City Council - Regular Meeting

That's a lot of colors.

so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What are you doing? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back.

May 26, 2026, Lowell City Council meeting come to order. City prayer. Dear God, today as this session opens, we pray that your presence will be before us and everyone who serves in the decision-making process of our city. We pray for direction which will lead our city to be strong and unified. May we continue the legacy of our founders. May we be granted this day the wisdom to make decisions which will be for the good of our city. We also pray for your special blessing on all those who are working to transform our city and make it a better place to live and work. Amen. 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. Roll call, Mr. Clerk.

Councilor Roth. Here. Council Scott.

Here.

Council Chow. Here. Council Dakota. Here. Mayor Gitche.

Here.

Council Duran.

Here.

Council Liang. Here. Council McDonough. Here. Council Mercy.

Here.

Council Noon.

Here.

Council Robbins. Here. Eleven present.

Any moment of silences? Councillor Marcia?

Councillor Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia Marcia to education at St. Patrick's School and Education Center, Hellenic American Academy, and later at the Morey School. She also spent time working in a mental health care facility and later at G&G's restaurant. Donna was especially known for her deep involvement with the VFW post 662, where she proudly served as president for 30 years of the ladies auxiliary. Her unwavering commitment to supporting veterans and troops never went unnoticed. She was pre-deceased in death, preceded in death by her husband, Jerry Tevipa. She is lovingly remembered by her three children, Michael, Joseph, and Doreen, her nine grandchildren, and her eight great-grandchildren. We offer our condolences to her family, relatives, and her many friends. I'd also like to offer a moment of silence and docking chamber to all those who passed on since our last city council meeting. May they all rest in peace. Thank you.

Thank you council members here any other moment of silences Seeing none if we could dim the lights, please to mayor's business. 2.1 communication, remote Zoom participation. Motion to accept and place on file by Council Chau. Seconded by Council DeCoto. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. City clerk 3.1 minutes of rules in elections law subcommittee May 19th City Council regular meeting May 19th for acceptance motion except by councillor Duran seconded by council yang all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed so ordered we'll skip for general public hearings till 7 5 communications from the city manager 5.1 motion responses motion response opera jobs. Positioning data Council mercy.

Thank you for that report Mister manager you said that you would provide it and you did it was very interesting to look at and arouse that thank you so much. Any questions.

Seeing none, motion to accept and place on file by Council of McDonough, seconded by Council of Mercier. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. 5.2, information report, bicentennial celebration. Thank you. Mr. Manager.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and through you to the council. Council, this is just an opportunity that Mr. Casey, I think, thought enough of the city of Lowell and Steve Pinchotakis, as well as the mayor, to send a thank you. What had happened last Saturday is I wasn't able to go, a couple of us couldn't, but I believe there were 60, 70 members, I believe, of former elected officials that had an opportunity to meet here at City Hall. with the 200th anniversary. So it was just a nice letter of recognition of all the hard work that the team has been doing from a former elected official who thought you'd be interested in it. Thank you, Mr. Mann.

Thank you, Manager Golden. Seeing no other questions, motion to accept and place on file by Councilor Robinson, seconded by Councilor Rourke. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. 5.3, communication. Appointment of Camillo Espada to Monument Committee. Motion to accept and place on file by Councilor Robinson, seconded by Councilor Scott. Does that need a roll call? No. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. 5.4 communication city manager request approval of out-of-state travel one low police department motion to accept in place on file I'm sorry roll call motion by Council Mercy a seconded by Councilor Noon roll call Mr.

Clerk Council Rourke yes Council Scott.

Yes.

Council Chow. Yes. Council Ducotto. Yes. Mayor Gitche. Yes. Council Duran. Yes. Council Leang. Yes. Council McDonough. Yes. Council Murcia. Yes. Council Noon. Yes. Council Robinson. Yes. So 11 ayes.

11 ayes. Motion passes. Six vote from the city manager. 6.1 vote approved. ORR permit for Smokehouse Tavern. Wave full reading and second reading by title.

Mr. Mayor, I object to waiving of the second reading.

Motion by Councilor McDonough to object to the second reading, seconded by, there's no second, so second reading is gone. Seven, reports of subcommittee, if any. 7.1, rules in election.

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Do we get to take a vote, or is this set in a public hearing for that vote, for the 6-1?

Second reading. It's going to come on next time for a second reading.

Yeah, it's going to come on again for a second reading. We can still talk about it if you want. Right?

What's that?

I believe we can still talk about the item that was on the agenda. We just said there's no final vote. I didn't see anyone raising their hand. No, I was just addressing. Do you want to speak?

I'd like to speak on that. I DON'T KNOW MAYBE THROUGH YOU TO THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE I KNOW THAT THE OUTDOOR SEATING SITUATION IS SOMETHING THE CITY CARVED OUT AND AND WE OFFER THAT TO BUSINESSES BUT IT'S TROUBLING TO ME UM IT WAS SENT TO ME FROM SOME RESIDENTS DOWN THERE AND AND AFTER LOOKING INTO IT DO WE THROUGH YOU TO THE SOLICITOR DO WE DO WE HAVE ANY CRITERIA for businesses that apply that would require they be in good standing or limit violations on the establishment to even be considered for something like this?

Solicitor Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't have that information. I don't want to put DPD on the spot. They may have that, but I'm happy to get you that information. That's helpful. It shouldn't take me long.

Thank you. Maybe through you to DPD. I don't know if that's something. Are you familiar? I don't know who handles the permitting for the application process on that.

Assistant City Manager Byers-Rose.

So DPD does with development services. So we do check on outstanding fines, if there are any violations found in the kitchens, stuff like that. I don't believe one of the criteria that we have in the past included is things like whether or not an establishment has had issues with the liquor license, other than ensuring that it is up to date and valid. But whether or not they've been in front of them or had issues is not necessarily something that's on the current list. But certainly, it's something that we've changed, I think, last year was the implementation of this version of the process. And so if there's a new iteration that we need to adopt, DPD would be happy to include additional questions and criteria.

Really appreciate it. I think for one. We really need to involve I think LPD and ask to to review these applications because it's troubling the residents down to have pointed this out pretty clear there's been multiple violations with with LPD over the past 3 to 4 years at this establishment. Recently, I think there was a fine imposed just back in March. That's still going through a process so I just think if we're going to allow and reward outdoor dining and does anybody even know if they've put a kitchen in? Because I know a while ago they've ripped the kitchen out of this establishment. So outdoor dining should be more than pretzels and chips. I don't understand where you can apply for an outdoor dining certificate with no kitchen. I guess I would hope that we take a look at this through DPD, go back and maybe flush out applications that are being presented to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Robinson. Council Dakota.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Robinson actually brought up the point I was going to bring up, is that having infractions that they've had for many years, that this should be part of the criteria. There's no doubt about it. And Council Robinson just said, if we're not serving food on the sidewalk, are they doing they're just drinking drinking and drinking and i would have reservations on this one myself to tell you the truth not that i want to take revenue away from businesses but the past experience hasn't been a pleasurable to the low license commission that's for sure thank you mr mayor thank you council dakota council marcia

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that my colleagues heard from the same probably 20 people that I heard from because there is a substantial amount of trash fines to the tune of something that I probably couldn't afford today. So I think that's something to look into. And when you hear the word smokehouse, Oh, it just makes me so hungry to think that we're going to have ribs. And yet, if they're not serving food, I don't think I just want to drink outside. So I think we should investigate that a little bit more. So there actually might be a smokehouse somewhere. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Marcia. Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to my colleagues who maybe I shouldn't have objected to the second reading, but I objected to the second reading because I thought there is no way that in budget week, all of the same residents that have called me to complain about this have made their rounds and gotten to a whole number of city councilors, but I underestimated downtown residents' opposition to this particular permit. I do want to say, though, the reason I objected is that THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SEEN THROUGH. THERE'S ALSO A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT ARE MADE ON SEEMINGLY A WEEKLY BASIS AROUND NOISE AND THEN JUST THE TRASH IN THE MORNING. IN ADDITION TO THE DUMPTER TRASH FINDS THAT COUNSELOR MERCIER ALLUDED TO, YOU HAVE the the regular bar trash that makes its way from inside the establishment to the sidewalk on a Saturday and Sunday morning and so now I'm trying to imagine what that looks like if they're just starting outside with with that trash and so I think hopefully this gives um as counselor Robinson suggested it gives the city some time to come back with a little bit more information I know uh assistant manager assistant manager Machado and I have had several very long conversations about this particular establishment and uh I thank you for all that time um but just to let the the rest of the council get up to speed on the nature of this application and also to give the the residents in that area some time to come out and speak because the budget really dominates the news cycle this week so thank you thank you council mcdonough council of noon thank you mr mia

I know the city have spent a lot of money to try to help small business owners, particularly in the downtown areas, including, you know, trying to find a way to, you know, bring up the business in the downtown. When I heard Councilor Dakota spoke of the offense that this established have over the year with the License Commission remind me of time when Councillor Dakota was chairman of the Liquor Commission. This establishment has been sort of an official offender and now come before the board and asking for permit to do its right. I think it's more review need to be made or need to be done on this before any approval is made. So, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Noon. Seeing no one else, we'll move on to 7.

Mr. Mayor?

Councilor Scott?

I'd like to make a motion to take from the table 6.6, transfer of fire over time for $822,000.

Motion by Councilor Scott to take 6.6 from the table, seconded by Councilor Noon. Firefighters, 6.6 was the week before, so we're taking something from the table from... It's a motion to remove motion from the table motion to remove from the table the firefighters overtime in the amount of 800,000 by council Scott seconded by councillor noon roll call Does anybody have any questions Roll call

Council Rourke.

Yes.

Council Scott. Yes. Council Chau. Yes. Council Decoto.

Yes.

Mayor Gitche. Yes. Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang.

Yes.

Council McDonough. Yes. Council Marcia. Yes. Council Noon.

Yes.

Council Robinson. Yes.

Levenier's. Levenier's motion passes.

Thank you. If we could hear from the city manager on updates from, we received an email this past Friday, if there are any updates around this overtime funding.

We're going to suspend the rules? That's up to you. I mean, would you like him to do that at budget time as a whole?

That's fine.

Thank you. Now we'll go back to the regular. Move to approve. Motion by Councilor Rourke to approve the $800,000 in firefighter overtime, seconded by Councilor Scott. Roll call.

Councilor Rourke? Yes. Councilor Scott? Yes. Councilor Chau? Yes. Councilor Decoto?

Yes.

Mayor Gitche?

Yes.

Councilor Duran? No. Councilor Liang? Yes. Councilor McDonough?

Yes.

Council Mercia. Yes. Council Noon.

Yes.

Council Robinson. Yes. Chen Yates.

Motion passes. I'm trying this seven again. Seven. 7.1, Rules and Election Law Subcommittee, May 19, 2026. Councilor Duran.

Yes, no, I have to just get there to be able to summarize. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the rules subcommittee met on May 19th. Present were Councilors McDonough and Scott, as well as myself, who are the three members of the body. Also, there were City Solicitor Corey Williams and Assistant City Solicitor Olivia Paulson-Hart. THE DISCUSSION REGARDED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CITY AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION'S GOAL TO TRY TO STANDARDIZE THE PROCEDURES USED BY EACH. ATTORNEY WILLIAMS PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COMMENTED ON THIS PROJECT TO FINETUNE AND UPDATE THE MISSION STATEMENTS AND PROCEDURES THROUGH PRODUCING A HANDBOOK FOR EACH BOARD. attorney williams noted the usual issues that boards face are with drafting agendas and minutes and that examples could be provided to be used by them we discussed and attorney williams outlined the differences between the legislative boards and those created by ordinance We discussed open meeting laws and whether they're applicable to all the boards, and he indicated that any public body that deliberates is subject to open meeting laws. His department provides legal services to most of the boards, and also he suggested that training should be offered to the boards and commissions to help with things like the production of minutes. He suggested that perhaps a member of the board or commission be designated for that role in terms of taking minutes, and that minutes should be recorded electronically wherever possible, and that ideally everybody is subject to the same rules. The Councilor McDonough suggested that a cheat sheet could be provided to the boards and commissions to let them know what the voting requirements are and basically understand the sort of procedural posture, similar to information the city clerk provides to the council before meetings. We talked about whether the boards and commissions need to follow the same rules as the city council, because there are a set of rules on the city website. Attorney Williams noted there is no requirement for that, but sometimes they use it as a default. But we discussed that the rules don't necessarily apply directly to other boards, so they would need to be used thoughtfully. We then discussed the second topic on the agenda was about transparency and public participation. Counselor Scott noted the need to have all documents available for review. when boards meet with easy access for the public so they can be fully informed and council mcdonough noted that all board members should have access to documents there was a discussion that perhaps like the city council meetings which use the agenda center and where the city clerk has posted not only the agenda but all of the attachments are available through links THAT PERHAPS SIMILAR PROCEDURES COULD BE FOLLOWED AND DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE FOR ALL OF THE OTHER BOARDS. COUNCILOR MCDONOUGH THEN SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS A DIFFERENT ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO FACILITATE PARTICIPATION IN THE MEETING BY MOVING FORWARD ITEMS ON WHICH THE PUBLIC INTENDS TO SPEAK, MOVING THOSE UP CLOSER TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SUGGESTION BY ATTORNEY WILLIAMS ABOUT WHETHER THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HOLD ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION BEFORE THE MEETING OR AT THE START OF THE MEETING SO THAT THERE MIGHT BE SORT OF FRESH ATTENTION GIVEN TO THOSE AGENDA ITEMS ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT THE DISCUSSION INDICATED THAT THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY ENSURE MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BECAUSE IN THE MEETING ITSELF, THE SORT OF PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD KNOW WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD END ITS EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THERE MIGHT BE PRESSURE TO DO SO PREMATURELY. AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO SET A SET TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO I THINK THAT SUGGESTION DIDN'T GAIN TRACTION. BUT WE DID PASS A MOTION BY COUNCILOR MCDONOUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR SCOTT TO REQUEST THE CITY MANAGER HAVE THE PROPER DEPARTMENT REVISE THE ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TO TRY TO SORT OF AGAIN BRING FORWARD THOSE ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC INTENDS TO SPEAK. And then Attorney Williams noted that, you know, final council approval of any of that would be needed through a public hearing if we were to go that route. So that's the summary.

Thank you, Councilor Duran. Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just I just wanted to clarify that a large portion of the discussion about public comment centered on obviously members of the public. I appreciate when they come to speak. I think a big focus of the discussion was on getting the manager's portion of the agenda at the closer to the front of the meeting is that's where a lot of city workers are here to speak and their work day ends. So my thought there was if we put them at the front, We get more employees in and done back to their desk or whatever they have to do. And then we're not keeping them here all night. So that was all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Councilor McDonough. Motion to accept the report as a report of progress by Councilor Liang, seconded by Councilor Decoto. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. 7.2 Technologies and Utilities Subcommittee, May 26, 2026. Councilor Liang, you want to wait until next week?

Yes, please.

Thank you. 8, any announcements?

somebody anybody council mcdonough thank you uh the lowell middlesex academy charter school uh will be having as the spring exhibition on may 28th from 10 a.m to 3 p.m so everyone should feel free to join them in that celebration at 67 middle street and that's may 28th from 10 to 3.

Any other announcements? Councilor Rourke.

Mr. Mayor, take a five-minute recess.

Could I just make one announcement? The Lowell Spinners will be playing on Friday night at the Lasher Field, so if anybody's interested in seeing the return of the Lowell Spinners, come out on Friday night and support our local team. Motion by Councilor Rourke to take a five-minute recess until 7 o'clock, seconded by Councilor Noon. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered.

