I'm going to call the regular meeting of the Board of Alderman to order on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 7.30 p.m.

in the Aldermanic Chamber.

This meeting has been noticed in two places, including the city's website in accordance with the requirements of RC 91A.

The prayer tonight will be offered by City Clerk Dan Healy and is Alderman Clemens on.

Alderman Clee will lead us in the pledge.

Almighty God, we have the high honor and the serious duty to manage the affairs of our beloved city.

Fill us, oh God, with a spirit of unity and understanding, which enables us to face our multiple problems with a serene mind, with justice and charity for all, so that any and all decisions made by us will always be for the betterment and greater happiness of all our fellow citizens.

So help us God, Ava.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation in liberty and just let's take a roll call attendance, please.

Alderman Clemens.

Alderman Clee.

Here Alderman Ravan.

Alderman O'Brien.

Roger Alderman Gregg.

I am here and attending remotely because I am sick, so in the spirit of not sharing germs.

Um by myself, nobody can hear me or see me, and I can hear and see everybody there.

Alderman Dowd present.

Alderman Sullivan.

I'm here attending remotely as I'm traveling for work.

And uh there's no one in the room with me, and I can hear everybody.

Alderman Sonnet.

Here Alderman Johnson.

Present.

Here.

Alderman Lopez.

Alderman Wilshire.

Here.

Eleven present, four absent.

Thank you.

Also joining us this evening is Mayor Jim Donchis and Corporation Council Steve Bolton.

Mayor, did you wish to address the board this evening?

Uh yes, madam president.

Of course, tonight we have the uh budget before us, uh which I will address in a second.

But I wanted to make sure everybody heard that uh for again New Hampshire, or excuse me, Nashua has been recognized as being one of the best run cities in the United States.

This time we were fifth on the list out of 148.

Previously we've been even higher, but we kind of go up and down.

We've always been within the top five.

And what this attempts to measure is the cost of city services versus the quality of city services.

In other words, uh we are rated very highly with respect to the effectiveness and efficiency of city government.

Um with respect to the budget, I I first want to thank the budget committee, Alderman Dowd as chair and everyone on the committee for spending you know what I know is a difficult couple of months uh with respect to uh reviewing the budget with all the departments, looking through all the line items and doing the best uh that you can to try to keep expenditures down while at the same time delivering quality services to the city of Nashua and its residents.

But I I do have a couple of specific things that I wanted to raise.

Uh first, there were some questions uh during the uh budget process regarding economic development.

I did mention this to the budget committee, but I think that the uh entire board should be aware of it.

Sometimes economic development is asked to do you know more, and um also the issue has come up.

Now, the economic development department has one and a half people, and with that they do the economic development work as well as plan events.

One and a half.

Just down the road, Lowell has ten people doing the same tasks, with I think five and a half people in economic development and four and a half in events.

So even though the city is slightly larger than Nashua, the expenditure there is six or seven times as great as what we have.

Up the road in Manchester, there are four and a half people in economic development, in other words, three times the number of people we have, plus they spend $300,000 in events, plus they did a $1 million marketing campaign.

So obviously they're spending a lot more money.

And another one that I wanted to mention is the city of Dover.

One third to one half of our size, they have three people in economic development.

Now I'm not really suggesting that you add any money to economic development.

I'm just saying that I'm asking that you be careful about cutting it too much because I think objectively we should probably be doing more, not less.

The other thing I wanted to mention is the raises for the unaffiliated employees.

Now, as you know, we did a salary study, which was completed earlier this year, and or late last year, uh, where we tried to peg uh the salaries to what people make uh elsewhere in the in government, you know, the same industry.

And it called for uh particular raises in all of the unaffiliated positions.

And so as we were looking at the budget this year, um the as we were looking at the budget this year, uh we were looking at some very rapidly escalating costs, and we've talked through some of those numbers before, but you'll recall that uh insurance is going up, three and a half million dollars, health insurance, uh, liability over a million, special ed costs over a million, out of district placements for the school department over a million, uh the transportation for the school department over a million.

Um we needed to add 900,000 for body cameras, uh, which is a worthwhile expenditure in my in my estimation.

Um so there were really skyrocketing fixed costs.

Uh so looking at the budget, we could see that the budget and the tax rate were going to go up significantly more than at least I think all of us agree they should.

They we'd like to do uh less.

And so I made a lot of decisions to try to pare the increase down.

And one of the things uh that I proposed in the budget was to implement two of the three things regarding unaffiliated employees.

So the three things would be the salary adjustments called for by the study, a cost of living increase, and a step increase.

And what I did uh in the budget was recommend that uh we or put into the budget only two of those steps.

That is the cost of living increase and the salary adjustments called for by the study, but no step.

And in doing that, we saved about 400,000, 415,000.

Now, the budget committee recommended that a small group of unaffiliated employees, those in the fire department, uh get the full amount of the raise, whereas none of the other employees would.

And uh I mean I like you do know that the fire department does a great job.

Uh they but we have been extremely supportive of the efforts of the fire department in many ways.

I mean, we have I mean I could name probably ten things, but we started cancer screening.

We've we've um uh we're adding people to the budget this year for the for the fire department, which will help in terms of safety.

This will enable training officers or to locate firefighters quickly within buildings as opposed to just calling around and you know the the traffic preemption system, many other things.

But last year, the fire department at the top did get significant raises.

And again, I'm taking nothing from them.

I mean, I I know these people the people, I mean, I like them, I know they do a great job.

But the chief got a 20 percent raise, and the assistant chiefs got 15.

Okay, and they had a plan that they had a reason for that.

Well, um now the bo they would again be selected and picked out to get higher raises than anyone else in the unaffiliated uh workforce.

In my opinion, the fair the fairest thing would be either be to give the unaffiliated all the same as I proposed, or in the alternative to give everyone implement the salary study, the full salary study for everyone.

I believe it should be all together or nobody.

And in my opinion, that's the fairest way to go.

So I don't know what your inclinations are, but uh you could correct that in two different ways.

One is to not make the fire department changes, or number two, to add and CFON rights has the exact numbers, but 415,000 to the budget uh to take care to to treat everyone equally.

Uh and that's really the only serious disagreement I have with respect to what the budget committee has done.

I mean, again, the fire department does a great job, but they did get significant increases last year, and um I believe we should everyone should sacrifice with respect to pay to to benefit the tax rate, or everyone should get the same raise.

Thank you, Madam President.

Responses to the remarks by the mayor.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you, uh Madam President.

Um I fully agree with the mayor's um comments about the all or nothing.

Uh the truth is um I think all of us here respect our fire department as we respect every employee within this organization.

We have um one employee, and I don't want to call them out by name, but that has taken on not just the city, but taken on some of the school department type of of things, and we're going to say you're not deserving of this.

Um a lot of our employees are working extraordinarily hard, so I believe it should be at all or nothing.

Um the 11,000 was put in as an amendment.

Um, and while I understand that's just a small amount, when we look at it in totality, it's 415,626.

Um we either have to put it all in or we put nothing in.

And truthfully, I don't want to see the umployees have to take it in the shorts.

But anyways, that's just my comment.

I agree with the mayor.

Thank you.

Alderman Teball.

Thank you, madam president.

Um, yeah, I I tend to agree with what my colleague just said.

I I think that we can't single out a separate department.

We've got to do it all or nothing at all.

So uh I love the fire department.

I you know, me and uh Alderman O'Brien put 75,000 back into it for deferred maintenance, so we certainly I certainly care about the fire department, but um I care about the police department, I care about the other people at City Hall here that do work, so um I totally agree with what Alderman Cleese.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yeah, I'm gonna Mr.

Mayor, I apologize.

Usually I think you really run the city well, but I disagree.

I have a long history, yes, with the fire department.

I can tell you when I didn't get a race.

You know, I used to have to sign that form, being deform a merit employee, and if you did a meritus job, don't you supposed to get a raise?

Well, that did not happen.

We were the only ones, because being the deputy fire chief, they're not in the union.

I think we need to compensate these people.

Because if we don't compensate them, then I would recommend, and it tells me to do this, but I would recommend to the high echelon to the fire department to join a union.

You gotta treat our employees fair and equitably, and that is the same with affiliate and non-affiliate, you know, and that's the only way that you can do it.

So for the fair ferity and equity to all.

I support the budget as a stance.

Thank you.

Alderman Johnson, thank you very much.

I agree.

It's hard to believe, but I do agree with the mayor.

But last night I did some work, and I just want to say it, everybody apologized for Thursday.

I couldn't be here because I had emergency dental surgery, and I wasn't in the best of health at that time.

Um but I did a little fact checking last night, did my numbers.

And um, you know, part of my problem is I'm looking at some of the increases here for department directors.

Some of them are getting $9,000 increases, some are getting $8,000 increases.

And you know, we talk about the non-affiliate.

I'm not voting on the budget the way it is right now because I think it's way too much money.

But when I take a look at everything, and you talk about the non-affiliates not getting it, and my colleague Alderman O'Brien's talking about the higher end of the um firefighters, the chief and everybody, they can join a union.

But the people in City Hall who were promised this to an ordinance last year, they can turn turn around and turn join a union also.

It is not there, what happened here, but I can't vote for the budget unless you take that 400,000 out, and then we put it back in for the raises for these non-affiliates.

The budget is too high right now.

I've also gotten a notice saying that my water bill is going up 21%.

That's $11 more a month, and we're giving raises out here.

That's over and above $4,000, but $7,000 raises, $8,000 raises.

What does that send to the community here saying that some people can't even afford the homes anymore?

That we're giving big high raises here.

You know, do we roll up our sleeves?

I got chastised the last time because I didn't do line items, I just did bottom line.

The mouth, it's not my job to go through those line items and give out the money.

So I agree with the mayor.

I understand what my colleague Alderman O'Brien is saying.

I know in the past a fire department got shafted.

Um but and I agree with you.

But we're at a turning point here.

Who's going to get it?

Either everybody gets it or nobody gets it at this point in time because I can't see the taxpayers getting stiff now.

Thank you very much.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Uh, thank you.

I appreciate the idea of all or nothing, and these were races that we talked about.

I was the one who made this motion, and just to clarify why I did the firefighters were the first to come to us to talk about their unaffiliated not getting raises and it being really hard to hire in, and it's been a number of years that we've gone back and forth.

Yes, we'll do it, no, we don't.

No, we'll try to cut it, we'll try to cut it again.

And from the standpoint of my personal watching everything that's happened in this chamber, I felt that we had promised them this and owed them this multiple times.

Um, and they were a step ahead.

We did the unaffiliated study, and then we decided what to do with that.

Um, I think it was about a year later.

So that was why I made that.

There's been, I know there are many people in this chamber who remember how many times that went back and forth and it speed out and these things, a lot of things have been going around, and I just I felt strongly that we have told them time and time again that we were going to do this and that we should do it.

Alderman uh Morgan.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr.

Mayor, I appreciate you bringing that up because I was confused as to why the full amount of the unaffiliated salaries were not included in the proposed budget to the Board of Aldermen.

The ordinance was passed 13 and oh uh with the expectation that we would uphold our vote and not just vote for it to pass without the actual intent to support it.

I'd like to share with you some of the quotes from my colleagues during that vote.

Alderman Dowd, we had three union contracts come through, and they all got passed unanimously and cheerfully.

They are unaffiliated.

I think it's about time that we take care of them.

Alderwoman Kelly.

I think it's really important that we take care of everyone who works for our city and Alderman Clee.

We have gone over this ad nauseum.

We did studies, we talked about it, we corrected the studies, we redid the study, we brought in different groups of people, we looked at other cities, what they were doing.

I think to ask our unaffiliated to wait just that much longer would be wrong.

To what end?

Our employees have made life decisions based on these expectations that they would be getting this raise come July 1st, remodeling or refinancing a home, not leaving the job that they do love for a higher paying job in another city, a vacation, or not selling their house because of the expected raise and being able to actually afford to live in it after their housemates have passed away.

Yes, we need to do everything that we can to bring down the budget, but we also need to uphold our word.

Okay.

Recognition period.

None.

Reading minutes of previous meetings.

There being no objection, I'll declare the minutes of the regular Board of Alderman meeting of June 10th, 2026.

Be accepted, placed on file, and the reading suspended.

Communications requiring only procedural actions and written reports from liaisons.

