City Council - Special Meeting

this forest fish this forest City Council special meeting is now called to order at 531 madam clerk roll call please here Camara here annual here Dion here heart yeah Peckham Pereira here proposal here president here for everybody in the chamber can please rise for a moment of silent prayer Thank you, and a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pursuant to the open meeting, Laura, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. This special meeting has been called by the mayor. I want to take this moment to thank Councilor Kadim and Councilor Raposo for going out of your way to attend this meeting tonight after it was, originally canceled. So thank you both for making the necessary changes to be here so that all of us are here this evening. First person and first item on our agenda citizens input. First person I have to speak is Colin Dias 560 Ray Street, school transportation and CFO. Three minutes.

thank you um colin dies 563 i'm just speaking in an individual capacity um since the last time i came before the council and um since then and within several correspondence aka emails i've asked for backup related to school transportation and the budget and the number that is before you i know other counselors have asked for the same backup i know other members of the school committee have asked for that same backup i haven't received anything not sure if any member of the city council has unfortunately that's just a common place with this administration to keep things from us and not get to the bottom truth but i just want to speak to i guess the process here is a little bit different in that the entire committee votes on amounts and sends that to the mayor we voted on and the cfo of our schools indicated that we project to spend 17 million in transportation the city cfo can just i guess cut it by one million dollars because i guess she just thinks she can without speaking to anyone on the school department I know the law reads that all transportation must be funded by the city and it has nothing to do with net school spending. In Fall River, the mayor and the city council for years upon years have pounded their chests and said that we can find 100% of net school spending and fund all of transportation. The number that is before you is not the number that the school committee approved. even though it's the law I'm here like I just heard just on the radio and the council president said it we have the number the school committee approved we have the number that was placed in the budget and this is magical third number which I have no idea what that is about But again, I just hope the city council asked a very tough questions tonight. I usually watch these meetings from my couch and I'm just, and I watched and discussed how the administration comes down here and just disrespects the city council, either through not given information or just being verbally rude meeting after meeting after meeting in this disrespectful. And I'm confident that this city council will do the right thing tonight and demand more from that administration.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Dias. Next person assigned to speak Mayor Paul Coogan 90 Williamson Street regarding the budget.

Three minutes.

Well I figured I had to come down tonight since I called the meeting so and I do appreciate the people that made the effort to get here that Weren't originally scheduled. It's a very important issue, and we want to make sure it has all the credence it should have, and that's what I have to start with. Good evening, Council President and members of the Honorable Council. I am here to speak to the Council regarding the 27 budget and the administration's willingness to work cooperatively with the Council throughout the entire process. The budget was submitted to the council in mid-May. There have been budget meetings with some individual councilors before the start of the budget hearings. The administration has been receptive and responsive to the council's request for suggested amendments to the budget. The approval of the city municipal budget is the single most important vote that the council will make and that's why I'm glad everybody showed up tonight. My administration has compromised and has worked in good faith through the entire budget process. We have been transparent and inclusive in our conversations on and off the floor with counselors. We worked with the council's suggestion to cut the million dollars from the budget. We put in the retiring police officers' buyouts. as suggested by the council and have a meeting set up tomorrow with the new school CFO to review transportation costs. We listen to all your concerns and suggestions. Tonight I want to let you know and the public that we have often talked about the $40,000 and an attorney for the city council. That will remain in the law department. Legal decisions will remain in the corporation council's office. On the eve of the last day of the fiscal year 26, with no municipal budget in place, I am simply asking the members of the council, in the words of Bill Belichick, to do your job. If you do not agree with the budget for financial reasons, then vote accordingly. But to continue to object or further stall a $500 million budget over a $40,000 line item is both unfair and unnecessary. Please do not let petty politics disrupt these deliberations any further, and the people of Fall River deserve better. Thank you, and have a good meeting.

Thank you. Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dionne.

Mr. Mayor, if I may?

Sure.

I'm trying to be calm, because I am not calm today.

We all should be.

I am not calm, so I am trying really hard. So I was in the meeting on Thursday afternoon. You, president, myself, city administrator, the CFO, and the director of human resources. We thought we reached a compromise. We talked about an MOA. I understand that the administration keeps saying, it's the 40,000, it's the 40,000, it's the 40,000. We have brought up other issues. We had a problem with the EMS stabilization account. We reduced that number, which made the budget unbalanced. It had to be balanced. we're still discussing transportation. And I find it very interesting, so there's a meeting tomorrow with the CFO, I don't know if you're there or not, but the CFO, the school side, to discuss transportation. So that tells me, transportation's not settled.

so why would we vote today on a budget with a transportation number that nobody's come to a consensus on if you had a consensus you wouldn't be meeting tomorrow so you want me to answer them or just wait if you wish to go ahead okay so the meeting tomorrow is also an introductory meeting with the new cfo and i believe school transportation will come up we're very comfortable with our number we checked the numbers again today i believe we've put enough IN THE BUDGET TO TRANSPORT ALL THE STUDENTS IN THE CITY OF FALL RIVER. AND IF THAT, GOD FORBID, ENDS UP SHORT, WE WILL BE BACK TO TALK TO YOU. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE CONVINCED THE NUMBER WE PUT IN THE BUDGET WILL BE SUFFICIENT. IF TOMORROW'S MEETING CHANGES SOMETHING, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THE NEXT CALL WILL BE TO YOU GUYS.

At one of our meetings, and I don't remember which one it was, but I'm sure you'll remember, not necessarily the meeting, but the conversation. I don't remember if it was on Thursday or if it was prior to that when I was there with Councilor Canual. I don't remember.

Point of clarification, if I may, please.

Councilman C2, your point of clarification.

When my colleague at C4 says, what of our meetings? What meetings are we talking about? We talking about council meetings? We talking about committee meetings? We talking about a meeting that's just been somewhere arranges to have with the mayor? Just what kind of meeting we're talking about?

I will clarify. I won't answer that. You have every reason to ask that question. So some of us attended budget meetings. So I don't know if this happened in one of the budget meetings or if it happened in the meeting that we had with them on Thursday afternoon.

So the meeting you had on Thursday afternoon wasn't a budget meeting or was it just a... No, it wasn't a budget meeting.

Well, I suppose it sort of was.

Just curious, who called the meeting? The mayor. We invited all the councilors in. Okay, so there was a meeting between the councilors to discuss the budget. Councilor Dionne and Councilor Pott came together. I'm trying to think that I think a few others had come together in the past, but everybody's invited. So it was a meeting that was for the budget. Everybody, yep, to talk about the budget. Thank you.

If I may interject for a moment, we are in citizen's input right now.

I understand that, but it's my only opportunity to ask him these questions.

Sure, come up whenever you want, Michelle, you know that.

Go ahead, say what you want to say. No, no, I just wanted to urge the council, are we going to waive the rules? We should introduce the item. If the mayor is here to stay for this, I think it would be important. He's here, councilors have to ask questions, so can we introduce the item? Mayor, would you be able to stay here and answer questions that the councilors have, because a number of them have questions? Or are we going to waive the rules of citizen's input?

What's your choice? I'll do what's ever best for the council.

All right, we'll ask you to stay if you can for the deliberations.

If it gets too bad, I'll leave.

Okay.

I wish I could say the same.

But I'm here for the duration. If I may, I'm going to give you the floor back.

No, I will yield if we're going to do that. He's going to come back to the table. I have no problem with that.

Thank you. I'm going to acknowledge you first, Councillor. Thank you. By the way, for the record, citizens input, there's no other individuals assigned to speak. Next item on our agenda, Madam Clerk.

I am too is a communication from the mayor and the revised proposed fiscal year 2027 municipal budget general fund appropriation order.

Motion to address the appropriation line by line.

Motion to address the appropriation order line by line has been made by council vice president to areas seconded by Council of Peckham discussion members of the administration please come to the table, I'd like to acknowledge our council vice presidency for first. Anna, please introduce yourself for the record, please.

Ann O'Neill-Sousa, Interim City Administrator.

Emily Arp, PCFO.

Mr. Mayor, just for the record.

Oh, Paul Coogan, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilman Seafork, Council Vice President Young.

So I want to go back to that meeting because I will say an agreement was, a compromise was reached. I don't want to use the wrong words. A compromise was reached. Council President and myself made it very clear. We can't bind this body to a decision. that we had to take everything back to the council. I went so far as to say neither one of us can talk to the entire council. We had to split the council up so that we didn't violate any open meeting laws or anything else. And everybody understood that, that when we walked out of that office, that was not a, we didn't, it was not a sign sealed and delivered, yep, this is it, this is what's happening. There were contingencies. That was one of the contingency. We fully wanted the council to see any and all MOAs that the body needed to vote on it. And one of the stipulations also was that cooperation council had to sign the MOA as an agreeable party. And you agreed to that. You said that you were good. You were fine. You were on board with signing it. I give you all the credit in the world that we were able to come up with a compromise and present it. And I said to you, OK, that's great. We left the office before we left. I said, OK, so we're going to send it to the council. They need to vote. You're going to sign it. We're going to sign it. and Attorney Rumsey's gonna sign, and you said, yes, he is. And I said, and if he doesn't, your words to me were verbatim. That's right, and if he doesn't, this goes sideways, and we go to a 112th budget. Is that correct, sir?

