Quincy City Council: June 17, 2026

.

.

.

Good evening, I'm calling the special city council meeting Wednesday, June 17th, 2026, set at 7.30 to meeting. City Clerk, Madam Clerk, could you call the roll?

Councilor Ash, Councilor DiBona. Hubley, Jacobs, McKee, Riley, Ryan, Yuan.

President Mahoney present. If we could all stand for a moment of silence. in turn to pledge allegiance to the flag.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So at this point, we're going to adjourn this meeting and move right into finance.

Good evening.

I'd like to call to order the Wednesday, June 17th Departmental Budget Hearings of the Finance Committee and start by reading the open meeting law. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees of the effort advise that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived, by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on the agenda. is the tourism budget. Yes, we had had some questions on the historical society benefits, and Mr. Walker, you're prepared to speak to that.

Through you, Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. As the Council can see, at its request, the amended budget includes a new line, Director of Historic Society Benefits, $14,814, that covers the health insurance and pension contribution of the Director of the Historical Society. And as you can see, that is also included in the offset from the hotel-motel tax.

Thank you, Mr. Walker. Any discussion on this or motion?

We need to accept the new budget.

Okay. We need a motion for that?

Yeah. Motion to accept the new budget.

Okay. Motion from Councilor Mahoney to accept. Any discussion on this? All those in favor? Any opposed? Wonderful. Moving on to the library budget. Ms. Slyman.

That just accepts the budget.

Oh, sorry about that. OK, motion. We need a motion. Sorry, excuse me, Sarah. We need a motion to approve this budget. We have accepted it. We need a motion to approve. Motion to approve by Councilor McKee, seconded by Councilor Jacobs. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, moving on. Thank you for your patience, Sarah. So if I recall, we had some some line items that just were not matching up in unis with what you had, and I believe, I'll let you speak to it, but I think we've, for the most part, resolved those.

I want to open by thanking my excellent colleagues in the Human Resources Department, Director Patty McGowan, and Assistant Director Laura Power, as well as Paul Della Barba and Munify and James Dennis, the Manager of Accounts, as well as the Auditor. We've worked diligently to correct the bookkeeping errors that we saw at the last presentation. And I believe you all have the amended budget in front of you. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions? Do we need the motion to accept?

No.

Can I just ask one question?

Sure. Could you tell me which line, because I didn't have a chance to go really through. Which line items they were, right? Which line items they were? Yes.

the ones that you all had questions about were, thank you, 512-765. 512.060 and 512.038. So if you look at your amended budget tonight, 512060 has been removed. That person that is actively in that role belonged in 512765 and is now housed there. Is that the only one that's changed? 512038 in the five year look back was showing no expenses. The head archivist, the department head of the Archives and Special Collections Department should have resided in there. She was promoted out of the reference department

and her salary was appearing in the reference department and is now appropriately reallocated to 512038.

I don't have my original budget, so did that change the line items for the 2027 proposed? The personal services for the $4,220,874? Do you know? I'm sorry, your question? So the question is, when you took out those salaries and put them in the right places, did it change the bottom line for personal services for $4,228,074? So Madam Auditor has.

Thank you. So, Councilor Mahoney, when you're looking at the fiscal 27 budget, nothing changed in that budget. What was done, there was some accounting changes made. in the fiscal 26 budget, so your year-to-date budget reports are now reading how they actually should be standing.

All right, so then I have a different question for you, and that question is, in fiscal year 26, when we just had the transfers... Monday night. It showed approximately $200,000 transferred from the library personal services. Do you know what made up that $200,000?

I wasn't aware. I'm not sure. I mean, I would assume it was because we moved the people's lines back and forth. Are you saying there was a cut? I can move that over to the auditor.

Yes. So if you think back to Monday night's meeting with the year-end transfers, I believe at the last budget hearing the director said there were some open positions that were not filled yet so that led to some breakage in the personal service line for fiscal 2026 and I'm assuming that is where they came up with the $200,000 from that.

So could you tell me which positions are open?

Yes, there is the branch librarian at Wollaston is open. the Teen and Adult Services Librarian at Adam Shore and a full-time custodian position. And that adds up to $200,000? I'm sorry? And that adds up to $200,000? I don't have the numbers exactly in front of me for that. Are they still open? Do you have them filled at all? We're working with the union to get them posted and filled. How long have they been open for? The teen and adult services at Adams Shore has been only open for a little while. Young woman that was in that position transferred laterally to the same position in North Quincy. And we are working with the union to look at that job description to make sure it's accurately reflecting the needs of the Adam Shore community. The custodian position just opened up, I couldn't say exactly, but very recently.

We had a new hire who had to depart due to health issues. and the Wollaston Branch Librarian has been open for a little bit. I couldn't say exactly how long. We're also working with the union to talk about what leadership of that department needs to look like moving forward.

Thank you. All right, thank you.

So if we have no further questions, do we have a motion to... Oh, Councilor Yuan, hang on one second. Go ahead, Councilor Yuan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question about item 5120038. So in the budget book, So the actual spending 2025 budget and 2026 is both zero in the old file, but in the new file now become... 2026 actual spending become 83,065. How does that happen? Because the last meeting, still actual spending is zero. Why just after two weeks, it's spending $83,685.

Is that the correction we were looking for?

Pardon? I believe that was the correction we brought her back for was to correct that because it was zero and now they've moved that position around if I'm not mistaken.

There was somebody in reference that was moved out. That's right, Sarah, right? There was somebody in reference that was moved out?

Correct.

51203. Yes.

The Children's Community Advisory page is different from that page.

but that position was unfilled for two years, then just filled? That position was unfilled for two years?

That position belongs to our head archivist. She has been... working in that position for almost four years. The bookkeeping on it was inaccurate. So she, during that time, was being categorized as a reference librarian and not as a department head with her own line. So we fixed that last week and that's why the new budget reflects the accurate spending for that.

So the difference will be at five.

Okay, so three positions, they all changed. 5-1-2-0-3-8 and 5-1-2-7-6-5. That's also changed.

One, okay.

I think maybe the auditor might be able to clarify for

Yuan. This person has been in the position for four years, but due to the being charged to an incorrect line for the past four years. That's why you're seeing a zero balance in that line. So the historicals we cannot go back and change because the fiscal years have closed. But going forward from fiscal year 26 on, you will see that this person is now being charged to the correct line.

Okay, my question is how come it last for four years didn't get corrected? If this position is categorized wrong, why it last four years? Let's just create a confusion.

Correct. I can't answer to the fact why it has gone on for four years. All I can say is that We have worked diligently since our last meeting making sure that everyone is being charged in the correct line. So in order to move forward with this particular line item, We've changed the line item. We've changed the employee in her master file to be charged to the correct account.

Okay, so currently still have a three position open, correct?

That would be up to the Director to answer, I believe so.

Yes. In the last year, because these three positions are open and filled, so you have transferred money $200,000, is it correct?

Yes.

should be transferred. So if for two years you don't need this position, for two years you didn't fill this position, means those positions are not so urgent or necessary. So I would like to make a cut of this position. What position are you referring to? The position you didn't fill for two years. What position is that? Which line item? The chief category, 1-512-0038. There is somebody in that position.

there is somebody currently in that position. They've been in the position for four years. So if you look at the year to date budget report, you'll see that I believe $85,000 has been expended and there is currently only $4,300 left in the line, which will be extended within the next two weeks left in the fiscal year.

So my question is $200,000 transfer the last year is from which position?

It is not from this line. It could have reflected in this line. but it wasn't reflected accurately from this particular line because there was a person that is this position chief cataloger.

Debbie? So then from which position are those $200,000?

It could be made up of various lines within the budget. So they could be... That $200,000, I don't have the detail as to what makes that up, but it could have been from various lines within the budget. to total $200,000. Because they're basically, when they do the year-end transfers, and I could be incorrect, what they normally do is they will look at the bottom line, like in this case. there's 488,315 left, which is 88% that has been used in the budget. So I'm assuming that an analysis was done and when they did the analysis, they found various lines that make up that $200,000 cost.

So I'm a little confused because when President Mahoney asked that 200,000 is France's re-open position and the director of libraries, said yes, so I assume that the 200,000 money transferred are from that three unfilled position.

So it could be because there have been unfilled positions, however, in the position that you're talking about, 512038, the chief cataloger, that position has been filled and it has been filled for the past four years.

Councilor McKee, I know you have had your hand up.

Do you want to? Yuan, I just want to, what I understood from Director Simon was that the positions that are open now include a teen adult librarian at Adams Shore, because that person moved to North Quincy and a custodian just opened up and then probably it sounded like the longest one that's been open is the Wollaston Branch librarian. So those are the three I think that may make up the $200,000. Would you like to make a motion to accept? No.

Jacobs.

Sorry, going back to the archivist librarian. How many archivist librarians are there? Three. There are three, okay. And I see, and there were three in 2026 and there were three in 2025.

there have been three positions. I don't recall.

Are they union positions or are they appointed? I just was curious.

All positions at the library union with the exception of the three administrators and the executive assistant to administrate.

Because I see here that it looks like the archivist librarian, like year to date, is 125. 1679, and in that budget last year you only had 123,035 budgeted, so we're over budget there. and in the next budget it's going up, you know, quite substantially to $140,724, which is an increase of about 14%. You know, that's an increase of quite a bit. So I just was curious if, you know, I know that the union employees got like a 3% raise. That seems more than 3%.

they are both relatively new employees, so they're still in the step raise rotation, so they're also receiving both different step raises.

And you know, I know that some of these individuals are being paid out of, like, other line item budgets in the past, you know, because they were being charged from the wrong account. So were those... are those accounts now going to have overages in them because we put them in the right accounts or is money going to be reduced from that?

No, everything should be zeroing out now that it's all fixed.

Okay, thank you.

We're fixing it for fiscal year 27, and we can't do anything about how it was booked, which line items in prior years.

Ryan. Thank you. I had a question on line item 570302. That's the old colony network. Is that the internet access to the library? Partially, yes. And do you track the number of accounts that go through that network?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but I can tell you a little bit about how the network functions that might help. Absolutely. So we pay an annual fee to the Old Colony Library Network to become a member so Quincy residents can borrow materials from all the other libraries. Thank you. the delivery, right? Because the books come and go all across the state. So as long as we remain a library in good standing with the Mass Board of Library Commissioners, We can borrow books from anywhere in the world. And then there's quite a bit to it. So then they... and they provide all of our databases. So anytime you go on our website and want to do research,

issues of the Quincy Sun or the Patriot Ledger, we pay through them at a heavily discounted rate because we purchase collectively as a network rather than individually as the 28 libraries. So that's some of it. And if you were asking do we track We know how many library cards Quincy residents have, and we know how many internet sessions people use in our buildings. I don't have either of those numbers handy, unfortunately, but if you're interested, I could get them for you.

Oh, I would be very interested. I actually have an account and I absolutely love using it.

Great.

So a lot of the books that I want to borrow are always taken.

We're doing the best we can.

But I do thank you for that. I think that's a great tool for families to have. So I would be greatly interested in getting some data on how often that's used. Absolutely, sure.

Thank you. Okay, if there's no further questions.

Council Yuan. Thank you Madam Chair. So I have a question of item 512765. and Chief Tech Service. So year to date, you only spend 63.2% of budget item. Could you explain why?

Yes, the former longtime reference coordinator was in that position. She was promoted to deputy director and in between Her departure due to promotion and the hiring of the new department head, there was a bit of breakage. So that line would normally be fully expended if it had been populated for all 12 months of the year.

Is that position being advertised now? I'm sorry? Has that open position been advertised? Is it filled now? Have you posted that position? Have I filled it?

Post? It's been filled since October.

So there was a period of time where there was no one in the position, and that's why there's money available, because there was nobody there to pay. But it is filled now. Is that correct? Correct.

And the current three open positions, are those posted online?

Not yet.

How long has been the open position available?

Well, as I said when Councilor Mahoney answered, I don't know exactly. The custodian just left recently. The young woman that transferred from Adam Shore to North Quincy has been over there for a couple of months, and we are working on deciding what we're doing about the leadership position at Wollaston with the union and the city.

and another item 512185 literacy project that you also only spend 49.2% year-to-date. And could you explain that?

I couldn't quite hear your question.

Item 512.185, year-to-date, you only spend 49.2% of a budget amount. Could you explain that?

Yes, I think this was one of the bookkeeping errors that was corrected.

That's the new one. That's the new one we got it.

There was a new report run this afternoon and that report shows that to date 80,454.60 has been spent So that's over the budgeted amount of $66,000. So they've overspent by $14,000 on Sunday openings.

Did that budget just update this afternoon?

Yes, I ran it at about 3 o'clock this afternoon.

Are we talking about 512.185 or 510.185?

510185, I thought that's what... No, I'm talking about 512185.

Okay.

5-1-2-1-8-5 is the literacy project.

So that budget to date, $88,323.58 has been spent. Spent what? 88,323 has been spent out of that line.

McHee. So I don't know if you heard that Council UN 88,323 has been spent out of that line. I'm just going from what the auditor was saying. We may not have the latest. I'm not sure if we have the latest. You do have the latest. We have the latest version. because I think, well, I had stuff that I had not gotten since 3 p.m., so if it's changed, I don't know where.

So those were left, we left those updated reports at the well in front of everybody's seat.

They might be... on our tables here. So that's okay.

So I think we've resolved what we asked Ms. Lyman to come back here for.

Yeah, it sounds like Council Yuan, the auditor said that she sat down and kind of worked everything out. So going forward, it should be okay. And so I think... I think everything's lined up. I might make a motion to, no.

Wait one second.

Go ahead, Councilor Yuan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My concern is if city councillors are sitting here to review budget line by line, and if the accurate information only available this afternoon or just before the meeting, that's very difficult for councillors to track, to really doing oversight of the to review the budget. So I think for the future, this practice should be improved. Otherwise, we're sitting here just to become ceremony, say yes. if we couldn't really check it because the information just available and it's different from what we got.

Okay. I would like to say, though, that I remember when we sent Ms. Lyman back. I did try to make sure that all of the questions were put on the table so that we weren't debating, re-debating on things. And Madam Auditor, I'll let you speak, but I do believe that we have resolved the issues that were that were the questions we had from the last session. And it is a little bit confusing because now it throws lines off from the past with the objective to fix it going forward. and I think we've accomplished that. I trust Madam Auditors, you know, expertise on this matter.

So the reason why you have an updated report that is dated, that was ran this afternoon at 3 o'clock, as when you were in the office earlier today and we were going over this budget, there was a line item in the library line that was still not booked correctly. So I worked with the municipal finance office to get that booked so that the council as a body would have the correct information in front of them as you looked through the reports. And I made sure that at your seats that you would have that current information, the most up-to-date information, so you could make a decision on this budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Susan. You're welcome. I'm not questioning you. I'm just because you said that you run this new update. Thank you very much. In the future, we need to improve this budget review process so councillors can really do their job to review it. We need the information. and earlier, not just right at the meeting.

That's all I'm asking. I mean, I think that what we were trying to do was sort of untangle some bookkeeping issues between Municipal Finance and the jobs that these people hold. But Councilor Mahoney, if you want to add anything to this,

I just want to make sure I'm clear. So the package that you gave me, Jen just gave me tonight when I came in, has the most updated year to date, right?

Is that what I'm to assume?

I don't know. I don't know if I have it, but I got the year-to-date that was in the package. And I'm seeing the same thing, which is spent 49.2%. So I guess...

received less than... That's the one I'm looking at.

Hang on one second.

Right.

So I have, that's the package I have. 512185, Literacy Project, Librarian 179 was the original appropriation. Correct. Revised budget 179, year-to-date spent 88, 323,

Correct.

Available budget, $91,000. So 49.2% of the budget is still available. Correct. So that's what I think she was asking. One second. This is what came up later on today. This is the same question asked? Yeah. I just want to make sure it's 49%. It's not 80%. It's got two weeks left. That's what she's asking.

which line item are we talking about?

512185, the Literacy Project Librarian. got 91,000 remaining in the available budget, 49.2% remaining in the budget, and less than two weeks to go. So I guess the question is, what is that job? I'm sorry.

