City Council - Regular Meeting

Councillor Stephanie Infante, chair of the committee, and online we have Council President Giovanni Rodriguez. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2022, this meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee is being conducted both in person and via remote participation. A reminder that persons who would like to listen or view this meeting while in progress may either attend here in the City Council Chamber or may view our meetings through our city, our Facebook page, YouTube page, channel, 22 on Comcast and Channel 42 on Verizon. At this moment, can we please have a moment of silence for Officer Arville Cruz, who's currently recovering from an incident. And now, join me in the pledge.

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.

Counselors, can I have a motion to approve the minutes

So moved.

Motion, the minutes from, hold on, February 9th, 2026, all the way to May 13th, 2026. Motion has been made by Council LaPlante, seconded by Council President Rodriguez. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? President Giovanni Rodriguez?

President Giovanni Rodriguez? Can you hear me?

You want to save it for later?

Geo, can you hear us?

Yes.

Okay. Councilor Mark Lapland?

Yes.

Okay.

Madam Chair, Stephanie Fante. Yes. Okay, motion carries. Motion carries. Council's first item under new business is item 248-26, LPPA Local 125 Lawrence Police Patrolmen's Association funding approval brought to us by our CAFO, Ramona . CAFO, you have the floor.

Good evening, Councillors.

Good evening.

I'm happy to announce the Lawrence Police Patrolman Association and the city have come to an agreement. They have ratified the union for the years July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2028. We're here before you not to ask for an appropriation, but more to inform you of what the contract is. The Patrolman Association, the police department, has currently 28 vacancies within this department, and the vacancies right now are covering the funds we need to provide the retro for the FY26. I'll be happy to go over the summary, the synopsis of what is in this contract.

Let's do that. Walk us through the contract.

The contract term is from July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2028. The cost of living increase is in line with what we have done with previous unions, which is 7.5 in total, 3% for July 1st, 2025, 2.25 for July 1st, 2026, and 2.25 for July 1st, 2027. And the wages, employees who have worked 29 or more years will be provided a 5% increase to their salary. Just to give you a comparison with the superiors union, they have had this in their negotiation since 2012. They started at that step at 3%, and then in 2015, they received that at 5%.

Ten by the state, so you're using the other seven and a half to get full benefits.

Okay. Councilors, any questions or comments? Council LeBlanc.

Question.

Council President.

Yes, quick question on the net metering. Two years ago when we approved the contract, What was the rate for the kilowatt hour?

I believe it was a 12.5% discount. No, not the discount, the rate. So the rate is different than the discount? So you get off your bill?

Yeah, because the discount is, let me explain as to why I want another rate. You can give me a 20% discount if you increase the rate by 25%, there's no discount. I just wanna make sure that we discuss that.

Correct, but we're just talking about apples and oranges here because you'll have a supply contract. That supply contract will be half your bill and then your national grid would be the other half of the bill. Then this contract will give you 15% off your total bill.

What is the rate?

A 15% discount off your total bill.

I'm not asking for this discount. I'm asking for the price of the energy. Am I not clear? The rate for kilowatt hour.

We would have to go and ask. Not the discount. Correct. We would have to ask what the current municipal contract is for the buildings. That's the rate. This is very different than the supply rate.

The supply rate is the supply rate, because that's how the electricity get to you, through the wires in the street, so people understand. So that's the supply rate. I got it.

Yes.

Yes. So the price that you pay for the energy, it is the kilowatt hour, the rate that you set up. If it is with National Grid, right now you potentially could be paying 0.16%. point on January was .21 and then it went all the way down to .16 on July 2026. So what is the rate that is encumbered in this deal?

So in this deal, at 15% discount, if you're saying it's 16%, you'd be paying 12.

Oh my goodness, and no more questions, Madam Chair. I know about math, I know what a discount means. No more questions, you're not answering my question. I'm asking for the rate, the value per hour, kilowatt hour, you know what I'm talking about.

Yes, you said the rate was 16, correct?

No, I'm saying that a national rate I'm seeing here, in front of my eyes, that on July 2026, the rate is 16 cents plus the delivery rate. So I'm asking you so we can be clear on this 20-year contract, what is the rate that we're setting up?