Correct, but can I elaborate a little bit? You certainly may. So what you said is actually 100% correct. But during those same conversations, we had also discussed the fact that three people in the council had looked positively on our budget. And I said, if we have you and Council President Pott, we'll be okay. Do you want us to prepare a 112th budget? And I believe it was Councilor Pott said, no, that won't be necessary. There'll be no more cuts as long as you can get the MOA to a compromise between both parties will be fine. And I think that that's how it was left.

So it, okay. but it was contingent upon this body voting and agreeing and a corporation council signing the MOA. And that, to date, to this minute, has not happened. So the contingency was not met. It's not you and it's not us stopping this for $40,000. The corporation refusing to sign the MOA is what's stopping our move forward movement. And I'm going to call it forward movement because that's what we agreed to. We can try to move forward. We, in good faith, want to move forward.

But that stopped. No, absolutely. Well, the problem was, if you remember, I think the original MOA said form and substance. And I believe that there was a different signature that you wanted from the Corporation Council, not form and substance. That's where it hung up. The form and substance, he said he would sign. And of course, we've been going back and forth for a few days on this, but not the.

And that was a conversation. Actually, we had a conference call, you. the President, myself, and Mr. McElhinney on Friday morning, which was the day after we met with all of you, and in that conversation, I brought it up again, contingent upon, but in that conversation is when the subject of form and content came up. And it was Mr. McElhinney who said he was willing to sign in form and content. And at that point, I said, wait a minute, hold the phone. Form and content isn't good enough. And Nick said, Mr. McElhinney said, that's how he signs all legal documents. I said, I understand that. And I understand attorneys do. I have no problem with him signing to form and content. However, however, he also needs to sign as an agreeable party. Because if he doesn't sign as an agreeable party, then we don't even know if there's wiggle room and if one more time we can have legal maneuvering that doesn't allow this MOA to move forward. And you agreed that he would sign also as an agreeable party.

I tried to get him to sign as an agreeable party. I said he's already agreed to form in substance. I could not speak for him at that time. He wasn't around. on vacation in Pennsylvania. So when he came back, we did have that conversation. And again, that's where I thought we were moving towards.

And I know you did. And I'm telling you, and believe me, I will give you credit for your efforts. I truly do. And I want people to know you did make an effort. But so did we. We're not done moving yet.

i don't know about that well if it's not if it's it's not on our side and i'm not saying that as a threat i'm saying that as you know me i'm straightforward you always say that if the worst thing we have to do is go to 112 then that's what we do because that's the council's wishes i think we can pass this budget and continue to work on that agreement but if that's not the will of the council i don't get a vote i respect all nine of you you make whatever vote you're comfortable with and tomorrow we're back at work

But I think the issue is more not about moving forward. It's more there were contingencies, and they weren't met. So it's not the council refusing. It's contingencies weren't met. And you also did say, we're going to send you a draft MOA, which you did.

you did and you look at it you look it over you tweak it you change anything you want and you send it back to us correct and we did yeah well what happened was i guess um we sent we had sent one to council upon early in the morning uh and i know how the email system is uh he he didn't get a chance that we had a conversation later in the day and i said nick sent that to you he said to me i'm waiting for this and i said nick sent it to you already and then he then when i called him back he said oh i found it so again We're not done compromising, but if we are, this side is willing to continue. But if we are, it takes two parties to compromise, and we could still work our way through it. But if that's not to be, that's not to be. we have a budget to pass that i think is extremely important for all the residents of the city for all of our employees and i'd like to see that get done there is some question about the school department budget whether it when it was not zeroed out the first time and it was zeroed out the second time which one takes precedence we've been on conversations with the dor we have work to do on this budget this this 40 000 agreement is not off the table from our side. Whatever we do, we'll work it out.

And we did agree. Yes, you can keep it in the law department budget. And we compromise. Correct. Your compromise was keep it in that budget. Our compromise was let's have an MOA. So that outlines exactly how it moves forward, what is able to be done, what isn't, so that it would be in writing, so that everybody would know exactly the details of how we would be able to use legal. But unfortunately, again, I go back to our cooperation council is not willing to do that.

But that was the back and forth that went on all day Friday, all day yesterday. And as I said, from my perspective, I don't think it's over till it's over. And you didn't hear me come in here and say, well, that's gone. We will continue to work. And I, you know. And I think and I think whatever happens you did offer you offered to compromise the table you said I have one and as you knew and I'm not going to try to hide anything we were already working on similar type language that's cool it's not a far jump if we can still come to a compromise keep it going forward, but I think the focus tonight with all due respect should be on the budget.

And I agree with you. So at this point, I would also like to emphasize, because the world is convinced it's the city council being stubborn, it's only the $40,000, and it is not. And I know there are councils here tonight who want to speak. They want to address their issues. I have something myself that I want to address with transportation. So yes, we're not done with budget talks. I just wanted to clarify, and it's much better for you and I to sit face to face so everybody can hear our dialogue. So it's not he said, she said. Misconstrued. I just wanted everything to be clear for everyone.

You've been up front, and I try to be the same way. But again, when we left the meeting, I didn't say, we're all set, we're good to go. You didn't say, we're all set, we're good to go. You said there's work to do on this agreement, and that's how I left it.

I agree. I agree. Again, we agree. So before we go line by line in the budget, I would like councils to be able to talk about their concerns with the budget if we can do it that way.

Sure. There's a number of councils who have to speak.

And with that, I will yield for now.

Thank you. Councilor in seat one, Councilor Kadeem.

Thank you. So one, thank you for being here. Uh, two, I just want to say the characterization as petty politics over $40,000 is extremely disingenuous and ignores the broader issues that have, um, been raised by the council. And I, I, for one, I won't speak for any other counselor. I've, I've got no confidence in corporation council, and I I'd be willing to take a vote of no confidence for the entire, uh, the entire office. to have an opinion drafted without, again, us even requesting an opinion two hours before a meeting

I requested it.

They didn't do that out of the blue. I understand that.

And that was off of our conversation yesterday with you when you called me up and said, well, you know, I'm going to object right away. And I had already heard rumblings, right or wrong, that an objection wasn't allowed. I asked for the opinion. They didn't do that on their own. I'll take the full responsibility.

And I appreciate that, but our conversation was on Friday. That's what I mean. He wasn't back till Monday, not Tuesday. So the first thing I would say is I want clarification because in here it says this isn't the first time that's before us. We rejected the budget, flat out rejected the budget. So is this issue that's before us the first time it's before the city council? Yes. Okay. I'm going to ask the CFO in terms of budgets. Can you have a budget without an appropriation?

What do you mean?

Can you have a budget without an appropriation?

It's a budget book. It's not a budget. So, no, without an appropriation.

You need an appropriation. Okay. Do you think Corporation Council should know that you need an appropriation in order to have a budget? I mean, is that like Finance 101? Is that Municipal Law 101?

I just hope he's not focused on that. I hope he's focused on the legal issues facing the city. I don't know.

I mean, if Corporation Council has given us an opinion on something, one would assume right that the biggest part of any municipal operation is a budget that in order to have a budget you need to have an appropriation right so I would assume that every attorney who practices municipal law would understand that so the question that's before us as to whether or not what school department vote we're going to take the first budget we rejected there was no appropriation yet In the second paragraph, it says the city council thereafter considered the proposed budget at multiple meetings. During its initial consideration, the council approved the school department budget, but rejected the remaining portions. That's correct. But we rejected the appropriation. There is no appropriation. Therefore, there is no budget.

Point of order.

What appropriation was approved?

We did not approve the school department budget.

The first time.

No, we did not. On June 30th. No, we did not. Listen, hear me out. We approved a line item. The line item was the school department budget. The appropriation was never changed or reduced to fund the school department. So we skipped appropriation. Step not even realizing we skipped it and because we skipped that step and it was never funded We never approved the school department budget.

That's correct. That's what that's what that's where I was. That's where I was going That's exactly what I know. It's okay. That's that's you clarified it, but that's that's That's exactly where I was going. So there was no appropriation that was ever submitted. So there was no budget. So the entire budget was rejected. So again, when we're having an illegal opinion coming before us saying that there was a budget approved, I I'd like to know how there wasn't a budget that was approved with zero appropriation. There wasn't a single dollar that was appropriated to any line item of that initial budget. That budget was rejected, it came back before us, we reject it again, the budget is not before us. So for us to even, again, this flies in the face of taking away the authority of the city council, whether you agree with it or disagree with it. The city charter says that a councilor can object to an item that's before us, and yet again, every time we try to compromise with council, They come back and give us these types of opinions, and then we wonder why we want to hold up a budget for $40,000. It's not petty politics. January 27th, 2026, we had a ordinance meeting. There was a discussion between licenses and leases, and we were trying to compromise with Corporation Counsel, and Matt Thomas, who was representing Corporation Counsel, told us that we didn't need the ordinance. Because at the end of the day, the lease should not have been approved without the city council. And we said, we want a safety net. What guarantees do we have? Quote, the power of the purse. You deny the money, that is the ultimate control of the city council. We are just taking the recommendation from Matt Thomas coming through Corporation Council. We are not happy with the legal opinions. I, as one, have no confidence in any of the opinions coming from Corporation Counsel. We want our own attorney for legal opinions. We've drafted an MOA. Corporation Counsel refuses to sign. He'll sign to form and legality of a document, but he won't agree to the actual agreement and the documentation that's before us. He'll never do that. So the question is, is it the City Council that's holding up the budget? Or is it Attorney Rumsey that's holding up the budget?

