Town Council - Regular Meeting

Oh, that's right.

right special north smithfield town council meeting june 22nd 2022. madam pledge can you start us with the current pledge please thank you for bringing us together today in a spirit of generosity may we honor one another by keeping an open mind may we voice our truth and listen with an open heart may we discern your will to unite in a fruitful outcome i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one and justice for all. Roll call. Mr. Paragon? Here. Mr. Cristofaro? Here. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Here. Ms. Alves?

Here. Discussion by council vote of other action on FY26-27 budget. So I guess we'll do like we've done in the past. We just take by department and take the budget committee. And if there's any discussion, if not, we'll see if there's a vote.

Yeah, so the town council budget columns are reflective of the budget committee's columns minus a few small changes, which are highlighted in yellow, which you guys can see it. As we go along, I'll lay them out and make sure you guys are aware of them. yeah so anytime we go through a department once the council agrees upon that department's underlying number you guys will put a vote to it and move on to the next and address the department head if they're here if they want to talk about it okay all right sound good yeah it's automatic as soon as i change the number it changes the levy okay so

Start with revenue.

I think we do.

So we're going to start with expenses.

Yeah, we're going to do revenues last, right?

Yes. Yeah.

And this is the expenditure detail form.

This is the yeah, this is the detailed version.

So should we be following what does everybody want to follow the expense budget summary or the detail?

I'll be doing the summary unless someone wants to jump into the detail to change a line or.

But I'll have up on the screen the detail for all the people who are watching.

All right, Town Council. Anyone have any changes or like to make a motion to reflect the budget committee's proposal of $96,545.09? Why is our number different here? So, yep, so that's the $5,000.

So Pumpkin Fest, they just finished moving over to the...

The group, they just moved over to a- Association? Yeah, athletic association, thank you. They just moved over to them and they didn't have the chance to submit their request for funds earlier in the year during the budget process, so they just got it to me. So that's reflective of $3,500 now to $5,000, because now they're operating completely on their own. And have to get their own insurance and they have to use their own staff to do the accounting and everything. So that's the reason for the $1,500 increase. so prior they were under the trust they were under yeah they were under the trust they're under us but now getting them out of the town allows them to open themselves to other revenue streams it doesn't lock them down for certain purchasing procedures that we have as the municipality so just makes it a little easier on them okay so the revised budget is ninety thousand forty five dollars and nine cents

Even though last year's actual was 72,640.

So the way I do it is, as you can see on the detail side, you'll see there's a lot of different entities that we'll put in for requests for money. If they don't send me a email or an invoice or anything throughout the fiscal year, I don't send them the money.

Well, I think we're also seeing a significant increase in town council contributions year over year because the senior services are now asking for 45,000 in comparison to 20,000 for last year. So I'd like to talk a little bit about why we have a $25,000 increase there.

So the other $20,000 was in reserves. So it was always $40,000. It's been $40,000 since I've been here, at least. But it was split. That's why we want to get away from these reserves and things. Makes things look a little funky. It was $40,000 last year. It was $40,000 the year before that. The $20,000 was spent out of reserves, it's already been spent.

Okay, but that wasn't necessarily reflected in last year's amount, that's why we're seeing that. Yeah. Okay, the $5,000 increase then, if it was 40,000 last year for senior services and now it's 45, what's the $5,000 increase for, do we know?

I think it's just for them being able to run on their own in the staffing and Linda's time. They have a lot more trainers and stuff than they had prior trying to ramp up the services.

I know that we talked a bit about 501c3 and grants. How's that going in?

In the process, what they were trying to do with 501c3, they are, of course, fully incorporated. So now, instead of being actual expenses to us, now to buy, it's not going to them anymore.

So that extra 5,000 we think is supposed to cover headcount and some other numbers that we don't necessarily have? Supplies. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, because they continue to buy more supplies and stuff for all the classes that they have and all the activities.

I think it would be helpful, similar to how other departments provide an understanding of their justification for an increase, to have an understanding as the senior program continues to grow, what they're asking for and why. like a 5 000 increase i wouldn't it's not a lot but it's not a little especially when we're trying to be conservative with this budget we also don't have data right we have data to a degree but we haven't enabled the actual data um the badge so i really haven't understood oh we have now okay excellent but it's now operational okay so as of recently yeah okay okay so we're going to increase that 5 000. okay then president i'd like to make a motion to approve the budget for the town council other the town council of ninety eight thousand forty five dollars and nine cents

That's a motion, is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Birkan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Probate court, the budget committee's recommendation is $10,725. Anyone have any discussion? I'd like to make a motion.

Mr. President, I'd like to make a motion to approve $10,725 for the probate court.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion?

Roll call? Mr. Paragon? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Uh, total legal, the budget committee's recommendation is in the amount of $177,400 and 4 cents. Any discussion or motion?

Discussion? Go ahead. Why the $20,000 difference?

I just want to just make sure council understands based on the conversations we've had in the executive session on a variety of issues that we do have some issues that could fall into the category of professional services.

So it's not like it's spent. If it does not spend, it goes back into the fund.

That is correct.

Okay.

But the argument always is if you don't need it, then don't levy it to taxpayers. I'm just cautioning the council to be conservative.

Yeah, especially if last year was 297. It's a $100,000 issue right there. $120,000 issue right there.

Madam President?

Yes.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the administrator's proposal under legal for $197,400.04. That's a motion, is there a second?

Second for discussion. Go ahead. Is it worth, well, maybe we can come back to it, but looking at that much of a discrepancy, if we're being told we have some potential issues and we're already 120,000 under for this previous year, are our potential issues similar to what we've been through in the past year?

i would i would think so all right so i'll i seconded it i'll go with it but we can always come back right yeah i would definitely second look that one so we're gonna we have a motion to second for a hundred and seventy seven ninety seven four hundred one ninety seven four hundred okay any further discussion roll call mr birrigan yes mr cristofaro yes mrs o'hara mr punchak yes miss alves yes Municipal Court, the budget committee's recommendation is for $54,989.55. Does anyone have any discussion or a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the budget committee's proposal of $54,989.55.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call please.

Mr. We are gone. Yes, Mr. Cristoforo. Yes, this is O'Hara. Yes, Mr. Punch Act. Yes, Miss House. Yes.

Total administration budget committee recommendation is $243,026.22. Is there any discussion or motion?

I would, if there's no discussion, I'll make a motion to approve the budget committee's recommendation of $243,026.22.

If I could just, I concur with the budget committee's recommendation, but in full transparency, as it relates to automobile fuel, I don't use the town's car and I pay for my own fuel. I want the town council to understand that. I don't use town fuel. That's why it's low compared to what we budget.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

That's a company man right there.