Okay, so this is different than the supply rate. We're kind of mixing apples and oranges here. There'll be a T&D rate by National Grid. There'll be a supply contract that the city will sign for three, five years. That will give you your supply rate. And I thought you had said that was 16. Off that rate, you'll get a 15% discount for the next 20 years. So when the bill comes in, that bill will be zeroed out. And then you'll pay. So I'm just going to make it easy for everyone here at home. The bill that came for $100 would be zeroed out for the city. And the city would send $85 to New Leaf Energy.

Who's going to be the supplier? Whoever you choose to be the supplier. So is it the National Grid or the other supplier that it was together with the contract that we signed last year?

That's correct.

Because everybody was changed from National Grid to the new supplier as per the contract that we signed two years ago.

Correct. I don't believe that contract's in place as of yet. I believe the project's still under construction.

I don't believe you're receiving the- So that's what I'm saying. So we have a rate set up on the agreement that we signed. So on that specific rate, we have a specific amount that is being set up for a specific amount of years. And everybody's gonna go into that rate.

So okay lost their deliveries Can you let him finish because You won't get the full question or his full statement if you keep trying to interrupt him So let him finish what he's trying to say and then we can keep the conversation going. Because I'm trying to listen to him, and I even can't hear what he's trying to say. So, Council President, can you repeat what you, the last 10 words you just said?

Last year, we have, we set up a company that we were gonna have everybody in the city of Lawrence transfer whoever was on the national grid rate for the supplier, everybody was gonna be transferred to that supplier that we signed two years ago. So that specific rate, that specific rate was set up for everybody that is somebody, everybody that pays energy in the city of Lawrence, unless we tell them not to. So what I'm asking is whether or not that rate that we set up two years ago, still the same, or that was part of the negotiation of the 20 years contract that we setting up today. And if that's the case, what is the rate for the supplier? For the supplier, not the delivery, for the supplier, how much is that? Still the same as two years ago, how much is that? Change? With this negotiation, how much is that? The kilowatt hour for the supply of the energy.

So our energy projects, you should have this information from the other contractor.

Yeah, feel free. I think he's gonna answer your question. We're just talking about totally different things right now. Correct. You're talking about a community choice aggregation for the residents of the city of Lawrence. We weren't talking about an offtake. Can you come to the- I can't hear nothing.

So I now understood what he was saying. So we, Colonial, run the city's municipal aggregation program. The rate is 13.2. It will be that until November of 2027. That is for the residents. of Lawrence. That rate doesn't change. You should know that the basic service rate in National Grid is going up to 17.2 starting in August. Your rate will not be going up. You're protected by that aggregation rate. Now I understand why he was confused because I stood in front.

I'm not confused. I'm clear. I just want to hear you.

Yep. But what we're here today to discuss is a net metering deal for the municipal buildings. It doesn't have anything to do with the aggregation at all. It has nothing to do with that.

And let me just say something right there. No, no, no, but just let me say something right there as to why this question was leaked.

As I said when you were speaking, Blackman finished his statement. He was not done. Once he's done with his statement, then you can follow up with your questions.

So I just, when I heard what he said aggregate, I understand what the confusion was. I just, I wanted to apologize because I was talking about a net metering deal. I have been in front of you prior on the aggregation. He was asking about that aggregation rate, I believe, which is 13.2. We'll stay that way until November of 27. National grids rate is going up in August. This is different, it's for the municipal buildings only, and it's the net metering deal for a water treatment plant, the city hall, the library, and all the electricity bills that you pay. You are not part of the aggregation because you have a private contract for the municipal buildings. Does that make sense?

Council President.

So the reason why I asked that question and I wanna make sure like that negotiation that we have two years ago, if it's part of this negotiation or if it's not, it was because during the presentation, I hear that who is gonna benefit from this? Anybody that pays for the electricity. At some point, someone says that on the podium. And that's why I wanted to make sure whether or not the negotiations that we did two years ago was involved into a 20 years contract now with another net metering deal that we need to be aware of. So that's why the question was correlated to what we have approved two years ago.