Communication has been received from Sam Durfee, AICP planning manager regarding referral from the Board of Alderman on ordinance 0-26-013 amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive to Highway Business HB.

And communication has been received from Business and Industrial Development Authority Beta regarding selection of development proposal for Pine Street Extension Parking Lot and former police training facility.

There being no objection, I'll accept the communications and place them on file.

Without objection, I'll suspend the rules to allow for a communication that was received after the agenda was prepared.

Communication has been received from Jennifer Bishop, President Board of Education regarding resolution R 26-044.

There being no objection, I'll accept the communication and place it on file.

Period for public comment relative to items expected to be acted upon this evening.

We have one, two, three, four people signed up.

First is Bob Keating.

Good evening.

My name is Bob Keating from Five Coburn Woods Drive.

Speaking about the budget and homelessness today, and first part is some good news on the federal government that just passed a major housing bill on this remarkably positive.

It won't directly affect uh homelessness in the in the near future.

But it's good news.

The bad news is that we are continuing to uh to deal with what is likely to be a significant uh drop in uh um at least the funding in the way funding is going to be used from the federal government that we get from uh uh on the McKenzie Vento Act comes through uh COC, and we've heard that before that uh uh it includes a a drop from a 90 percent assurance to about a 60 percent uh assurance.

So that's that's uh be quite uh quite difficult.

So the money from uh from uh local community or city is becomes all the more important in in times like that.

And to put in context, what's happening of late that we're hearing a number of people being moved from one place to another as anticipated, uh, since uh there's not sufficient uh you know housing.

And one of the things that happened uh uh today is I I spoke to uh you know to a woman who sleeps outside and um and she was talking about difficulties sleeping and she's on medication, including for an insomnia, and she said she was up till two o'clock at night.

And I I immediately thought myself, and I suspect it might be true for many of you if you were sleeping outside and in a non-protected uh place that you might want to keep your eyes open as as much as you know as possible.

So that was my my thought about uh you know her, and I you know, and then I thought about all the other costs that's uh incurred, including the police time that's uh that's being made uh you know for that.

So figure I want to close is that one thousand dollars said for one thousand dollars you house a person for uh uh for a month.

We've got um about 40 chronically homeless people the last count.

So it must be about 40,000.

That's even if they don't have a uh you know money, and so for 30,000 you've taken 40 people and put them in a house or about 33 uh dollars a uh you know a day.

So that's really not much money, it's less than about 1500 percent of our budget proposed budget of 383 million dollars.

So it just hopes that uh you know continuing that the thoughts that people have had about uh um helping people get off the street and have a better place to live that your deliberations tonight and going forward will result in you know more housing.

It's one thousand dollars, one thousand dollars for per month.

So thank you.

Gary Hoffman Gary Hoffman, 38 per Hamp Street, Townhouse D Nashua New Hampshire.

I'm also the President of the Nashua Teachers Union, which is why I'm with you this evening.

I'm speaking in favor of the Secretary contract, which is R 2644.

I was interested in listening earlier to the whole dollar amounts on the unaffiliate raises.

The percentage increase is 4% to the grid.

Year two is three percent, and year three is three percent.

Um and in year two, we do move from a five-step schedule to a nine-step schedule.

This is something that my union's been trying to get for uh decades, you know, and the the old system uh secretary would remain in the same step for five or six years.

Now they're gonna be moving um smaller amounts, but they'll be moving more regularly about every two or three years.

Um now, when you think about a four percent raise, and what does that mean?

The grid, you got to remember these these clerical workers are making around 35 to 40,000 dollars a year.

So with a 4% increase, you're looking at you know, between $1,000 and $1,200.

This is far less than the $78,000 raises that were being spoken about earlier.

So just keep that in mind when you're thinking about you know, this contract, these increases.

Yeah, I gotta remember the health insurance rates are going up for my employees, I believe another 13% this year.

So I don't even look at these per se as so much a raise, but just keeping up with the cost of living.

My people uh, you know, they do they have bills too, and uh if those contracts pass, they can keep up with those bills.

So I please I urge you to pass this unanimously tonight if that happens.

I believe, I'm hoping Mr.

Gray can get these raises in before the uh before our current deal ends on uh July 1st, and uh we can keep this thing moving.

So thank you.

Thank you, Lori Otolano.

Lori Ortolano Nashua.

Um I'm here to not support the budget.

Um I'm hoping and will thank people here who vote against it and having the courage to do so.

Um I think we have too many managers who are not qualified for the positions they're in, and we're paying very high salaries.

I also do think we have a problem in our management structure.

And um, you know, I know we rate very well on wallet hub, but we still seem to have a great deal of difficulty um recruiting people into management positions to come work here who are qualified.

And that's an issue I think you have to address.

It doesn't matter what wallet hub tells you.

You gotta look at the here and now and the reality of you know how positions are being filled.

Filling our um CFO was a very difficult task.

Our candidate base was almost non-existent.

Filling our HR director is a very difficult task.

So I'm not um I just don't think you have the right people in charge in the right management positions running this city, and I I just don't support a budget like this.

As far as unaffiliated employees, I heard good discussion, and I do agree a lot of these people who the commitment was made to give them raises who haven't gotten raises in a long time.

And particularly people who work in the cemetery who work at cable tea, the cable station or do the television stuff, um, they're entitled to that raise.

And um I don't think you can pull the rug out from underneath them.

At the same time, I think some of our top-level management positions are overly um funded, and they shouldn't be getting seven, eight, ten thousand dollar raises because they're at the top and they're making a hundred and sixty-seven, so next year they go to a hundred and seventy-seven.

I think some of those wages should have been frozen.

And those top raise wages would have gone a long way and will go a long way to fund a lot of these lower level people who haven't had an increase when you're looking at a thousand dollar raise going to somebody or thirteen hundred.

You could, you know, you could fund uh ten employees with that raise for what one executive is getting.

And I think some of these pays um pay levels have gotten out of control.

With regard to the resource center of the homeless issue and housing, which is in the budget, you know, always a topic here.

I would just like to say as you approve this budget and go through it, that I'm hoping very soon the city will come forward and give us um a rundown on land you're looking at, buildings you're looking at, places you are finding.

It's been two months since the Mulberry Street deal closed, closing in on two months, and I'm hoping the city has some input for us uh in spending some of this money um to do what we said we were gonna do.

Thank you.

Fred T-Boom Fred Troom.

I also live in Nasha.

I won't talk about R26028.

I went to the minutes of the budget review committee and found out by adding up the numbers that it only cut 115,000 dollars.

That's it.

Out of a 384 million dollar general fund, cut 150, less than 0.03 percent.

Um mayor mentioned Manchester, they cut 12 million dollars, bottom line.

That was from the school department, not their own Alman Johnson recommending four million dollar cut in the school department.

Outrageous increases the both the budget of youth committee wasted completely accomplished nothing.

150,000 bucks is nothing in the 384 million dollar contract budget.

You need to now raise 289 million dollars worth of taxes that represents 22 and a half million dollars more than last year.

Each one percent of tax rate is affected by 2.89 million dollars.

That's a lot of money for one percent.

The tax rate is going to be eight percent more than last year, unless you offset that the fund balance money take money out of our reserve funds at a rate of 2.8 million dollars for each percent.

It's outrageous.

There's a problem with R26028.

It shows that the enterprise fund is $6.9 million in deficit.

There's supposed to be an interfund transfer from general fund to the enterprise fund.

I couldn't find it.

I couldn't find it last year.

I found it a few years ago.

That doesn't affect the tax rate because the transfer from general fund to enterprise fund is neutral on tax rate, but I don't know who does the accounting around here.

That's a complete flaw.

Enterprise funds are supposed to be like special revenue funds, neutral in terms of income versus expenses.

Finally, you're looking at the minutes of the public the budget review committee.

In commenting on the spending cap, it mentions here.

SB 52 passed, national spending cap is grandfathered in spending language charters 56 C and D is valid enforceable going forward.

Mayor Donchester, there is no confusion about the spending cap.

There is no invalid ordinance on what the state did.

They've simply changed the date and made the date effect of grandfathered in.

Say they're right here.

No sneaky financial trickery just before.

I asked C the CFO about this.

I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions.

Time is out.

Yes, thank you.

Communications requiring final approval.

Communication has been received from Mayor Jim Dauntress regarding multi-year contract award management of biosolids.

Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'd like to accept place on file and approve a three-year contract with wastewater management of New Hampshire for management of biosolids at the wastewater treatment facility in the amount not to exceed $3,894,000.

Funding will be through Department 169 wastewater fund, wastewater fund, 54 property services by roll call.

You've heard the motion.

Is there discussion on that motion?

Seeing none would the clerk call the roll.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Tebow.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Downs.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Sennet.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

12 A0NAs.

And that motion carries.

Communication has been received from Mayor Jim Dontres regarding million dollar contract award, Nashua Transit Buses.

Alderman Greg.

Sorry, I'm trying to pull those up on my phone too.

Um I apologize.

I can't pull the document on my phone and my computer if somebody else could make that motion.

Okay, Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I motion to accept place on file and approve the purchase of four Dodge Ram ProMaster ADA accessible low floor cutaway buses from Model 1 commercial vehicles incorporated in the amount not to exceed $1,828.

Funding will be through Department 186 transportation fund federal grants slash 81 capital outlay slash improvements.

$856,334.

NHDOT grant slash 81 capital outlier improvements, $75,647.

SERF slash 81 capital outlay slash improvements, $75,647 by roll call, please.

Alderwoman Kelly.

I think you said $856,000, not $857,000.

I apologize.

Okay, I'm trying to find where that second to last line.

Second line up from the bot from the okay.

So I'm sorry.

$850.

Sorry, I'm just gonna read that particular line there.

Um fund federal grants, so eight federal grants one slash eighty-one capital outlaw slash improvements, eight hundred and fifty-six thousand three hundred and thirty-four dollars.

It's eight hundred and fifty-seven.

Do you have one hundred and fifty-seven?

No, I keep my brain is just not there.

857,334, and mine does say 857, so I apologize to catching that.

Yeah, I guess.

Discussion on the motion.

Thing none, would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Tebo.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd?

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate?

Yes.

Alderman Johnson?

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly?

Yes.

Alderman Morgan?

Yes.

Alderman Lopez?

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire?

Yes.

12 yes zero nays.

And that motion carries.

Petitions.

None.

Nominations, appointments, and elections.

Historic District Commission.

Marnie Gordon, new appointment, term to expire July 16th, 2029.

69 Concord Street, Nashua, New Hampshire 03064.

There being no objection, I'll accept the appointment by the mayor as read and refer that to the Personnel Administrative Affairs Committee.

Reports of committees.

None.

Confirmation of Mayor's appointments.

None.

Unfinished business resolutions.

Second reading of R-26-028 relative to the adoption of the fiscal year 2027 proposed budget for the City of Nashua General Enterprise Special Revenue and Grant Funds.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to amend R26028 by replacing it with a golden rod copy of amendments made at the budget review committee by roll call.

And with the indulgence of the president and the committee, I'd like to bring Don Enright up, CFO, so she can explain the Goldenrod copy and what's what the new numbers are.

Yes.

You can see what we're going to do.

Yeah, he doesn't buy you.

Okay, yeah.

Yes, it's very clear.

And then we'll look at the next wire.

Ms.

Enright.

Thank you, Madam President.

Don Inright, CFO.

So with the Goldenrod amendment in front of you is the calculation of all of the adjustments that were made within the committee.

The Goldenrod adjustment to the general fund, you may notice has changed slightly from what it stated in the original Goldenrod.

There was an oversight of the special revenue fund increase to the revenues added in with the general fund.

So if you turn to the back of the page of the calculation, you will see an increase in the wages under the special revenue fund for the community television of 71,529.

Because the increase was put there and not netted in the general fund.

The general fund adjustment is now 360,208 with a total adjustment to the general fund of a decrease of 33702.

I'd be happy to answer any questions with that explanation.

Anyone have questions for Treasurer on right?

Just for clarification, the motions from the budget committee are in this golden rod copy, correct?

Thank you, Madam President.

Don Enright CFO.

Yes.

All of the motions that were made on that golden rod are included in this calculation.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Alderman Lopez.

It's not an essential point, but it's been brought up many times in the chamber, and I'm not the only one now.