Do you want me to answer that? Okay, so in our conversations to get to an agreement, he contends that there is Massachusetts law which indicates what a corporation council can and can't do. his position is that he is not allowed to sign an agreement like that which could expose the city and its taxpayers to legal claims he can sign that the mayor and the council president agreed to a policy to give them money as we did in the past i don't think it was formalized then but at the same time he said that if he signed something like that he could literally put himself in jeopardy. So I said, and I've said it probably too many times, that I don't have a problem working with the council to sign it myself. I just guess from what I'm signing, and we come to an agreement on language, it's not sufficient for you guys. But as long as I'm here, and hopefully it's another, whatever it is, year and a half or year and five months, then I will definitely work with you on that. I've said it before, I'll say it again. The problem is trying to negotiate a deal that everybody's on board with. As someone who's a town administrator, I know you have a corporation council. Sean, get an opinion for me, if you would. I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with anybody doing that. But I think we have to work together to get this budget passed and get this agreement behind us.

Right. And so, one, I can't get an opinion from another community. That's one. So, I mean, corporation council can get an opinion.

I don't know if you had a conversation with them.

Right. So, I mean, we can have those conversations, but the draft agreement that we have starts off, number one, authority of corporation council. pursuant to section two dash five seven five to seven and two dash five to eight. The code of the city of Fall River and administration act through Corporation Council remains the only authority authorized to legally bind the city of Fall River. We've acknowledged that we've asked for an appropriation. We've asked for a good faith resolution. We've asked that the city council draft a policy. The selection of the city council was clearly outlined. He has a seat at the table, but the ultimate decision on our council would be coming from the city council. We discussed funding payments, everything that's listed in the funding payment, making sure that nothing was held up. We talked about creating an ordinance that would allow this to continue to move forward. We talked about the duration of this. We talked about amendments, how that would be handled. Nothing in here took anything away from his authority, yet we don't have an agreement. This is a pretty straightforward MOA.

But I think what you're saying, Sean, is the things that we can work through. Where's the money going to be? Who's going to authorize the payment? It's there. I'm saying.

It was all there.

Well, some of the other things were in Nick's agreement, and we never married the two up. And that's what I think we've been working on. Because when we sent out our first one, Said draft, I think we got the other one from Councilor Pont, so we're trying to marry those up. Now, that's all we're working on.

And again, we'll- This draft, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, is a pretty straight, clear, straightforward, he's just refusing to sign it, he's not gonna sign it, and that's fine. No, he will sign it, but- You are ultimately the mayor, right? Yeah. You are the individual who ultimately has control of every single department that's before us. If you want this MOA to get signed, the mayor says it gets signs, right? So if corporation council refuses to sign it because of some type of law he says that he's read somewhere that I've asked for the last month and a half, and he's yet to provide it to any of the city councilors, then that's fine, but that's ultimately up to you. That's fair. But you were elected to serve as the mayor. Right. So from my standpoint, if this MOA is legitimate, and straightforward and all it is saying in terms of what we're looking for is just consultation. That's all it is. It's consultation. It's a second legal opinion. It is not binding the city to anything. It is giving us no different than having an outside auditor come in or an engineer come in to give us an opinion on something or render services to us. It does not take anything away from corporations. Hold on. That is clearly laid out. attorney rumsey refuses to cooperate in fact when we're talking about the leases and licenses and contracts after the meeting i went out there in the hallway and i said can we come to a compromise to try to get resolve some of this stuff and his response to me was no So when we start talking about compromises, when we have these conversations behind closed doors and there is a pushback for $40,000, so you've got a corporation council who is refusing to agree to something for $40,000, but this is what we're gonna talk about. Okay, so let's not talk about the transportation that's about a million dollars off that we've had discussions with that are now only just being discussed, right? And then I'm hearing with this whole entire budget process, I would ask, when did you start having conversations with department heads on this budget?

individually after they've submitted their budgets, you mean?

Mm-hmm.

March?

How about mid-April?

Okay.

Mid-April. Mid-April. When's the budget due?

May 15th.

May 15. So we have a $484 million budget. And the first time we have conversations with department heads is mid April a month before that it's due. So now, I'm getting I'm getting accused of extorting the city for $40,000. Okay, that's on that's on public radio. I'm getting accused of having secret meetings with Cliff at his restaurant because I can't God forbid I go to Al Max diner and have some breakfast. Right. Okay. I am being accused that we've we've got deadlines to me. But yet the administration meets with department heads a month before the budget is submitted. And then when we try to get responses, we have no responses. I've been trying to get answers to transportation since the first time it's come down. There was no conversation with the school department. We still don't have any conversation. I don't even know. And I've had this conversation with you, Emily, and the city administrator that's sitting before us as to whether or not maybe it's to the city's benefit that the actuals are coming in less and we don't need all this money. But there is zero documentation. that is before us that is showing this. And so now I've got to sit here and be told that, oh, we've got to rush this through. This is what we got to do. No, it's not our responsibility to rush anything through. The expectation is that we're going to have the documentation to prove that everything that we're looking for is actual. We've got, and I ask the question, $450,000. And I think the chief said maybe $450,000 of retirement buyouts. I asked that question the first time when we had the budget before us. The very next meeting that we had, we had a transfer of $450,000 to fund the deficit because of employee retirements in the police department. And we don't even have $400,000 in this year's budget built in. And the chief said that's exactly what we need. So we're $400,000 or $450,000 in a deficit right off the rip.

This resubmission does have $400,000. It's actually $395,000 for retirement buyouts in police. Right.

This new appropriation order that's before us for the first time?

Yes, it does. Yes. It's in the budget. It has $395,000 in there for retirement buyouts for police.

Which, again, I haven't really reviewed because I haven't had the time to review it. So I don't know why.

I just wanted to let you know it was in the budget.

But do you understand where I'm coming from, though, in terms of you're submitting budgets to us. You're telling us we need to vote on stuff. And it's like the things are not done. The time frames are not met. But we're the ones that are getting blamed for it. Well, that's the narrative that's being spun. And I just don't appreciate it because it's not the $40,000. It's the $40,000. It's the transportation. It's the questions on the health care. It's the $450,000, which you have there. It's the items on the indirect costs that we haven't seen. There's a number of things.

Yeah, but I think, Sean, you're not giving yourself enough credit. If you bring something up, whatever one of you brings up, that should be in there. We don't just leave here and say, oh good, let's have another day, I'll see you tomorrow. We go back and go to work on that stuff. And that's why this transportation, You and I have had conversations right across the table about that. I am convinced we're fine on that. Because, I mean, even talking to Emily about that, there's over $700,000 in McKinney-Vento surpluses that we haven't touched, that that's transportation money for us. And if we shorten them 900,000, we're right on the edge right there. So I'm not worried about transportation. I believe we have more than sufficient funds there. I did not even know the first time we talked that we had that kind of a surplus in McKinney-Vento. But now I do, and I think leaving them a buffer in case they get hit with a bad bill is also fair. But at the same time, if we need it for transportation, we'll use it.

But that's on the school side.

Transportation is ours.

Transportation is ours.

McKinney-Vento is transportation.

But held on the school side.

I don't think it has to be. Does it? We'll get to you on that. I don't have a problem, but I believe we can use it.

So I've got a number of questions. I just haven't had time, so I'll yield to my colleagues to have this discussion, but I just want to be very, very clear that it's not just the 40,000, but I will still stand by. that if we don't have $40,000 in the city council budget, In my personal vote, I will not be supporting the budget. This is the only opportunity, quote Matt Thomas, the power of the purse strings. This is the only time we have the control to be able to get what we need. I have no confidence in Corporation Council. I asked for $100,000 reduction in salaries, haven't seen it. We got reductions on the expense side. And I still got a number of questions with transportation and other line items, and apparently some of them have been addressed, but I don't know that for a fact. So that's where I stand. So it's not just one issue. There's a number of issues that are before us. So with that, I yield.

Thank you. Council Member C6. Councilor Peckham.

Good evening. How are you? Can we find out right now what's up with the McKinney-Vento question? Do we have a response to that? Because that makes a big deal.

I do not have the responses prepared that I think we're looking for. Can you go get them for us? No, no. I'm not supposed to be here right now. I was very clear.

Well, then you should have called this meeting.

Well, we discussed the time. Right or wrong?

Am I right or am I wrong? You're wrong. I'm wrong? You should have called this meeting even though she's got somewhere to be and shouldn't be here tonight?

If I could answer, I would.

Go right ahead.

Okay, so when we met with Cliff and Michelle, we had talked about this meeting at the time the president was gonna call it. It would be a very quick meeting, bang, bang, bang, because she had a very important appointment. And I said, well, we're gonna be there a while? No, it'll be a vote. and I was told there were no more cuts coming. The budget should be up or down quickly that night. That's what I thought this was gonna be. That's what I was told. So now it kind of went. It frustrates me. Yeah, well, it went sideways a little bit, but that's where we are, and it is where we are. But she should not be here.

Well, that's fine. Yes, she should be. She's a chief financial officer. I understand. And she shouldn't have made plans during budget season, just like I couldn't. But she relied on people. Well, that's fine, and I relied on myself being here to pass a $490 million budget. We appreciate it. You're welcome. So I'm going to touch upon the $40,000. I think we've had this conversation. I really don't care about it. I have many more issues than that 40,000 that everybody keeps talking about. But I'm going to touch upon why I have those problems, and I want to tell you a story since you're sitting right in front of me and you've been most of the blame for this. So a couple of weeks ago, I'm driving in the car with my mother, okay? She's 66 or 67 years old, just retired this year. So we're at a red light at Rodman and Hartwell Street. She turns to me and she goes, can I talk to you? I said, yeah, of course. she goes you know your father's 76 they're about nine years apart in age she goes I'm worried because when he passes I have no way to go doesn't make enough money to live in the city of Fall River you play a big part in that Mr Mayor you do and I want to let you know that there are families struggling in this city and you have the nerve to sit here and tell me that I need to rush this No, you did. I didn't. You just said you were hoping this was going to be a quick meeting, bang, bang, bang, vote out.