Understood and now we just we just got the answer.

I just want to clarify. Yep, just one clarification. The reason he mentioned everyone's tax dollars do pay the electricity bills here at City Hall. That's the kind of the genesis of the issue. I understand why he got confused on that though. I do now that he got out the question. I apologize for that.

Council President, you all set?

So there's one final question. So basically, supplier of the building that we have a city hall is not changing to, or if it changed, it have nothing to do with the discount. The discount is still gonna be there. That's what we're discussing and the crystal clear matters. that's a correct statement that's correct okay so basically if the city decides to go to uh a company from canada that is selling electricity at 10 cents kilowatt hour they're still going to have the 15 percent correct discount yes okay no more questions thank you i get it

So my question is, Les, only because you're here and there was a lot of confusion two years ago about the opt-in. opt out program with the aggregate and people needed to physically, I think opt out or else they were an automatically, we're going to be in part of it. And so that's what I remember. And I, and, and, and I just, I think it's important since you're here and I'm not sure how frequently you come here and it's important just for us to understand that there was a lot of mistrust who's lining their pockets, what's happening, what's going on with this, how can I be sure I'm gonna be saving money? And what you said to us tonight, for those people who decided that they were going to take the chance, if you will, or to say, yeah, I'm going to go with the aggregate, they are going to be saving, um, approximately 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Um, starting in August, starting in August. And just when I talk, I think that's worthy of some sort of, um, press release or worthy of something. Um, because I think that's a win, um, and that the city was involved with it. And that's the kind of when we should be talking about. and just so we can articulate that win just a little bit more clear, the average homeowner, and you may not have this, and I'm gonna give you an exit ramp, I would be interested in knowing what the average homeowner would begin to save monthly starting in August when the rate is at 17.2, when other folks are gonna get 17.2, but we're sticking at 13.2. Is that something you can, if you don't have it now? I can.

It's about four cents and you're looking at six. So you're talking about four dollars and something cents a month. The average customer, the DPU says to use 600 kilowatts. I'm more than happy to get over to Simon, a press release that you guys can then modify. You're just talking about what's going to be happening so that you can get the word out. The one thing I want to mention is the way the city set up this program. If somebody was nervous because they didn't want to do that, they can always opt back in for free. There's no fee or penalty. They can get back in this program.

And that's why I think it's important that we do that because once people see that there are savings, I think you'll see some people jump on board. And I do recall that. And so I just, and I don't want to harp, this is not about that, but it is power related. So, but I just, my last point is I think we can safely say that the average Lawrence homeowner will probably more likely would save $50 a year. That's over the next six months, almost guaranteed or beyond $50. Yep. I would, yeah, 100%. So is there a range, 50 to 75, 50 to 100?

I would say, yeah, you probably, well, right now they're saving half that and have been since February. It's at, right now the rate is 15.3 and you're at 13.2, so you're saving about two cents. It's going to double. So, you know, over the last year, I'd say they're probably 75 to $80 for the year.

So starting in August, $75 to $80 per year. And currently we're saving half of that. So like $38, $40, something like that.

And I can actually give you the numbers if you'd like them, Councilor.

And I tell you, and I'm just going to harp on this one last time. in a sea of bad news, in a sea of costs going up everywhere, where groceries are going up, gas is going up, and no matter where we turn, no matter what we do, everything is going up. For those individuals in the city of Lawrence who decided to go in and stay with this program, those rates for everybody else is going up, their rates have been steady and constant and will be for how much longer? Until November of 2027. To November of 2027, then what happens?

Then the contract ends at some point prior to that will bring you the next leg of what that deal would be.

So that's next year? That's correct. Okay, so things will change because we'll look at the numbers and it'll probably go up or something.

It really depends on, let's hope we can work out the issue in the Middle East. Good enough. I do want to mention what was in front of you tonight was a net metering deal that's guaranteed savings and so forth. I know we got off track, but 15%. About $12 million over 20 years. You did say that. So with our budget person, are we looking, how much do we anticipate in this upcoming year if we get this CAFO?

What are you thinking? What are we thinking? What are we thinking we're saving in 20, city saving in 2027 if we pass this thing, if we adopt it? FY 2027.

