Common Council - Special Meeting

to order. The city clerk will call the role. Ayello Burmaster Betar Irvin Beatus Wazooi Kalasimota Lumemetico Jeruti present.

Please rise for the pledge of allegiance followed by a moment of silence for the deceased members of the common council. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The agenda for the special meeting is possible veto override. Council would like to open the floor for discussion. But before we do anything, the question tonight is shall the mayor's veto be sustained? A yes vote keeps the veto and a no vote defeats it. So a yes keeps it. So when we're voting and a no defeats it.

Mr. President, I obviously the votes are going to go the way they are. If you don't mind if I Well, hang on for a second. So, uh, the council has the message from the mayor, general veto message for ordinance 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46. So, you guys have that open for discussion?

Sure. So, I I've got one couple of things that I want to say. So number one is every single department in the city of Udica from 2012 whether it's police, fire, DPW, parks have been working with less men since 2012. Any report that they give you, they the the call volume has been increased dramatically. We had one of the worst storms in one of the worst winters in the city of Udica for quite some time. We've had one of the worst fire incidents inside the city in quite some time. for anybody to go on the radio and say that every single department is mismanaged, okay, and say that DPW, who I know there are multiple people on this council that that call the DPW for anything that they need. And to say that is one of the most mismanaged departments in the city of Udica is an actual disgrace. Okay, they went from a hundred guys, I think they're working with what 38 now in the winter that we had. I It's really frustrating. So I I mean minus these budget amendments, I just really wanted to reflect that on the floor because it's very frustrating to know how hard these guys work and to do what they have to do whether it's police, fire, DPW, parks, codes, they're working with less than they have and from 2012 knowing that the call volumes increased. So for for the record, I just wanted to state that it's disgraceful for anybody to sit here and say that they are they are mismanaged.

Thank you, Council Person. Anyone else? And just to reiterate, does no means it overrides. Correct. No defeat. No means to defeat. Y you're voting to override. It's a green voting. No. At the other. Yeah, we we have it. Yep. So, a yes is going to keep the veto. Thank you. The motion is to override. Okay. Yes. Okay. Do you have a motion and a second for ordinance number 38 of 2026? Motion. Mr. President, before we start, are you going to read this letter from the mayor or No, I have it. You all have it? Yeah, I know.

If you like him to, but I think you should read this for the for the public.

Yeah, I mean, you would it was a message from the mayor. I would hope that you would read it into the record. We started it. The administration is committed to maintaining fiscal responsibility while ensuring the continued delivery of essential services and successful completion of planned projects. In reviewing the recent ordinances proposed for budget amendments, I am issuing vetos based on specific and necessary reasons. Please consider this general message as applying to the entire package of amendments. Before discussing any vetos, however, I would like to address the budget process as a whole, including amendments that were signed. After the budget was passed by ENA, I was notified that the governor was increasing TMA to a sum of 5.1 5.61 million and increase of 3.7. While the budget proposal originally came up with the 2.9% increase which both less than half the New York state tax cap and below and below the northeast CPI-U I provided at the common council a recommendation on distributing those funds within the budget to reduce this year's fund balance use to a manageable level plan for the contingency of the known contract negotiations that will come with major financial cial obligations and to hold the tax rate stable this year. Even my recommendations were not filed exactly. I wanted to support any version that achieved the same result. What ensued was far from the recommendations. While the council immediately latched on to the 0% rate increase and agreed we should drastically reduce fund balance use, an additional $1 million paving increase out of the operational budget was

proposed. In order to pay for that increase, the council majority proposed to cut health insurance, HSA, HA funding, mandated expenses, contractual holiday pay for the police budget, and other smaller infrastructure repair lines that are necessary to maintain the city. While $6.4 4 million of paving was already presented by my administration. Once my chief of staff, budget director, and I were able to present to the common council proof that my budget proposal in fact was not over budgeting for HAS, H, and contractual payments. The common council had to forego the plan to fund additional paving given there was literally no way to pay for it. As a result, the council majority have the original propos cut um the original proposal to 500k funding repair line street maintenance with the combination of cuts and other necessary infrastructure report repairs and placing less of the revenue from the TAM increase into contingency while it is needed for contract settlements for payroll, police and fire. If both contracts settle during the fiscal year, there will be $1.8 million gap in the budget. Every penny of the contingency monies that could have been appropriated will be needed. These reasons, among others, are why I vetoed a package of the council's pass amendments. Separately, I must address an amendment that I did sign, but for all intents, should have been vetoed. Councilman Lmenico was scrutinizing the 100,000 allotted for the turnout gear for the fire department intending to cut the line back to last year's budget amount. Made a negative comment about hazard pay in reference to cancer rates and firefighters. While the

