City Council - Regular Meeting

to have a stable operating budget if the transportation costs really are going to be firm. So in that sense, yes, there are other areas that we could pull back from if we need to.

So why wouldn't we do that now, though? So if you've got to put together a balanced budget, you have a number that's coming from the school department, that transportation cost based on contracts. And again, I know there was 5% escalated clause in one of the contracts. And I think there's some variables in all the contracts. And especially special education transportation is a significant variable. So there is a good possibility that transportation goes up, not down. they could be before us asking for more money than the 17.1, right? So we don't know that that's not the case. We've heard about redistricting. Redistricting may provide a savings, but we don't know that. So the only solid number that we have right now, and I know we can go back and forth, or you can go back and forth and say that you don't necessarily agree with their numbers, But that's the only numbers that were presented to the city and that at least from one person on the city council that I support the 17.1. So why not? If we have to have a balanced budget, we know what their request is. Why wouldn't we just give them a 17.1 now and tell the other departments that they've got to find reductions? Because if you're telling me I got to go do this in December, that means you're going to have to find double the amount of reductions. Because if they've already spent half their expense budget, then we're

I mean, it would be before December. I think we've talked about more of these numbers being firmed up in October, beginning of November.

So you're talking about a month, right? So I mean, okay, so as opposed to being six months, already spent your five months, right? So you're still going to be close to doubling, having to make double the cuts to be able to fund what you need if we're waiting for December. So from my standpoint, let's fund them $17.1 million and then in November, December, if that number, If the actuals are coming in less, then we can reallocate to the other departments for expenses. That to me makes more sense as opposed to the opposite of waiting five, six months and having people having to reduce even more.

Yeah, I think the thought process and opinion was the fact that these departments would be cutting different operations or programs or services that they're providing, cutting it off completely to provide a number that they know was in flux and that has these things that are potentially going down. So to pull something back that we would change the way we're operating, that the intent is that this 450 wouldn't change the way that the school department's operating. They're already changing the way they're operating. And that's where the savings is coming in. It's not like we're coming in saying, you're going to stop busing kids to save this. That's why rather than stopping a department's functions or services that they're providing when there already is potentially a natural savings that's coming from the way that they're choosing to change their operations, it just made more sense in that sense.

I mean, that still takes a vote of the school committee. There's got to be an analysis done on redistricting and the buses. So we don't know that there's a guarantee for the redistricting unless it's already taken place.

The redistricting has already taken place technically in the sense of moving students. It's the bus outcomes that are unsure of still.

Is that accurate?

so redistricting for this year has taken place okay but as i said we continue to register students we have programs that we also you know changed i mentioned the dual language program has some implications for transportation so so i missed the part that the redistricting has already taken place in my mind there was something that was been notified okay okay so these have been determined so i believe i'm correct so status quo if there were if there were no students

added, are we assuming that there is a savings? Is that where we get to?

I don't believe we're, I'm uncomfortable to assume right now.

I would be in your position too, uncomfortable to assume, but that's the point I'm trying to make is the fact that we've got a redistricting. We don't know if there's going to be a savings, but we're asked to approve a budget based on something that you're uncomfortable with. an assumption that there's gonna be a savings when we don't know there's a savings. So my take is if it's $17.1 million, that's what we should be funding, $17.1 million. And I've had this conversation with the administration that at that point, it should be the $17.1. Let's regroup from an administration on both sides, come together collectively and identify how we're coming up with these numbers so that everybody is comfortable and on the same page as how we're making a determination for what the transportation costs are. Not that we don't believe the numbers that are coming forward, but obviously, There's some differences of opinion from the city's administration versus the school administration, but those dialogues need to take place, and from my standpoint, well before June, right? I know these conversations started in June. That's just, to me, doesn't make any sense, but we are where we are, and in the end of July, let's just do the 17.1 million, and let's figure out where we're getting the money from. That's where I personally think we should be headed and the direction we should be going.