You're going to be looking at around three quarters of a million dollars or so. I'm just doing quick math in my head. Sure. If it's 12 million over, yeah, about 750,000 per year. Ish, ish? Yep, ish.

Okay.

Close enough.

You know, we'll take it where we can, right?

So yeah, thank you. The one thing I should mention, there's not a risk on that one. It's just a discount. You're welcome.

Any other further questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Motion we send this up to the full council the table recommendation Second motion has been made by council of plant seconded by council president Rodriguez Any further discussion? Yes, sir. Okay Seeing none all those in favor say aye. I mean, can you please call the roll?

Council of president Giovanni Rodriguez aye

Council President and Madam Chair Stephanie Fante.

Yes. Motion carries. We will see you on Tuesday. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Have a great evening.

You as well. All right, we have item 263-26, authorization to expend 573,000, and this is for the Federal Highway Administration, safe streets for all, SS4A, Signs and Lines Project Grant. And we have Alicia Miller from the Mayor's Health Task Force here to speak on this item. You have the floor.

Good evening Madam Chair, good evening Council Presidents. Before I proceed, I just wanted to make one clarification. I think that when I sent this to City Clerk Bernal, I made a mistake. It's actually critical crossings, not signs and lines. So it's safe streets for all, critical crossings, not signs and lines.

Maria, did you get that?

Yes, so the Safe Streets for All grant, we got this as a mechanism to pay for some of the work that we would like to do in the Lower Tower Hill space, where we currently have our REACH grant. Our REACH funding does not pay for some of the work that needs to be done, and so we had to go ahead and find other funding sources to pay for some of this work. What we're intending to do with these dollars is to do a comprehensive plan of our streets and our critical crossings across the Tower Hill space. When we originally proposed it, it was for the Lower Tower Hill, but given the amount of funding we got, we decided that we would expand the research space, moving all the way north to the Methuen Line and east to Broadway. And we stopped at Broadway because there's another Safe Streets for All grant that the Merrimack Valley Planning Commission holds for that corridor.

Okay, Councillors, any questions or comments? I'll make a motion. What is your motion?

Motion to send it to the full council with a favor recommendation.

Motion has been made to send with a favor recommendation. Is there a second?

Second.

Probably seconded.

Discussion real quick.

Discussion.

It's always good to help my former constituents out in District D in Tower Hill, so I'm glad that they're getting a little bit of love and a little bit of attention. It's well deserved. They needed some help over there, so I'm glad that they're getting it. It's good stuff. Thank you.

This question very quick?

Council President.

So, through you, Madam Chair, I have noticed the effort that the committee, the people working with you have made when it comes to the outreach with similar grants around Margin Street and Lowell Street. And I feel Very good about the fact that you guys went out and reached out to different members of the community. That's always good because you get not only that information but potentially other needs. You identify other needs and other projects that might need around those areas. And now, you know, kudos on that. That's awesome. Thank you. But I'm disappointed. on the fact that you hire companies to do the study. And I guess that they kind of like, you know, didn't perform the design with the full spectrum of the need, just to put it nicely. And don't use the basics of a design when it comes to public mobility and when it comes to cars turning and so forth and so on. So let me tell you why very quick and I'll finish with that. I know that we are in the process of re-evaluating that intersection, the intersection of margin and low, and margin and low, so you know, you're very aware of the issue. I sent that email. I wasn't able to copy you on it, but I'm pretty sure that you received it from the team. My apologies, but essentially, it is disappointing to see when two different companies that are engineering companies get involved, and they're not looking at that basics. When it comes to turning to the right from Marginal Street to Lowell Street, people need to go back and forth to be able to make the turn. And that's unsafe. So I hope that, you know, once you guys decide to go back, not to do the outreach because the outreach is well done. You guys spend a lot of time. around and that's great. Thank you. But when it comes to things that don't work, for lack of a better word, and I believe that that's what happened here. Let's sit down again and recoup on that intersection because the intent is very good. You just need to tweak it a little bit more so we can allow people to turn to the right in a safe way. Before another accident happened, I mean, it was a three car accident three days after the mitigation was put in place. And it could be a little bit of an issue, but I mean, by all means, thank you for that reach to the community. And I think that the issue is around the design portion of it.