I'll be there.

Okay. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So, objecting to the second reading is the first thing you're going to need. You need unanimous consent to waive the second reading. So, without unanimous consent, we can't waive the second reading. We're going to have to put it on the next one. I just like, I don't want to just, we're going to have to squash them. Because I have to object to the second reading before I can tell them to waive it.

Thank you.

It's going to be way past your bedtime.

You too. Yeah.

So we have tons of ideas. I'm happy with that. And also, I think, too, the president will probably do it himself as well. But you know that the over time that we improve has done the same. Oh, absolutely. I mean, if you have a company, you'll get paid. Meeting come back to order. Roll call, Mr. Clerk.

Council Roark. Here. Council Scott. Here. Council Chow. Here. Council Dakota. Here. Mayor Gitche.

Here.

Council Duran.

Here.

Council Leag. Here. Council McDonough.

Here.

Council Mercy. Here. Council Noon.

Here.

Council Robinson.

This here.

Time present.

Thank you. for general public hearings 4.1 vote fy 2027 budget approved appropriation order gives second reading vote approving budget for the city of lowell for fiscal year 2027. we're going to open the hearing to all those anyone wishing to speak in favor in favor in favor It's a public hearing. That portion of the meeting is closed. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Opposition? Just come up to the mic. Please state your name, your address, and please write it on the piece of paper that's there.

I'm kind of in the middle here. All right. Mayor Gitchier, Councilors, City Manager Golden, and CFO Baldwin. I'm Donna Scano Richards, and I reside at 159 Clark Road. I serve as the current chair of the Pueblo Memorial Library Board of Trustees. We realize there may be concerns about the future of library services and the bookmobile as a city resource. Library director Bridget Cooley faced the difficult task of reducing the library budget and she met it with thoughtful planning and responsible leadership. The trustees fully support the plan she developed and the hard decisions required to meet this budget cycle. The library has been experiencing significant increases in attendance and participation in its services. In order to minimize the impact and potential loss of services, staff have been cross-trained to absorb most of the duties from eliminated positions. If the library can fill its current open budgeted positions and announce the internal postings for these new vacancies quickly, we believe the library can continue delivering the level of service the community expects and deserves with a minimum of disruption of service. For anyone who may question the relevance or value of our public library, I encourage you to watch Bridget's presentation at the April 21 City Council meeting, where the metrics and data clearly show how deeply the library enriches Lowell's educational, cultural, and civic life. Thank you, counselors and city administration, for recognizing the vital role the library plays in our community and for your help to fill these budgeted positions. Thank you. Thank you.

Surprise, surprise. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Councillors and City Manager. My name is Chris Romero. Most of you know who I am. I reside at 329 Moody Street. I'm here today in solidarity with the Firefighter Union. For the past few weeks, I have been angry and concerned for our firefighters. They don't deserve to lose their jobs. We recently just had the major fire in Centerville, and this is what we're going to do? Is it? It is unacceptable to do this. These firefighters put their lives on the line for us. If the firefighters can stand up for a minute so that the city manager can see. These are the firefighters that put their lives on the line for the city. Thank you, folks. These are the firefighters that put their lives on the line for the city. They work 24-hour shifts. They do so much for our community. In conclusion, I am asking the city council and the city manager to support the budget for the 203 uniformed firefighters, and I do stand with the union, and I still stand with the staff and students, and I stand with the Poet Memorial Library as well. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Donna, but I have proudly served the city for 26 years. I recently exercise my rights in our grievance procedure.

Can we just state your address?

Oh, sorry. Eight Orchard Ave. Drake it.

Thank you.

I recently exercised my rights under the grievance procedure to raise concerns about the current conditions in the treasurer's office. What has occurred since then was deeply troubling. A termination process was carried out without clear notice to my union, to this council, or to the employees affected by this. The lack of transparency raises scariest concerns about fairness and accountability. I understand that low in many other communities facing financial challenges. However, our collective bargain agreements clearly define the proper process and protection for any staff in reduction. Those processes exist for a reason and to assure decisions that are made fairly openly and without respect for any employee's rights. I respectfully urge this council to continue asking the questions and demanding transparency. And at the last meeting, answers from the administration were unclear and evasive. If this process was handled properly, there should have been no hesitation in explaining it fully, including whether these were layoffs or voluntary separations. Speaking from my own experience, I was told I was being laid off, asked to sign paperwork so I could receive two weeks of paid administrative leave. At no point was it ever explained to me that this was an employee separation agreement. I was later reminded to sign the paperwork and return it quickly, even as I was preparing to leave for a scheduled vacation. This experience did not feel transparent or fair. After 26 years of service, I am standing here not only for myself, but for the principle that all employees should be treated with honesty, dignity, and consistency. I ask the Council to ensure all employee actions be conducted openly, fairly, in accordance with the established agreements. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Opposition?

Peter Arcella Good evening. My name is Peter Arcella. I am a resident of 30 Parkview Avenue in Lowell. And over my 35-year career in Lowell, I served as director of the Division of Planning and Development. Executive Director of the Lowell Historic Preservation Commission, which is a federal commission, which I actually had to sunset, put out of business. And then went on to be Assistant Superintendent of Lowell National Historical Park. And during that entire 35-year period, I served on the Lowell Historic Board. and i'm here to speak against the layoff of the administrator of the little historic board steve stowell this i i have four points to make so uh one the city advocated for the city and the community advocated for creation of the national park and then congressman paul songus included a provision in the authorizing law requiring the city to do just one thing create the historic board, and make sure that physical development was handled at the local level but done correctly. There was a fear that the federal government, that the National Park Service, would be regulating private building repairs. And the community didn't want that, so this was the condition put in that authorizing bill. To accomplish the regulation at the local level, a professional staff person is needed. And Steven Stowell has a master's degree in historic preservation from Columbia University. and 32 years of experience in Lowell since taking the position in 1994. He is the only historic preservation professional in city government in this community, which is defined by its historic character. The role needs to continue and Lowell needs to take advantage of that expertise. Point number two, the historic board was created 43 years ago. and has operated without major controversies. When we talk about the revitalization that has occurred downtown over those years, decades, including rehabilitation of over 450 buildings, 98% of the 5.3 million square feet of mill buildings, as well as new construction in recent years, housing, These development successes could not have occurred without the skilled diplomacy and effectiveness Mr. Stoll brought to the position. In a downtown, there is constant change from signs to paint colors to facades to new construction. The efforts of the past 43 years can deteriorate quickly without proper staffing for historic preservation. Point three, when seeking approval of the JAM plan, which includes the Hamilton Canal District in 2000, the city made a commitment to the state to, quote, maintain the current level of staffing at the historic board to enable the proper level of oversight during implementation, unquote. That's on page 68 of the JAM plan. which runs through 2030. And permitting and licensing of future JAM and Hamilton Canal District projects will be impacted, including some of the university's link projects and possibly frontrunner city projects that are in that area. Point four, Chapter 566 of the Acts of 1983 is a special act of the state legislature that created the Lowell Historic Board. It also defines the role of the administrator. Procedurally, under the state authorizing law, the administrator works for the historic board, which was neither consulted nor involved in the process, so I question that. Finally, this community often touts its history and character, especially in this bicentennial year. Having one expert on staff in this community is not excessive. I think the ramifications of this decision on the community's character and need to be revisited and the decision reversed. When buildings are done correctly, it is not by accident and not without the skill of an expert like Steve Stoll has brought to it. Thank you.

Fred Faust, 52 Lawrence Drive, Lowell, Massachusetts. I just want to say that I was the first executive director of Lowell Historic Preservation Commission. So if it seems like I'm repeating certain things, I'll try and avoid it and keep my remarks short. Obviously, this is a difficult time. Over the years, I've talked to many of you, to the manager. And to others, it's a tough job, and it's a particularly tough job this year. And I think everybody here appreciates that. So I just want to say that for the record. In my time, I've also seen extraordinary leadership. I worked with Paul Tsongas. We secured a national park. It's a national park that celebrates Lowell's history and culture for the benefit not just of the city of Lowell, but for the nation as a whole. And that's something we're very proud of. As you may know or may not know, the National Park Service was hesitant to adopt Lowell into the system for reasons that Peter spoke about. There was a compromise that resulted in congressional approval, and that was the promise that Congressman Tsongas made to have the city enforce standards and criteria and not the federal government. And in fact, we had a episode at Harper's ferry when the first preservation commission went and a couple of the members were almost run over by a car. And I said, what's going on here? And they said, they don't like us. We're the federal government. That's something that's never happened in Lowell. And I really challenge everybody to look back over the 43 years that Peter's mentioned, as well as the 32 years that Mr. Stoll has been president and think about. a loss of a historic building, a huge controversy that pitted developers, lawyers, professionals against each other, and I don't think you're going to find that. That's pretty amazing at this time in government because we all know how adversarial these kind of things can be, but working with the National Park Service and the significance of the buildings and the respect that everybody here has for our history, that hasn't happened. Why hasn't it happened? Because it's been a deliberative process with developers, and with architects and designers where these things are worked through. On the Waterways Commission, which I've been involved with, we lit two bridges. The amazing thing was that the time for review, I would say, with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on one of the bridges was about six months. With the Historic Board, it was an administrative decision. so we we work together with respect tax credits come in and out of here to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and without steve stowell's fostering those and being able to have a relationship with people in washington and in boston those approvals might never take place and you can ask the major developers in lowell and they're going to say the same thing so i do speak to you this evening as an individual but as well as the vice chair of the lowell heritage partnership And I do want to address not just the position or the person, but the partnership and the system that's been deliberative and responsible. And this administrator has served them well. So we haven't had building controversies in Lowell, and we do have the expertise sitting in that office and helping to make these decisions. Steve Stoll has been the person on the ground for the last 32 years. That's a lot of service to the board and the city of Lowell. Shouldn't performance, loyalty, and longevity be rewarded? What kind of message does that send to other city workers and supervisors? And in the case of the Lowell Historic Board, with reportedly little consultation or notice. So we'd ask you to come back, take a step back, see what could be worked out here. We have a very creative manager, city, administrators let's see what we can do here because this is an important position it's important as peter says as we approach the front runner city status and that district is primarily in the historic district the surrounding canals and waterways all in the preservation district and the historic district and i would just say last the interesting thing is that 10 neighborhoods sought out this designation to be included and to have their own districts own historic districts that wasn't something envisioned by the lowell legislation by the national park service or anybody else they sought that inclusion because they wanted to protect quality of life in those neighborhoods. And you may not know it, but the Historic Board has been responsible for those deliberations, those designs, and preserving those neighborhoods as well. So thank you for the time. I appreciate it.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Andrew Kolar, 524 Westford Street, Lowell, Massachusetts, and I am a practicing architect here in Lowell. And I'd like to thank Peter and Fred for their words on Steve Stoll, and I'm here to offer another perspective on the same subject. I stand before you tonight to express my profound concern shared by many in our local design and development community. regarding the recent dismissal of Stephen Stoll as administrator of the Lowell Historic Board. As architects, our daily work is a balancing act between honoring our city's past and building its future. Steve Stoll understands this balance better than anyone. For 32 years, he has served not as a rigid gatekeeper, but as an invaluable collaborator. His deep encyclopedic knowledge of preservation standards, historic materials, and local architectural lineage didn't hinder development, it elevated it. He routinely helps architects and property owners find creative, compliant solutions that saved projects time and money while preserving the authentic grit and character that makes Lowell unique. Losing that institutional memory and collaborative spirit is a massive setback for our local economy and our built environment. I want to acknowledge that this council faces incredibly difficult choices right now, and finding flexibility in the budget is an uphill battle. However, eliminating specialized oversight for our historic assets is a false economy that will ultimately cost us more in delayed projects and lost heritage. This decision is especially troubling given where we stand today. This year, Lowell celebrates its bicentennial. 200 years ago, this city was founded on a vision of radical industrial innovation. But our modern renaissance over the last few decades wasn't built on tearing that history down. It was built on adapting it. Our historic fabric is our greatest economic asset and our strongest civic identity. Right now, Lowell is at a critical development crossroads. We are actively cultivating major transformative projects. The continued expansion of the Hamilton Canal Innovation District, which bridges our historic mill architecture with modern infrastructure. the LINC initiative driving massive educational and economic growth, and the Frontrunner City program positioning us as a leader in sustainable urban development. As we attract new investment for these initiatives, the signals we send locally, regionally, and internationally matter. If we sideline seasoned preservation leadership, we signal a willingness to compromise the very identity that makes Lowell an attractive place to invest, live, and work. Growth and preservation are not opposing forces. They are partners. In this bicentennial year, we shouldn't be looking back at our history on a plaque. We should be actively projecting our values forward into the next century of development. We need leadership at the historic board that commands the respect of the State Historical Commission understands local zoning nuances, and protects the character of our neighborhoods. Steve Stoll is that leader. I urge the council and the city administration to reconsider this vacancy, recognize the immense value of specialized historic preservation expertise, and ensure that our future development remains deeply rooted in the historic excellence that defines Lowell. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. My name is Deb Price, 173 11th Street. I'm here to stand in solidarity with our firefighters. As a citizen of Lowell, I find it abhorrent that this city would put the public at risk by laying off essential public safety personnel. And coming on the heels of the Centralville fire, it is particularly tone deaf. This city has unique firefighting needs due to the age of many of the buildings and the proximity of these buildings to each other. We need a full complement of firefighters to maintain public safety. I fully support the proposed budget supporting 203 uniformed firefighters. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

