I'd like to like to call the meeting of the budget review committee to order.

It's seven thirty PM.

We're in the alomatic chamber and the meeting's been posted in all the appropriate places.

Present.

Alderman Javert Kabo.

Here.

Alderman Lodge or Alicia Greg?

Here.

Alderwomen at large Shoshana Kelly?

Here.

Alderman Lodge, Michael O'Brien is present.

Alderman Tim Senate.

Here.

And Alderman Richard Dow.

Present.

Okay.

Also in the tennis is Alderman Clayton.

Okay.

Uh first item on the agenda is public comment.

Is everybody wishes to testify in public comment?

See no members of the public.

Communications.

Communications.

Uh we have communication from Lisa Photo, Director of Public Works.

We've reasoned referral from the board of Alderman of R dash twenty-six- zero zero seven.

And seek a favorable recommendation relative to the approval of two C BA agreements.

Um, I am the staff liaison for the Arts Commission.

Um, and they get an allocation of about 40,000 every year with the general fund budget.

Um, and we're looking for more visibility and to work with the aldermen more, and so um we are now making recommendations um for how to spend the 40,000 to you for your approval um as opposed to just doing things kind of in a vacuum.

Um so we're looking for approval um for a $30,000 worth of the 40,000.

So we we have not decided what to do with that other 10,000 yet.

Um that will be tomorrow morning.

Um, but um we're looking to give grants to local arts organizations for project specific um uh uh events and and activities and programming.

Um and you have on the the memo is the the breakdown of of how much is going to each organization and just so you know that the arts commissioners did want me to um they couldn't be here tonight, but they wanted me to say that we had um more than twice um I think there was 57,000 dollars worth of asks um out of the 30,000 that we allocated to grants.

Um so we know that there is an increasing need.

Um we we normally see a little bit more than what we are allocating, but um double the amount is is new.

Um so just just so you're aware um as we go into this budget cycle, what other organizations are are seeing.

Okay, before we take final approval on on this uh action, is there any questions?

Alderman Clean.

Uh thank you.

Um it's not so much questions as it is is comment to add to this.

Um I am the the um alternate liaison to uh the arts commission and um last year one of the things that I um or I should say in calendar year 2025, I asked that they you know their approval process and so on that they have to report back, which they do, um, and so on.

So they get an update as to how the monies were used and so on, and that becomes part of the that becomes part of the record.

Um, and to be very honest with you, I don't see this being all that different than when we when the um human affairs gets more asks for the money um that we have to allocate out.

It's pretty typical.

So my question to them was um if they if they don't get everything that they asked for, can they still go forward with the project or are we kind of wasting giving them a grant?

And the answer was yes, they have another alternative to supplement what we can't give them, otherwise they don't get the money.

That's part of the application and so on.

It's a very thorough application that they have to fill out and um so on.

So while I don't get to vote on this committee, um, I just wanted to add my voice to it that I think that they've gone through all of the processes and and trust me, I I questioned them thoroughly.

Um, and we had um a lot of meetings, including with legal and so on, to make sure everything was above board and that we were doing it um um proper.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

If none, uh we'll be voting on final approval of the 30k for the arts spending recommendations.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Unfinished business.

There's none.

New business resolutions.

If there's no objection, I'm going to delay our 26001, the collective bargaining agreement until the end of the meeting because the board of ed wants uh the school department wanted to be here to explain the contract, and they have a public hearing on their budget this evening.

So they asked if we could take this up last.

If they don't show up, we'll wing it.

Okay, so we'll go right to our 26010.

Uh, yes.

Uh this evening we have our 26010 increasing in maximum allowable amount in the snow removal expendable trust fund and making a supplemental appropriation of 500,000 of assigned fund balance into the snow removal expendable trust fund.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion, recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of our 26010 discussion.

Alderman Kelly.

Uh, thank you.

I think Director Foto's still here.

I had a question, but I wanted to hold it to committee.

Um you were talking about the cost of salt having almost think doubled is what I heard.

Um I know that we started doing the brine.

Has that had any effect on our ability to kind of come down and how much salt we can have?

But we're somewhat limited on the use of brine, uh, especially this winter.

It was a very, very cold winter, and brine doesn't work all that well when it's very cold.

But yes, it absolutely does help the reduce the amount of salt that we that we utilize.

Great.

Yeah.

That's what we're doing.

