a new superintendent. We had a superintendent let go just four or five months ago, and now we have A budget that was put together by Mr. Brian Raposo, acting superintendent. We have an interim superintendent. Just curious, what's the plan for getting a new superintendent to give some leadership? Do you have a one-year contract with the city?

I believe on the school committee agenda for this Wednesday the third, there will be discussion about retaining myself as interim superintendent for at least the foreseeable future, probably the rest of this year. Same for the deputy superintendent, that really has been our charge, that's my commitment. You heard me talk about, first of all, looking at some stabilization in the district, looking at, I talked about the big rocks, developing the relationships,

You know, I'm just saying I wish you all a lot of luck because there's a lot of, you know, confusion.

There's a lot of... Well, I hope there's not confusion. I feel we're making progress. I'm happy to come to work every day. I'm working with people that are committed and dedicated. I'm pleased to be working with the school committee. And this week we're focused on, like I said, graduating our seniors, coming to budget, to have a school committee meeting. But I assure you, and I think I said this when I met all of you when I came a couple of weeks ago, I look forward to coming before you to providing a state of the schools, hopefully sometime in November, so you can see the progress. Thank you.

I would look forward to that, too. Is there anything we can ever do? Myself, just let us know how we can help you. I appreciate it.

Students of our community, and we're all willing to chip in and do what we have to do to keep it moving forward. You have a great community supporting your students and teachers. Thank you.

With that, I yield. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilor. Hearing nothing further from the schools, thank you so much. We're going to do City Director of Operations. Well, that department anyway, the Director of Facilities and Community Maintenance. I'm going to be in Facilities. Am I down?

So the trial balance, is it showing 8 million? I mean, 8.4? Is that?

The trial balance is showing 800.

It's showing 800? Oh, ending balance right there, eight. Okay, got it.

All right, welcome. Just state your name and role for the record, please.

Al Oliver, Director of City Operations.

Chris Hathaway, Director of Community Maintenance.

Anne O'Neil-Sousa, Interim City Administrator.

Emily Arp, UCFO.

Thank you. Council Member C4, Council Vice President Diehl.

So, I'm going to start off with a couple of questions, and I'm letting people know. I know when I ask these questions, some people are going to be curious as to how I believe these are budget questions, but you absolutely will see that they are completely related to the budget. So my first question that I'm going to direct to Mr. Oliveira is ARPA 64 and ARPA 64A and ARPA 47. The first one is Lewiston Street. The other one is the capital improvement, which was the equipment and vehicles for the various departments. Will both of those projects be completed by September 30th? Yes. Absolutely, no doubt.

Absolutely, no doubt.

Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that, because right now, as it stands, if they aren't completed, we would be on the hook for $9.1 million. And I was going to ask the CFO how she saw in this budget we could ever recuperate from that. So I'm glad to hear that, and I'll hold you to it.

I just want to be clear, those ARPA funds are not required to be expended fully until December 31st.

Not true. Sorry. They're not the Bristol County ones. The Bristol County ones are the ones that have the earlier date.

Excuse me. Excuse me. Okay. So these have to be done by September 30th, not December. They fall under the category, anything that falls under the category of transportation, surface, or Title I has to be done by September 30th, and how I know this is I put a phone call out to the former director of ARPA and I had a lengthy conversation with her and we went over all of this. So all my facts, all my information came from her and were, believe me, She knows off the top of her head. You bring up a subject, she will tell you the number of the project, how much it started at, how much was expended, if it's been completed, not completed, and that's all right at the top of her head. So I'm gonna say I beg to differ with you. She was the expert in the field, so I'm gonna go with her and not take a chance that this city lose millions of dollars if the projects aren't completed.

so if I could counselor yes please the DCM project phase three we started phase one phase two phase three because if we were working on some funding in the design factor phase three is the actual building itself and we're proposing that it's going to be June July phase three to be completed Phase two, which is the salt shed, is in progress right now. We're expecting to be done before September. So that's where we're at right now, and we're in transition to get phase one out of the way as well. So we're on target.

Okay, and there's a total of three phases, is that what you're saying? Three phases, correct. And in terms of the vehicles and the equipment, because I know not all the funds had been expended, and there were a number of vehicles that hadn't been ordered yet. Where are we with those?