Mr. Manager, Mr. CFO, Mr. Mayor, and members of the council, thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ryan Faria. I reside at 130 Campbell Drive. Over the last couple of weeks, I've spent a considerable amount of time looking at this budget book, which is pretty long this year. And I want to talk about a couple things. The first one that stood out to me was how the ARPA funds were managed as we get into the sunset here. So Mr. Manager, your administration, with full awareness of the looming consequences in this budget cycle, used one-time funds to pay long-term recurring positions. Per the motion response that came out earlier, there was 21 ARPA positions that are being absorbed into this general fund, totaling $1.9 million. That's a lot of money. Just 30% of that could resolve the six firefighter layoffs tonight. There are several headwinds in the budget that you have minimal control over, Mr. Manager. Those are well documented, but this one was fully within your discretion. I think a more proactive approach could have resulted in a smoother budget process this time. Secondly, I want to talk about the firefighter cuts. I want to start off by going back to six months ago. November 18th, there was a city council meeting here. On the floor was a vote to increase the overtime by $500,000, and it was heavily discussed amongst the council. It was actually changed on the floor to increase that to $750,000 and voted on unanimously, or very close to unanimously. It passed. In the discussion there, Mr. Golden, you committed that 750K would be enough to get through the end of fiscal year 2026, and Fire Chief Sharon indicated that about 10 new firefighters would be coming on board by April 1st. When I looked at the report that came out today that highlighted the ARPA positions and the new hire positions, I did not see a single new firefighter. And now we have the 800K that's been transferred for the overtime budget. Mr. Manager, I agree with you on one thing. The increase to the overtime budgets going up is not sustainable. But reducing the number of firefighters in this city does not solve that problem. It serves to exacerbate it and make it more expensive to taxpayers. Neither one-sided speeches here in the chamber or social media PR campaigns are going to solve this. I encourage hopefully both sides can get to the table and make a decision that's going to be financially responsible and keep our city safe going forward. Finally, at some point, maybe tonight or in the next few weeks, this council is going to pass a budget. For this cycle, we've raised taxes by 4.6%, increased trash fees by nearly 50%, and we still have layoffs and attrition to the tune of a pretty large number. If people think this year's budget cycle is a tough one, next year is shaping up to be significantly more challenging with the federal and state headwinds coming our way. I hope this administration can take a more proactive approach over the next 12 months so that next year's budget is a little bit less painful. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Opposition? Opposition. That portion of the meeting is closed, the public hearing. Mr. Manager.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Councilors. Before I begin, I want to express my deepest gratitude to our finance team, led by Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ball. Their professionalism, their diligence, and their unwavering dedication are something that our entire city can be proud of. They have poured more than five months of sustained, tireless effort into ensuring that not a single detail was overlooked in the 881 pages of what right now is a $654 million budget. The budget before you tonight has gone through 14 or 15 different iterations to get to where we are right now. Thank you very much to the counselors for their ideas, for their opinions, for their emails, and for taking advantage of the one-on-one discussions we've had over the past two weeks with the finance team to have a deeper understanding of our challenges. For the first time, we've also hosted I believe it was seven events in this in City Hall as well as on the outside my thanks extend to the solicitor to solicitor Williams and all of our union partners these have been extremely difficult conversations talking about layoffs is never easy yet we work through it I asked department heads to look to keep employees that were willing to cross-train and be part of a team. We are still currently working with AFSCME 93 to fix language in the collective bargaining agreement for Local 1705 to provide bumping rights, which are not clearly defined. I hope to have this resolved before the start of the fiscal year. The next person I want to thank, and I do not want to speak for him directly, and that's Mr. Leight from the fire department. Maybe after I finish, the council could grant him an opportunity to speak, and I do apologize, but I want him to be able to say what he wants to say after I say what I'm about to say. I am grateful to the Firefighter Union leadership and to Mr. Leight. for a very productive conversation early Friday afternoon. Today, Mr. Leight and Mr. Potter and myself spoke again. And the Fire Department Union has committed to working with their members to explore opportunities to financially assist the city and to try to lower overtime costs. I, in turn, committed to not laying off any firefighters. The revised budget before the council will allow us to get to the 203 firefighters that we deserve. I also want to thank every bargaining unit that paused their cost of living adjustment for 11 months, and every ordinance employee who did the same. You made a sacrifice that protected your colleagues. You helped prevent deeper cuts, and that is the spirit of Lowell. This budget year has been extremely difficult. It's been hard on our employees, hard on our residents, hard on our schools and our neighborhoods, and for every person who relies on city services every single day. Budgets are not just spreadsheets. They're a reflection of what we value, the quality of life we expect, and what kind of city we aspire to be. When numbers tighten, as they have, we feel it. and it's not abstract. The pressure can be frustrating at times on the weight of every single decision going on over the past five months. Our fixed costs, our pensions, our debt service, our state assessments, our health insurance, our energy, they have risen faster and higher than anyone could have anticipated. No city can absorb those types of increases without the real consequences which we are feeling right now. We have slowed hiring. We have shrunk our workforce. And behind every reduction stands a person who gave the best that they had to the city of Lowell. And I want every employee and every resident listening tonight to hear this. In the last four years, I have seen the change in this city. I have seen the effort for our city. I've seen your patience. I've seen your sacrifice. And for that, I'm eternally grateful. Yet even in a year this difficult, Lowell does not step back from who we are. We continue to invest in the roads that people travel on daily, the water, and the source system that make our city livable. The schools, the police, fire stations, municipal buildings that anchor all of our neighborhoods. Because vision matters. And that is what we've been trying to put forth over the last four years. Belief matters. Momentum matters. And the momentum that we've had over the last four years is very, very real. We are seeing development interests at levels not reached in more than decades. The Hamilton Canal Innovation District is now drawing employers in investment. The Lowell Innovation Network corridor is positioning the city of Lowell at the center of the regional technology and research. and housing developers are truly saying yes. UMass Lowell students, Middlesex Community College, they're no longer just studying here. Many are choosing to stay here, to work here, and to build their future here. Our national recognition as America's first frontrunner city and America's first learning city did not happen by accident. These honors signal to the nation that Lowell is leading in innovating and redefining what a modern American city can be. The progress is a product of years of planning, partnerships, and persistence, work done by this council and this administration that believe in Lowell's potential. Our partnerships with UMass Lowell, Middlesex Community College, Lowell Public Schools, our nonprofits, our neighborhood leaders amplify our strength. Lowell has never moved forward alone. We succeed because we continually move together. As we face a challenging budget, my concerns will remain with our future budgets. As I stated earlier, There is a seismic shift in funding going on between our federal and our state funding that we cannot ignore. But my commitment remains not just to the numbers, but to the people that are actually behind them, to the families who trust us, the employees who serve us, and to the neighborhoods that give us the city spirit that we have. Lowell has weathered difficult times in the past, and each time we have proven something more powerful. We all understand that we do not give up, we do not turn inward, we do not stop believing in what the city can be. Knock down eight times, get up nine. Our foundation is strong, our partnerships are strong, this momentum is real and our future is real. We are investing and we are building, we are growing and we are doing it together. After the state finalizes its budget, it is my hope to reassess some of the cuts that we are enduring today. Thank you all very much.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, could I make a motion to suspend the rules to have Mr. Light come up to the lectern?

Motion by Councilor DeCotto, seconded by Councilor Noon, to allow Mr. Light, the Firefighters Union President, to speak. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Manager, City Council, my fellow brothers and sisters of Local 853, and all our surrounding locals that have come here to support us today. I stand here And I'm not going to lie. There are shared frustrations and confusion that I share with the city manager. We didn't start this campaign as an onslaught. We started as an information-based public discussion. And that discussion has not changed. We're not here advocating for four, five, six million dollar budgets. We're advocating for staffing. And when we have conflicting views, And we don't find that common ground. What we have is continued frustration and confusion. I take my hat off to the city manager for reaching out, and we were anticipating and hoping that he would be willing to meet when two people are the last two people that wanted to meet. We didn't bring teams to that table. It was him and I at the Eclipse Cafe for about two and a half hours. In addition to the budget, and what we prioritize is our staffing, and I'm never going to let go of that conversation. We had a slew of pressing issues that have plagued both our fire department and our city. And the one common denominator that we agreed on was that common ground. How do we continue the lines of communication? And it was the first step of being willing to meet. And having, as the city manager had said, a very productive conversation, but it was very hard to disagree with him. We have our own biases. Mine is my beloved fire department and the brothers and sisters I serve with. I am beholden to our sacred language and I'm beholden to each one of them. But so isn't the city manager. But except for his budget and his concerns are at least 17-fold. And if we can understand those considerations and still find our common ground of what that means to be able to have that open line of communications, I am confident. And one way I illustrated that confidence is that when it was time to speak against the budget, I didn't. That could have been catastrophic. And I would have been expected to be eaten alive by every single one of them because of a missed opportunity to speak our voice when that voice was stifled last week. For whatever reasons, I'm not here to argue that. What I am here to do is champion the fact that we were able to come to terms with good, productive, constructive conversation that allows me to say that I feel confident moving forward and continue that conversation with the other issues we touched on. But what I am now here to ask all the city council is that you take that next step with us and you support this budget. Because if you think that the priority is staffing Anything under the proposed 203 that is in that beloved language that I speak so highly of in our collective bargaining agreement, how do you think we're going to sustain the city when we've seen more fires and medical calls and we want to further develop the city with growing business, more revenue, and we want the same things you want? But we can't continue that conversation of going any further of staffing if we're starting with six right off the bat being erased from our roles. So this is that step in the right direction. And again, I champion that with the city manager that was willing to have this conversation because if that didn't take place, this wouldn't be the conversation we're having today. And going forward, we're going to make sure that those lines stay open no matter how grim or dim that light is. This is our job. And unfortunately, the public got involved. It was our informational campaign. We love the support, but we want the healthy support. We don't want defensive actions that's going to keep the manager and I from ever continuing in that direction. That's why we took the step forward and we're asking you to take the next step. Accept this proposed budget for 203 uniformed firefighters to continue the service we have, and we will meet in the middle to make sure that those other pressing issues are not only resolved, but staffing is a part of that conversation because that's what's necessary. So eye to eye, face to face, thank you. Mr. Manager, and thank you for what I hope has continued to support. And as I said already, this was a leap of faith for me to wait to speak and hope they suspend the rules because this could have been catastrophic. And that's already the right step that you had promised. And I'd like to continue that promise with reciprocity. Thank you, everyone. And I appreciate it. And I hope that we do the right thing today. Thank you.

What is the wish of the body? Is it to go through each department? Councilor Robinson.

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we go department by department in the budget.

Motion by Councilor Robinson, seconded by Councilor McDonough.

Point of order, Mister mayor. I'd like to understand which version of the budget we're going through. We received a paper copy today that has different a different total. It was in them.

It would be the paper copy that you have.

OK, if that's the case, I think we I have a question about where the what changed except for a bottom line number.

So you're full ball.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I think I can encapsulate the changes as they're few. So if the wish of the body is to go department by department, we will still maintain the order and the appropriation order. And so the council would act, consider, vote on personal services and then ordinary expenses for each department. The changes that were made between what's in the book and what was handed out to the council this evening, which is a revised version of the appropriation order, is only in the fire department budget. And so if you were to look at the personal services, which is salaries and wages for the fire department, it is greater by $688,742 which would bring us up to the 203. It adds the six firefighters that were proposed to be laid off and then fills two vacant positions. That gets us to the 203. That would make the revised personal services number 27,947,583. All the other numbers will stay the same and all the other numbers in the order would be as was presented in the book.

And the appropriation, the revenue numbers in the first portion don't have to change to reflect that change? I'm just trying to understand. Mr. CFO?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The short answer to the question is no. The council doesn't vote on the revenues that make up the budget. Strictly speaking, the council approves the appropriations or the expenses for each department throughout the order. If you were to read the preamble and the text of the vote, all of the revenues to make up the expenditures that are part of the appropriations between intergovernmental aid, taxes, local receipts, et cetera, Those are not formally voted on by the council. They are not voted on pursuant to the rules of the Department of Revenue. I hope that provides some clarification. I'm happy to answer additional questions.

Yes, I guess I mean the city manager is supposed to present to us a balanced budget and I understand if I understand correctly we think we got that 2 weeks ago or at least that was the status then this is now a revised budget revised upward yet still supposedly a balanced budget. um so i guess i'm i just i do want to understand how that's a balanced budget and also whether uh given that we're in a public hearing with new information whether there are any issues about this information that's now on the public floor not being available to the public prior to this point so there are two different questions there cfo

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I suppose I'm happy to leave some of this to the city solicitor. This is a topic that we've covered in the past, so I do have some familiarity with it. It is still a balanced budget. So even with the $688,742 increase, that is less than what has been proposed in the Senate version of the state budget. So if you were to take a look at the state budget and the local aid that was proposed therein, the amount of unrestricted aid for the city as compared to the House budget is approximately $702,000 more than was included in the House. And so if that number does not hold, if the Senate number does not hold, We still can achieve a balanced budget by being more aggressive on our local receipts, and we have a plan to do that. I'm happy to share that with the council and the public. These are three specific revenue items, although there are a host of others where adjustments could be made, and this is a natural part of the tax rate setting process. between uh interest on investments the motor vehicle excise revenues and then there have been uh receipts related to legal settlements uh that would more than cover the six hundred and eighty eight thousand dollars uh some of this information uh you know we have been analyzing over the course of the last two weeks so while it is fresh in my mind and i'm very sure of it uh it was not it was not as apparent uh three weeks ago when we first presented the budget And as the council is aware, the state budget is an iterative process. But what we've been told and assured to the most extent we can from Beacon Hill is that the Senate number is likely to be what holds in the final budget. But we do have a plan B if that is not the case to maintain a balanced budget. Thank you Mr. Mayor for giving me the time.

And the second part of the question was just about the public meeting the open meeting piece of this solicitor Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I can obviously answer that part of the Councillor Duran's question. So there on Friday, we had a court order come down via a preliminary injunction that required the city manager to put forth the budget that's in front of you right now, which includes the increase. So while I understand, you know, your concerns with the open meeting law, however, this is one of the few times that the rule of necessity actually would be invoked because in order to, you know, follow the court order, it's going to require us to sort of run afoul of the open meeting law. And that would be perfectly appropriate in this situation.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Durant. Councilor McDonough.

I think Councillor Durand got all of my questions, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Councillor Ducoteau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just for the edification for the public, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Ball. So the Senate has 702 appropriated additionally to the city. Now, this does have to go to committee, right, with the House, if I'm not mistaken. And what is the time frame of this happening? Because usually the Senate will We'll drag this on a little bit, and it'll pass the June 30th deadline, our deadline. So if you can just enlighten everybody on how the process works. I mean, is it 702, the number? Or could it be half? I mean, that's what will go to committee, correct?

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Far be it for me to try to guess as to what will happen during the conference committee process. But for purposes of setting our budget, this is something that happens almost every year. It is very seldom that we vote on our budget before the state does. There have been years. I forget if it was last year, but I know in the last several years it has been sometime in later in July and sometimes in August when Massachusetts finishes its state budget. So it is often that we find ourselves voting on our budget based on numbers that are either prior to the conference committee process or at that point when a conference committee is working out the differences between the House and the Senate. You are exactly right that that is the process. The Senate just recently voted to approve the budget from Senate Ways and Means. That has the increased unrestricted aid number. It will go to a conference committee process, and if the manager was sitting here right now, It is very unusual for them to come out of that with a number for local aid that is less than they went in. But as I mentioned, we have this sort of backup plan for if it goes back to the house number, we will deal with it by adjusting the local receipts. We feel that's a safe plan B. And I hope that addresses your question, although I feel like I'm missing one of the points you raised. That'll suffice. Thank you. Thank you, Counselor.

Everyone all set? So there's a motion to go line by department by department. Seconded by, motion by Councilor McDonough. It was Councilor Robinson, seconded by Councilor McDonough. Roll call.

Councilor Roy.

Yes.

House of Scott, yes. House of child, yes. House of Dakota, yes. Leah Gitche, yes. House of Duran, yes. House of Leeang, yes. House of McDonough, yes. House of Mercier, yes. House of Noon, yes. House of Robinson. Mr. Mayor.

Councilor, I hate to start so early, but we do the little fight upon budget now, you know, the fight if I was willing to stay here until midnight if they want. But we can get that out of the way and go on with our night.

Motion by Council Rourke to take the fire department first, seconded by Councilor Marisi. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed? So ordered. Fire department's personnel services, $27,947,583. Fire department ordinary expenses, $1,016,519. Any discussion?

Move to approve.

Council, McDonough.

I do have one question. And apologies for the low dollar value here. But this isn't the first time. This isn't the only time it happens in the budget. And there might be a reason. And I may have just forgotten to ask before the meeting. So it'll save us a lot of questions later on. On page 435, custodial supplies are listed twice, which is fine. I guess I was confused as to which. So it's listed once at $6,500, and then it's listed a separate time at $1,200. Is it actually $18,500, or is it one of those two, and it's a clerical error? It's the CFO.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For these individual department specific requests, I think perhaps the department head is best equipped to address them. My sense is that they are similarly named in Munis, but are used for two different types of expenses. And I guess I can back up and maybe address the form of the budget, which may speak to this. And there may be other questions of a similar nature because of the way that ClearGov addresses the budget and how it's presented. So if it's okay with the chair. Yep. So one of the benefits of using the ClearGov system as the budget creation tool is that it pulls the accounts, the figures right out of our Munis accounting system. The flip side of that coin is that we have a chart of accounts that has been in place since long before I came, but maybe the early 2000s when we implemented the MUNA system. And so all of the account names and the segments attached to them, they get reused year over year, but sometimes do not necessarily reflect exactly what that account is designed for. So you may see that in other places where you have a repair and maintenance for equipment and a repair and maintenance of vehicles. Vehicles are a type of equipment, but they're separated and called something different. I'm happy to look into each one of these individuals if that's the will of the council, but I think generally it's a nomenclature thing that's a result of us using the ClearGov product.