And I also will tell you, as we start to come into a new budget season, which we really start now, we have a new CFO. We're going to be working with you. I mentioned this, I think, when I came before you that first evening. We will work closely with you. There'll be a State of the Schools in November. We will start our budgeting process if the school committee, again, approves the process that we will recommend. So we will be partners with you in this. We're looking to refine. With redistricting, at this point here, I'm not sure if we'll continue to make those efforts. We'll have to take a look at how this year goes. It's impacting class size in a positive way. There are very positives coming out of your decision to redistrict. and again i i can't say it enough that i was really pleased to call council president ponte the next day and to be committed to working together with the city council and and to do this for your taxpayers are there savings that we can look at same thing with the mayor's office we will continue i know the two cfos have committed to working very closely together in the months to come and i hope that is going to be the way we do business

Yeah. And I'm confident in everything you've said, because you know, actions speak louder than, than words. And you folks have been here more than any other administration on the, on the school side that since I've been on the city council, I've been on the school committee. Uh, we've seen you more in council chambers than, than anybody. Uh, so I know that the collaborations there. And quite frankly, I don't envy the position you're in to have to come down and still advocate for the schools on the 17.1 million, but also trying to work with the administration to get a number that makes sense from a budgetary standpoint. I think the decision is probably difficult for us as counselors to be able to figure out and digest which direction we want to go in, and maybe we all disagree on what that looks like. I for one support the 17.1 based on the conversations we're having here and previous conversations. I'm confident that we can get to the table and be more comfortable with the numbers that are being presented next year. But I think right now 17.1 is where we should be at. If it comes in, less than that, then we can deal with it. If we do it the opposite way, then we're asking departments to make much more significant cuts than they really should. Or we're going to free cash, which I don't know that that's what we want to do too, but that's an option. But at the end of the day, the numbers could come in significantly higher than lower. I personally support the 17.1. That's what I told the mayor I wanted to see, unless we had a commitment that the number was not 17.1, and I know he had a conversation, and just based on the discussion I'm hearing, what I'm hearing from you folks is that you'll work to, you'll do whatever you need to do to work within that number, but the 17.1 is a solid number, so that's a number I'm going to support moving forward without a yield.

Thank you, Councilor Raposo.

Yeah, just one follow up question. So after 10-1 and once the DESE report is submitted, if you have students who enroll after 10-1 and they need busing, how does that operate?

That does not impact the busing. I'm sorry if I confused you. The busing is provided to the students no matter when they move in, if they move in June 1st.

OK. That answers my question.

That is just our enrollment figure that we give to the state. It does impact our chapter 70 funding.

OK. And I caught a bit of the school committee. They were discussing the rolling over of the SIS. Has that happened yet? It has not happened yet. So you don't have an exact number of how many students you have at this moment?

Actually, we have some.

Or a rough estimate.

We have some numbers. We pulled them before we left.

If I can, Deputy, if you could just introduce yourself for the record, please.

Liz Lago, Deputy Superintendent.

Thank you.

As of 7-27-26, we have 10,563 students. And we have not rolled over in the SIMS. But I can tell you, so as of 7-27-26, and some of these registrations have not been put in the SIMS, is 604 new completed registrations for the new year. uh for last year in comparison at this time at seven uh at uh july 27 25 we had 566 new completed registrations for the new year do you know your enrollment was at that time last year at that moment i don't i didn't pull that one do you know what you ended the school year with uh 11 000 I think it was 11,184 students. Actually, on October 25th, we certified our enrollment with SIMS at 11,184 students. So that was what you based your Chapter 70 off of.

OK.

Thank you. I yield to Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Canual.

Thank you. Ms. R.P.

Here we go.

Sorry.

We can hear from the councilor.

Thank you. Ms. Arbke, can you just walk us through how we got to the number we're at today? Because since the last budget, it's gone up 450,000, which is halfway between where we were and where the school committee approved the number. So I think, can you walk us through the logic of how you got to that number?

so i think i think there's been a very clear conversation that we don't have all the data to come up with these numbers of how redistricting is going to impact that i think that's been a very clear conversation here so given that you know we had had conversations about putting the full 900 000 back in but i then had figured out and heard information about Viveros going back to a community school. So I looked at the buses that were going to that school that would no longer be needed. I also understand that what they've talked about, that some of those students have now shifted to these other schools and other programs. So there might be more additional students. that need busing somewhere else that could change. They could need another bus. They could go on to an existing one. And how enrollment could go up. And so there's all those variables that are in there. But just taking those five vehicles, I'm going to call them vehicles because I know it's vans and buses, that number specifically to that one school calculates about $543,000. so given that there could be others added in somewhere else and there could be other changes the other part of it is the fact the electric buses there's a lease payment that so i don't know how many people are familiar with electric buses that was bought for the school district on a grant so there was 10 electric buses they started going to operation at the end of last year at some time but we get a lease payment for utilization from the transportation company of 25 per day per bus So those numbers haven't really been realized in the budget either. So those are some things that I know would be savings that aren't necessarily factored in, but there's also other things that keep going. So with all of those numbers, it seemed like that 450 was potentially a very real number given some of that other data. So that's where the 900 went to the 450. But as everybody stated, it's not a final number. There's a ton of things that could still continue to change with that.