All right, so we have a motion to second, roll call. Did we have a second? Did we have a second? No, second. We did not have a second. Sorry, now Rebecca seconded. Any discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Birrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes.

Town clerk, budget committee's recommendation is $346,952.40. Can we jump into the expenditure detail on the town clerk's office department, please?

Go ahead. Okay.

Can I talk about Deputy Clerk while Tammy's in the room?

I know that Tammy, well that the Deputy Clerk is looking for a 5% compared to the TA, 3%. And I know that Tammy especially, given that we've had a few folks out for a number of months now, has done an amazing job, at least in my eyes. Wondering if we could go with the deputy clerk's request of 5% over the TA 3% with the understanding that the 5% is maybe a little shy of $2,000 more a year.

Is there a page two on that?

So the department's asking for $60,561 in comparison to the budget committee's proposal 59408. So what does that math factor out to be? I don't like doing math on the spot. $1,100.

I'm just I'm just gonna voice my opinion on it until we have some sort of like what do you call it like reviews or we have some sort of thank you that we want to do throughout the communities to just spot-pick positions and give I think it's just really hard to spot pick certain positions and give them a higher increase than others. Because I'm sure in every position, and yes, Tammy has really stepped forward, I just said that to her before the meeting, with Joanne being out. As well as Tiffany. Right. And then we have other positions that are also looking for higher percentages. So it just makes it a little bit difficult to pick and choose

until we can do some sort of rating or have the um the survey completed it just makes it difficult to do that not and not to speak against the request because i would love to give more money for everybody um the deputy clerk is getting paid at the clerk's position right now so she is receiving the clerk's compensation that's good to know

Obviously I can't. I wouldn't.

Well, I can understand Kim your feedback there. I know that it's not necessarily fair for us to just. pick and choose. And Tammy, I would give you more money than 5% if it was within my jurisdiction. But I can understand that feedback. So I will obviously defer to the majority here. The other item that I want to look at is the software and licenses for the HeyGov clerk minutes. So the budget committee recommended that they use free options like ChatGPT. that we should stick with the technology that we currently have if the clerk's office has been working with it and they feel as though that's the better one to use. So I think that we should align with the

um for that line item the department budget request or the administrator budget request too since you recommended that and we are in reference to requests from the budget committee um are going to do this year a full review of all software perfect and be able to report back well before the budget process begins However, not however, I think we, and I'm not saying this is what the budget committee's doing. We have to be very careful not to get romanced by the shiny new item called AI. It's way too early for this. Yeah. Except in some very, very low end applications. I've been doing a lot of research on that. And we're still in very early stages of where we can really capitalize on that as a technology.

So the HeyGov clerk minutes, that is not AI? That is just a technology that the clerk's office uses? Is that AI? It is AI, okay. Either way.

But there's a constant discussion about expansion of AI as a way to save money. That's the point I'm trying to make. I think we're way too early in the evolution of that technology to start capitalizing on it.

Okay, so of those items, I'll make the recommendation to accept the department's budget request for that specific software and license line in the amount of $1,247.40.

I can provide you the new department total when you guys are ready.

Wouldn't we really be looking at the budget committee plus that technology?

Yeah.

Well, it's a bigger...

No, I'm saying specific to that line item.

Anyone have any other? Did you have anything else? No. Anyone else have any other?

So just a question then, because I am allowed to speak, because it's generally speaking.

So you're saying that we keep the requested software that they're asking for? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, keep the HeyGov clerk minutes as opposed to leveraging the free option of ChatGPT.

Okay.

One other question, sorry, advertising town clerk. The department and the administrator proposed a $7,000 budget in comparison to the budget committee's proposal of 4,000. What's the logic there? So that $3,000 gap. It says general code updates, revisions, licenses, town council requests, budget committee historical.

For the budget committee, was that one of the software applications that we're getting a state reimbursement on? Because I know you were netting stuff out in the budget to reflect incoming revenue from the state. Yeah, it doesn't. This one doesn't reflect that. Okay.

They're just looking at historicals.

Okay. Definitely.

Okay, thank you. Anyone have anything else? John, do you want to give us the new number?

Sure. Total for the town clerk is $348,199.80. $348? I thought we were...

Yeah, I thought we were going to look.

Yeah, it's just 1200 that we.

Yeah, how can it be such a discrepancy? If we put 1247 40 back in. Is that not the right number?

Went from 346 to 348. Yeah. 1,200.

I'm looking at the 336, that's why.

So the new number is 348. Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the town clerk's budget in the amount of $348,199.80. That's really hard to read, Tony. You do have a lot of calls.

Second.

That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Birrigan? Yes.

Mr. Cristofaro?

Yes. Ms. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Pontchart? Yes. Ms. Alts?

Yes. Planning Department, the Budget Committee's recommendation is $222,057.93. Does anyone have any recommendations or motion?

This is the area where I believe the budget committee is netting out the revenue coming in from the state. Is that correct? Yeah, it's the OpenGov. My only concern on this is on the approach. I used to run this in my old organization. I didn't net revenues against expenses. I felt that it didn't provide the full transparency on the budget. My concern is that if we're netting this out on the software and all of a sudden the state rolls back its financial commitment, but are still requiring us to use it. All of a sudden we're showing nothing or very little in the budget. Now it's gonna be in the budget. So it's being shown on the revenue side, but it should be shown, in my opinion, full expense on the expense side.

Isn't that how we always used to do it?

No, this is relatively new. It's, last year we, it wasn't, it was kind of up in the air, or the fiscal year that we're in right now, was very up in the air on whether we were going to get the reimbursement back. So we expensed it, and then we ended up getting the reimbursement back. It'd be very easy for me to just toss in the number here, and then just add that on the revenue side as a reimbursement. That's what it is.

Yeah.

Again, I'm not criticizing the budget committee on that. I'm just saying from a transparency standpoint, it's great to see it on both sides, especially if we lose it on the revenue side.

So then that number would need to be adjusted to $5,747.43 as opposed to the town council budget number that's there now of $400. Okay.

And then when you go through the revenue budget that's going to show up over there.

Okay. I'm going to need my telescope.

I'll get you a binocular.

Is that 227.05? Yeah. Mm-hmm.

So Tony, does this 5,400 mole count towards 11?

I put it under miscellaneous receipts.

So what is the total?

$227,405.36. Anybody like to make a motion?

227,405.36. I'll make a motion to approve the planning department's budget in the amount of $227,000.

I can't do numbers tonight, sorry everybody. $227,405.36. Second.

That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. House? Yes.

David, I'm going to leave the number of motions to you.

You can do it. Board of Canvases, budget committee's recommendation is $49,778.54. Does anyone have any changes or like to make a motion? I'll go ahead. So again, the past three years, 13,243, 23,123, 22,715 with double their

Biggest expense.