»» So thank you. We did not ‑‑ I'm not certain what vendor you're talking about. We did not hire anyone ‑‑ any vendors for this. This was done with our partners from MVPC. »» Your partners. »» I'm sorry?

»» Yes, your partners.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

I say, yes, your partner were the one that designed it.

Okay, so we...

Sorry, Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.

Planning Commission. So this is a demonstration project that we've put in place to improve safety at that intersection. There's always been accidents at that intersection. We certainly have, I have reached out to Lieutenant Olivieri from the police department to see what information we can gather about the accident. I've heard about it informally, and so we're trying to get some information on the accident so that we can tweak our processes as we go along. So we will be having conversations when we meet again, when we have our team meetings again. But the whole intent is to slow traffic coming through that intersection and to make it safer for people on foot, on bikes and rollers to be able to get across safely. I'm not quite sure what happened, but I'm certain in the course of the next coming days, we'll learn more about it and be able to reassess what we have in place and be able to accommodate any changes that need to happen. But it's a demonstration project, so we're learning as we go along.

Yeah, definitely, and I agree with that. It's a tryout.

Yes.

It's a tryout. Just keep in mind that, you know, I would say over 5,000 cars go on Lowell Street. And that's, you know, tryout could be cool, but it got to be well thought. But anyway, once you guys come back to re-evaluate the intersection, I'd say they're considered large, but, you know, considered to represent that area and leave around. Pass by every day. Know exactly as a resident, as a counselor, as a traffic engineer for 21 years. I think that, you know, additional input might help out when it comes to mobility around that institution and many others as well. So let me know when you do something on that so we can be part of it.

Okay, Councilor Rodriguez, I will send that in.

Madam Chair Stephanie Fundy? Yes. And Councilor Mark LaPlante? Yes. Motion carries.

Okay, so now we have this item before us again. Last time we left off, What I remember, so much going on, from what I remember there was a request to separate positions. I forget the reason why it was tabled.

So I remember, so if I can give you a little bit of a background. Okay. The administration had asked for a 2.8% increase. for the non-unions based on different reasons the unions do get a little bit of extra perks or perks that they get, or benefits, that non-unions do not get, one of them being the protection that comes being part of the union, also some of the negotiated items, the non-unions just pretty much get a flat COLA increase. SO THE COUNCIL THOUGHT THAT THE NUMBER WAS A LITTLE HIGH AND THE ADMINISTRATION MET AND WE AGREED TO DO A 2.5% INCREASE AS WE WERE DOING FOR ALL THE OTHER UNIONS. So before you, I believe this is the first time we are bringing before you a 2.5% increase for all the non-unions and you did ask to separate because you wanted to see the leadership versus the support staff and we have provided that.

And also I see now that I'm remembering, I believe it was a council president that asked for this, the current salary or position and where they would be with the percent increase. Am I correct on that, council president? Okay, moving on.

I'm gonna hold on the questions for next year if there's any.

Okay, but my question was clarification. I believe it was you who had asked to see current salary and then what the salaries would be if the COLA were to be approved.

Yeah, three, Madam Chair. Essentially what I would like to make sure that we are on the same page, that the only reason as to why we doing this increasement is for the benefit of the people that are maxed out. Due to the fact that the other people that are not yet maxed out, the administration can increase their salary if they have by 2.5 or by other amount in the past. So, I'm in favor of increasing the salary to the max out salaries that were provided to us. And essentially keep the discussion on whether or not the salary is gonna keep on increasing by any specific amount or it's gonna stay up to some point.

Okay, if I may. So this is not increasing it 10% and having a bigger maximum number. This is only increasing 2.5%. And the reason why we came before the council back, I believe it was February or March, was because if the increase took effect then, then we would have needed an appropriation from the council. At this point, we're making it effective July 1st. It is in the budget, and yes, Council President, you are correct. It's mainly at this point for those that are already at the max because it will be effective July 1st, and we do have it in the budget, but originally it was made for everybody because we needed to ask for an appropriation.