So if you were to go back and to do what Councilor Kadeem and Councilor Perera have suggested would be to fully fund it, do you anticipate just raising revenues? Do you anticipate going back to departments to make cuts?

I think, to be honest with you, it would probably be a combination of both. I understand that there is the potential that we could just increase the investment income revenue. But I want to be clear that if we increase that investment income revenue by $450,000, that would put us at the exact budget that we ended with this year in total actuals for the general fund. So not including the ARPA money being transferred in, we ended around $4.1 million. So adding the 4.5 to the 3.6 is 4.1 million. And from my side of things and from my experience with budget, that's just a very bad idea. So I could increase that maybe a little bit more and be super aggressive with that number, which isn't very comfortable at all. the other side of it would have to be pulling expenses from other places. I've continued to go in and try and adjust the revenues as much as I can. It's part of how this 450 that was added back in was already accounted for. I'm running out of areas that I feel like we could comfortably take in additional revenue and exceed the budget and meet the budget. So I think it's just getting it's a very tightly budgeted budget as it is. I know that we've had conversations in the past two budget cycles with me that it is a much more aggressively budgeted set of revenue than we have been doing. So we are already kind of pushing the bar and so we would just be pushing that a little bit closer and closer at this point.

So then if we did go that step of increasing the number and we put the 17.1 in, right, we have to wait then. Let's assume there is a savings. Let's assume it does come in lower. We have to wait till when to be able to utilize that money savings.

I don't know. So it depends on how we handle it. So if we put in the $17 million number, I'm going to say today. The numbers from there to say that there was a savings, we would have to come back down to you to reduce that appropriation. So depending on how we get there, we could decide to, I'm going to say, reallocate it to where it was pulled from. We could decide to just release it. So if it's before the tax rate setting process, which is usually mid to end November, then we could just kind of release it in that way but if it's done after taxes are set and the revenues are set i mean it's you could kind of move it around but it or it would just be surplus that would be certified and turned back so it's it's kind of a tough question to say when we'd be able to utilize what's being turned back it's it depends on the process that we go through if we don't come down to you to reduce an appropriation and to transfer it around it would just become surplus so

I hear the concerns of my colleagues, I think, in terms of we're talking about $450,000. The reality, though, is this is 1,000th of this budget. It's a small number in the grand scheme. I think that that's a number that can easily be absorbed in other areas if there is a shortfall i think we'll know by sounds like at the end of q1 of the fiscal year with when the transport when the head counts uh and the school redistricting how many buses you have how many vans you have etc um i think it's a small enough number that we can potentially absorb i'd be surprised if there was any um by this council or the mayor to fully fund transportation, whatever that true number ends up being. I get a lot of concern at the prospect of asking department heads to cut back further, potentially cutting services. Because once we cut services, we won't be able to restore them for the fiscal year, likely. So with that, I yield.

Thank you. Council Vice President Deon.

I guess my first question, well, my first comment is in terms of the $1 million cut we did in Indorex that you had to reduce the budget by, not all of that offset came from funded vacancies. Am I correct? $400,000 I believed was a reduction on the city side in pension liability to offset that number? That was part of it, yes.