So when we do something like this, could we just turn it sideways so we can read it better?

This is important numbers, and it's really frustrating to have to use a magnifying glass to see it.

So Alderman Clee.

So we vote up or down this particular document.

Is that correct?

That's the present motion.

Yes, okay.

If you want to amend the present motion, that is possible to be done if this motion fails or whether it passes, further amendments can be made to presumably to a motion to uh adopt the budget, pass the resolution.

So but the present motion is to amend in accordance with this golden rod.

Uh thank you.

Alderman Clay.

Um I too am having a very difficult time seeing this, so I'm going to look to Miss Enright.

Um I would the motion that I'm going to want to make is to take out the 11,000 for the fire because I think there will be another motion later on to do the entire affiliated.

Because I truly want it to be an all or nothing.

So is that is in here, correct?

Don Enright CFO.

Yes, correct.

It is a line five.

So it's line five.

Oh I apologize.

That's Walnut Street, yeah.

I apologize.

Line six.

Um I reading that.

Is it line six on this particular if you're looking at the Board of Alderman adjustments at the top as of 61127?

Oh, okay.

You're talking about on the um schedule B.

No.

Nope.

Okay.

Do I not have that?

Apologies.

That's okay.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I I can take the one that's beside me.

Um I would like to make that motion then to um to do as Ms.

Enright said to eliminate line five, the unaffiliated line six.

Sorry, line six.

I can't get my number straight, can I?

I apologize for it.

Um, and and I would um to eliminate that, and I believe that's 11,09 dollars, and I'd like to speak to it if I may.

Aldman Clay.

Thank you.

Um, the reason for this is is that while I a hundred percent agree that the firefighters have way too long waited for this um these adjustments and so on, so has our affiliated, and I can't sit back and have a potential of this passing, and then the affiliates not get something.

So for that reason, I I know it probably will not pass here, but I do feel I need to speak um to that.

So thank you, Madam President.

Okay, all the woman Kelly.

Um I was just going to suggest that you pass what's in front of us and then just subtract what's there so we're not doing two motions.

I I'm sorry.

If we approve what's in front of us without your amendment, you can just add versus we're gonna have to do this motion and then another motion.

So we're gonna end up with like four motions to get to what you want.

Okay.

So Madam President, I would like to amend my motion to rather than to take that out to um based on schedule B of the um uh the proposed budget, the unaffiliated salary adjustment, I would like to um put these items in, which are the um unaffiliated 511 zeros, the uh enterprise fund uh um as well as a special revenue fund um unaffiliated salaries and that would increase it by so let me take that 11,000 nine I believe it's 400 and sorry um Miss Enright am I accurate?

Oh she's she ran away I can't believe she's getting all the stuff okay I'm trying I'm trying to do this in my head so um if I if I the amount I'd be adding would be four thousand four dollars four thousand four hundred thousand thousand six hundred and seventeen dollars am I accurate on that?

No four hundred thousand four hundred and four thousand because it was four hundred and fifteen.

So I have to take the eleven thousand out because it's already there.

So it would be adding another four four hundred and four thousand six hundred and seventeen thousand dollars, is that correct?

May I clarify something?

Sure.

If you want to achieve that, you have to amend the text portion where you can see there's a paragraph that starts with the word second that has been stricken out.

Okay, the language and the unaffiliate employee personnel policies.

Yes.

I would have to put that back in.

Exactly.

Okay.

Um so I would like to um uh make my motion, if if it's possible, um, to put back in item number two um from the um goldenrod copy that was struck to bring that back.

Is that accurate?

Attorney Bolden.

Might be better to say the fourth paragraph from the bottom, remove the the strike throughs to restore the language originally present.

Okay, what he said.

I'm doing the strike.

I'm having a hard enough time with numbers, let alone uh thank you, Attorney Bolton.

Okay, you've heard the motion.

Is there discussion?

All the men t ball.

Thank you.

Uh I don't think I'm gonna support this in the budget if it's put in the budget.

Um you know, we've had budget committee after budget committee after budget committee review, and some people come, some people haven't.

Um our committee has been mostly there most of the time, so it's good.

But no one's ever said, hey, we should put this back in and let's do it.

Or anybody that's wanted to that hasn't been on the board said, hey, can you put this up front for me?

And now we're at the board meeting, now we're doing this.

This is a big chunk.

So for me, you know, when we do the 13,000, 15,000, 20,000.

I don't expect that we would make a match for that.

But if we're gonna add 400,000 plus to the budget, I would expect that we would try to cut 400,000 from the budget.

So where are we gonna do that?

It's it's easy for people who aren't on the budget committee.

I don't know, just not director Dolderman Clay because she goes to most of those meetings, so I don't um this is not to her, but in my opinion, if you should try to you you can't come to the last meeting and say, uh just let's do this 400,000 and add it after we've been trying to budget committee after budget committee after budget committee, trying to cut things, trying to nickel and dime a cut here and there to try to get the budget down, and then we put 400 plus thousand back in the budget without taking anything out.

So for me, I would need a appropriate cut that makes sense to match that to balance that out for me to support this budget with this put back in there.

It has nothing to do with the employees, it has nothing to do with fire, please.

I do think it's all or nothing.

I have said that before.

Um so if it would just been fire, I probably wouldn't have supported that either.

Um, because I think at this point, you either pay them all or don't pay them at all, but you need to I think have a corresponding balance to it.

So that's my my thought.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yeah, I you know, I think some of us here have forgotten what we have done.

What we had was legitimate problem.

We had the rank down below deputy fire chiefs, captains were making more money than deputy chiefs were.

So why would you in God's name?

And directing fires.

You don't, because you could stay a captain, work overtime and exceed deputy chiefs pay.

So what we did, we looked in the past, and last year when we passed this, we had just uh all we really were doing is adjusting the compensation.

And it wasn't really a race.

It was trying to stop what's been going on for years here.

It's called compression when the lower unionized force is making more money than our managers.

That's wrong.

And so in order to stop that, the increase for chief officers this year is 1.78%.

So I think it's actually less than what other unaffiliated employees are getting and needs to stand.

The fire department seems to be content with it.

And I've seen over my 35-year career this fire department get kicked around a barnyard.

And I'm gonna defy and not gonna allow that anymore.

These are highly educated individuals that risk their lives.

Let's look at lieutenant that was injured up at the Yam Street fire.

It can happen any particular day.

It can happen to any of these chief officers or anybody else.

It's a difficult job.

Usually when firemen die, we die in numbers of four together because we were operated as a team.

And so in that team spirit, I'm not gonna support this.

I think they are highly qualified and need to be compensated for exactly what they're doing.

You are talking about a group of men who are sending all women, could be women, but they're sending they have to uh into the burning fires to extinguish them.

It takes a lot, a lot of knowledge.

I know of myself and my career.

I did schooling and schooling and schooling to become a chief officer.

So they need to be compensated.

So I'm I'm against this.

Thank you.

Alderman Johnson, thank you very much.

I'm gonna ask my colleague for more three if she'll withdraw her motion so I can make some motions here to see if we can get the budget down so you can put in your 404,000 dollars plus.

Um sorry, I I apologize, but no, I I will not.

Because I have a bunch of motions that I'd like to make to bring the budget down, but I know we have a motion on the floor.

We do.

Yes.

Okay, um, then I'm gonna make a couple of motions here.

Well, we have a motion on the floor.

That's what I'm saying.

We have a motion on the floor.

Yeah, that's what I'm gonna do.

Uh next I have Alderwoman Kelly.

Okay.

Alderman Klee.

Um, thank thank you, madam um uh president.

I I just want to make a clarifying point.

I 100% agree with my colleague um um Alderman O'Brien.

He's absolutely right.

Our fire department has been kicked around the barnyard um as you put it way too long, and they need to be compensated.

Um last year they did get compensated.

I'm not asking I originally asked to cut them so that I could then do another motion to put this whole thing through, but um um Alderwoman Kelly had suggested that I just add this to it.

So I am not I'm not cutting, I am not cutting the fire um department.

I absolutely 100% agree with you that they deserve it, but I also think all the other um affiliates, unaffiliated, I'm sorry, um, deserve it as well.

I don't want to cherry pick um any particular person as I spoke when we talked about the mayor's um when the mayor made his comments.

You know, we we have um uh an individual who works in the city who is not only doing the job that he's been doing, but he's also taking on um aspects of the school department as well and taking that on.

And and and he's not the only one.

We're slowly kind of uh mixing the school department in some aspects with the city so that we can reduce um staffing.

Um, and in doing so, you know, one person takes on extra extra work.

So that's why I feel that the um unaffiliated should not all unaffiliated.

Um I a hundred percent agree with you about our our firefighters.

Um they deserve it as as much as anybody, and you're right, we should never have um the um underlings having the ability to make more than the those that um um that supervise and and so on.

So I 100% agree with you.

Um I hope that you'll support this so that everybody kind of gets taken care of.

Our unaffiliates have also been ignored for way too long.

So thank you.

Alderman Morgan.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted my clarification was exactly what my colleague had said was that this was to include firemen and all of our other unaffiliated.

Because at this point right now, we are penalizing our unaffiliated for not being in a union.

And we're saying that if you're not in a union, well, sorry, there's no one that's going to speak up and advocate for you, even though we said that we were going to do that a year ago.

And I think that it is prudent on us to also realize that they're not just employees.

Many of these people also live here.

So they're getting hit double.

They're not getting the raise, and they're being they're being asked to pay more in taxes.

And one individual specifically he lived with both his mother and his brother.

Sorry, his yes, his mother and his brother hasn't received a raise in eight years.

His brother passed two years ago, his mother passed a year ago, and he was ready to lose either leave the job he loves so much to go work for another city to make a lot more money because he couldn't afford his house or lose his house, sell it.

And with this raise, he'll be able to stay in his house, continue adding to our tax base, keep his job here in the city that he loves, and also allow the city to not lose a valuable employee, not just in a position that is hard to fill, uh, but also in that skill set that he brought for the last eight years.

So I'm happy to support this motion.

Alderman Dowd.

Yeah.

Um I think it would have been cleaner, nothing against your Alderman Clean.

I understand where you're going with this, to um approve the Goldenrod copy and then go to the final motion because then people are going to make other motions.

In fact, I have a motion uh from Mr.

Healy to save some additional money.

Um I was hoping we get through the Goldenrod copy and go to the final budget and then and then on that motion make additional motions as people see fit.

But the motions on the floor to do what you're talking about.

Uh just a couple things, you know.

They did the study, they finally approved it, and they gave their employees the raises.

Um I always equated the non-affiliated from the Charlie Brown and Lucy football, you know.

Right.

We held the football out for them and then we pulled it away from them by doing it again.

I uh and and I don't think that's fair.

So I hate to increase the budget.

I really do.

But if this comes around, I'm gonna support it because when I was on the Board of Education, we had the vice principal, the principals gave up their union because the Board of Education said we'll take care of you every time we give the union a raise, we'll give you guys a raise.

Yeah, they didn't.

So the principals went back and formed their union again.

Now we have a union contract for the principals.

And I foresee additional unions coming if we don't do this, and in the long run, it'll cost us more.

So I will support this.

Um but I I really hesitate increasing the budget, but that's where I feel.

Alderman Tebow.

Thanks.

Yeah, I again I would just say why why didn't we try to get this passed during the budget?

I I don't know, because it's a pretty big chunk, and it's a it was a pretty big deal to begin with.

It's not like one of those things we just found as we went over it during the course of the weekend.

Um it was something that was pretty pretty big.

I was at every single uh budget meeting, and I don't remember ever hearing this come up other than the the firefighting one.

Um so I I mean I'm still not gonna approve this amendment as is until we can get appropriate uh cuts and uh for it.

So I have Alderman Lopez and then Alderman O'Brien.

Um so speaking for myself, I did not do very well when I tried to make amendments at the budget.

Um and I have found this particular budget year really difficult because the numbers in the book are not accurate per se.

Um and the number of adjustments have been made at the budget committee.

Um and then even tonight we're given the summary of adjustments, and it's barely legible.

So I I think some grace to our fellow aldermen is called for at the end of the day.

The committees do very important work.

We all have the right and responsibility to make changes at the full board if we aren't satisfied with what the committee decides.