I'm trying to help piece it together. As I said at the beginning, I believe there was a bookkeeping error. We have two literacy employees. They are both now full-time. I think they were both put in that line last year and one has now been moved back to the library assistant line where they belong. So yes, if you're asking if that line needs to be 184,000 or whatever. 79,000. Yeah, it does not. Needs to be 80. And I believe the proposed for this year is 95,167, which is the department head rate of pay for folks at step 10.

Okay, I want to...

So the current request in today's report in front of you all is accurate for what we need to pay the one person in that position for fiscal 27. and some of that overage could be accounted for in the transfers that happened on Monday night.

three of them, Madam Chairwoman. So currently only one position open, looks like. I'm sorry, 512049. Only this one is currently open from the report. Correct? What? Item number 512049. Oh, we're on a new line now. Your budget of $57,473 and currently spend zero money. So does that mean that that's the only position and field?

has currently spent zero dollars? Is that what you're suggesting? Yes, that's what we got.

by 12049.

I don't know why that is because that position, there was breakage this year in that position a long time person retired and was replaced with an internal promotion. She works in that position full time.

and in the budget book, so just two weeks ago, this position is budget for 128,952, and now just after two weeks, This item become 57,473. That's a huge change. I don't know why.

I believe it is a byproduct of the bookkeeping errors that we've been describing that we've corrected.

So even you correct it, I ask you spend zero money, so that's the open position now. I would like to clarification from auditor.

I can't really speak upon open positions, but so when we first had the library come before us back in May, I believe the beginning of June, that line had budgeted for fiscal 26, 57,473. Based on the various reports that I have since run to prepare for this meeting, there is still $57,473 with zero spent out of that line.

So what I think, again, the bookkeeping piece of it is that that person was promoted internally. They're probably still being paid out of the special library assistant line, and they need to be moved to this line.

Is that something you could do, would be done before June 30th?

Yes, definitely.

Oh, before tomorrow?

Oh. This is the actual, not the budget for the next year.

Councilor McKee.

So I just wanted to, because it is going up to 128,952, is that for one position or two positions, that line item for the technical librarian?

Yeah, so this one is, what we did is we moved that person into the, I'm remembering now, we moved that person into the senior library assistant pool. and the two archivists are gonna live there.

Sorry, the technical librarian position was moved to the senior what?

So the person that was always paid out of that technical librarian position was a senior library assistant. And so we put them with the rest of the library assistants and the technical librarian positions, which there are two and they both make about $64,000 a year go there.

So there are two technical librarian positions. And one of them has been moved to the senior library assistant position.

there was one person in that position and still is a person that holds that same position but we recataloged that position to be in 512-050, Senior Library Assistant. And then the archivists are going there. So the person that was in there was making $57,000. and now there are two people in there making 64 each and the $57,000 person went to 050.

Okay, so the The line item for technical librarian is for two positions. The previous person who, there was only one person who was doing that job before, and that person was shifted to the library assistant.

It was a different job that that person was doing. It was a library assistant job, not a librarian job.

I guess now I'm confused about... Why are there two technical librarian positions for the 2027 budget if there was only one person doing it before?

Because they're not the same positions. We're just using the same number. So, The two people have always been there doing the job since the creation of the department. They were put in reference librarian 042. They should not have been in there because they're in a separate department. So they got moved. out to this librarian position, which a non-librarian was in the position with that title. So one of the things that's gonna be completed before June 30th is going through MUNIS and making sure these high-level under-account information to the right of the object codes that these job titles actually match what people are doing. They have not in a very long time. So we're correcting that. But we were unable to get that done before this meeting because getting the bookkeeping side of it was very time consuming and laborious.

So I do apologize.

Okay, so I guess we'll need to figure out this line item and why nothing has been spent out of that line item before. We have to pass this as is, I suppose. and hopefully fix it in the future. Is that right?

Are you saying we're not going to pass this budget tonight?

No, I guess I'm saying how can we? It sounds like there's still problems with this budget, but we have to... legally pass it. So I guess we just have to pass it with any problems.

How much money was in the, how much was budgeted in 512060, which has now been removed? I think the fear is that there's still like one position despite all the transfers, that we're hanging onto that money. Councilor Mahoney.

So $200,000. was transferred out of your budget, personal line services, transferred to another department to cover overages in another department. You said there's three positions that are open. And if I am generous with the positions and I say, 60, 60, 60, that's 120. That leaves us $80,000 of breakage someplace. So I think what, I'm not speaking for her, but I'm thinking what Councilor Yuan was asking was, you know, she wants to make a cut. of $50,000. And I believe you probably have that in your budget to be able to do, and you'll be OK. But again, I'm just asking you. That's why I was asking you that at the beginning. Because we have been doing this to every budget, and unfortunately, you're you're coming back after we did the transfers. So we're saying that $200,000 was transferred out of here.

So 60-60-60 is $180,000.

So $20,000, sorry.

And then any time anyone leaves.

He told me it was $120,000, so.

No, there's three, because you're saying three once, every three vacant positions. So that's $180,000 right on the face of it. One's a branch librarian and one's a custodian. If you average those two, it would be about 80, about 60. So you're right.

So 60 times three, Chris and I have mathematical problems tonight because I came right from work.

So an additional 20 could easily... every time someone leaves if we haven't, like sometimes people leave with very little notice and don't ever come back to work. So we then are caught on our back foot of having to review the job description, send it to the union, wait for the union approval, post it, post it internally.

Every time somebody leaves, you don't replace them the next day. It takes months to do that.

That's where your breakage comes from. It can, yeah. It's a weird job market right now.

So I'm going to just explain. So she was the one who wanted to make the cut. So there's three positions that need to be filled, and we're averaging at 60, so 180. So we have about $20,000 of breakage that you could cut if that's what you want to cut. but that's what I think she, is that, do you understand me?

I can do it if you want me to. To follow what's going on with this budget, how often the internal employees have been shifted from this position to next position?

We can fix that next time.

Yeah, because everyone can see it's so difficult to follow like, oh, this position already changed. It's dramatically changing just within two weeks, so I don't know how can I say yes to this budget.

I'm going to just say we're going to make a cut of $20,000 in the personal services line. I don't think it's going to probably impact that much. So I'm going to make a motion to cut $20,000. Which line item is that? It's not a line item. I'm taking it for the bottom line. They can't take it from any specific line item. We had 200,000. in breakage that came back and used to transfer into other accounts. We have three positions open. 180 is about $20,000. We're going to cut $20,000 from the bottom line, and I think we'll be OK in this budget. So $20,000 from the personal service line of the public libraries.

Okay, so we have a motion to cut $20,000 from the bottom line of the budget. Personal services. Personal services. We don't need a second, right? All those in favor or do we need a roll call? Roll call. Roll call, please.

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Chairman Riley.

So if we are ready to entertain them, go ahead. One more thing. So for next year, It sounds like you did a good teamwork this year, but if we could next year, I would ask you to try to do this the same thing because I think it's going to help you out tremendously. And I know that your area of expertise does not mean this, so I understand that.

No, and I thank you all for your patience as we work through this difficult situation. Thank you very much.

So do we have a motion to accept as amended? As amended. Motion to approve is amended. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I come to say yes to this budget. Maybe next year.

So? So you're a no? I'm no. OK. And then we need a motion to approve. Or is that OK? That was as amended.

OK.

So we're good. OK. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Next up is the downtown district. Mr. Walker.

Through you Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. The body has in front of it as requested Diff related offsets to the downtown division budget. This is related to a good deal of input provided to the administration by Councilor Mahoney and some collaboration as well. The bigger picture here is, again, based upon the input provided by this council, specifically Councilor Mahoney, Municipal Finance will be setting up as we go forward a DIF capital projects account where the revenue from DIF will be set aside, the debt service, the band premium and any offsets such as that are included in this budget will be paid for from that that way ensuring that there is

Clarity on DIF. the actual revenues which this body has and what it pays for on a year-to-year basis. Again, I appreciate the Council's input on this, and hopefully this is a positive path forward.

Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mahoney, since you brought this forward, do you have any questions? comments on how they propose to account for this?

So, Mayor, you're okay. You're okay. All right, Mayor, you're okay. So, no, I don't. I did ask the administration. I asked this back when we first put this into the budget. I never wanted it paid out of the general fund. How much of the savings out of the general fund for next year is it, though? Because I don't have the old budget. Sorry. I think it's around 900,000. Roughly 900,000. So 900,000 is going to be taken out of the budget and it's going to be paid for, taken out of the general obligation budget and being paid for from the DIB. and the work will continue. But I think Councilor McKee has a question. So thank you very much. We did work collaboratively, didn't we, Chris? Yes, we did. Maybe next time it will be with the mayor.

So we need a motion to accept or did you want to speak before that? Hudson, McKee.

So we sort of wrapped everything up so fast last time. We didn't have a motion. Oh, did you do the cut? After we accept it. After we accept the cut to the overtime? Is that?

No, we're going to accept the budget and then we'll make the cuts. There was one cut that did pass at the last meeting that we'll revote. We'll revisit that.

Yes, but there was one motion that Councilor Mahoney had made, but then we... We ended before.

So I just want to... We have to re-vote them.

We have to re-vote them. Okay. Okay.

So could we have a motion to accept the amended budget?

We haven't cut them. So just for clarification. Hang on a second.

It's just so you guys can cut it.

Yeah, so the budget, what transfers, it's taken out, so we have nine, nothing's been cut from it, so the whole budget goes into DIF, and now we have to go back to those line items to make those cuts, correct?

We're going to accept this.

So the first thing is to accept the change in the budget that it will be no longer paid by the general obligation and paid for by the DIF. That's a form of a motion. Okay.

We have a motion to accept the revised budget All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And now we need to revisit line item 530303. I don't remember.

Which, Councilor McKee, motion to cut $20,000 from contracted.

Okay. Yes, I make that motion to cut $20,000 from contracted services. We had voted on that before.

We had voted on it, yes. Okay, do we need a roll call for that? Okay. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, do we have another one?

Then you had motioned to cut $50,000 from overtime, but then we put it on hold. We never got past that.

So I want to cut $50,000 for overtime. Pardon me? So I wanted to cut $30,000 from overtime.

OK. So we have a motion to cut. What line item is that, the overtime? 510130. Overtime, $50,000. We did not vote on that last time. We deliberated on it. All those in favor, or do we need a roll call?

Should we, can we bring her up?

No, that doesn't sound right. Sorry, that's the whole. Oh, okay. Sorry. I don't know what your cut was going to be.

Okay, then I have to go and do some work.

So can I say something about. Hold on one second. Hold on one second.

Yes, so I looked and it

I can't remember what the number was that Councilor Mahoney had suggested but the maximum used in the last five years in that line is 24,425, and it's been budgeted $50,000 for the last three years. So I guess I'm going to make a motion to cut $25,000 from that overtime line.

OK. Motion to cut that by $25,000 to $25,000. Any discussion on that? DiBona.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just revising this particular budget line item, I don't know if anybody has any correspondence on whether that will be used in the particular new year. I thought we spoke about or the Director spoke about there's possible overtime that needs to be kind of there so I just want some clarification maybe if she wants to come forward and kind of explain because we're revisiting this one. Hi, Mary. I just have a question on this overtime. I know we discussed it last time, but I just want to revisit it. It's at $50,000. They want to make a cut. What's the cut? $25,000. Where does that put you on this particular line item?

So I think I explained that from now until July 1st, we have two watch parties this weekend, Kid Fest from 12 to 8. We've got holiday to cover. and some vacations. So I think we said that was like 6,500, so 30,000. I think the original ask was 20,000.

Can you withdraw that and do 20?

but this is for July 1st, 2026. This is the end of this fiscal year. I will use that, another $6,500 in overtime.

So if she uses that this year, she'll be at $30,000. So I would assume that she'd go $30,000 next year.

Do you want to revise your motion, Councilor McKee? Hang on one second. Hang on.

Go ahead. Yep. I make a motion to revise my previous motion and cut this overtime line by $20,000. To $30,000?

To $30,000. OK. I think that's reasonable. any discussion on the revised motion? Do I need to roll call? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? None?

I'm going to be opposed on this one.

Councilor DiBona is opposed on that. Anyone else? OK. So are there any other modifications? Motion to approve the budget as amended. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Excellent. OK.

Thank you, Mary.

Okay. Next up, we have the short-term debt. Mr. Della Barbara.

Short-term or long-term? Good evening. Okay, the city's contractual obligation on the Shaw-Charm Interest Line is $15,833,818 for fiscal 27.

any discussion on the short-term debt? Oh, Councilor Mahoney. Councilor Mahoney?

Sorry, I have to get my... We're on short-term. I was ready for long-term first. I don't know why.

I was too. Huh? I was too.

Oh, okay. I was like, why am I so out of sorts tonight? All right. So we are on long-term. I mean, we're on short-term. I'm still talking long-term. We have a lot of paper up here, so I apologize. All right. I still have the wrong thing. Maybe you want to go to somebody else while I'm trying to figure out where my paperwork is.

Did you say at the first meeting that it needed to be adjusted by 8-12, 6-15? I did.

So the revised number is the $15 million. 833-817, I think originally, it was 16,646,411. And that was because it was inclusive of water and sewer short-term debt.

That's not what you originally said.

Okay, so we have to adjust this to that. We have to accept the adjustments. Can I make a motion to adjust the short-term interest to the new proposed budget that's in front of us tonight?

Okay.

Motion to revise the budget to reflect the number here before us. Any discussion on the motion? None?

Seeing none. So shorten that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a nice meeting today, Councilor. Discussed for two hours. So you did say you corrected the number 2027 proposed interest on note from 16 million something last time to the 15 million. Could you, from $60,646,000 change it to $50,000,000 A33, could you explain what... Sure.

The initial budget that was published that you received in, I believe, May 4th, that number for the general fund short-term notes interest was inclusive of the sewer the interest on the sewer notes and the interest on the water enterprise notes. Upon realizing that, we took that out, put it in the right spot in water and sewer enterprise, and we're able to reduce the budget by that amount.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to know why the number changed. So any further discussion on this?

Councilor Ryan? Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Paul, just to be clear, what was originally on the note on the account was the $16 million, and so you took out figures for water and sewer, and now it's $15,833,818, right?

That's correct.

Okay. Any further discussion?

Mahoney. So I went back and I looked at the bandages for fiscal year 27. The bandages There's two ban interests. There's actually three. So the total ban interest was $26,151,608.29, less the bond premiums of $6,434,888.15. and another bond premium of $4,032,563.49. And the net interest that I came up with was $15,684,156.65. Your original budget request was $16,646,432. which gave me a difference of 962,267.27. You've adjusted for the water and sewer that you mentioned, and now you're at 15,833,818. and now the difference, there's still 149,662. That's above what the debt service that I can tell should be being paid.

So you have two bans, total 26,151, less your bond premiums, which is a net of 15. which is an net interest of $6,841,5665. and you have 15883818. And I'm getting that from Hilltop Securities. That's where I'm getting those numbers from. And that's typically what would go for your short-term interest. So I'm wondering what the 149662 is.

That I'm not sure. If you want to cut it, cut it. And if we're going to need it, then we'll come back and ask for an appropriation.

So I am going to cut it just because... Can we just do the first one first? What's the first one?

The 812. The 812, yes.

We accepted the budget. That was the 812. We accepted the budget that was presented to us that has the 812. Okay, so we can do it again. We're going to accept the budget as presented as the change to 15-833-818. Did she accept this budget or not? I don't think we accepted it. Okay, so I'm making a motion to accept the budget of 15-833-818. Okay, motion to accept. Motion to accept. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

No.

And now I'm going to make a cut for 149,662 because the interest that I have added up, and I will happily send it to you tomorrow, adds up to 15,684,156.65. and there's $149,662 that's in this payment that shouldn't be. Okay, so can you just... $149,662.

Councilor, that was $149,682? $149,662.

Okay. So we're further reducing the same line item we just voted on by another 149, 662, bring it down to 15 and some change. Yep. Jen's going to do the math. Okay. Any discussion on that motion? Dibona.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification, so $149,662, is that correct, Mr. DeLaBarbara?