So there were several things, but I was just, he had spoken about how there would be vacancy savings to turn back and cover some of this, and I wanted to be clear that we had already eaten that up was all I was saying. It's not that we didn't do other things to adjust for the million, but that was one of the tools that I had already used to cover that other savings that was needed, so I couldn't use that again for this.

correct however um did you use all funded vacancies or a portion and then offset with the 400 000 so in other words are there still some unfunded vacancies in the budget at the present time so so the vacancy savings that was added it's not like i pulled out vacant positions and didn't fund them in the budget that's not the way the vacancy savings was applied it was applied in the sense that there's turnover that happens so if a position is

is or was the timing was vacant at the time that the budget went down. That doesn't mean it's even still vacant at this time. There's turnover. There's gaps that happen. But then usually we fill it again, and it cycles around. Usually when somebody leaves after a couple of years here, the next person coming in is hired at a lower rate. Those are what I call just like a general vacancy savings that takes place every year that we see in salary turnbacks every year. It's just the timing of positions turning over. So that's what was kind of applied generally. There was a percentage based on if they have current vacancies, there was a 2% vacancy savings added to the department. If they had no vacancies, but aren't a, you know, but are a department that has more than one employee or that has, you know, that's in a block group, we added a half a percentage vacancy savings based on kind of what we're historically turning back in a general sense with the general fund operating of salaries.

Okay, so let me try, I want to make sure I'm clearly understanding what you're saying, because what I'm hearing, I could be entirely, so you're saying that the savings based on vacancies is based on the vacancies you think we're going to have some turnover we've had, but it doesn't mean those vacancies won't be filled.

Right. So it's just a number. If you look at, so I had sent out a sheet before the June 30th meeting that detailed out how the vacancy savings was applied, what departments had it, and what amounts it was. But the way it's being done is saying the base salaries, I'm going to say of just HR, is $100,000 because of the positions and the turnover. We're going to say it's about a 2% savings. That could happen throughout the year because they currently have a vacancy. So then now they're budgeted at $98,000. It's not like we cut a position and said, you can't fund it now. But given the fact that as of July 1, they didn't have somebody in the position, the reality is there's likely going to be a savings that we're going to realize in the year on that salary budget that we won't need because clearly there's turnover that's happening and it needs to be replaced. So that's kind of how that is.

Okay, so basically the savings and the cuts were made on to a certain degree assumptions. So if we've got 100 employees in the department, there's five funded vacancies. Those five funded vacancies are still there and still being funded in the budget. Correct.

There's a percentage that's taken off at the top because the odds of them being filled perfectly for the full amount for the full year clearly are slim at this point.

So then I guess that tells me that we certainly can cover an additional four hundred thousand dollars um where we still have unfunded vacancies because because you're not funding it doesn't mean it doesn't exist it just means you're not funding it at this time right that means the department will have to go the entire year without that position

that's correct right which in historically how many departments have had vacancies that have never been filled so those ones we we went in but those ones we went in and cut i would like to remind you of that so the ones that the two in facilities the plumber and the electrician we did cut those the full vacancy amount we did pull that out The other one was in planning, planning or engineering, one of his departments. I'm sorry. It's one of the departments that he has. He's had a clerk position that he hasn't filled in over two years. So we did fully cut that one out. So the ones that have been chronic for more than a year, we did pull at that point.

But you would agree there are still a number of funded vacancies that could be unfunded to compensate if if we need the money that's a choice that the council could make yes yeah okay um that's interesting that's an interesting way to cut a budget by projection and assumption um i hope it works out there are other cities that do that it's not an unheard of idea Okay, now in terms of the electric buses, what did you determine the offset might be?

It's 45,000 for the 10 buses for the 180 days of the year. The calculation's $45,000.

And you came to that number how?

It's $25 a day per bus per day, and it's 180 school days that they bus.

So that savings isn't already calculated in transportation and the school department's numbers?

My understanding is no, because the buses weren't online for most of last year. The timing of receiving the buses and getting them up and running, it wasn't online for most of last year. So that's why it hasn't been realized yet.

Would everybody agree with that? I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but I feel like some of this is assumption, some of it isn't. I want to know what's rock solid and what's assumption. And if it's not a completely accurate statement, I think we need to know that.

So from a financial standpoint, would you be able to opine on that, if you could just move the microphone to you?

Should we make a motion to waive the rules and bring Mr. Pacheco to the table?

We already did that, but Mr. Pacheco can come down. We've waived the rules already, so. You want to speak on Councilor Deon's comments, or at all from a financial?

I don't know, I didn't know about the $25 per bus. Understood. Mr. Pacheco?

So it's an accurate statement. it's an accurate statement that um it is 25 a day on the electric buses and all the days that they're in service and um it is the numbers that um emily said the 45 000. we did not have it the buses were in service for about 27 days 28 days this year but they will be in full service in the upcoming year.