Any other questions?

Seeing none.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Allian number in.

Yes.

Also before us this evening is R-26012 relative to supplemental appropriation of $600,000 of assigned fund balance into funds 706 for hydropower reserve fund.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make the motion recommend final passage.

All right, I think we heard quite a bit in the public hearing.

Are there any additional questions that anyone might have?

You don't get to ask a question.

Just kidding.

Director Sullivan.

If I may just address Alderman Johnson's question, um there's there's 450,000 in the account right now.

However, we have a contract going to finance, I believe at the next meeting, and then another contract, probably two weeks after that.

Uh together, those contracts are about 290,000.

So we'll have 160 left in the account once that effort's underway.

Those contracts are both related to the fish passage project that we've been talking about for a long, long time.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Yep, no problem.

Alderman Kelly.

Don't sit down.

Uh so I read the the um memo that uh director Chisholm, it's not director, I can't think of her title.

I'm gone.

Uh she talks about the projects that are happening, but she didn't necessarily specify how you came up with the 600,000.

Like did was there a discussion that was had?

I didn't see like an actual bid sheet or anything in there.

Sullivan.

Yes.

Um the 600,000 is actually based on an estimate from Essex Hydropower, who has contracted with Fairbanks, which is a basically a fabricator of turbine blades.

Um but to be clear, the estimate for the piece itself is really more around 400,000, and then there's labor on top of that, and then there's some contingency built in.

That's why I'm suggesting there is some space in there, and that will likely lapse back to the fund.

So there's there's certainly space in that $600,000.

But one of the things here is that we actually have to lift the roof off of the facility.

Uh so I'm hoping to actually go down there when they're doing this work, and we just don't know what exactly we're going to find once we get in there because it's actually been quite a bit of time before we've been into the full uh gamut of the facility.

Thank you.

Therein lies the term unknown unknown.

Correct.

I'm glad we didn't get it right to the penny because then you end up with additional expenses that have no way to spend.

Then you have to come back.

Any additional questions?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Also for us this evening is R-26013, relative to the supplemental appropriations of 280,000 dollars of assigned fund balance into Department 168, solid waste, account number 55520, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, if I said it right.

Uh surcharge fee.

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R26013 to the full board of Alderman.

Are there any questions?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

All right.

New business ordinances.

There are none.

Okay.

Tabled in committee.

I believe Alderman Tebow has a motion.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion um to take it, take R-26-003 relative to the supplemental appropriation of 200,000 of assigned fund balance into Department 194 contingency account 7010 general contingency for the intended purpose of covering expenses to clean up Main Street and the riverfront, and I'd like to speak to it.

So the motion is to take it from the table.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We're now have our 2600 three before us.

I'd like to amend it.

Um, but I'd like Director Hanum to come up because I have a question about what Dory sent me, and I want to make sure it's very clear what we're uh what I'm gonna try to amend it to.

Sure.

So at the end of her resolution that she made up at the bottom, it it's covering the expenses related to the cleanup and maintenance of Main Street, the riverfront, and the library walk does that main street cover those side streets?

Because I remember you saying that they would also be doing the side streets, but doesn't say that in what she sent.

And so we specified, she specified the river walk and the library walk, but didn't specify you know the side streets relating to it.

Yes.

Um Liz Hanum, economic development director.

Um yes, and I think uh director Foto is here as well in case we have operational questions, but um we have um narrowed it a little bit from when I was uh when then when we were talking about expanding it, but um side streets are will be included in this as well.

So when we say Main Street, any side street connected to Main Street up to a certain wherever the points you're not going all the way down to South Main Street is what I'm saying.

Roughly West Hollis to the library hill area.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um so I'm ready.

I'm ready to make the motion then.

Um it's I don't I'll try to go slow for you, Mike.

It's got a few things to it.

Um so I'd like to make the motion uh relative to the supplemental appropriation of 15,000 instead of the the 200.

I mean, yeah, instead of the 200,000 of assigned fund balance into department You said 15 for starters, yep.

We have it in our packet.

Yeah.

Oh, it is in the package.

I didn't get it on my desk, that's why I'm reading it from the speaker.

Um so I'll I'll read it and it's in the packet that you got.

Okay.

