Newton City Council and Committee of the Whole (FY27 Budget Deliberations) - May 26, 2026

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Recording in progress.

All right, folks. Can we grab our seats here so we can get started? Well, late.

Thank you.

All right, councilors, here we go. Stephen, please. Thank you, sir. So seeing as how I'm already late. All right, friends, colleagues, here we go. What I hope will be the last night of the FY27 budget fiasco. All right. First things first, we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll be led by Councillor Micley.

With 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.

All right, as we always start out, we are being both audio and video recorded. Online, we are joined by Councillors Silber, Wright, on Lucas online and in person. Still only get to vote once tonight, sir. For all of those using laptops, Councilor Lucas included, please make sure your microphones are off and speakers are muted to avoid feedback. In a moment I'm going to ask for a motion to go into Committee of the Whole. So we have several resolutions that we're going to be handling tonight, including one, I believe, one new resolution that is on your desk and it was circulated earlier. So if you haven't read it, please do.

And I believe we have folks from the mayor's office to speak to those items should we require their assistance. Thank you for being here, by the way. And then once we get through that, we'll go back into full council. We'll take a moment to celebrate our illustrious Chair of Finance's birthday. We have cake for everyone. And it's a really good cake, so let's not spend the whole night and multiple nights debating things we've already debated. Let's just get right to the cake. Okay, I'm getting nods and grins. Fantastic. So with that said, I need a motion to enter or to suspend council rules. May I have a motion? I have that motion. I have a second. Everyone in favor, please say aye. Opposed?

Any abstentions? Nope? Okay, here we go.

Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Mr. President. We are now in the Committee of the Whole, having recessed on Thursday to continue with our budget deliberations. A few points on process before we get started. Last Thursday, we took votes on all of the departments that didn't have resolutions attached to them. That leaves us tonight with the law department planning public works and the schools. We do have the one new resolution pertaining to the law department and we will take that up first. The authors of that resolution did confer with the mayor and his team between last Thursday and now, and I expect that Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Morse will be ready to give us a response to that resolution tonight. which will allow us if the council is ready to wrap up our deliberations this evening. After we vote on the new resolution, we will hear back from the administration on all of the other resolutions.

We did of course receive responses in writing, but Mr. Morris and Ms. Lemieux, I will recognize you if you wanna review any of the content of the responses. and we'll have any further discussion and any relevant votes on the remaining departments. President Oliver.

Terribly sorry, but I think we also need to touch the HHS department because the budget changed.

You're right, and I should have listed that with my departments. In my head, that is going to come on the heels of a vote of the law department. and then I will ask for a motion to reopen or reconsider the Health and Human Services Department in order to have a motion to move money as outlined in the responses there. and I was actually intending to do law, then that motion for Health and Human Services, clean that up and then move along through the rest of the resolutions in order. Thank you. So let's start with the new resolution. Councilor Kelley, can I recognize you to introduce it, please? Thank you, Chair.

This is not going to hold us up tonight because, as Councilor Grossman has already indicated, the mayor's office already has a clear answer that they'll give us tonight. And like many other resolutions and like this one every other time before us, before any mayor, it will not be accepted but I think it's an important topic for us to have a resolution on the books for and it is a resolution in order for the city council to have access to independent outside legal representation. You all have the whereases. I don't think I need to read them. I don't think we have to spend a lot of time discussing it, but particularly for the newer councilors, I think it's really important that this issue come before us tonight, and we are, You are welcome to speak or ask questions on it. Again, I don't think I need to repeat these things that are all before you, and I think we're all very excited about moving forward with the budget tonight. So that's all I need to say for now, but if there are questions, Happy to talk later. Thank you.

Thank you. We obviously have a majority of councillors who have signed on to this, so it's pretty 23 of 24, so it's pretty straightforward that this is going to pass. Given that, Councillor Farrell. followed by Councilor Lucas and Block.

Thank you, Chair. Just a matter of procedure. According to the City Charter Section 2-8, Clerk of the Council and other staff, be other staff. The City Council may by ordinance establish other staff positions. Excuse me. , regular or special as it shall from time to time deem necessary or desirable to assist the councillors in the performance of their duties. My question is to the lawyers in the group. Do we need to have an ordinance change to do that?

President Emeritus Baker, you seem poised to offer an answer.

I'm not sure I can offer a good answer but I'll offer an answer. which is that that enables us to establish task positions, but it has been unclear, at least in the past, that the city council had the ability to fund those positions. and so it's the question of funding rather than the establishment of the role that I think is the key issue. And so Councilor Krintzman has also worked on this issue and he may have something to add if I'm in error.

Councilor Krintzman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Ward 7. It's a question of funding. We could establish the position. We could pass an ordinance establishing the position, but if it's unfunded, we can't fill it.

Councilor Lucas, then Block.

Thank you, Chair. One, I'm going to remain seated because we're in committee. Two, I have a, I hope, friendly amendment to the resolution. In the third whereas, second line, In-house counsel cannot ethically and effectively represent both sides. It's the ethically part that when I read this last night, I'm like, That doesn't seem right. It's the ethically. So I am asking that we strike two words ethically and and. so that it reads in-house council cannot effectively represent both sides. I don't think it has anything to do with ethics.

Councillor Baker, then Roach.

This is not to say that the council is unethical, but there are rules in the code of professional conduct for lawyers that prohibit engaging in two sides of of the same issue or controversy. So you can't represent two parties who are opposing each other in the same litigation or in a conflict of interest. That's what the conflict of interest is about. So it's really just speaking to the ethical rules rather than that there is something unethical, if I can make that distinction.

Councilor Roach?

Same. Lucas, does that change your feelings on your request?

Yes. So it's all set. I do have another question related to the $46,000 in change that's in the I don't know if that's relevant for right now or if we need to debate that later on, but it's something that I don't know how that would play out.

President Oliver, you want to answer that? Yeah. What we have talked about briefly is I think it's fair to say we intentionally did not put that in the resolution. There are a lot of things that would need to be figured out as to how we would go about determining what types of situations actually warrant This, how it gets voted out. Does the president of the council have any, I don't know, I'm gonna use the word veto, say over things I have no idea. but we would have to figure that out in conjunction not only with the law department most likely but also the clerk's office. I foresee perhaps a small working group on that. particular topic as well as anything else that comes up in terms of the process and procedures and so on and so forth.

Good question though.

Okay, all set, Councilor Lucas? Councilor Block?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also had questions about the third whereas I wondered if it was in fact the case that procedures couldn't be devised so that a staff member in the council's office. couldn't be identified ahead of time that would step into this role and recuse him or herself from all discussions within the council's office so as to avoid the ethical difficulties. It may not be necessary to resolve this tonight. But that crossed my mind as I read this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Does anybody wish to respond to that point at this time? Councilor Baker?

Again, I think that it's not a conflict within the clerk's office. It's just a matter that the law department could not represent both sides to the same question. So if there were someone in the clerk's office, which this resolution assumes would ultimately be engaged, who could respond to questions from the council independent of the law department that would take care of it. But the process for choosing and hiring such a person as the president has indicated is yet to be determined if this resolution were to be adopted, and ultimately the mayor were to agree.

Councillor Kelley.

Just to follow up a tiny bit on that, Councillor Block, it is assumed that everyone in the city solicitor's office, the law department, works for the mayor. that they are employees of the mayor. So what we're looking for here is something totally outside and independent of that potential conflict, that ethical, that legal ethical conflict. so I don't think from what I understand having spoken to I think all the lawyers on this council and the mayor is that that would be possible but good question.