So you're realizing a savings this year that you didn't have last year, is that what you're saying?

Yes, yes.

And do you know what that fully amounts to, Mike?

It's the same as Emily said. That's a full year.

$45,000.

Right, for a full year, yes.

All right, well that's still a far cry in a $17 million budget, but okay, I appreciate that. And then I have another question. And the savings per bus, how did you determine that number? And what was the totality of that? Per bus and you said this over various schools in the community school, they have 5 buses. So that means they didn't need X number of dollars because they don't have those 5 buses. So, where did you get those numbers?

3 buses to fans?

It's 3 buses to fans. But again, as they've stated, that's not necessarily a final thing. Something could change with that. But that is what is the. At the time, it is a community school. Obviously, that can change. That's been a very clear statement that that could change. Transportation needs could still change for that. But with that, those numbers, it's 543. I have that. So I pulled the actual invoices that were coming out from that school from last year. I pulled it in June. The way it works is it's 180 days of schooling that you transport kids. There's a per bus, per van rate. There's a monitor rate that is charged based on those usages. So I pulled the actual invoices of what was currently being done there for FY26 and calculated that with the rates that are provided by each of those vendors for 27. And that's where that 543 is. I have it somewhere in front of me, I just have too many things in front of me.

Well, 543, we'll call it 543. Right. But so, in reality though, to a certain extent, that number is based on assumption. Assuming we're not going to need those buses and vans. Assuming things aren't going to change. Assuming we're not going to get students that are going to require that transportation.

is that an accurate correct and that's so that number could change completely correct which is why why i was only comfortable putting in an estimate of closer to 450 knowing that that number could change there could be something else needed somewhere else other you know needs could arise just within where those students were moved to and whatnot so that was part of why I then took a very clear calculated number. If you really calculate those buses, there is an exact number you can come up with. But the reason that I didn't put that in front of you is because there are other variables that could come into play. So I was trying to pull it back and be safe. And then the 45,000. So that leaves at least a whole nother bus or two that, you know, could pension a bus or a van that could be added in without

So I guess my final statement would be that as one counselor, I can't say that I'm completely comfortable with cuts in a budget that are based on assumption, cuts in transportation that are based on assumption, minus hard facts, minus variables. For me, I find that to be a bit of a problem. I don't know that I'm comfortable with the number at this point either based on that. I mean, when you figure out a budget, you generally know how much you have, what everything's going to cost, and then you can come up with a rock solid budget. I mean, I could assume that my electric will go down 100 bucks a month for the next six months, but if it doesn't and I don't budget for it, I'm in trouble. So with that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilor Camara.

I can't, sorry.

The McKinney-Vento fund, how much money is left in that fund? Just curious.

So the current balance as of, I think I pulled the number last on Friday at about five o'clock was, it's 700,000, seven, nine, I can't say the numbers right now. 700,000, seven, sorry, go ahead. 779,634.68. Right. So some of that's already factored into this budget. I want to be clear. So there's probably about 600,000 that's factored into this budget already to be used from that fund balance that hasn't, that's been sitting there.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Counselor. Counselor Dean.

All right. So in terms of the appropriation order that's before us, so under education and transportation is 12.8 million. So I don't have my budget book in front of me. What makes up the, the 16, but what's the difference between the 16.6 and the 12.8?

Um, that is 2 million of McKinney Vento, 2 million flat.

Yeah.

And then the number from circuit breaker that the school committee had voted on for transportation, which is, thank you. 1.816652.

So 1.86 was what?

Circuit breaker. Sorry.

No circuit breaker. And then you said $2 million from McKinney-Vento.

The school committee had voted on 1.4 million. So 2 million is with assuming we would spend some of that savings, the fund balance that's in there of 600,000 of that fund balance.

And then they commit in 1.4 for reimbursement that's coming in in FY27, is that?

Yeah, so it's 600 that's already there. The 1.4 is the estimate of what's gonna be coming in. So that's what makes up the 2 million. And then it leaves, obviously, a little bit of wiggle room. Sorry.

So what are we anticipating for McKinney-Vento coming in for next year?

Around 1.4 is the number.

So you're using 100%?

Yes. So in this past year, we did use 100% as well. The balance is in there from previous years that we weren't using 100%. OK.