No, and that makes sense, so thank you. It was more that they were both labeled as custodial supplies, because there were a few that I kind of wrote off as, OK, yeah, a vehicle is an equipment, but the vehicle is a separate code. And then I had just noticed that the numbers kind of match. So I also know that when you're filling out a spreadsheet, sometimes you hit something twice. So that's fine. I'm comfortable approving this and getting a better answer on that. It's not a particularly high amount of money. So sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Council McDonough. Council Leang.

Thank you. Could you explain a little bit about the overtime between 2026 and 2027? And also, what was the staff ratio between the two? Was it 2 to 13? Was it different? What's the increase between overtime? Because I just wanted to see the balance between the two.

Mr. Mayor, do we have the department heads here? Can we have the chief here so that in each one as we call him, if the department head could just come to the podium, everything might make it easier. I'm sorry, Chief, I didn't see you over there. Chief, did you hear his question?

I believe the question was in relation to the amounts for overtime, but I don't know how it was generally addressed. Is it because last year the allocation was for 2 million and this year the allocation is for 2.6?

Yes. What was the staff numbers in 2026? Was it the same or is it minus the six firefighters that were proposed to be reduced?

So we entered last fiscal year short 10 people. So we were at 203.

So with this new number, will we increase new firefighters in addition to what we lost from last time?

I don't believe that is going to be occurring. No.

No.

Okay. So that's where I get sort of stuck with is that, so it's the increase over time, but at the same time, it's more than last year. Anyhow, thank you, thank you.

Thank you, Council Yang. Motion to approve by Council Rourke, seconded by Council Scott. Roll call.

Council Rourke. Yes. Council Scott. Yes. Council Chau. Yes. Council Dakota. Yes. Mayor Gitche. Yes. Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang. Yes. Council McDonough. Yes. Council Mercier. Yes. Council Noon. Yes. Council Robinson. Yes.

11 years.

11 years. I'll try to give you guys the page number at the same time as I give you these. We get city council personnel services $280,000, city council ordinary expenses $10,000. It's on page 233. Any questions? Move to approve.

Councilor McDonough. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I noticed page 234, city council advertising budget is up just under $4,000. I guess I'm wondering what we are advertising and if we really need to go up. I get it's only $4,000, but these happen a few times and we laid a lot of people off.

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The question is about the increase in the advertising budget for city council. OK. So this budget is used by the city clerk's office. It's budgeted within the city council. Function code, it is the cost to advertise in the Lowell Sun for public hearings. And we had appropriation from free cash in this year to supplement that amount. There have been a lot of public hearings. hearing is advertised and a change may be needed and then advertised again that cost is paid for from this budget and so based on our actual history there's an increase to ten thousand dollars this year proposed thank you any other questions Council Yang

I JUST SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF ADVERTISEMENT THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET. I WISH WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DESCRIPTION IN REGARDING TO WHAT IT MEANS, BECAUSE IN TOTAL, THERE'S ALMOST $40,000 WORTH OF ADVERTISEMENT THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT MAYBE THERE'S SOME SORT OF DESCRIPTION WOULD BE NICE TO JUST SEE WHAT'S GOING ON UNDER EACH ITEMIZED ITEM. THANK YOU.

Thank you, Counsel Yang. Counsel O'Rourke. So this was a transfer for the $10,000 increase? Is that what it was?

CFO Baldwin?

Of sorts. When the council appropriated free cash this year, $10,000 went into advertising because it was needed for the number of public hearings. Which we voted on. Correct. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion approved by Council new seconded by Council Scott Roker.

That's a yes. That's a spot. Yes, that's a job. Yes, as a good photo. Yes, that's me. I get you. Yes, that's what you're in. Yes, that's a yes, that's a McDonough. That's a mercy. Yes, that's a no. Yes, that's a run.

Yes.

Page 243, Mayor Personnel Services, $74,491. Mayor Ordinary Expenses, $33,350. Move for approval. Move approval from Council Dakota seconded by Council chow. And they were just a curiosity.

Mister mayor usually makes a motion to with his salary because you know you are CEO not that I disagree. I think you should get it, but you don't. Is there any reason why you need it this year?

I that was that was in the City Council portion, so it should have been brought up. I'm trying to. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

To page 251, city clerk, personal services, $558,236. City clerk, ordinary expenses, $13,237. Any questions on this part? Council Leang.

So again, throughout the budget, I see a lot of word professional services. And even though in here it's $5,000, but throughout the entire budget, there's more than $1.35 million that's under professional services. Are these the same type of categories or explanation in each department or they're different?

Counseling, every department is going to be different. So some have like personal services for copy machine repair and stuff like that. So there's different things that they have people come in.

Right. But this is a professional services. So let's say professional services on this one. What does it entail?

CFO Baldwin. Do you want city clerk to answer that?

Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to answer as many general questions as the council feels compelled to ask. There are statutory classifications that are used for the appropriation order, which is the requirement for personal services and ordinary expenses. The subclassifications that are used within the budget are based on our UMIS accounting system. Professional services is one that accounts for engineers, architects. I guess the point I'm leading up to is it's best suited for the department head to answer specific questions as to what they intend to use it for, what they have used it for. I have a general knowledge of what most departments use. I believe this one in particular is for professional services that the clerk's office uses related to the vital records and the system they use for me managing and maintaining that we do use broad your point is well taken counselor that some of these perhaps are too broad in the write-ups for the departments we could be in the future more explicit as to what what expenditures are requested or have been used. And that's certainly a note we can share with the department heads for next year. But these classifications that we use are pretty standard in municipal finance. And so you will see professional services, office supplies, dues and subscriptions in the same types of coding used in all the departments. But I believe that in each case, the department head can tell you specifically what it's for.

Councilor Yang.

That's okay. It's just that in reading all of the budget, there's a lot of money that's putting into this that could be utilized throughout and save positions And I just need more concrete explanation in terms of what's going on in this, especially professional services. I mean, I know we're going by department, but I guess I'm not going to get an all-out answer on this one.

We can have the department heads come up at the time if you want. We can call each one up when they're large in numbers if you want to do that.

All right, let's do that CFO ball Again, I'm happy to dig into the weeds with the council here. It's it's really my pleasure Professional services in the clerk's office. I'm looking it up right now that is used to pay the general code for the Codification of the the ordinances. This is the system we use for putting the ordinances online. So there's like an annual subscription fee but it also is used to make the books here in city hall we all have physical copies of the ordinance books anytime there's a change to the ordinance they'll send us a new set of inserts that have to be slotted into the ordinance book and then they make those changes to the e-code which is what's online and includes all of the the ordinances for the cities that's what that professional services is for in the city clerk's office

Thank you, Councilor Yang. Councilor Duran.

Thank you very much. And this is a general question. So I'm just picking it here. So we understand that all ordinance employees and 12 of the 15 unions deferred their COLAs. But I understand that there are still step increases that can occur throughout the year. So I want to understand. just generally and it's really sort of for everybody including in the audience to be aware that there still may be opportunities for people to get different kinds of salary increases even though you know and frankly I do want to thank the ordinance employees and the 12 unions that stepped up and really were willing to make concessions but I also do want to understand you know sort of that that people's salaries might actually be changing other than in the course of dealing with the COLA deferment. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Duran. Councilor McDonough. Thank you, Mr. Sorry. Actually, I think that was- It was a question? Okay. It was sort of a question.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was a very roundabout question.

so you're right counselor that is true uh with the deferral of uh the cola uh that did not forego the potential and and this came up on the floor uh i believe council robinson brought this up a few weeks ago uh it's different i'll try to paint with a broad broad if i could say a broad brush here um Each individual unit's rules and regulations regarding their eligibility for a merit increase is different. For ordinance employees, the timing is January 1st, and so there is a review process, an annual employment review process inherent in the ordinance, and employees supervisor there's a standard form we use they fill out their job performance prior to january 1st and then predicated on a positive review that employee would be eligible for a step now that is you know if they're not at their top step if they are at their top step the department head can make a there's a provision in the ordinance the department head can make a case to the city manager for advanced movement on the tier But that requires a written justification by the department head and then certification by the finance office that it's affordable within the budget for each of the bargaining units. I know off the top of my head, like 1705 has six months step language when you start. And then I believe it makes a switch perhaps to annually. Some of the other council Robinson may know better than I do.

It's actually one year after hire and then every six months.

Six months, thank you. Thank you very much. For some units like 2532, their evaluation timing is different. They may be in the summertime. Some of our public works employees, and I mean specifically in the water and sewer utility, I believe they also have their review done in the summertime. So that will be happening soon for them for this fiscal year. And so that merit-based increase is discretionary, and that is something we discussed on the floor when this came up a few weeks ago. Whether that is affordable or not is a bridge we're going to cross very soon. And so it's not an assumption that everyone will be eligible, but we did budget for it as if those steps were programmed in.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Jermaine. Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a question I think for the city clerk would be the most appropriate place for this. And that would be that this council a few weeks ago voted to increase, we voted a fee increase in the clerk's office. And I understand, if my understanding is correct, we have to be, the city has to be conservative in their projection of how much revenue we're going to bring in through fees. I guess Mr. Baldwin first, right? But my question, thank you for shaking your head so that I know I'm not completely in left field. My question is, we increased the fees rather dramatically. So conservative aside, I would imagine we're going to see to the clerk an increase in revenue in your department if we continue to do business at the same level we did last year, but with increased fees for each transaction. And so I'm wondering what, what we think, how much money we think we're going to bring in, in the clerk's office next year through these increased fees, the clerk.

i believe we made some prior um some projections um before um a subcommittee i think it was um and we just kind of based it on doing the same number we did last year and it would be a pretty good increase um to to the um to our fund our revenue fund there um and we just based that on doing what we did last year um doing the same number every year we've gone up in numbers so i i expect those projections to be even a little better

And I fully understand that we can't add to the budget. I just, while I'm looking here and seeing that we did, right, we increased the vote. We voted to increase the fees. I'm not sure if that was taken into account when we budgeted. And we did also, this budget does propose a reduction on the clerk's office of, I'm guessing, a $61,000 employee, just kind of based on everybody else at that level. One, I guess, one question point of whatever would be if we're going to be able to achieve the same level of service with a reduced office, and then two, if those increase in fees, which are borne by largely by people in the city who have to go pay $25 for a birth certificate, whether we maybe want to reconsider those if we're going to be cutting personnel in the clerk's office. I guess I'm trying to balance the impact to the public of a 4.6% rate increase and higher fee for service and also a reduction in the service providing department.

CFO Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll try to answer that question in this way, that procedurally for estimating revenue in every single fiscal year, I'll try not to get too deep in the weeds. But there is a process by which we have to justify all of our revenue estimates to the Department of Revenue prior to setting the tax rate. I believe there's a requirement in the statute, but it is also the policy of the Department of Revenue to scrutinize those very carefully. And after many years of working with them, I know this to be true. yes i think we estimated the answer to your question is yes that we do expect an increase in revenue and we expect that to be somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars related to the amendment to the fee schedule for the clerk's office a full year's worth of the the new fees however um it is a best practice and and i would go so far as to say a requirement for us to get one year's worth of actuals in uh collected prior to increasing that estimate for the department of revenue it's the same rationale that the you know if we want to increase uh the water or sewer fees and increase our estimate for uh purposes of setting the tax rate, the Department of Revenue looks for a certified copy of the vote to amend the fee, and then six months' worth of actual collections to prove out the increase. And so while it is not programmed in the budget this year, and your points are well taken, it will be next year. And this goes to the manager's point earlier of reassessing if not at the end of the first quarter prior to setting the tax rate. If our revenue estimates are blowing away what we had estimated in their budget, there may be an opportunity for us to sit down and take a look to see if a supplemental appropriation may be in order at that time, in which case we may be able to address some of these staffing issues.

Thank you. Clerk Geary would like to say something.

I've had that discussion with CFO Baldwin, understanding the complexes of his job. I'm just a layman here. He understands that process pretty well. And we've discussed that with Adam. Totally acceptable in terms of my understanding of that, too.

Thank you. Again, I just wanted to make sure where obviously it's a 4.6% rate increase on property taxes. We also increase fees in the clerk's office. And then we're also reducing staff in that department. So that's all. I was just trying to wrap my head around this both as a taxpayer and also as someone who has to use the clerk's office. If I pay more for the service, am I getting less? I WOULD I WOULD ASK I THINK IN THIS ISN'T IN THE FORM OF A MOTION BUT I WOULD ASK THAT WE WE HOLD OFF ON VOTING APPROVAL ON ON THIS PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW BUT THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST MY OPINION THANK YOU COUNCIL MCDONOUGH COUNCIL SCOTT

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We're kind of a little far removed now from what I was going to say. But as far as the charge code, like supplies or anything like that that you're concerned about, the general fund expenditures are posted every quarter on the auditor's website with all the munis charge codes. And it won't help this evening, but you can reach out to the CFO. He will get into the weeds with you over every individual charge if you want more detail on them. So I would just offer that service up, I guess, to anyone that's interested. Thanks.

Councilor Noon.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the clerk. I do appreciate the collaborative work between you and the CFO Baldwin. I do too share some concern as well with the projection of revenue increase and yet the staffing reduction, the one staff reduction. But I trust you and the CFO in working that out when that time comes, which is supplemental appropriation to that staffing, the lack of one staffing. Is it true that one staffing reduction from your office is one to the election office, Mr. Clerk?

He's asking if it's just one person from the office that was reduced.

Yeah, there was one reduction, just one.

Okay, so you also supervise that, the election offices? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Noon, Councilor Robinson, then Councilor Rook.

Thank you in areas like this where we're pretty close. Projected 50 K we cut 61 for for personnel potentially reduction in service and in the department. Again, have we looked at freezing steps and performance raises for ordinance, non-bargain positions, because that would require bargaining to help offset personnel expenditures. We've asked people to give up raises, COLAs. I know negotiated steps and all that, that's too late for that. But ordinance is non-negotiated, non-contractual as far as a collective bargaining agreement. Would that be enough to help save positions in these tight crunches, in these tight areas? The offset from what the steps and the performance evaluation for ordinance employees would be. And this isn't the first time I've brought it up. I mean, we all agree this is a tight year. we're looking for every penny that we can find but yet it seems like we're not even counting that pile of change but we're having discussions about cuts and all that how much is potentially saved from ordinance step raises and performance evaluations because if that if we're shy ten eleven thousand dollars to bring back and provide a service to the public that's gonna increase revenue for the office because it's a small group as is why aren't we leaving no stone unturned

Major Golden.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through to the Council. Council, I think that it committed to doing that. And I think that in July, once we get the final numbers from the Senate and the House, I think this is an opportunity for us to look at this to see how much money is left over. And you are correct in regards to the... the union employees that was not asked but that is something that i will i will uh review is to see how much money that would be for january 1st that money wouldn't take place to january 1st but i don't have that number right now but once we find out where we settle in from the state budget i think that's an appropriate time to have that conversation and see if we should be bringing people back as far as steps go

You would have to budget the money for steps already. And the steps don't occur until people's anniversary dates. Performance evaluations are different. That triggers in January. A step increase?

Mr. Manager? Thank you, Mr. May, through to the council. On ordinance employees, it's January 1st.