Councilor Kelley I think I would just add

Add a little bit more commentary to what you just said. The mayor's not standing here, but if he were, I think that he would argue that the city solicitor and... her staff work for the city and represent the city. I think the conflict that we've landed on in the council is that the city solicitor is hired by the mayor. So while I think there is a difference of opinion that has been debated over time as to whether that fact of a city solicitor being hired by the mayor creates that assumption, appearance, or effect of reporting to the mayor versus representing the city. Am I stating that fairly?

And I'm looking to our administrative staff in the back as well to correct me if I've misstated it, but to me that's sort of the crux of the issue. Roach.

Thank you. I also think as a practical matter what I think Councilor Block is referring to is creating a wall between attorneys where they don't share facts and they don't share theories and they operate independently. on ongoing issues like the kinds that the city council and the mayor's office face. it's not clear ahead of time when the city council would need an independent attorney and therefore trying to figure out and, you know, in the day-to-day, who hasn't had any exposure from the mayor's side would be very difficult. So I think as a practical matter as well as an ethical matter, It just makes sense to be able to find somebody who isn't in the solicitor's office now. It would be a challenge.

Councilor Albright, then Leary, then Micley.

So it hasn't happened frequently. It has happened from time to time. maybe once in a term there's something like this happens where we have a conflict and we feel differently from the the law department and it seems quite clear that it does not seem possible to separate out one of the attorneys from the rest of them. There's a gestalt within the law department on a particular topic. And in order for us to be represented by someone who represents our point of view, He would need to be cleanly done by someone who's not a part of the law department. And it's not like this happens every other week. It happens maybe once every two years. But it has happened, and it would be useful. to have our own representation.

Okay, so we have four hands next. Leary, Micley, Farrell, and Krintzman. I'm just gonna remind everyone that 23 of you have signed this resolution and there is a response ready so we can also read it and continue to discuss after that fact. but I'm gonna recognize these four folks and then really hope that we can drive to a vote. Councilor Leary.

Your comments are very well taken. Just briefly my understanding is that we would have a budget for attorney's fees that we could use to hire outside counsel. That's how I thought it would work because you're right, otherwise it won't, there'll be a conflict.

Councillor Micley.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so assuming this passes and assuming it gets rejected, If I remember correctly, I think when the current mayor was the president of the city council, he was part of the group that advocated to get legal counsel for the city council. OK, that's correct. So I'd be curious in the response, speaking to the reason for rejection, why you know just a year ago the same person was advocating for this legal counsel and obviously in a different position now how the rationale has evolved and changed to not seeing that fit if that is in fact the response. Thanks.

Councillor Farrell.

Chair, let me be clear to all my 23 colleagues that I'm in favour of this. I would like us to have our own Council. I think the devil's in the details. Unless I misunderstand Councillor Lucas, I would at least like something in this that says if we pass it tonight, Within a certain period we will make decisions about how this money will be allocated. I think it's not a lot of money and it's not entirely impossible to see where there will be conflicts and the choices have to be made about how that money gets used. So if it's possible to say within a certain period of time, We will have this resolved and there will be a vote by the council before any contracts are let. I would appreciate that.

President Oliver.

I'm not quite sure if this would rise to the level of which you want but how about this? If we pass this tonight, I will take this up before Monday.

and address it with a council in what manner?

I really do think that's what's in front of, that is the work that I would begin before Monday. It might not be enough, but it's probably as fast, bless you, as we can move.

Councilor Krintzman.

Thank you. I think to answer or to respond to Councilor Block's question, I think Councilor Roach made some excellent points. I agree with what Councilor Baker has said. I think the attorneys in the city solicitor's office are fantastic like I really enjoy working with them they are top-notch and I wish that we could have one of them however when it comes to the substance of this resolution what we're talking about are instances where we are potentially at odds with an opinion that we've gotten from the city solicitor's office when work has already begun occurring on a question before us. and so we sort of have to treat it like a firm that has a conflict and so we have to go outside that firm to look for independent representation.

Okay, do we have a motion on this resolution? Motion by Councilor Kelley. Motion to approve by Councilor Kelley. Any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? So we're... 23 to zero, right? We're missing one, is that right? Okay. We are going to move on to budget resolution number one because we have the law department's budget before us right now. We did receive a reply. Mr. Mew, Mr. Morse, Mr. Rice, does anyone want to come up and just hit the summary of the response?

Thank you very much. What I would say is Good governance is founded on lots of principles, but a few of them are listening and remaining open-minded. I would like to thank, we would like to thank, and the Mayor would like to thank the City Council's deliberations, your thoughtful feedback, the feedback of the Commission on Disability, members of the public who have reached out, You raised some interesting suggestions and thoughts. The Docketers, thank you very much. And ultimately, I think where we landed is a better outcome for everybody involved. Ultimately, for those who are watching at home, what we discussed was originally we proposed the ADA coordinator to have a JD and reside within the law department. Ultimately, the City Council and Commission on Disabilities and members of the community disagreed with that.

And several of you recommended that we consider moving that position to the Health Department. and ultimately with our response, we are agreeing with your recommendation. We are going to move that position full time to the Health and Human Services Department. We agree that there are some opportunities for synergy there and good support. And we hope that you will concur with our concurring with your recommendation.

Thank you very much. Assuming that is agreeable to the council, there are some actions that we need to take to put the mayor's response to our resolution in place and within the confines of the law department which we have before us that is to subtract $97,304 and add $22,304. So you can see in the reply the account description account number and the amendment that's required. Right now I just want the ones that pertain to the law department. So I am looking for a motion. Councilor Albright.

Before I move approval, I'd just like to thank the administration. Thank the mayor and the folks on the team that worked on this. I think it will make a difference. I think this will really make a difference for people with disabilities. So I would move approval for the law department piece of this. Okay, so... Madam Chair?

Yes. Sorry, but because we just passed a new resolution under the law department, I think maybe we should wait. until we review the response about the resolution we just passed pertaining to the law department for final approval of the law department budget.

So what I'm looking to do now is just accept the movement of money for the ADA position. and then go to the response to the resolution. You wanna wait and not agree to move the money until you've heard the response to the other resolution?

I think so, because I think you're looking to get the Committee of the Whole to accept the law department's budget.

But not yet.

Okay, okay.

This is just to make the adjustment to the ADA coordinator, so I wanted to dispose of that first. I could see the logic to that if the response to the resolution changed the way that folks felt about this. I suspect that that's not gonna be the case, but... Give me a thumbs down if I'm wrong. Councilor Dahmubed.

I'm not thumbs downing, I just have a clarification that I'd like to ask Mr. Morris.

Sure.

Okay. I'm sorry if I missed it, but could you just explain why the change in salary in the budgeting from when it moved from law to HHS?

Absolutely. So when we were considering having the position stay in law and have a JD, we adjusted that salary up from what was previously budgeted for that position when it was previously filled. , as such, when we moved it over to the Health Department and removed the JD requirement, we adjusted that salary back down to the normal range, the hiring range, for that position as was previously held. Thank you.

Okay, so we had a motion by Councilor Albright. And Councilor Albright, just to be crystal clear about what you're moving, This would be to, the first change would be the Law Department full-time salaries, account number 0110851-511001. and to subtract $97,304 from that line item. And with respect to a second line item, Law Department Legal Services, account number 0110851. Yes, and that's responsive to the resolution where we said if you need something in the law department, you should do it.

Yes.

Okay, so that is the motion by Councilor Albright. Is there further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That takes care of resolution number one, but we still have before us resolution number six. I believe you've all received a reply to resolution number six while we were having this conversation. So do we need a minute to look over it? CEO O'Moore, CFO Lemieux. Mr. Rice, does anyone want to address the reply?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We tried to be, because we knew we would be giving you this and you would have to read it here, we tried to be very succinct in our response. While we appreciate very much the comments of the City Council, we believe that the Law Department represents the city in its entirety, not any individual. We have many different things that we need lawyers for. We do not agree with you. We do not wish to take 2% of the law department's budget and move it either to the clerk's office or to segregate it. However, the mayor is more than happy to continue a conversation with members of your body.