So relative to the supplemental appropriation of 15,000 of assigned fund balance in the department, 161 streets, 51300 overtime, and 40,000 of assigned fund balance in the department 177 parks account 5130 overtime for the intended purpose of covering expenses related to the cleanup and maintenance of Main Street, the riverfront, and the library walk, and I'd like to talk to it.

Yes, all right.

So um after listening to our meeting last time and hearing the feedback we got, um I talked to the mayor, director photo, director Hanum, um, and obviously took the input of the advice that people gave here.

And um sorry.

So sorry.

They were able uh to tell us that the 200,000 was really left on there from previous, and that at this point we don't need the whole 200,000.

We could a slightly and by the time this one actually gets would get approved, because obviously it's gonna need a public hearing again, um, cut it down to 55,000 total, split between the departments listed, um, which are different than the departments that were originally listed in the original uh motion.

Um and then there's also a memo that was attached that I believe was sent to the budget committee.

I don't know if um you guys received it as well, but it was from Director Hanum.

And um it states uh the following following the so it was sent to us on February 17th, and the memo is supposed to be part of this.

Following the discussion at the budget review committee meeting on February 12th, 2026.

The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information and clarification on R2603.

We understand there were questions about the legislation's language and the scope of work.

After further reviewing the budget review committee's request, our team recommends amending the appropriation from 200,000 to 55,000 with an implementation date of April 1st.

Adjusting the implementation schedule to April 1st reduces costs because snow removal at that point won't be necessary.

This allocation will cover the services until the end of the fiscal year.

Funding for FY 2026 will be used for uh overtime expenses for existing DPW employees at their current overtime rate of pay.

DPW estimates a need of 15,000 for the street department and 40,000 for parks.

The two DPW departments will determine exact deployment schedules and will be responsible providing the following service.

So the scope of work is pickup of random litter and trash, power washing is needed, graffiti removal services on city-owned infrastructure, monitoring the condition of tree wells, removing trash, VCs, and conducting light landscaping therein, report lights or other public amenities in need of service, wiping down public furniture and fixtures as needed, wiping trash receptacle tops and outer surfaces as needed, disposing of hyperdermic needles, training provided by the risk risk department, maintain water, fertilize, weed, city-owned planning uh beds to keep planted areas clean, healthy, and thriving throughout the seasons, and leaf removal downtown as needed.

So that was by Liz Hanum, Economic Development Director.

So hopefully we've been more specific again, based on and thank you for the feedback that was given here in the chamber, but hopefully that's more specific and and has less money and less months.

Um and remember uh voting for it today sends it back to another public hearing and then back to this uh uh board to to then send it, maybe send it to a board of Alderman.

So thank you.

If this passes it will refer to another public hearing and then go to another budget meeting and then go to the full board.

So questions?

Alderman Greg.

Yeah, I just have a question.

So it still seems like where exactly are you gonna be cleaning, like because saying, okay, well, some side streets are whatever.

I think we should have like a is there like a definite like this is the grid where you're gonna be doing it that we can talk about, or because it seems pretty loose just from what you said.

Sure.

Um we had originally included a map, but it was a little bit um too broad, I think, of a map.

Um and so talking with director photo and um parks, uh, we decided to narrow it down um really to Main Street, the side streets, and some of the alleyways, um, and then the river front as well.

So um it's really just down Main Street and the side streets.

Um like a block or two blocks, like how far into the side streets.

Um I think we we went um probably to about walnut oval, so it's almost two blocks on the east or the west side of Main Street, and then about a block on the east side of Main Street.

Um so it um not every location will need to be done every day.

Um, but we're th that's about the boundary.

Um and we are we wanted to stay flexible too because um there might be other hot spot areas that we have missed or that we want to add in later, or spots within that area that that don't need the support that that so we want it to be a little bit flexible in the actual um footprint of it, but that is the the basic plan is um Main Street with the side streets.

Okay.

So assuming this passes, once you expire the funds, you stop.

Correct.

Alleman Grig follow-up.

Yes, follow-up.

So when we first talked about this, I believe it was last fall because it was when I first came on.

So there was no snow or anything yet.

So why the big difference from 200,000 to 55,000?

Because we weren't talking about snow then either.

So what's the why the big price difference?

Um so we I think there was a a misunderstanding on my part because I thought we were talking about snow.

Um, so I I thought that clean um was any type of clean, not just um trash and things.

So um we included pretty much a full-time person for that nine months.

Um so now we're down to just three months um with no snow.