That I'll need to verify with the strategic asset manager who provided these figures to Michael Rowland, who was building the budget. So I'll follow up, and I'll follow up with Hilltop Securities, and we'll get the number correct, and if I have to come back to the body to adjust that in the fall, I will.

Okay. I know you don't know, but can you guess that that's the right number or you just don't know?

Well, I'm looking at a couple of different schedules now. So the Hilltop set over two or three. So I will have a phone call with Cindy McNerney at Hilltop Securities. But for the sake, again, that the budget passed, I would accept that cut and ask the body that if it does need to be increased, that I can come back in the fall and ask for that as these are contractual obligations and we should get it right.

or President Mahoney, where did you get this number from? Is it Hilltop?

Hilltop's here. It's online. You can get it. So ban interest for fiscal year 27, as I said. was $8,511,109.10. Then there's going to be another ban interest for fiscal year 2027 for $17,640,499.19. for a total band interest of $26,151,608.29, less your bond premiums. of $6,434, $888.15, and that's your second bond premiums, of $4,032,563.49 for a total interest of 15, 684, 156, 65. With the new balance that we have here, it's going to be 149,662 less than what the new budget was created at.

Any further discussion? So we have a motion to reduce that line item. Any further discussion? Okay.

162, I mean 149, 662 is the cut. 156, 684, 156 is the new budget line item and change, 65 cents. All those in favor?

Aye.

I'm going to be against that. I don't feel comfortable with the math. So, sorry.

You wanted him to guess. Councilor DiBona's a no on that. Anyone else opposed? All those are in favor? Okay. Eight to one. Okay. And a motion to pass the budget as amended? Motion to pass the budget as amended.

Okay.

Motion by Councilor Mahoney. All those in favor? Aye. Do we need a roll call? We don't need a roll call. Aye. Everyone? Aye. Okay. Terrific. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Della Barbera. Was that it? We didn't have it.

Did we have long-term for him this morning?

No, there's long-term. There is? Why do I know we have that?

Long-term and pension retirement.

Nothing changed from the original submission. Nothing changed from the original. We just didn't vote on it.

No, we just didn't do it. Okay. Councilor Mahoney? Okay, so nothing changed from this, so I do have a couple of questions. This might be... Long-term. So your fiscal year long-term debt request increased by $2.9 million over fiscal year 26. and the four new fiscal year 27 debt payments appeared to total approximately, DIF was 220, the second DIF was 80,000, Central Middle School was 80, and the roadway sidewalks was 1-9-5-9-1-4-7. So the new fiscal year debt payments is approximately Let me make sure I'm doing this. Long-term payments is approximately $234,9392. Can the administration explain the increase in and exceeds the new debt payments by approximately $558,075?

I guess I'm not following the question. Council?

So we're talking about long-term debt.

Yep.

And when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at your, I'm actually blasting myself at this point because I know I had this written out, so I'll hold it for one second. I got a lot of paper again, and I had it nice and neat so I could explain this to you because I knew it was going to be messy. Well, first, maybe I can just go backwards for a second. This might solve some stuff too. In fiscal year, I'm gonna go backwards to fiscal year 26. In fiscal year 26, to date reports show a negative balance. So I went on the debt service online and I pulled this up. I don't know what Susan has, but I pulled this off of the debt service. You went onto the line. Your principal long-term debt is negative by 205, and your long-term interest debt is negative by 606, giving us a deficit of $811.79 in fiscal year 26. and I'm just asking.

That's correct. There was a debt payment made on the 15th. That I have to investigate to see if that is a true Deficit in this line, and it wasn't budgeted correctly last year. But yeah, there was a debt payment that went out on 6-15. Okay. Principal and interest, so that's where you'll see that.

So and from there, When you take, then I did some, in portions, so that was part of the question that I had. But then when I went back and I added up your $77,794, and I was subtracting what the debt was. I came up with a $558,075 as a deficit here, too. So I mean, that you're over budgeted here for this. So I'm just wondering where you're getting your long term Short-Term Obligation Bonds, and other things. Because I think something came off in fiscal year 26, which was a long-term legal bond for about 308 that was put on the books on June 15, June 16, 2019, I think. And the last payment of that was made in June of 2026. And it was $514,000. That's what I remember because I don't have the page that I need here.

was $514,000 was made. That was the last payment of that bond. So that $514,000 probably shouldn't be carrying over. And I can't tell because this is all bundled together. is carrying over into your new debt service, which is when I subtracted, when I had my math that I was able to show and talk about, it was showing me that that $77,594 was adding up to about $558, which I think is because there's an extra thing carrying forward. from the long-term, that was the legal note that was taken out for 3.8 in 2019.

Okay, so what I think may have happened, I sent out an email yesterday to all the Councilors, and I think you would have received a breakdown of the debt. In that spreadsheet, it's color-coded. It's orange and blues and greens and so forth on it. in that spreadsheet that we received from Hilltop Securities. I believe that may have been dated. What date did you say that payment went out?

The band was, it wasn't a band, it was long-term debt, and it was 308, and the last payment was, I believe, it was this quarter of...

I think the date on that spreadsheet from Hilltop Securities with the breakdown of our debt was dated June 4th. So if that payment went out afterwards, it may not have been it may still have been included in the debt service as June 4th is what I'm saying.

So this is why I think there's an extra payment I just wish I could find because I had it all written down. It might be here. Let's see. Yeah, it's the, I just have it as, I don't have the, I did the math separately, but I have it as $514,000 on a 2019 judgment bond. And that was the last one for fiscal, and it's being carried over and reflected in fiscal year 27. to date the report shows negative balances for the fiscal year 26 that's not what I'm looking for but I'm looking for fiscal year 27 that payment should probably be taken off and you're approximately $558,075 over in the Debt Service Lines for the current expenses for fiscal year 27. So I'm looking to cut that too.

Okay. I would say that's fine. It could be a similar situation as with the Shaw term.

I understand.

So I could be back in the fall, Sam. We actually needed that, and here's the backup.

And that's OK if we do. It's just an odd thing, because usually this is something that usually there's a backup. This is just how we do it. So we did a backup, and you kind of can look at these things. I was having to go on, and I took some of the stuff that you sent to me today, and then I went on to see when things were rolling off for certain things. You can look at that through, I'm going to forget, Emma, Ella, something, I don't know. But anyway, I was looking at that, and I was coming up with the $514,800. Definitely was the last payment last year. And when I was doing the math here, same thing I was doing with the short-term debt. I was coming up with $558,000. But it would be okay if we were to cut it to the 514, just that payment, or 500.

500, sir. I'd like to make a motion to cut.

Is that principal and interest? Are those on two different line items? Nope, it's just the total expense line, $500,000 of the total expense line for, because that was cut out in judgment. That bond issue ended, and it's being carried over into this next budget.

Okay, so you're motioning to cut by $558,000. How much? Just $500,000. I'm going to cut $500,000. Just keep it. Yeah.

It's going to come from the current expense line because I don't have it as specific, because it's a bond that's coming off the books, so I don't have it as being something specific. But when I added up the bonds, it came out to, it's coming out to $558, but I'll leave it at $500.

Okay, so a motion to cut that by $500,000. Just my two cents is if we cut it, you're going to You're going to figure out if we shorten your money. If we leave it in, we're never going to figure it out.

We need to. It's a contractual obligation to pay the debt service.

So it'll get straightened out. If it's short, it'll get straightened out. any discussion on the motion?

Councilor Yuen. Oh, I have a comment not on this motion. I just have a comment after this.

Okay.

Okay, or you want me say now, I can say?

Well, if it's on the motion, I'd like to try to take the vote on that. Okay, then I hold on. Just before he leave, I want to say. Okay, so we have a motion to cut the line by 500,000. any further discussion on the motion? Councilor DiBona.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If it's contractual, it has to be paid. Is that correct?

That's correct. So that's why I'll be back in front of the body if the numbers are incorrect. If Councilor Mahoney is correct, then I won't be...

So it has to be paid regardless? Correct. Whether it be cut or you've got to come back, that's got to be paid? Yes, it has to be paid. Okay. That's the clarification I was looking for. Thank you.

and he'll come back before the body and we will have to approve the change because it is contractual.

Right. And if it's the bond that Councilor Mahoney is referring to, we'll have plenty of time to correct this. I can come back in September.

Okay.

Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, wonderful. Councilor Yuan, did you have a comment?

Yes, I have a short comment. I would like to thank Mr. Barbara and Ms. Susan. the auditor spent two more hours this morning and helped me clarify a lot of my questions and also we compared my numbers and your numbers. We both agree the current city debt is $2 billion. So just want to let resident know and let the city councilor know. We compared our numbers, so the current debt, if you include the authorized and insured debt, the city is rich. $2 billion debt.

I just want to... Just a little bit under.

Thank you.

Oh, so, oh, yeah. Oh, yes.

We were provided this HEO 124 security report in April. and there are like 427 pages we have to really go through to dig to get these numbers. This page 295 and in section 1046 showed the, Long-term debt is 1,362,912,350 and then you have a authorized and issued debt, $708.6 million. If you add these two together, it's $2,071,000,000 512,350, that. But because this

This document is dated June 30th, 2025 and reviewed on February 2026. So this number, a little bit different from your number, the current number, but your number added together still have $2 billion debt. That's what we discussed this morning, right?

Right, and that's correct. In the email that I sent with the debt service backup, there is a letter in there from Hilltop Securities where the letter's dated June 16th, 2026. And it's much easier read than the where you found it, but it's a two pager and it's there as well.

That letter from the finance advisor, you sent only list 1,812,000,746,700. So that's a little bit of confusion because when we add our number together is $2 billion because hers didn't include another $181 million. authorized and issued bonds. I just want to clarify this, because this morning when we talk about your number, it's also $2 billion. $2 billion.

Yeah. Okay. Mahoney. And just for clarification, when you go out for debt services, although we were telling the City of Quincy, and I'm not blaming anyone on this, Paul, but when we were telling the City of Quincy we had 1.3 plus the 508 of short term, and that's where we were getting the 1.8, and we were getting the 1.8 since last October when we were all running for office. I think it was 1.6, and now it's 1.8. and we were asked at that debt presentation, we asked, is that it? Nobody gave us a peep. And I have to say, when I was looking at, and I was, this is a Friday, on my ride up to New Hampshire for fun, I was reading that report and I, you saw the 708. and my head blew up because I was like, there's 200 missing. So that's really the thing that's frustrating to this council. And I'm just going to say this because we're, and I realize there's other people in your department that does it, we're asking for this information.

We're asking for the mayor and the administration to bring it to us so that we can make a really intelligent decision when we're making decisions, whether it's ENC or fire gear or anything we're doing. And to have your consultants in front of us and to have them not give us a forecast that they should be giving to you or to tell us that the city's in great shape and it's got tremendous flexibility and it doesn't matter about having a downgrade in S&P, because we can make it up, and then having them finally say at the end, what you have to do is build your reserves and maybe use your excess levy, which means tax everybody. That's not a good place to be. and I realize that there's a lot of people out there just calling us saying you made the wrong decision but we have $2 billion worth of debt and we didn't get that information up here. We had to dig and that's why I was saying it was like forensic accounting that we've been doing. I have to say that I kind of enjoy it because that's the stuff I like to do.

Other people like to read novels, I like to see the map, but at the same time, at the same time, that's what we're frustrated about. It's not necessarily you, Paul. It's just frustration. And even that letter that Hilltop sent today that you sent to us that's only a two-pager, they omitted it. And I don't know why they're doing that because it's not doing them any good. It's certainly making me feel like they're just perpetually giving us wrong information when there are other reports telling us that it's there. Unless the city is, I could be wrong, unless we've rescinded, are we rescinding the 200 million that we have out there that's just waiting to be spent? Do we know that? Are those projects going to happen? No, I know. I'm asking. We haven't bonded that yet. Are we going to...

Right. It's actually $185 million, but that's close enough to two. Yes.

I'm rounding out.

No, but some of that's something like the Squamish School. There's projects out there that we... you know we will be

gathering some of that authorization and banning it and then... Once it's approved from this council, it doesn't matter what year it was approved. Once it's approved, it's there for you to spend. You'd have to come back to tell us.

That's correct.

We're asking you what the debt is in the city. and we're getting piecemeal. It's 1.6. It's 1.8. Even last year when we were presenting the budget, when you were presenting the budget, we said we had $1.6 billion worth of debt. It should have been 1.8 because that report was already out. That's all I'm saying. So it's just really discouraging to be up here and then to be told, We're not collaborating. I think we are. I mean, two hours in your offices today. Susan was there. I've been in your office. I think we've been working pretty well together. But we're not getting the information that we're asking for in a timely manner. And when we get the information, It's omitting some things. And that's where the frustration comes. And this isn't towards you. Again, it sounds like it's towards you. I'm just trying to explain that because I did field an awful lot of phone calls. I had a lot of great phone calls, people thanking me. and I had people basically calling me saying, why do you hate the mayor? And I'm like, I've never ever said that and I don't, I really don't.

But what I can tell you is that I work really hard when I work in this council to make sure that the cities and the taxpayers are represented and that's what I do. So I appreciate Councilor Yuan coming to your office and talking about it but I'm glad I had the opportunity to mention it too. I do thank you for the hard work you do because you don't have an easy job.

Thank you both for digging into all of this and getting the clarification. So if there's no further discussion, we can entertain a motion to accept this budget as amended on the long-term debt. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Aye. None opposed. Excellent. OK. So moving on to retirement and pensions.

Paper, paper, more paper.

any discussion on the pension line item? Mahoney.

Just to Chris, I have nothing to say about pensions. I just have one question. Don't you hate when that happens to me? It really isn't about the pension budget, though. It's where do we stand on the actuary study?

Okay.

You were ready for me. I love it. On the Milliman actuary study, I got an update today. We should have it in early July. At first we hoped it would be reduced in the FY26 contribution a little bit lower. Unfortunately, we won't have it in time. That payment has to go out soon. But it still could reduce the FY27. for their contribution once we receive it there. According to Milliman, they're waiting on union contract information so they can get a better sense of the salary increase assumptions that they use in their model. They also have questions regarding retirements and terminations. Currently, they're asking why are they being measured uniformly at the beginning of the year when a min-year measurement is more commonplace. More common practice, sorry.

They're questioning some of the mortality assumptions. They're saying that the assumptions that Stone is using is different than what Milliman would have expected. and the last question that they need to have answered is the current salary scale only shows initially increases inflation. It does not account for any step increases that some employees may receive along the way. These are very minor questions that they have, and I think they'll probably have them answered pretty quickly, and that's why I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll be receiving something in July.

So you think sometime in July is what you're thinking?

That's what I think, yes.

Okay. When did you, I'm just going to ask this question because this is one of those things that bug me. When did we think we were going to get it originally? Like when they first announced it last? November, December, when you cut the budget?

I think we were, we thought we were going to receive this around March, is what I recall.

That's good. But just like hiring people, it takes longer. Some of these reports take longer. I don't have anything other questions, and I'm not going to try to prevent anybody from asking any questions, but I'm going to say motion to approve. Okay, so we have a motion to approve. We'll call to the U.N.

I still can ask questions, right? Okay. Just some questions we discussed this morning. So we discussed a lot about enterprise fund, even though it's not related to this long-term debt, but it's... it's still that. So you send all the councillors the letter from the regional managing director, Ms. Sincere's letter, list about all those long-term debt, short-term debt, and she categorized what tax supported that what are self-supported debt. So... We are on the pension item though. Oh yeah, I know because I want to clarify. So this...

This is not about, I just clarify, because she sent the email to all the councilors. So she needs the self-supported debt.

We are on the pension item, though. We've already covered the debt. OK. We've moved on to the pensions.

That's why I said I would just make a comment after you this. Can I?

Yeah, but that was pensions.

Yeah, we're on pensions. Oh, I'm not arguing about that.

I'm just... We have to... The discussion needs to be on the pension item.

Okay, so maybe after that, because then I can clarify it.

Well, I don't know where you're going to clarify. We've already kind of exhausted the debt conversation.

But when can I clarify the letter this financial advisor sent to us about this long-term debt, short-term debt?