Correct. The new DCM director and I have been in communication, and we've delineated what vehicles are going to be specced out. We do have the specifications. We're proposing to get that out very shortly.

Okay, because that started at 1.6 and we've expended a million, so there's still money there, obviously. All right, I appreciate that. So where do I begin? So I guess I'll start on page 76. So in the FY26 budget, you had 17.5 employees. Oh, so I guess this is just strictly discussing facilities, correct?

Just facilities right now, yes.

Yeah, we're just doing facilities. And it's my understanding that moving forward, you will be the director of facilities.

That is the plan at this point, yes.

That's the, yes.

And capital projects.

Facilities capital projects. So streets and highways, sanitation, parks, cemeteries, trees, snow removal will be under DCM? Yes. OK. So I want to keep it separate. So you have one less full-time employee. Overall, the wages went up $122,000 over last year.

The one position was transferred over to the police department, the electrician, when we moved over the street lights repairs and management. So when that happened, one of the electricians was moved over. So that's, I'm going to say, the one less employee that you're referring to there. As for the number that you're saying, the $125,000 increase, that's from the projected amount to the proposed budget. The budget numbers are only up about $2,000. I just want to be clear that the projected number, and I think it's from due to vacancies that they have in a number of roles.

Well, you do have two vacancies. You're still an electrician and a plumber one. Correct. Do you anticipate you're going to be able to fill those this year?

So the rates, we could not find anybody to be an electrician or be a plumber at those rates. So for a while now, I've been trying to increase that with the unions, and it hasn't happened at this point.

Building rentals have almost doubled. This is page 77, I'm sorry. FY25, $34,950. FY26 is projected for, well, it was going to be $57,750. Then it was projected for $70,000. And the proposed budget for 27 is $70,000. So from 25 to 27, it's almost doubled. What are the rentals that have driven that?

So in FY25, to be clear, there was rental space that was done through facilities, but there was also about $20,000, $21,000 in parking, traffic and parking that you would see under building rentals. In FY26, we merged those together. So that was, I'm going to say, step one of the increase in FY26. And then the increase from the revised budget to the projected was a need for additional space that I think Al can speak better to at that point. And then obviously from there it's being maintained, but.

Yeah, so there was a building adjacent to it that we looked at possibly renting and also some surrounding parking spots for that building. The owner did not charge us for that initially, but Now we needed to park our vehicles there. But that other space is a space that we're doing a lot of maintenance, repairing certain vehicles, repairing certain parts of equipment. So that was the need for that. Now we're doing work with parks, and we have the library van in there. We have multiple types. We have the trolley in there. So there was a need to utilize additional space.

And same page, other professional services is up to $100,000 now. In FY26, it's projected at 61,708. What would other professional services be and what drives that number? That's on page 77 also. It's one, two, three, the third one under the building rental.

Thank you. Yes, those are for our architects. So being the capital projects division, anytime there's a design needed, whether it's structural, whether it's an architect, we are the ones that are utilizing a fund out of that. And I procure all that through the purchasing department. As a matter of fact, I need to do an RFQ for both design services and for OPM services that's coming up on a three-year cycle.

okay thank you and then on uh page 78 um so i noticed when i was going through this and i'll as we get to the different departments miss arpge there were there were people who last year had longevity, and then in the 27 budget, they don't. There are some people who got more last year and are getting less this year. There are some people whose longevity doubled. It's not a huge number, but I noticed it as I was going through this budget. So my question is, once somebody gets to the point where they're getting longevity, Does it increase every year? And how does it increase when it does?

So it doesn't technically increase every year. It's on a schedule. I think the first after five years is $200. I think after nine years, it goes up to $400. I think after 15, maybe $500 or $600. And then I think there's two more steps. So it also depends on the bargaining unit, right? So different bargaining units have different structures with that. So I can get you all of the different schedules for it. So there is some of that. The other part of it is the longevity. The departments are kind of putting in on their own and telling me who has what. The dates that we have in our system are kind of, I'm going to say, inconsistent. In one place, this is the date that's used. In another person's, it's this date that's used. We're working on cleaning some of that up because it's hard for me to validate all of these on my own at this point. So we've been taking, I'm going to say the department's word at what the longevity is.