Is it because of the election? Yeah, correct.

Didn't we have an election in 2024 at 22,000?

10, did we have an election?

We had a February election.

True.

And it also adds in there for this fiscal year the just in case there's a special election in which Tammy provided me the figures for that of what that would be the budget committee's idea was to take that dollar amount was around 13 grand and use that as fund balance instead of levying and charging the taxpayers of that cost of a potential special election. I put that in his use of fund balance on the revenue side. So it nets out all we're paying for is. Yeah, it does. It doesn't have to let you did. Um, our paying for is just the 2 that we have coming up.

Maybe we can come back to that and bump a little bit of money up to the lawyers for next year.

Yeah, I agree with that approach. But one thing I'm going to emphasize, because this surfaces in a couple of areas, we have to be very careful using fund balance to fund operating costs. The bond underwriters, the rating agencies do not like seeing that. It's one thing using fund balance for our project. It's another thing using a fund balance for expenses that you would typically expect to see in an operating year. So I have to be very careful how we do that. When we went to the conversation on this issue, the question is typically, and Tammy, correct me if I'm wrong, the clerk would always budget for an extra election for whatever reason, something could surface. I die in office, and you have to have a special election. Quit smiling. But we felt that that was kind of levying the taxpayers for a what if scenario was pushed a little bit too far.

Even at that, you could cut it down $20,000 and you're still above anything you've spent with a special election this year and a full election two years ago. I'll make the motion to go with it for now, but I think it deserves a second look. So I will make a motion. unless there's any more discussion uh for the board of canvases amount in forty nine thousand seven hundred seventy eight dollars and fifty four cents second we have a motion a second any further discussion roll call please Mr. Birrigan yes Mr. Cristofaro yes Mrs. O'Hara yes Mr. Punchak yes Ms. Alves yes

Finance. Budget committee's recommendation of $784,849.34. Anyone like to make a motion or have any discussion?

I have a question. Administrator, was there some questions?

uh people we're going to be moving around uh is that reflected in finance uh yeah it is that it's reflected here and it's also reflected on the assessor's budget category and that's the 65 the staff accountant new position yeah

So that staff accountant, I'm just looking at it versus the assistant finance director. What is this person going to be doing again?

So she's going to be assisting with a lot of the reconciliations. A lot of her focus is going to be two major things, which is fully taking on the administrative portion of police detail, which again, we've really fully adopted that back. And then grants management in terms of the accountant side, making sure all of them are being tracked properly. We can get a snapshot of funds available, project progress,

Currently, the way the town manages and accounts for grants is not very good. We need to really up our game in that area. We don't have a definitive proposal as it relates to the budget in front of you, but we will discuss it as it relates to the contingency category, which the budget committee eliminated. But we need to have the software systems in place so that we can account for all of the grants which are escalating in this town, coupled with the fact to make sure that that person's also going to be documenting all the various reports that we have to comply with pursuant to the grant agreements. It's a pretty heavy lift, so between that, the police detail work and other back work to support the department. And also just as a sidebar, the individual who is going to be moving over there will get her degree in counting this year.

So how is that not a union position?

It doesn't have to be. It could be the union, I'm sure they would like it to be. But it doesn't have to be in any, it's not a clerk, it's a staff accountant.

I think my only question here is, in the event that we do approve this new position, and it sounds like we're moving people around, we will then have to backfill a position. So do we need to have those conversations in tandem? Because if we approve it here and we don't approve the position over in the tax assessor's office, what does that mean? And my next question is this. This position, it's the staff accountant. This person cannot maintain the tax assessor office as well as this finance role.

moving forward like will the bandwidth of this staff accountant rule change where she couldn't support both yeah jen's currently picking up a lot of this slack a lot more than she can probably handle in her bandwidth because of sabina's position in as the deputy assessor slash helping us in finance so yeah it's it's it comes down to bandwidth just like you said

Wouldn't we still have to post for this position?

No, it's an appointed position. There's no regulations around, other than obviously Rhode Island labor laws. The union has no say on it. There's no stipulations on how we post it.

Just hiring a position in general, don't you have to post for it?

Not for a non-union.

If it was a position that pre-existed as part of the union bargaining unit, then yes, we would. This is a new position, and it's an appointed position just like quite a few other positions in the administration are appointed, not union.

do you overcome the argument that this position is being created for this person right that's what i'm saying because they they already have a name to this position that's what's scary is like how do you like i don't know to me that's well one of the first questions that i thought but why wouldn't anyone else kim came to the same conclusion so like to just

sabina comes with a lot of institutional knowledge she used to work at one socket and collections and in assessing she comes here she has an i.t background so we you know as you know me and jerry and oversee that as well that's a huge help she has a degree in that there's a lot of she knows the town already pretty well she's already helped in building and zoning she helps in finance she helps in assessing sure it might be all valid points but again the optics are

A little cloudy, I think.

We obviously encourage this, this transition from, I get what you're saying.

All businesses do that.

As an administration, when we have somebody that we've already worked with that has proven capabilities and as opposed to hiring somebody new that is untested, I'll go this way any day of the week because it's just better for the organization, better for the town.

I think to the administrator's point, he's running the show up there. He's there every day. If he wants to move the chess pieces around to see what's better going to serve the public and what's better going to make the job more efficient for him and the finance department, that's his call if you ask me.

Just some background too on this, and Jen can attest to this, because we kind of stole Sabina while she was working in the tax assessor's office. When we ran into the issue of the detail work, we bought Sabina up to figure it out. And she, on Jim's department's nickel, solved the problems. That's when we were saying, my God, I mean, this person has an analytical capability to solve problems. That's what she's really good. It's by far the best thing. Sorry to all my team, the best in the administration by far.

But legally- Legally, we can do this. Legally, we can do this. Absolutely. Optically, we don't feel comfortable with it.

I don't have a problem with it.

Well, I mean- We'll decide whether or not to fund the positions. Yeah.

Does it matter to you?

Does it matter to me? It's not my decision. My decision is whether or not we fund the position that's being proposed.

so is this the deputy clerk that we're talking about the staff account so now is the depth i know we're i'm moving ahead but i just want to ask the question while we're talking about this so that person's going to pot time now well that's the budget committee's recommendation yeah you want to talk about it because this is kind of it just doesn't make sense to me now

So like Scott and Tonya said, it started off how Tony came to me and asked if she could help out with police detail. It was coming from the police department back to Town Hall. And then it became a huge, a bigger project than we expected. So she started doing a lot of more finance and then that's where this position came about. But I think the budget committee proposal was to cut it to part time. And I think they misunderstood that this is a new position in finance and I still need a full-time deputy in assessing because it's only me and a deputy there's nobody else so if it's part-time and say I'm out or I'm in a meeting we have a lot of taxpayers that come in and if the office is closed so it's good like collection helps out a lot they'll help us out if we both have to be in a meeting but I think the budget committee thought that was going to be a new position and they would still be helping assessing so I could get a part-time person or they thought maybe I could just handle it with just a part-time person. But it's always been a full-time position so I'm not sure why it was proposed to be

So now it's just you and a deputy? What did you have going back a year or two? Didn't you have more people than that in tax assessor?