Councilor, you can reach out to me anytime you want after this meeting, tomorrow, next week. I'd be glad to sit down and discuss it with you.

because we discussed, so that's why I understand I want to let other councillors know what's this self-supported data actually is not really self-supported. Self-supporting is just an accounting and a legal term, not a statement that the debt is free or doesn't come from residents. I just want to make... Just like an example, if the city issue 100 million dollar bond to fix the water man, if they issue this bond through general fund, then the property tax increase. But if it's issued this bond through enterprise fund, then it's water bill increase. So doesn't matter. you issue this bond through which source still residents pay it from the resident pocket. So you can't just say this is...

So, I mean, you call it self-supporting is a correct accounting term, but it's misleading to let people think, oh, this data is just self-supporting. It doesn't from... resident pocket actually still from resident pocket. I just want to clarify this. because I just gave that example. If you issue that bond through the enterprise bond, then water bill increases still come from residents' pocket. I just wanted to make it clear. Councilor DiBona? No, I just said, did I explain it clear? this is self-supporting debt is actually misleading. because still residents pay from it, just pay from the increased water bill instead of property tax, but still all from residents' pocket.

I just want to make this clear.

Point made. Thank you. and I know you put a lot of time into this, both of you did today, so thank you for that. So we have a motion to accept the pension budget. Councilor DiBona.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm big DiBona tonight, just for you, not little.

What's that?

Is this a joke? 2021, before we took this pension bond for $475 million, We were on the trajectory, because every year I was up here and go, wow, that's really increasing quite a bit. 2021, we're at $32.1 million coming out of this pension. and I know the mayor had come to the council then and says we got an opportunity here to get a nice rate. We're locked in at 2.62%. it went from 32.1, in 22 it went to 7.5, in 23 it was 7.3, in 24 it was 8.8, in 25 it was 4.9, 26, it was 16.1, a little bit of a jump, and we're back at 9.749.

if we had continued to let that sit and not jump on that pension bond, the 475, we'd probably be sitting at $50 million tonight trying to approve $50 million because the trajectory of the amounts that were going up and so on. I know you're going to raise your hand, but it was a lot back then. Just to let you know, I know you're going to You're going to say something, but just to go from 2026 to 2027, it was lowered by 6.35 million, and we're down to 9.7 today. I look at it that way. We kind of had to do as a municipality something about that particular pension. This is one of the big fives, I guess I could call it.

but we were sitting in that seat and people were coming up here during budget cycle talking about how are we going to fund this pension bond obligation. I think we're in a pretty decent seat today. I know you might feel differently, but I appreciate it. Thank you.

Councilor Jacobs, did you want to speak?

I was just going to say, going along with that, the pension obligation bond, it's saving us money, but I hear a lot on... News Online, that it saved us money, and it did. And they say, oh, we can't really count that as debt. It's still debt. And I hear that all the time. Oh, it's not debt. It's not debt. It is debt. And even if you removed the pension obligation bond from the debt, we're still like $1.6 billion in debt. because the administration had to believe, oh, that's $475 million. If you remove it, we're still $1.6 billion plus in debt. I just keep hearing all about this pension obligation bond. We don't understand the pension obligation bond. I heard it yesterday. We get it.

There's a pension obligation bond for $475 million. Even if you subtract that, this city is still $1.6 billion in debt, which is what we thought we were all encompassed, including the pension obligation bond. So a couple of months ago, we were saying, well, $1.6 billion in debt. And everyone was saying, oh, it's OK. Half a million of that is a pension obligation bond. really, really ducked out there. But, you know, in reality, now we are $1.6 billion in debt and we still have the pension obligation that we have to pay. So, I mean, well, $2 billion, but if you remove, you know, it's still there.

Point taken. Yeah, we restructured the debt into more favorable terms is what we did. Is there any other discussion, Councilor Yuan?

Oh, just to follow up, Councilor DiBona, so I understand that you said, like, issue the pension obligation bond at low interest rate and then invest it to get the high return. I understand that rationale but you have to also consider the market risk because just one One year after you shoot this bomb, you lost $90 million because the market, and the COVID. So maybe people can argue, say, oh, COVID just once of a lifetime, maybe later will not. Now you see, what's the gas price? It's because of cost by war. can happen any day.

Nobody can expect we will have war. So I just use this to see the market risk we have to take into consideration. Like COVID, happened next year, you lost $90 million instead of you get any return, and this morning, We talked about the $90 million. I was laughing, and you said, this is not funny. You lost the $90 million. I was not being funny about this. The reason I laugh is because I talked this $90 million loss too many times to the point When I talk about it again, even myself feel like laughing. It's not a funny thing. A city lost $90 million. So I understand that you're...

I believe it's fully funded, though, at this point now. It's refunded. We've cooped all the losses and it may be fully funded at this point. When I was first up here in May I think the funding level was 97.6%. And with the way the market's been moving since then, I wouldn't be surprised if we were at 100% funding today or maybe 101. I think the year-to-date return on that from talking to gentlemen in my office is probably around 10 to 12% so far.

Yeah, so it's good now because you get a much higher return, but still you couldn't predict next year or... Anything can happen, just like COVID suddenly happened. Nobody knows it. And the war can suddenly happen. You just see how much the gas price is. So all this, I just want to say, even though the rationale is correct, you borrow at a low interest rate and you invest to try to get a high return, but you also have to take the market risk into account. That's just my... Coleman. I think everyone will agree that, right?

Thank you, Councilor Yuan. Councilor Mahoney. So I just want to say that, and I hear what you're saying, but last year, We knew that we had to pay $16 million to PERIC for We had the letter forever, and it wasn't in the budget. And to sit up here and say that we don't have to do it, or whatever you want to say, we did the greatest thing in the world. We had $16 million, and we had to use the premiums and the bonds to pay that down. And when we sat here and every line, every reserve was used to pay down $35 million. That's outrageous, $35 million to lower the taxes. outrageous. And then we got downgraded twice. because of how much debt we're carrying. And the debt we're carrying includes the $495 million for the debt, for the pension obligation bond. But then I'm gonna actually have to also say, I didn't always vote for everything that came here. I did vote for many things while I was up here in the city council.

I voted for capital, I voted for equipment, I voted for different things. There's things I didn't vote for too. So I'm not, my hands aren't on every bit of the two billion dollars worth of debt. But every time we say yes without questioning things, every time we don't look at this and every time we don't think about the future of how we're going to be able to pay those things, we are the ones who are causing that. And guess what? The administration puts it in front of us. But if we say yes, we get blamed for it. So, you know, if we're doing a great job, we're doing a great job. We're just saying yes to everything. But we have $2 billion worth of debt. So that's on all of the people who said yes to every single thing you said yes to. Now, pension obligation bond? They argued, we're making proceeds on this. We shouldn't have to pay that. That's not how it works. We had to pay it. If we didn't pay it, we wouldn't have been certified. That's how it works. I appreciate the conversation. I was ready to approve the pension. But I feel like you have to really look at things through a larger lens sometimes. And you can't always just have what you want. You always talk wants and needs.

We want it, so that's a need to you. But it really has to be, can we afford it? Because just because we want it doesn't mean we can have it. I don't know. Maybe your kids don't ask that question, but sometimes you have to say no. I know that gentle parenting doesn't say no anymore. No was in my house. No was definitely a word that I used in my house. But it's not a criticism. I'm just saying this is the reality of things. I don't know. I know that that works out there, gentle parenting.

Thank you, Councilor Mahoney. Okay, so what we have is a motion to accept the pension budget as presented, $9,749,500 for the 2027 proposed contribution to the pension system. Do we need to take a roll call vote? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. De La Barbera. OK. Next up, we have our city solicitor. That was a little bit better organized. We'll start with the legal budget, Mr. Solicitor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, evening. I provided a PowerPoint and a companion PDF that I presume you all received. It was sent out through the clerk of committees. and that's got some numbers for you to look at. The particular numbers regarding the Major categories of cases that we deal with. So I was not gonna necessarily go through that, but I'm happy to if anyone has any particular questions. The volume of work that's reflected in those numbers is one thing, but it's just part of an overview of what we do in the office. In addition, we handle a lot of different types of cases, like property damage claims,

Attorney Steve Durkan just settled a case two days ago with an insurance company that it was the result of a flood claim in a home after a water main break. So the city had liability because of a water main break. The homeowner's insurer paid the claim and then the homeowner's insurer came after the city. and the claim was for $60,000. It was settled for 45. It's a pretty big settlement. So that's one of the types of things we'll do when there's a water main break or a sewer main break. We work with the insurance company and the homeowner to make them whole. I just had a man come in the office the other day a tree came down up in his neighborhood in Wollaston on Acton Street and it took out the power line and it took out his electric service.

And he has a $2,000 bill and we're working with him on that. So there are cases like that that we handle. We handle code and zoning cases. I should say zoning cases and code enforcement cases. I know some of you have seen me down at the zoning board, perhaps others. We represent the zoning board and Court. when cases are appealed. And we've had different types of zoning enforcement cases in Quincy District Court and in the Housing Court. And then I think one of the most, Notorious cases we handled that related to zoning was one handled by Attorney Petkin, the Airbnb in Squanam. that most people are familiar with. So we do that type of work, but I think the greatest value that our office provides is that we're around during the day. There are always lawyers in City Hall to answer questions.

Mr. Walker beats a path to my office quite frequently, but what we've tried to do is we try to encourage all department heads and employees to reach out to us before there's a problem, to ask questions where we can provide insight I think that's the most effective thing that we do in the office. I was going briefly go over the budget, the budget detail, if you care to have me do that or do you want me to just handle questions and have you folks dictate how the review flows?

So we're just focusing on page 38 of the legal department then we'll go on to the workers' comp. And I think there's one more, right? Judgments and settlements, I think. It's up to you. Do you folks have questions? Did you have a solicitor on, or did you want to go through it?

I'm happy to just explain. When I met with the mayor, all the department heads meet with the mayor, perhaps in February or March. you asked for a zero-based budget and that's what I have. there's been no increases other than a 3% salary increase in lines 510, 316, 510, 021 for the legal counsel. That term applies to the first assistant solicitor. That was a position created under Mayor Phelan and it's held by Attorney Petkin. And then the assistant city solicitor position there's two assistant solicitors and they're in line 51021. You may have noticed that this year there's breakage in that line. In December

and attorney in the office left. He got a job. He's a young attorney. He got a very nice job at a firm in Boston. We're very happy for him. And at the time, I went in and talked to the mayor because we had the ballot petition case talking to you about, I presume. And we also had the Long Island Bridge case at a certain stage. the Long Island Bridge case continues as you may or may not know and both of those cases are have generated very significant legal fees. So I suggested to the mayor that I leave the position vacant and create that breakage so it would be available to pay expected legal fees.

Well, regrettably, I've been asking to get the bills in. Not all law firms have good administrative operations. I've been unable to get, I'm trying to explain how we work in our fiscal year and get bills in. So bills are still forthcoming, but I didn't make the last meeting where you folks, where the year-end adjustments are made. So the breakage that was in that line, was part of the year-end adjustment. And it's not gonna go toward the settlements. But I have money remaining in the settlement, I mean the outside council accounts, that I believe is gonna cover Well, it's going to have to cover the bills through the end of the year. So there's not a lot to talk about, really. We have personnel service.

or Personal Services, and then we have a very kind of modest budget for other items. I think the biggest question would be how we manage outside counsel. And that's handled in two ways. Line 530303. is in the amount of 172,000. And if you follow the history of that line, it's always been right around that number. The $72,000 is our workers' comp attorney. We have an outside lawyer and have had the entire time I've been here who's quite excellent. administration. Administrations prior to the Koch administration have always had a comp specialist. So we have an attorney, Mike Maxey, who does an excellent job. He's in that line. and then there's $100,000 for outside counsel.

And we have a couple of cases. they both involved police. One was an arrest incident in a house and one's a very unfortunate incident out in Moon Island. where there are police involved. And because of the nature of what happened, the solicitor's office represented the city or the license board in one instance. So we were representing them. The police officers had to get their own attorneys. and that's the type of payment that comes out of the contracted line. We enter into a contract with lawyers to handle specific cases and, you know, hopefully pay them what's called for as the correct amount. So we have that, and then... the line 5 3 0 0 1 0 outside council.

That was introduced back when the Long Island Bridge case came on our docket. that was, it was known that that was gonna be an explosive and expensive case and it has proven to be that. And so, This line is used for cases like that. We've used it to pay the attorneys who are working on the ballot petition case as well. So the ballot petition and the Long Island Bridge case both happen to be very active right now, and we'll see what happens with that. So that's my explanation for all the lines and then the one breakage point. But other than that, I don't know what questions folks might have.

Thank you. Any questions for the solicitor?

Mahoney. Hi, Jim. So I think you already answered this, but I was trying to figure out what lines they were. So we did have breakage, or you transferred a total transfer of $85,000 from your your budget in fiscal year 26 for last week's transfers, correct?

I'm not sure that that's handled by Municipal Finance. Was that the total that was included?

Yeah, it was 40,000 from legal personnel services and 45,000 from legal contractual services, adding up to 85.

understood because I what happened was I was keeping we were all keeping in contact with each other and I hadn't got the bills in in time for the presentation before the council at the and the most recent meeting. So that's why they went into the breakage and then were used in the manner they were.

Okay, so they were used to lower somebody else's department. They took money out of your budget to pay for So money in your budget, you had $85,000 extra in your budget that went to something else, to another department.

Right, it's money that we didn't spend but I've every year said that it's money that I, you know, it's important to have it here. If you look at my five-year average for the law department, the settlement account fluctuates greatly. And there was a fluctuation going on here. Like I just mentioned, Mr. Durkan recently settled a case you know, the money's there so we used it. But you're right about where the money came from.

So Susan, can you just tell me, I don't know, what I have is a 612. Are these numbers 530303? Is there anything encumbered in there that I need to know about?

Currently there's been $111,308.86 expended and there are encumbrances totaling $20,790.11 out of the contractual line. that ends in 530303.

And I'm going to guess, I think when you were talking about the personnel services, was that the assistant city solicitor? Was it the Assistant City Solicitor that you had breakage in as well?

Yes, that line.

Could you tell me 510021, what that line item is as of now?

510021. the Assistant City Solicitor. What are you asking?

I was asking Susan to tell me what the amount is in that line. Just want to make sure it's the same number.

Okay, currently there has been expended $154,209.95, available budget of $55,790.05. Okay. which represents that since December that position has been vacant.

So there's two people in that department, correct? Two people in that department?

There's two people in that one. There was two people in that line.

Okay.

There's two assistant solicitors in that line, right.

Is the plan to hire?

Yes, I have the person hired. That's all I need to know. Okay.

Awesome. Okay, any further discussion on the legal budget? Councilor McKee.

So are there, you currently have two Assistant City Solicitors now, or I know one left in December, is that you've hired another one?

Correct. There are two in the office right now. and Attorney Peckin and Attorney Jerkin. Then I've hired the third, but because of the way You know, when I worked things out with the mayor in December and what I anticipated would happen, I was trying to be responsible about the legal fees, It's been significant. And so this person is hired, experienced, and will be coming on board. Okay. Yeah.

So there's going to be three?

Right, only three, but it's always been three. I did start with four assistant solicitors. I forget. what council it was that cut it to three. But that happened a while ago, but it's been three for, more than, it's probably been three for well more than a decade.

I guess when I'm looking at the, is one of them called legal counsel? They seem to be in different lines.

Yes, that's right. that happened when Mayor Phelan was in office and he created a position of a first assistant city solicitor. It was basically, he bumped, a particular attorney up a level from the assistant solicitor positions. And in our office, it's attorney Petkin. When I'm not here, Attorney Petkin covers. And she takes on other roles. And then the two assistants are paid the exact same amount.

So there's, let's see, one, two, three, four, five employees in the department.

Yes, we have Kathleen, the administrative person, and then there'll be myself and three lawyers, five.

and is anyone union? Pardon?

Pardon me?

Is anyone a union employee or no?

No, these are all considered confidential positions because of the nature of the work. It's like an EHR. And so they're all appointed.

OK. Any vehicles?

No.

I'm always asking.

I don't even get gas money. I've never put in gas money. I don't think. Do you get gas money? No, Janet doesn't either. we do the job and yeah, there's no, a few times I've thought when I'm going in Boston I should get into a blue plate from 55C, but I haven't done that.