Um, and so we're we're about a quarter of of the cost that we thought.

So all said, yeah.

Other questions, Alderman Senate.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I wanted to uh take a moment just to take attorney Clark out of the uh flow of traffic um in case anybody had any qualms with the way the um amendments were written.

That was actually my handiwork um that I submitted to her, and she gave the thumbs up too, so appreciate her input on that.

And just to go back to the library walk, that was actually included um along with language about maintenance versus cleaning with uh input of director photo.

But um, you know, if there's any qualms with the way that the new language is written, I'll take him.

Okay.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

Um I remember when at the last meeting that was February 12th, because that night I wrote you a memo.

You know, just to kind of because I was all confused on what we were talking about.

Nobody had an idea, and I just kind of put it into writing um just to figure out where we were going with it.

But I have a question, Mr.

Chairman, to direct a photo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Every year on Main Street, doesn't it is it the parts and recs or um parks and recs, I think does um the planting down there?

We do.

We we have done some.

Morans did some as well, but but yes, we do maintain the uh the planting.

So why are we transferring it kind of right now into this?

Well where we're saying planting.

So the this is a little bit different.

So there's a couple of things going on here.

The street department cleans in the mid in the barriers and on Main Street a couple of times a week.

So that would cover that portion uh of what they do.

The parks department is very short staffed.

We've added the riverfront, we've added a lot of the library walk, um, and we've always maintained some of Main Street.

You know, it's done graffiti removal, we've done pressure washing, we do sweeping, uh planning beds as you mentioned, trash pickup on Main Street, but we really haven't ventured out into the side streets or the library walk or the riverfront.

So this is this is something additional that we'll be doing.

And um we're very taxed uh to begin with.

So this will help us to be able to do it.

Now this isn't a this isn't a lot of money.

I mean, we're talking about probably four hours a week of a foreman and and and three or four people, but um that this will really help to supplement what we're already doing downtown, and then we're hopeful in the next budget uh that we'll be able to get some additional staff in in our parks department.

Maybe this on the wall.

Now, do you feel where originally we were talking about mainstream river walk in the library to clear that up at the beginning because we all got confused with the other streets?

Do you think by adding um West Holler Street and some of the side street, do you think that's gonna be too much for your uh staff?

I'm concerned, yes.

I mean we're gonna do the best we can, but that but that's a lot.

Yes, it is.

May I do a follow up?

Thank you.

Do you think that maybe uh as you start getting into it if you feel that it's gonna be too much or you don't need to you're gonna scale back if need be so we don't overtax our your crew we'll we're gonna do the best we can.

I think I think we can do a relatively good job.

I don't think everything will need to be done you know uh every day or or maybe even every week.

So we'll just kind of keep an eye on it and and there'll be pro there are problematic areas that we know about.

Uh West Pearl is is one that that that needs um some help.

So uh I think I think you know our focus is gonna be main street, the riverfront, the library walk, but we'll do the side streets as as best we can.

But I I think we can do a reasonably good job.

Well, I'm sure you can, but it's gonna be those side streets will be.

But it's a little more as needed type of thing that if you see a problem area, you'll get out there.

But if it's okay, then you won't concentrate on it as much.

That's correct.

I'll help Johnson, yes.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Old and Kelly.

Uh yeah, actually the question for Director Foto Stuff.

You started to answer it, but the question I had when we had this in committee last was are we planning for this as an ongoing expense?

Because it's not just gonna go away.

Correct.

That's correct.

So this is uh as Director Hannon mentioned, this will be April 1st through uh June 30th, uh, this funding.

And then after that, we're hoping and and we did actually put in our budget to full-time parks employees to help maintain this throughout the year, and also we have one parks employee funded through the TIFF that we're proposing.

Okay, thank you.

Can I do a little this may not be for you?

Um I I heard needle pickup mentioned.

I thought we had a specific like outsourced uh group of people who do needle pickup.

We do.

It's a company called Revive.

So if we see uh large quantity of beetles, we'll certainly call revive and ask them to pick it up.

Um but if we s I anticipate if we see two, three, four, we'll sort we're gonna pick those up because we don't we don't want anybody to get injured.

And we are we are actually in the process of training our staff now.

Parks, I believe, is being trained tomorrow.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I just wanted to uh another thought that came to mind.

Um reference was made to a um memo from Director Hannem that I don't believe has made it into the packet or to the uh full committee.