Council President? I'm good. Yeah.

Just want to make sure I'm clear. So let me try to regurgitate what you just said. If you are not at the max, this increase in won't impact you. If you are at the max, then it will correct or incorrect.

incorrect. Okay, how this increase is also needed, because we have it in the budget. And we need to, well, I understand where you're coming from now. So the budget, I did consult with the Madam Chair, to see if it was like, what direction was I going for a 527 budget in terms of the non union.

So I asked what did the chair

direction in terms of including the non-union increase of the 2.5 percent or not you asked the chair of the budget committee whether or not we should have a 2.5 percent increase no i asked it should be and i did see if it should be listen let me listen to the capo go ahead I asked if it should be considered in the FY27 budget pending our meeting with the budget and finance, which has been on the table. So that's the reason why we're picking it up now, because it is in the FY27 budget, the 2.5% increase. Okay.

Well, that is not the reason why we're picking it up now. It's been tabled to review. Things have been coming up, so we have not untabled it. Then we got into budget hearings. I was asked if it should be included as a just-in-case. I said yes, so we can see the overall numbers. And if it weren't to be approved, then the numbers would have to be adjusted. So that was a conversation, but not included because of what, how it was just worded right now, if that makes sense.

But just this item right here, we need to adopt this in addition to the business kind of baked, this is already baked into the budget, right? Yes. The balanced budget. Yes. The balanced budget that we talked about the other night. Okay.

So the main concern here is those that are already at the max. Sure. Because it's an ordinance and it needs to be approved by council.

Help me, play this hypothetical game with me for one moment. This needs to go through in order for people to get, for these increases to go through. If this document, what document is it?

30-26.

And it's tabled supposedly there is. Reclassification of non-union positions update on the call center report in the cost of the adjustments that was put by director Garcia. And in order for in order for. The pay to go through this reauthorization needs to pass the Council.

So now it's a different story, right? So now it's mainly for those that are at the max that it needs to be approved in order, because right now the max per the call-in center says one amount, and in order for us to be able to apply the 2.5%, we need to have it approved by council, because it's gonna go beyond the authorized max.

So how many of these folks are being impacted are going to be on the backs.

I do have another schedule that I can send to council president. He called.

I guess I am more to said that is in necessarily who or what I'm interested in the amount like how many positions.

I have a worksheet, and the highlighted in green are those positions that are already at the max, to give you an idea. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President, I just want to clarify, this is the worksheet.

If you give it, can you send it as well through mail very quick so I can see?

I do.

If it is any different than what I already have.

No, this is the same thing you had asked, but you had asked me to highlight, so I've gone ahead and highlighted the... Okay. Yeah, so you should receive it shortly. I just sent it to you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, so in the budget, which I don't have with me, I don't have with me, in the FY27 budget, each one of these positions, it is reflected, is going up by... 2.5. 2.5%. And here's my hypothetical. If we don't pass this reauthorization and classification, that's not a balanced budget. We're presuming that it was there a presumption the council was going to adopt this. Yes, okay and I realized that the council or the committee perhaps put you in a very in a tighter spot because you had to get the budget. You also had to get this thing done. It's it's it puts you in a very difficult position to try to get something through in the.

So I just want to also mention the non-union had not gotten an increase for over a year now. So the last increase that the non-union received was January 1, 2025. And before that, it was in 23. So they did not get an increase in 24.

So what's the difference between the Collins Center or this COLA? and the contractual obligations?

Where are we?

Because, for example, I'm just going to use a city attorney's contract, for example, because that's one that I'm familiar with off the top of my head. I know that in that contract it says if he meets the KPIs within that contract, he gets, I think it's a 3%. Yes.

So contracts are treated differently. Contracts go by whatever the terms of the contract. These are non-contract. For most of them, there are some here that are contract positions, but most of the non-unions are non-contracts.

I have just one more comment on this. I'm probably going to support this. I think that the better practice before the council, and I've been doing this for a little bit now, and this is not the first time this has happened where things have already been pre-ordained and have gone through the road, and then we go back and we ask the council for approval on some stuff. I would just...