Thank you. Further comments or discussion on the law department budget? Councilor Albright.

I just want to say that that response is better than I would have expected, frankly. So the fact that you're willing to have a conversation about it with members of the council is a good response. So I thank you for that as well.

Others. Okay, in that case, it is time to have a vote on the overall total law department budget to be approved, which is now changed. those changes as outlined in the response from the administration to resolution number one are that at the law department legal level of control with respect to personnel we now have a budgeted amount of $1,591,466 and at the law department legal level of control for expenses we have $409,229 for a total law department budget to be approved. of $2,272,969. Is there a motion to approve the law department at that amount? Councilor Oliver. Motion to approve. President Oliver has made a motion to approve. Any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? So that is 23 to zero. At this time, can I have a motion to reopen and reconsider the Health and Human Services Department budget? Moved by Councilor Albright. Any discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, so we now have the Health and Human Services Department before us to follow up and conclude the reply to budget resolution number one. I'm hoping that there will be a motion to add $75,000 to the Health and Human Services full-time salaries account number 0150104-511001. So moved. Moved by Councilor Bixby. Is there any, yes, Councilor Albright.

Just a quick question, is that money enough to cover fringe benefits?

Ms. Lemieux?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I tried to keep it simple. As part of the overall budget that you will pass whenever you do, part of the board order states that at the end of the year the comptroller is able to move all of the benefits money from department to department. because we never know, especially for the smaller departments, what people may take health insurance as a family plan, as an individual, no insurance at all. So that will all be within the authority of the comptroller once we get to that point in time next year.

Okay, so the important question is, does this already include benefits? And the answer is no.

The answer is no, this is for salary.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion by Councilor Bixby. Any further discussion on the motion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? Any abstentions? I just want to make sure that I have the correct new number. Ah, okay. So now we have the total health and human services budget to be approved and we do in fact also have that in response to budget resolution number one. Unless there's any other discussion in the Health and Human Services Department, I would be looking for a motion to approve their budget. at the legal level of control for personnel for $4,269,392 and the total health and human services budget to be approved. $5,852,377. So moved. Motion to approve by Councilor Bixby. Any further discussion before we vote?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Excellent. We are gonna move on to budget resolution number two and revisit the planning department. Can I ask our executive team, would anyone like to come up and review the response to budget resolution number two?

Thank you very much. So we took a hard look at budget resolution number two, which I kind of, in my mind, broke out into two separate categories. First, I will answer, which is with respect to the compensation of our senior team in the planning department. We work closely with our human resources department. We are constantly watching the labor market to ensure that we remain competitive among peer communities both for attracting talent and retaining our talent. We feel we are in a good place compared to comparable communities. But again, I want to be clear with everybody, that is something that is ongoing. We're constantly looking at that across all departments. With respect to the additional position, I think Councilor Baker raised this. The Planning Department is in a period of transition right now. and others. The recent departure of several senior planning associates and planning positions.

We are right now actively looking to fill two of those positions. and we have other staff who are in acting roles. I think as Councillor Baker correctly pointed out, one of the things that I think we want to do is, and I know we'll be working with the members of the city council on this, to continue and complete our search and interview process for our planning director, bring in that leadership, stabilize the top of the department, and then start focusing on filling out the remainder. and so on. Until we get to that point, I don't think we're in a position to consider additional positions. We really want to focus on filling what we need to fill and then work with the new director like we do with all of our department heads over the coming year to take a look at our resources versus demands of the department. So we respectfully disagree with adding an additional position at this time.

Thank you. Do we have comments or questions on the resolution or the department overall? Councilor Lucas.

Thank you, Chair. I have no questions regarding the resolution. My question is the, I guess, still vacant positions of Director of Planning and Deputy Chief Planner. I went to the HR website. And I noted the dates in which these positions were posted. April 28th and May 9th. That's less than a month ago. The new administration took office on January 1st. So my question is, why did it take up to four months to post the position of the Director of Planning and Development and the Deputy Chief Planner. It doesn't make any sense.

What was going on during those four months? And I haven't heard an answer. So Mr. Morse.

Thank you very much. So very fair question. I think on the planning director position, as we often see in our departments, we will have an acting or interim department head while we assess and reassess. What I would say is, Anytime you're looking to fill any position, it's a good idea to take a look at the job description, make sure that it's updated, make sure that it's reflecting the and the time period that you're in. That is something that we certainly worked on. At the same time, we wanted to ensure that we gave an opportunity for the department to stabilize. while we worked on updating that job description, doing our comparable analysis, looking at pure communities, and making sure that not only the job description but that our approach and so on to marketing the position was sound as well.

So that's something that we worked with our Human Resources and members of the administration. On the other position, I believe that that position was vacated after January 1st. I'm not sure exactly when, but your point's well taken, Councilor, that, you know, that there was certainly a time between when the job was vacated and ultimately when we posted the position, but similar, we evaluate all of those positions taking a look at comparable communities what their job descriptions look like and making sure that we're updating ours to reflect the job as clearly and concisely as possible so that we are being You know, open with what that job is to people who are interested and making sure that we're attracting the right people to help support the department and the city.

Councillor Lucas.

Thank you, Mr. Morse. Quick follow-up. It says right here the deadline for the Director of Planning and Development is May 27th, which is tomorrow. I'm not asking you that you hire someone on May 28th, don't get me wrong, but when can we expect to see a new permanent planning director in the planning department?

Thank you. So the position does close tomorrow, and we are going to be working with a few members of the Council who are in this room, as well as others for the interview process. Bless you. and our goal ultimately I would say is by the end of the month we would like to be working with whoever the candidate is make a recommendation obviously there's a time period between you know they're gonna have to give notice but our goal would be to wrap up that search process by the end of the month obviously that's a goal it's going to depend on the the The people that we interview, we need to make sure that we get it right. And I want to be clear that even with that, the council obviously needs to take a vote accepting that nomination as well. So there's a process that must play out there too.

When you said end of the month, the end of which month?

Oh, I'm sorry, very good point. Yeah, May. We're going to work real fast. No, the end of June would be our goal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morris.

Thank you, Chair. I'm all set.

Roche, then Dahmubed.

I'm going to try to manage this. So I'm disappointed by the response. and let me provide a framework for my thoughts. So as we think, so number one, we're facing enormous structural challenges to maintaining A robust fiscal Newton. We don't need to get into the details. We need revenue growth, and there are lots of avenues for that revenue growth, and there are different people and different types of people who can help us achieve that. I think that you have a team that appears dedicated and capable of looking at our existing retail commercial opportunities and maximizing our revenue growth there.

There's another component of this, which is what additional commercial and residential development do we need to do? What does that mix look like? What kind of commercial can we reasonably expect to attract? How do we attract that? What regulatory changes do we need to make? And that set of questions A is a separate body of work to do in addition to the first body of work and therefore requires a human being to do it. I do not think that it is sufficient investment to say we've got two people who are primarily focused here but then can also pick up that second piece of work. Staffing allocation doesn't seem sufficient.

Also, that second body of work requires specialized knowledge, training, experience that our current economic development team doesn't have. They may be able to pick it up, but we need to hit the ground running. I accept that the new planning director should shape the team, hire the team, but we're in the process of budgeting and This planning department budget does not seem sufficient to address the challenges that we face. It's not a sufficient investment. to deal with the challenges of growth that we have. And I think we're whistling past the graveyard in terms of just how serious a problem this is and just how much work it is.

and if you look and read up on the Watertown Miracle, which by the way is probably fading a little bit but provided a lot of, there were a ton of people involved, a ton of people with specialized knowledge who who managed to create a vision for what Watertown could support commercially and did so. I'm not saying we are going to do what Watertown did or that that opportunity exists anymore but it is a big chunk of work and this budget doesn't reflect to my eyes serious all of this commitment to investigate and pursue I will not be voting to approve the planning budget. I would be happy to have one more person. I'd be happy to have two more people.