For our movement? Yes. Outside of a COLA?

Yes.

Okay. So that would be budgeted in this now? Correct. So there is a dollar amount tied to what we would have to pay?

Correct. And what I'm suggesting is we wait until the state, until we find out what is going to happen with the state number. It may very well be a point that we could get cut and that step increase or that step increase in January will backfill some of the cuts. So all I'm asking for, and a couple of people have been out there here today looking to reinstate people, I'm happy to reinstate people. I would love to reinstate everyone, but I have to wait until July to find out what our final numbers are, hoping that Deacon Hill and the House and the Senate come to a final resolution.

Consolidated number. But I mean, again, I think and that's why I also recommended to go department by department because I know there's positions in the budget that are fully funded with people that have retired. And so there is some money to be saved in this budget, I think, currently to keep people working and not lose them by July.

Mayor Golden.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, through to the council. In some of those situations, those we deemed in talking to all of the department heads, as I stated in my opening speech, we tried to figure out who who we could try to move forward with I mean these cuts have been as all of you know we've talked about this but the goal would be if that person had retired is to keep that particular position and probably put it out we would be doing hiring of one for once for instance if somebody were to retire would probably bring someone on the 50 or so people that we the positions that were not filled, those will have to come back at another date in time. Some of the positions that we laid off will have to come back at a later date in time. if somebody is retiring or on the cusp of retirement we always don't know that people have changed their minds consistently with i think i'm going to retire on june 1st or july 1st and they stick around only to stay around for another year so but some instances we've been operating for six months five months with this person retired so it's not really a necessity for the department at that point

And I think the necessity is now is to keep people working for July and not have to go back and back fill. If they've been providing the service and functioning in that department for five months with that person retired and we're fully budgeting it and it's still not even posted because again, as we're all aware, it's a month, month and a half out from the time you post it till you get a body in that seat. If we can pull out a couple of those, that saves a couple of these positions that we've heard are priorities from the community especially, like Mr. Stahl's position, the one position that's tasked with this. We have other positions where we're seeing potentially a revenue increase because of the front of the house and the services being provided in this area. And so I think to pull out what we can from these fully funded vacancies that aren't going to hurt, The service that have been functioning and providing that service to the residents for quite some time. I'm not saying someone that just retired a week ago and we've yet to see the impact. But I know there are a couple instances where five, six months they haven't skipped a beat and that job's fully funded in this coming budget. So, I mean, I would make a motion to hold off on voting at least this department and continue to look for efficiencies elsewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through to the council. Council, once again, I don't want to have to go through this again about a layoff. I'm extremely concerned with the House and the Senate final numbers. We could do this, bring someone back, and then if the House and Senate numbers are not to the Senate, to our liking, remember, our revenue increased, but also our expenses increased from our cherry sheets. I don't know where we're going to end up. come for July 1st. If they end up retreating back to the House number, we'll be laying these people off again. I don't want to set that false expectation. I have every intention of trying to bring people back. I'm just asking for six weeks until, well, quite frankly, until the House and the Senate come to a final number.

Consolidated number.

The consolidated number could take, it could be done July 1st, could be done August 1st. I don't know. But my real concern is with our cherry sheep numbers going up, our revenue went up as well. So our expenses kind of are splitting our, the, the, the increased revenue from the Senate. There is no indication at this time that the Senate number will prevail over the house.

And I'm not disputing any of that. What I'm pointing out is we have positions with a balanced budget and all those things factored in. Fully funded vacant positions sit in the budget.

Correct. You are correct.

And so take Pool A that's sitting vacant and bring back Employee A. And it's not an increase to what you're presenting at that point.

Correct. But if the numbers do not come in from If the Senate number does not come back here, we could be looking at another cut. It has happened before. They can retreat back to the House budget. I'm very unsure of where our monies are going to come from at this point from the state and the federal government. I'm asking that, yes. If we can July 15th, I would come back to the, to the, uh, council to say it's appropriate to bring two people back for people back. I'd like to bring 32 people back, but I just don't want to have to lay folks off again. I know I hear what you're saying, but this is re this entire budget is razor thin.

But we're being asked to approve a budget with money sitting in an account with no body in that. And then we're losing bodies over here. And if they do cut in July, August, whenever they reconcile those multiple budgets on the state level and it comes back, either way, that money is still sitting in an account with no body.

We could actually end up cutting again.

So then why aren't we cutting that money now and then looking to put it back after we get the final number from the state?

We have been trying to. Unfortunately, this is what we had to go through with the layoffs. This has been a very, you know, we know this is a very unfortunate situation of what's happening. I'm asking and yes, I know this is painful for the people that lost their jobs, but I'm just asking for let's get the final number. We have a balanced budget right now. You are correct, sir. In the sense of we do have an opening. I'm not so sure that we're going to be able to hold on to that opening. That's what I'm trying. That's what I'm trying.

So then why isn't it a dollar? Why is it fully funded then?

because we because every um if you talked to every department head they need every single person they had they they do as i mentioned six months without that person two some of us three if that yeah you see what i'm saying though six months without the person and they need that person it's cfo baldwin

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't know if this adds some additional context, but there are there are often times throughout the year that an employee, a longtime employee retires. And so I'm not sure if this is what you're seeing or exactly if this is what you mean. But we have to pay them out all their accrued time when they leave. And so because of that, it is often that the department is forced to wait. to fill the position, and that may be why a position goes unfilled for some period of time, because if a 30-year employee retires, we have to pay them out their vacation time, 40% of their sick time, or whatever the case may be. The department can't hire right away, because then they would exceed their departmental appropriation. For that fiscal year. I'm sorry?

For that fiscal year.

Assuming this happens this year, yes, in FY26.

FY27 though, there's an employee that retired six months ago that's name still in there and fully budgeted for $70,000.

The personnel list in the budget is put together in March. This is always the case. And so every year, because it's an iterative process, there are sometimes names in the budget that have retired or they may resign between the time that the budget is put together and then by the time we have this conversation in the hearing. Again, we're speaking in generality, so that may not be in every single case, but that may be one of the reasons for what you're seeing in the book.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you Council Robinson Council rook just for you know, so everybody knows that the discussion before. If the administration laid off nobody everybody was the lowest whatsoever. We go from 4.6% tax rate to what do you have that answer.

It's about 1.7 million right feature sentence. So if you down for so it's going to go up 3% so you'd be like 7.6.

Mr. Mayor, your math is very good. Almost 8%. I think that would get us there. You know, the value of the layoffs. Mr. Ball, if you have that, I know you've got those numbers.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the value of the layoffs was approximately $3.9 million. call it a couple 2.5% maybe.

If you want to make the motion to raise the tax rate to 7%, you know, we can go from there. I mean, the times they stake. It's just, you know, everybody's ill with it and it's lousy and, you know, that's why we're here. But that's the alternative. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Council mercy. Thank you, Mister me a motion to approve the bottom line figure of the city clerk's a portion of the budget.

Motion by Council mercy to approve the bottom line of the city clerk's seconded by Council Dakota on the point of order that didn't come to the Robins and at some point in his comments make a motion to defer this vote.

Yeah, and he didn't get a second, so I made the motion.

I didn't think it was, okay. I would have seconded it.

You can speak on what the motion is before you.

Right, okay. Well, on this motion, I'm not, we haven't closed debate yet, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I'm not going to support the bottom line number on this office. And the reason I'm not going to support the bottom line on this is not because I want to vote no on it. It's because I think Councillor Robinson is correct in that we have a number of departments where I think there are concerns and questions both of the council and of a number of speakers tonight. And we are under no obligation to take this vote before we get through the rest of the budget. And to Councillor Robinson's point, the choice, it's not a binary between uh increasing the tax rate to eight percent that's not the only option and i think counselor robinson's point is well taken that i'm gonna hope i i got some stuff circled in here i'm gonna hope that that there are gonna be efficiencies found tonight and that this council is going to approve some cuts and that is going to free up money and then i i think if we've already approved a budget with a That's all I'm saying is that at the end of the night, if we wind up with a pool of money, hopefully, I'm not even saying what job goes back. I'm just saying I think in departments that there have been changes and we are getting pushback, perhaps we hold off on approval until we see how much money the council finds in cuts if we find any. I'm not saying not to even take the vote tonight. I'm just saying to do it after.

Councilor Duran?

THANK YOU. SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REVENUE INCREASES IN THE CITY CLERK'S BUDGET WOULD MAKE SENSE IF IT WERE AN ENTERPRISE FUND. BUT THE MONEY THAT IS RAISED BY ANY FEES THAT ARE PAID FOR CLERK SERVICES I ASSUME GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND. so i don't think we should be looking just department by department for how the revenue gets offset by the expenses and i think that's an important unless i'm wrong i i would not view it that way i would view it as this is the whole pool of money um

is that okay that sounds like that's in that yes i okay i'll put it on the right i have a second but that that is the uh that is the essence of municipal finance law that the general fund uh is the major operating funds all revenues belong to the general fund they don't belong to any particular department So while we do, and this is a, it's for form over necessarily purpose, the budget financing plan for each department is demonstrated to communicate to the public that there are certain types of revenue that go to help support each particular department. That does not mean that, for the example of the clerk's office, that the marriage licenses and the business permits and the garage and gas, the $85,000 in revenue supports a position or supports a particular component. Those are all general fund revenues, but we do this as a communication tool to the public. The law is that all revenue received by the city is general fund revenue.

Okay, thank you. And I think the point about asking ordinance employees to give up step raises, I know we had the discussion back on May 5th, I think, was our meeting, at which there was, when we amended the COLA for ordinance employees, and there was a discussion about steps. I WAS SURPRISED WE WERE GIVING STEPS TO ANYBODY. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK IT'S HARD TO ASK THE ORDINANCE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE ALREADY GIVEN UP THE COLA WHEN 12 OF THE 15 AND NOT ALL THE UNIONS HAVE GIVEN IT UP TO THEN ALSO GIVE UP THE STEP INCREASES, YOU KNOW, JUST BLANKET. So I think, you know, we have to think about it clearly in everything that we're doing, including how we handle the layoffs, but also how we're treating employees going forward. I think we need to be fair in how we're treating them and just not sure that I would support. Well, I know I wouldn't support treating, you know, one group necessarily different than others.

Councilor Duran, just for a point to you. Oh, thank you. Is that ordinance people have a grid that they go across, and then when they finish that grid, they're able to bump into another grid and go across, and then another one, another one, where unions only have a certain number of steps, and then it ends. So there's a major difference between some of them.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Thank You mr. Mayor I guess my concern over you know doing it the way we're talking about with the clerk's office is that it feels like we're prioritizing what additions we want to add with funding and that's not really what we're doing at this point in time if the decision was made at the end you know we make cuts that's still going to be the city managers decision on how those positions are brought back and So I kind of don't like us targeting one department like this kind of saying this department, you know Because there's lots of people here that are you know, equally concerned about their lack of staff within their departments We're in an awful situation right now And the other thing that had been brought up is the state tax Possible drop and the tax rate which could really hurt the district going into the fall that we need to keep in mind as well. Thank you Thank you.

There's a motion to approve by council mercy a seconded by councillor Dakota roll call. I

Council Rourke? Yes. Council Scott? Yes. Council Chau? Yes. Council Decoto? Yes. Mayor Gitche?

I would like to abstain.

Council Duran? Yes. Council Liang? No. Council McDonough? No. Council Mercier? Yes. Council Noon? Yes. Council Robinson? No.

Most of us. Page 2.71 city managers personnel. Services 1,500,000 $928 city major ordinary expenses 6 million $487,900 82 dollars. Any discussion. What page please page 2.71.

What about the election? Election? You missed the election?

I'm just going by this. We're going to get to the election. I'm just going by the sheet I was given. We certainly will get to it.

Move for approval.

Motion by Council Dakota seconded by Council rock to approve. Any questions.

Council McDonough.

I do. The clerk just happened to be the first department, so I'm going to have the same question I have on this one, which is just there are a number and I'm to kind of not to respond, but to try and be clear here, I'm not trying to prioritize any department. What I'm trying to do is say if we're going to go through a budget and I sure hope that we find efficiencies in this budget as we go through it, we can't We can recommend all we want but we can't tell the manager what positions to add But where we do have a number of positions that have been reduced and we have people that have left a job I'm just asking that in those positions The neighborhood liaison for as an example, I think was like a $50,000 position ish so I again I'm going to go both ways here, in the manager's office, in the clerk's office, in any office. $50,000 is not a lot of money. I'm not saying it's the first, the top of the list, the bottom of the list, anywhere on the list. I'm just saying that if we wind up with even $100,000 in cuts, Mr. Manager, I would, before we approve the budget, like to give you the opportunity to use that $100,000 if there's a position you wanted back. That's all I'm looking for.

And I agree that if you find the cuts, the manager will find the place to hire people back. He can absolutely do it afterwards. Yep. He can do it through the hiring process. Councilor Yang.

I'm the same thing where I know Mr. Conner said, you know, you don't want to get into the weed. Whatever that the weed is, I like to go there because some of the uh staff that have been let go they're not like union staff that have somebody to fight for them and win they're sitting at home right now hoping that a city manager can dig some place and maybe get them back and support their family like for example mr you know stephen at the Low Historic, Tara at the Senior Center, Malika at the Police Department, or Eric at the Manager's Office. These are names. Point of order. You can't be using names, Counselor. You can't use names. It's public information. No. Fine. community facing people and I'm trying to point out certain places maybe the city manager can look at maybe can get some of these people back I'm like I said if the weed is deep let's go and then we can just find something to get these people maybe back and get back to work like I said if there's nobody fight for them and at least we're looking at something for example salary reserve We need to look at what is the salary reserve marketing at $150,000. What is this marketing for? If these two items can add together and get maybe the neighborhood liaison back, who knows? But these are some of the things that we can look at and point out and see. There's a possibility here. And again, there's advertising here, even though it's a small amount. It's something that we can add together from the beginning to the end. Maybe we can have a few position back. That's all I'm looking at.

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If if I may, Mr. Mayor, I'd be happy to address some of the questions that came up, counselor. But I also would like to provide some clarification to the council. So you asked about a few of the accounts in the manager's department. Perfectly reasonable questions. The salary reserve, I will point out is so there's $100,000 budgeted in the city manager's department. That is the budget for the one month's worth of the 2%. So when we negotiated with all the unions, one of the sticking points with the unions was that they needed to see that the number was somewhere in the budget, because we asked them to take the 2% deferral, but for 11 months, and then we committed to them through that negotiation process that they would be able to see, and it's not a huge dollar figure, but that $100,000 is that commitment that we made to the unions. So when we get later in the fiscal year, the administration will propose a transfer to the council to take that $100,000 and populate it into the department so that we can institute the 2% effective June 1st. That's one thing. You asked about advertising and about marketing. Mr. Rocha is maybe able to provide additional context. There are programs paid for out of that department some of our um well i'll circle back around to that uh one of the sort of points of clarification i hope to make because this has come up a couple of times and likely will again reductions made by the city council the law is is clear about this that the reductions made by the city council will reduce the bottom line they don't necessarily move into a special account. I watch a lot of the school committee meetings and they have this process of a suspense account. That is not something that applies here or is afforded in chapter 44 of the general laws. a notion that money can be reduced and then come back for later i just want to address that now because a reduction to the manager's office or the clerk's office or the finance department of a hundred thousand dollars is going to reduce the bottom line uh for the appropriation order by a hundred thousand dollars but then that's that's that so i i hope that provides some clarification um i don't know if there's if melissa may have uh some additional information about marketing or if there's additional questions i'm happy to address those thank you mr mayor for giving me the time council robinson

Thank you, Mister mayor. I just have a couple questions. With the stipend, I noticed it's 25. I don't have a problem with it. I was just, what is it used for? Because I see we're budgeting 25, 26. We budgeted 25 as well, so consistency. But we only actually used 14 in 25, and 12, nine in 24. I'm okay with it. I'm just curious as to what that's used for.