I was hoping that can be provided to be added to the um minutes.

It will be because I was looking forward, I didn't find it either.

So we'll make sure that that's added.

Uh thank you.

Um again, more comment than um then question.

When it comes to the side streets, considering that we reduce this and we're only looking at April 1st to 6 30.

Um I don't think I would want those side streets to be listed um just in case.

Um and as was previously spoken by another alderman, um the as needed, I think would be um more appropriate.

So I'm while I do think that West Pearl and Um even some of the other streets, um whether it be factory or so on, or there's gonna be some issues on on those.

Um I would not want it to be so specific to have to list every single side street because then we're tying their their feet to the fire and tying their hands that they have to do it, and I believe we will run out of the $55,000 really quick.

Um so as again, as I don't get to vote here, um I do appreciate the um specificity, but not so much that um we can create an issue.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So just so we know when I get the memo on the memo itself in the Word document, it says to budget review committee.

So I can't send it to you all.

So that was up to uh Director Hannem, so sorry about that that it didn't get.

I just assumed it got to everybody.

Um but whatever.

Um and uh you know, I just hope when we got million dollar things in front of us, we fight it as hard as we're fighting this 30,000, uh 40,000, whatever it is, 55,000.

55 people.

Um it's such a small dollar amount for something that's gonna go to something good in the city downtown.

Um, and then they probably will run out of the 55,000, and that's fine.

And my question, I got a question to Director Photo, actually.

Um, this overtime.

Are you forcing people to do this overtime?

No.

Okay.

So we can't force it.

We're not taxing anybody that that doesn't want to go out there and do the work, right?

Because it's overtime.

That's correct.

All right, so that's what I'm trying to do.

Over time we can force a snow.

Right.

So I just wanted to make sure that people knew that.

Correct.

You're not forcing people out there.

If they they're gonna take the overtime, and we'll still probably blow through it, because I I mean, people like money like anybody else, and um it's probably easier than doing snow, that's for sure.

Um so yeah, I just like I said, I just hope when it comes to budget and we really dig into these thousand, you know, million, two million, thirty-two million.

I hope we're asking questions because uh we're asking a lot of questions and doing a lot of work on 55,000.

Alderman Greg.

Um thank you.

And I I respect uh my colleague and and his opinion on you know that we're debating this.

I think we're asking for clarification because certainly when it comes to the main street area, we hear a lot like wait a second, they're doing this sidewalk, not this.

We get I get more questions on that main street area, so I think clarification is really helpful in this because otherwise somebody's gonna be like, well, this didn't happen here, and why is it not happening?

So it's not that I'm fighting it.

I think it's good, but I do think we need clarification, and not having the memo in front of us makes a big difference.

Alderman Kelly and then Alderman Senate.

Uh I was just gonna comment on that as well.

That I was happy that we did ask for clarification, and something that was gonna be 200,000 is now 55,000.

Big difference.

I know you did a lot of work on this, so I did, thank you.

Um, my um my issue was never with the ticket price.

My issue was always with the clarity of the legislation.

I thought from the very start that the legislation was vague, it was incomplete, and I think what we have in front of us now is much more concise and uh much more specific.

So I'm happy to support that.

Any additional questions, Alam Tebow?

Yeah, I mean, I think uh the the original ticket price obviously was also more months because it wasn't gonna start till April, it was gonna start almost right away.

And yes, the 200,000 was also snow.

And so when we say stuff like, well, you know, the original ticket price.

Well, the original ticket price was for different things that were no longer part of this, right?

There's no snow pickup, it's not till April, so it's a lot less than that.

So that's why it's it's been amended.

Um I think the I know I guess you didn't see the memo, that's not my fault.

I can't send it to you guys.

I can't.

So per the RSA.

So um it's very specific.

I read it to you guys, it's clearly specific.

So I don't think you know, to Alderman Clee's point, I don't think we can put every single street on there.

And if they don't go all the way down Temple Street to you know West Pearl, the Temple Street all the way down.

There's got to be some boundary somewhere.

And again, we can set the boundaries.

You you had the boundaries north-south.

Um, but to put every street in there, again, do we want to table it to start putting every street in there that we're gonna touch and which parts of the street we're gonna touch?

They're not gonna go all the way down here, but we're gonna go down here.

I mean, now we're starting to get a little crazy.