No, it's always been two. Just two? Yeah. MJ and Rachel in tax collection, they would help us out. Oh, so they're in tax. Okay. Yeah. So we're two separate, but we help each other out.

Okay. Does anyone have any other questions for the tax assessor? Thank you, Jen.

Thank you. So in theory, if we were to keep the full-time deputy role in the assessor's office at 55,000, as opposed to the 27,000 for part-time. And then create the new position of the staff accountant for 65,000. we're adding $65,000 to our budget, right?

Pretty much, because if she can't go with a part-timer, which doesn't make sense.

No, I don't think it makes sense either. No.

Just remember, it will add full benefits.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So it's just salary, and then you've got the PTEB that goes with that.

How much do we, on average, collect in details?

We collected $178,000 last year, I think. But was that a bit of an anomaly for detail last year?

Because of the highway? It's because of the highway. So what's like an average year?

It's been so long since we had an average year. I think 20 to 40,000.

Uh, we, uh, biweekly payroll we're putting 30 to $40,000 just for the payroll portion of a police detail every single pay period. So 30 to 40,000 times 26 pay periods is how much police detail volume there is. So it's a big number. And if we weren't to get this position in finance, like we took back police details from it was in the police department. It's in the finance department. If we don't get this person, we don't know who's going to do it because the segregation of duties, I can't do it because I'm reconciling. Tony can't do it because he's approving all of that stuff. We don't have the payroll clerk and the payables clerk doesn't have the time because I asked Sabina how much of her time she's spending on that. She estimated about 40% of her time right now. So I don't know where that task would land or who has the bandwidth to do it.

Jerry, can you explain a little bit briefly this whole concept of separation of duties?

Sure. The auditors look for, because I'm the one reconciling the bank account to our general ledger system, I can't also be the one handling the money, making the deposits, or entering them into our system. Because if I were to do all pieces of it, who else is checking what I'm doing? So that's why Tony and I can't do those types of jobs. So we need someone else to do it. Yeah, checks and balances.

Sounds like we need it. We do need it. I'm just wondering at that dollar rate, at that amount though, because your clerks are at one rate and then that one is pretty high.

Well, then does it make sense to look at the What was that position making previously? So if we look at what that, sorry, not the staff accountant position, because that's a new position. So if we look at what that position and the tax assessor's office was previously making last fiscal year, all right, 2025, and then add a 3% on that, right? So they're just getting the 3% increase to their existing salary.

I just want to caution. Let's make this conversation as generic as we can. Yeah. Because we're talking about a person. Yeah. So we have to be very careful.

Yep. Yep. I'm just saying.

The deputy position for the department request is at $55,000.

No, I know. But what was it previously?

Give me one second.

Oh, so the TA is recommending a 3%, so 55167. So I would say that we carry that number over to the staff accountant role for the finance department at $55,167.77. All right, yes.

I think that's fair because it's in between the fiscal clerk and your assistant, so.

There's another aspect too. It's a free market. What is she worth to somebody else? We could lose her. You don't pay your staff. If she's that good, if she's that much of a rock star, then you're going to lose her if you don't pay her.

I 100% agree with you, John. But we don't have a job requisition. We don't have an understanding of a job description, a job requisition. So we can't necessarily put a figure on the role. They're making this role up because they have a need. So similar to how I wanted to give our deputy clerk an increase, I mean a $10,000 increase from one role to the next. I think that if we want to talk about fairness, it's a 3% increase on the existing salary. Because we could say no, no new position, right?

what do you have to gauge the 65 against right i mean because you look at what the and that was my point you look at what the assistant's making and you look at what the clerk's making and then this new position comes in at that amount i just i guess there's not to refute this but you can't really compare the two positions from a compensation standpoint what two positions the the the new staff accountant and and the clerk and the assessor's office

So I think this is why we keep going back to the question of a comp analysis for roles. It's hard for us to justify an increase above the 3% when we haven't completed a comp analysis to understand existing salaries to what these roles are making, let's say, in other municipalities. So I get it, but again, we don't have a job description, right? We can't say that the role and responsibilities for the staff accountant justifies a $65,000 increase without a comprehensive analysis of the roles. So I think I would be most comfortable with a 55, with a 3% increase on the existing salary.

If it helps, I attempted, all municipalities are so incredibly different. So I did look at financial positions that were remotely close to doing something like this, not at a deputy or assistant level, but not just a straight clerk level, something in the middle. I did grab as much data as I could and the 65,000 was kind of an average of that. if that helps you it wasn't just a random number i did grab as much data as i could from other communities of similar size thank you jerry i guess it comes back down to what were you comparing though because we don't really have a job description is the qualification to be like a cpa no so four years of education is the qualification degree well yeah someone accounting yeah

But what are the qualifications for this job, though? Do we have a job description?

Administrator has to like you. No, I'm joking. No, it's basically something with accounting background. And quite frankly, again, I want to emphasize this, This wasn't a matter of us just coming out and saying, well, we need this position. We go tap this person on the shoulder. This is somebody who has worked in that department now for a year. Now we know what she does.

There's no disputing that being able to hire internally. Okay, so if there's no qualification for a bachelor's and you found somebody that was willing to do the job for $50,000, well, you're already ahead of the game because it's not going to take you $15,000 to train this person, right? Theoretically. Okay.

The type of task this person would be doing, though, would need a bachelor's in accounting. No, you wouldn't.

I don't know that. To reconcile accounts and such?

I have three staff accountants on my team. None of them have degrees in accounting and they're all very very good and my middle one probably makes that amount and I have a top one that makes a little bit more and I have another one that makes a little bit less than that. That's high.

All right, so Rebecca, Rebecca, your suggestion was her current salary plus she gets to raise the 3% like everybody else.

So 55, yeah.

The position's current salary is what we need to set.

The position's salary. The position's current salary. Yes, the position's current salary. So the deputy assessor, tax assessor, is $55,167, I believe.

Which is what she's making now.

Oh.

Right? Yeah. And what she's making now plus 3% raise, like everybody else.

So we would just have to carry over the salary. Yeah. So we want to change that number and have it be reflected as $55,167.77. So can we just confirm what is accurate?

Because the department budget is saying 5%, but that wage is less than what the administrator is proposing at 3%.