I was told it was going to be a quick meeting.

Yeah, well, listen, leaders don't rush things through, especially when they're the helm of a ship called a municipality.

I rely on people every day.

Okay, this is the largest budget this city has ever seen. All right, so now you know where I stand from, right? I'm looking out for people like my mother and all of these people in the city of Fall River that you forget about. I don't forget about everybody. No, you do.

You're putting your feelings in me. Just ask a question, Chris. It's fine. I worry about everybody in the city every day.

Yep. Unfortunately, some more than others. No. No. Yes. Yes. And this is frustrating. So I'm going to move on, Mr. Mayor. It's my opinion, but it's quite proven, believe me. Ms. Arpke, let me ask you a question. Without one-time money, could you balance this budget?

So without the $4 million for Diamond, I think that would be extremely tough. We could do it. We could always balance a budget, but it would require cuts of services and programs at that point.

Thank you. So if we didn't approve that transfer to the Diamond Stabilization Fund, where would we be right now?

What do you mean?

Just fiscally, where would we be? If we didn't have the $4 million, where were you going to pull it from?

we would be pulling from departments, programs, and operations. So that's why we set up the plan.

Now what about the other $150,000 in free cash? I'm going to add that on top of it. Where are we getting that from? Actually, let me sum it up, I guess, easier. How do we look in FY28? I'm actually going to direct that question to you, Mr. Mayor. Do you know what we look like going into FY28?

Well, I think we have a significant stabilization fund now, more than whenever I got here back in 2020. I think going forward, when we look for what we're going to have for new growth, increased tax revenue, what the state does, I mean, we just got $600,000 for a bonus snow money. I know that every dollar is going to help. But going forward right now, we're in a much – when I got here, there was $500,000 in stabilization. So we're in a much better –

And what is it at today? I think I asked the last thing.

It's $22.7 million.

So we got room to go, but there's going to take some cuts and things we have to do together.

And where does our debt service stand for FY28?

For FY28, I don't know if I have that number in front of me. I think it's 13. I think it's just over 13 million.

All right, so if we have local receipts that are leveling off at 1.6 or 1.8, where are we getting the money to pay for all of this next year?

From the new growth that comes in, we get over $2 million a year in new growth. And then the new growth that's coming in this year will have the increases, tax increases on it. So that's a large part of where some of this comes from. The state aid does continue to increase each year, not necessarily at the rate that we all would like it to, but it does increase each year. So those are part of the ways that this is. I know we plan to review all of the fee structures within ordinance that we have within the city that we're able to, I'm going to say locally set. We've been talking about going through that. We just haven't had I'm gonna say the time yet But we have started doing a legwork to pull all of that data and information as to what they are What other communities are at and and we want to try to move that forward with the council. I

We're also working on trash, lowering the amount of disposal costs for trash. We were here just speaking the other night with the ordinance committee about the change in ordinance going to no more than four unit parcels, picking up trash. So that's going to significantly reduce our disposal costs.

So the point I'm getting at here is the marijuana money. So that's another question I have. That's an increase of $100,000. I think you said that's because of the...

It's a back payment. So just really quick to answer the debt number. I was wrong with a 13.1. It's 12.6 right now for 28 step service.

So with the marijuana, that's not with diamond and that's not with Conley.

That is with. Conley, no, no, that's not with Conley. Diamond is not part of ours, so no, it's not with Diamond. It never would be lit.

So with Conley, that's another 1.8 or 2.2 roughly if we go 20 years at 4%. Yeah. So to add that to the Conley bill, so that's another 6.8. Potentially, yes. Roughly on top of this? correct and again I don't have those numbers but it's and it's not set in that sense so that's why I didn't include that in that I just think we're burying ourselves I do I really do you wouldn't say this is a structural deficit we just got the million from EMS that you tried to put in there like I tried to put in there from the cost of the indirect agreement yes okay yes I I

I we are waiting for documentation to come in from pair act right now.

I don't have a time line that's going to be able to counsel a Peckham's point question. I think it was directly asked, is there a structural deficit in this municipal budget for the one time money?

I do not think there is.

I would not have put in front of you if it was 490. What is it? $500 million. I think isn't a good idea in this. I need to know if we're in a structural deficit. If we're pulling money from free cash or wherever else to backfill the budget, then we have a massive problem here.

So the free cash, to be very clear, that 150 is based on the temporary increase in loss. So this past year, this current fiscal year, sorry, this current fiscal year, FY26, we came down for a $300,000 transfer from free cash for these current cases. So we are being told that that is carrying into next year. So with that being said, we thought we would plan ahead rather than coming to you after the fact. But it's not something that would stay in, which is why we decided to fund it with one-time money, because it's not going to be a consistent expense.

Yeah, the problem is, is you raise the tax. the marijuana tax by $100,000, and that's not a reoccurring thing either.

So it is. So we are getting the social equity payments have been held up. We weren't getting that 1%, and that's what's being added in now. So there is amount of retro that we're getting. We actually just got the first one for 26 today, and it's over $140,000 that we received for FY26. So given that, we'll probably be on track to continue at that. Read if you know a hundred thousand I'm gonna say to be conservative with it. So we are receiving that moving forward now We did have we do our auto back pay, but we are going to start receiving it consistently now Just one last question Did you ever tell the mayor and I haven't heard anything?

There's been no rumors, but this is just a question Did you ever tell the mayor that buying Connelly was a bad idea? She ever had that conversation

No, that's not my place to say.

Okay, so you feel like Connelly purchasing Connelly was a fantastic idea.

And I also didn't say that I asked about affording the debt and what it looks like in our debt schedule. So in that sense, you know, I've projected that we could fit it in. So I'm going to say I haven't really said whether it was a good or a bad idea. I just am looking at the numbers and seeing what debt is dropping off and, and how it could slide in with those existing debt payments and not increasing anything. So that's what I have spoken to with it.

All right. Yeah. My problem here is everything seems like it's speculation, hypotheticals. We're hoping that this comes in.

Well, that's what projections are, is doing the best you have with the information you have to look forward. So nothing's set until it's set, unfortunately, with that.

Well, I know my colleagues have questions, so I'll leave it at that. With that, I yield. Thank you. Councilman C4, Council Vice President Dionne.

Thank you. So actually another issue just came up that I hadn't even considered. So our trash is not resolved yet. We don't have a definitive number for trash.

What do you mean? Are you talking about the contract?

The contract. The contract hasn't been settled, so we don't have a definitive number.

We do. What's in the budget, it won't go up. There won't be an increase to the trash contract. We have what they bid, and that's how the budget was based off of, but the contract just hasn't been fully executed because of, I'm going to say, other terms within it. So yes and no.

Okay. So yes and no. All right.

So the contract is not executed, but it is fully accounted for as it stands. Yes.

But I guess yet again, OK, it won't exceed, perhaps. And it shouldn't. You're right. No, it can't. You're right. Right. But again, so we're voting on a number that could change.

So they need an appropriation in order to fully execute it, is what I think I was last told. But either way, we can amend. So if we have a budget, we have an appropriation, we can always amend it. But having something to work from is also the starting place.

In the contract, it guarantees that the auditor can guarantee 12 months of payment until the FY27 budget is passed. And if it's a continuing appropriation, that 12 months can't be guaranteed. So the contract could not be executed until the FY27 budget is passed.

Okay, but there's also been discussions. Matt Thomas has had discussions with Easy to extend the contract we have now for two weeks so that there's no interruption, so that trash can be paid. believe it's 30 days it's 30 days okay i think it was said two weeks so that's even better so it's been extended by the contract has been extended by 30 days so we're not in jeopardy at this moment not at all no so um so trash will continue trash will get paid um so again going to, if it's the will of this council and the end result tonight, to go to a 112th. It's not interfering with any services. It's not stopping trash. Things are being taken care of.

Correct. Continuing appropriation would not stop any services or activities. I'm going to say the burden of the 112th and the continuing appropriation is the time management that every department you know, forget the finance team, but every department head is going to have to manage to and submit the details and continue to do it in that sense. So that's the only, I'm going to say cost of it is just additional time from every department head. So again, not saying that it's a reason to not do it. I just want to be clear that it won't stop any operations in that sense.

Yes, so yes, which is important for people to know that as well. It does not stop government. It doesn't change it. People who don't pay attention aren't even going to know that anything happened. Correct. It's more work. I get it. It's just the department that's correct. I get it.

For 90 days. Up to 90 days. Up to 90, yes.

And I would certainly, certainly think, certainly think and hope that within 90 days, we could all finally come to an agreement on the budget, an agreement on the problems we're having, and move forward. I mean, I don't understand why we can't. But again, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen. I'm only one person. It takes an entire body. But I do have one more question. So now you were talking about McKinney-Vento, if there's a deficit in transportation. Originally at a meeting, I thought you said you were going to use circuit breaker money to cover it. It's both.

There are both as options.