We need to invest here. Thank you.

Councilor Dahmubed, then Albright.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to say I agree with Councilor Roach's ongoing concerns about this despite the reality that I think we have a great team already and really excellent people, but I share those concerns. I have a clarifying question for you, Mr. Morse. I feel like I read this maybe three weeks ago and I can't find it right now, so you should correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the mayor can appoint an acting director of the planning department for two terms of three months each consecutively. Is that correct?

I'm sorry. That is my understanding as well. I believe after that it would require a vote of the city council.

In order to create the possibility for a bit more acting period? That is correct. So just to confirm that if for whatever reason Interviews take long. Scheduling is hard during the summer. We don't have a full-time director hired by the 31st of July, or the end of July, end of June. That's how we would kind of navigate that is you'd come back to us for a little acting extension.

Yes.

Short answer. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Councilor Albright. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know it's a difficult time to provide more staff to the planning department given that we don't have the planning director. I think what I might have hoped for was some answer that said we're going to work with our new planning director, we're going to assure the new planning director that if He or she needs additional staff in certain areas that we would come back to the council and ask for that. And I would have felt better if I had an answer more in that vein than this. I think, as Councilor Roach said, the economic development grouping in the mayor's office doesn't have the expertise to know what zoning ordinances need to be modified to make those things work and that takes some extra work and some extra thinking and

You know, again, as Councilor Roche said, Mr. Proekes, who was the planning director in Somerville and did wonders for Somerville and now is the town manager in Watertown, and Doing Wonders for Watertown. We need someone with that kind of vision to help Newton along and that person may need some staff. So I'm hoping that I can't revise your answer but I wish there was something in here that would say we will work with the new planning director and if more staff is needed we will be coming up with that in addition to putting back in the consulting money that was taken away. So it's a very unsupportive of planning kind of an answer and I'm very disappointed with it.

COO Morse, did you want to add anything?

Not at this time, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any further discussion on the planning department? Councilor Oliver.

Great, thank you. I'll be honest, I'm not a planner. I'm not AICP certified or carry that accreditation. I do think that There are a few things that I've heard tonight that I want to echo, and that is we do need to find additional levers to pull on for economic growth for this city. I believe that those elements are in place and we are building that, I'm gonna use the word momentum if I could say that. I'm not entirely sure if The personnel that we would need belong in planning necessarily or in economic development, perhaps both. I don't know sitting here right now.

There are a lot of interesting ideas that are out there. There are a lot of different ways to approach this. I'm not going to say I'm disappointed in this particular answer, but I am very much looking forward to the answer to the question, which is How will Newton address the need to increase revenues for this city? And from my personal perspective, I think we all need to start to pay attention to some of the data that's out there that demonstrates folks what we actually need. is commercial revenue increases at a significantly higher rate than we have seen. Well, actually what we've seen is a decline in those over time These need to pick up, and in my opinion, be picked up first.

simply because right now this city is roughly 85, 15% in terms of the source of our revenue between residential and commercial, including industrial. And if we want to look to some of our neighbors, we don't have to look terribly far to figure out which kind of a model we want to pursue. Either way, I'm looking forward to figuring this out over the course of the summer months or certainly before we hit the next budget year, I'm hoping. But with that said, Thank you, Chair.

I have Councillor Wright, Kelley, Farrell, then Baker.

Councillor Wright? Yep, sorry about that. I agree with Councilor Oliver in going after increasing our commercial base is important. I do want to point out though, Somerville, yes, it increased their commercial base by a lot, but they did eminent domain and purchased or made people sell their houses in order to increase their commercial base. That's a whole different argument, but I don't think it's as great as it as it could be, and it was quite a few people that got pushed out. Again, our economic development, one of the people on there I think spent decades on ZAP, so I would hope that she...

Thank you so much for joining us. in our ordinance and the economic development committee also they work with that team and they come up with ideas on what needs to, and their business owners and things like that, what needs to change. So I don't think we're like at zero, We do have some of that expertise or knowledge with the people we have now. Thank you. Councilor Kelley, then Farrell, then Baker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As COO Moore said, a few of us city councilors who deal most often with the planning department have been asked to be A part of the interview and I'm one of those people. And perhaps Mr. Morse will say who else is, but I'm very open to hearing from all of you before that starts very soon. And even listening tonight, I think for me, Asking a question about increasing commercial tax base economic development will be something I would like to be asking of all of those candidates. Just fessing up, I'm one of the interview people and feel free to give me your thoughts on questions and points that you would like to be made. And Commissioner Morrison, perhaps the other person who's in, and the interviewer will speak up too.

But I'm very happy to carry these questions forward as we look for the next planning director.

Thank you, Chair. I guess my interesting concern is a little more global, and I think it doesn't include The notion that a select number of councillors will be working with the administration to hire a planner. I really want to know what any planner is being hired to do. What is the vision for Newton? I'm not sure how dramatically in Newton we can change the commercial manufacturing business space that we have, particularly when we make decisions to eliminate manufacturing spaces. I think all of us as a council need to soon begin to say, hopefully in a conversation with the administration, what kind of Newton do we want to see? and there we will find in that conversation that there are lots of people with very different opinions about where Newton should go.

But unless the full council is engaged in that conversation, then I think we will lose a great opportunity at this stage of hiring someone where we could all be saying, yes, this is what the majority of us want to head for. So I would ask the administration to consider opening up this process at least in initial stages before you get to interviewing. I don't think all 24 of us need to be engaged in the interview process by any means. but I think all of us helping together to form a vision that you can then, and the group that we'll interview, can then share with the candidates for this office. Thank you.

Baker.

Since I am the mysterious other person to which the chair of land use referred, I should identify myself. I've been asked to participate in the interview process. I've heard the comments made by colleagues tonight myself. I do want to add, just to emphasize though, that we have a duty to try and make sure that the city performs the functions it already has adequately. We talked last time, Councilor Albright, about the historical planners and the need for having that service adequately staffed. There's the whole issue that we've been concerned about for over two years about responding to teardowns of more affordable houses to make merry for bigger and more expensive ones. That's something that's on the table. It still needs to be addressed. So there are lots of issues that we have on our agenda already that we already need to be able to ask the planning department and the law department to respond to. So it's a case that also I think Councilor Farrell's point is that

The City Council ultimately is a policy-making body for the city through the ordinances we draft and adopt. and ultimately that is the way we articulate the visions that we're going to try and fulfill. So that's the way that I think this planning director needs to go is to assist us in doing our legislative responsibility and I will look very carefully at that role. So, in addition to the special permit granting authority by the other unnamed participant, never mind.

Councillor Farrell, I think you're the last word.

Thank you again, Chair. And with the greatest respect to the chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee and the members of that committee, what I fear among all of us, including other committees that deal with these issues, Ordinances and stuff is that we get so bogged down in the today of what is going on. that we don't step back and say, where do we wanna be in four years? Where do we wanna be in eight years? And that's the vision that I think We really need to not lose track of, and I think we need to begin to address that sooner rather than later. Thank you.

Okay, at this time, I am looking for a motion on the Planning Department budget. The proposed budget is $2,499,301. is there a motion to approve the planning department at this number? I saw Councilor Baker first.

No, Councilor Lucas.

Councilor Lucas. Councilor Lucas, moves approval. Any other discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? No. If you could please raise your hands. The clerk will let us know when he's ready. I see four.