Um I do I guess empathize with my fellow aldermen who have their own amendments that they want to see pass, um, and so they'd like to be first so that then it makes puts better confidence in Alderman Cleese.

But someone had to start, and if everyone is sure that they can reduce the budget, then that will be great.

I would look forward to those amendments, and we will see what those look like.

And maybe we won't end up raising the the overall budget.

But I see the value of this period.

I think our unaffiliated uh staff members do deserve this raise.

And I think there's a strategic importance here and a trend that I can't be the only one to see.

We have seen an increase in our school budget predominantly because we at one point removed our our I guess um public bus system and replaced it with you know out sourcing and and private contracts.

We have seen an increase in um paraprofessionals because we can't hire and hold enough paraprofessionals which would be more cost-effective to the city, so we have to contract that outwards.

When we can't hold good people to do these jobs, we do end up still having to do the jobs and we spend more.

So as it was pointed out, um it could be a problem with for us where our own employees don't feel like they have enough of a voice that they have to unionize.

But I also I wouldn't want to see them leave because I think it will drive costs up even more when we need things, you know, and and tasks done and we lose the institutional knowledge that's coming with that.

We lose the people who are invested here in our community because they live here.

So I think it is important to to pass this amendment and to recognize our unaffiliated um employees, not just for the honor of the Board of Alderman, but because it makes fiscal sense over the long term, if you look at how employees are treated and where our biggest trouble spots are, and we don't compensate them, we end up paying more.

Next, I have Alderman O'Brien.

Yeah, I just want to say this.

Last year, we were I had a problem that was brought to us with the compression between the unionized ranks and the unaffiliated, and we solved it.

This board voted for it.

Now, I'm a man of my word.

I don't step back from commitments because of the political whim of any particular time.

But right now, we made that commitment to the chief officers of the fire department, and now we seem to be backpedaling.

And I don't agree with it.

You know, again, being a man of my word.

I love these guys.

They did phenomenal things, almost to the point of risking their lives, and I'm not gonna backpedal on them at this particular time.

The thing is, by doing this, a problem that we fixed, we're breaking something.

This is like a ship taking on water with this idea, and then you cut a hole in the side of the ship to let the water out.

It don't work.

And I think it was already predetermined, they're counting on this.

So I am still not gonna support it.

I know, I know.

I'll tell you, I would support other unaffiliated and the correction.

It's something that we need to do as a city, but just saying it.

This was solving one particular problem.

You want to identify the other problems and solve them?

I'm right with you.

100%.

But don't break something that we're fixed to try to fix another thing.

Thank you.

Alderman down.

Just for clarification through you to the city council.

For the amendments to this golden ride copy, do we need eight votes or ten votes?

You well, right now, I believe you only have 12 people, so you need seven votes.

Yeah, okay.

I mean, the full budget we need ten votes.

So you need seven votes.

Yeah, but the full budget will be passed, it would require 10 votes.

But these changes passage will require, it depends how many people you have, but it will require two-thirds.

Two thirds, yes.

But for these motions, you're saying simple majority.

That's thank you.

If someone abstains for a valid reason, it's the number who vote.

But next I have Alderman Thibault.

Thank you, uh, Madam President.

Um just just for a couple of clarifications.

One, we also made uh a commitment to pay the unaffiliated when we voted for the ordinance.

So fire, not fire.

We made commitments to both.

So I mean, if we're gonna keep our word, we would keep both, not just one.

Um the other thing is I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with Alderman Lopez.

It is all our responsibilities.

I can give grace to all of you, but it's all our responsibilities to know what goes on in other committees, especially if we're voting on the budget that increases taxes.

I'm sorry, we have to know what we're voting on.

It's that important.

If we can go out there and have to say we gotta do an 8% tax increase, I'm sorry.

I know the budget met three nights a week for two months, and some some of us only have one committee a month, but it's important to know the budget.

It's it's it's adamant.

I don't care if you're not there or not.

You need to either watch the meetings or read the minutes or or or what, and if you just want to vote blindly, that's fine.

But it's it's that important.

And I I said it in the beginning when we first started, I said for the new people, this is important.

I I think the only one I would give a pass to is Alderman Ravan, because he's brand new.

And but he's been coming to meetings trying to learn, trying to get up to speed.

So I don't I don't know what to say.

I it's it's we have to know the stuff.

We can't come to the last board and spend 15 hours debating stuff.

We've been debating for two months.

I'm sorry.

Alderman Johnson, thank you very much.

Alderman Mongan said something very interesting.

She said, We have an employee that lives in the city, the mother passed away, brother passed away, can't afford the home, needs to raise.

But on the other hand, I'm sorry I can't really talk that well today, but on the other hand, you're also saying we're gonna give you a raise, but we're gonna take it back and give you an 8% tax increase, maybe.

So how does that work?

It kind of just it doesn't even out here.

And this board last year, which I was not on it, voted to give the non-affiliates that increase.

The mayor felt that we couldn't afford it.

And through this whole budget process, I've heard from a lot of people about this.

I'd love to give them this increase, but not unless I reduce this budget.

Can I say I can give it to them?

And I tried to make motions and I didn't do line items, so a lot of my motions failed.

I don't do line items because you know, there's nothing that says I have to do a line item.

You're taking a thousand here, a thousand there, you gotta go in and make a big adjustment here, and it's gonna be a big adjustment.

The other thing I'm going to say, this budget has been screwed up since day one.

All we've done is get goldenrod copies, a fix here, a fixed day.

I said at the beginning, let's start all over again from square one and give us a budget that's not all messed up that we have to try to figure this out.

I mean, we get all these papers, and that's what I said at the beginning.

I held up all the papers and said, look at all these papers we're getting.

Everything's a correction.

I was told I was aggressive that night.

I'm not being aggressive, I'm being truthful.

You can't work, these are numbers.

If you make a mistake here, it could be worse on the taxpayers, or we can cheat some of the our employees that should be getting a raise here.

And why did we allow this to continue?

The budget does not have to be passed to August 1st.

I asked council.

We have time to go back and sit down and figure this out and do it the right way to take out of the budget, add back in, and make it a budget that you can present to the taxpayers of this city.

And if you think I haven't heard from people, think again.

People are not happy because I'm gonna say it again.

We're getting a 21 plus percent increase from Penichuk.

So that's gonna add on another 11 dollars and something on our bill on Penichuck.

You got people out there that can't afford another 8%.

They can't afford 6% at this time.

You've got your seniors, you got your disabled, you got the young man who's working for the city.

You put 8% tax, even a six percent right now on them.

He might not even be able to afford it, even with this increase.

So maybe we should go back to the drawing board, roll up our sleeves, and present to the city and our citizens a good budget and make the adjustments rather than nickel diming it right now tonight.

Thank you very much.

Alderman Clee.

Uh, thank you, Madam President.

Um Alderman O'Brien, I I want to clarify that I'm not touching the 11,000 for the firefighters.

That's staying.

I'm just adding 404,617 dollars for the rest of the affiliated.

I have not touched.

My first motion was to remove them, and I apologize for that.

Um, because I was gonna I was gonna add, I was gonna add it as a total, um, but I am not I am not touching that 11,000.

I want to be very, very clear because I a hundred percent agree with you that they do in fact deserve it, but I think all of our unaffiliated deserve it as well.

So I apologize for my for my um comment at the beginning.

Um the reason I was taking it out was because I was gonna add the totality in.

Um, but so I am not touching the firefighters, and I apologize if that was Madam President.

May I and kindly respond to Alderman Clee.

Yeah, well we said in the beginning, left a very sour taste in my mouth.

You know, I was a guy just bringing up a family.

I worked two jobs.

I should only have worked one.

But why did I have to work two jobs to make the difference of steak and hamburger for my kids?

It wasn't a swimming pool or a summer cottage.

And you should have seen the cars we all trove.

But I'll follow my sword for Alderman Clee.

I understand kind of now what you're doing.

But after 35 years of getting kicked around, this has left a very bad taste in my mouth.

And so I'll take you at your automatic honor, to which I deeply respect.

And I'll back off as a good Irishman, some finds regret to do, but I'll back off.

And whoa, if the money doesn't get at it.

I know.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have Alderman Lopez.

Uh nope, I'm good, thanks.

You're good.

Alderman Greg.

Um thank you.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate each of my colleagues and whether or not we went through the budget system.

I think as we continue to scrutinize this, um, I welcome the ideas tonight.

So I think it's it's great.

This has been a very confusing process, and I hope that we can correct that um going forward.

But based on what we have now, whether or not we did what we could in committee, it's good to hear um added ideas tonight.

So I think that that is a positive thing.

And a second thing, um Alderman Clee just cleared up for me, so thank you.

Um Kelly.

Um just through you to um CFO and right.

I know that the county budget was changed a couple days ago and it came down significantly.

Actually, I know that um Alderman Gregg was part of that.

Do we have a new potential tax rate based on the county decrease?

I apologize.

Uh Don Enright, uh CFO.

Um, I do not have that figure um at this given moment.

I apologize.

Alderman Morgan.

Um thank you, Madam President.

Through you to uh CFO and right.

Um what if we were to pass this amendment?

Um what would this cost the average taxpayer?

This 415,000 for our unaffiliated well, from a budget perspective Don N, right?

CFO.

Um from a budget perspective, um 2.8 million dollars would increase the um budget by one percent.

So this is significantly less than and then the 2.8 million dollars.

So you're looking at approximately 0.10% increase on the budget.

And um if you calculated something like that out, you're probably looking at less than $50 on the average taxpayer.

Okay.

Clarification, if I may.

So thank you for that number.

So we're talking about adding $50 on average, each taxpayer of a difference for some people, thousands of dollars a year for their being able to pay their penerchuck bill, paying it being able to pay their rising gas prices, um, being able to get to and from work.

Um so I just want to make sure that we all heard that number very clearly is about $50 on average per resident.

Thank you.

Alderman Ruin.

One of the things they do at the State House is they have people come to the well, which is the front of the front of the room, and say, if you vote for this, this will happen.

And then and then the other party says, and if you vote no for this, this will happen.

I'd like Alderman Clee to please do the same.

Could you tell me if I vote yes, this will happen, and if I vote no, that will happen.

Do you have others?

I I can answer later.

No, no one else has raised their hand.

Um thank you.

Alderman Ravan, it it it's it's not quite um the same as up in the in the state house that we save it for.

The the truth is if we vote for this as um CFO um and right mentioned, it could cost the taxpayers um approximately $50 um per year to help these.

If we don't do it, as Alderman um Morgan had had stated, um these these people, these unaffiliated, um, we promised them a year ago that we would do this, and now we're looking at a thousand dollars.

Some people gave up maybe moving on to another job because they love this job and they realize that they're gonna get a pay raise, and now we've just said to them no, we pulled the carpet out from underneath them.

We could potentially lose people.

Um we've broken a promise.

There's a lot of things that um I I don't know much more what to say to you, but I do respect and understand what you're asking.

But we're gonna hurt our employees and morale and um being able to retain them and so on, and possibly even being able to hire others.

So I think it has far reaching.

Um as a person who's struggling right now to pay my taxes, every dollar counts.

I understand that.

Um I lost three quarters of my income when my husband died.

Um so I truly get every penny counts, and you know, I am hoping that my other colleagues, as as was mentioned, you know, may propose things that could reduce the budget.

That would be wonderful.

However, right now I'm looking at our um our affiliated tax um employees and and the way that they are looking at us saying, Do we matter to you?

Today I was just at um the building permits.

We've got some hardworking people who put up with people such as myself and are like, I don't understand this.

Please explain it to me over and over again.

So, yes, I I want to make sure we take care of them.

So thank you.

Thank you, Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

I want to make a couple things clear.

We did not do this.

This was not our budget.

The budget was given to us by the mayor.

We haven't even passed it yet.

This is still the mayor's budget.

He was the one who took them out of the budget, not us.

You all voted for it last year to give them the raise.

I probably would have done half this year and half next year, so it wouldn't be that big of a hit on the budget.

But let's make that clear.

We didn't do anything.

We're trying to fix the mistake here.

So let's get that clear.

And I'm through you, Madam President.

I'd like to ask CFO and right a question.

And an 8% tax increase.

At the the price of the average home, what they what the assessed value is, which I would say is 550 to maybe $600,000.

What would be the taxes increase on that?

The dollar amount.