People can't buy houses. I think he's updating the number.

We wanted a number.

What number did you want to put in?

So what would be? So it was the department tab that was brought to me. So you have here the department, 5%.

Yeah, I'm just laying out the correct numbers. And then 3% would be 55, 167, 77. 3% is right here. So is that the number that I'm moving up? Okay. 55.

Hold on, give me one second.

And did you want the new department total or did you guys want to continue discussing?

Is there anything else anyone want to discuss in finance? I changed my page. So that's going to change all the PTB and stuff, right? And Tony, what's the increase in the software and licenses?

The PowerSchool 5% increase and the tax collection software, Yeah, we pulled the, they provided us, QDS is the software that we use. They provided us the number for the upcoming fiscal year. They switched over last year from, what was it called? Vision. Vision to QDS, QDS acquired vision.

So are the public utilities just on a percentage increase based, or how are you doing it?

We're doing, I mean, go ahead.

I try to take, I look at the prior year, full year usage, and then I also take however many months worth of data I have in the next year. And I kind of do that by how many months I have and divide it by 12, to make sure I have a full year. But I also compare that just to make sure, because it's seasonally, that it makes sense based on the prior year also.

Okay. Marie, our AP, she's been doing a lot of cleaning up of the Rhode Island energy accounts, kind of all over the place.

but when i i don't have a number for this but when i did this budget it was prior to the big spike we saw in gas prices just gonna throw that out there but we don't really know what's gonna happen with that

Okay, does anyone have any other questions? Anyone like to make a motion? Do you have the new total?

Yep, so the new total for finance is $773,764.48.

I'll make a motion to approve the finance department budget in the amount of $773,764.48. Second. That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Bill Paul, please. Mr. Birrigan? Yes.

Mr. Cristofaro?

Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes. Okay, tax assessor, budget committee's recommendation is $216,543.72. Does anyone have any comments or would like to make a motion?

Can I ask a question?

Mm-hmm.

Administrator, there's a big gap between yourself and the

That that's the the budget are the position of the budget to do that not a full time position as replacement.

Yes, so to replace that position back to full time. That's non union. So would it go back to the 55 even or the 55-167?

Um, so when we were proposing this to the budget committee, um, we didn't know how it was going to go. If we were, it was the new position was going to be approved or not. So honestly, if we go back to full time, we could leave the salary where it is at the 53. or you can do the 53 plus the 3% based on the TA's proposal. It's just, I would either leave it where it is or do the 3%. To get someone certified in that position as an assessor is hard with that rate, but.

So then the correct amount is the 55, 167, 77 for the 3% increase?

As a point of reference, just philosophical, my assistant was not given a raise last year in part because she was brand new. So I decided it didn't make sense to give her the same raise as everybody else. So she was coming in at the original roll. We may want to consider that again.

Yeah, I agree. We're giving an empty chair a raise right now. Yeah.

So 53. So what is the amount? 53 what? 560?

Yeah, I'm gonna look it up just to be sure. 53, 560 is what it was.

So the person who's in the seat now, did they have to go through certifications and stuff to have this deputy position?

So they started, and then the last class, it conflicted with the accounting class she had to take. So she did complete one course, I believe. But the new person coming in, if they're not certified, we would have to, I believe the budget committee cut the education line also. We would have to increase the education line back up because if they don't come in with a certification, we would have to supply that education for them.

So these certifications, are they done on a regular basis or how often are they done?

So it's hard. So they have to have so many people to have a class for it to be worth for the instructor. So it ranges some like this year we had two and then like a math. So like basically three this year.

It took me over a year and a half to finally get in one when I had started here. I'm sorry? Sorry, it took me over a year and a half to finally get into one of the classes cuz they never had enough people to create one. So it takes a while for them to have people actually sign up for them. It's all Rhode Island based.

Okay, so you could potentially have a vacancy, right? So now in order to bring on someone, if they don't have the certifications, is there stuff they can still do in your office or are you kind of at a standstill without them being certified? No, the current deputy is not certified.

She probably does 70% of what can be done. Okay. It's just mainly... assessing, going out, new construction, things like that they can't complete.

But I do that anyway, so. So they still would be able to help you even though they don't have that? Yeah. Okay.

Jen, how many classes in total do you have to go through in order to become certified?

Four.

Four? Okay, thank you.

are they like an hour class or are they like six weeks or no um it's usually it's a week long um eight hours a day and then they go back for the test and they have to obviously get uh 65 or higher and then they have to present all their classes once they're complete to the state and then you have to take another test with the state and how much is this program Can I just grab my sheet? Yes. So the classes range. This year it was between 450 to 550. A class? Yes. That includes the whole course, the test, and the booklet.

That's the four classes that they need to take? No, that's each. That's each, okay. So we're probably talking about 2,500 or so, 3,000 for the full.

Yes.

Jen, what's the likelihood that we could post this role and hire somebody that already has the certification?

Um, we recently did it. Um, I want to say almost two years ago and it was difficult. Okay. It was very difficult to get someone certified coming in at that rate. It was hard. Okay. So most likely at that rate, they won't be certified. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Thanks Jen. Thank you.

I mean, we can take a vote on it, but I definitely want to put that position back up to a full time position at the 53 560. And then obviously we would have to if we're going to do that, we would have to add another 3000 into education and training.

Or do we just want to accept the department's recommendation for 5000? As opposed to the 1800 of the Budget Committee.

Yeah, well it's a total of 2,000. They have 1840 and 160, so it's like 2,000, so we add three. Okay, okay.

Not to complicate this, but I mean, when you act on this, if you can put a footnote on it, because we'd like to come back tomorrow with a different approach that may reduce the upfront costs of that replacement position with a stipend, not a stipend, but a move up upon certification, because we're taking a look at this position relative to other clerks in town hall, and there may be a better approach to that. So we'd want to come back and talk to you about that.

So you're asking for a second look? Last look. I am.

All right, so we'll just, yeah, make a note to come back to it. Okay. Does anyone have any other changes to the tax assessor?

At this point, no.

All right, so Tony, if we made those changes, what would be the total for the?

Total for the department, for assessor department is $248,830.07. Hold up one second. I think I have to change the medical because.

Yeah, give me one second. I have to. Yeah, why don't you go up, Jen? I know. Jen, why aren't you at the table? I'm not special enough. I don't know.

So I just wanted to clarify the education. So the $5,000 that I proposed, so I need continuing ed, but I need it over time. So I believe it's two and a half years I need a certain amount of hours. So I just don't want, didn't want you to add the two together for education. Like the five would be enough because that I can work it out. So where they need a class, I could take the class the following year or like, yeah.

So right now the budget committee had recommended 2000, but previous you had 5,100, so you need it back up to 5,000, right?