And then just, I'm just struggling, and I heard one of my colleagues, and I appreciate not wanting to see additional cuts, but I think from my standpoint, it's hard to say that if we approve anything less than 17.1, we're essentially approving a budget that's not balanced, right?

Agreed.

So you agree with that?

I agree with that. That's what's been stated at this point. I think it's, uh, I, I can't speak on my opinion on how everybody should move forward and view the budget, but I put down a balanced budget that is balanced with everything that's in there. And I, there's always going to be variables, even if the $17 million number was down, other things could come in and other things could change that would change that number. So it's, it's always going to be that way.

I recognize that I've, I've put a number of budgets together myself, but When you make reductions, and I don't disagree, budgets are all based on assumptions. It's a living document, I recognize that. However, when you're making reductions, you've identified what the expenses are. In this case, we can't go back to the school department and say that you need to reduce your transportation from 17.1 down to the 16.6, right? So let's just call it $500,000. they're not cutting buses, they're not telling kids you gotta walk to school or find another mode of transportation, right? So at that point, to me, it's an actual expenditure. So we shouldn't be starting there to make the cuts.

But they're already doing things that are changing the number of buses that are needed. It's not that we're telling them to do that. They told us that they are doing that and it is changing the numbers.

I've heard that, but I've also heard the school department say they're not comfortable with anything less than $17.1 million, so I don't know. how we say that this is a balanced budget. So we've got a department that's coming back before us and they have no way if that number comes in at 17.1 to be able to cut expenses in transportation, right? So if we go Anywhere else, any other departments, we can cut, the police department can cut overtime, the police department can cut training, they can cut a number of different areas. The treasurer's office can go and cut expenses, the fire department can cut expenses, but the school department can't cut transportation. There's a mandate associated with transporting students to school. From my standpoint, anything less than $17.1 million is approving a budget that is not balanced unless we find other ways. So in terms of the local receipts, I know you're conservative in terms of the local receipts coming in, but are you at 98% of the local receipts? Are you overly aggressive with your estimates? Is there any room in other areas?

that the calculation that, um, it states that in the mayor's letter, it's, it's 88, maybe 0.6% of local receipts. So, so pretty much. Yes.

And then, uh, the reserve fund, the $578,517, that's,

So we don't have a contract with police, fire, Teamsters that's been settled yet. So that's intended to help cover contracts that are completely unfunded at this point.

But it's not going to cover the entire contracts. Would that be an accurate statement?

I have no, I couldn't say. It could, at this point, it would never cover the retro and the new year contract. To say that it couldn't possibly cover the year that is taking place, I can't say that, but I can tell you obviously it wouldn't cover the retro, but we typically would pay the retros from one-time money and out because it is really a one-time payment at that point.

Right. So why wouldn't we just take the reserve funds? fund that transportation and then obviously through negotiations come back down to the council for an appropriation order because you're gonna have to do that anyways, right? So it's not gonna cover the entire amount.

That's again also a choice that could be made and that could work. I'm gonna say the same way.

But from my standpoint, then at least we have a balanced budget. We've got money that's going to the schools that are gonna be used and then any type of negotiation.

Is that in the form of a motion?

Well, I could make that in a form of motion.

Make it in the form of a motion.

So moved, but I don't know that we have the authority to make the changes.

I would say that that could be the same thing, though, using that reserve fund to cover that 450, whether it's today or whether it's a month from now. That could still be the case that we could send down, I'm going to say, amend the appropriation and revise the appropriation before you if that's the will of the council so I just would say that you're right I don't know if we can move that line item today but if that's the will of the council we could send out an order for the next meeting to move it over to me that's the cleanest way to do it and then because I because you can make an argument that negotiations is not is a variable right now because you don't know where it's going to end and you're going to have to come down from the appropriation so for me it's the cleanest way to do it

we have the ability to give the 17 million, 17.1 million to the schools, and then we'll just deal with how we're gonna handle the negotiations for the various collective bargaining agreements.

I mean, at that point, there might be known savings from transportation that we could move back, so.