I'd be happy to uh may I madam president uh Don Enright, CFO.

I'd be happy to calculate that for you.

I haven't calculated that out, but I'd happy to do that while we're answering them.

And may I ask another question?

And then I'd like to go between seven to eight hundred thousand dollars, because those are the basically your house prices here, most of them.

Well, no, I'm saying that there is another group, and the home basically are about five hundred to six hundred thousand the average.

Can you do another one?

Four to five hundred thousand, thank you.

So this way we can kind of cover the different levels of homes.

But I'm gonna say actually most of the homes in the city have been selling around in the $500,000 range.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

The motion on the floor.

Is Alderman Cleese motion?

Yes.

So it's no longer struck out.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

So seeing no more discussion, uh Alderman Down.

Her motion is to amend the goldenrod copy that's on the floor now.

Yeah.

To add back the stricken paragraph.

Yes.

Yes.

That is.

Yes.

And then we is the incorporation council, then we'd have to then approve the modified goldenrod copy, correct?

Yes.

Whether it passes or doesn't pass.

That brings forward the motion that you made to approve an amendment in accordance with the goldenrod copy.

As it has or has not been further amended.

Okay.

So you've heard the motion with the clerk call a roll, please.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tot.

No.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dow.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

No.

Alderman said it.

No.

Alderman Johnson.

No.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

Nine yeys, four nays.

The motion carries.

Any other motions?

Well, the motion now would be two.

It's the one Baldwin Dow made as has been amended.

So that's available for discussion at the at the moment.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Alderman Senate.

Thank you, Madam President.

Through you to CFO and right, uh, with the passage of the amendment that we just made.

Can you refresh our memory and uh let me know now what the net change is enacted by the goldenrod copyright?

Thank you, Madam President Don Enray, CFO.

So at this given moment, adding the 404,617 dollars to the golden rod gives you a overall increase from the proposed budget of 67,615.

Well what?

Yes.

And prior we had a decrease.

Is that correct?

Uh 100.

CFO and right.

Yes, we did have a decrease.

Thank you.

Could you repeat the motion?

I was gonna say I don't know what the motion is.

The motion on the floor is to approve the amended goldenrod copy.

Uh it was originally mentioned in my motion to uh add 404,617 dollars.

Okay.

Would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman TiVo.

No.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Greg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

No.

Alderman Senate.

No.

Alderman Johnson?

No.

Alderwoman Kelly?

Yes.

Alderman Morgan?

Yes.

Alderman Lopez?

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire?

Yes.

Nine yes, four nays.

And that motion carries.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to reduce administrative services by one minute on the bottom line, the total expenditures.

Okay, you've heard the motion.

Just a question.

Alderman Dowd.

Should we introduce the final motion and then vote on the final motion?

I mean make amendments to the final motion.

We just amended.

Yeah.

Because yeah.

What?

I didn't hear the answer.

Said yes.

That would that would be the better way to do it.

All right.

So I should probably read my script.

My motion before we stop making amendments to the final budget.

Can you withdraw your motion from the I'll withdraw my motion?

Thank you.

Alderman Dowd.

I'd like to make a motion to amend R26028 by replacing it with a golden rod, the amended goldenrod copy of amendments made by the budget review committee and the motions this evening by rule call.

We just did that motion.

We just did that one.

We already did that.

We just did that one.

Now you have to do that.

You're now off.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

You're right, you're right.

Motion for final passage of R26026 as amended by rule call.

Yeah.

28.

Okay.

So the motion is for final passage as amended.

Okay.

Now you can make motion.

Okay, thank you.

Johnson.

I'd like to make a motion to rem to subtract administrative services, the total expenditures by 1 million dollars.

You heard the motion?

Is there discussion on that motion?

Alderman Tebow.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um we had mentioned this in the budget committee that I I wasn't one that was a fan of the bottom line, um, especially when it wasn't the education, because we don't obviously can do line items for education.

Um that being said, I'm still at this at this function at this juncture.

I am not voting for this budget.

Um yeah, yes.

So just we'll see what the amendments bring.

Um but this one million.

I mean, I I just don't love leaving it up to the division to try to cut it.

More so then they could cut something that maybe we think we need more than they think they need.

So I think if we have control of that, why don't we make the decision to cut the stuff out ourselves?

That's how I look at it.

Um, you know, because then we're leaving it too much wide open, and and I just don't love that kind of that's why I've been so opposed half the time to the BOE uh cut cutting you know large amounts, two million, four million, because we have no insight.

That's why I asked uh Dr.

Andre last week, what would they cut, you know, if the four million came out of their budget, and you know, one of a few things he mentioned was athletics, and I was like, I don't want to cut that.

So um not having control of it, having control of it's almost a bonus for us because we are able to make those decisions.

That's what we're put here for.

Um so I don't know why we we can't look at that.

So I'm not saying that we couldn't cut 1.5 somewhere out of this.

I'm just saying I would prefer to see it in a line item.

And again, I'm not just saying any line item you pick I'm gonna vote for, but uh I would rather see it line item, but that's that's just my opinion on it.

Alderman Dow.

Yeah, I believe when this came up during the budget review committee, uh which didn't pass, uh it was stated that if you cut the million dollars out of this account, that the Arlington Street, and I may be wrong, and they can be corrected if somebody's here that can answer.

The Ellington Street Community Center will be closed, and if so, we'll owe a million over a million dollars back to the federal government for that loan.

Alderman Senate.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to respond to that because I was the one in committee who had brought up the Arlington Street commit community center.

I I just want it to be clear that I didn't uh float that or mention that as a certainty.

I certainly don't have the insight that the um department heads would in.

I put that out there as a a what if, because with a bottom line cut, we don't know ultimately where the departmental cuts will come.

And I I simply wanted to propose that Alderman Dowd as sort of a potential unforeseen consequence of doing this.

Um the the fact that we have a grant or that operates as a forgivable loan for the Arlington Street Community Center.

That is true, and if we do not operate that facility as intended for the duration of that grant loan, then we would be on the hook to pay it back.

But not a certainty, but a possibility for certain.

Thank you.

Next step, Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you very much.

I uh I'll support the motion.

I I I do feel that we could leave it up to the the division directors.

I think it's um you know that's why we have them in those positions to uh to make those hard decisions, and I think that uh a cut of this size, I think gets things going in the right direction because as it stands now, this budget is uh more than six percent of an increase over last year, and and a seven to eight percent uh or eight percent tax increase for the residents is just way too much to stomach.

So uh I'll support that motion.

Thanks.

Aldman Johnson, then I'll keep the difference in the budget was three million one hundred and ninety-nine dollars eight thousand eight hundred and nine dollars is a sixteen point forty-seven percent increase.

And now that's a big increase.

And so the reason I'm saying the bottom line, the total, is let the division directors I could be cutting the wrong line item.

That's what they're that's what they're talking about.

The division directors, they did the budget.

They should know where they can make the reductions and that's budget.

Um as much as I would like to pay my affiliated employees, the non-affiliate, I can't present a budget like this to the taxpayers either.

As an 8% right now increase.

It's just it's just impossible.

You know, everybody on this board talks about inflation, the cost of everything rising.

Do you imagine right before Christmas time getting that tax bill, another four or five hundred dollars going up in that in your tax bill?

I mean, that's a lot, especially people on fixed incomes.

So I'm trying, I'm trying to make an effort here to try to reduce this budget.

And I really don't affect feel that anybody's gonna go along with me because they haven't gone along with me before with smaller cuts.

So I'm putting my best foot forward so we can give the non-affiliates that increase.

And you know, that takes several million dollars out of this budget.

And some of the directors maybe shouldn't have nine thousand dollar races or seven thousand dollar races.

Thank you.

Alderman Tebow.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I mean, I think it's the easier way out just to say, hey, take out a million.

Oh, I tried.

I tried to take out a million.

No one listened to me.

It's a lot easier if you if you do something specific, there's more chance that people might say, oh yeah, you're right, we really don't need to do that.

Let's all vote for that.

If you just do a blanket one million, most people aren't gonna because they don't trust that it's gonna come out to the right place.

So if you want your cut to actually have a better chance to pass, I think it's better to look at the line items.

Otherwise, I can just like I said, I said it last week.

Oh, let's cut five million out of the library.

Okay, I did my job, I tried, I tried.

I just taxpayers I tried.

No one listened to me, right?

Of course, I'm not I'm not gonna do that because we're trying to do it in a responsible way for all the departments.

Director Cummings is on the phone.

Is it possible for me to ask through the the president a question to uh Tim Cummings?

So one, he could easily turn around with this one million and say, I'm gonna cut three bodies.

So we're saying we're upset because we're not going to pay on affiliated or affiliated, but we want him to cut three bodies out of his department.

So we're gonna send three people walking.

Well, we're afraid to we want to pay like what would we rather want?

Like, would we want to have people fired, or would we want to pay people raises that have been put out of the budget?

So I don't know, but I'd like to ask Director Cummings, what would he do with that kind of cut?

And on be honest, I mean you know it's easy to say, well, I'd cut people, but honestly, look at your budget.

What would you cut?

I would hope that everybody has a tiny bit of fluff in their budget that if we came back and said cut something, you'd be able to cut something.

Director Cummings.

Uh yes, good evening, Madam President.

Uh Kim, can you hear me?

Yes.

Excellent.

For the record, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Uh a couple points here.

Um, I don't believe I could, in good consciousness, uh, this evening um tell you exactly what I would cut um hearing that hearing that um just now for the first time, but I I would say it would be a lot more than three positions uh that that I heard that would that you know no one makes salaries of like three hundred thousand dollars, so uh it it would be it would be you know uh ten times that um with that being said, um I also want to just comment that uh on on two points.

Most of our uh budgets uh are contractually driven, uh so something like 75 to 80 percent of the budgets have already spoken for.

Um and then and then secondly, relative to fluff, you know, we run pretty lean as it is, and so uh certainly I understand that the budget's going up.

Um inflation is driving a lot of that.

When I hear the budget's going up six percent, and I know inflation is going up somewhere in the realm of four four or five percent, and we're just trying to provide the same level of services.

I don't think we are increasing the budget all that dramatically.

Um so I respectfully submit that to you, but I don't think that we could uh cut the quote unquote fluff because we run lean as uh as it is.

But uh I certainly understand the uh sentiments being expressed right now, and and certainly the the hard task that you have in front of you.

Thank you.

Alderman Thibault?

Yeah, just to follow up, thank you, Director Cummings, for that.

And uh three people is obviously I don't think they make that much money.

I was just throwing that out as uh just a number.

Um so my follow-up question to you is you mentioned there's some things you just can't cut contractually.

Can you just mention a few of those things that you just aren't allowed to cut for whatever reason out of administrative services?

Sure.

If I may, madam president.

Yes, thank thank you, Madam President.

Uh I would say the biggest driver, or one of the biggest drivers in the quote unquote administrative services budget is insurance.

Um, and in particular, the workers' compensation insurance, which we have a statutory obligation to provide uh uh a certain level of service that was uh dictated to us by uh Concord, and we are happily doing that, but that is driving a double digit increase in the admin services budget, and that um is just a reality.

So that I would point to is probably one of the bigger drivers in in the budget.

Thank you.

I answer this a little bit, mayor.

Um, if you look at administrative services, the main uh expense is in the risk department.

Now, this is insurance.

Um as we discussed during the public hearing, uh insurance policies and claims, not medical, so this is in administrative services, is up 19.5 percent or 1.5 million dollars.

We were talking about the firefighters and you know how we want to make sure they're taken care of.

Well, what one issue that is driving major increases here is the policy, and uh I agree with the policy, but the policy uh is that uh adopted at the state level is that when a firefighter or retired firefighter gets cancer, it is presumed that that is a work-related injury.

Whereas before the firefighter had to prove through medical evidence that it was work related.

Now it's assumed.

That is costing that is resulting in a projected significant increase in workers' comp insurance.

Again, I think this is something, you know, I'm glad the state did it.

I think uh there are risks in that job that uh health risks that don't other other employees don't encounter.

Uh there's PFAS in the in the suits that firefighters wear to protect them from the heat.

And so what do you propose we do?

Uh you know, not insure some of this, uh or you know, not insure the vehicles.

Uh what do you where do you suggest we would get a million dollars on the on the risk budget?