Sorry, the 5,160, because the 160 is the mandatory assessor appoint meetings that we go to.

Right, so you need the full 5,000, right? Is that accurate or no?

Well, is it likely that they would be taking all the classes in one year?

The total for just education and the classes, because it's in the same budget line, it would be the total would be the $5,160. Right. Okay. So the $5,000 plus the $160 for the four classes.

But Jen, is it likely that they would be taking all the classes and went in the same year?

if they offer it in that year um usually they only have usually two to three a year if we have enough people okay but i could work it out where i could take a class yeah but if it becomes available i think it's important that you get that person through it you know as soon as possible so yeah to only give you like 500 less than what you need to do the full and it comes up and yeah then you're stuck right so okay thanks john thank you

So the new department total is $273,019.08. They had to go back and fix the benefits. Anyone want to make a motion to? I will make them.

Put my mic on. I will make a motion to approve the tax assessor budget of 272,000. No, 273. 273,000? Yeah. 273. $273,019.08. Second. That's a motion and a second.

Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Berrigan?

Yes.

Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Myself? Yes.

um i see the budget committee's recommendation is 150 458.62 does anyone have any discussion or like to make a motion i would just like to add in the removal of the contingency so the reason we usually have like a small accumulative amount of contingency in there um

is under the software licenses line is fruit. Yeah, they're pretty dramatic. The price changes that happened throughout the year, like I know we all probably saw the GPU, you know, not GPU, the Rams increase in price. Laptops consequently went up in price pretty high. So That contingency allows us fluctuation of being able to purchase other or the software itself goes up because they don't run on the same fiscal year as us. So some of those licenses. Right. So someone might leave or we might add another position. We might need another license. So that's where we have that small contingency, the 3,000.

So your new figures are accounting for price increases that you already know about?

No, the price increases are the ones that we don't know that are coming, because they tend to increase the prices halfway through the year on January 1st, where they don't know what they are yet. I can't get those figures from the company yet, but they always change on me. And a lot of times we end up over budget because of it. So I started putting this contingency in to try to alleviate that.

So you haven't used the contingency though in the past two years?

it would appear that's because that's because we have reserves right which are going away but you said a lot of the renewals are in january yeah so it would only be half the year right right so they can cut that in half again

it's not a full year so if there if you're looking at a five or three percent on the total cost it's only going to be for six months right so i mean the percentage it's a total estimate so i think we should put something in there but yeah if you want to say it's for half the year it's a guess sixteen hundred or two grand yeah go sixteen hundred

Can we change that to 1600 or add it to the town council budget?

Town council budget. You mean as a contribution?

No, no, no, no. In this column. Oh.

I know, because I was thinking he was moving it.

So the new department total is $152,058.62. 152, 058.62. We're good?

We're good. Anyone like to make a motion for IT?

I'll make a motion for IT in the amount of $152,058.62.

That's a motion, is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragon?

Yes. Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes.

Conservation Commission. The budget committee is recommending $700. Anyone have any conversation or like to make a motion?

Can we talk about these collectively? Because we have the Conservation Commission, I think maybe the Historic District Commission could sit separately, but Economic Development and Art Committee. It looks like year over year, those committees haven't necessarily used that budget. I wouldn't want to cut the budget for committees but can we can we establish like one fund with a certain amount of money that any board or committee could leverage so like let's say I'm just going to use groundwater protection as an example right now we don't have a budget Right, but if I could come to the town council and say I have this event that I'd like to do It would cost X amount of money and then we have a repository of money let's say 5,000 allocated for boards and commissions and then the town council could then approve and

using funds from that. My only question is how would each one know going into the year what they have to spend? Like the art committee just changed over stuff. How would they know what they have available?

So I love that question. Okay. Well I think it's like we need a bigger like overhaul of boards and commissions and establishing goals and strategic priorities and blah blah blah. But I think eventually like they need to There needs to be more planning, right? But I think until we have the boards and committees on a regular, or at least until they have an understanding that they know what they wanna do and they can allocate a budget every year or request a budget every year, I think establishing a fund where boards and committees can come to the town council and request that, and then we could approve it or deny it accordingly. But I don't want to remove this money. But these committees haven't been specifically using it. But parks and rec committee might want to use it, right? And they don't have a budget. So I would like to just bunch all of that money together into one fund so that it's accessible to all boards and commissions that present a plan and then the town council could approve accordingly.

If you build a fund, it wouldn't be fully represented in here in the general fund. It'd have to be combined.

I think you've got to look at it differently. Identify the people you want to give budgets to and give them budgets as opposed to one. Because one committee could go and blow the whole thing.

No, I think we would probably have to put some guardrails around it. The groundwater protection couldn't come and say, I want to use $5,000 of that. $5,000.

Would they be coming to you for each purchase throughout the year? They would have to show up and ask before the art committee purchases new hooks for the wall or different things?

Currently, they don't do that. They're not using this money. The art committee is.

The art committee is. Some do, a little bit.

I can safely say the art committee, because they were using reserves. They were. So, yeah, historically they don't look like they were using anything, but they used all the money in reserves, because I told them it was leaving, so.

Okay, hold on, David, I think you had something to say.

I just, again, I just, again, point of order. We're getting off the budget. There's a budget item before you. It's up or down or change. If you want to change the budget process, this isn't the meeting to do that.

But we have to approve these budget items.

Either yes or no on the 700. Okay. And move on. I mean, that's what you're supposed to be doing. That's what the public is expecting. That's what's advertised. That's what's being presented. Not a discussion about reorganizing how boards and commissions receive money.

So if we wanted to do that, that would be a- Different discussion for another day.

Okay.

Yeah, and I would suggest a bill on that. Maybe next year when we go through the budget process, we'd be preemptive and go to the various boards and commissions and say, okay- I like that. What do you want? Or maybe vice versa. Put together a plan with a number attached to it, and we'll discuss it as part of the budget process.

Okay, I like that. Okay, sorry we got off track, David.

uh we'll make a motion to approve the conservation commission budget in the amount of seven hundred dollars that's a motion is there a second i'll second any other discussion roll call please mr birigan yes mr cristofaro yes this is o'hara yes mr punchak yes yes uh historic district commission um budget committee's recommendation is ten thousand dollars

why is this such a big spread like we go anything this year yeah there wasn't even a budget last year they spent nothing the year before so i uh yeah what's the logic yeah what's driving the 10 000. tj

Douglas Ogier, 1984 Providence Pike, Chair of the Budget Committee. It's a grant match, essentially. This project's been before the council for a few years now.

Is this the windows? Huh? The windows or?

No, that's heritage. This is for historic district grant. It's partly through the state, and I believe the federal government might be having a piece of it. But I think the project's gotten delayed a few years, so it's to essentially keep the match available and alive, to my recollection.