Well, I thought it was a better practice to include it because knowing how the how the council I was almost on my comment and knowing how the council has functioned. Then what what I would have heard was well why wasn't this originally included in the budget so to save that trouble I thought well let's include it to see the overall numbers and if it doesn't get approved then we need to adjust the budget. That was my thought process from what I've seen in the past from this Council.

I I'm not sure what I anyway. I don't know what you're trying to get at their Council of vice chair or chair. What I just think I don't want to make a bigger deal than I already have. I'm voting for it. I think the preference as far as practice is concerned, I think I just articulated that I think that's my position on it. I understand maybe underlying reasons. I get it, but I still think sometimes in our city, being a part of this institution for a while, we sometimes get at the back end and we get the boxes checked.

Feel free to push back. So we've been trying to work on this for literally maybe five months. And due to unfortunate events or different reasons, we just have not been able to get to the bottom of this. Because originally, my hope was to get it effective January 1st, 2026. because that's a year after the non-union received their raises. So I was trying to be fair with the non-union as we are with the union employees that get it without, they don't miss a beat. They get it when they get it. And that's not the case with the non-union. And I just wanted to do the same. We are doing 2.5%, which is what all the non-unions are getting, except with the police who's getting, PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING BUT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER ON THE FRONT END AND THEN LOWER ON THE LAST TWO YEARS. BUT WE'RE BEING VERY CONSISTENT HERE AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS GOING FOR LITERALLY FOUR MONTHS. WE WERE HOPING TO GET IT DONE AND IT JUST FOR DIFFERENT REASONS DID NOT HAPPEN. I just want you to know we're not trying to do things backwards or do it without approval. We've been trying. It's been a long process, and I think the non-unions deserve to get the raise, even if it's six months after they should have gotten it. We're not planning on doing a retro or anything. We're just going to make it effective July 1st.

What do you want, Chair?

Council President.

Quick question, can you provide us with the total amount for Tuesday of what this means, the 2.5% for the non-unions?

Yes, it's 165,000. 165,000.

And that's gonna go towards everybody that is not, is that number include everybody that is getting the 2.5 or just the non-union?

Everybody that's getting the 2.5 who is a non-union.

Which is a non-union, okay.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, so and can you provide us with the amount for all of those that are maxed out?

Just excluding those, okay, yeah, I can do that.

Just those, I think there are 11, right, 11 people? You got it?

Yeah, it's like 20.

Just those 20. How much? Well, that means just for those 20 as well. So we got the total amount and then we got those 20s only.

Absolutely.

We're looking for motion madam chair. I think I'm going to say I'm I'm also yes at this point I entertain a motion make a motion to send this up to the full Council with a favor recommendation. Motion has been made to set up as a fair recommendation is there a second. Senator, by the Council President, any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Sure.

Council President Giovanni Rodriguez.

You always come to me first.

Because I like you.

You're the president.

Yes, you're number one. Madam Chair, Stephanie Fante. Yes. And then Councillor Michael.

You're my number one, Councillor Fante. Yes.

Motion carries.

You are to gather.

Thank you. Have a good night. We'll see you tomorrow.

We have been trying to do this. And we got into the year-to-date stuff, the late nights and weddings and all this good stuff. Tomorrow night, yes, tomorrow night we have our last, before we go, we have our last budget hearing session. We will be covering the library, the cemetery, DPW, water department, and the airport. That meeting is starting at seven, not at six. And again, it is our last hearing session for the FY27 budget. We have the special meeting scheduled, the full council special meeting for the public hearing on the FY27 budget on Monday, June 15th at 7 p.m., and there is a second date, if needed, scheduled for Wednesday, June 17th at 7 p.m. So for the public, those who are interested in making any public comments, June 15th is the date for us to hear from you. At this point, there's no further business. Can I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Motion has been made. Is there a second?

Second.

Probably second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Roll call. Roll call.

I can't forget. Okay.

Councilor Mark LaPlante?

Yes.

Councilor, Madam Chair, Stephanie Fuente? Yes. And President Giovanni Rodriguez?

Yes. The chair will always go last.

You last.

All right. Thank you.

Bye.

Bye.