I've recorded four no votes. Councilor Albright, Councilor Dahmubed, Councilor Greenberg, and Councilor Roche. Does anyone else wish to vote no?

Okay, so we should be 18 in favor, four against. No, are we 19 in favor, four against? 19 in favor. 19 in favor, four against. Against, one absent. One absent. So that concludes our discussion of the planning department. We are gonna turn on to the Department of Public Works and we have budget resolution number three. Mr. Morse, do you wanna outline the response to this? Thank you.

Thank you very much. So the rain barrel program was active for many years. In 2022, that program was stopped due to, and just to be frank, it was not very popular. Our rain barrels that we bought and stored collected dust for a very long time. It was not a program that people availed themselves of. I think quite frankly part of this is that I think there is a limited demand but I also think we live in a world now where if somebody needs something they just buy it and it's there the next day for them. There's also a lot of different rain barrels available out there, hundreds of them, so I think people like to be able to buy what they want. It is for this reason that we are not going to restart the rain barrel program. I will say, as was indicated in the budget resolution, we are looking forward to our website

Greenberg. Part of that work is evaluating all of our different departments and the content they have up there, and one of those things that we will be including is an expanded page or pages with respect to water conservation efforts, because there's a myriad of them, including but not limited to the opportunities with respect to alternatives to green grass lawns. That is it. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any comments or questions on the resolution or the department's budget overall? Councillor Farrell.

Quick question. Are any of those rain barrels that are gathering dust available to the public either at cost or maybe even fire sale prices?

I'll have to double check to see if we have any left in inventory. It's been several years now, but I will find out and I'll let you know.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, we have a couple votes we take with respect to this department. The first is the general fund budget of the Public Works Department aside from the water, sewer, and stormwater. So the public works budget itself is $37,294,127. Is there a motion to approve at that amount? Councilor Kalis. Motion to approve? Motion to approve by Councilor Kalis. Any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? We have the Water Fund, which needs its separate motion and vote of $29,960,348. Motion to approve by Councilor Leary. Any discussion before we vote?

Councilor Roach.

Just to reiterate my opposition to the rate for the irrigation, that it should be higher.

Any other discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Oh, Mr. Curley, yes.

Thank you, Chair. You had read off the number as 29,960,348. It should be 345.

Okay, thanks. I took that out of the report number. Okay, let me ask for a new motion. Where is it on the draft appropriation schedule? Okay, 29,960,345. Councilor Leary, do you still move that, okay. Councilor Leary makes a new motion to approve for $3 less. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Councilor Roche opposed? Okay, so we have 23 of us here, so 22 in favor, one opposed, one absent. Okay, and then finally, or not finally, the sewer fund. Let me read it from here and not the report.

I'll move approval $36,594,717.

Thank you, Councilor Krintzman. Any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Now finally, the stormwater fund.

I'll move approval at $8,039,009.

You're saving my eyes from this tiny little print in the appropriations schedule. I appreciate it. Motion by Councilor Krintzman. Any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, so that takes care of the public works budget as well as the water, sewer, and stormwater budget. We are going on to what I believe is our last department and final two resolutions, the Newton Public Schools. I don't know who from the executive team would like to outline the responses to the resolutions. Maybe you wanna start with number four, pause and see if we have any comments or questions, and then we'll do number five. We've been joined by Councilor Golden, so I think we have a full complement now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regards to resolution number four, again, we thank you. I think in my tenure with the city, this resolution has come to the mayor's office in one form or another. many times over. And while the mayor's office, the administration always sympathizes with the intent behind the resolution, The school department counts on over a million dollars in bus fees. I dare say if we were to ask members of the school committee that if If they were to receive a million dollars as manna from heaven, what would they do with it? And I think we all know and... believe that their choice would not be to eliminate bus fees.

It would rather be to provide additional services for our students, to do so many different other things that they would love to do within their budget. So certainly our response is that we would not look to move forward on reducing the bus fees. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have discussion, comments, or questions on budget resolution number four? Ms. Lemieux, would you like to outline the response to budget resolution number five? Mr. Morse.

I think I might have gotten the easier one on this one. So what I would say is with respect to the transition to EV buses, we have actively worked with Newton Public Schools for many years now. with respect to finding a centralized location or locations for the bus depots. As indicated in our response, we don't believe as of today that and Dixie. Finding that central location is an impediment to transitioning to EV buses. That said, it is certainly still top of mind. So I think in general, we support the resolution in that we will continue to work with Newton Public Schools to try to find Green, a bus location, a bus depot location, not only to help support EV buses, but I think ultimately because it is I think something that will help us with respect to making the school transportation services an attractive bid to bid on.

So, happy to answer any questions folks may have.

Councillor Albright.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I wish that you had told us which sites you had looked at because a number of us have some sites in mind that we'd love to explore. and one reason why this is really important to me is not just because it would save money, but also because it's sort of an environmental justice problem. If we can't find a place in Newton, and maybe there is no place in Newton, but we're sending this off to some other place, to some other community to house buses and thankfully they will at least be and so on. I look forward to working with you and discussing the ideas that we may have as individuals or as a council about what sites might be possible. I know there's no popular site. There's nobody clamoring for those buses.

But on the other hand, we should make sure that we work a little harder and share some information. I'd love to have some more information about what sites you've looked at and what ideas we might have. Thank you.

Certainly happy to share that. I believe the number was 155 locations, but I'd be happy to, I don't think anybody wants me to try to read those off tonight, but I'd be happy to share that.

Councillor Dahmubed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Morris, I think it's actually very helpful to see here laid out that this says... The bus fee revenue derives as approximately 28% of the NPS direct yellow bus costs and the $465 fee equates to $2.58 per day for transportation to and from school. and I think it's just worth noting that $2.58 is about the same price as if someone were to just take an MBTA bus, which is about 170 a ride. So this is actually a bit, just a little bit less than that. But if someone had a student pass, which is $30 a month, they would have a 50 cent ride to and from school. So understanding that the budget is tight, I think,

There's a way we could continue to seek to reduce that, to incentivize this being the best option that students have and the best option that makes a lot of sense for families, it would be great.

Any further comments or questions?

Okay, at this time, I'm going to look for a motion on the school budget. Mr. Curley, keep me honest if I get this wrong, because I'm gonna read this off the draft appropriations. in the amount of $314,574,126. Is there a motion to approve the Newton Public Schools budget in that amount? Councilor Krintzman has moved approval. Any further discussion before we vote? Councilor Roach?

So the school budget is an enormously complex thing, both the Revenue, the revenue sources, and the spending. And I really appreciated, Ms. Lemieux, your saying that the school committee would, if they got another million dollars, would choose to spend it on educational opportunities. And I think that it's... It's important that we understand that Newton Public Schools is much, it has these administrative, logistical problems to solve, one of which is the school buses. and we have a commitment to climate action and our transportation The policy in the Newton Public Schools is just directly contrary to what we want for our children, and that's also part of the mission.

I have other issues with the school budget. I think that we could be giving more. I think that the allocation with respect to the stabilization fund especially reflects a not enough ambition or optimism about the likelihood or prospect of a modest to not so modest override. I think that While we spent a lot of time talking about it, I'm still concerned about the elimination of several positions, especially the one focused on young people's mental health. I think we could have done better by the schools and I think we could have done better with regard to these with both funding the schools and with these specific three issues. One of which I haven't mentioned yet.

So I have my antecedent behind my object. We also talked about sustainability in meal service and transitioning to reusables and more composting ultimately could be cost savings, certainly would have climate impact. So these three things, the school buses, the eliminated positions, especially the mental health and sustainable food service practices, plus the funding, those are my concerns about the budget. I will not be voting against the school's budget, but I will not be voting in favor, thank you.