CFO Baldwin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the manager's office is comprised of three different divisions, one of which is the cable access division. So the cable access includes the funding that you see a little bit further down the page for $178,000. That's the contract for LTC. There is some equipment funding that's provided to the schools. And then the stipend, there's two line items that are sort of on top of each other. The stipend is for cable coordination. So the city cable coordinator, there's a stipend associated with that. It's funded by that line item. And then right above that, there's a salary account for

113 000 that goes to the schools to pay for staff in the cregan studio so it's all related to channel 22 public uh education access thank you very much and then another thing that jumps out at me is um school electricity i i know you explained that we pay that out of that account it's a little concerning though um fy 26 it was 2.6 we budgeted fy 25 actual was 3.1 this year we're at 2.8 I mean with increases to clearly utilities is that going to be enough I think we're shooting ourselves very low with that and and that's uncontrolled cost there's not much you can do but at least you're comfortable with that start heading into the fiscal year and hopefully we can get through with that number as well as the heating and gas um FY26 was budgeted, 1.7. FY25, 1.6. We did jump up with an increase on the heat side of things for gas, but I don't see the same for electricity, so I hope that's enough to get us there. And I would like to make a motion to cut 20K, just because I see we budgeted 25 and 26. and the actual in 25 was 0 24 was 0 and we budgeted 20 for mosaic Lowell and if we're not using that then maybe we look to pull that money motion by council Robinson cut $20,000 from the city managers ordinary expenses count seconded by a council of McDonough so why is it there you're full ball

uh thank you mr mayor uh it was only first budgeted in fy 2026 so there was no history to go on it came on the heels of the creative economy plan that the greater low community foundation and mosaic put forward this is used in in collaboration between the case office and the greater low community foundation to fund public art various programs etc related to the public art And it's a partnership with the Greater Low Community Foundation. It is being used in this year, the full amount. We did reduce the request for next year, but I suppose it may be a nice to have, although the creative economy is very near and dear to my own heart. So, thank you.

Thank you. So what was the actual for 26 then? Council.

You're calling to me?

rook had the floor then it went over to council robinson council robinson mr mayor mr mayor if i may

It's the ball and the full amount was spent the 25,000 was fully spent already.

Okay, thank you.

I'd like to withdraw that cut that yeah with from a couple is.

Council Scott. Council and just just one question follow up.

Thank you, Mister mayor through to CFO Baldwin. On the school of the electricity last Council meeting we we did a transfer. to the school electricity, and that's probably based on FY 2026, right? So are you confident that the amount asking 2027? It's okay. CFO Bond?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. These amounts, all of the energy accounts were provided to us by the Sustainability Division and DPW. So we do have a level of confidence in the amounts that have been budgeted. It is an increase over the prior year, and you are correct, Councilor, that we did seek a supplemental transfer just recently in the electricity account. I think Councilor Robinson said it best that this is our best starting point. It is based on usage, but there are delivery costs and supply costs related to energy that we are concerned about. So I can't sit here and tell you that we won't need additional money for the schools come the spring of next year related to electricity or for heating. We will be in much better shape as it relates to heating because of the increase in the budget. So we feel more comfortable with that. in some of our energy initiatives we hope will bear fruit this year and help us keep under that number. It is also worth mentioning that dollar for dollar, this is a budget that we expend on our side, but that does count towards net school spending. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilor Noon. Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have one more question about contracted services. It looks like fiscal 24 actual is 168. 25 was 154. We budgeted 178. We're going 178 again. I'm just wondering what we're spending. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This line here is for the LTC contract for Lowell Telecommunications. We are proposing a level fund. They, I'm sure, would be happy to get more money. And we are committed to working with them if there's additional funding that comes in via the PEG revenue. If it's possible to supplement this, we will because they are great partners.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McDonough. Roll call.

Councilor Rourke. Yes. Councilor Scott. Yes. Councilor Chau. Yes. Councilor Decoto. Yes. Mayor Gitche. Yes. Councilor Duran. Yes. Councilor Liang. Yes. Councilor McDonough. Yes. Councilor Mercier. Yes. Councilor Noon.

Yes.

Councilor Robinson.

Yes.

Thank you, Mister clerk page to 80. City manager cultural is in special events, personal services, $298,361. Page to 80. Move to approve. Approval by Councillor Rook, seconded by Councillor Scott. Any questions? Councillor Yang.

Can you explain what human relation is? Is that the same one? I'm sorry, I'll go back.

Seeing no questions, roll call.

Council Rourke. Yes. Council Scott. Yes. Council Chau. Yes. Council Nicoto. Yes. Mayor Gitche. Yes. Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang. Yes. Council McDonough. Yes. Council Mercier. Yes. Council Noon. Yes. Council Robbins.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Page 292, finance, personal services, $393,050. Ordinary expenses, zero. Councilor Durant.

I do have a question as to why the ordinary expenses are zero for this department or this category. Thank you. CFO Baldwin.

Thank you. This is my department, and we have only ever had about $1,000 or $500 in ordinary expenses that we use to print the budget books. We're now doing a digital budget book, so we're trying to be more lean. So we've zeroed out our ordinary expenses. We rely on the goodwill of the city manager for pen and paper and notepads, sticky pads, et cetera.

SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS. COUNSEL MCDONALD.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND AND I'M NOT. YOU DON'T HAVE ORDINARY EXPENSES. THE SALARIES ARE UP A LOT. in the last several years, right? So fiscal year 24, it looks like, well, no, that would be added together, right? So it would be $292 total on the department in fiscal 24, because there was a salary permanent 108 and then another one at 174, which would make it a lot higher. So I initially looked at the number, and I went, whoa, it doubled. But it didn't double. I just was slow.

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you. It's a very astute observation. We previously budgeted in the appropriation order a separate department for the budget department. And so as we've consolidated the two together for purposes of the book, they are very small departments. It's Mr. Ball and myself. So if you look back to the prior year actuals, they're split up into two separate departments, but now they're combined together. Thank you.

Councilor Noon.

Just a question on personnel list. From you to CFO Baldwin, you have here APA grant fiscal coordinator and APA finance manage. This APA, I thought APA's funding is gone. Could you explain that?

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Excellent question. In almost all circumstances, ARPA is completed and positions related to it end December 31st, 2026. We ended them in the budget for almost all purposes for 6-30-26, except for these two positions here that come under the finance department. This is the two arpa administrative staff so the the grant manager and her assistant there will be work for them and these this is explicitly allowed under the arpa final rule because they will be heavily involved they the lion's share of their work right now is preparing and submitting the quarterly report to the u.s treasury But there will be a significant amount of time and work related to post-audit. Having gone through the CARES audit just a couple of years ago, I can certainly attest to the level of questions that go back and forth. And that was only on a $9 million grant. This is $76 million. I expect the federal government's going to have some questions for us about what we did with the money. And so Ms. Finnecaro and Ms. Chun are going to be there to help answer those along with Mr. Ball and myself. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Noon. Seeing no other questions, roll call. I need a motion. A motion by Councilor Noon, seconded by Councilor Marcia, to accept the Finance Department as proposed.

Council Rourke? Yes. Council Scott? Yes. Councilor Chau? Yes. Councilor Decoto? Yes. Mayor Gitche? Yes. Councilor Duran? Yes. Councilor Liang? Yes. Councilor McDonough? Yes. Councilor Marcia? Yes. Councilor Noon? Yes. Councilor Robinson?

Yes.

11 years. Next is auditing page 300. Page 300.

Motion to approve.

Motion approved by Councilor DeCotto, seconded by Councilor Noon. Any questions? Seeing none, roll call.

Council Rourke? Yes. Council Scott? Yes. Council Chau? Yes. Council Decoto? Yes. Mayor Gitche? Yes. Council Duran? Yes. Council Liang?

Yes.

Council McDonough? Yes. Council Mercier? Yes. Council Noon? Yes. Council Robinson?

Yes.

11 ayes. Next is purchasing, page 308. Purchasing personnel services, $307,114. Purchasing ordinary expenses, $125,964. Any questions? Council Yang.

I just cannot be asking this. Advertising and professional services, can you give us just a little bit on explanation on that a little bit?

Mr. Vaughn. Excuse me. Advertising is a requirement of the state. For every bid we do, so that's exclusively Lowell Sun. And we're roughly about $15,000 to $16,000 a year right now on spending. Every bid that we put out must be advertised. And professional services is for the telephone account for the entire city.

The what?

The telephone account for the entire city. So we still have landlines for the fax machines and other places, even though we have a lot more of the... digital stuff that mis controls thank you thank you councillor yang councillor jordan

Just a related question to the telephone exchange, because I did notice that DPD has a line item for telephone. So I was curious how those two things connect.

The ones that the departments have are cell phone. So they might use it for cell phones or iPads when they want connectivity out in the field, like the inspectors and things like that. That tends to be what each department has.

Got it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Duran. Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mean, this is almost a $50,000 increase in professional services, which I'm now learning is our telephone bill. Have we looked at reducing the number of, are there any cost saving measures, maybe not for tonight, but that we can look at for trying to reduce our landline phone bill in 2026?

Mr. Ball.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor, I just want to let you know, so right now I'm working on a project. It's kind of on hold with the budget going on right now, but I'm working on a project with an outside vendor right now to run through all of our lines, see if any of them are not used or whether we can reduce them. It is ongoing. I actually have a meeting with them on Thursday again to restart it, but it's just on hold right now. But we are looking into that. Thank you.

And additionally, all the copper lines right now are being looked at because Verizon's taking them out. So we're going to fiber where we have to. And if we don't have to, we're bringing them over to TPX, which is no cost.

Thank you. Motion by Councilor Rourke, seconded by Councilor Scott to approve assessing. I mean, I'm sorry, to approve purchasing. Roll call.

Council Rourke? Yes. Council Scott? Yes. Council Chau? Yes. Council Decoto?

Yes.

Mayor Gitche? Yes. Council Duran? Yes. Council Liang?

Yes.

Council McDonough? Yes. Council Mercier? Yes. Council Noon? Council Robinson?

Ten years.

Ten years. Reset page 317 assessors personnel services. 659,000 $130. Susser ordinary expenses $117,500 and $43. Any questions. To approve by Council rock seconded by Council Dakota. Council mcdonough.

I'm going to ask the question for Councilor Liang this time. One is going to be the advertising, and the second is going to be reimbursement and seminars. It looks like actual in 25 was just over $3,300. I don't know, I didn't check the actual spending on this particular department. $20,000 budgeted 26, we're going to carry that over.

Through you, Mr. Mayor. So you had a question on which one?

It's only $1,500, so it's really low money on advertising. And then the $20,000 for transportation reimbursement and seminars.

OK, so beginning with the advertising, this is a certification year for the department. So we are going to have expenses that we don't typically have by state law. We have to do public disclosures and publish those so that will be will incur those costs. regarding transportation reimbursement and seminars, the, this line item actually is primarily stipends that are contractual. So where you see the 25 actual it's because funds were moved up to salary to cover the union stipends for the field staff that is required to do that work. Okay.

Any other questions? Councilor DiPietro.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just curious, the decrease in professional service from 49,000 to 18,000, why such a steep decrease?

Okay, so again, because we're in a certification year, if this council recalls, I think I was here back in October and we did a appropriation from our overlay account to fund the certification and this so we're already well into that and that way I was able to lower this for thank you very much 27 thank you

Councilor Duran.

Similarly, or there was kind of an inverse in that the data processing equipment and supply went up almost threefold. So it's just curious about that. Thank you.

Certainly through you, Mr. Mayor. Councilor, that $48,500 is a $30,000 increase that reflects a contract with a company called Just Appraised, which will do deed processing for us. It creates a really large efficiency within my department, so it equates to about $2,500 a month in expense, but also eliminates a lot of error that typically occurs and a very time-consuming, labor-intensive process.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Duran. Any other questions? Seeing none, roll.

Council Rourke. Yes. Council Scott. Yes. Council Chau. Yes. Council Dakota. Yes. Amir Gitche. Yes. Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang. Yes. Council McDonough. Yes. Council Mercier. Yes. Council Noon.

Yes.

Council Robinson.

Thank you. 10 years. Page 326 treasurer's office. Treasurer personnel services $665,730. Ordinary expenses $369,836. Move approval by Councilor Noon, seconded by Councilor Chau. Any questions? Councilor Duran.

Just a quick question about postage on page 326, it went down $18,000. I'm just curious about it.

It's the CFO.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to answer this on behalf of the treasurer. The postage account is budgeted for in the treasurer's office, but it provides the funding for postage for all of the mail that goes out of City Hall. It is... likely, very likely that we will need to spend more than $149,000. We try to limit our mailings as much as possible. This is one of the areas we know this will fund us through at least the middle of the year when we will have a better A better guess as to what the full year needs will be, and then we will look to other areas of the budget, such as free cash or potential surpluses and other departments to supplement it. But it really does depend heavily on the tax bills, the mailings that happen in the beginning of the year to determine how much will be needed. It is why if you look back at FY24 and FY25 actuals, they're closer to 300. I think 300 is really the true number. But if there are things like a special election or other activities that would generate a lot of mail, then it's going to drive that number higher and we'll have to pivot to find additional funds.

Any other questions? Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do have one question, which is, I'm curious with the tax title fees, which increased quite a bit from 25 to 26, and then we carried over that number in 26, but I can only see the actual for 25, obviously, because 26 isn't over yet. So just any information on the tax title fees, which, again, looked like they went from $63,000 up to just over $150,000.

Mr. Treasurer. Thank you. The tax title fees are used to place tax title ads, about $50,000 of that for tax title ads when we make advertisements, notifying events. And then there's residual redemption fees for when we file redemptions with the Registry of Deeds. and any related land court fees associated with that as well.

Mr. McDonough, the floor is yours. Thank you. That part of the rules always trips me up. Okay. So I wanted to make sure that I had that before I asked the next one then, which is, I guess I'm wondering how our tax title fees have gone up like this, but it doesn't really look like we're collect, Mr. Mayor, it doesn't look like we're collecting too many. We're not pursuing these tax titles, I guess, is what it looks like. I'm happy to be corrected. I did see there's a Munis report through May that it looks like there's $12.5 million in outstanding tax title money. And I'm just wondering how we're spending more money advertising the tax titles if we're not collecting. I'm missing something, I think. I'm open to being wrong. CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm happy to take a stab at this, although the team here, the treasurer, the auditor, who used to be the treasurer, and then the solicitor, all have some knowledge in this. So please, if I miss anything. The city of Lowell has a significant amount, as you alluded to, of outstanding tax title accounts, some of which are notoriously hard to collect on and date back to the 70s and the 80s. It has been that way for my entire career here. But there is also the annual tax title process by which we put unpaid accounts into tax title. It is our way to preserve our interest in the property. And so the primary focus, and this is another one of those operations that's sort of an interdepartmental collaboration because it's the staff in the law department, but also the treasurer's office that work on this. So the budget is in the treasurer's office, but the law department draws from it as they're doing the legal work, the paralegal in the law department. works towards addressing the current tax titles. Ways that we have had some success in the past have been through the tax lien auction and other methods. But the, I'm forgetting the name of the case, but the Supreme Court case that changed how municipalities have to treat tax title really limited our ability to go after what are the most ripe of tax title properties. And so until we have, and that's fairly recent, that Supreme Court case, so until we have a better picture as to what our new strategy should be. Our options are to write all of this off, which we're not necessarily willing to do at this point, or to continue to sort of address it bit by bit. So the answer to your question is yes, there is a significant amount outstanding. We are addressing it, but it's the only thing that comes to mind is shoveling against the tide. It is a very uphill battle trying to address some of these old tax titles. It's difficult to find the people who have interest in the property. It's difficult to find know to follow the procedure outlined under the general laws to collect on these but we do to the tune of perhaps a million dollars a year collect on them one of the other pieces that's relevant is that we cannot estimate those as estimated receipts by the rules of the department of revenue so even though we do collect upwards of a million dollars in in tax liens redeemed we can't estimate that as a receipt because In the eyes of the Department of Revenue, that would be like double counting those tax collections. And so I hope that provides some context, but if there's anything I missed that the solicitor or the auditor might want to add, I'd be happy to. It does provide a good bit of context.