And then it sounds like the difference between the outside counsel and the contracted line is that the outside counsel is kind of for Big ongoing cases like the Long Island Bridge, is that right? And then the contracted line is for everything else?

That's correct. That's exactly right, yeah. and we're having more of those. Okay. So more of the bigger cases, I mean.

And do you have an amount so far that's been spent on the Long Island Bridge this year?

I do. Attorney, oh, on Long Island Bridge, I only have the recent number, the most recent bill. I don't have a total bill on Long Island Bridge. That'll be pretty significant, but their most recent, the fiscal year to date is 35,651. 25. But there's a matter pending. It's called a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Boston, and Boston Water and Sewer just filed their response. We just got that in about a week ago. So that's being reviewed by Viral Dane of the lawyers, and this is going to be There'll be more bills on that one.

Okay. And then it sounds like the ballot petition bills haven't completely come in, but what has come in to date?

Right, they're coming in and to date, and again, our Councilor Jacobs was kind enough to send a query ahead of time. To date, the bill, the legal bill is 110,847.29. and there's been activity. You may recall the court issued a memorandum of decision. There's been post memorandum of decision activity as the lawyers are trying to work out with the parties. how they're gonna move forward with the judge's order. So I've asked KP Law, they've gotta get the bills in. I thought I might have them by tonight, but I do not. but that's the answer to the question that you had inquired on.

And then I guess this is just a, I don't know if this is a question from UNIFI or the city auditor. but I noticed that there were a couple of small transfers into the professional tech and contracted lines. Even though the original amounts seem to be sufficient, Even with encumbrances, so there were like $262 transferred in to professional tech and $600 into the contracted lines just seemed sort of odd.

Oh sorry.

So the transfer ins that you're looking at, those are prior year encumbrances. So when the fiscal year gets closed, any prior year encumbrances that need to go into the next fiscal year for bills that we have to pay, move forward on the transfer rent.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Auditor.

You're welcome.

Jacobs. Hi.

Thank you, Solicitor Timmons. So the question I have kind of goes back. You kind of already touched on it. You were speaking about the 5-3-0-0-1-0, Outside Council. It's been $195,000. for at least the last two budget cycles proposed, 195,000 in 2027. And when exactly did the Long Island Bridge, just refresh my memory, when did that start? Like what year was that? Which case? The Long Island Bridge case.

I don't recall exactly. May I ask?

Mr. Walker can help.

Mr. Walker.

Through you, Madam Chairwoman, Mayor Marty Walsh announced his plans to rebuild the Long Island Bridge in a State of the City address in January of 2018. 2018.

And so when you were speaking a while ago, you had mentioned that we always had line item 530303 for contracted and you said that 72,000 is pretty much for workers' comp and 100,000 was for outside counsel. But I think you had alluded, and correct me if I'm wrong, that 530010 outside counsel came about because of the Long Island Bridge. That line item did not exist before 2000. That's correct. Okay. You've been city solicitor since 2009? Eight. Eight, sorry, 2008. you know that so that basically for 10 years you went without that line item because you or did it did another like you know I'm just trying to say because I remember when this happened I remember when the Long Island Bridge thing came up

and I remember when you came before the council and you asked the council to come up with this line item so that way you could proceed with the lawsuits, anything that should come up without having to come before the Council to ask for money?

Well, it was actually the initiative of the Ward 6 Councilor at the time, Brian McNamee, not mine. Prior in time, these budgets used to be $250,000 for settlements, $250,000 for judgments. That's what it was back in the day. But following a robust review of everything. I recall working with Councilor Palmucci directly, because like some of the attorneys here would understand this. The judgment line, We just dropped that to 50 because if there's a judgment against the city, it has to be paid. There are two things that have to be paid, snow removal bills and judgments. So, because they're unpredictable. Um,

At the time, what we agreed to, that was a total of $500,000. They cut the settlement account to $300,000 because they agreed, we all agreed at the time, having that money available to settle stuff. Sometimes you can get ahead of a case. have contacted our office. They want us to handle a matter. You may recall on occasion or two, Councilor, where that's happened. and Ward 1. And so the settlement account has proven to be a real asset. and I give the credit to then Councilor Palmucci, who's now the Honorable Palmucci, but we figured that we increased the settlement account because that's where we needed the flexibility to work. and that's been a successful approach. We don't always exhaust the numbers there but having them available each year because you'll see there's a fluctuation.

So that's actually how that all worked out.

Okay.

So when this came about, it was some time ago, I had personally, myself at that time, some concerns about just creating a line item for the Long Island Bridge. Not that I think you shouldn't necessarily be fighting that, but I feel like if you do something like that, it kind of goes out of the... and the Board of Directors. Thank you. Thank you. and we'd supply that money. And it would remind the taxpayers of how much this actually is costing us, which we know, but we don't have that final number. in front of us right now. So for that reason, I am going to make a motion to cut $86,000 from line item 530010.

and reduce it from $195,000 to $109,000. May I understand the rationale so I can perhaps respond? I just said that. I think it needs to be a reminder. We've got to make a visual reminder for the citizens of Quincy how much we're spending on These legal cases, especially ones like the Long Island Bridge and the signature case, because we have this $195,000 line item, which the administration is able to spend, and it kind of goes on the back burner of the taxpayers. And I think that if we lowered it to $109,000, you would have to come before the council and explain what's going on, why we need more money so that way the taxpayers could be reeducated as to why this money is being spent.

Well, I would be delighted and I think it would be more efficient if you want to bring me, I'm always sitting over there, I've said this before, just call me up to the microphone, but if you want a legal update on bills and cases, I'd be very happy to provide those. You know, it's not like we're going out, if mere Koch were, you know, filing lawsuits the way the Attorney General, the State's Attorney General files them, I might understand that, that he would have a desire or an intent to hide the money. but that's not what's going on and I'm happy to report on them. We just don't report. Like Long Island Bridge has been very active at times. and then it goes dormant for a bit because it's sitting at a state agency or whatever. But I would be very happy to regularly

at your request, or you can set dates, or I'll do it quarterly. I'll come in and report on the expenses of settlements and whatnot.

So I just want to go on the record to say that I never suggested the mayor was hiding money.

I don't know. No, I offered that out as a, you know, just as I'm saying that there's no reason for anybody to buy.

So I have a motion on the table to reduce this line item 530010 by $86,000. even we just had a transfer of $85,000 the other I think the other day out of this out of this budget so you know I think there's room there and I think we can reduce this by $86,000 so yeah that transfer wasn't

just out of this budget. Some of the money came out of this budget but not all of it. And I'm using, as I said, Attorney Durkan just settled the matter. So I just suggest that having the flexibility, the $300,000, it's very important. I beg your pardon. Having the flexibility with the outside counsel is very important because Ash, and you will still have this flexibility.

You'll just have to come back before the council and ask for the money.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a motion. Any further discussion on the motion? Councilor Ash? You have one second. Go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. I would be hesitant to cut anything from that under the premise of having the solicitor come back in to give us an update because there are strict time rules and the rules of civil procedure, of course. the solicitor had to come in and give an update in order to get or retain counsel to potentially respond to a matter within a very specific time frame. If that's in the summer, I mean, we don't meet for for 60 days and I know that there could be some logistical, some defaults and some issues that would arise if we weren't able to respond to these matters within a timely manner. So I wouldn't support that cut, but for that premise. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Ashton. Council UN?

I support this card because I think follow up with Councilor Jacobs opinion, it does serve as a visual reminder for the taxpayers, citizens, how much money how much taxpayers' money have been spent on all those legal issues for the city. So how much legal case going on currently? in the city. How many legal case going on currently in the city?

I don't have that number. Let me take a look at... because when you say legal case, I'm not sure what you mean exactly because as I explained in my opening comments, it's all different types of matters we handle.

As I read, currently we have three eminent domain case, and we have this, we just had that petition signature case. and we have a statue case. I know that statue case and now you have outside lawyer give the free service in the Long Island case.

Well, there's more than that. There's a couple of police cases. I referenced those that I'm familiar with. I know that Mr. Durkan told me the number of cases, he's actually handling. He's got 53 motor vehicle accident claims, and I just don't know how many of them are in suit. And then he's got 21 property damage claims. And again, I don't know how many are in suit.

Okay, so my concern is...

I think the question might be how many lawsuits out of the outside counsel. I think that's what your question is. How many lawsuits are currently pending outside of the outside counsel line?

I just say generally we spend resident taxpayers' money have been spent a lot on all kinds of legal case. And some, if we can avoid it, like... Yes, for example, if some eminent domain case, if administration work with the... resident, when administration want to use eminent domain to take their property, if they can have some negotiation going on, so avoid both party go to the court, spend money on legal I would really recommend that way, like, work outside of... Yeah, we've done that when we can.

When we're able to work cooperatively with a property owner, we do. but it just doesn't happen in all cases.

Okay, and also you mentioned that some trees falling down on some, like, you said the trees falling down damaged some resident's electrical well. I think I know that case. because her neighbor called the city, say that that tree need to be cut, but City didn't do it. Then during the storm in February, that trees like a...

Right, and that's where the liability comes from.

So like this... if the department can improve their work, like if a resident say, okay, this is the dead tree come to cut, then, will not have this kind of expense.

Well, I mean, I wish we lived in Neverland, too, but that's not the case. I think, I don't know how many Lift Trucks, they have a natural resources, but they have a tree list and they go around taking down trees all the time. But in order to do that work, they need a lift. They need other heavy equipment. And so they're limited. There's a limited capacity to get the work done. And they do the best they can. So, but I do understand, because you're right, we hear that a lot.

Yeah, just how to save those unnecessary costs.

Right.

because I know that case. She said her neighbor repeatedly reported that the data should need to be removed, I don't know take how long didn't do it then during storm in February that tree falling down and damaged their property then now the city have to pay for that so I'm just say how to improve the and the Department of Work to avoid... No, understood.

I mean, there's all kinds of things that I think everyone does the best they can. You see the claim numbers have gone down. they do a good job out in the field. And we end up handling the cases where things didn't work out. So it's not fully fair. to the folks in public works, natural resources to signal them out. Okay, just so you understand.

Thank you. I talked to the commissioner of the park, so... He said yes.

They do a great job. Yeah.

I'm not coming back just to say if this is going to happen, and probably it's not the only case. Okay, another thing is...

Okay, so we have a motion to cut this line item. I just don't want you to go too far off from that motion. Any further discussion on that motion?

Go ahead. I just have a quick question, just out of curiosity. Adams Academy, where do we stand on that?

That case is, it remains pending. It's in discovery. I've been trying to get the attorneys for the trust, the Woodard School Trust, to talk about a potential settlement, but that hasn't happened yet.

Settlement for what, so that they could sell the building?

What's that?

What do you mean by settlement, if you could explain?

A resolution of the case, the case you're asking about.

How many times did it go to the SJC, once or twice?

I beg your pardon?

It went to the SJC and lost once. Is this the second time?

It went, I'm not certain. I think it went up three times and I'm just not certain. I know the city prevailed. We prevailed on one matter, one of the original SJC cases, but then they prevailed on the most recent one.

So the other question I had was not to you, Jim. Can you tell me what line item you're cutting? Because I'm confused. 530.

We're cutting from 530.01. 1-0, outside council. 195,000 to 109,000. That is one that I want to .

There's been no outside counsel work on Adams Academy.

No, that's OK. I just was asking.

OK.

It just popped in my head. Wait one second. OK. Councilor Jacobs.

So you had said when it came to the we are at $110,847.29. So we have you, we have Janet, we have Steve, and we have a potential now for, and this all happened probably while this other gentleman was, or lady, I don't know who it was.

He was with us.

He was with us, okay. So we had four, four lawyers in-house, then we hired outside counsel, KP Services, is that what it's, KP Law Firm, and I don't know how many lawyers we had there, but we spent $110,000 on top of whatever you guys were doing in the case. And the other side spent $20,000 in one.

Well, I don't know what the other side spent. I know that they're working with a particular legal agency that goes around the country doing this work, so I presume that there's something there. And they were working with Harvard Legal Aid, so I'm presuming there's something there. Our office was conflicted out of that case. the case about a ballot petition relating to the mayor's salary and the four people you mentioned are all appointees of the mayor. We had to get outside counsel for that reason. many times we have to get outside counsel because of conflicts.

That's one of the things, going back to the salary, that I don't understand because You came up here a couple of weeks ago and talked about repeal versus delete. We're going to get into that in a couple of days. But over here, you're talking about how we couldn't get into this signature case because we're appointees of the mayor, and it had to do with this pay raise. So I don't even understand how you guys can come up here and talk about the ordinance regarding the pay raise because it's in your best interest, and I'm not saying this happened, but it's in this department's best interest to make the language in that in that ordinance the most beneficial terms for the person who employs you, which is the mayor. So in my own mind, even when you're up here, it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand how.

how you can come up here and even speak to that because you are speaking about the pay that the person who employs you and then also could determine whether or not you get a raise. You know, so, but again, that's either here or there. We're gonna talk about that next week. But again, there's a motion on the table here to cut $86,000 from 530010. from $195,000 to $109,000. I'd like a vote to take place.

Okay, any further discussion? I do want to give everyone a chance to speak.

If I can respond to that, because that's not neither here nor there.

and I think it should be made clear. Okay, well, can I just give everyone a chance to speak so that we can take a vote on this? Hubley, did you want to speak on it?

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Madam Chair. and so I don't exactly know who this question would go to but I wanted to put it out there and whoever feels inclined that they can answer it would be appreciated. So I routinely see updates in the newspaper about these cases. and I think the newspapers, whether it's the Quincy Sun, Patriot Ledger, Boston Globe, do a pretty good job covering it and when they do so, they often include measurements of how much the city's municipality has spent about it and I imagine they must submit a request for information to get that. So I do see these things to Councilor Jacobs' inquiry, I guess. These things are routinely reported in the press. and Solicitor Timmons offered up, I think, a pretty reasonable offer to meet Councilor Jacobs' request behind the cut.

to come up routinely at the request of this body to explain what kind of expenditures have happened. I want to put it out there. And then, of course, Councilor Ash's point. Immediately when this came up, I looked right over at him to see if he was going to have a comment, and of course he did. So it does seem like we have a reasonable middle ground on this, and so I wanted to put that out there and see what my colleagues said.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else have comment? Councilor Ash? One second.

I would just clarify, because I believe to Councilor Yuan's line of questioning, I think with respect to the claims, she was referring to the judgments and settlements budget, not necessarily With respect to Councilor Jacobs' request to cut from outside counsel, I think that the solicitor said earlier that the outside counsel line item is for the larger cases and who they retain, his office retains for the instances like when they are specifically conflicted out of a matter. I know we've there has been a number of those, right? I think that they certainly haven't decreased over the last few years, which is why, again, I would go to my point, I'd be hesitant to cut from that outside of the time constraints and asking the solicitor to come in and give updates that could potentially be detrimental to the deadlines of the matter. Thank you.

I'm going to take some privilege, Councilor Yuan, because I have not spoken yet. The line has been pretty much expended every year. I understand that it would be for referring to specialized legal counsel on cases that need to be I can appreciate Councilor Jacobs' point that when it comes to appeals and things like that, we can not necessarily have a lot of input into that, but I would prefer to take Solicitor Timmons up on his offer to provide some reporting on you know, where lawsuits are at. Obviously, some of them are going to be confidential. You're not going to be able to speak to the specifics, where the costs are at, where they are in the legal process. Are they in appeal? And because you're right, they come up and then there's a long wait and then they come back. And to Councilor Ash's point, you know, these are timely. So I would not be in favor of cutting this item, but I would be in favor of providing a little bit more reporting. Does anyone else, Councilor DiBona, had you spoken on this?

No, you have not.

Thank you Madam Chair. Jacobs, if he could. I know you're making a cut for $86,000. The solicitor has said he would come in front of this body at any time with any of these situations and talk. very transparent to us about this. I was just considering maybe if you could cut that in half and make the cut $43,000. And I mean, he's putting up the fact that he'll come back here to the city council and speak about it. It's pretty transparent to me. If maybe you just cut it in half, it would give him a little bit more leeway to come back here. It just seems like it's a high cut.

and to St. Paul.