administration had already ensured the monies that were needed in addition to the 100k for all the turnout gear needs for the UFD would be funded through CDBG. The council insisted on adding 75K to the line for pure political reasons. If those funds are unused and the CDBG monies pay for the turnout gal 75K will be either put to good use elsewhere or returned to the fund balance at the close of next year. Moving on to the general veto package. Many of these amendments were advanced under the rationale that certain funds were unused. The rationale is flawed. Under my administration, funds that were planned for use but left unspent were intentionally preserved in order to reduce the overall planned deficit for each budget year. FY U fiscal year 25 fiscal year 26 that is not negligent or o or an oversight. It is fiscal prudence. The council majority continues to resist the reality that the city has been in a deficit status since the end of fiscal year 2223. In staying with the subject of unspent appropriations, this ad administration viewed them as an important tool to manage a deficit stressed budget, cover overruns, and maintain the stability in the face of real and ongoing obligations. The common council reducing appropriations simply because they appear unused without understanding why those funds remain available is imprudent. We are already seeing exactly why this approach was necessary. For example, the current budget year the road salt line was reduced to 500,000 by the common council while projected and proven needed exceeded 750,000. actual expenses are now exceeding

800,000 due to weather conditions and those so-called unused funds are helping absorb the overage. That is precisely why preserving flexibility in a stress budget matters. The rationale for supporting certain proposed ordinances to reduce the levy is inaccurate. The reduction in the tax levy this year was made possible because of the availability of traditional temporary municipal assistance funding. As iterated earlier, I specifically advised that the funding be used to stabilize the budget overall budget and offset the tax levy. On the contrary, I've had to veto amendments that reduce infrastructure repair lines and capital outlay for the required maintenance, something I'm completely surprised the council majority would do in light of $3.7 million of additional funding. The original budget proposed by this ad administration was as fiscally fiscally as sound as possible with a levy increase that was less than half the liable tax cap and below the region's inflation rate with the additional $3.7 million of TMA. My expectations that we would generally work together for the benefit benefit of the city after we provided a path to reduce our fund balance draws and tax rate increase. What ensured instead was a twomonth onslaught of accusations against the administration that were all proven false and our administration have having to defend the contractual obligations to payroll healthc care was necessary to fund for that I left simply disappointed in this year's budget process as my administration team has been more communicative and transparent about finance than any other administration

prior. As mayor, I remain committed to responsible budgeting practices that protect the city's long-term fiscal health, support essential operations and infrastructure needs, and maintain the delivery of services to the public, and of course, we'll take those leading principles into the fiscal year regardless of what the common council's final budget amendments may be. Michael P. Gali, mayor of city, mayor, city of Udica. So, Mr. President, may I have the floor for a second? I mean, after reading this, I guess it kind of goes back to a couple questions that I had.

Um, you had $3.7 billion in additional revenue coming from the state for state aid. If you take $2.1 million out of fund balance, you knew you were running an $880,000 def $880,000 deficit from what the auditor said um and concluded. Um, you also had $660,000 in a contractual obligation that you had to settle with CSEA. Um, in addition, you had I'm pretty sure there's one more 2.1 $880 and that that would bring you up to that $3.7 million. With that said, you put additional money in in into the street maintenance line, which Joe, I was very surprised that you said you had no problem transferring money out of that line um at any point in time of the year because obviously we have $5 million um you know that that is being that is being

bonded for. you just went through a $5 million revenue anticipation note that by the good grace of God um we have the Bank of Udica that gives us a $5 million loan for 20,000. Um you go through all this stuff and then you you cut budget lines that you knew needed to be funded. So technically you're already starting this year out with getting $3.6 million in a $500,000 deficit by putting those money into the street maintenance lines. So I guess my my question is where are you getting that 500,000? Is it borrowing from the fund balance? because I've asked multiple people this question and no one's been able to answer that. So, I mean, staying silent really proves my point and that's what's frustrating and that and that's why the council people they'll you know

Yeah. I mean, I' they'll make their votes, you know. So, um I'll explain it again. But first of all, we're going to go to a mo I need a motion and a second for ordinance number 38 of 2026. Yeah, I'll explain it again. And thank you, Mr. President. And just for the clar, you're going to clarify the vote. I'll do it again. So motion in a second motion. So nobody for the record wants to clarify how they're running a deficit after we just got $3.6 million. When they cast their vote, if they want, they don't have to make a motion for I appreciate that. Thank you. So we got a motion in a second. Got a second. Do we have a second? For what? For ordinance number 38. Well, you're saying if we

Jack, I'll explain it before you guys vote. I'll I'll explain it again. Okay. So guys, guys, I will explain. Can you guys stop texting each other throughout the entire meeting telling people how to vote? This is insanity. Nobody's texting. You have to vote no. If you don't want I I will explain it. First of all, okay, can I say something for Yes. Okay.