So it would have just been helpful to have that on the line.

I'll make a motion to approve $10,000 for the historic district commission.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. .

Yes. I'm just going to make a note that we revisit that should we have to come back later on. Economic development, budget committee's recommendation is $200. Anyone like to make a motion or any discussion?

I'll make a motion to approve $200 for the economic development.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Berrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. House?

Yes. Arc Committee, Budget Committee's recommendation of 250. Anyone like to make a motion or have any discussion?

I want to make a comment. Does it send a message that we're putting more to our committee than we are to economic development?

Well, in theory, isn't that what the Economic Development Committee is requesting?

Seems strange to me.

I mean, how much did they actually spend this year? I know they had reserves.

Yeah, they had about $1,100 in reserves, if I remember correctly, and they spent almost $800, if not a little over.

That's because you told them it was going?

That's because I told them, but I mean, to say what that is operationally on a normal year, I can't tell you, but...

So did the art committee come to the budget committee and request 1,000? No.

No, they sent me, because these smaller commissions and committees, I will send whoever's on that committee or commission an email with the template saying, what's your request? And then they'll send it back to me. If I don't get anything, I'll just keep it level funded from the last year and leave it up to the TA and the budget committee to make those decisions.

Mm-hmm.

It's apples and oranges anyway. Our committee needs frames and hooks and all those strings and all that stuff every year to operate.

Unless the economic development wants to frame some stuff and hang it in the- What the economic development committee has been, I wouldn't say benefiting from, but they're the sounding board that we use as part of the 146 planning effort. So there's a significant amount of money being spent in that arena which they are participating in. So it's not that they don't have resources, it's just the resources are focused on one project.

Yeah, no, we approved the economic development.

I know, but the question was about why economic development as much as arts, that's all.

So what do we want to give to the art committee?

I think the 250 is fair.

Any question?

No question.

Do we feel like the 250 will disengage the committee? Sounds like they're relatively engaged.

Disengaging, what do you mean?

Like by decreasing the budget from 1,000.

It used to be 2,000. Okay.

When it first started.

Tony, so this year you're saying they used 1,100 cuz it was reserves and then the prior year they didn't spend anything. Is it cuz they still had reserves? So obviously they haven't spent really anything if it's been all on reserves, right?

yeah so the year prior yeah that yeah that's why so the year prior there was almost nobody on the board from what i had understood um and then now within this fiscal year that we're in currently they had gained more members and more engagement and that's when she her and i had actually you know talked a lot more this year and she had ordered a lot more was doing more events and stuff as far as i know i'd go to 500. the data we have here is 371 so you know they can

That's fair.

I'd go to 500.

All right, so I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the art committee budget of $500.

That's a motion, is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Berrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. House?

Yes. Juvenile hearing board, budget committee's recommendation is $4,566.16.

Motion to approve juvenile hearing board in the amount of $4,566.16. Second. The motion is second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Birrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Nesbitt Field Library, budget committee's recommendation is $541,685. Is there a motion or any discussion?

I just have a question for state aid. Is the 99,000 a match?

It's an expense, so I have to expense it and revenue it. Okay. Yeah. Just like education aid.

Anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the library budget in the amount of $541,685. It's a motion, is there a second?

Second. Any further discussion?

Roll call please. Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes.

Dispatch, budget committee is recommending $362,933.23. Any discussion or a motion?

I'm just wondering where the town administrators, like what's the? Okay.

Yeah, there's a formulaic change for the, yeah.

Okay, so it's 362.

Is this as a whole department, Tony, or is that we're supposed to vote on that one alone? Dispatch?

You can vote on it as a department. Okay. Yeah.

Anyone have any comments or like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve dispatch budget in the amount of $362,933.23. Second. That's a motion and a second.

Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Birigod?

Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alts?

Yes. Police Department, Budget Committee. What's the difference, Tony?

I had open enrollment changes in the benefits. Sorry, you're right, that's MERS. There was a formula correction back here in the MERS. It was calculating the, the ERSRI had sent us the new version, the new percentages for the police. They update them every year from what the employer side is supposed to contribute.

What about the era? Is there an what's the for fuel? What's going on that line? We're just dropping it that much. So why? I guess why is there no fuel expense? I'm sorry, vehicle repair and maintenance. Why is there no expense in the line for this year?

Because we last year, remember, we had decided to the council decided to use reserves, all of the reserves, and they've certainly used all of it.

So is there any overage that would show up in this line or no?

No, they've they've gotten down. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Budget transfers.

Terry and you can, you can comment.

She's just going to put duct tape on my mouth for the rest of the meeting.

I was just going to say they did some budget transfers to cover what they needed for the rest of their repairs.

Okay. President, may I ask the chief a question? Absolutely. Chief, after this most recent pay raise, what is the top salary of her captain?

I got it over here, but it's Does that make sense? It's $204,000. Well, that's for two captains, right?

That doesn't include the is that include the I'm just trying to get to something that include the raise? Is that that's the final? Yes.

Yeah, I think that's reflective of the new rates for all the, these are reflective of all the rates for the new contract.

So a captain then on the police right now is making $102,000 a year, correct?

Correct, they will be in this upcoming fiscal year.

Okay. And the chief is making currently, $109,000?

That's what's proposed by the budget committee, 3% raise.

I'm just trying to keep parity with the police chief and the captains, you know what I'm saying? I'm just trying to make sure that there's parity with the captains getting and everybody else getting a raise and the chief is proportionately, I mean, it doesn't make sense if his captains are making pretty much what he is.

In the administrator's budget, I actually instead of giving three to the chief, I gave 5% in reflection of the creep coming up due to the new contract.

Okay. That's what I would recommend, to go with the administrator's recommendation for the chief, because it just doesn't work if the guys under him are making pretty much as much as he is.

Now, do they get to do overtime and details and stuff? Excuse me? Do they get to do overtime and details? Yes, they do. So what's their base? What would be their base? That's the 102.

That's the base? 102.

Yes, 102.

It's good to point out too that we're getting a discount with this chief because the average salary for a police chief in the state of Rhode Island is $135,000 a year.

We're getting a discount.

Another company guy right there. 154. I asked the other one there. So that's just to give you a reference. So my recommendation for this is to go along with the administrator's recommendation for a 5% increase for the chief.

Anyone have any other discussion for the police department?

I think I'll I'll just say this I know that we talked a bit about 3% increase across the board and not you know picking one role over the other but I think you do present a good argument between the gap between captain and chief so I that's what's telling me on the 5% because we obviously want to maintain a relevant difference.

I'll make that motion, yes.

Yeah.

Second.

You're making a motion to change it?

I'm making a motion to increase the chief salary based on the administrator's recommendation of 5%.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes.