So where that's a budget item, it wouldn't be in Munis that it would just carry over? I don't quite understand that.

So some of it's in Munis and some of it populates on its own and some of it isn't quite set up right to trigger that way and the departments put it in manually each time.

In all fairness, Counselor, it is a contractual issue with the collective bargaining. We have two bargaining units right in this budget right here. We have the law division and we have AFSCME.

But when somebody receives it, they don't lose it. Correct.

Correct.

So those should just be like an automatic. Correct.

I know one that was pointed out to me after the fact that they are supposed to have it and it's not in here. And again, why it's not, I can't speak to what happened that it wasn't included in there. Not specifically in this department. I'm just saying.

No, this department actually is fine.

And then there's another position. I know that it was all being charged to one department, but she's technically split between her whole pay split between two departments. So I corrected it this year and split it out, so that could be one that seems like it was decreased, but it's really now, I'm gonna say properly put between the two positions. So those are little nuances that I know of, but I'm happy if you have the full detail list of the ones that seem off, I could go through them.

Yeah, as we go through the departments, I'll let you know which ones I found, and then you can determine what the situation is. So in terms of facilities, there's 16.5 full-time employees. So we have the issue with the administrative assistance position who initially it was called a stipend for $13,000 and now for whatever reason it's being referred to as service out of rank. I don't know why. Because you were director of operations and you oversaw everything in the city, she had more duties, more responsibilities, and that was why that was put into the budget. Is she gonna be changing departments? Is she gonna stay strictly in facilities? Because I would think if she's staying strictly in facilities, those demands aren't gonna exist any longer. And I would say that that needs to be reduced or eliminated. That's a significant amount of money.

So, Council, that clerk has not changed the type of work. She's working specifically with capital projects. She pays the vendors. She makes sure that she assists me with the change orders. That's all she's doing at this point. She's doing a little bit of facilities work, but she's predominantly working in the capital division, so she hasn't changed. So anything that happens with May coming over full time, she's still going to be having to pay those invoices and we have to pay within 30 days or else it's a violation of the law. So she's, her and I are working very close to make sure that we are paying our vendors and we are getting the change orders and we are meeting our capital objectives.

It is a service out of rank because I think the first times that you saw it was in there as a stipend and it was I think more Misrepresented then because the reason she gets that is because that role and those duties are more in line with a project manager and And that's kind of where that stipend change came from. This department hasn't had a project manager for many years. We've had conversations about whether we were going to add one back in, whether we were going to restructure. So I think that's, from my understanding, this was all well before my time, but in the conversations from last year's budget to this year, that's kind of been the conversation is it's a service at a rank because it's for performing duties that are more like a project manager than an administrative assistant within the union.

so if that is the case and legitimately um this person is acting as a project uh specialist then why wouldn't you just take that step transition this this position to that position and have a base salary that's going to reflect it i that's

A not-of-me conversation. I'm not sure what those conversations have been like on the back end and the decision on why it's a service at a rank rather than changing the position.

Because she strictly, her position, right, or the work, I don't want to keep saying her. I want to refer to the position. The position is the administrative assistant. I want to stay with that.

I think its majority is the projects, but it is technically partial. Part of the work is also the facility's work still.

So she's about 90% the capital and she's about 10% facilities. She does do a lot of training with other clerks. She's helped train a few, few other clerks. So she is a valuable asset to the department.

Okay. Um, and then we have a second administrative assistant and administrative clerk and a head administrative clerk. So essentially we have three Two administrative assistants, two clerks for 16.5 employees.

So two of those work out of, so the second administrative assistant is the one that manages the print shop.

Okay.

And then the administrative clerk is the other one that works out of the print shop half the time, mail services. Mail services.

That does what, I'm sorry? Mail services. So one oversees mail services, and the other one does the mail services?

So one is the print shop. Oh, print shop, I'm sorry. She does the print shop, and the other one does the mail services.

And then there is another actual clerk.

We did have three at one point, and we merged some of those duties.

Okay, very good, thank you, with that I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Cede, Councilor Raposo.