Again, on this is a pretty simple, simple bill compared to what we're gonna see in budget.

And I'll tell you, we push push things all the time.

Five million, everybody's got their hand up.

Five million, let's go.

But we we have to I mean, we we approved six hundred thousand today.

We could have cut that down to five hundred thousand.

We could still pay for that turbine easily, and we still have some money in there.

And I would have supported that.

But we all raised our hand just to go, it's okay.

So six hundred thousand.

I'm sure that what they're gonna do with the money is they're gonna identify the worst spots in the tract, hit them first, and I'm sure that they'll be able to do that.

I want specifics.

I want a specific list like I just gave you guys for it for this 55,000.

I want every single thing that's gonna get touched before I vote on it again.

On those spots, there will be specific things that they'll be voting no next time it comes up.

Alleman Johnson.

Thank you.

We could beat this thing to death, you know.

But I'm gonna support this, and I don't support a lot of with the spending because I feel this is worthwhile because I feel that downtown Main Street, we have a lot of homeless people that are gonna start coming out again.

They're hibernating right now wherever they're going, and I have a lot of my constituents wanting to know where they're gonna go after April 15th when we've closed down their warming shelters.

So we know the needles are gonna start showing up again.

I don't want to see anybody in this city get hurt by any.

I don't want to see our employees, number one, get stuck by a needle because that's the worst thing that can happen.

I feel it's worthwhile, but I'm gonna agree with Alderman Clee.

And she agreed with me.

And the thing is here the priorities is Main Street, River Walk, and the library.

And then as needed, the other streets, if they get a complaint or they go down there and they just take a quick look, and that's fine.

But we have to set priorities because it's only what $55,000, and that's not gonna go a long way.

But we've got to be prioritize everything here.

And I'm the one who's a conservative really on this board, and I voted for the 600,000 because I felt those turbines were important enough because that's a revenue producing.

If you shut down your revenue, it's it weighs out.

So I'm gonna support this.

I don't want to see any of our um parks and recs or any of our staff get injured on this.

So I'm looking for high precautions into this.

And I think I said that at the last meeting.

I had questioned all about the needles.

So we have to be very vigilant on this right now, especially where the warm weather is coming in, our homeless population is going to start coming back.

Any additional any additional questions?

Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Also before us this evening, and I think we're ready for it.

Right?

Yes, they're very showed up at a very timely spot.

It's a new business resolution, R-2601.

Approving the cost items of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nashville Board of Education and the Nashville Teachers Union, local 1044.

Uh AFT, AFL, CIO, Unit E, Interpreters for the Death in harder hearing, and unit F, family engagement coordinators from July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage of R 26001, and the superintendent and the CFO from the school department here.

Hi, good evening.

Crystal DeGray, Chief Operating Officer, School District.

Mario Andre, Superintendent of Schools.

All right.

So just some, I guess some historical information.

So this is a new uh collective bargaining unit.

All of these employees prior to actually sat in our non-affiliated contract.

Um there's about 32 of them.

Um so they have gone ahead and created a new uh unit with the combination of both sign language interpreters and family engagement coordinators.

Uh just a couple things to know.

So you'll see that in fiscal year 26.

So we'll have to do some retro payments when this is fully executed.

Uh but in fiscal year 26, it does look a little higher from an overall increase standpoint because um one of the uh populations family engagement coordinators actually did not receive an increase last year uh because they were starting to unionize.

So we did go ahead and mutually agree that they would get a small stipend increase of 1,250.

Um, and then in fiscal year 27 and fiscal year 28, you're looking slightly right around a three percent, uh, of course, not including the benefits piece.

Um and again, there's about 32 of them that are in the unit together.

Miss anything?

No, I just um just in general, I we really want to thank the NC NTU, our family engagement coordinators.

Um, the 16 of um uh employees in that unit.

Um and again, I think we know the importance of um building a bridge with our community uh families and the family engagement coordinators do a great job in that aspect, and we have 16 um sign language interpreters.

So uh that's the total.

So with 16 family engagement coordinators, um, really building that bridge with the community and 16 sign language interpreters and uh sign language interpreters are working.

Um we are um if you don't know only one of two schools in the state or districts in the state that actually offer uh signs of learning programs pre-K through 12.

Um so we actually um it's a revenue that comes in.

We receive students from other districts that um come to Nashworth to be in our schools at New Searles, um McCarthy Middle School and at our uh yeah, yeah, in our high school.