Councillor Farrell, then Micley.

Thank you, Chair, and with due respect to My colleagues' opinions and concerns and interests with what happens in the school department. I ask you all again to please consider that they very carefully and in a process that's open to all of us over a long period of time debate each of these issues. And once they have made that decision in conjunction with the mayor, unless there is something that they come to us and say they're in disagreement with the mayor about, then I think we should respect those decisions and I think we should participate in their process. We should not be doing that, in my opinion. I understand we have the responsibility to oversee the budget. but they have an open process. They're elected to do that.

The mayor sits with them and I think we should make every effort to participate in their process and not do it here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I have tremendous respect for the plan and work that the superintendent, mayor, and school committee did for the school budget. I think we're making some great strides. However, don't think we're making enough of a financial commitment and plan for getting smartphones out of the school, which I think are causing have all of these extreme financial costs educationally to students, to our community, and for that reason, I'm gonna vote no on this budget. Thanks.

Any further discussion before we vote on Councilor Krintzman's motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. One no, Councilor Micley. Abstentions. One abstention, Councilor Roach. That's 22 to one to one. with no absent. Okay, at this time, we are going to take up the capital improvement plan and the supplemental capital improvement plan, which are docket numbers 1-26 and 154-26. The CIP was reviewed as well as the supplemental CIP in a committee of the whole meeting last week, at which time we also held a public hearing on it. Are there any questions or discussion on the CIP or supplemental CIP at this time?

Can I get a motion to approve the capital improvement plan and supplemental capital improvement plan for fiscal years 2027 to 2031? Moved by Councilor Kelley. Any further discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That has unanimous approval. At this point, I would like to draw your attention to docket item 155-26. This is the recommended budget for next year, and we are going to vote on it at this time in the Committee of the Whole. What you're going to be asked to vote on is the general fund budget, which Mr. Curley, correct me if any of our, do we have a new general fund budget number based on what just occurred with the legal department and HHS?

No, it was the same budget, $578,639,777. It was ultimately a transfer of $75,000 from the law department to HHS.

Thank you. So $578,639,777. We also have the Community Preservation Fund, which is $5,102,000. $818. And our enterprise funds that we voted on earlier this evening, starting with stormwater at $8,039,009. sewer at $36,594,717 and water at $29,960,345. As part of the motion and vote that I'm going to ask for, we are also voting to accept the recommended revolving and gift funds as well as the grants that are listed in the council order. Do we have any questions on any of that? Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve by President Oliver. Any comments or questions before we vote? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? One opposed, Councilor Roach. Any abstentions? So we have 23 in favor, one opposed, zero abstentions. Before I ask for a motion to adjourn the committee the whole, I just want to thank, first of all, all of you. President Oliver, it's been a pleasure working with you through this process and I really appreciate the intellectual exchanges and preparation to get through this all so smoothly. I really thought it went very well and of course our clerk I want to give special thanks and kudos to you

It is not easy, no matter how incredibly intelligent and experienced an individual you are, which you are, to come into this setting and pick up all of our idiosyncrasies and you know our traditions as well as all of the normal procedural things that you may have been more accustomed to and you did a really beautiful job and it was a complete pleasure partnering with you as well. Thank you so much. And to your staff, of course, who have worked so hard, have stepped up really beautifully and turned around all these reports really quickly and very thoroughly. So please share our thanks with them. Of course, to our chairs, you all did a great job leading your meetings. And I really appreciate the efficiency and thorough nature with which you led them all. And to Mr. Curley, our comptroller,

who is always at the ready to answer every little question. The amount of knowledge that you hold and retain and can pull up quickly to keep us totally organized and know where every dollar goes is incredibly impressive. So thank you, Mr. Curley. and then finally, we have several members of the executive team here. I wanna specifically acknowledge Ms. Lemieux and Mr. Morse who came with us through and certainly the committee and the whole portion of the process, but so many of our committee meetings as well. to you as well, Mr. Rice. It's been, I think, a really smooth and productive and collaborative

and I express tremendous gratitude to you and certainly to all the people who support you to make this all work as well as it does and to provide this really complex and important budget that we're going to rely on this year. So thank you very much. So our work in the committee of the whole is done. Can I ask for a motion to adjourn?

Councilor Albright. Before we adjourn, there's one more person that needs to be thanked, and I believe that's you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone. Thank you all so much. I truly enjoy this process. I really do. And I really appreciate all of you and what you all bring to the conversation as we go through this. Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole? Motion to adjourn by President Oliver. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Over to you, Mr. President. Thank you. Well, we're not there yet. We have a few more elements of procedure to get through.

All right, so before we jump into the four items in front of us, including item 152.26, which is the increase to the retiree COLA base, I'm going to entertain a small yet critical motion for a recess. We do have cake. I do believe it's in order promptly. We all got through the Committee of the Whole very expeditiously. Do I hear a motion? Motion to recess. All in favor? Aye. Fantastic. I heard the birthday girl say aye first, so that's going to carry the motion. Please join us up here for a little cake. Thank you. I think we should, but you do not want me to lead that.

Unless you want me to start busting it out, in which case, you all asked for it, so...

to create some sort of

I will tell you, this boils my oil, so to speak, because she has...

My thought is that she's going after Grandpa.

You guys eat cake?

There you go.

You eat the cake. I can't eat the cake. You want the cake? I just went to my doctor today. He said I need to lose a few more pounds.

You're not going to start this way. Thank you, Lord. I know, I know.

because I have meetings set up for them for tomorrow.

Talk about teardowns.

So, I mean, you guys are...

Thank you.

But I may not be able to do it.

Thanks for watching!

What we wanted was somebody like Mike Puget many years ago.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you for watching!

Can I interest you in one of these?

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

I was lost.

I was lost.

and so on.

and so on.

Paul, Nancy, Winston, and James.

Thank you for watching!

Thank you for watching!

Thank you for watching.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it. Whatever.

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

Uh huh. Yes, that's good.

That's good.

That's good.

That's good.

That might be in Hawaiian, I guess, but you know.

So I'm just going to give everybody a two minute warning. Two minute warning. and Rena. I understand there's some meeting content we should catch up on after today, right? You can't start without you.

You're still in the show.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Have another piece of cake, man. Yeah, right?

and many more.

Okay friends, let's grab those chairs.

Okay, let's wrap it up, folks.

Earlier today, we got an email from the law at 11.23. That was the second email. There was one before that.

All right, colleagues, we have four items that are before us. The first three of which, actually the first four of which. We will be listening to our chair of finance who ran the committee of the whole meeting just now to run us through the reports for each of four items. I will read those in briefly just as a reminder in case anybody lost their way since the committee of the whole meeting. We have in front of us 1-26, submittal of the FY2731 Capital Improvement Plan. We also have item 154.26, the submittal of the FY27-31 Supplemental Capital Improvement Plan.

We have in front of us 155-26, the submittal of the FY27 municipal school operating budget. And finally, we have item 152-26. the retiree COLA base. So if you wouldn't mind, Chair, please run us through the reports.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm gonna start, if you don't mind, with 152-26, which is the request to increase the retiree COLA base. This was the Newton Retirement Board in his honor of the mayor requesting approval of an increase to the retiree cost of living adjustment base from $15,000 to $16,000 in fiscal year 27, to $17,000 in fiscal year 28. and to $18,000 in fiscal year 29, first increase to be effective July 1st, 2026. This was discussed in the Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, May 20th. and it passed 22 in favor, none opposed and two absent. Secondly, I would like to ask for a suspension of the rules in order to report out docket item number 155-26 for which there is no written report.

We have a request for suspension of the rules. May I have a motion, please? Oh, I have a motion. I've got a second. Great. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? Thank you.

Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. President. Docket item 155-26 is the council order for the fiscal year 2027 budget that was approved in the Committee of the Whole this evening. The vote included the general fund in the amount of $578,639,777, community preservation funds in the amount of $5,102,818, and our enterprise funds starting with Stormwater at $8,039,009, Sewer at $36,594,717, and Water at $29,960,345. The total amount approved was $658,336,666. It also authorizes a number of revolving funds that are included in the council order and a number of grant and gift funds that are included in the council order.

Briefly, the city council has met on two evenings, last Thursday and tonight, to discuss these items. Prior to that, committees of the council reviewed their individual department budgets and their committee meetings. Those meetings were summarized in reports that were made available to the full city council and reviewed in the two meetings over the course of this week. resulting in a motion to approve this council order by a vote of 23 to one in the Committee of the Whole, which I report out at this time. And in fact, Mr. President, recollection of the typical practice if this is okay with you is that we first have our roll call vote and reconsideration on this and then report out the CIP and supplemental CIP, but I can also ask for the suspension of the rules and report that out and do it all together at once if you prefer. So moved. For a suspension of the rules? Okay.

We have a motion to suspend the rules. Do I have a second? Great, thank you. I believe we did this a moment ago, so I'm kind of quizzical.

No, but she wants the motion to report out.

I have more, these items also have no written report and they're separate items with no written report. So I'm asking for the suspension of the rules to report out the CIP and supplemental CIP as well.

Got you. Thank you. All those in favor of suspending our rules, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Please proceed.

Thank you. So docket items 1-26 and 154-26, which are the fiscal year 2027 to 2031 capital improvement plan and supplemental capital improvement plan, were discussed in committee over the past several weeks, and again this evening. Both items were voted on and approved unanimously in the Committee of the Whole, and I move the reports for all of these items at this time.

Great, thank you. So we have four items in front of us. We'll take them up one at a time, I believe is the right approach here. I'm just going down the order that is in our agenda. First, item 1-26, Submittal of the FY2731 Capital Improvement Plan. Can we get a roll call vote, please, sir? We need a motion to take the roll call vote. Motion to approve, thank you. Okay, so fire away.

So you've got a report from the Committee of the Whole and you just vote on the report. I think you don't need a motion as such.

Thank you, sir. Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed. Aye. Councilor Farrell? Aye. Councilor Getz?

Aye.

Councilor Golden? Aye. Councilor Gordon?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg?

Aye.

Councilor Grossman? Aye. Irish, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Aye. Councilor Leary? Aye. Councilor Lucas? Aye. Councilor Malakie? Aye. Councilor Micley?

Aye.

Councilor Roche? Aye. Councilor Silber? Aye. Councilor Wright?

Aye.

and Oliver. Aye. On this motion, the yeas are 24, the nays are zero. Motion carries.

Fantastic. Thank you, sir. Item 154-26, submittal of the FY27-31 Supplemental Capital Improvement Plan. May we get a roll call vote on this item, please? Councillor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker? Aye. Councilor Bixby? Aye. Councilor Block? Aye. Councilor Charm? Aye. Councilor Dahmubed? Aye. Gatz, Aye. Councilor Golden, Aye. Councilor Gordon, Aye. Councilor Greenberg, Aye. Councilor Grossman, Aye. Councilor Irish, Aye. Councilor Kalis, Aye. Councilor Kelley, Aye. Krintzman. Aye. Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Roche. Aye. Councilor Silber. Aye. Right.

Aye.

Oliver. Aye. On this vote the ayes are 24, the nays are 0. Motion carries.

Thank you, sir. Item 155-26, submittal of the FY27 municipal school operating budget. Can we get a roll call vote, please, sir?

Albright, Aye. Councilor Baker, Aye. Councilor Bixby, Aye. Councilor Block, Aye. Councilor Charm, Aye. Councilor Dahmubed, Aye. Councilor Farrell, Aye. Councilor Getz, Aye. Golden, Gordon, Greenberg, Grossman, Irish, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Larry. Aye. Councilor Lucas.

Aye.

Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Roche. Aye. Councilor Silber. Aye.

Councilor Wright.

Aye. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 24, the nays are 0. The motion carries.

Fantastic. We have one last item. Item 152-26, to increase the retiree COLA base. Bless you. Can we get a roll call vote, please, sir? Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed. Aye. Gutz, Aye. Councilor Golden. Gordon, Greenberg, Grossman, Irish, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lucas.

Aye.

Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Roach. Aye. Councilor Silber. Aye. Councilor Wright. Aye. President Oliver. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 24, the nays are 0. Motion carries.

Mr. President.

Mr. Clerk, just one quick clarification. Sorry, Councilor.

I apologize. I was not tracking well. I did not intend to vote yes on the third item. I intended to vote no.

By the third item, do you mean the full budget?

Yep.

You'd have to have somebody vote in the affirmative to move reconsideration.

How do you feel about that? Are we going there? Yep. Okay, all right, so we're through 152.26, so that's clear, correct? 24.0 on that one as well?

Right?

No, 150. 24-0.

155-26.

Well, I know, but 152-26, 24-0. Right. I just wanted to make sure I had that. All right. So now we're going to be looking for, yeah, Councilor Kalis?

I'll move reconsideration on 1-26.

No, it's 152.

No, no, that's, so we all vote no. I don't want to open, okay, so we can move reconsideration of 155.26.

All right, we have a motion to reconsider the vote on 155-26. 155-26 is the submittal of the entire, or the FY27 municipal school operating budget. So I'm going to be looking at a few folks here to make sure I get this correct. However, yes, sir. We're going to take 20 seconds.

Mr. President.

Baker.

So Mr. President, since the motion is before us, I hope I can clarify where I think we are and subject to your oversight. is that normally this is the motion we entertain at the conclusion of the budget for those members of the council who are new so that we don't have the process of reconsidering the budget within 24 hours. which could occur by any councilor who voted in favor of filing a motion to reconsider. So we move reconsideration. Traditionally, we all vote no so that we can all go home. However, There is a councilor among us who wishes to change his vote. Therefore, if you wish to allow that councilor to have an opportunity to change his vote, We would have to vote yes to reconsider the item. Then the matter could be re-voted again. So that's where we are, if I understand correctly.

That is also my understanding. So we have a motion to reconsider item.

Mr. President, can I clarify one other thing? Okay, I just want to make sure that I fully understand. If we vote yes to reconsider, our colleague can change his vote. At the conclusion of that, there is no more opportunity to move reconsideration of the budget, correct? So if we say yes, that has the same effect, and we go through it, that has the same effect as all of us voting no. Great.

There are two votes. You have to vote to reconsider, then you have to actually vote the budget, and then the vote is counted differently. There are two votes.

But my understanding was and correct me if I'm wrong here that we could still do or we cannot then reconsider again the budget and vote no therefore etching it in stone, so to speak.

So at the risk of complicating things, let me just explain. If everybody votes no, the game is done. We're done for the night. If you however wish to allow a colleague to change his vote, you would vote yes, then the vote would allow the budget to be reconsidered. We would actually reconsider it then we would re-vote it and the new number and then that would be done. We only allow one reconsideration, so that's it. So it's a difference between one vote or two votes.

Okay, is that clear as mud to everyone? All right, so we have a motion on the floor to reconsider. 155, 26. Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Councilor Silber, you have your hand up.

Yeah, sorry, I'm going to further complicate this. If we vote to reconsider and then the budget does not pass because people change their minds in sufficient number, what then happens?

Well, I mean, then literally we will be voting down the mayor's budget in that particular instance, if I understand the case you're designing there. Baker.

That is correct. You need 13 affirmative votes to pass the budget.

Councilor Lucas.