OK. Well, there aren't both as options. And that's why I'm asking. McKinney-Vento can be used. The city cannot. The administration cannot access or use circuit breaker funds. And this is from DESE, and I will read it. A mayor cannot directly access city breaker funds for general municipal purposes, including offsetting a school transportation deficit in a non-special education context. These funds are tied to the special education program and must be used by the district for eligible special education transportation. If a municipality school district is eligible, the mayor can work with the district to ensure circuit breaker reimbursement is claimed and used for the district's transportation needs. However, the mayor's own municipal budget cannot draw on these funds.

Correct, that's the only thing that we are working through, and we are working with the district on that. That's not a unilateral decision, but that's what we've been talking about being available in there that is for special education. So of that budget, the $17 million that was proposed by the school department, it is, I wanna say the number is about nine million plus of it is sped transportation, so special education transportation exclusively. So it's not like we're looking to pull some of the other transportation costs over there. The bulk of the transportation costs are related to the special education transportation.

I guess that would also be a conversation and a debate between the school department and the city side. Correct.

And we've been having those conversations.

And I think based on my conversation with the deputy superintendent yesterday, you're not going to win that conversation. And with that, I'll yield. Thank you.

uh councilman seat six council peckham just one last thing on top of all the things i said we have to pay for next year we're negotiating contracts too correct um yes we still have police and fire and teamsters open on the city side at this time so that's going to affect

Correct. Well, that's part of what the $600,000 reserve is set aside for.

Okay, so you're projecting that to fall within that $600,000?

We don't have numbers at this point in time with where we're at in negotiation, so the goal is to be around those numbers. It's not a perfect math, and I don't have a final answer for that.

Did you take rank, structure, seniority, and all that into consideration with the $600,000? Yes, absolutely.

So yes and no. Again, we don't have contracts for me to fully say what this would cost to say that the $600,000 number is sufficient. So I want to be very clear with that. I can't say that that's going to be perfectly sufficient. Because if we could, we would probably have been budgeting for it at this point in time. But yes, I am heavily involved with those costings of those negotiations. So I'm aware of the costs.

OK. I yield. Thank you.

Councilman C-3, Councilor Cagnall.

Thank you. So I want to start by saying I went to your office yesterday looking for the official budget book, right, this big document right here of which we're supposed to approve. And I'll start off by saying I received the updated pages. I received summaries and things like that last Friday. But the actual pages I was seeking, I got a 344 today for a 6 o'clock meeting. Sorry, 530, you're right. So not even two full hours before this meeting is when I get this book, the pages I was looking for. So I'm going to start there and say that wasn't enough notice. I got your executive summary on Friday, but I want to complete my analysis in full. I want to see the individual lines. I wanted those pages.

I submitted it before that time period, but I understand, and I just can't say I want to apologize, but it takes time to put a book like that together. We were only told Thursday to work on resubmitting the budget, because we were going to move forward the continuing appropriation. We found out it was the will to have a full resubmission, and if you look at the past times that I've had to resubmit budget books, It takes more than two days to turn around. It's a lot of work to print and merge and complete every single page of the 200-page document, so I do apologize that it is not as timely as it would like to be, but given the time turnaround we had, it's not possible.

I understand that. I think just, you know, I don't know how I'm expected to vote on something where I haven't gotten to those pages. I got these. I didn't realize they were sent until I got home. I drove in special for this. I was out of town as well. So that's number one.

Point of clarification, if you don't mind. Councilman C6. You don't mind, Council? Mr. Mayor, what's the point of all this? If she's stating that she doesn't – she didn't have enough time to do this – If she doesn't have the numbers ready, what was the point of circumventing the council president to have this meeting tonight if nobody's prepared?

Because it's the last day of the budget year, and I thought we could get it done based on the meeting with the council president and the vice chairman.

Okay, so a horse and pony show on the last day of the month before we go to a 112. That's what we're asking for. I don't call those people horse and pony. My clarification is satisfied. Thank you.

Councilor C3, you have the floor.

Thank you.

The school department, I have concerns there. I think my colleague in seat four eloquently outlined, I think, you know, her and I were in a meeting a week ago Monday in the mayor's office. We were told that circuit breaker could be used. She's, you know, clarified what can be used and what can't be used. So I think what baffles me is that there is a meeting tomorrow on school transportation, but yet we're being asked to vote on this tonight.

To be clear, we had a meeting last week. We've been meeting on this. That wasn't the first one. We've been meeting on it. The meeting set for tomorrow is to meet with the new CFO to discuss it because there isn't one that is in the building right now to have these conversations. So we were having these conversations with the school department last week. And we're told that. it's going to be best to wait until he comes in to answer some of the questions that they could not answer that day. So we have been having those conversations. I want to be clear on that. But they wanted him to be a part of those conversations to finalize things.

And that's fair. There have been a number of also emails, I think, sent to, I've been copying on some from school committee members, city council members, asking about some specifics on transportation. I haven't seen any replies to some of those. And I am curious, you know, when are we going to get answers to emails on that stuff? Because I think we're talking about a $17 million number.

That's a lot of money. We're talking about $900,000 difference. I'm talking about the whole number. No, but we're talking about the difference of $900,000. And if I'm able to talk a little bit about circuit breaker, we would not take circuit breaker money and use it for any non-sped transportation. That would never happen. So it is allowed for sped transportation. And the McKinney-Vento, no matter if we leave them a significant buffer, it would put us in very good stead. That's all I said.

But one of the things that was asked in my meeting was what happens if that fund were to fall short? Because that was my biggest concern. Okay, there are a couple different numbers flowing out. The school committee voted on one number. What's in here is a different number and there's a third number.

If Kenny Pacheco comes to me and says we have 100 new kids down at, Sunset Hill on the Bay Street and they got to go a long haul we need buses we'll come back to you guys and explain what happened with the data and with the facts and I'm sure this council would support the kids well my specific question the meeting with you guys was what happens if there's a shortfall and the answer at the time was a circuit breaker there's over six million dollars in there that could be used no no the response is that we would come back before you as required we'd come back before you

I think it's also important to just note that the amount right now does not include the redistricting on the school department side. I mean, the school department is working right now, the administration on the redistricting of students throughout the district. This was being done for cost savings and to reduce class size, but it couldn't be quantified right up, because they can't do that until the summer starts, and they know what students are enrolling, where they're gonna be assigned, and what will be done. So that's another thing that's taking place on the school side right now, as far as redistricting that's done to, in addition to reduce class size, also save money.

I'm not convinced the redistricting is gonna save any money. I'm just gonna say that. I'm not convinced that's gonna pan out that way. It's great if it does, but I'm not convinced. I have yet to see data and evidence that that is truly gonna be the case. I think that's a guess and a wing and a prayer. I sit on the Committee on Ordinances and Legislation. and i'm going to go back to uh and i'll actually i'll lead with i was not pleased to see this on my desk uh this today a opinion from the office of corporation council concerning a possible motion or objection vote that objection motion that may take place that hasn't taken place that was not asked for by myself, or I don't know of any of my colleagues, but I know you said, it's been stated, Mr. Mayor, you've asked for this legal opinion, correct? Correct. Okay. I think that, I'm concerned that this is inaccurate, that this is overreach, in my opinion, that when it comes to issues of parliamentary procedure, I got the book right here. Now there is a charter objection, but we are governed by Cushing's. And when it comes to if there's an objection that is made by any of these counselors, if someone wants to challenge, if he allows that objection to stand, it's up to an individual counselor to challenge that. They have the ability, and if they get a second, they can come to a vote. But it is not up to you, and it is not up to our Office of Cooperation Council to determine what rules and procedures are appropriate and not appropriate. That is subject to the rule of the chair, and we govern by this book, and obviously the laws in the city of Fall River. to see this telling us that we don't have that ability, did not care for it one bit. And I've tried to be very reasonable with this corporation council, but I've been disrespected on many occasions. And I'm gonna date back to an April 6th meeting right in this chamber, ordinances and legislation where We were discussing, I think it was around contracts and contract renewals, and I brought up some law cases, and Corporation Council suggested that, actually, I'll back up. It was in a prior meeting I had brought up some cases, and at the end- Point of order.

Yeah, what is this? Your point of order? I don't see disrespect in the budget that we're looking at.

I hear your point of order, but Councillor in seat three is speaking. I'm hearing you on your point of order, Councillor. I hear you. I'm going to allow the conversation to continue because a legal opinion was put on our desks and the council has the ability to speak to it because it may or may not have a vote as a result of it. So I'm going to allow the question. Councillor in seat three, you have the floor.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm speaking to this legal opinion that was put on because it pertains to a possible motion maybe that they're speculating may or may not happen tonight. So he called my court cases, AI hallucinations, I would suggest that's probably an AI hallucination, even though the clerk who was sitting at the table had them printed point of order, your point of order.

I don't see hallucinations in the budget either. Consonancy talk about hallucinations and disrespect. I don't see it in the budget. Can we talk books on the budget.

Well, I think I think talking about this right now to put on our desk.

I had hallucinations. But that that's not a chance.

Consolidate C3 up. I don't see what's in our desk.