So um so we're thankful for both um units and the NTU.

This was a great negotiation, so it's one of those you don't see a new contracts come at the beginning or from the start, it's usually a rollover.

Um so I really again want to thank the NTU for their collaboration.

Um there was I think you received a uh memo from us.

Um and just there was a it didn't change the bottom line, but there was some change in the language, especially when we were looking at insurance packages.

Um so again, I I think I want to thank the city because they actually saw um when they were doing the legal review that uh what we negotiated actually was costing our employees more in insurance.

Um it was uh an additional ad.

Um, but again, it didn't impact the bottom line on the insurance um from the city side, but I think we're doing right by these employees.

So again, just really want to thank um the NCU for their collaboration in coming out with this contract.

So first order of business is everybody get a copy of when those changes came through generate a goldenrod copy was changed.

So I'll make the motion to umend the R26001 with the goldenrod copy.

Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, all in favor signifying by saying aye.

I oppose motion carries, and just two other things.

One the contract itself was structured from the Paris contract, correct?

That is correct.

Yeah, the majority of what they utilized was from the para contract.

Okay.

Questions?

Old and Kelly.

I I will apologize if I missed it in the memo, but um, I was just I was looking at the most significant change is the benefits here.

Um question one, the way it's written, it makes it seem like you could use any carrier.

Are you still using city insurance?

Yep, absolutely.

So yeah, we're still using city insurance.

So where the confusion really came from is if you actually look at the costs that the paraeducators pay for like a family plan or anything that's not a single plan, it is more of a cost item on the employee versus the employer.

So when we move this contract forward uh to Dr.

Andre's point, the benefits team here at City and the legal team actually saw that some of these employees, there's about six of them that would have been impacted by us moving forward with that new benefit, I guess, requirement.

If you look at the benefit language that should be in front of you now, that is the current benefit language that they have in the non-affiliated contract.

Um, and when we do the costing sheet, there's usually a representation of like it's an aggregate average of who takes benefits.

So it's not like we go through and say every single uh employee say there's 32 of them, right?

It's not like we say, okay, there's 50 percent taking um a family plan and 25 percent taking a single plan and vice versa.

Follow-up?

Follow-up.

So the other question I had, well, I I have several more, but they're all around this.

Um previously we didn't outline specifically co-pays and deductibles, um, and they're in here now.

So I'm just surprised that like it seems like it was a little bit more vague, so that things could be, but this is like to the dollar in here.

Um I think I would have to see exactly what you're referring to.

Because I I didn't I didn't think we were going ahead and putting the exact on page 15.

It says the following co-pays and ductals below become effective.

And this is my other question on July 1st, 2022.

So are we retroactively addressing that?

And 15 of our um Golden Rare copy.

Crystal Lee, full copy of the I was gonna say I wonder.

So you guys have the most recent one that can I see what you're looking at.

I apologize.

I just want to make sure we're talking with some lingual.

Yeah, so this is I wonder why it says effective July 1 of 2022.

Um I can pull it on my community.

Because it truly should show this should be effective July 1st of 2020.

Um 2025, because we're gonna retroactive them.

So they're currently um included.

I bet you they lifted insurance.

I bet you they lifted and that was uh left over from the shrub from the Paris contract.

Yep.

Yeah, so what we're gonna have to do with the so right now the ones that have elected health insurance, they're still being covered.

Um so what we'll do with the benefits team, the suggestion of the city was to go ahead and leave them under the benefits per se under non-affiliated until July 1st of 2026, and then pull them basically out of the benefits into their own union.

Okay so the cost should be net neutral.

It's almost like you're just moving the money out of non-affiliated and putting it into this new contract.

Okay, so it sounds like we need to update that date.

Yeah, verify the red line.

Okay, when we get back.

Um I think yeah, I mean that's it.

I believe if that passes tonight, it's going to come up at the meeting tomorrow because we have a time limit.

The union's already given us a favorable delay.

Yeah.

So I think it's coming up tomorrow night for final approval.

So should we make the motion to change that date now or do you want to?

I think we ought to make a motion to further amend the goldenrod copy to change that date.

If you could just specify that they'll pick it up in the minutes.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Can we amend a contract that the union has approved?

They're amending it.

It's it's changing uh it's not amending the contract per se.