I was, my, I don't know, someone told me to stop saying concern, but I have yet to find a better word. I don't mean it in a bad way. My concern here, though, is WE'RE SPENDING MORE ON THE TAX TITLE FEES. IT DOESN'T LOOK, AND I CHECKED WITH THE, I LOOKED AT THE REPORT AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND CHECKED WITH THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND THERE'S NO RECORDED, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE REGISTRY, THERE'S NO RECORDED tax taking and recorded in 2025 or yet recorded in 2026. And maybe I missed a vacant parcel, but I did look and it's not just the 1970s. There are a number and this isn't criticism or this is genuine kind of, you know, pay your taxes. people right like we have layoffs across the city we we have um a significant budget shortfall and i i'm looking at a at a report with 12 and a half million dollars of uh and there are some frequent flyers on here right with they do same guy with 20 properties and you don't pay taxes on any of them and it it irritates me i i believe you when you say that you and the law department, the treasurer, are working on it. But to see a shortfall like that bothers me quite a bit, to see that we haven't been able to. And I know that there was a Supreme Court case, and the amount of money that we're able to recover in the process did change. And so I get that. I do hesitate on $150,000 in tax title fees, though, if we're not recovering the tax titles. That's all. Thank you.

Is this CFO?

uh perhaps to provide some additional context um and counselor please i could not agree more with the uh you know the pay your taxes uh sort of mantra here we do collect anywhere and i just pulled it up in munis uh anywhere between 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars in redemptions each year so In my estimation, it feels like a good value to spend the money to go through the process to get, you know, a million dollars, million and a half dollars a year, but it is It is, like I said, an uphill battle. Please pay your taxes. Our options are limited, but we are working with the law department to try to come up with some additional. The options that were available to us before the tax lien auction, other auction type procedures, those were beneficial. And they brought us a lot of money, but the problem and this was one of the underlying reasons for the Supreme Court case, in my opinion, was that companies that would purchase those liens in bundles oftentimes would foreclose on a property because of an outstanding water bill. So you would see an instance where somebody missed a water bill, it was liened to their property, it got bundled up, the purchaser would purchase it, and then would own their condo because of a $300 missed loan. So it was for good reason, we understand that, but there has to be a way for municipalities to attack this problem. So thank you for letting me rant, Mr. Mayor.

Solicitor Williams.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's Tyler V. Hennepin, was the Supreme Court case. I'm actually very surprised that you didn't know that. in in massachusetts sort of that followed suit with that was um a case in the city of lemonster and in massachusetts they changed how all of this is going to happen and that's why in discussions with the city manager we sort of hit the pause button on the um the tax takings Because they give you really two options now. You can either take a property for municipal use or not. And if you're going to redeem a property or go through the process and foreclose, and you're going to keep it for municipal use, any equity that still exists on the property has to be paid out to the property owner almost immediately. It's 30, 60 days. And if Stephanie was there, she would know that off the top of her head. Or if you're intending on selling it, you know, you take it over. And in that scenario, you know, you have to say that's the end appraisal. We actually have to use a real estate broker now under the actual law in order to do it. So it's an involved in likely will put the city in a scenario. We're going to have to have like a.

a lot of money kind of like startup cash to to make that happen we would like to do that eventually it's just um waiting i think for the for the right opportunity and that explanation uh mr mayor from the solicitor makes a lot of sense and i feel a good deal better i i got very irritated looking and i fully i also fully understand the pause button especially when it comes to you know 300 on the water bill list i think the cfo had alluded to and it's somebody's home where I where I really get frustrated and where I wish we could unpause and I understand that there's a cost is when I see commercial properties in that owe tens of thousands of dollars or a repeat a frequent flyer landlord who has you know 20 plus properties and he doesn't want to pay his taxes on any of them it's those cases that I really wish that we could uh kind of fast track some some and I get it a lot changed but that that really that gets me thank you

Thank you comes with a council Scott actually the solicitor actually said part of what I was going to mention, but I'm the only consolation for that is that the paying 14% interest in fees and redemption fees and everything else when they go to take the property out of tax title so thank you.

Thank you Council Scott Council Robinson.

thank you mr mayor through you to the solicitor um with properties like that uh property owners that are repeat offenders and have significant backlog is there anything tied to occupancy permits because if these are rental properties um they're required of occupancy permits how are we issuing updated occupancy permits if you have a backlog of of that on the repeat of violators

Assistant City Manager Giovanni Rose.

thank you um yes so that's all recorded in munis if people owe taxes or have outstanding um bills to the city we can place a hold on munis that will flag so if if you know they they talk to one person and then try to come in and pull a permit speaking to another staff member um as soon as the clerks go in it'll like you get like a banner right at the top of munis that says like you can't issue anything until this gets sorted out so we do have a mechanism by which we can ensure that we're not issuing like new permits to people if they have outstanding things that they need to address with the city.

And are we tracking any of this through the organizations that issue vouchers with the voucher programs because they they tend to have a lot of turnover it seems like in some of those properties where a lot of times the landlords are not local and so if they do have that lack shouldn't that we be included on the occupancy permit on turnover with the voucher programs.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. No, so they wouldn't issue a rental certificate if that was the case, which those places are all required to do, so we could get them on rental inspections.

So that would flag in that process?

We don't go through the voucher program. There's no list, but when they go in for their rental inspection, that's when we would get them. Okay. It's all tied to the owner, right?

Thank you.

Any other questions? Roll call.

Council Rourke? Yes. Council Scott? Yes. Council Chau? Yes. Council Nicoto? Yes. Mayor Gitche? Yes. Council Duran? Yes. Council Liang? Yes. Council McDonough? Yes. Council Mercia? Yes. Council Noon? Yes. Council Robinson?

Yes.

Levin-Yays. Levin-Yays. Page 334, human relations. Personnel services, $500,747. Ordinary expenses, $53,400. Motion to accept. Councilor Rourke, seconded by Councilor Scott. Any discussion? Councilor Lang.

I just have one question. What's DEI initiative?

Mr. Manager. Mr. Baldwin. CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The things that we have used this budget for in the past have been for trainings. I believe it is what funded the training with Middlesex Community College for city employees, some of the DEI training we did. with senior management. It has also gone to fund some of the events like the culinary celebration that has brought in the diverse restaurants in the city for the event at the auditorium, etc. But it's the cost center for those types of initiatives that are uh put in place by the uh the hr department in collaboration with the um the dei officer thank you you're very welcome sir manager golden oh sorry mr mcdonough

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would actually, I'd like to make a motion to cut that $30,000. I think I sat on the nonprofit subcommittee. We've talked a number of times on the CDBG money. We denied applications for references to DEI as well as a number of other Pieces of language and now to see that in the city budget for $30,000. I think that's a that's a pretty. So I'm going to make the motion. We'll see if I get a second, but I would like to cut the $30,000. However, I have to phrase this from the operations line for human really.

Is that what I would do? Motion to cut $30,000 from the ordinary expense account by Council McDonough, seconded by Council Liang. Discussion on it.

Yeah discussion Council Scott. Yes, ma'am So so I understand where you're coming from on that But the reason that was done is because the federal government required that on their grant applications That is not something that's required of us in our city budget to eliminate the word dei And I think the use of the funds is is a good use for the funds so that so I'm not going to spoil that Thank you

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T REQUIRED, BUT I THINK IT SORT OF FEELS LIKE CUTTING OFF OUR NOSE TO SPITE OUR FACE TO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD RATHER IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE HERE you know given its purpose is much is you know for a variety of things that I think are good for building community in the city so if the concern is that somehow this is running afoul of anything then we should change the language but not cut the money

THANK YOU, COUNCIL JORDAN. COUNCIL MCDONOUGH, THEN COUNCIL DAKOTA.

I AGREE. SO I'M IN A HARD SPOT, RIGHT? IT'S NOT JUST THE WORD. IT'S THAT I'M REALLY TRYING HERE TO FIND SOME FLUFF, RIGHT? ANYTHING. AND I GET IT, THE FOOD PROGRAMS ARE GREAT. It's hard, and this is not the first time in this budget tonight that these questions have come up. Sometimes it's me, sometimes it's somebody else, where a line item has an appropriation and it's not always super clear what it is. And I do appreciate some of the explanation that was given to the counselor that asked the question about what this money was. My question would be that in 2025, maybe I'm moving to cut too much, but in fiscal 25, we spent $19,000. We have budgeted $30,000. Even 10 grand right like I'm just trying to figure out how much we've actually spent out of this appropriation changing the name is great But I also would like to know you know Regularly what we're spending and we're laying off people across the city and we're raising taxes 4.6% So I love food programs too, but but at some point we got to start somewhere CFO

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I may, I know a motion was made, but some additional context. I'm looking through the account as we speak, and there are other. So it is how we pay for the employee appreciation day, as well as what perhaps is, in my opinion, maybe the most important thing. It's how we pay for our translation services. So we have either a professional services agreement or perhaps they're on the state contract, but it's how we pay for translation services as well. Not related to the police department who have their own budget for translation. So it would only be sort of city hall related translation services, just to be clear.

Can I ask what our year to date, or how much have we expended for fiscal year 26?

Right. It's thinking. Sorry, give me one second.

Oh, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ball. Currently, we have spent just over $8,300, and we have about another $2,400 encumbered as well. So call it $10,000. $10,500.

Can I amend the motion and cut this by $15,000?

If it's OK with the person who seconded my motion, I would like to amend my motion then. And if I'm doing math in my head correctly here, that, what? $10,000. OK. I'll go $10,000. I mean, it's funny, but I'll do it. Yeah. I would like to make a motion to reduce it to $15,000. Being serious, I've been sitting here a long time. We all have. I would like to amend the motion to reduce that by $15,000.

Motion by Council mcdonough to reduce the cut to $15,000 or the account to $15,000 seconded by Council yang.

Council Scott just a quick clarification. Is this what's paying for the new like language services down in the in the city Hall lobby here. I just want to make sure that we're not. CFO Baldwin.

I do not believe so, although I'll look over to my colleague. I think that's you. I think we fund that through MassHire.

We've stopped that. MassHire doesn't have translators. We're not using it anymore. Okay.

Will it be funded through this line item?

the auditor is is indicating is that those employees sitting there now are city employees so they're working on their city time so it wouldn't be charged to another account there it would just be their own salary and wages as they're there that okay okay thank you roll call on the motion to cut the fifteen thousand dollars council rock yes council scott yes council chad no

Councilor Cotto?

No.

Mayor Gitche? Yes. Councilor Duran? No. Councilor Liang?

Yes.

Councilor McDonough?

Yes.

Councilor Murcia? No. Councilor Noon? No. Councilor Robinson?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Roll call on the human relations budget. Do we have a 3 of motion. You have to revise the number. Yes, let's revise it down first.

I can I have a free Mister mayor.

I'm sorry.

So the personnel services remains the same and 500,747 dollars and the new ordinary expense line item becomes 38,400. Could you repeat that. Sure. So the personnel services line item stays the same, $500,747, and the new ordinary expense line item becomes $38,400, 38400.

How did that drop that much? That doesn't, yeah, I guess you're right, it does. Yep, you're right. Yep, perfect. Motion to approve the personnel services at $500,000, $747,000, and then with the ordinary expenses at $38,400 by Councilor Rourke, seconded by Councilor Robinson. Roll call.

Mr. Mayor.

I'm sorry.

One simple question. What's the employee community liaison position does?

Mister manager.

We're on the same.

Same budget line? Oh, 336.

Can you repeat that councillor Yang?

Oh, I just want the role of this position, because I was trying to understand what other community liaison position as well.

HR Director Oswald. Through you, Mr. Mayor, to council members, that's just a, the work in the community still goes on, and that position was needed so that there is a connection between what happens in the community and City Hall can still go on.

Council Leung, you have the floor.

So I just, because what connected me was the position that the city manager has and this position where the relationship is. And I just wanted to make sure, clarify that this one is connecting with the community as well, not just employee, right? Correct.

Councilor McDonough.

Sorry, I still don't really understand. It's an almost $100,000 a year position. What is the job? What's the function of this position? In some sort of way that I can understand what the job is.

Mr. Osborne. The best that I can describe it, it is a connection to the community, to the services that City Hall provides to make sure that residents, business owners know that there's a dedicated individual that works with them day in and day out, gets to know them, knows their name, and knows how to make sure that they are connected to City Hall.

Manager Golden.

Thank you very much. Mr. May 3 to the Council Council is this was brought forth by the Clinton last report from 4 years ago and what the primary goal is on daily operation of. So the Youth Commission employee issues that that may have may arise here in City Hall as well as with the citizens is but advisory Commission. So this is a but still working within the community as a whole. And Clifton Larson came forth and it was 2020, 2022, uh, maybe 21. Sorry. So, uh, this is, this is a position that I believe is extremely necessary because it does give some of our employees the opportunity to come in and see people from HR and have discussions that we're probably not at, um, Liberty to discuss it, to talk about here openly, but we also have, uh, It's also in the community, working throughout the community to set some of the programming up that we have that goes on.

You have the floor, Councilman. Mr. Mayor, and I... I THINK THAT WE'RE SEEING CUTS ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, AND I CAN'T, I HAVE NO IDEA, WELL, I CAN PROPOSE A NUMBER, AND WE CAN SEE WHERE IT COMES FROM, BUT WE HAVE CUTS ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, SOME COMMUNITY-FACING POSITIONS, AND AGAIN, AS HAS BEEN SAID NUMEROUS TIMES, CUTTING A POSITION DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING'S GOING BACK, BUT IT DOES MEAN AT A MINIMUM THAT WE'RE REDUCING THE burden on the taxpayer. So at a minimum, we're reducing the budget and the best case for freeing up money, hopefully to get to potentially get certain positions back. And that's not a guarantee. And I'm not pretending it's a guarantee. However, I'm going to make a motion to reduce, to further reduce the human relations budget by $96,067.

A motion by Council mcdonough to reduce the human relations personnel services by 96,000 $67 for a second. Seeing no second. The motion dies.

So going back to the just can I just comment just real quick if you don't. Is that OK? Just just to put some clarity around this, I guess as well is that this was the position. It doesn't have the title DEI coordinator anymore, but this was the position that was created around an outpouring of people that showed up in this chamber for a community position to be able to have, you know, to reach out to if they had issues. It was the position that works on the language desk downstairs. So it is a DEI position, even though it may not be called that anymore. We might have a PC name in the budget. But again, the community really pushed this, and the Clifton-Lassen report really recommended it. So thank you.