I don't see hallucinations. I read it, too. I don't see hallucinations in here or disrespect. it's an opinion take the opinion and go with that or don't go with that but i don't want to hear about hallucinations during the budget meeting a special meeting about a budget we're talking about hallucinations and disrespectful come on i'm speaking specific to the subject can i have the floor please

sure thank you I'm speaking specifically to the legal opinion that was put on and I'll read the title just so we're all clear it's applicability of section 2-9 C of the Fall River Charter to the June 30th 2026 special meeting of the City Council and this was issued as an opinion signed by assistant corporation counsel Gary how are you and Alan Ramsey Corporation Council and Throughout this, I think I'm concerned that the opinions coming out are inaccurate. This is an opinion. I'd like a second opinion on this. And my question is, if I disagree with this opinion, how do I get a second opinion? And for me, it's never been about the money. where it sits for me it's simply been and back to the ordinance meeting in april it's when we have a disagreement of the council and the power that they have and what the charter states and what the chart does and what can we do how do we resolve this conflict and when i went to corporation council's office

now i'm going to finish i just wanted to tell you because you know what i'm going to say i'm sorry counselor can you i understand but that's not on the agenda either the only thing that's generated no it's not no it's not no it's not what you're right no i that that was triggered by a conversation i had with with uh counselor khadim who told me he was going to object The swirl was he could, he couldn't, he didn't, he had the right to. And all I did was try to get some clarifying information. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to throw that in the barrel, that's up to you. I was just trying to get some clarification. It's not on the agenda. If Councillor Kadim had objected, maybe someone would have referred to it. If not, we'd all go home. But it's not on the agenda.

I'm going to wrap this up. Corporation counsel in his office in the month of May, I know you're not gonna like this because you know what I'm about.

No, but it's not on the agenda either.

Let him finish. How do you know what he's gonna say? Because he's told me before. Can we stop the interruptions?

I said, when we have a disagreement, and this opinion before me is something I also disagree with, Mr. Ramsey told me, if you don't like my opinions, Michael, run for mayor, and if you win, you can replace me. And I find that very disrespectful for an attorney who has told me that he's my attorney, he's your attorney, he's the city's attorney, he's my attorney. I found that extremely disrespectful that he said that to us. And I have an opinion here before us tonight on something that may or may not happen in this meeting. that is preemptive and i just find it completely disrespectful to the council that this is in front of us you're right it's not on the agenda but it's certainly trying to influence the legislative body and the actions that may or may not take tonight and i think that's out of the purview and with that i'm going to yield thank you councilman seat 8 consular reposo

only thing i want to add mr mayor is is on the transportation and i think the little frustration i have and and the city administrator is aware of this because i had to go to her to get an answer after let's see june 18th was the initial email i had a conversation with miss arpkey about transportation we had bounced back and forth numbers of what she had but there was no information from the school department side so four days later five emails later this document that i was emailed which was not shared with her I gave to her so she could review it, we could look at it. But my problem with this whole thing, what justifies these numbers? And I know we're on the same page on this. To be clear, council, what are you referencing? The spreadsheet that Mr. Almeida sent to the council regarding transportation.

Understood. Their number of what, 17 million or something? Correct. Okay, understood.

So the question I still am asking, I can't get an answer for, how do we get these numbers? From where? I would, yeah, I think... Councillor Kamara, can we, can we speak without you interrupting?

Stop with the interruptions. Thanks so much, Councillor. Appreciate it. Councillor, stop with the interruptions.

I just want to know who gave the numbers. You're right. It's a good question. Who would get it from me?

You know the answer, Councillor. Let the Councillor speak. Thanks so much. Councillor Ncide has the floor. Stop with the interruptions.

Thank you, Mr. President. So explain to me, how did these numbers get justified?

If you, I think you and I went over that when we looked at some of the McKinney-Vento numbers, and they were, you know, 900 down to 500, up to a million, all zeros. I wasn't sure. It didn't look like a legitimate type of accounting. I brought that up briefly at that first meeting, and that will definitely come up again tomorrow. But as you know, CFO, Almeida is leaving. He hasn't been back in. I did get the opportunity to say goodbye to him last week at his going away party. But we're going to transition to the new CFO starting tomorrow. And the sheet you have in your hand will be topic A. And what we look at in terms of what we can do to help the taxpayers in the city of Fall River.

So what I want to know particularly, when you look at the McKinney-Vento fund, And the expended of FY22, 23, 24, 25. How did those numbers end up flat? How did we get a million exactly? 500 exactly.

I don't have a justification for that yet either so that's been you know part of what I am looking for from the school department and we're not that when we had the discussion last week the response was we'd like to talk about it on Wednesday with a new CFO so we are still waiting for those responses as well and I understand that but here's the problem Mr. Almeida was here during the budget discussions Mr. Almeida was still employed by the city early in June when I sent the email on June 18th he was still part of the school department was he not Yes.

Okay. So why did it take an email to the city administrator to finally get an answer? And then this document that I got on, was it the 23rd, is the same document that's been shared now once, and I have it twice here again, still with no answer to what it is.

Point of information, I think my colleague should be asking why did it take so long for the city administration to even ask the question. Last week. Point of information. I can see that you have the floor.

We did ask for it. We had been having these conversations and we weren't provided anything. We had a conversation before the budget hearing that day and we're told that we were gonna get a response and never got one. So we had been asking for it.

So Mr. Mayor, and this has nothing to do with the other people at this table. This is a question to you. How does this happen? The school department, right, and the city, working on the same page, right, how do we not get an answer to what is a very simple question? And you're the chief executive here, and you and I have had this conversation. I'm just trying to understand when we're at this moment to get this answer, and are we just not answering email? What's the problem here?

I really want to be clear about this. The CFO, Kevin Almeida, has been going through some horrific family issues, so he's been in and out. I believe he's always done a five-star job for us. I vigorously disagree with the numbers on that paper. I don't know if he did that to satisfy a request, or did he give us those numbers because that's what he believed. When we talked to him, he didn't seem like he was, you know.

And that's fine, but is there no one else in the school department that can answer to these numbers?

I know I've talked to Ken Pacheco a little bit, but I don't believe he's married into the finance that deeply on that side. I think tomorrow there'll be some directions given to how we can find out exactly where this stands. I hate to brush you off, and I'm not trying to, I'm sorry I don't have an answer, but I believe there's been a confluence of things that have screwed this up a little bit.

And again, you've already said to me that you are, and I don't want to misquote you, but you don't agree with this number, correct? From the school department.

I don't see any surplus on that paper from McKinney-Vento. I don't see any surplus on that paper from the Circuit Breaker saying potential savings, potential loss, our year-to-date expenses, I don't see that broken down the way I want. Those are the things I'm looking for.

And the other question is that third number that Mr. Dias referred to earlier is a 5% increase based on current spending. So that came from Kevin that did not come from you know he came out and this is input might my question is based on what because in prior years with 8% 1% 11% 15% where we get 5. We're waiting for a response this this is my problem I agree this is the frustration that I have and it's not like. I didn't attempt to try to get an answer days and days ahead of time. And it's just, we don't have it. And that's the frustrating part for this. Because again, this is on the city side. This is the part we have to argue. And I will say that transportation needs to be checked. Because it's growing and growing and growing. And listen, the educator in this room right here agrees that we need to transport our kids, but we need to have some controls in place. Because right now, again, if I can't get answers to simple questions on where these numbers are going, And to my colleague's point about redistricting, I would agree that educationally it makes sense, classroom sizes, all that. I am also not sold on the idea it's gonna save us money. Because again, to my colleague in C3, no data has been shown to any of us to prove that there's gonna be money saved. It could very well happen, it may well, may not. So I don't even wanna entertain the idea that redistricting is gonna save the district money. Because there's nothing proven in front of me to actually justify that. But that's an answer I'd like you to get. Because it's been said on this council chamber before that redistricting is going to save us money. How? That's my question.

I yield, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman C2, Councilman Camaro.

and i was just going to say my colleague in c3 i understand you're upset with this legal opinion but what we do when we don't agree with the legal opinion is ignore it all together like he said throw in the trash and just base your own form opinion and just go with it so it's not like we have to have a legal opinion when we're making our decisions on these things whether we get one or not if it's unsolicited if you don't like it it's very simple it's not uncommon it's happened in the past i've disagreed with legal opinions in the past times i've been here I ignore them if I don't believe them. And I get people who I trust to give me their opinion who are better educated on the subject than I am. And that's what we do as councillors. We don't have to get an attorney to do that. But maybe some people feel they should. With that I yield. I don't want to do it anymore. I think we should just start to vote on this stuff though.

Thank you, councillor.

And seat one, councillor Kadeem. Thank you. Just to piggyback on my colleague in seat eight. So his line of questions. So the transportation, do you have the contracts?

Yes.

Yes. So the 5%, is it an escalator in there?

No. Not that I see.

In any of it. So when's the first time you've had the conversation with the school department about transportation?

I couldn't tell you the date. It was a while ago. I could look back to figure out when those conversations were, but I couldn't say that off the top of my head what the date was.

I understand my colleague's frustration, but I think it works both ways. I don't know how you submit a budget without having answers to transportation. It works both ways. If you're not getting responses and we want to go beat up the schools, at the end of the day, and I had this conversation with my colleague a couple of weeks ago, The expense is a city expense, right? So you're responsible to make sure and come up with your own estimate in terms of what it is, what it looks like, tie into what the schools are since it's an operation over the schools. So those conversations should be having well advance of where we're at. So the fact that you can't answer questions, we can't get responses from the school department in terms of where this transportation number is just leads to the fact that there hasn't been any dialogue in terms of what the transportation looks like to get a consensus. I mean, again, When we look at transportation costs, I'm not sure, and I keep hearing about the redistricting. Forget about the redistricting, because everybody I talk to on the school side said that they don't think that there's going to be any savings. So that's what I've heard. So with regards to that, I just think that you should have the ability to pull the contracts, read what the contract says. If it's just per route, they should be able to give you, I mean, they've got.