I just like to have just to say something that the mayor said about me on this on this letter. Um, yeah, I did put the $175,000. I added the the 7 I added $75,000 back. That's fine. I called I talked to the the fire uh chief today and the uh the uh president of the union. They're very very happy what I did. Now, this leaves a hundred of firemen still without the new takeout gear coat. Um, as Mayor Paul Mary did every year, he took money from other funds from the uh CD funds, the CDG,

so from the CDG funds, and he also added that money to the takeout gear. So, if if the mayor um really wants to to help the fire department with their takeout gear, he could do what uh Mayor Paul Mary did on a yearly basis and take more money out to help the fire department. I'm very proud that I did this and I stand by it and I appreciate the fire chief and the president of the uh fire union to uh to appreciate this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. So we have common council changes in 2026 27 ENA approved annual estimate ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Street maintenance account A55110-44101 street paving from 0 to $500,000 a positive $500,000 change. allocate an additional 5,000 to paving roads in fiscal year 2026 2027. So now you're going to vote his amendment, you vote yes.

His veto. If you don't, you vote no. So, if you want to defeat the mayor's amendment right now, you vote yes. So, I want to keep street paving, I vote yes. You want to defeat it. Where's the money coming from? So, I'll be voting. Where the money is coming from? Somebody just answer. You want to defeat? No, it does. I just got to ask you as for $500,000 of paving and you don't have the money after you spent it. So, where's it coming from? Jack, you got to vote yes if you want to defeat it. I don't know why you have a lawyer. You you don't ask the lawyer what the question is. That's why I'm here. You stay home. If you want to defeat it, you vote yes. You have a motion. Here, judge. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Hold on. Hold on. Your honor, hold on.

All right, guys. Let's give it to the judge. If you have a motion, and the motion here is to whether or not to override the mayor's veto. That's a motion. That's an affirmative motion. Yes. If you wish to override the veto, you vote the you vote in the green button because then just vote yes. Yes. Yeah. If you uh do not wish to override the but then you push the red button. And these are the people making amendment $94 million. Wonderful. You don't even know how to vote. Yes or no? My motion was to override the veto.

Yes. So, okay. Votes, please. To override as a yes. We'll listen to all your comments.

Venice, you have to vote. Yes. Press the green button if All right. Good. Thank God. I have a motion. It's defeated. and a second for ordinance number 41 2022. Motion 26 common council changes in 20 guys

in 2026 2027 ENA approved annual estimate. Now therefore be ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Budget account A5134102. Wages $35,000 to zero. A negative $35,000 change. Rationale reduce unused line. Your votes. Democrats vote yes. Republicans vote no. Oh, thank you for that. You're welcome, guys. Six days override. Okay. We have a motion and a second for ordinance number 42 of 2026. Motion.

Second. Thank you. Common council changes 202627 ENA approved annual estimate. Now therefore be it ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. engineering account A51440-411 contractual 811 from 225,000 to $190,000 a negative $35,000 change. Um current year exceeds budgeted amount due to paying late bills from prior two years. Current projection based on yearly averages is not estimated to exceed 190,000 reduced unused amount to lower tax levy. Your votes please.

6J's override. Motion and a second for ordinance 43 of 2026. Motion. Second. Common council changes 2026 2027 ENA approved annual estimate. Now therefore it be ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Engineering account A51440-441 contracted contracted services 87,500 to 40 thou 45,500 a negative $42,000 change rationale department requested 30,000 reduced to lower tax levy votes please six years override

we have to vote on any of these yeah cat we're almost done a motion You didn't even have to do it. Could have just kept them in. Motion and ordinance. Have a motion and second for ordinance 44 of 2022. Common council changes 2026 2027 ENA approved annual estimate. Now therefore, be it ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Street lighting account A55182-211. capital outlay from 30,000 to zero a negative $30,000 change rationale reduced to lower tax levy votes please 6 years override

you have a motion a second for ordinance number 45 of 2026 motion

common council changes 2026 2027 ENA approved annual estimate now therefore be it ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Street lighting account A55182-422 electric from 1,225,000 to1,180,000 a negative $45,000 change. Rationale current projections do not exceed 1,150,000 in expenses reduced to to remove of the unused funds and lower tax levy. Votes, please. 6 years overright.

Motion a second for ordinance 46 of 2026. Motion second. Common council changes 2026 2027 ENA approved annual estimate. Now therefore, be it ordained that the annual estimate is hereby amended as follows. Infrastructure account A57130461. Repairs $275,000 to $200,000. A negative $75,000 change. Rational rationale department requested 165,000 for fiscal year 27 has not exceeded 77,000 on this line in three years reduced to lower tax levy votes please 6 days override motion to adjurnn

so I just want to say one thing before we go I appreciate the mayor transferring money out of each line but it got ourselves in trouble that's why we have to do another transfer on the same thing that we just did in in the previous meeting Good job, guys. Yeah.