So I guess I'm gonna go back to the electrician. FY21. we zeroed out, or the administration zeroed out those positions in the budget. FY 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and now, those vacant positions continue to be funded, and for now, the time I've been on this council, the answer has always been the same. The wages are too low, we can't get it there, it's a union thing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But we continue to fund it, and this budget's 104,809, And there hasn't been a solution in six years, Mr. Olivera.

So, Councilor, I cannot change the union policy on that. We've knocked on that door several times. And I can meet again with the HR director and try to find out if we can increase those wages because I'm not going to find an electrician for those costs. When I get applications, one of the first things I do, I check the reference. I check their abilities and their licenses. and then i add i give them the upfront information this is what the job pays yeah which no you're not going to attract anybody so i guess my question is you're doing how are you getting electrical work done outsourcing it so we we do go out to bid and we do have as needed we'll we'll contact someone uh that that wins the bid and uh we do that for both plumbing and electrical where is where is that reflected in the facilities expenses line That would be under the electric parts and materials, I believe. Electric supplies.

Supplies is probably, it should be supplies and service is probably a better accurate title.

Okay, so electrical. So page 77, electrical supplies, which should be electrical supply slash services. You spent 106,000. So far projected FY 26. And FY 27, your your proposed budget is 125,000, which is the same as FY 26. So clearly, I guess my larger question, why don't you zero out of the budget? Zero those positions? What was that? What was the question? Why can't you just zero those positions in the budget?

Because at some point I'd like the union to upgrade, allow us to upgrade. Sure, it's been six years though. It hasn't changed.

I agree, I agree. So why do we keep just putting in there and pretending like it's gonna change? It's not. That's my, it goes to, we turn over the money, right, at the end of the year. So those positions go unfilled for six years. So just zero them out. If you're gonna go subcontracting, so be it. Budget it that way and move on.

Well, I believe the city should have their own electrician in plumbing.

100%. But how do we get past the stop gap of this problem? It's been six years. And every year I ask this question. And every year I get the same answer. I guess, I mean, how long does it, you know, the reality is I agree with you. Having an in-house electrician makes more sense. More gets done, you know, versus having to get a contractor, schedule and all that. But nothing's changed. That's my frustration I'm sharing with you today. What can we do to change it, Mr. Oliver, is my question.

I will do it again with the HR director and see if we can ask the union again to allow us to increase those positions.

I'm probably going to tell you I'm going to look to cut those both because it's been six years of just turning over that money. Nothing has changed. So I don't feel comfortable. Granted, one petition got moved over to the police department. Awesome. Is that filled?

Yes.

And what are they paying? Is it different?

Is it a different rate, Mr. Hathaway? We had to take on an apprentice for that.

which obviously brings a lesser cost.

We had a co-op student from Diamond that was already working for us, so he's the apprentice that we took on. And he works under the other electrician.

Got it, but because the facility doesn't have an electrician themselves, you can't do that.

You can only hire a journeyman.

Of course, that makes sense.

right i hope you can have those conversations because it's it's frustrating i tell you i yield thank you councilman six council peck thank you um so i'm going to go back to the administrative assistant position if i can find just speak into your microphone council sorry how's that better 78 78 thank you So with this reorg, Mr. Oliveira, what are your responsibilities going to be?

So I will be the facilities director and also be involved with all capital projects throughout the city.

Involved in what aspect?

involved? Well, I initiate the projects. I procure the designer services. I oversee the architects, the owners, project managers, if it's required. Work with the administration and try to figure out what we want as a project and from there we procure it Go out to bid and I oversee the project from beginning to completion. Okay, complete the punch list and Make payments as required any change orders as required.

So every those are the things you said that the person getting a $13,000 out of rank stipend was doing I

So what she does is she actually processes the payments after it's been approved and any change orders, we update the change orders and put those through signatures throughout the city to make sure that the project is being funded properly if there's any additional funds. So she is the person that does the administrative component to that. Okay.

you don't feel that you would have any time to do the administrative component to that in your new role?

Not even close.

I appreciate that. I have to ask.

Could I also be clear that this doesn't include anything with the proposed reorg, so nothing's been changed in that, so I just want to be clear for the rest of this.