They're not to exceeds. They don't have that level of detail to say this is what the route costs. That's part of the problem with, that I'm having with these numbers and estimating them is it's not clear like that. They are not two exceeds that are being used as they're being used, and it's not clear to track exactly how that's being done, which is my difficulty with this budget.

So I guess my issue, my concern is that the school department had their budget, I'd say, back in December, right? I don't know when they had, well, they start their budget in December. So I would imagine that there's December, all this, and they're going through, and they've got transportation numbers. So I'm not saying it was at the school committee, but the administration is working on their budget back in December on transportation. So I don't know why we wouldn't have any type of documentation or backup as to how they came up with that $17 million number. it's very clear that it's there's a 5% escalator in there. So where are they getting the escalator? Is it again, I mean, it hasn't been shared with us at this time. So typically, like in the trash contract, you'll have a two and a half percent escalator clause year over year for for collection. And so you would think that's exactly what you would see on the on the bus stuff, regardless of the of the transportation. But I mean, you have to come to a $17 million number. I mean, I don't know where the breakdown is in terms of communication and I understand people had you know family issues and things of that nature but there's got to be some type of communication we're working on it that's what I can say to that right but we're in July starting tomorrow right that's that's the problem it is a problem but I I don't know what else we've been trying to have these conversations we do have a meeting set for tomorrow now and I and we've had meetings but we're we're still working through that as well so right and the expectation is for us to approve a budget but that's this this is the collective issue that

But we can amend the budget. If there's something to work from, we can amend the budget if we need to amend it. But by not having any budget at all, it doesn't change the fact of the matter of what's going on. So we can amend it. And by having an approved budget and being able to make amendments, we can focus on the things that we need to focus on rather than figuring out day-to-day operations with a month-to-month budget.

So you want us to approve a budget that we're not starting on? It can either be a million dollars lower or a million dollars higher, and then we'll just make an amendment as to the million dollars.

If that's what's required by the time that this is settled, yes. These numbers came from data and calculations that were building this. So again, whether those are completely

set and accurate and firm you're right that could change but that that could be the case either way even if with that 17 million dollar number that could also change so either way it could be adjusted or need to be adjusted down the line so how many other numbers in the you know 484 million dollar budget all the other line items have swings of about a million dollars line items could go up a million dollars could come down a million dollars maybe health care

Maybe health care. Maybe insurance.

But that's self-funded. We've got claims. You can't see. But outside of health insurance, is there anything? No. Okay. So to me, that is, when we had this conversation, is just... unfathomable in terms of not being able to get a number. And I understand if it's when we got projections, if it's, you know, a hundred thousand dollars off or $50,000 off or whatever the case may be, but a million dollars in different directions, not being able to be on the same page. That's a concern, right? And I think, you know, we continue to talk about the cost of transportation and it has a significant impact on the budget. So from my standpoint, we should have at least a handle on this way before we get to July. That's just my take. I mean, I don't know. It's unacceptable. I agree with my colleague in C2. We should just move on from this. With that, I yield.

Councilor, in seat seven, Councilor Pereira.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Pacheco's here, he does the transportation. Would he be able to shed some light? I don't wanna.

I really can't. No, he said no. I'll be honest, on the nuts and bolts of finance, I really can't. The only thing I can confirm is what Comps from C1 said, there is a 5% increase in the contract.

There is.

In which, just wondered, because that's the concern that I have. Well, I think that's a big portion.

So there's a 5% escalator clause?

Yeah.

So there's your answer.

Yeah.

So I'll hide it.

Councillor in C7 has the floor.

And also, even with the redistricting that goes on, and they're going to have smaller classrooms, you're going to have to hire more teachers, too. So you have to be cognizant of that.

But with that, I yield. I'm ready to take a vote.

Thank you, Councillor in C4. Council Vice President Dionne.

I just want to clarify something, because people kept saying, Kevin Almeida, Kevin Almeida, Kevin Almeida, and he's not even here to defend himself anymore. But this comes from the four public schools to the city council from Kathleen Smith, interim superintendent of schools, date June 23rd. CC'd Kevin Almeida regarding transportation. So this comes from the superintendent, not from Kevin Almeida.

Kevin Almeida made that. He may have. But it's been said that. No. I don't want anybody to say anything bad about Kevin.

I'm not saying anything bad about him. Not at all. And I believe the numbers came from him. That's a forward. But the correspondence came from the superintendent.

That's the one.

I don't know if you'd like to have this. I made you a comment. I made sense. Okay. So when we had our meeting, budget meeting, and Councilor Kenyon was at that particular one, and we touched on transportation. And I asked you at that meeting, Are all receipts accounted for? Are there any encumbrances? And at that time you said, no, everything is not in. Yes. We're still waiting for that. Correct. So the calculations for transportation on the city side are based on... Estimating the last...

Estimated costs. The last couple of months of costs from when it was done.

So I just want to point out that this states... Please find attached our five-year analysis of transportation spending for, I don't have my glasses, sorry, for FY2026 year-to-date expenditures, inclusive of encumbrances and requisitions, total $16,365,950. Well, boy, I can't even do my numbers today. $16,365,943.12 as of June 3rd. This figure fully accounts for unpaid June obligations. So, in fairness, no, you didn't have the numbers then, but we have them now. You're saying we don't have them when they say we have them?

We do have that document, but we're having conversations on it, and to be clear, This is a conversation that we need to have with the school department. I don't want to speak to what's in there and what's not in there. We don't have the June bills yet.

We do have some of them. Even though they're saying we have them.

Yeah, we don't have the June bills in there. He's saying the June encumbrances are in there. Yeah, not the June bills. Well, it's POs, but yes. Okay.

Well, with that I yield, and I am ready to vote as well.

last council asked to speak counselor in seat six council peckham for the vote yeah i um i can't take any more of this every question is we don't know we're not sure it's hypotheticals it's guesswork like literally to to be clear it's because we've been talking about transportation and and that i stand firm on we do not have and also to be clear you started all of these discussions with department heads in april i reached out to us yes she just said it at the table

They're submitted budgets.

So when did you reach out to department heads, Mr. Mayor, if you've got so much to say? Go ahead.

Budget work probably started in January or February when she said when we started meeting with department heads.

Yeah, $500 million. Do you know when Westport meets?

I'm not concerned about Westport, I'm concerned about Fall River.

Well, you should be more concerned and probably hold your meetings a little earlier. I'm concerned about Fall River. Yeah, it doesn't look that way. So anyway, I don't like any of this. There's too many unanswered questions and honestly, Masaoki, I like you personally, I do, but I have very little confidence in you to handle $500 million, I do. Council President, I'd like to make a motion that we take a vote of no confidence on the CFO of the City of Fall River. I do not think she's capable of managing a $500 million budget, and it's quite apparent by all of the answers that we received today.

That's a motion made by Councilor Peckham. Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Council Vice President Dionne. Is there discussion on the motion of vote of no confidence? Harry, no further discussion. Roll call.

Councils Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Cannual?

Yes.

Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Carrera? Yes. Proposal? No. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries six yeas, three nays.

Councilor in C6, you still have the floor. I yield the floor. Thank you, Council President. The item that is before us at this present time right now is the appropriation order that the motion on the floor has been made to take the appropriation order in its entirety. By-line item? Yes. That motion has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion, Madam Clerk.

To take it line by line, please.

For the record, Council President, the CFO is left. For the record. Yep. Thank you. Record to reflect the CFO left the Council Chambers.

I didn't hear what the clerk said. I'm sorry.

I didn't either. Sorry.

Madam Clerk? If you could just complete the motion to take the budget line by line. I have a motion that was made and seconded. Motion? Yes, to complete the budget.

Yep, let's do that, you're right. Motion to take the approval. It's already been made and seconded to motion to take it. Line by line. Line by line. Has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Next order of business. Madam Clerk.

Be it ordered that the annual budget for fiscal year 2027 from various funds is $483,305,786, of which the amount of $471,510,187 be raised from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts for appropriation as follows. Section A for the purpose of general government, A1.

Motion to take one through 10 together. Motion to take items.

Motion to reject items A through I. Yeah, motion to reject all items A through I.

Motion to take. the budget together a through I and reject to be clear to reject all all each individual line yep all together one shot motion has been made by constantly Kadeem to have a second second seconded by councillor Kamara discussion constant seat for council vice president Deon

Yeah, the last time that we did a budget in its entirety in one vote and said we reject the entire budget, we were told that went against DOR, which it did. I have the DOR thing here that it has to be rejected. You have to go line by line. You can't do it as a whole.

So all I'm saying is we're going line by line. We're taking it all at one shot. Lines. a one through ten b one one to three just to be clear c one to two d one to three e one to three f one through three g one through three h one through eight i one through four it's i mean we can we can do it either way but it's very clear that we're taking two through the chair to the clerk

Do you feel that's correct?

My recommendation will be to take it line by line to avoid any question.

Okay, let's do it Motion has been removed madam clerk if you may A for the purpose of general government, please introduce that item again Section a for the purpose of general government line a one from the general fund from a motion to take one through ten

So we're going to take line items and then we'll take one altogether? One section. The same thing we're trying to do.

All right, never mind. I withdraw that. Thank you.

Let's just do it. Let's just do it. Madam Clerk, reintroduce item A1 again, please.

A1 from the general fund for mayor salaries, $308,507. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion on the rejection of the line item, hearing none, roll call vote, please.

Councilor Skadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. proposal, yes, president, yes, motion carries 6 days, 3 names.