Right, so, and it's not unusual for municipalities to use one-time money for the first appropriation of the contract and then build it in. So that's, I mean, that's pretty standard in other communities. So to me, that's the cleanest way to do it. It gives the schools the transportation number that they need. And then to your point, when we get closer to quarter two, we can make a determination if there's additional money. And then if we have contracts that come back before us, we can make transfers internally and then also offset it with some free cash stabilization and then just fund those contracts and move forward. You know, I think that to me is the, is the cleanest way. And we get this budget behind us and, and, you know, I think the council is comfortable with the fact that we're approving a budget that's balanced.

So, so there's a motion on the floor by council of Kadeem to send a, uh, communication to the administration on getting the amount from where, from the, um, for the amount of how much, so zero out, uh, I four to zero and

It's only short $450,000 right now.

Oh, whatever the amount is.

They're only short $450,000.

Correct. We can do that. Actually, if that's the case, we can do that when we have it in our appropriation vote. So it wouldn't be necessary.

But I don't think you could put it into another line. We can reduce it. You can only reduce that one. Yeah, which is also fine.

I just wanted to be clear. A motion has been made by Councilor Kadeem to suggest to the administration that they send down the transportation line, taking out of the 570,517, $450,000. Was that the correct number?

Yes, 455.

Second. $450,000 has been made by Council Cadim, seconded by Council Vice President Dionne. I know Councilor Peckham needs to speak, but on the suggested letter, any further discussion on that?

No, to be honest with you, I would like to, sorry. To be honest with you, I'd like to table it, let her fix that tomorrow, and let's come back tomorrow and get this budget done.

I wouldn't be able to do that tomorrow because we have to post the meeting.

Yeah, well, if we table it.

Yeah.

Can we table this meeting and come back? I mean-

Mr. President, if I could, you could take a recess if the director of financial services would like to provide a new financial order, appropriation order. So we are able to just move it like that? That's fine. I'll allow it because it's not. If the mayor submits a revised appropriation order, the council could vote on it tonight.

We can't do that tonight. I'll allow it because it's not anticipated as well. Good. We want to take a five-minute recess.

Sure.

This forum for city council meeting is now back in session after a brief recess. At this point, who had the floor? I don't remember. Councilor Kadeem. Councilor Kadeem, you had the floor. You haven't yielded yet. I'll give you the floor back if you'd like.

I'll yield it to you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Peckham.

Actually, I yield the floor.

Thank you. Any further discussion? No. Madam Clerk, if you could please introduce this item into the record, please.

Be it ordered that the annual budget for fiscal year 2027 for various funds is $483,583,582 of which the amount of $471,937,983 be raised from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts for appropriation.

Any discussion?

Just quickly, so to go over this, so you move the 450. Yeah, so I moved it from I-4 to G-2. And so that new number is 13 million, 250, 48, and then the $2 million from McKinney-Vento, and then the 1.8 from Circuit Breaker, correct? It's the 17.1? Yeah. Okay, I yield.

Councilor Peckham?

Actually, yeah, good evening.

Just one question. So as far as our ARPA expenditures and the deadline of September 31st for all projects, where are we with that?

So the deadline is mixed between September and December, depending on what the funding source was. So Bristol County has an earlier deadline. And then there are certain categories that qualify for ARPA that have to be spent on that earlier deadline. But then the rest of it is December 31. I apologize. I don't have any of that in front of me to tell. I know that when we've been checking in, departments seem to be on track. We are definitely dwindling down on it. So I don't have those numbers in front of me at this time, I apologize. I've been very in the weeds of the budget instead. Go ahead.

What I was doing this week is going through the book when Kara Hum left us as of March 31st, she reconciled all the numbers. And we're going to be asking, the mayor asked me this week to get a report from the city auditor to show where we are right now. And we're going to be following up with everyone who's got any outstanding funds to see that all is expended according to the guidelines of opera.

Okay, good. No question as to projects right now, everything seems, because I don't want to hit that deadline and then we're giving the federal government back money.

Yeah, no, we don't want to do that either. And I've spoken, the biggest number of projects is with Mr. Oliveira in facilities. Spoken with him, he said his projects are all on queue. So we are going to have a sit down with everyone, find out especially what include the OPM of the project at the Lewiston Street facility and make sure we're on target because that is What do we have into that project already do you know? funding wise i don't right off the top of my head because i haven't um gotten together yet with the city auditor to see where we are now i think they want to say there was i thought there was like eight million left yeah point of information when when um attorney hum left uh eight eight point one million had been expended and we still had eight million in opera funding because it was a 16 million dollar project and there's no questions with that because I drove by recently and doesn't look like much has been done so from now until the end of September we're gonna get that project done and that's what I am told counselor and what we can do is we can provide an update to the council as well once we know what the new number totally expended as of say July 31st is and then what the deadlines are from there we'll be glad to provide that information

I appreciate it. Is there a way to reach out to Ms. and get me a response by Thursday, sometime on Thursday? Sure, absolutely. I appreciate it. With that, I yield, thank you. Thank you.