It's just it's it's fixing a type of correcting uh approved it.

Correcting a problem on a date, which is just a clerical not it's not changing any of the terms of the contract.

Well, can Mr.

Chairman while I 100% agree with everything you just said, I just didn't know what the legality of us changing a document that has been approved by the union whether or not we'd be violating that because we've always been said we could not change it approved it on the top.

So I I'm just I don't want it to go all the way to the board of Alderman and then we find out we can't do that.

So if I just make it make a uh a suggestion if we can contact attorney um Bolton for his advice before we make any of the tomorrow and always be brought up tomorrow night with his approval.

So we'll just reach to Mr.

Hoffman to make sure it's it's more clerical.

Yeah.

That's a lot of bad paint.

We're changing it.

Mr.

Hoffman contacted me this afternoon and said that he uh uh appreciated this contract and was fine with the contract.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yes, Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

I just want to thank the superintendent for taking my call today and kind of going over all these numbers here earlier today, um, to understand the 5.8%.

To me, it's a six percent.

And I couldn't remember if this was one of the groups that we had uh go out and and use um an agency to kind of fill some of the positions that time because when I was on the board there were certain positions we couldn't fill.

And so I'm not a big person to vote on contracts as everybody knows, but I think this, you know, for the deaf and hearing impaired, where we have a hard time securing um teachers for them.

I think that this contract is a very important contract because it helps out kids who have a disability with hearing, and plus we're bringing other kids in from other districts that help deflate the costs here a little bit.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Seeing none, um the motion on the floor is for final recommended the full board final approval of R26001.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, isn't it to amend with the goldenrod copy?

Oh, he already did that.

Uh-huh.

I was just gonna say that.

I I don't know if we took that vote yet.

You didn't you did not vote on the floor is is to recommend I was pretty sure we did the uh uh using the golden rod approving the goldenrod copy with the changes.

You you did you did make it yeah we did that?

It's already been voted on.

Yeah, he he did make it uh I have it uh I'll endowed to uh recommend passage of uh 2601 with the uh goldenrod copy.

But did we take it a motion passed?

Uh I guess I'll have to watch the video.

I don't recall.

All those in favor of the goldenrod copy Mr.

Chairman.

Is it on the goldenrod copy or something?

It's on the goldenrod copy since that ever was brought up by Alderman Kelly for the year that 2022.

Should we be voting on it with the to amend it?

Or um because there's that error?

Because we vote on that goldenrod copy.

We're voting on it with the wrong year.

And we can't do that because other than that, that means that we're accepting the year.

And it could hurt us if to for the back date on that contract.

Alderman Kelly.

So I feel comfortable putting the Goldenrod copy in for tomorrow.

It sounds like we can get a memo to the board about changing the date because I do agree that there could be some issues.

We're not really supposed to tell you what to do with it and don't need you to go back to the table just to change a date.

Any of the changes will we'll work through corporation council to be sure we do it correctly.

So just to be safe, all those in favor of the golden rod substitution goldenrod copy signify by saying aye.

Aye oppose.

Motion carries.

Now the recommended final passage of R26001 as amended by the Goldenrod copy.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye opposed?

Nay.

Motion carries.

Next item of business is general discussion.

Thank you.

Uh I know you guys have had a long day.

Oh, that'd be great.

You don't need it?

I don't want to keep your copy.

I apologize.

I think we'll get it next.

All right, take care.

All right.

General discussion.

Alderman Kelly.

I just wanted to know if you have a sense of um budget calendar yet and when we're gonna start doing that.

Uh Donna Graham is working on the dates as we speak.

Uh we should have the mayor's budget on April 14th.

Okay.

And the meetings will start shortly thereafter.

And she's having to contact each one of the divisions so that there's no conflict on the dates that we bring them in.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions on general discussion?

No public comment.

There's no public remarks by Alderman.

Alderman Tebow.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just want to thank uh Alderman Johnson for supporting something I know she didn't really want to support.

Um I appreciate that, and uh I I look forward to working with her on the budget because I think we'll have some good discussions on some of this money that's going out that we really need to scale back on some stuff.

So any other Alderman comments, Alman Johnson?

Yes, I just want to thank my colleague for more eight.

I look forward to working with you too.

Okay, there's nothing else.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes, uh Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Motion on the floor is to adjourn.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We're adjourned at 819 p.m.

Yeah, what's this?