So Tony has to recalculate, right?

Is there going to be any other changes for the department? Any other discussion?

Question regarding, so we have the capital transfer $77,858 for a new cruiser. So budget committee saying one cruiser out of general fund. So are they requesting two? And we're saying one out of the general fund and then 77,000 for the second cruiser. Like what's helped me just to understand what.

The department is requesting three. Three. The TA and the budget committee is saying only pay for one out of general fund and pay for the other two out of the cruiser fund. The cruiser fund? Yeah, which is generated by police details.

Details, okay, got it, okay.

Cruiser mounted license plate readers, I don't like the sound of that.

That's a hard note.

And the removal of the body cams is just due to extracting that out of the general fund and putting that through the grant fund so.

Anyone have any other. Tony we have a new number.

New total for the police department is $5,239,256.32. I just want to take one more quick look at this. Mm-hm. Are we requesting any new officers, any new head count?

Yes. How many?

You recommended how many? How many did you recommend?

Three.

And the budget committee is recommending two. Are we currently like down two or three?

We're down two now.

We're down two now. Okay.

So just to give you an idea of the situation that the manpower shortage is calling for, and the school committee's here too, school department's here. We wanted security at every event since that shooting that happened at Lynch Arena. We wanted security at every event, and we just don't have the manpower. We don't have the manpower to provide security like all the parents want. As much as we try, and they do try, but they have to fill the shortage, the minimum manning first, and then they can take care of the other things. And events have been going uncovered because we just don't have the manpower to send police officers to every event. They're at some, but not at every one. So we do need more people on there.

So we're currently down two, and the Budget Committee is only recommending that we backfill those two open rolls.

No. No, two more. Two need to be backfilled to keep us to our complement.

And then we want two more on top of that.

The Budget Committee .

OK.

Any other changes? Anyone want to make a motion to accept the new total for the police department?

I'll make a motion to accept $5,239,256.32. That's a motion. Is there a second?

Thank you. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes.

Animal control. Budget committee is recommend, what's the change?

This is Mr. Pendergast and our animal control officers here. They can speak more to it, but there's a change for the position instead of a kennel assistant. I think they wanted the animal control officer, right? I don't know if you want to talk more about it in terms of the reason.

This position was in the budget years ago and a decision was made to save money to make it a kennel assistant. As a result of that change with the animal control officer before Leanne. It's not working, and the reason it's not working is it's still causing her to come in on overtime, so our overtime budget's gonna blow right out of the water. So we're gonna go back to a part-time ACO who has the ability and the credentials to go out and do her job on a part-time basis, 19 hours a week.

So a kennel assistant, they don't have like the certifications, right? Like a ACO would? Okay. They're not certified. So are they supposed to go out and do? Kennel assistants cannot.

Okay. They have to be certified to go out on the classes. Two modules is one week of each. It's about $500 to certify someone.

And it saves probably about, right now on average, I do four overtime callbacks.

so we're looking at a full-time part-time part-time aco and then still a part-time kennel or no more no kennels

So the kennel assistant part-time at Union 3.5%, that's not the role that we're looking for.

Say that again, I'm sorry. I was just making sure.

It says kennel assistant part-time.

Yeah, I just changed that to animal control officer.

Okay, but what we have there is the $23,870.

That's the kennel assistant.

Okay, so that salary no longer applies because we're not looking for a kennel assistant.

Correct. Yeah, I have it up here, and I can give you the department total once you guys have seen it.

So that's the difference between a part-time kennel and a part-time ACO? Yes. Are we sure about that?

About $1,500, yeah.

Yeah, it's reflective of the union contract, yeah.

Okay.

While we're waiting for them to do that, I hear great things about you.

Yes.

I haven't had the need to call you, but I hear good things.

You have to have someone educated that you know how to answer those questions and respond to those calls. So for the small difference, it'll make a big difference for the whole town in general.

Do you get a lot of calls for chickens? Oh, yes. Yeah. I get people calling me about chickens.

What are they calling about?

Complaining that there's chickens in the neighbor's yard.

If you get any call for ducks, I need some. Yeah. I might be able to talk to you about that. Okay.

I might be able to talk to you about that. I'll give you a call. Okay.

I know there's been great things said about you, and I think it was great when you advertised some of the animals that are in the shelter. You travel around town with them. It's great. It's good for the kennel.

I can thank both the chiefs for that, too. I definitely use both their men.

Yeah, I saw that.

One thing I learned from the city of France.

Great job.

Thank you. Thank you so much. You're welcome.

Appreciate it.

All right. Anyone have any motions or changes to the animal control? So, Tony, what's the new if we were to go with the.

So the new total for animal control is one hundred and thirty six thousand nine hundred dollars and seven cents.

Nine hundred and seventy.

Nine hundred dollars and seven cents.

Seven cents.

I'll make a motion to approve the animal control budget in the amount of $136,900.07. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara.

Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes. EMA, budget committee's recommendation is $44,249.44. Is there any discussion or motion?

what is the big jump in their dues and subscriptions from 2024 2025 into 2026 there's 104 108 and then it jumped up to 1550 and we're looking at 500 so are we going into something knowing we're already under budget give me a second to look at that

It looks like the biggest increase is that capital transfer, 60% increase.

So this year they, those are the expenses that they've had this fiscal year. Two license renewals.

And. That 10 year radio license.

Did they always have a website?

But yeah, they had a website prior, but Brancone was, he had an account and somehow I was told it was free. And then they wanted to recreate that under GoDaddy, which they did for the lack of time. But the budget committee is suggesting, you guys can talk more about it, that they just open up a page within the town's website. Just more developed, yeah.

All right, so right there, the two LG communications is $1,050 of those every year.

FCC license.

Is that yearly? Yes. So we would have to at least budget for that to be prudent.

I would say yes.

So I guess following on David's question, so did those expenses hit the other departments in prior years? Because we've only expensed $108, $104, and if we have $1,050 in licenses and it said prior department and DPW, did they hit the other departments?

I can check. I would probably assume if it hit the fire department. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. If it was fire, it could have hit 120. But police, I should be able to, I might be able to check. TBW? No. You're asking if that was also expended in this?

Not also, but were they hitting the other departments rather than EMA because that expense hasn't hit there in like 25 it wasn't, 24 it wasn't?

new management in ema right now so i think that there's a little bit of um changes in what i the chief can speak better to that than i can because i mean they always you said their licenses we have every year right yes the licenses that come up with the ema frequencies that they have on the vhf frequencies and also i don't know why

So what we just saw up there is wrong in your opinion?

I don't see that here.

That's making me dizzy.

I'm trying to do multiple things at once here. Let's see, that's DPW. But here's the previous, here's the current year.