And thank you. And honestly, I guess I'm happy I didn't get a second. I was really trying to understand what the position was. It's not it. I couldn't get an answer. And sometimes when it's like I don't fully understand the position and I appreciate your explanation, Councillor Scott, it's like, OK, well, I'm not getting anywhere. So cut it. And then when no one wants to cut it, it's OK. Never mind. I'm misunderstanding something. So thank you.

Mr. Manager, how many positions in the Clifton Larson were recommended by them? There are multiple winter. I believe there was multiple we didn't hire them so to use in a report is a justification for a position is we have plenty of reports that quote a lot that say we have to have higher approval and we don't do so I mean I understand. Roll call on the.

Council Rourke yes. Council Scott. Yes. Council Chau. Yes. Council Decoto. Yes. Amir Gitche.

Yes.

Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang.

Yes.

Council McDonough. No. Council Murcia. Yes. Council Noon. Yes. Council Robinson.

Yes.

Ten years.

Ten years. MIS, Management Information Systems, page 342. personnel services, $1,918,691 when their expenses $1,927,377 ocean to approve by Council. Mercy a seconded by Council rock discussion on the motion. Council adjourn.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There are two different numbers for the personal services. On page 341 in the chart, there's a $2 million number. I'm just rounding. But on 342, it's a 19, sorry, it's 1918. And I don't understand the difference. And I don't think the difference is the 87th, but maybe it is. Well, I don't understand the difference, and I don't understand the yellow highlighted line on 341 that talks about other funding sources, because I couldn't figure out where that was.

CFO Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and it's a very good question. If I may, Mr. Mayor, this may appear in other departments, and it's a function of how we program in what we call other funding sources. But for purposes of setting the stage for what may be a recurring question, when departments have grants that fund either a portion or the whole of an employee's salary, for many years we've had iterations of how best to present that in the budget uh the council is not voting on that i'll try not to make this too long-winded the council is not voting on that grant again in the budget but we show it as an offset and so the 87 437 000 for mis is a good example because it's just one grant for one position you will notice in planning and development and health and human services, perhaps most notably in the police department, to some extent in fire as well, that there are grants that make up the funding sources for the personnel in the department. So this $87,000, and Mr. Fernandez can correct me, but I believe is related to a grant from the state, which will go to fund some of the either one person or a portion of a number of individual salaries. I think it is, although I'd have to get my calculator out, the direct offset to the salaries. And so the bottom line that we show on page 342 is the same. I hope that that provides some clarification, but now it feels like I'm making it more complicated. Mr. Fernandez helps us put the budget together, and so him and I have this conversation. We've had it 100 times. We've had it probably 1,000 times over the last 10 years. The mayor and I have talked about this because he flagged the same issue. It is an offset. The purpose is to show the funding sources that make up, other than the tax levy or the traditional local receipts, et cetera, grants that may fund a department. So how did I do, Mehran?

Thank you very much, through you, Mr. Manager, to the rest of the council. As CFO Baldwin was explaining, fundamentally, when there is any offset to the funding, the idea is to show that it is not impacting the tax levy, so it's not being funded for by the taxpayer. How it's displayed in the document is something that has changed over the past 20 years trying to identify how best to display it this is what's been used for at least the past 10 years okay i'll say council dren

yes thanks cfo baldwin i'm sorry mr mayor uh just one additional point all that the council is voting on is the net so we show the gross we offset it with the grant offset the net is what's included in the appropriation order perhaps that is just a different way to say it that may make more sense all that the council is voting on is the net salaries for the individuals in the departments thank you thank you council duran council mcdonough

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, the MIS department has ballooned. And I understand that we brought 311 online. I understand that we created a lot of positions through ARPA that are now still here. But when I look at any department in the city, especially in a year where we have layoffs and a 4.6% tax hike, and I see in fiscal year 24 salaries permanent in MIS, $878,000 and change. And we're up just under $1.1 million to $1.9 million budgeted salaries at MIS. And I look back. I went through previous budgets. I saw a number of votes on positions. Many of the jobs at MIS, and when I look at the list of ARPA positions that were created using ARPA funds, a large portion of them are in the MIS department. They've been absorbed by the general fund. the council at the time was told that the general fund was going to be able to absorb these positions when they went into the general fund and now i'm looking at 1.1 million dollars in salary increases a 4.6 percent tax hike and 30. i get we're not at 36 anymore right we're at 30 30 layoffs because the firefighters are back so i gotta adjust my talking point um 30 layoffs a 4.6 tax hike in since fiscal 24 1.1 million dollars increased in salaries. In looking through to try and wrap my head around a number, it was $495,080 increase in salaries and among those all but two are our ordinance employees and so I'm not I'm not putting a motion in on a cut yet I I guess I'm really hoping that that Mr Mayor that there'll be some discussion around a 1.1 million dollar increase in a 495 000 increase in one fiscal year and then maybe we can go from there otherwise I'll see if I get a second on this one later thank you

Anyone else. Councilor Noon.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you to the directors of MIS. I just wanted general information here. So what are some of the departments that MIS is supporting in the city?

At this time, Counselor, we support everyone on the city side. We are separate from the school and school technology education. But everything on the city side, that includes all of public safety, fire, police, that includes the library, that includes the career center. And these are departments that we did not support part of the reorganization that took place in fiscal year 25. We worked with them in a variety of capacities, just like we work with schools since we own the infrastructure that everyone lives on. So for example, the schools, all the schools are interconnected through a very high speed network. It's our high speed network that we manage and maintain for them and then they manage everything within the school itself. But the interconnectivity to the schools is something that we manage and maintain.

So you support every department including the school?

Including the schools from the perspective of their network interconnectivity, yes sir. Similar to how DPW is responsible for the buildings, we're responsible for the networks that interconnect all the schools.

So over 30% of MIS budget is charged to the school, is that correct?

I can't speak to what that winds up being, sir.

Through you, Mr. Mayor, through you to the CFO, over 30% of MIS budget is charged to the school, is that correct?

That is correct. The administrative overhead for various departments in the Maintenance of Effort Agreement, MIS, the Treasurer's Office, the Office of the Auditor, Purchasing are prorated based on the uh school department as a percentage of the total amounts to be raised on the tax rate recap so every year that number changes it's in and around 40 some odd percent every year that is the calculation baked into the net school spending agreement it is something that we have proposed to change there is an alternate methodology allowable under DESE's rules whereby they release, this is something we talked about previously, there is an alternate methodology by which there's a per pupil formula that DESE releases. That is something we've proposed to the schools because this topic does come up. So we're going to change that is my point. But that is the current state of affairs, Councilor, to answer your question.

Thank you. I do appreciate the response. I noticed that we do have some data breach over about a year or so ago. I think there's a need to have security, safety of the data, the information in our MIS. But my sense is that the MIS budget increase is explosive as well. You're talking about the the fire over time, the fire department over time and stuff. Here you see that I concur with Councilor MacDonald that we spend over a million dollars now in three years on MIS. That's just too much for me. I don't know where to cut, but there ought to be some cut here.

Thank you, Council. Council Dakota.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have to respectfully disagree with Councilor McDonough and Councilor Noon. In fact, Mr. Fernandez's department has taken the biggest hit of any department in the city. We've got six reductions and he's got eight vacants that are not going to be filled. Well, seven out of the eight, right? Seven out of the eight. So I think they've taken quite the hit and I'm not sure how much actually they can reduce at that. I think he's done his responsibilities of cutting the department as best as he could without putting the city at risk. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Dakota. Councilor Chau.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And excuse me, I want to thank Councilor Nguyen for bringing up the issue about cybersecurity. I was fortunate enough to attend the MMA meeting conference earlier this year at the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which comprises of about over 350 towns and cities. And one of the sessions was talking about There was not one town or city in the Commonwealth that have not been, that data have not been compromised or hacked or they have been successfully hacked. So one of my main concern with the budget for the MIS, you know, I know that the budget shows there's numbers here. But I think more importantly, through you, Mr. Mayor, to the director, is the city or district department well-funded now? Do you have the resources, the staff now, to prevent another cybersecurity attack? Because I think it doesn't matter what the budget is. It could be more, it could be less. But if our data, if our network is being compromised, we don't want to learn about the fact afterward. Mr. Fernandez?

Thank you very much, Counselor, and Counselor Ducoto as well. If I may just back up a little bit, the cyber event took place back in 2023. It was over three years ago. At that time, we had approximately 17 total MIS employees scattered across the city in a variety of departments. Everyone working somewhat independently, working with us to coordinate certain things. But in many cases, while we tried to provide them direction, it wasn't a requirement for them to follow it. So folks kind of ran things their own way. The event occurred in 2023. To your point about the MMA meeting, the city of Lowell is recognized across the Commonwealth and across the East Coast as the quickest time to recovery for any municipality on the East Coast to date as a result of a cyber event. Now, that cyber event could have been recovered from even quicker if it weren't for the fact that there had been changes at the federal level and regulations, and we had to wait for evidentiary requirement things to sort out and identify. And we were able to continue running. When we continued running and got back up and going, got everybody paid and got everything going to make sure that everyone could get paid, we could collect revenue, we could issue permits, et cetera, one of the big changes was moving into the cloud. We moved away from having all of our equipment on site to being in the cloud. With that comes a cost. And the city council at that time voted to cover that cost and for us to license certain technology that we brought in, which we have to continue licensing year over year, and does go up. On average, all of our software licenses went up between 12% and 18% for this calendar year. Now, if we look at just personnel, We had a total of 17 MIS employees. We had 15 employees on the general fund back in fiscal year 24. We went through the reorganization in fiscal year 25, continued through fiscal year 26. Now, we could have hired. um a lot more employees but per the manager's guidance we were very targeted in how we hired and how we started reorganizing all of the technology in the city so if we look at fiscal year 25 we had 13 arpa vacancies when we moved to fiscal year 26 we had six arpa vacancies of all the arpa positions that we could have hired as we moved to fiscal year 27 And we look at shuffling positions around, reducing positions, looking at positions that we're going to say we're not going to hire right now, and how can we continue to function delivering the level of service we need internally as well as externally. We collectively agreed on 18 employees, of which 16 are general funded. 16 are being general funded. We had 15 general funded back in fiscal year 24. So we really only have one more position being general funded this fiscal year. And of those 18 employees, we have one person who's been out on workers' comp for a while. So realistically, we have 17 employees continuing to do work across the city, similar to how we had 17 employees doing work in fiscal year 24. And I'm not saying that it's easy, I'm not saying that it's sustainable long term, but it certainly is the minimum that we need in order to manage our core services, our critical infrastructure, and make sure that everything is Moving forward, and when I say moving forward, I don't just mean making sure we have technology running. I mean the reorganization. The reorganization officially was fiscal year 25, but it takes many years to really go through all the different software and hardware that's in use elsewhere, consolidate things. You would have seen this budget jump much higher if we had consolidated into it the software and hardware that's currently budgeted for on the police and the fire department side. So there are certain technology elements that are still budgeted elsewhere that we have not brought into MIS yet. And there's a couple of reasons for that. But on the fire side, they have technology budgeted that handles all their 911 systems, all their CAD dispatch systems. And on the police side, they do the same. Also, the radio systems, which we have a large upgrade hopefully coming up in the capital plan, where we're going to be looking at consolidating all the radio systems across the city, police, fire, DPW, and schools. Forgive me if that was long-winded.

Yes. It was very long-winded. Cut.

It was my only opportunity.

Councillor Chao, are you all set? I think a simple answer like this, we're up to date. We're modern. The cybersecurity, I would have been happy.

My goodness. The best we can, sir. Absolutely. The best we can, but we can never guarantee.

Okay, so I'm losing control here. I'm not asking a question. Motion to action. Motion to accept the bottom line of the MIS budget. Second.

It's already been motioned and second. I just have a quick update to Councilor Decoto's numbers, which are way off. So there were five. One of them, there's actually four, because one got transferred out of MIS and is now in engineering, the GIS. So it isn't a lost job. It just got moved over to engineering. Right. I'm just telling you where they went. If I can clarify that.

No, no, you can't.

Councilor McDonough.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand several of my colleagues' points. I understand the need to keep the city safe from cyber attacks. I do see that the cyber security specialist, I don't have ticked as coming in with ARPA money. So cyber security specialist, not. really remotely being talked about, at least from me when I'm looking here. Another counselor had talked about the significant reduction in reducing vacancies, as well as the number of reductions. I did just some napkin math here, and it looks like about half the department, right? It looks like I counted somewhere around, I think, 32. Let me see if I'm good at counting. And I think I have 14 reductions or vacancies, plus I have a blank item that does confuse me. And a desktop support specialist who is on something Councillor Robinson talked about earlier, who is a fiscal year 26 retiree, but the $87,000 is still in the fiscal, that position is still there and not listed as vacant. So ignoring that one, we're still at just about half of the positions in the department. This council, I understand you voted for it. This council created a deputy chief information officer position, I think, two years ago. The department, as far as the workforce, has been reduced by half, but we're keeping the weight at the top. And I understand that cuts are not easy. And if I'm out here alone again, that's fine. But we heard from a number of people in the public, we talk about tax rates and we talk about looking out for the tax. It's very easy to say, I wish it was lower and never propose a single cut. I'm just trying to find a place. I think we owe it to the people in the city. It's a 4.6% rate increase, 30 layoffs, your water bill's up, your trash bill's up, you're bleeding out the pocketbook, and we're taking every single job and going, well, that one, no, no, no. I'm just trying to look. I'm going to make the motion. I'd like to reduce.

There's a motion.

There is a motion on the floor to accept. I can't make it. Yeah.

So if this feels and it goes back, then you certainly can make a motion. Gotcha. There's a motion on the floor to accept it as opposed. Roll call.

Council Rook. Yes. Council Scott. Yes. Council Chow. Yes. Council Dakota. Yes. Mayor Gitche.

No.

Council Duran. Yes. Council Liang.

No.

Council McDonough.

No.

Council mercy, yes, Council new know. Council Robinson know.

6 right, yeah. 6 5 motion passes. So it is now 10 o'clock so we need to suspend the rules to continue past 10 o'clock if that is the wish of the body. 10 o'clock time motion by. Councilor Rourke, seconded by Councilor Duran. Roll call. What's the motion? Go past the 10 o'clock hour.

Councilor Rourke? Yes. Councilor Scott? Yes. Councilor Chau? Yes. Councilor Decoto? No. Mayor Gitche?

No.

Councilor Duran?

Yes.

It's going to fail anyway. Councilor Liang? No. Councilor McDonough? No. Council Mercia? No. Council Noon? No. Council Robinson? No.

If before we go, if we can just set a meeting for maybe next Tuesday, do we want to start at 5.30 or 6.30? Is it the wish of the body? Does anybody have a preference? There's no subcommittees for next Tuesday.

Six o'clock work?

All right. Is that the wish of the body? Councilor? I want a motion. Councilor Rourke?

We don't have a meeting scheduled for next week, correct? We don't, no. I thought it was because the mayor had a graduation.

Right. I mean, I have no problem, you know, if, I mean. Six o'clock next Tuesday will be the meeting. Motion by Councilor Rourke, seconded by Councilor Scott. Roll call.

Councilor Rourke?

Yes.

Councilor Scott? Yes. Council Chow. Yes. Council DeCotto. Yes. Mayor Gitche. Yes. Council Duran.

Yes.

Council Liang. Yes. Yes. Council McDonough. Yes. Council Mercier. Yes. Council Noon. Yes. Council Robinson.

Yes.

Motion to adjourn by Council Noon, seconded by Council Mercier. All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed, so ordered.

Have a good night. June 2nd, 6 o'clock, right? June 2nd. June 2nd at 6, right? June 6th.