If I could add just one thing, I believe because if we then vote down the budget, we would not we would get the mayor's budget as presented so the change to the ADA coordinator position would not take into effect. So please vote for the budget.

Fair point. Okay, motion is on the floor. Do I have a second for that motion? Great. So here we go, folks. We have a motion to reconsider 155.26. A yes vote means we re-vote the budget. A no vote means the budget vote that we just took stands. Can we have another roll call vote, sir?

Councilor Albright.

Before I vote, I want to be clear. So this is the vote that we're taking so that Councilor Roach can change his vote. Correct. So yes.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye.

So I just need to clarify. We're doing this because one of us wasn't paying attention. Is that right? So I'm going to vote no.

I guess that was a rhetorical question.

Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed. Aye. Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Getz. Aye. Councilor Golden. Aye. Councilor Gordon. Aye. Councilor Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman. Aye. Irish, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lucas, Malakie, Councilor Micley.

Aye. Councilor Roach. With appreciation for my colleagues' indulgence, aye.

Councilor Silber. No. Councilor Wright. Aye. President Oliver. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 22, the nays are 2. The motion carries.

Okay, so we are now officially reconsidering 155-26, the supplemental of the FY27 municipal and school operating budget. I don't believe we need to have this read back into the record unless there are any other questions on the floor. I'm simply going to move right to a roll call vote for this item.

Councillor Albright.

Aye.

Councillor Baker. Aye. Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Charm. Aye. Councilor Dahmubed. Aye. Councilor Farrell? Aye. Councilor Getz? Aye. Councilor Golden? Aye. Councilor Gordon?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg? Aye. Councilor Grossman? Sorry, I'm reading the rules. Aye. Councilor Irish. Aye. Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley. Yes, aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Leary. Aye. Councilor Lucas.

Aye.

Councilor Malakie. Aye. Councilor Micley.

No.

Councilor Roach. No. Councilor Silber. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye, but wasn't the previous one three nos? Not two?

I'm sorry, Councilor Wright, could you repeat that?

Wasn't the previous vote. on reconsidering three no's. It was Councilor Silver, Malakie, and Block. And I thought I heard two no's from the clerk.

You did. I must have misunderstood Councilor Silber. Councilor Silber, did you vote no on reconsideration? That's correct. I will correct the record.

Please don't tell me we have to reconsider that.

No.

Fabulous. I love that answer. All right. So I believe then it's my vote, right?

Councilor Wright, you did vote aye, yes? Yes. President Oliver. Aye.

Oh, did you get my aye? I'm sorry.

I was double checking your aye. You got into your question very quickly.

Yes, an aye for me. Sorry.

On this motion, the ayes are 22, the nays are 2. The motion carries.

We're good there, right folks?

Mr. President, would you like a motion to reconsider the other items for the purpose of voting no?

We'd love that motion.

Okay, so I would like to make a motion to reconsider the remaining items that I reported out that we have yet to reconsider. which I believe includes the CIP, the supplemental CIP and the Colabase increases.

Fantastic. We have a motion on the floor to reconsider the remaining items as we just heard from Councilor Grossman.

Did she include 152-26? She did. Okay great.

I'm purposely slowing down, right? Okay, so we now have three items that we have voted out tonight. that we are going to vote to reconsider. Is there any discussion on this item before I go to the roll call? I'm happy to read them out loud. Shall we? Certainly. Here we go. First item, 1-25, the FY27-31 Capital Improvement Program. Yeah, you're right, although my book says 26. Thank you. 1-26, thank you for having me read that out and thank you for the correction. 1-26, the FY27-31 Capital Improvement Program. I'm sorry, that wasn't the funny part yet.

Okay, we have item 154-26, the FY27-31 Supplemental Capital Improvement Program. And finally, we have item 152-26, the increase to the retiree COLA base. Those are the three items that we will be voting to reconsider. Do I have any questions? Thank goodness. OK. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Councillor Albright.

No.

No. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Baker. No. Sorry.

I went too fast.

No. Councilor Block.

No.

Councilor Charm. No. Councilor Dahmubed. No. Councilor Farrell. No. Goetz, Golden, Gordon, Greenberg, No. Sorry. Councilor Grossman? No. Councilor Irish? No. Councilor Kalis? No. Councilor Kelley? No. Councilor Krintzman? No. Councilor Leary? No. Lucas.

No.

Councilor Malakie. No. Councilor Micley. No. Councilor Roach. No. Councilor Silber. No. Councilor Wright.

No.

President Oliver. No. On this motion, the ayes are zero, the nays are 24.

and the motion fails. Okay, with that said, our primary business is now concluded. But before we adjourn tonight, it's customary that we invite the mayor and his staff inside the rail. to make a few comments regarding his budget and the process we just went through. So with that said, I'd like to have a motion to suspend the rules. So moved, fantastic. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Any abstentions? Fantastic. I'm assuming that Josh is retrieving our mayor. Fantastic, let's rock and roll baby. Yeah, you. I think you went back to sit down.

Mayor Laredo and your staff, please join us inside the rail. Thank you.

Boy, I like being back up here. I won't be long tonight because you've all been hard at work for the last couple of hours and more importantly for the last month. But I just want to start by saying thank you. I want to thank President Oliver, Vice President Kalis, Chair Grossman, Vice Chair Bixby, and all of you for the work that you've done in carefully thinking through and evaluating and reviewing our budget. This work obviously started very early. We started in January thinking about how we're going to reimagine our budgeting process, obviously with the pension obligation bond. The change to our retirement structure, how we're going to fund retirement, that has been a game changer for us. And again, that was not done alone.

Every step of the way, this has been a team effort. and even the team effort extended to the resolutions that you presented to us because we did something that frankly I don't recall prior administrations doing when I sat in your seat which is we actually took a substantive suggestion that you had and said, gee, you're right, we can do it differently. We can do it better because of the way you suggested we do that. We took you up on your very constructive suggestion and we're adopting that. And that, colleagues, is how the budget process is supposed to work. We're collaborative. We work together. And we're not afraid to admit that others may have ideas that are better than our own. And when they do, we want you to advance them, we want you to promote them, and we will adopt them.

I do have to give a special thank you to Maureen Lemieux, Josh Morse, John Rice, Dana Hanson, the department heads, They really did a tremendous job, not only putting the budget together, but really talking to our department heads about how they present to the various committees because what we said day one is don't be afraid of the city council. Don't be cautious. Be truthful. Honest, and answer the questions, because questions from the council mean that you are actively engaged in improving our city, and we welcome that kind of input. So for tonight, I just want to once again thank all of you. And I'll just leave you with this. Our work for next year is going to begin very soon. And when I mean next year, I mean fiscal 2028.

because we are gonna start our budget process for fiscal 28 this summer, and we're not gonna do it alone. We're gonna do it with city council leadership, we're gonna do it with school committee leadership, and we are gonna work very carefully so that when we present our budget for 2028, it will have been with the benefit of lots of input, and thought and involvement by all of you, particularly your leaders, President Oliver, Vice President Kalis, and the leadership of the Finance Committee. I very much look forward to having those conversations. I'm excited about the direction we're going in. And once again, thank you so much for all of your efforts. Greatly appreciated.

and happy birthday to Councilor Grossman and the cake was delicious.

All right, friends. And with that behind us, do we have a motion to adjourn?

Councilor Micley.

So moved. Everyone, have a fantastic evening. And before I let everyone go, there is a tradition every year after we pass the budget that the guy who made us stay the longest for no real really good reason buys us all drinks. But in absence of that, In all seriousness, why don't we all meet up at Barrymore to have a little cocktail or mocktail, if that's your choice. I'm being serious about that. Please join us at Barrymore for a beverage. Yes, sir. The first round is on Councilor Rauch. Fantastic. Thanks, everyone.

Well done.