Council Vice President Dionne, you good?

Yeah, I'm good now. Okay, very good. Thank you, I'm sorry.

Is there a motion?

A motion to adopt the order as amended.

Motion to adopt is amended. The amendment is the amendment that has come. The appropriation, I'm sorry. Motion to approve the appropriation. There's no amendment necessary because we haven't amended anything, right? To be clear, Madam Clerk? Correct. Motion to approve the appropriation before us. Second. The new appropriation that has been introduced by the Clerk has been made by Council Vice President Deon, seconded by Councilor Kadeem. Discussion on the approval of the appropriation? Hearing none, roll call on the vote, please.

Councilor Kadeem? Yes. Camara? Yes. Canuel? Yes. Dion? Yes. Hart?

Yes.

Peckham? No. Pereira? Yes. Raposo? Yes. President Ponte? Yes. Motion carries, aye yays, one nay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next order of business.

motion grant leaves to withdraw just ask her introduce it and we'll certainly do that item four is a communication from the mayor and the second revised proposed fiscal year 2027 municipal budget july continuing appropriation order motion to grant the item leave to withdraw has been made by counselor reposo seconded by councillor pereira all those in favor aye opposed you guys have it Mr. President, if I could, just for a question of procedure, I'm not sure if granting the order leave to withdraw equals a rejection. There was a question that had come up in the past. Let's just do both.

So a motion to reject would be appropriate. Made. Made by Councilor Raposo. Second. Seconded by Councilor Canual. Discussion on the rejection? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Item five is a communication from the City Council President and a policy and ordinance on the use of outside legal counsel.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Cannula. I'm just gonna speak on this very briefly as a letter for you all. The reason I drafted the letter and added it to the agenda tonight is because many colleagues, and I know Councilor Pereira and Councilor Camara both spoke on having a policy in place so that everybody was on the same page when it comes to utilizing outside council. I made this letter to you all with a copy of the already approved policy that was had when we had KP Law here. I want the council to have the ability to give their own opinions, to provide any kind of written communication to the city clerk on what part of the policy you would like to see changed, and then this council then would be able to vote on the new policy as a new council at a future meeting. So I just wanted to offer everybody that fair and equal opportunity, and that's why I sent this letter, added it to the agenda tonight. Councilor Peckham, did you want to speak? I saw your hand raised.

No.

No. Councilor Raposo?

He answered my question, thank you.

Any further discussion?

No.

Motion to accept the item and place it on file has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? You guys have it.

And then is it the will of the council to reconsider the proposed ordinance related to the salary amendment of the Director of Health and Human Services? So moved. Second.

Motion to pass the item through second reading and enrollment as amended. Motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider would be first. Is there a motion? Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Kadim. Seconded by who? Councilor Camara, will you? That would be appropriate, yeah. A motion to reconsider has been made and seconded, hearing no further discussions. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Just to be on the safe side, Councilor Camara wasn't on the prevailing side. I'll second.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking about that, but maybe.

Yeah, no problem. Motion to reconsider. Let's do this again correctly. Motion to reconsider has been made by Councilor Hadim, seconded by Council Vice President Deon, hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Motion to pass through second reading and enrollment as amended.

Motion to pass the item through second reading and enrollment as amended has been made by Consular Raposo, seconded by Consular Pereira. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

If we could have a brief recess to sign the ordinance, please.

Three minute recess. Our city council meeting is now back in session, Madam Clerk.

And the last item before you for passage to be ordained is the salary amendment ordinance for the Director of Health and Human Services. Pass to be ordained as amended.

Motion to pass the item to be ordained as amended. Second. Has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Pereira. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

That's all we have, Mr. President.

Motion to adjourn has been made by Councilor Raposo, seconded by Councilor Hart. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Good night. Thank you.