That's why Alderman Thibault is saying you've got to designate so easy to say, oh, cut a million dollars.

Yeah, well, you've got to say what you want to cut.

I mean, it some of this stuff, you know, you you have to have some concept of what it is that's in there.

Uh it's just not so easy to cut a million.

Well, you know, where?

The community center plus we don't we don't insure the vehicles.

I, you know, what would we do?

Um the there aren't even enough employees there to get a million dollars.

So uh this is a you know, it's the it's the risk budget that really is the driver of this whole thing.

Aldman Lopez?

Um question through the president to the mayor.

Yes.

Um while you did identify the risk as uh the primary area of increase, weren't other departments or programs moved under this budget as well as administrative services.

Well, that's another thing.

So the uh let I'll let I'll let um uh director Cummings answer that part because he's got uh the specific numbers on that uh that that if I may, Madam President.

Yes.

Uh yes, uh Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services and not uh uh take too much time this evening, but it is not fair to do an apples to apples comparison from last year to this year with the administrative services budget because we moved some monies that were in other departments' budgets or other divisions' budgets into admin services, specifically the buildings and grounds department with both uh some monies out of DPW and library, and so that that wouldn't be a net gain to the budget, it's just a transferring from one division uh to the other, which also adds another layer of complication.

Thank you.

Next, I have Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

That was actually kind of the the point that I wanted to make as well.

Um and if I remember correctly, um it was uh um an and please, Director Cummings, um tell me if I'm if I'm wrong here, but it was uh technically at a net zero um type of thing.

So we moved it out of library to your department, we moved it out of DPW to your department, um, not at an additional cost.

Am I correct on that, if I may, Madam President?

Director Cummings.

If I may, Madam President, coming director of administrative services, thank you.

I can dip I can definitely say that for the library um clear.

I would need to double check on the DPW front.

It may be a little additional monies there, but it's a de minimous amount.

Just just a quick follow-up.

Um that that's fine, but I think the I shouldn't have said that it was truly a net zero, but I'm just my point is if it had remained in their budget, it would have been whatever X dollars are, and we just moved the um the process of that under your department.

Is that correct?

That is absolutely correct, yes.

Okay, thank you, Madam President.

Welcome.

Alderman Senate.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um to the motion at hand.

I I just want to reiterate a point that I made in committee when this came up.

Um there's a lot of if then to it, but if we pass a budget tonight, say as it stands right now, then tomorrow if somebody asks me what's in the budget, I can tell them.

point is if it had remained in their budget it would have been whatever X dollars are and we just moved the um the process of that under your department is that correct that that is absolutely correct yes okay thank you madam president welcome alderman Senate thank you madam president um to the motion at hand I I just want to reiterate a point that I made in committee when this came up and there's a lot of if then to it but if we pass a budget tonight say as it stands right now then tomorrow if somebody asks me what's in the budget I can tell them one of the frustrating parts about the budget process every year is that you know were there to be a cut or an addition made to the education budget I kind of have to look a constituent in the eye and say oh I don't know you know I I don't know where that cut's gonna come from again I reiterated in committee that you know here we have the ability to avoid that if we were to pass this amendment and then if subsequently we passed this budget and tomorrow if somebody asked me about the budget I can show the most of a document but then I can say well you know less a million dollars from administrative services and I don't know what that's going to look like and where we have so many roundtable discussions in this chamber about clarity and transparency and information that's not something I feel comfortable doing not so much the the fact that it's a million dollar cut consider any cut that somebody can make with specificity but to just broadly cut something and not be able to know tomorrow if this were to pass what that looks like that's troublesome for me and I would rather if a budget is going to pass tonight we know what's in that document even with a dozen papers floating around the desk with amendments and everything we at least know well we cut this department we cut this position it amounts to X, Y, and Z amount of dollars I have a strong preference for that I can't in good conscience support a bottom line thank you.

Alderman Morgan thank you Madam President I'm curious through you to uh Director Cummings so a million dollars could be taken out of miscellaneous claims workers compensation claims general liability claims property claims automobile claims long-term disability claims all of these are guesstimates best guesses um are these conservative guesses or not and is there any room to move any of these even if it's 500,000 director Cummings yes thank you Tim Cummings director of administrative services I would say that they are conservative estimates that I know uh our risk managers spend a lot of time developing I would not at this time recommend reducing it as I think it would put the city in a in a in a difficult uh position thank you all said Alderman Morgan um no thank you for allowing me a pause um specifically my question is on worker compensation claims that went up one million one hundred dollars can you speak to that please uh y yes uh I I'd be happy to if I may madam president yes thank you Tim Cummings Director of Administrative Services so again as the mayor alluded to just a moment ago and as I started my comments um at the very beginning of this amendment uh conversation uh we were uh directed uh a year or two ago by uh the state of New Hampshire to increase how we or increase how we cover workers compensation for firefighters and particularly take on more um uh workers compensation than we claims than we previously had covered um and that has incre that has caused the budget to increase not only last year but again this year um in fact what we realized was is we didn't increase the budget enough last year because we we um uh you know being conservative underestimated what was necessary and so um this is a newer policy that was put into place we are just starting to understand uh the implications uh of it but we certainly understand what we need to do um and we are trying to follow through on the on the uh statutory obligation that that we have set you all said alderman mc yes sorry all killy so I believe I asked this question at committee and I want to just ask it again because uh it so if we are passing the budget we have line item specificity and everything else if we do a bottom line cut can we pass the budget without knowing what those line items are gonna be sure you can you can I would say some people may not think it's the wise thing to do but you can thank you okay the motion before us is to cut a million dollars from the administrative services budget seeing no further discussion with the clerk call the roll please Alderman Clay

Sure, you can you can I would say some people may not think it's the wise thing to do, but you can okay the motion before us is to cut a million dollars from the administrative services budget.

Seeing no further discussion, would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

No.

Alderman Ravan.

No Alderman Tebow?

No.

Alderman O'Brien.

No.

Alderman Gregg.

No.

Alderman Dowd.

No.

Alderman Sullivan.

No.

Alderman Senate.

No.

Alderman Johnson?

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

No.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

No.

Alderman Wilshire?

No.

Two yes, 11 days.

That motion fails.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to eliminate the new position for superintendent recreation and two groundsmen position for the parks.

DPW.

Do you've heard the motion?

Discussion.

Alderman Thibault.

Thank you, Madam President.

Again, we're looking to cut.

I guess they're new, they're all new positions, correct?

Yeah, I mean, I guess if they're new positions, I'm not gonna really comment on that.

I just um the only thing I don't want to do is I don't want to cut people's jobs to get other people paid.

It doesn't make any sense.

That's like Robin Peter and Pay Paul, but in this case, they're new, so I'm I'm not gonna I don't even comment on that at the moment.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

If I if I may ask the the maker of the motion, what is the dollar amount for that?

It was no dollar amount.

I didn't get a dollar amount.

So how do we know what to cut?

How do we do business?

Well I yeah, I couldn't find the dollar.

Uh thank you.

Um Ms.

Edmund, would you if I if I may ask, Madam Um Madam President, Miss Henry, would we know what the cost of cutting those positions because they're obviously in the budget?

So to cut those positions, there's got to be a dollar amount to come out.

There's got to be a corresponding dollar amount, otherwise we don't know what we're cutting or saving.

The whole idea is numbers.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Okay, so I'm being told the motion is not in order.

Thank you.

Alderman Dowd.

I just gonna add that I believe that half of those each of those two maintenance positions were being covered under the TIFF, so it's you know, do they end up hiring one person all under the TIFF?

I yeah, I don't know.

So there's there's a lot of ambiguity with what we were trying to do.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes, because I listened to it the other night again to refresh my memory, and there were three groundmen position, I believe.

One was TIF and two were not.

Because there was a correction couple times Director Foto made a uh correction.

Three other points.

Did we go zoom?

I couldn't help I number in the budget.

Okay, I've just made a note.

Uh thank you.

Um as is attorney Bolton pointed out, this this doesn't have dollars, and therefore it's not in order, but um, just for future comment on this, um, it's not just salaries, we'd be looking at benefits and everything.

Um, and I do believe that as per um Alderman Dowd, uh couple two of those positions, I believe, um, were um for out of the TIFF to work along the riverfront and um and so on.

So with one question, director Hanum.

So one director Hannem Yes I'll um sorry it cut out a little bit, but I will just confirm that um half of each of those uh groundskeeper positions will be paid for from the the riverfront TIFF.

Um we've added a lot of extra duties uh with the new parks, and so uh it seemed like a good use of resources to get two people for the price of one for both the parks department and for the riverfront.

Thank you.

So are we waiting for numbers?

Is that it?

No, there's the motion isn't in order the final passage motion.

Okay, so amendments, proper amendments are in order and anything else.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Did this the CFO and right ever come up with the figures for the taxes?

At 8% on the different value, if I may.

Yes, John Enright, CFO.

Um I apologize.

I'm gonna have to calculate those numbers for you after the meeting.

I'm having to keep up with the meeting here, and I would like to get the county number to be able to give a better estimate.

Alderman Johnson.

Well, that doesn't do us any good if we're looking to see what the tax what the cost of the tax is gonna go up at 8% on the homes.

This way you get an idea of how much everybody's tax bill is gonna go up.

Because it's not just this, you know, it's gonna carry December into next year.

Don and CFO.

We're actually looking at the budget.

We are not looking at what the tax actually is because there are components that we have absolutely no control over, as was stated earlier.

The county tax, we have no control over that, and there are other components at the tax rate setting time that we do not know at this giving time.

So to give you an exact amount would not be uh prudent on our part.

We're talking about the budget and the increase on the budget.

Alderman Johnson, I'm just asking for the city portion, not the county, just what the city portion is gonna be.

That's gonna be the hit from the city of Nashua.

You know, that's okay.

We're good.

I don't expect anything.

Alderman Clee.

Um I have nothing.

I I I said what I had to say, but thank you, Madam President.

And I had Alderman Sena.

Well Alderman Clee had my question on the okay, Alderman Kelly.

I would like to make a motion.

Um Department 150 budget line item one eight one three oh two to reduce that line item by 900,000.

I'd like to speak to it.

How much was that?

I apologize.

Huh?

I didn't hear the amount.

900,000.

900, okay.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Uh in full transparency, I tried to make this motion at the budget wrap-up.

It was around the body cams.

I wanted a little bit more clarity on that.

Not sure that I got a full amount of clarity on it.

Um, so I wanted to bring it up again to ask more questions.

Um we're looking, we just went up 404,000.

60.

Um I think I asked, and I don't know if there's someone here from the police department.

Is this a yearly cost?

Because our yearly cost coming up to this was only about 250 to 300,000.

So our might have an answer for you.

Yeah, either Alderman Wilshire or like an answer because we were there for all the discussions of the commissioners meeting.

Sure.

We have body cameras.

They are they're uh at the end of their contract.

They they are not efficient enough to do what they're supposed to do.

And that was a lot of discussion.

They're getting new ones.

The reason it's in the budget and not a capital expenditure is because it's a lease.

And the 900,000 is only the first year cost, not not the subsequent yearly cost, which is far less.

Because the cameras come with a a bunch of other equipment, they have to record all of the body camera footage so that if it went something went to court.

I'm not looking for a description of what the body cams do.

I approved it the first time around.

I want to know is it 900,000 this year and then 900,000 next year?

No.

Like we don't know what the additional costs are gonna be because 900,000 is a 400 percent increase in this line item.

And is there a way to partial fund it so that we can also put back the an affiliates?

I feel like we're I I don't I'm not asking you to argue to me whether or not we need body cams.

I'm trying to figure out is this a one-time fee, and then what is the fees after that?

I don't think there's anybody on from the police department, but Madam President Tim Cummings here.

I can I can certainly speak to the question.

Director Cummings.

Thank you.

Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

Um I can I can say it's a reoccurring cost.

It is not at the $900,000 level after the first year of implementation.

It would drop down uh it would drop down in the range to you know between six and seven hundred thousand dollars, but it would be a year over year cost in and around that range.

Now everything I'm saying as well should be noted that we are not under contract with anyone.

We still have to go up for an RFP, so these are estimates, but it gives you an understanding or an order of magnitude of what the potential year over year budget cost would be.

Thank you.

So to clarify, it goes up 400% this year, and if it if you're right there, it's about 200% every year after that from where we are currently director Cummings?