I don't need a financial incentive to come back. I'll just schedule it. Any Councillor can schedule me to come back and report. So I appreciate where you're coming from, but I want you to be clear. It doesn't have to be because I'm coming to request money. Thank you.

No, I want to respond. So I do appreciate that. I do, and I hear you. And I hear you say that a lot, and that's good. But I've been emailing you about Greenleaf Street for months. and you've not responded to the people who live in that building. You've not responded to me about any of that. I have heard, I spoke to you in person at the ENC event. at Central Middle School, and you basically said to me, I don't have time to talk to you right now. shooed me away. So it's nice that you stand here and say that you're going to come before this body or that I can email you or that I can call you. But when I'm dealing with my constituents, Okay? And you just, it's like I don't even exist.

Councilor? right behind where Mr. Hubley is now sitting, you may recall saying to me after meeting, in the presence of the council president, I think everything you say is a lie. Those are the words you said to me, and it was after that occurred, and it was in the presence of members of the public. It was here in the chamber. Jacobs, that I stopped talking to you and said email me then. That's what that happened and since then you have not contacted me on Greenleaf.

No, no, Councilor Jacobs, Councilor Jacobs, no, I'm going to stop this line of questioning. This line item is not for Do you want to reduce it? I don't know, you've got the motion on the table. Okay, hang on one second, Councilor Jacobs. Go ahead.

I'm going to make a motion to repeal my other motion. I'm going to change the motion to reduce 5-3-0-0-1-0. by $43,000 suggested by Councilor DiBona to $152,000.

Okay, so the revised motion on 530010 is to reduce it from $195,000, reduce it $43,000 to $152,000 on the motion. Any discussion? Councilor McKee, hang on.

So sometimes there's contracts that require a certain payment per year, I guess. Do we have any contracts? How many contracts do we have for paying outside legal firms? And is there any kind of amount set in those contracts?

Sure, there's amounts in all of them, but right now we're working with six different law firms, and they all have contracts.

for how much?

Well, it all varies. These aren't retainer contracts. We can only pay in arrears. The service has to have occurred and then we pay for it. So every one of these. they have their billing rate in there, their allowed billing rate in there, and they bill based on that hourly rate and their time, and the bills come in fairly regularly. A couple of the bigger firms are pretty good about it. because they have admin people.

So it's just a kind of hourly rate based on whatever is used. It's not like the city is on the hook for a set amount of money per year for each one?

That's correct, but we do ballpark we have to put an amount in for what we expect the contract to be to make sure that municipal finance has the money. Okay. That's it.

That's my question. Thank you. Okay.

Okay, further discussion on this line item cut? Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Councilor Yuan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to clarify Councilor Ash misunderstood what I want to say. The reason I support Councilor Jacobs' card is mainly because I want to give a visual sign to the residents that city has spent too much on all those legal case. And if there is some way we can improve and can save some taxpayers money on some legal case, we should do that. So that's why I supported to make the cart on the line because One more thing, last time when we talk about the DPW, the GREE, like the... the grease, the oil, those things.

Like when they give the fine, they didn't include any original, they don't have any oversight. So the fine is the final. So if some mistake the people get the fine in wrong, only way they can do it is go to the court to sue the city. So that's why I suggest in the DPW department or administration have a review process to trying to resolve the complaint inside before residents have to go to the court to solve it. Because if a resident go to court, the city will also go to court to spend it. Councilor Yuen, I'd like to take a vote on this. Yeah, so that's why I want, I just explained that's my purpose to support.

I understand.

It's not a Councilor Ash, she means like a, It's a small case. It's not in this contract. So I support to cut of this outside counsel.

I'd like to take a roll call vote, please. Hubley. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, I'll try to be brief. So as I said earlier in my remarks, I believe there's a mechanism through which, through the press, through which the public is readily informed about expenditures on legal cases that the city takes up on behalf of the same residents, by the way. there is an offer to come in at any time to this body to report that information as well. Frankly, I know these meetings can be somewhat entertaining at times, but I think the newspapers probably get a little bit more coverage than us on QATV. Maybe I'm wrong. And I listen very carefully to the... reasons behind the request and, of course, the support of the request by Council UN. And both appear to be more of a performance management nature, and you don't really manage individual employees or groups of employees' performance in terms of response times and things like that.

through budget. That's not the mechanism by which you do. You do it through management. You do it through feedback. You do it through feedback loops. and I think that this is an executive branch action that's trying to be handled through the legislative budget process. And so I would agree with Chair Riley. that I wouldn't be supportive of this cut.

I'd like to take the roll call, please.

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Chan, Riley.

Okay, the motion passed. So if there's no further discussion on the budget,

Go ahead, Councilor Yuen. I have a question about this contracted. So maybe I missed. What do you say? So what's the spending on this contracted office? Service, 530303. 530303? 530303, contracted.

Right, I think that's right. You said 530303, correct? 530, yes. Pardon me?

Yes.

OK. So what is your question, please?

My question is, I try to understand Contracted, what's the difference between contracted and outside counsel? I may be missed. I just ask you to repeat.

Okay. Contracted consists of two numbers, basically. 72,000 is the sum that we pay the workers' compensation attorney, Michael Maxey, who's been with the city for a considerable period of time and does a terrific job. The $100,000 balance is the amount that we use to hire law firms or lawyers. In this particular case, it's more lawyers. We've hired lawyers in two cases involving police, where there's a conflict of interest. And they tend to be the cases that come in during the course of a year and we can anticipate they're going to be in and out. The legal fees won't exceed $50,000. That's what that line is about.

Two cases related to police?

Pardon me?

Two cases?

Well, right now there's two, and then let me just take a look, because I know there's at least one other. No, right now it's pretty much two. But keep in mind, this $100,000 is for next year, for the coming year. and we don't know what that year brings. The history that's been presented, before this body shows that there's going to be a need for this type of money.

Okay. So, so historical data show like every year we'll have some This kind of case related to police, you need a contract outside lawyer. Is this through the historic data? Every year have some kind of this thing happen?

No, that's actually not accurate because we went for well over at least a decade without any police cases, which is completely remarkable for a city this size. It just so happened like one of the cases involved an eviction where an officer, four officers went into a house because there was a fight going on and it was over an eviction. and that person has sued. And then the other one, it's a very bad incident that occurred where the license board was sued and Attorney Petkin represented the license board in court and then a particular individual officer was sued. And so that officer needed his own attorney. but other than that, I really can't remember any police related cases since I handled one back in like 2012, 2011 or 2012.

they're not very frequent. They just happen to be the types of cases that we're dealing with here now. But it could be a case where someone sues us You know, you just saw in the newspaper a lawsuit filed by someone over a Furnacebrook golf course. You know, that came out of the blue. So there are cases like that that come up, and we deal with them.

So, yeah, if that kind of case, like Sue, about the golf course, do you need a contract outside a lawyer, or you can do it?

No, we're going to handle that in-house, yes.

Okay, since you said historic data show like before there is no police, no police involved case, but 2025 you also budget $172,000. In that year, is there any case need outside lawyer, any police related case?

You lost me on that one.

in 2022, you also budget $172,000. 2022?

Yeah. Okay. And which line are you saying is over budget?

It's the same line. It's the contracted. It's the same line.

Yeah, 2023. That had to be Long Island. that would have been the Long Island Bridge case. I think what happened was we had some outside council money too. Well, no, I'm seeing that budget. I'm not really sure which case that would have been. but you can just tell that something happened in 2023 and that's why the number jumped because the numbers are fairly consistent during that five-year average.

the reason I ask, because you said you just had a true case about police related before, You never have, but seems from the spending, every year spend so much money, so I want to know what other case.

Well, we have zoning cases.

Need an outside lawyer.

I'm trying to think if you can think of any where we've used outside counsel. I don't know. If you care to talk about this, you know, after I can give you some clarification. I can't answer that now about why those particular expenditures occurred. I just identified what they were because I'm here on the budget and I'm trying to show that in the past years this is what we spent. But the particulars of what type of case it was, I'm not certain.

Are those two police related cases still going on or already finished?

The ones that we just spoke about, the current cases are still going on. Attorney Petkin was able to get the city out of one of the cases, or the license board, I should say. She handled that aspect of it, and the claims against the license board were dismissed. but the claim against the individual officer is still proceeding at this time. And then the other case is actually coming up for trial soon, the eviction case.

Yuen, I'm just going to take a privilege here. But just to clarify, Solicitor Timmons, you said the 172,000 72 of that goes to a worker's comp.

Correct.

So you're really only talking 100. And is that a fixed cost, like you pay that person for that, or do they bill up to that amount or something?

Yes. No, he's under contract, and he's paid in the annual installments. We've been able to keep the workers comp budget. You'll see when we get to it. You know, we keep, we use an outside service to to tabulate the billing and make sure it aligns with what's allowed by the Workers' Comp Board. That usually costs around $60,000. personnel and expense costs for workers' comp has always been around 130,000, 72 plus whatever the outside company gets.

But my point is that for this line item, there's really only 100,000 that chose it more at your discretion. That's correct. And this is, I guess maybe the question would be the difference between the outside counsel and the contracted. Is there a big difference, or do you kind of use them interchangeably for... when you need to work with specialized legal services?

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Well, it sounds like outside counsel and contracted with the exception of the workers, is used in a similar fashion?

Yes, they are. And, you know, like on the police case, we've got a lawyer who this type of work he does from Norwood. If it were a zoning case, there are lawyers who know zoning that we go to. So yes. Specialized. Yes.

Okay.

So, Councilor Yuen, do you have a motion on this line item?

Yeah, I do have a motion. So generally, I would like to encourage city spend less money on those legal fees if something can resolve insight through department work, through the... work with residents, then save both parties money. So for that purpose, I would like to make a cut of this item, just cut 20,000. on item 530303. Cut $20,000? Yeah. Okay.

So the motion on 530303 is to cut it $20,000 from $172,000 to $152,000. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. On the motion? I'd like to take a roll call vote.

Councilor Ash? No. Councilor DiBona? No. Councilor Hubley? No. Councilor Jacobs? Yes. Councilor Mahoney? Yes. Councilor McKee? Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council Yuan. Yes. Shannon Riley.

No.

Motion passes.

Okay, the motion passed.

Motion to approve as amended.

Okay, we have a motion to approve this budget as amended. Any discussion on the motion to approve as amended? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, wonderful. Okay, moving on to I lost track of my thing. Is it workers' comp? Is workers' comp next? Do you want to give a little summary?

I don't have much really to say about it. It's a very consistent budget, as you can see. We've always zero budgeted it. There's two different things that are paid out of our office. The injured pay is the salary that the injured party gets at the workers' comp rate, which is 70% of their full salary. That is with the exception of police and fire. Police and fire, the salaries are covered by the departments themselves. They're treated under statute chapter 111F. that's treated differently. So personnel service in the 510173 line is an estimate for the coming year

for how much in workers' comp benefits will have to be paid to injured people. And that's always just a total ballpark. It's based on past performance. You can see we consistently funded the same. The next line, well, I'm going to skip one. 570703, working man's comp. That's a name I've been trying to get changed. I'll renew my request that it be changed in the budget to workers comp. But that's the medical bills. and we pay all the medical bills, police, fire and the municipal employees. and what happens is the Department of Industrial Accidents sets the rates for medical bills and they're to be paid at that rate. If you're on workers' comp and you get injured, then your medical bills are paid at a certain rate.

So we use an outside company. That's what 530303 represents, the contractual line. that's a company that we send all the bills out. They go through and they, I think the term is, Well, I don't recall the term, but what they do is they make sure that they're accurately rated and then they send the bills back to us and we pay them. So that's what those three individual lines represent. They're consistent every year. I mentioned Attorney Michael Maxey. He does an absolutely terrific job. He's excellent. But a credit this year, I think you'll see in this year's budget that the workers' comp...

510173, that that line is way down. We haven't spent anywhere near the 752 this year, and that's really a reflection on the employees and the department heads. There's not been a lot of folks going out on comp. And I'll just tell you one little issue that it's in the PDF I gave you and it's in the PowerPoint. It shows that in the workers' comp injury reports, 39% of the reports we get from the city, police, fire, admin, and the school department. 39% are from the school department. And that's because the teachers properly have been told

that anytime there's an issue with a student and teachers get whacked, we get reports all the time about physical conduct, they report them. So we've had a lot of reports this year, but we have not had a lot of claims. The workforce has been terrific. I think the department heads do a great job, but I ask that we leave the lines in place because we need to, if folks, Things happen and there are injuries in the workplace. We need to be ready to pay those. And then, you know, in the 570703 line, if someone has a fracture and there's surgery, that can cost upwards of $100,000 and wipe out a significant portion of the medical. So I think for the most part, these lines, I request they be left intact. That's my explanation for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any discussion on this budget line item? Councilor McKee?

So I guess I believe that our Our budgeted amount is higher than some other similarly sized cities. It's higher than Brockton, but that's $1.2 million, so it's not... and super hugely more, but Lynn, $450,000, New Bedford, about $590,000, and Fall River just $208,000. I guess have you looked at any of these other places and do you have any ideas why Quincy might be higher than these other places?

Well, I'm presuming, I don't know what you're reading from or how you got numbers, but I'm presuming that there's some sort of misinterpretation. there's no way that a major city could get by with 200 and some odd thousand dollars in their workers comp. Are you saying for both injured pay and medical bills, the total that the city has is $200,000?

Sounds like the 2027 budget proposal is that. I'll check into it more, but I'm just wondering. It sort of stood out, so I thought I would ask.

Well, people, you know, you were silent about the number of employees in the department. And, you know, I don't do the comparison stuff. We have the number of employees we need and I'm very happy and grateful that's been preserved. This workers' comp budget, you have all the data from the city of Quincy about what's going on. and it's completely consistent all along. This year has been a good year and I acknowledge that. I said that. The notion that you can look at Brockton and say, well, we should do something up here. How many employees does Brockton have? How do they handle things down there as far as the medical bills and everything? I just don't, there's no reason for me to look at other cities when I'm talking about

the Quincy budget before the Quincy City Council and I can show you five years of totally consistent

Well, I can, yeah, I can get more information. I just wondered if you had thoughts about that.

Yeah, I don't, and I'm sorry. It's okay. Because I'm just not aware.

The 2025 draft audit says the city has a liability of $9.6 million. at the end of the fiscal year. And that accounts for all outstanding claims as of that date. So including like long-term claims and I just, maybe this is a question for Mr. Della Barba, but how is that, are those claims and the payments coming out of like the pension, a pension reserve system or?

I don't believe so, but that's a question I'd be glad to answer if you want to send me an email.

Okay.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

That's it. Councilor Hubley.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. My only question actually is for Councilor McKee, and I think Mr. Timmons touched upon it, which is there are some things when we look at comparative cities that we do on a population level. and then there are other things that we would look at in terms of a number of employee level and maybe type of employees and council employees, because they have different, we'll say, risk factors. And so my question was, when we're looking at comparable cities, You're looking at comparable size workforces, because this cost, as I understand it, applies to workforce, not the population. So that was just my one question, which might have resolved your question. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Who's next? Councilor Ryan?

Hang on one second. Councilor Ryan? Through you, Madam Chair. I just would like a clarification on the workers' comp. Injury reports for school year 2022 through 2026, the 39% for the school. Is that just injuries to the teachers or is that injuries to the students or?

No, no, it would just be the employees, the teachers, the paraprofessionals.

Okay. All right. And what type of injuries? Could you just give an example?

Yeah, they vary. I mean, we've had teachers fall and teachers pick up something. They might pick up a fallen student, injure their back. But we've had a lot... of situations where students have whacked a para or a teacher. Yeah, it really varies.

Okay, all right, thank you. Thanks. Motion to approve.

Mahoney. So Jim, I know you're saying it hasn't changed, 752, 92, and 853. Do we have workers comp? Do we go out for that or is that something we pay self-insure? When you say you have somebody looking at it for contractual, who is it that we have looking at it for contractual? Who do we contract out with?

The company's called Guardian Claims Service. And what they do is they take in the bills. It's something that would be I believe they have a proprietary service. But the Industrial Accident Board rates all medical injuries.