I'm going to touch upon that as well. So I notice in the book, And I'm going to bounce to streets and highways just because I have to circle back. So you've got the $99,800 for interim director of community maintenance. So that's going to change as well, correct?

Correct. Yeah.

So Mr. Hathaway's salary is not in this book?

No, because he wasn't approved until after this was published. Okay.

Where I want to go with that is, so Mr. Hathaway steps in at 144, roughly 144, and that's a new salary, right, added to this book on top of what we've had.

It would be just the additional $45,000. It's not the total salary.

On top of the 99.8?

Yeah. No, it's on top of the 95. So that longevity and some of those stipends would stay with that employee as he's a union position. Those would change, and they wouldn't necessarily be the same as the draft.

So it's a $45,000 pay increase to this line. Correct. $95,000 for interim, I get it. Okay. Supervisor of Concrete and Asphalt, vacancy, 73535. What do we do with that?

So my understanding is that there's the potential that the current interim would be stepping into that role, stepping down into that role.

Okay.

So he was the working foreman on the admin side. The person who was the supervisor of concrete and asphalt is now the director of parks. So I think it was just waiting to have that interim, that director of DCM filled before those other positions would be decided on. They didn't know where he'd be stepping back down into to fill those other positions.

Okay. See, this I'm okay, I guess, with. But when I go back to facilities, so I've got, let's say 144,000 for interim director of community maintenance. And then we're going to knock that individual back to supervisor of concrete and asphalt for 73,535. And then on top of that, Mr. Oliver, you're getting 144,200.

Correct. And I haven't received an increase in the last two years, counselor. Yes.

I just have a problem with the salaries, especially with a reorg. If we move things around because they weren't working, I have a tough time accepting the fact that everybody's going to keep the same pay.

Well, I mean, when you say things weren't working, I mean, I was keeping the ship afloat. I understand.

No, Mr. Oliveira, and credit is due, and you deserve the credit for trying to hold five or six positions at once, and it didn't come to fruition. My problem was the ultimate decision or the deciding factor in rectifying that was just to throw more money at the problem. I wish we would have done some more work. in-depth looks at how is this going to affect the budget in the future. And this isn't anything against you, Mr. Oliver. just at face value, we're constantly spending money and there's no, it doesn't seem like there's any time or effort to slow things down and make sure things work or make sense or are gonna be efficient. It's we're just gonna throw money at the problem and hope it works. So I have a problem, it's just two positions at 144. So are you guys gonna coincide with each other or is one of you gonna be a lead? How is this gonna work, two separate departments? Are you gonna pick each other's brains or city administrator?

the two separate departments, Department of Community Maintenance led by the director, Chris Hathaway, Director of Facilities, maintenance and capital projects headed by Al Oliveira and as we stated earlier today I mean mr. Oliveira's position when he was initially hired he had a department head for DCM and a department head in parks then those positions people were moved around they left so mr. Oliveira became Chief Operations Officer, but he was also the Director of Parks. He was the Director of DCM for a time. So he really, if you took all those positions together, he was leading all those departments, that salary of the 144. really would have been a lot higher because when you looked at what the Director of Parks made, the Director of DCM made, and then Mr. Oliveira's salary, he was... And if I can include the Director of Cemeteries and assisting with the procurement world.

Yes.

I would also like to remind everybody that the part of the reorg would be that the Director of Cemeteries position would be, I'm gonna say removed, so that 65,000 would be able to come out of the budget. And when I say come out, it would shift over and cover some of those other changes.

So parks is going to be entirely in charge of both. How's that going to work? So if cemeteries is going to be removed, that's what you said?

The director of cemeteries position, sorry, just the director of cemeteries position as part of the reorg to be removed. And at that point we would obviously unfund that current vacancy.

Okay.

I just have one last thing. So Councillor Deon had brought up the DCM project, the incinerator. What do we have going into that money-wise? I know it's out, but money 16 and change, correct? Correct. What was the amount, do you know? 16.8. I believe. I don't have it here. I have it. Councillor Deon probably has it. Surprised. Surprised.

The original budget was $14,944. It was brought up to $16,219,213.

And so far, we've expended $8,073,520.81. Thank you.