Yes, thank you.

I I haven't done the math like that because what it's actually would be uh a reduction in the budget year over year, because after the first year that line item would be absorbed into the base budget, and then the incremental crop cost would actually be a reduction.

Um but you could see that line item consistently be in that six to eight hundred thousand dollar range year over year move moving forward.

So my number was predicated on, I believe in the book I'm I don't have a book front of me right now, but about two hundred and forty-seven thousand is what it costs us right now.

So from what our current contract is, it is a 400% increase this year and 200% each year after.

Around right, yeah, and and if I may, madam president, and we were I thank you again.

Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services, and I believe we have budgeted something like six hundred thousand, and so it would be that incremental cost on top of it, and to your point, this first year uh or the implementation year, you know, it's gonna be about nine hundred thousand, and then year over year going forward, it would be about half that if that's the way you wanted to to look at it, yes.

Thank you, uh Alderman Tebow.

Thank you, uh Madam President.

Um so uh Deputy Police Chief Kenny was here in one of our budget meetings, and he clearly said some of that first cost is not only the first year, but it's also because they have to overlap the services.

Um so that's part of it, right?

And they have to back up and make sure they store everything they currently have while they're implementing the new ones at the same time.

He also said that it's ending the contract of the old one, and if he went with the old service that we we're doing now, the increase would be almost as much as not the first year, but it would be almost as much as um what it would be subsequent years.

So it would be going up regardless of whether we stayed with this company or not, because the contract was up.

So that was clearly stated in in one of our budget meetings.

So um that's why the cost is so much.

But I I would I will not be voting to to take the body cam money out of the budget.

Further discussion on the amend the uh motion saying none with the clerk call roll, please.

Alderman Clee.

No Alderman Ravan, no Alderman Tebow, no Alderman O'Brien, no Alderman Greg Alderman Dowd.

No Alderman Sullivan, no Alderman Senate, no Alderman Johnson, no Alderwoman Kelly, yes, Alderman Morgan?

No Alderman Lopez, no Alderman Wilshar?

No one twelve maze.

That motion fails motion before us is for final passage as amended.

Seeing no further discussion with the clerk call a roll, please.

Yes, Alderman Ravan, yes, Alderman Tebow.

No Alderman O'Brien, yes, Alderman Greg.

No Alderman Dowd.

Yes, Alderman Sullivan.

No, Alderman Senate.

No.

Alderman Johnson?

No.

Alderwoman Kelly?

No.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez?

No.

Alderman Wilshar?

Yes.

Six years, seven nays.

No motion fails.

Okay.

Now we refer.

No.

No.

You want me to send this back to budget?

We go with the mayor's budget, then is that correct?

Alden Lopez.

It was pointed out to us earlier tonight that we can wait until August 1st legally.

It was also pointed out to us that if we don't pass certain elements in the budget, then some of the contracts that we were hoping to pass would also take effect through the president to the mayor.

Is that the case?

Well, um I think we should ask uh attorney bold, but I think you could pass a continuing resolution which would uh authorize spending at the same levels that we have now.

I mean, what do you think?

Um according to the charter, you have to pass a budget by the first day of the second month of the fiscal year.

So that would be August 1st.

There are other laws in place, however.

So you have to.

If you get a bill that you're required to pay for like a workers' compensation claim, you've got to have the money authorized to pay it.

We've got a bunch of collective bargaining agreements that require uh that require increases in compensation beginning July 1.

If the you know the following Thursday, people aren't getting that, we're in violation, and we can be fined.

So probably you want to do something to authorize all of those things before July 1st gets here.

Now what all those are will take some doing to figure out.

Now you can say in a continuing resolution that you'll fund at the same rate as last year, ongoing expenses.

That doesn't help you with these collective bargaining agreements, which call for increases in compensation beginning July 1st.

So there are things that can be done, but there is a quagmire potential existing.

Alderman Dowd, and then Alderman Johnson.

Yeah, my my main concern is uh the Board of Education um portion of the budget, because they start school September 1st.

They can't wait till late August to hire people or or get their spending understood.

Um I don't even know if a continuing resolution covers their expenditures as because of the increases that we've discussed during the budget season.

So I would suggest that we have uh Dr.

Andre give us an overview, or Mr.

Gray, as to uh how this might impact them.

You're talking about if we don't pass a budget until August 1st.

If they're willing to come up and uh talk about it, that's fine.

All right, uh for the record, Crystal de Grey, COO school district.

Um can I ask for clarity, maybe from corporate counsel?

So if a budget is not approved, do we fall into a default budget technically July 1st?

Not until after August 1st.

So okay, so we currently have been so we currently have um to the point that was raised, uh several collective bargaining units that are under contract.

Um there would be several positions related to special education, some of our teaching positions, um, that we wouldn't be able to go ahead and hire until the budget is actually a hundred percent approved.

So this would definitely put our staffing and probably from a legality standpoint some of the items that need to be legally obligated in IEPs at risk.

So I would think your legal line will drastically increase.

Did you want to call anything?

No, I think you covered a lot of it.

Mario Andre, superintendent of schools.

My other concern would be again without more um advice from corporate counsel on what our budget would actually look like on July 1st.

Um we do run extended school year.

It would look like you're not authorized to spend a penny.

So therefore, we actually run summer school, which is extended school year for our special education students, which were legally obligated through their students' IEDs, which would be we would be out of compliance for the those services.

So to Mr.

Gray's point, um the month of July would actually not exist for us, and we run we start summer school July 6th Alderman John Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

How did we do it back in 2002 when yourself, madam president and council?

You did illegal things.

We did a but the city still ran and the school district still ran.

Yep.

Money got expended illegally.

Well, you know, it happened back then.

The budget didn't get passed until October.

I'm a point.

It was I was one of those years that the budget didn't, because we were at our standstill.

But I I'm hearing that it's illegal, but it happened, and you on the board with me.

And it hasn't gotten any more legal now than it was then.

But I somehow.

Can I make a suggestion, Madam President?

Yeah.

Mayor?

I well, on the subject of illegality, uh I think there's a question of whether people who spend money are personally liable for spending money that's not legal, but putting that aside.

Um this the budget as amended requires 10 votes because you have raised line items within the budget.

Excuse me, mayor.

Yeah.

It requires two-thirds of those present and voting.

Two-thirds of those president voting because you've raised line items.

If all of the additions were deleted, and only the reductions were left in place, you would then only take a majority.

Correct?

Alderman Bolton?

Or excuse me.

Former elder vote and city count city attorney bold.

That would be correct.

So if you were to remove the all the additions, leave the reductions in place, you could pass this with a majority.

Well, yes, you would need a majority, but that's the previous vote didn't have a majority.

Well, maybe if the budget were lower, maybe you'd get a majority.

There are also people that aren't here, but Alderman Dowd.

Okay.

Just for clarification, are you saying that if we pass the budget the mayor gave us, we only need a majority?

Yes.

And everything else that happened through the budget season would not exist.

Well, it depends what you say in the motion.

The mayor's proposal was just to essentially delete all the increases that you've made by amendment and keep in the reductions.

But you could take out the reductions and take out the additions.

Or you could do some combination.

But if there's any single line that has increased over the mayor's originally proposed budget, then it requires two-thirds of those present and voting.

So you know the point I'm making is that you've made certain reductions.

If you want to leave those in place, that doesn't alter the votes needed.

You can still pass a reduced budget with a majority.

And if you were to delete the additions, leaving the reductions in place.

So there were no line items that actually went up, only some line items were reduced, you could pass the budget with a majority.

So just uh follow up.

Alderman Dowd.

Um, first of all, hype one would not want to be represented by of a board of Alderman that's spending money illegally.

Right.

You know, I don't care what they did years ago, they were wrong.

Yes.

And we certainly don't want to testify in open thing that we're gonna do things that are illegal.

I mean, for God's sake, you know, we'll have to add half the more staff to the corporation council.

So what you would be doing until you got to August first would not be illegal.

But if anybody in the city spent money, but they would do it would be illegal.

Does that include what we just heard from the school department?

Yeah.

Would they have to cancel it?

No, they can't.

They can't cancel summer school because it's mandate.

Somebody else mandated it without giving us any money, which is pretty difficult.

So if we were to entertain what the mayor is discussing, does that include everything that we did before we even got here?

Because there were a number of additions, including buildings.

Um built for what is that school buildings?

We added 200,000.

We added buildings for the fire to make that maintenance whole 75,000.

I think those are the only additions.

Yes.

You couldn't make no addition.

What was the point of the budget?

Yeah, no additions.

Or pass the budget as you propose it, you just need two-thirds, but you don't have you know, those that doesn't exist at the moment Alderman Clay.

Um the two-thirds with the people that are here, is that nine?

Is that correct?

We would need nine.

You would need nine of the thirteen.

Nine of the thirteen, okay, thank you.

And we currently only have six.

What's what's the board's pleasure?

Madam President, Director Cummings.

Yes, and I apologize.

I just was hoping to get a clarification.

Uh there's the golden rod as well.

So could I understand what would happen relative to the golden rod?

Um the goldenrod, only the reductions that were in the goldenrod would be included if you wanted to pass this with a majority now.

Additions in the golden rod would not be included if you want to pass this with a majority.

If you would if you increase anything, it requires two-thirds.

Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

The options that I see see them as currently are we could either um re-refer to committee, or we could basically uh as the mayor suggested, take a vote on uh the budget only with the reductions and not with the additions.

Those are the two options that I see, because you would ask for what the pleasure of the board was, and I was just laying out the options as I see them.

Thank you.

Alderman Clee.

Uh there is a third as well, and that would be just passing the mayor's budget as proposed, correct?

There were unlimited things that you could do.

I know, but I'm just saying, but that would only require a majority that would only be a good idea.

Yeah.

Alderman Morgan.

Madam President, if I may ask for a five-minute recess for everyone to maybe think, go to the bathroom, have a snack.

Motion is for five-minute recess.

All those in favor, majority of you don't get together and talk outside.

That's what I'm saying.

We shouldn't be closed.

Yes.

But we still need we still need a uh um roll call because we've got people in line.

Okay, yeah.

And why not?

We're screwing the poach my own.

Roll call, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tebow.

No.

Alderman O'Brien.

We vote on whether it's five minute recess.

Five minutes.

Yeah, let's have a research.

And the B2, I right?

Alderman Greg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

I heard you Paul.

Alderman Sullivan.

It's quarter or four in the morning over here.

Why not?

Alderman Senate.

For the benefit of Alderman Sullivan, yes.

Alderman Johnson.

No.

Alderman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

11 Yes, two nays.

That motion carries will take five minutes.

So you watched the five minutes.

Where's it?

Be back at nine.

Fifty.

Right here.

No, no, I didn't say that.

We shouldn't do that.

There's another question, but not the budget.

There's nothing there's no motion in front of us, right?

Not right now.

No.

No.

Okay.

Alderman O'Brien isn't here, I don't think.

Well, we he got the same five minutes the rest of us got.

Okay.

So what's what does the board want to do?

What do we want to do with this?

We want to send it back to committee.

Do we want to try to vote again?

What do we want to do?

Alderman Clee.

Just a a question.

If we send it back to committee, we still are gonna probably miss the July first deadline.

So I think we need to have some kind of disposition here and now and and today, because if you send it there, then we're still going to we can't expend the money.

School board can't have those classes and therefore we violate those terms and you know what some other Alderman and I and I don't mean to to pick on anybody, so I apologize if it sounds that way because I'm not um you know said well we've done it before.

I don't want to um violate any type of um laws or something, so my preference is to vote on something.

I'm sorry, I'm still for the the one that we put forward to it.

Um but I do understand my colleagues' anxiety over it, so I will let one of them make a choice.

If not, I'm gonna put a motion through that no one's gonna like well if you have a motion, speak up.

My motion is to pass the mayor's budget.

We only need a majority on that.

Discussion.

No, I'm fine.

Wow.

Alderman will pass.

Uh maybe you did go back to the board or to the president corporation council.

We made a number of amendments to the mayor's initial proposed budget, including like number changes for the insurance and withholdings.

If we do as was proposed, does those get it raised?

According to the motion just made, you're going back to the mayor's original budget as handed out.

Alderman Morgan.

Thank you.

Um further clarification, corporation council.