No, I know what it would be. I was just wondering, because we use, I mean, there's Mega, there's Guardian, there's a bunch of different ones you can use. There's a bunch of different ones you can use. I just wanted to know which one you were using.

Yeah, well, we put it out to bid, and we use Guardian.

Okay.

So when I'm looking, and I know you don't want us to cut this, but when I'm looking at this, since 2025 you haven't raised the budget, but when I'm looking at your, is it 2021 through 2025 plus the actuals in 2026, and I just took the total department, 912 grand totals from 2021 to 2026 and I came up with a number and then I divided by six and then I subtracted it by 169 and it comes out to about $265,000 over for those six years. So then when I went back, I was like, I'm going to just look at each line item. And there's one other piece of this. in 2026, the fiscal year ended with 200,000 remaining in personal services and 125 in current expenses. And they were used for transfers. So this is where I'm coming from. So in fiscal year 2026, we have 752 budget.

And do we have any, can we look at actual, Susan, for all three of these lines?

Are we talking about workers' compensation?

Yep. could we just look at the actuals for workers compensation for all three, injured pay, others and workers comp?

All right.

I'm asking Susan.

What are you asking?

I'm asking the author. I wasn't asking you to do that. So you want to know what the actuals were? I want to know if there's any encumbrance for any of these.

In the contractual line right now, the 530303, in fiscal year 26 right now, 80,325 has been expended. There's still an available balance of $27,740. However, there are a few weeks left in the fiscal year, and I don't know what their financial obligations are.

Okay, and then what about 510173?

That actually is personal services, so there are still a few weeks left in the fiscal year that we have to pay out of that.

Okay, and then what about... 570703.

In that particular line, We've spent $660,739. There is an encumbrance of $40,000, and there's a remaining balance of $153,000.

Okay, so when I was looking at this, and I'm just gonna entertain this because it's gone up and down over the years, but the average and you had the transfer of the 100 and 125. So when I'm looking at that and I'm looking at 492, I'm not looking to cut a lot. I'm just looking to cut $75,000 from 510173, which would leave you... about 675 in that, and 675... is less than what the average would have been for that line if it went across all six lines. I'm not touching contractual. And then when I look down at workers' comp, the last line, I had it, because I was looking at the number 454, I had it higher for a higher cut, and you're saying it's at 700 right now? So for that one, I would say a $50,000 cut for that one. Fifty. I know you have a motion, but I did say I had my hand up.

I'm so sorry.

Okay, so we're withdrawing the motion to approve as is. We're entertaining a cut to 510173. from... 65,000.

Of 65,000?

Cutting 65,000 from that? Okay. No, just 65, just 65, not 160, just 65. 65? Yeah. From the 752? Yeah. Okay. I'll let Jen do the math.

And then what was the other one you had, Councilor Mahoney? 570-703-50000.

Okay.

No, I will do them separately. I just wanted to get them out there.

Okay.

Okay. Okay. So on 510173, the motion is to reduce the line item from 750 to 885. 65,000 to 687,885. On the motion. Councilor Ash.

I'll just ask Solicitor Timmons if there's any, like, forecasting or trends that he thinks could be coming in that would... No, that really... ...need to come back to the well for that $65,000 based on... and more injuries, more employees, et cetera.

I will echo the sentiments of the eminently Well, whatever. Mr. Della Barba, I'll follow his lead and just say if we need to, we'll be back. the one issue with cutting the salary line is that we have to pay the salary that's required under statute enforced by the AG. but we could anticipate if there's gonna be a deficiency there. These are palatable cuts. We could work with these cuts.

Thank you. Okay, any further discussion then on the motion? Do we need a roll call vote or roll call vote? Okay.

Councilor Ash.

Yes.

So this is on the first one, 510173.

DiBona, Councilor Hubley, Councilor Jacobs, Councilor Mahoney, Councilor McKee, Councilor Ryan, Councilor Yuan, Chairman Riley.

Okay, so then on 570703, reducing that from $853,800 to $803,800. Any discussion on that motion?

Asch, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Koch, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Riley.

Yes, okay, and so do we have a motion to, okay. From Councilor DiBona, we have a motion to approve this budget as amended. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now we're up to judgments and settlements. One more. Judgments and settlements.

Well, we've talked it through, certainly. I thought there was a... I thought there was a motion on that, on settlements, okay. Well, I don't have any preliminary comments, we'll say that.

Okay, Councilor McKee.

So, Solicitor Timmons, I had asked for information about the judgments and settlements, and you had indicated that they were they were confidential, but I believe they are both public records. And if you need to redact some of the information that's confidential, That's fine with me, but I would like the information about this.

What information are you after?

just what they are, like how much and, you know, to whom.

Which is they, judgments or settlements?

Both, both.

Okay. Well, there are no judgments, but... I understand you'd like that. The problem with that is I don't want... I'll give you a date and an amount but I don't want to give you any information about who the parties are or what the nature of the claim is because people will review this stuff and then you know people can understand that I settled a certain case one way and another case another or whatever so I'm happy to give you the amounts. I thought maybe that was done but we might have done something to redact it. production to someone else on a different, actually it was to you. We gave you, you asked for a list of all the people on workers' comp and all the people on disability. So, did you also ask for judgments?

I did, yeah.

All right. Well, I'll give it to you, but we'll similarly redact it. That's fine.

Yeah, I mean, I think these are pots of money where we don't have any oversight into what happens, so it's... it's helpful information to have and I think yeah whatever we're legally able to have I would urge you to redact as little as possible

Well, I'm going to redact what I just said, because, no, you really don't have any role over it, and I keep all these types of things, all settlements confidential for any number of reasons, but mostly... You know, if people got a hold of a settlement list and saw that a certain case was settled for this, certain case was settled for that, this is why in the private sector, everyone who does any type of contract. I'm sure that the chair is familiar with this type of provision in real estate contracts. You mentioned you're a realtor frequently. Triple A provision, you've probably heard of that. all private sector contracts refer to arbitration, not to court, because they want everything kept private. Well, in the similar manner, even though we're a municipality and we have to be an open book, blah blah blah.

there's a right that the city has to protect its position as far as how it settles cases and what it settles for and how things are resolved. And it's very important. And when you talk about protecting taxpayers, This is protecting taxpayer money by keeping our settlement approach and what types of cases we settle. We settle some pothole claims. Not all. and we'll be getting phone calls from people who see the list that you would like me to produce saying you settled all these pothole claims, you didn't say mine and then it'll become a discrimination case or something. So I just am not going to do that.

To play briefly the devil's advocate, I would be interested in why certain potholes weren't paid for versus other potholes. This is a chunk, a sizable chunk of public money. where is it going and could there be disparities in how people are treated who come forward with pothole claims? Do you know what I mean? I think that's an important question.

Well, I would hope that you recognize that as a city councilor representing the city of Quincy, your obligation is to work with us to protect the city of Quincy and its interests and the interests of the taxpayers, we hear about that a lot, while I'm protecting this settlement account. and if you want to do some study of whether we settle cases based on whatever study you want to do, you'll have to do it without using this list. Okay, and I'm just, I'm being insistent for a reason. It includes like mental impressions of counsel. Why am I settling one case and not another? We have some similar cases, and we settle some and not others, but there's a good reason. but it's never gonna be publicly discussed nor publicly disclosed.

If you want the breakdown, I'll give you the same type of list we gave you on the workers' comp and the long-term disability. No problem with that.

McGee, I'm going to go to Councilor Ash. Councilor Ash.

Thank you. Yes, I do think that the judgments would be public, of course. So really what I think the discussion is about settlements. I do have to agree with the solicitor. I mean, if you're getting into claim valuations and kind of the valuation of council, there are So many things that are looked at that I would have to agree with just giving out a list of all the pothole claims or all the tree claims. and what they settled for, certainly it's his department's job to look at a claim and value it based on everything that's in front of them, everything that they know, whether that person's represented, certainly the merits and the liability and I do think that I would be surprised actually if any municipality did allow that list to be public. I'm not saying it's not possible. I would just be surprised.

and interested in kind of what provisions in the redacting process because I could see that that could potentially snowball into an issue. So I would just agree, Solicitor, that's all.

And I'm just going to add to that, Solicitor Timmons, that I agree that judgments would be public, so that could be looked up. But when it comes to settlements, some people are just more agreeable to negotiating, if you will, and being willing to settle. And some people simply won't. So sometimes the disparity between that is the party involved. you know some people just they won't accept anything they just want to take everything to court or whatever they want to do so you know sometimes settlements depend on the person on the other side and whether they're willing to accept a hundred dollars for their and Tire that got blown out or whether they think they should get $1,000. So I do trust that the Solicitor's Office does their best to negotiate with people in good faith. I really do believe that. Kirsten Wood, Councilor Yuan,

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So I have a question about item 570600, the judgments. What does that mean, judgments? The cost on this item.

Which number?

The judgments. The judgments. The judgment line. 570600. Oh, 060, right.

You have a question?

Yeah, I just want to know what's the judgment cost? What's that mean? Like you spend money on this item. Could you explain it?

Explain what the judgments line is?

Yeah, what is a judgment?

If a judgment is entered against the city, it's got to be paid.

It's a resolution that comes after... Hang on a second. Go ahead, Councilor Ash.

After a trial, so a judge is telling you whether it's a bench trial, a judge is telling you an amount, or if it's a jury trial, the jury... It's whatever the final judgment in legal cases. could also be on the pleadings as well. It's a court-ordered judgment.

There's no negotiations.

It's over and above the solicitor's office's purview.

He's not going to bill you for that.

I just see the historical trend on this judgment. Other years seems all spend zero amount of money, but 2023 spend 400,000 on this. Could you give some explanation?

Well, that'll be a year when There was a final judgment in the case and it was a big number. I just, I don't remember.

Oh, you don't remember this big number of spend on wood?

Well, what year was it?

2023.

Right. Yeah, I don't remember it.

$400,000 to spend on this. In the other year, I spent zero money on it.

So that was probably paid out in a lump sum, Solicitor, like a one-time judgment?

Yes, yeah, I mean, that happens. as I'm standing here, I just don't recall it. You can see from looking at that five-year judgment line, I don't know.

I just don't know what it is. Payment, the city has to pay it.

I know.

So the judgments are not, the settlements are negotiated with the solicitor's office.

I'm just wondering, what's that case? He can't recall. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm sure we could get that.

Yeah, that's something we could find. It's a judgment, it's public, so that's something that could be shared.

Okay. For the settlement, I see from 2021 all the way to 2026 the spending, if I average the six years spending, the average spending is $221,550. So you budget $300,000. So I would like to make a motion to 50,000 on this item.

Okay, so we have a motion on 570601 settlement line to reduce that line item from 300,000 to 250,000, correct? 50,000, you said? Yeah. Okay, so from 300,000 to 250,000. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor?

I just point out that a ward councilor should really look hard at that one because you cut that settlement budget. it cuts my ability to resolve cases, so.

I think the argument is it hasn't been used.

The reason I come up with this number is I compared the historical trend of this. I averaged six years of spending on this, and the average number is 221,550. So now, even after cut, we are still way above the average spending.

Okay, so we have the motion. Councilor Hubley on the motion.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, through you. So is this going to be one of those scenarios where we say, come back before the body if you need more money? Because as a ward councilor, I'm listening to Mr. Timmons and wanting to understand how that could affect the city's performance in complying with a settlement that was established with a resident. And I don't want our residents to be delayed in getting whatever settlement that they've been given. I don't want our ability to negotiate and work with residents to be compromised. I think as a ward councilor, I'd like to understand better and I don't even know what the procedure is if it's the middle of the summer and we all have to reconvene to do a

We just don't enter into any settlement talks. We explain, you know. In the middle of the summer, we'd be okay. But if we don't have money, I'll say we don't have money and we can't settle cases.

Okay, so that won't affect the performance in terms of what we're able to do, but the expectations of the resident who's waiting for a resolution. I'm just trying to understand better what the implications of this cut are. And I do see the through line. I get why we're looking at that number. I just want to better understand what the implications are to award Councilor as this is being proposed by an at-large Councilor who wouldn't have a situation before them.

It would be more of a Q4 problem, correct? It wouldn't be a summer problem because you're going to have $250,000.

No, we'll have the money, right. It'll be at the end. These past few weeks, we've settled one big case because I said to Mr. Durkan, we have enough, let's get it resolved now. And he got a very favorable resolution. and then a man who came in and had his electric service wiped out. $2,000. We're settling that. We got a car claim that came in. It's $4,700. So we're settling these cases because we've got the money sitting there. But they're all legit good settlements. for people. I just think it represents flexibility to resolve things, and that's good for the residents. I'm fine with... if I have to tell people we can't settle cases because we're out of money, we'll do that. But it's not how things have worked the past several years. That's one of the reasons the money sometimes

it shows that there's a bit left at the end of the year. We managed tightly.

So just, I'm just going to add,

Okay, thank you. If I still have the floor, we can keep my mic on. That would be appreciative. So I guess, I don't know what kind of impression that leaves the resident with. Hey, sorry, we don't have any money right now, but like, we'll catch you later. I'm just trying to get, I'm trying to really understand it. I'm not trying to be stubborn. I'm just really trying to understand what this might do to my ability to help my residents. So I'm still not getting it. If I could get some help with that, I'd appreciate it.

Who do you want?

Is there someone?

Do you want input from me?

Yeah, yeah, I just want to understand what kind of implications it would have.

I mean, I don't know what to say other than, I mean, I don't see it being a problem until the back end of the fiscal year. We do the best we can. However, during the winter time, we get a number of snow claims. You'll get a cluster, fences, this or that. Normally, because I have the money, we try to settle those because of the nature. Like if it's a fence claim, we don't have to settle because we resolve it in the spring. but it just is going to affect flexibility. To what extent, I don't know. It may not be that severe, but...

Yes, I have a resident emails me quite routinely about a situation that they're in. And I'm playing my role in terms of advocating for them, making sure that they're connected up with the right resources within the city. But aside from that, I'm just reading their repeated emails as they await a response on things. And so one of the things I'm trying to be very good at in my role is when someone reaches out to me, I get back to them either immediately or within 24 hours. And the other thing I'm doing in my role is I'm keeping track of everything that gets to me and escalating to a department and making sure that response time is also good. So I get pretty inquisitive when something might affect my response times and our response times, which is our collective response times. So that's why I'm trying to look for some clarification. I see that President Mahoney has her hand up, so maybe if you can offer.

Councilor Jacobs had his hand up first. Go ahead, Councilor Jacobs.

So, sorry, speaking about settlements, you know, we had alluded what would happen if it was summertime, but we know the budget starts in the summertime, so we really wouldn't be short money in the summertime. That's when we'd have the most amount of flexibility. would be more towards like the spring probably when we might start to face some type of, potentially some type of constraints with that money. What's the lag time between like the, the settlement, like when someone calls. So like obviously we got a lot of fence calls. I worked with Janet. over the winter about that. What's the lag time between the concern comes in, someone goes out and addresses it, A couple weeks later, it gets fixed. I mean, you know, so because we're talking about, oh, it could prevent us from being able to act. But I imagine that from the time the call comes in to whenever the repair is made, that the money is

comes out, it must be some amount of weeks that goes by between those settlement periods. I mean, at least more than a month.

Well, I don't quite know what you mean. We negotiate. We ask for evidence. Yeah, so what I'm saying is from the time... They have to provide the backup.

From the time they call... May I finish when I'm answering your question? I'm trying to clarify my question because you just said you don't know what I'm talking about. So from the time they call until the time the check is cut, on average, how much time goes by? It all depends. That's why it's an average.

Okay. I'm asking for your professional opinion. Well, if it's a contested claim and we ask for backup, and then we have city people go out, it could go on for three months, give or take. If it's not, like the general came in, had a very compelling case, he showed me everything about the house, This tree came down. He showed me the tree complaints. He showed me what happened and his $2,000 bill. We sent that right through. He'll have a check in a week. Okay. So it varies. It's not really an average, but it varies, and some settlements end up being a little contentious and go over a longer period of time.

but it sounds like we do have a lot of some cases that take some time, a month, maybe more.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I'll second Councilor Jacobs. I'm just gonna add, that the more you can settle, the less you end up with judgments. And this does not include your time. This is just the amounts that are paid to people. If you take away the ability to settle, then you're going to end up with more people taking things to court, which is always more expensive. So that's just my two cents. Mahoney.