A 2 from the general fund for mayor expenses 20,250 dollars motion to reject motion to second item to a made by Council Vice President Deon seconded by Council Peckham is their discussion. There's not roll call.

Councils could Dean.

Yes.

Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. A3 from the General Fund for City Council Salaries, $258,664. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Council of Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Is there discussion? There is not. Roll call vote.

Councils could be yes, Camara know can you will yes, yeah, yes, I know. Yes, forever now. proposal, yes, president, yes, motion can be 63 nays. A four from the general fund for city council expenses, $170,700 motion to reject second motion to reject has been made by council vice president Deon, seconded by council of Peckham discussion.

Hearing none. Roll call.

Council's Kadeem.

Yes.

Camara. No. Can you will? Yes. Dion. Yes. Heart. No. Peckham. Yes. Pereira.

No.

Raposo? Yes. President Ponce? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. A5 from the general fund for city clerk salaries, $381,990.

Motion to reject.

Second. Motion to reject, made by Council Vice President Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councils Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canywell? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. A6 from the general fund for city clerk expenses, $35,875.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham. Seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skadeem?

Yes.

Camara? No. Canywell? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, seven yays, two nays. A7 from the general fund for election salaries, $366,576. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, seconded by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Deon. Is there discussion? There's not, roll call.

Councilor Skiddean?

Yes.

Camara? No. Cannual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Heckum? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. from the general fund for elections expenses, $104,300.

Motion to reject.

Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Council Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

No, roll call.

You want a roll call vote?

I guess.

I can, so far it's been the same, but we can do that.

Okay, it's okay, is that okay? Yes.

Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Two opposed. Two, five. And you oppose council.

I'm not both on that one.

Constancy to a council of 5 opposed next or business. A 9 from the general fund for veterans benefits salaries 299,000 $611 motion to reject section to reject has been made by consular Deon seconded by second Council of Peckham discussion hearing on all those in favor aye opposed to boost seat 2 and seat 5 seat 2 and seat 5 oppose hearing no opposition next order of business.

from the General Fund for Veterans Benefits Expenses, $1,651,055. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject as made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Councilor in seat five, opposed. Key two. Councilor in seat two, opposed. Councilor in seat six, opposed. Seven. Councilor. She's in seven. I'm sorry, Councilor in seat seven, opposed. The ayes have it. Next order of business.

Section B for the purpose of administration, B1 from the General Fund for Administrative Services Salaries, $1,520,877. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Seat two, opposed.

Councilor in seat two, opposed. Councilor in seat seven, opposed. And Council in seat five, opposed. The ayes have it, next order of business.

B2 from the General Fund for Administrative Services Expenses, $3,632,805. Motion to object.

Motion to reject. Reject.

Reject has been made by Councilor Deon. Seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Councilor in seat two, Councilor in seat five, and Councilor in seat seven opposed? The ayes have it.

B3 from the general fund for judgments and claims, $350,000. Motion to reject.

Motion to reject.

Second. Has been made by Council of Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Is there a discussion? Roll call. Hearing none, roll call.

Councils Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Carrera? No. Raposo? Yes. President Panti? Yes. Motion carries, six ayes, three nays. SECTION C FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL SERVICES. C1 FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES SALARIES, $1,868,324. MOTION TO REJECT. SECOND. MOTION TO REJECT.

MADE BY COUNSELOR PECKHAM. SECONDED BY COUNSELOR DEON. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL. WE'LL JUST DO A ROLL CALL FOR EVERYTHING. ROLL CALL.

COUNCILOR SCADIN. YES. CAMARA.

NO.

can you will yes dion yes hart no peckham yes pereira no reposo yes president ponti yes motion carries six days three nays six two from the general fund for financial services expenses three hundred forty four thousand nine hundred ninety dollars motion to reject second reject made by council of peckham seconded by council vice president dion discussion hearing none roll call Councils Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Daniel? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries seven yeas, two nays. Section D for the purpose of facilities maintenance. D1 from the general fund for facilities salaries. One million. $9,797.00. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, roll call.

Councilor Skiddeen?

Yes.

Camara? No. Daniel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

No.

Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. D2 from the General Fund for Facilities Expenses. $2,181,465. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skiddean? Yes. Camara? No. McAnuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Pardo? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. D3 from the General Fund for Facilities Capital has no appropriation. Section E, for the purpose of community maintenance. E1 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Salaries, $5,558,125. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilors Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham?

Yes.

Ferreira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. E2 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Expenses, $17,891,532.

Motion to reject.

Second. Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skidine? Yes. Camara? No. Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. E3 from the General Fund for Community Maintenance Capital has no appropriation. Section F, for the purpose of community service. F1 from the General Fund for Community Services Salaries, $2,883,156. Motion to reject. Motion to reject. Second.

As made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skiddean? Yes. Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries six nays, three nays. F2 from the General Fund for Community Services Expenses, $672,631. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councils Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries seven yeas, two nays. F3 from the General Fund for Community Services Transfers, $30,000.

Motion to reject.

Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skiddeam? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

No.

Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. Section C for the purpose of education, G1 from the General Fund for School Appropriation, $212,582,416. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote.

Councilors Kadeem?

Yes.

Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Proposal? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, seven yays, two nays. G2 from the General Fund for School of Transportation, $12,350,048. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject had been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilors Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Ferreira?

Yes.

Proposal? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, seven yays, two nays. G3 from the General Fund for Education Assessments, $10,225,442. Motion to reject.

Motion to reject. Second. Seconded by Councilor, Vice President Deon. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skiddeen?

Yes.

Camara? No. No. Canuo? Yes. Neon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Carrera? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries seven yes, two nays. Section H for the purpose of community protection. H1 from the general fund for police salaries. $24,767,158. Motion to approve.

Motion to approve has been made by Councilor Camara, seconded by? Second. Councilor Pereira, discussion? Roll call on the approval.

On approving line item H1, Councilor Skidine? No. Camara?

Yes.

Canuel?

No.

Deon? No. Hart?

Yes.

Peckham?

No.

Pereira? Yes. Raposo?

No.

President Ponte?

No.

Motion to reject.

Second. Motion to reject has been made by Council Vice President Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Cannual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. H2 from the General Fund for Police Expenses, $2,130,062. Motion to reject.

Motion to reject has been made by Council Vice President Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Roll call.

Councils Kadeem.

Yes.

Samara.

No.

Cannual.

Yes.

Dion. Yes. Hart.

No.

Peckham. Yes. Pereira. No. Raposo. Yes. President Ponte. Yep. Motion carries six yays, three nays. H3 from the general fund for police capital has no appropriation. H4 from the General Fund for Harbor Master Salaries, $4,500. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Councilor Vice President Deon. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Ferreira? No. Reposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. H5 from the General Fund for Harbor Master Expenses, $31,000. Motion to reject.

Second.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Dionne. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilor Skiddeen? Yes. Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Dionne? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. H6 from the General Fund for Fire and Emergency Services Salaries, $19,695,445. Motion to adopt.

Motion to reject.

Motion to adopt was heard first, made by Councilor Camara, seconded by Councilor Hart. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skiddeam?

No.

Kamara? Yes. Canuo?

No.

Deon?

No.

Hart?

Yes.

Peckham? No. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? No. President Ponte? No.

Motion to reject.

Motion to reject, made by Council of Deon, seconded by Council of Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Roll call. Roll call.

Council Skadeem?

Yes.

Kamara?

No.

Canyon. Yes. Dion.

No, I mean, yes, yes, sorry, yes.

Hartz. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. H7 from the general fund for fire and emergency services expenses. $1,187,780 to approve has been made by council of Camara. Seconded by council of heart discussion roll call. No. Camara. Yes. Can you will? No. The on know. Yes, I know for a yes proposal no present, but you know.

Motion to reject motion to reject second vice president the unsecured by Council of Peckham discussion hearing on roll call.

Councilor Skadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canywell? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. Pleasant-Ponty? Yes. Motion carries six yeas, three nays. H8 from the general fund for fire and emergency services capital has no appropriation. Section I is for the purpose of other governmental expenses. I1 from the General Fund for Debt Service, $13,719,946. Motion to reject.

Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilors Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. McAnuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte?

Yes.

Motion carries, six yays, three nays. I-2 from the General Fund for Insurance, $52,402,162.

Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, made by Council Vice President Deon, seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Roll call.

Councilor Skiddeen?

Yes.

Camara? No. Cannual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Pereira?

No.

Proposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, 68-3 nays. I3 from the General Fund for Pension Contributions, $44,747,127. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject, made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councils Kadeem?

Yes.

Camara? No. Canuel? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Carrera? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays. I-4 from the General Fund for Reserve Fund, $603,013. Motion to reject. Second.

Motion to reject has been made by Councilor Peckham, seconded by Council Vice President Deon. Discussion? Hearing none, roll call.

Councilors Kadeem?

Yes.

Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart? No. Peckham? Yes. Pereira? No. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, six yays, three nays.

Motion to reject all funding sources.

Second. Motion to reject all funding sources has been made by Councilor Kadeem, seconded by Councilor Peckham. No.

Oh, Pereira.

I'm sorry, Councilor Peckham. I didn't see your hand. By Councilor Pereira, I'm sorry. Motion has been made and seconded. Harry, no further discussion. Roll call on all funding sources.

Councilor Kadeem? Yes. Camara? No. Canual? Yes. Deon? Yes. Hart?

No.

Peckham? Yes. Pereira? Yes. Reposo? Yes. President Panto?

Yes.