You're welcome.

So about eight and change left.

So we got about half that project spent. i still so i i spoke with the mayor and this isn't budget related but it is a lot of money we're spending so i'm gonna throw it out there i had spoken to the mayor about whether or not that building was safe and the land around it and he told me it was um he told me that he had a conversation with somebody from dep i believe it was a female um i'm gonna request that in writing i would like something in writing if you don't mind to ask the mayor i would like something back from dep Because if we got another $8 million into this project, I was asking about this probably close to nine months ago, ten months ago, and I got a verbal answer. I would like it in writing, just that that land is safe and adequate for us to be spending $16 million on and that our employees are going to be safe. So if that's possible.

So if we can just justify that, Counselor. You're referring to what part is not safe? The incinerator with all the chemicals in it. okay so at that point the conversation that we had with the mass dep person they they had to approve this project and the word was that this was filled in at some point and their verb their words to me was specific it's already capped let's leave it alone so if you want us to get a letter absolutely yeah i don't verb you know the verbal agreements won't fly so yeah i would like in writing if you don't mind okay

With that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. And seat one, Councillor Kadeem.

Thank you. Just to go back on the $13,000 service out of rank. So I guess I was a little confused. I heard what was said to my Councillor Deon and then to Councillor Peckham. But what you were explaining to Councillor Peckham was just an administrative role. So where's the service out of rank? So all the tasks you identified are just what your administrative assistant should be doing.

Well, it's not. It's all construction projects. It has nothing to do. So not every clerk understands what a change order really is, a payment schedule is for contractors. They get the recs in, and they have to assess what the dollar amount is, and they purchase.

That's worth $13,000 to explain a change order? They get requisitions, they get invoices. Everything you said, my understanding of the $13,000 was that there was going to be a project manager, right? So that was the position that I assumed was the $13,000. So now that we're going to do this RE-AUG, you now become the project manager for these projects. Why would we be paying still in the budget $13,000 for a service out of rank for an administrative staff who is performing administrative functions?

I can just say from our side of things, it may be changing with the rework. Like I said, none of this reflects the rework at this point in time.

So that that could be something that's changing that I But that's not the way Mr. Oliver had it. So I believe there's a deed for for someone, I think there's a need for a lot of our asked me units to be paid, you know, $13,000. But What I don't agree with is making up reasons for paying somebody $13,000. So if we're going to do this, we should be doing wage adjustments. We should be doing it across the board for all administrative assistance and the work that they do. But to try to then come back down to the city council and justify that $13,000 for service out of rank, which is to be performing services outside of the rank. And it's just administrative. I mean, it's change orders. I don't know how we justify it. And I think when we start looking at ways to cut in the budget, I mean, to me, I don't know how we justify $13,000 for a service out of ranking.

My understanding is that there's a side letter agreement with the union for this position to be receiving this. I can confirm that with HR. But like I said, this is what I was provided as actuals that have been going out the door. And we can.

For what position?

for that position specifically, for that person performing those duties.

What duties, though?

So I guess... Like I said, that was before my time. Whatever he's speaking to is that, but we can try and get that information to share.

So now that... Is the message to all the other administrative assistants just identify duties that you don't currently do and say you don't understand what a change order is. I mean, I think everybody here understands what a change order is and probably has never processed a change order. I don't know why, first of all, I don't understand how an administrative system would even process a change order, right? So the change order is gonna be processed by the architect, right? Reviewed, if you've got the OPM yourself, you're gonna sign off on it. Where does the administrative assistant come in reviewing change orders?

Well, she's not reviewing. She's working with me to put those changes through to activate those through the budget.

What's that entail? Entail signing a change order that goes back to the architect and the OPM?

But internally, we've got to move some monies internally, work with the CFO. We'll work with the CFO and get that changed over.