I appreciate your two cents, and I also appreciate Councilor Hubley's two cents, but did anybody look at the five-year comparison? because if you looked at the five-year comparison and you averaged it out over the last six years, it actually comes out to 221, which would be a $79,000 cut. Yes, there were a couple years that we went high. I don't think what we're talking about is going to be, you know, Board Councilors are not going to be affected. We're in fiscal year 2026 right now, and we're at 217,000. If you have 300,000 in the budget, you've got plenty of room. I don't want to be saying that anybody's trying to put out any kind of dog whistles like, well, our ward counsellors get careful because you might need it. It's not that situation at all. We're in a situation where we're trying to look at where in the budget that doesn't affect people. but does affect taxpayers. If the average is 221 over the last six years, it's very reasonable to say you can take a cut of 79,000 if you're doing the average. Councilor Yuen did 50. I don't think it's unreasonable.

but I'm not gonna say that, I'm gonna lean that over to Mr. Timmons and what would be reasonable, I don't know, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

What's the question?

No, I think you should just vote. I just said I don't think it's unreasonable. The average of six years is actually $80,000.

Yeah, but we're not at the number you said for this year.

What are we at then?

Pardon?

What are we at? 217, 947. What are we at? You said we're not at the number that you said this year, so what are we at?

what number are we at? I don't know if you heard me say we've settled three cases totaling 51,000 and we have a couple more that I'm working on. through the balance of the week because we had roughly, I think it was 82,000 left. and so we were looking at other cases that could be resolved.

You're gonna spend 82,000 in two weeks?

Well, we've already, we've gone through 54. We have these cases all lined up, but we know what we're talking about. It's like, pull the Smith case, pull the Jones case, and let's see what you can do. I gave that case that... Solicitor Durkin settled, Assistant Solicitor Durkin settled.

I can appreciate that.

I gave that to him because it was a case a lawyer called about and we knew that, I said, tell him we're at the end of the year, we have some money, and we got a good settlement.

Yep, so I can appreciate that, but the last two years, you were 217 this year, you were 221 last year, you were 147 the year before. and you had money on the table then, but we weren't settling. So I'm just trying to ask the average that is there room in this average that we could, she's suggested.

What year was the 147?

2024.

Okay, well.

You have the five-year look back, right?

You know, frankly, like, you folks, I have explained things I've represented what I think is in the city's best interest. I've been doing this for a while. These are numbers. that have proven out the fact that something's left at the end of the year, I happen to think isn't a bad thing, but I think the council should do whatever it deems appropriate. And I think it's all been aired out. and I thank the Chair for allowing that.

Okay, so we have a motion on the table to reduce this line item, take a roll call vote unless there's further discussion.

DiBona, Councilor Hubley. On the motion.

Oh, on the motion, Councilor Hubley.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to cap off and then we can go into a roll call vote, it's incredibly important for me that we are able to quickly respond to residents. So it doesn't matter who raises the concern that a certain budget item Impact might affect our responsiveness. I'm going to ask the questions that I think need to be asked until I'm done with my, until I get my answer. And so I appreciate everyone indulging the questions. If someone's going to raise the possibility that I'm not going to be able to respond to a constituent in a timely manner, I want to make sure that we flesh that out. So I appreciate the indulgence, and I'm fine to go ahead with the vote.

Ash, DiBona, Hubley, Jacobs, Mahoney, McKee, Ryan, Yuan, Riley.

Oh, yes, we need to all agree to suspend Rule 24. It's 11 o'clock. Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay, I think we're done with you, Solicitor Tim. Oh, I'm sorry, a motion to approve the budget as amended. All those in favor? Excellent, okay.

Okay.

Yes, we did. Do you do this from your seat, Mr. Walker? No. You don't go up to the podium?

No.

Okay.

If you want me to.

We are going to start with the Mayor's Office.

Through you, Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much. As this body knows, the mayor's office is sort of the grand central station of our operation. All departments, with the exception of obviously this body, report to the mayor's office. The budget this year is level service. includes the Mayor, myself, Director of Operations, Director of Communications, two member team of Constituent Services, two administrative assistants, the community liaison which this body will remember was a request of this body to add to the team a few years ago and we are otherwise level of service.

Okay. Do we have a motion to approve or discussion first? Councilor Ash.

My only question, I believe you said, Mr. Walker, constituent services is two individuals? That is correct, sir. Okay, that's all.

Councilor McKee? Hi, Chris. Thank you for all your answers before. You mentioned that three department employees are paid by grants or other sources. can you tell me which employees and how much of their salary and what sources?

So we have As noted, we have a media director who is funded from Comcast fees, and we have two project managers who are funded from Hotel Motel Tax slash Quincy 400. and all of those salaries are 100% funded by those positions, those funding sources.

Sorry, two project managers funded by hotel motel tax, is that right?

That is correct. Subsequent previous appropriations from this body, I believe there were two last year that came in during various times of the year.

What do those project managers do?

They manage projects. Madam Chairwoman, in particular one works closely with the business community. on a number of initiatives. In other works, research, for example, was very helpful on the E&C, compiling the E&C piece. and also related to their work as part of the Quincy 400. It's been sort of a continuation to some degree of last year, obviously to a much less extent. but a number of the events we have plans going forward. They've had major roles in those.

Okay, thank you. And then you said there was one city vehicle and is that the mayor's vehicle and does that go home with him?

that is the mayor's vehicle. It does not go home with him unless it's a very rare occasion where he needs to be someplace in the morning. He has night events. maybe needs to be someplace in the morning. Generally speaking, the mayor drives his personal vehicle to the office and uses the vehicle. And I think I mentioned this to you that probably half the time during the day he'll use the city vehicle and half the time he'll use his personal vehicle.

And does he have a driver all the time or sometimes?

Just sometimes.

Just sometimes. Okay. And is that paid out of the Mayor's budget?

No, that's actually secured. be reluctant to call it driver. That is a occasional security detail from the police department that he has that does provide a a transportation component, particularly when there are multiple events in a row where getting in and out, it can be a little bit problematic. those sorts of things and also larger events where the police department wants to have someone with the mayor.

and then the Commissioner of Public Buildings when he was before us mentioned that many or perhaps most of his appointed positions come to him from the Mayor's office and I just wondered what sorts of processes do you have in place to ensure fairness in job announcements, interviewing, and hiring?

through you, Madam Chairwoman. You know, the mayor is the appointing authority. Every job application, every position that is hired is ultimately approved by the mayor. a number of cases. It sort of runs the gamut. The department heads follow a hiring practice through human resources in a lot of cases. And there are cases where folks have inquired to our office directly about available positions, and that's when we would get involved. There's also, I believe it was Councilor, it has come up in the past, a number of years ago, some of the the jobs weren't necessarily posted online but most jobs now are posted online. So I would say it covers the range.

from department heads handling most of the hiring process to from the application process up to appointing and making the recommendation to the mayor to direct recommendations from the mayor.

Okay. And then I had asked for information about like the community liaison position. Yes. quantitative number of calls or visits. what I received was not quantitative. And I don't see him here, but I'm just wondering.

Councilor, are you referring to constituent services or community liaison?

No, the community liaison.

Okay. My understanding was the question relative to quantitative was more related to constituent services and you more so wanted a general description on community liaison. which we did provide.

Yes, I guess I was asking for both, the quantitative for both of those.

Okay, I'm happy to follow up and provide a little bit more detail, a little bit more meat on the bone to what the community liaison does.

Yeah, that would be good because I think what I'm seeing, and I know that I was one of the people who really advocated hard for the equity director position. in the end the community liaison position is not an equity position but a different position that sounds like it's sort of more trying to help constituents understand what services are available to them. And I'm just concerned that that's kind of similar to the constituent services. position?

Yeah, through you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the question. I think this position has made inroads into groups and organizations in the equity realm has created a space for people to feel comfortable discussing the issues that they have, which my recollection was at least a major component of the onus to create the position, working with various community organizations, Bay State Community Services, Interfaith, and a number of those sorts of places in that space where people can feel comfortable having those conversations. From a practical standpoint also, the position is running and expanding our language access program through the planning department. So it's been very helpful to have someone who is in communication with the various

agencies that help us with that and can coordinate on a dime to get those services provided. And as Mr. Fatsy's probably mentioned, I think, during his presentation that we're continuing to expand that operation. We're providing more language access than we have at any time in the past, which I think is certainly a good thing. and this position has been very helpful in doing that. This person also works with our Commission on Disabilities directly. Again, a group that Going back to the premise of providing a voice and a space for a number of these groups, he has been quite helpful in providing that listening board and that sounding board and gauging what issues there are. So I do think there's definitely been some quantitative results.

Thank you. I think we'll be very interested in seeing them, what I've met with. Community Liaison, and I've asked to meet with him, and he was gracious with his time. But I am concerned about how much is happening there and trying to quantify his position in terms of outreach, some of the goals that are listed. seem like things that might have been done already, and he's been in the position for a few years. So to continue to build upon the existing relationships between city departments and agencies while forging new relationships through the lens of multiculturalism,

continue to create greater visibility of the role, gather metrics over time to track issues, trends throughout the city. create a database that lists agencies and community groups throughout the city to be used as a resource, build upon the community liaison website. I guess I'm just, all of these seem, I know when When I heard him on QETV talking about things, it was that he wanted to create greater visibility for the role, and I just think we need to be a bit more ambitious for this position. So I personally don't think this is a full-time position, but I'm willing to just

I guess leave it for this year, but I'm hoping that we'll see more over the coming year.

McKee.

Councilor Yuan. I have a question about a follow-up with Councilor McKee's question. I would like to know what's the different job Description between community liaison and constituent service. How many positions in constituent services?

Two.

Two? Okay. And I know one can provide multi-language service, and how about another one?

That is correct. It is a team of two. with one having a very specific designation with multilingual services specifically serving our Asian American community.

And another one also? No. No, okay. And how about the community liaison? Does he also speak multi-language?

I'm not 100% sure, Councilor.

and what's the major difference between these two roles?

Sure, the constituent services team handles direct Constituent Requests running the wide range of service calls in-person visits, phone calls, emails, the online system, the basic stuff of constituent services, parking issues, Traffic issues, construction, management issues, the tree issues. Those calls often first find their way to our office. and these folks work very hard managing those requests, spreading it out to the departments and then tracking, to the best of their ability, the results.

I would say, and I provided some information to Council McGee that constituent services is probably between on average a dozen calls, visits a day. and that certainly can spike depending on if there's a major issue in a particular neighborhood. You could have 20 to 30 calls, visits, emails in a day that these folks handle. the community liaison position is something I find entirely separate It was based off of a request from this council to create a role within the DEI space to forge some relationships, create sounding board, build relationships, relationships with some of these outside agencies, providing space and providing opportunity for people to discuss

and have access to the city that they may not felt that they have had previously. Again, and that requires a lot of work with some of our non-governmental partners, Bay State Community Services, Interfaith, those types of places, Quincy Pride, those types of arenas that has been the responsibility of this position to get into, I view the two things as entirely separate. and I just add that the specific function I'm repeating that our language access program, this position is responsible for as well.

follow up your statement. You said this role function like a sounding board, but your mayor's office also have a director of communications. and you have a constituent service, I just feel you add another community liaison is kind of redundant and we don't want the government to become bigger and bigger. So for this, Reason, I would like to make a motion to cut this line 510017.

Okay, we have a motion to cut 510017. Community lays on. $92,564. Any discussion on the motion? Councilor DiBona?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I mean, with the wishes of Councilor McKee, she said she'd be offering to say, listen, we just need a little bit more and we'll give another year. I'm just pleading with you to cut an entire position like this. It's been in existence for the last three to four years, I believe. The person's been working in the community, nonprofits. Everything that Mr. Walker has said and there was definitely, prior to this, there was almost like an ad hoc committee where Councilor Ian Cain was on that committee to kind of form this position.

So with the wishes of prior councils and the city, I mean, a lot of folks, like activists in the city, wanted to have this position. I would just ask you to maybe give another year if you could. And I hope the other Councillors would just give another year and see if we could We could kind of have some updates on this particular position rather than just cut it tonight. Thank you.

Councilor Hubley was next.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. I followed all of the council deliberations for the definition of this role. It was actually a department at one point, but it got It makes sense that it's part of the executive team. I followed the formation of it when this individual started, I witnessed, well, reached out to me just because of my involvement in so many different organizations throughout the community, whether it's QCAP, even running Porch Fest, Wollaston Hill, other things that I contribute to, to proactively identify all the different constituency groups and I've witnessed this person going on QATV to communicate their message. I've seen this person continuously working through to network to be approachable, right?

And part of why, if you follow me on social media, you see I go to a lot of different events, a lot of different places, work with a lot of different groups, and that's because I like to meet people where they are. And I feel like not everyone really enjoys getting up in front of hundreds of people and speaking into a microphone at open forum. Most people would prefer to take you aside at the playground or at the PTO event and express their concerns or their thoughts or their feelings. and I've seen this individual doing both at the macro level when it comes to identifying organizations, networking, as well as the micro, going in to meet with individuals and I had a situation where I had a child in my care through foster care and this individual was proactive and reached out and helped connect me with some resources in the community that helped us provide for the needs of this child. So I think to look at this position and say, hey, this seems redundant,

I can say that I absolutely do not think this is a redundant role based on my personal experience working with this individual and seeing their activities throughout the community. and it's creating relationships with different groups, groups that maybe hadn't had a relationship with the city or hadn't had as much of a relationship with the city as they would like to. That's not a one and done. It's not build a list and then we use the list. Relationships get cultivated. And so for that reason, based upon what I've heard, I don't know that what I've heard justifies eliminating the position. So I wouldn't be in favor of doing so based upon what I've heard. I don't think the case is there, thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna see if anyone else, anyone else have. I want to comment who has not on the motion. You all set?

Hubley's comment. I do hear you in every position once you Once you create, you always will have some job descriptions. You will create some job descriptions. and since the last four years, from 2022 to 2026, the city totally increased 440, positions. That's a lot. So how can you justify this kind of staffing in last four years? And every position you will say, yeah, that employee in that position will do some work, but I'm just wondering, How come in the last four years you can increase more than 400 positions in the city?

So for that reason, I know it's very difficult to cut a position once you already created that position. People already work in that position. It's very hard to cut. we have to start somewhere. Otherwise, if you keep hiring in this speed, all those employees' salary, health insurance, pension, all paid by regular taxpayers. and if you increase, if your hiring speed is that much, that's really create concern to resident, to taxpayers. So I really would like to start now.

We need to really pay more attention to the hiring to the to those job created if it's not really completely necessary, you always can give some say this person did some job. I don't say he doesn't do anything, but I think when the city and the $2 billion debt you do have to streamline the, the work, if you can consolidate the work, the job position, if you can consolidate, you should consolidate. But if you keep hiring on this speed, That's alarming. I don't think if residents know that, they will agree.

Last four years increased more than 400 positions. So, Yan. For this reason, yeah.

So you have the motion. Yeah, I have the motion. Councilor Ash would like to speak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully, I wouldn't want to conflate the hiring with one position. I remember how important it was for the City Council prior to my tenure. to have this liaison, this DEI role. And I remember how opinionated people were on each side. I found it, at the time, to be necessary. I know that I know the individual he works hard and sure he's actually you know we met just last month about introductions to the faith leaders and in Quincy Point and I obviously is representing may not be obvious, but as representing one of the more diverse areas of the city, I found that conversation certainly welcoming and his mission at that moment was how to connect with different faith backgrounds and I can appreciate that there may be need for

some metrics or a more defined job role. I do think that the previous, the council that had the undertaking and the task to hire and to ask the mayor to create this position, At that point, they met the burden of their mission to have this hire. I don't know that what in front of us is going to necessarily meet the burden to eliminate it. I guess I would look at it as a a burden of proof issue, if you will. So that's my opinion on it. I can appreciate needing maybe some more defined rules, some metrics, some bullet points and whatnot, but that would be my suggestion. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Rausch.

Oh, God. Does anyone who hasn't spoke want to say anything? No. Councilor Ryan. Hang on a second.