That takes like two seconds, right? I mean, I do that myself. I manage all my building projects by myself, plus manage doing town administrator work, plus finance work and all this other stuff. I mean, change orders are not time consuming whatsoever, right? The heavy lifting is done by the architect, the OPM, to make sure that the change orders are done, conversations that you agree with the change order. You sign it, you go in, you make the adjustment. I'm not even sure what adjustments would be made. I mean, if it's funded in a project, right, if it's a separate fund, then the money's already there, and it's just, you're just doing an accounting of it, which is gonna be done by the CFO or somebody in the finance department. So I don't understand where $13,000 comes in to justify it. I'm not taking away that our clerical staff are significantly underpaid, because I will say that across the board. However, I'm gonna say this again. When we start looking at places that could be trimmed, I don't know how we still, when we have a reorg coming down, and I know you're saying the reorg wasn't included, but it sounds like the intent is to keep $13,000 for a service out of rank. Now it sounds like we've got a side letter of agreement.

Well, that side letter, council, that side letter was.

Can you assign other duties to your administrative assistant? There's language in there, right? All the job descriptions as other duties assigned. That's needed. So why would we have a side letter?

Like I said, all of that was done before my time. I can't speak to that part of it. Or whether it's staying in the reorg, I know that that might be, you know, Al's understanding of it. But I don't know what the conversations have been and what that would look like at that point in time. So I can make sure that we speak with the HR director and trickle back.

If we can get that answer before the budget, because I will be... making a recommendation that we cut $13,000 from that account because it's not. One thing is for a service out of rank to be performing a very job-specific task, you know, you get a vacancy and now somebody's filling in and performing all those tasks, then you get a service out of rank. That's what a service out of rank is. But to then get $13,000 for conducting administrative functions is not service out of rank, right? I think, one, it's a way around what we have for union contracts and salaries. I think we need to be fair across the board. I don't know what else. I'm sure there are administrative assistants out there that are performing a lot more than just processing bills and all this other stuff. I'm sure of that. So that's number one. Number two, I don't disagree with my colleague in seat eight. In terms of the electrician, I mean, if we're not able to fill it and we can't get the hourly rate to where it needs to be, what are you currently doing for electricians now when you have electrical work?

We have a contractor on call.

And that's out of which line item?

That is out of electrical supplies. So the $125,000? Yes. And that's inclusive of parts and labor?

So why wouldn't we just, to my colleague's point, eliminate the $53,000, just put it into the 125, just call it 175, and then we're done. We're not trying to hire, and then you've got additional electrical services that are being performed. I mean, he asked the question. I was just curious for the response.

That will work. That will definitely work.

Okay. And then for salaries, I noticed, is this one of the groups that actually have been settled?

I believe a decent number of the positions in this one has been, correct? Most of these are AFSCME. So some of these are AFSCME is what I should say. So the custodians are not part of AFSCME. They are in their own separate bargaining.

So they received a 5% increase? Is there?

So AFSCME, yes. It's really the 2.5 from FY26 and then the 2.5 for FY27. So it is ultimately 5% over the two years. Right, right.

And then there was an individual that received 6.7. Is there...

It could be a step that was part of their budget, or if something in the CBA adjusted their salary rate, that would be the other.

So the individual receiving the $13,000 stipend also received the 6.7?

So it would be a step. Those positions have steps in them, so she probably was also up due for a step.

Is she not a top step already? No.

No. She might be now. I could pull it. I don't know off the top of my head what step. but I know that that position has stepped, so.

And then my last question, I see that the administrative assistance, and I think you clarified a little bit about it, I guess a little bit of a reorg. So in FY26, we had one administrative system, which was top level. The head administrative clerk, which is middle level, was one. And then we had two admin clerks. And then for FY27, that essentially flipped. So there's two at the top level, one in the middle level, and one at the lower end. Correct.

That was part of the CBA that was put in front of you that those positions would be, I'm going to say were re-evaluated. and moved, so the head admin clerk was moved up to the administrative clerk, and then one of the administrative clerks was moved up to a head admin clerk.

And so those that, the one that was moved up to the administrative assistant, is that individual in the print shop?

Yes.

Okay, all right. Thank you, I yield.

Thank you, Councilman Siegfried, Councilman Cagnall.

Thank you.

So we just learned that from the electrical supplies we're paying an electrician. Is it safe to say we're doing the same thing in the plumbing supplies? Yes. Correct. Okay.

I have a note to make that a better title of supplies and services.

under tools last year's all this year's revised budget is $20,000 current project is 14,000 we're showing that going up $10,000 for next year there's something we're looking to purchase or this one seems like it's been under the last couple years what's the extra 10,000 for so it

Just to upgrade all our tools at this point. We want to use the safe tools and get the better tools that we need to work with. We're doing a lot of in-house work now. We're doing a lot of build-outs. We're doing a lot of upgrades. So just getting better tools will help the folks out right now.

Will that result in a reduction in the tool rental cost, potentially? What tools are we renting?

So when we have the tool rental, that's like a lift that we don't own. Genie lifts, we have those, but we don't have any higher lifts to get to the top of buildings and stuff like that. So it would be a specialty type of tool that we're gonna rent.

That's not necessarily worth investing in owning one. Yeah, sure.

And then circling back to the other professional services discussion, my colleague in C4 had mentioned this goes up to 100,000. I think you had talked about how this is for capital or architectural designs. And my question is, when I look at the appropriation order, For community services, capital, $0. For facilities, capital, $0. For fire and emergency services, capital, $0. For police, capital, $0. I'm not seeing any capital dollars in the several of these major buckets. When I do look at the capital book that was provided to us, it looks like from the operating budgets for FY27, you look to $1.758 million in capital projects for this year. Where is this money that you guys were seeking for capital? Is it built into the budget?

So some of those items that you're referring to are just naturally baked into the budget. They're just not in that capital line item because they probably don't fully meet the threshold to be in the capital and are within like the RNM for buildings and maintenance type of line items. So that's part of that. The other thing with the architectural work is a lot of those projects, so more than what's in the operating budget, there are several other capital projects that we are working on and working towards. Sometimes to get them to the point of funding and to come down here with numbers for you of what is needed and what the costs are, we need to do some of that legwork to start working on designs and having somebody spec out what it would look like to do that work and how much it would be so that we actually have an order to put in front of you for costs. So that's what that money is intended for, is to kind of do some of the legwork that's required to get to that point.

But isn't the legwork required already kind of done for us in this book here, no?

No, no. These are design services. Wherever we have some type of a deed, whether, like for an example, I'll give you an example. The parking garage is going out to bid very shortly. We needed someone to do a structural analysis to see if it was even worth it. We did a feasibility. Then they just, there's a professional service that we need to get out and get some information to present to everyone. At that point, if it's a thumbs up, we're moving forward, then we're gonna have to go into the design services of that so we can procure the project. And then there's the construction administrative cost that is separate on this. But all those design services are in that architectural service number.

So to be clear, some of that stuff, once it gets to being an approved project, once it's in front of you, we would fund it through the project and all of that. At that point, those higher level and more costly portions of it would be done through that level. This is more of the, I'm going to say, baby steps to get to a full project being put in front of you.

So I guess my ultimate question to you, Ms. Harpke, is of the $1.758 million that was shown to us as the operating budget capital items, how much of that is baked into this budget right now?

So I had started reviewing that. I want to say that the number is closer to the 1.4 that's fully baked in. Some of it isn't, but some of the estimates, I'm going to say we weren't quite sure of anyhow or how how quickly we would actually get to them in one year. So some of that is baked in, and then some of it might not fully be baked in yet, but that was because of, I'm gonna say where the project was at.

So, if we're only have 1.4 baked into this budget, but we have 1.758 on our list of capital to do, we have 358,000 you'll be coming to look for us later?

So, this plan was put together, I mean, six, seven, eight months ago now. So, it's going to be revised. So, we're gonna do it again in the fall and we'll come down with an updated number. So, that number will probably shift at that point in time. So, as much as this is a plan and we have in there what we plan for each fiscal year, I can tell you that we'll probably almost never to the penny hit all of that because things are going to continue to shift as we get closer to it, as other things happen, as other costs come in. So it's not that we're definitely going to spend the 1.7 in the operating, it's that it might shift and we'll have an update for you with that. So when we did this first needs assessment, this was put together and submitted by the departments in October of last year. So it just could be a little bit out of date at this point by the time we put the budget together.

What I'm hearing from you is you are building in to the 27 plan and futuristically the capital projects and that you won't be just coming before us and saying, here's free cash, we're looking to put this towards the capital.