So um any typos and inaccuracies and everything that we saw, um, we would also be voting to pass on those.

Correct.

Thank you.

Alderman Sennet?

Alderman Morgan took my question.

Okay.

Alman Thibault.

So now the typo is uh accepted, so we get 150,000 for interns, and the mayor doesn't get paid.

Is that what that's the budget we're we're going off of?

I mean, uh nobody should be able to support some of those typos because it really changes some things.

Alderman Klee.

Thank you.

Um based on that those comments.

I'm going to withdraw my motion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any other motions?

Alderman Craig.

I don't really have a motion.

I was just gonna say, I think the the vote that we just heard reflects the frustration that we have with the budget process, the budget, not being able to see it.

Um I have already, you know, written to the CFO to try to figure out how we can make this better for next time because it was already in motion, but we have a budget that is by all means from all departments, very tight.

We have heard from all the departments.

They came in, they pled their case.

What we didn't have is what does it look like if your department has three percent?

What does it look like if your department has a six percent raise, and what if it's like full-blown whatever you want?

While I think the budget has a lot of really good um intentions with it, it's not really totally transparent because it's hard to pick those line items and say, well, this is what we're doing here, this is what we're doing there, and it's a tight budget.

So my vote no reflected more of my frustration with the process and not being able to really look at this because it is tight.

We don't have places that um we know where we can cut that being said, um, we also have places and we have a duty to the city and the employees um to take care of it.

And so at this point, knowing that we either kind of have to pass this or we're um in non-compliance and we we run the risk of a lot of different things.

I think I would probably be willing to change my vote with the caveat that I mean I think we our entire process is gonna have to really kind of get an overhaul on how we do this.

Aldman Sullivan.

Thank you.

Uh through you to corporation council, yeah.

Would tabling the budget do anything?

Could we would that would that do anything?

Nope.

Other than delay things, I can't think of any anything it would accomplish.

At some point you would you would come back and be closer to deadlines.

Okay.

Um follow-up question would be uh can if you want can you do a motion to reconsider and then basically just take the vote again and see uh yes if people change their mind for dealing with the case.

Yes, yeah, we can do that.

The motion to reconsider only takes uh majority vote and it should be made by someone who voted in the prevailing side, which would be someone who voted against it.

Uh but any time there's any intervening business, uh, you don't even need a motion to reconsider.

Someone could make the same motion again.

And I guess you had intervening business in the uh the vote for recess.

So the same motion to pass as amended would be in order.

Alderman Thibault, you had your hand up.

Yep, thank you.

Um I mean, I I came here tonight uh thinking that I was going to vote for this, although although, you know, it depending on what the amendments were and stuff, but I came here with the the budget being decreased.

And what we ended up with was a budget increase.

And so I wasn't prepared to vote for a budget that increased tonight.

Um I was happy with the the decrease enough.

Again, we could always go lower or try to find something.

You know, Alderman Greg uh said it when she said um you know that it was tight, so it was hard to cut from areas.

That's exactly the problem.

Um we just because we can cut doesn't mean we should cut things that are so lean that it would hurt something by cutting it.

You know, we don't want to cut teachers, we don't want to cut the Arlington Street Community Center, we don't want to cut athletics programs.

Um so it is tight.

So it's not always easy to just cut, and we I've been through this process for the last five years, four or five, six million out of the budget.

Most of that work's been done ahead of time.

But we did have a decrease in the budget when we stepped in this chamber tonight, and that flipped to an increase.

And um I did not want to vote for an increase.

And um, I don't have any personal animosity towards the way the budget was.

Yes, I agree.

It was not the right the book was wrong.

Uh we had issues, we have lots of copies, I get it.

But you know, we've been doing this for a long, long time in the city, and it always hasn't been this bad, and yet we've been able to either mostly pass the budget every year.

So I I get that it was tough to get through, especially for new people who haven't been through the process to try to understand all this different paperwork and shuffling around and trying to learn what line items are and this and that.

I get it, it's a budget process is not easy.

I was a newbie at one point too, but budgets were passed back then.

So I I don't have any animosity to vote no.

I just voted no because I didn't want an increase in the budget from where we started.

We start, you know, we had a decrease, that was good.

Let's not increase it.

That's where I stand for Alderman Lopez.

Um the mayor.

Um, do you anticipate us being able to pay down the tax rate at all with any unexpended revenues?

Yeah, that gets us to the eight percent.

Well, we need surplus, but I believe we will be able to do equal to what we did last year, which was six million.

But I mean, we don't have those numbers yet.

Yes.

Um we were told that the addition of supporting the unaffiliated um employees would equal about fifty dollars each.

That also suggests that the cuts that were made would have been less than fifty dollars each.

Um so at this point we are threatening to hold the budget up and not pay teachers and and summer school over approximately fifty dollars or less per resident.

Um so as uh Alderman Craig pointed out, I am not gonna die on that hill either.

And I'd rather vote to pass the budget.

Alderman Morgan.

Uh thank you, Madam President, through you to corporation council.

Is it possible to pass a half like a three-month budget or six months?

Basically, just take the numbers cut it in half or in you know, quarters, and give the departments enough time to be able to come up with um some additional adjustments.

Yes.

Six months probably not because you have to get all your yearly budget together in time to get the tax rate set in time to send out the bill that will be due in December.

So you need the full fiscal year's budget for that.

But could you pass a resolution authorizing expenditure over the next 30 days or over the next 60 days?

Yes.

I have no idea how to figure out what that dollar amount would be.

Or how you want to divide it up between school, police, fire, and every other big and small department.

Thank you.

Alderman Kelly.

Uh thanks.

I would like to make the motion to reconsider.

I was on the no side, so I can make that correct.

Yeah.

Right now, just a motion.

There's no motion to pass it, would be in order.

You don't have to do reconsideration.

Okay.

Okay.

That's what I'm making.

Motion I'll speak to it.

Motion for final passage as amended.

I feel frustrated.

I it definitely was not a clean year.

There were a lot of things that went, you know, different things that came up.

They changed, you know, each time we looked at the book, we didn't have things in our book.

I have two versions of our books.

I get it was not a great year, but I don't think that we can sit in this chamber, and I actually always get frustrated when people vote against the budget because it our city has to run.

Our city absolutely has to run.

Um so I think our job is to keep the city running.

And I also did not want to vote for an increase.

I think we spent a lot of time in the budget committee trying to come in with a decrease, and we found the places that felt appropriate, um, and we did come in with a decrease.

But I I'm not gonna die on the hill.

I think we need to fund our schools and keep our city running.

Alderman Down.

Yeah, if we're gonna vote again.

I have one additional motion to save money that the can we do that now?

My God, sure.

You're gonna move to amendment.

It well, it's something that came in this afternoon from Dan Healy.

It's not a heck of a lot of money, but it's something we should put in.

That would be in order.

That's in order.

All right, I'll make a motion to amend the budget by the amount of ten thousand and eighty-three dollars.

Uh they were city clerk is going to be digitizing records and make a long story short, they're gonna do it in internally.

So the line item which is CFO Enright has should be ten thousand four hundred, which is a reduction of ten thousand eighty-three dollars.

Would it be appropriate to provide the revised total numbers or number two?

If I may, uh just for clarification, you're looking for the total general fund appropriation number, the adjustment number.

Which if if Mr.

Dowd has just made a motion to cut an additional ten thousand some odd number, so presumably he wants that amendment also to be made in in the total.

Certainly, so the increase would only be fifty-seven thousand five thirty-two.

Yes.

Yes, give that number again.

If it gets accepted, then the increase will be fifty-seven thousand five hundred and thirty-two over the proposed budget.

Okay.

You've heard the motion?

Alderman Tebow.

Thanks.

Um, Madam President.

So to Alderman Lopez's point about the $50 in the increase, that's not the only increase that was put into this budget.

I mean, I made it one for 75,000, there's one for 200,000 for the deferred maintenance for the schools.

So it's not just the 400,000, it's all the increases on top of each other.

Now get us only a $50,000 increase in the budget, right?

So if we didn't do any of those increases and looked at all the decreases we did, we would be much lower.

It wouldn't be just $50.

So and and again, it's it's $50 is a lot to some taxpayers, you know.

Um I mean, I get a $7,000 tax bill, so I guess $50 just blends in.

But for some people that's a lot of money, it's a lot of money to me.

Uh I buy I I haven't even paid this month's tax bill yet, so I gotta get on that.

But it's um so yeah, as long as there's an increase, and when we came in today as a decrease, I will not support it.

Alderman Clee.

Um I I want to speak to once this is um this motion has been acted on.

My comment is on the amended budget.

I may see no further discussion.

Would the clerk call the roll, please Alderman Clee?

Yes, Alderman Ravan.

Yes, Alderman Tebow.

Uh this is just for the 10,000, right?

Yep, yes.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes, Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes, Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

13 yes, zero nays.

And that motion carries.

It's final passage as amended.

Final passage as amended.

Alderman Clee.

Uh thank you.

Um, Madam President.

Um the comment I want to make is um towards Alderman at large um Morgan's comment about um going with a continuing resolution or something like that.

And while I think that would be a good idea, I worked for the federal government and we lived years on can we used to call them continuing revolutions because that's what it felt like.

We were constantly um, and then at the end of the year they would throw us our budget, you know, like about February or so.

Um, and and we'd have to play catch up.

Um it was it was very difficult.

And um the truth is even if we did do this and we'd have to figure it out, we'd have to still do it by July 1st.

Um, so while I respect everybody who voted um no the last time, and if you vote no, I will still respect you.

Please understand that I think we need to do um you know our due diligence, but again, to um Alderman Thibault's comments about you know we came into this budget with uh um 200,000 dollars less than what we were um uh planning on.

I respect that, and and I get that, and I'm gonna have to face the my my constituents and the voters and so on as to why, but I also want to comment that I have voted no in the past.

I voted last year no on the budget.

Um so it's not I don't just rubber stamp it, but I wanted equity in this budget.

I would love to see it more, but cost of living is killing all of us.

So thank you, Madam President.

Alderman Greg.

Um thank you, Madam President.

I also wanted to say that we did come in with uh a cut, but we also came in with missing part of our employees that we should have taken care of.

I think that was a miss.

So while we um our our numbers are looking a little bit different, um I think that was just a huge miss that we can't we we have to also um take into consideration that we did not take care of all the unaffiliated, so that's all in Thibault, thank you.

All I can say to that is is where was that amendment in the budget committee?

Like she's part of the budget committee.

We should have talked about it already.

We and we didn't, so I'm voting noud.

Yeah, so we're gonna be reconsidering into I just want to ask a question first corporation counsel.

Yes, could we make a motion to approve the non-affiliated pay raises as of September 1st?

Well, I mean it it takes a little more wording than that, but yes, and that would be a corresponding you know, adjustment to the dollars.

Yeah, the reason I say that is that would bring us down below that 57,000, and it would be slight reduction.

We're trying to get the number of votes.

Um I dislike doing that, but uh if it's going to get the budget passed.

I'm willing to hear people talk about it before I make the motion alderman Tebow.

Um honestly I think you probably have enough votes even with my no at this point.

I guess Alderman Clay.

Just a quick question, just for my clarification.

So you're just talking about delaying it for three m three months.

I say just two.

Two months, okay.

July, August, right.

Yes, I apologize.

Thank you.

You forgot about Tom Toper.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yeah, I'm not going to support this because what I was concerned about as trying to resolve the issues in the past.

I respect Alderman Dow, but it would take away commitments that we made.

And I don't I don't back away.

I didn't make the motion, I just put it out there on the floor.

Alderman Morgan.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I appreciate that.

And um the the spirit of compromise and everyone coming to meet in the middle, and um I won't vote.

I mean it's not a motion, so I wouldn't support it.

Um, but I think that we do have the votes as Alderman Tebow had said the motion is for final passage as amended.

Seeing no more discussions, with the clerk please call the roll.

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tebow?

No.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

No.

Alderman Senate.

No.

Alderman Johnson?

No.

Alderwoman Kelly?

Yes.

Alderman Morgan?

Yes.

Alderman Lopez?

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire?

Yes.

Nine yeys.

Yes, four nays.

And that motion carries.

Resolution 26 28 is duly adopted as amended.

Second reading of R 26-039.

Discontinuing 11 expendable trust funds.

Alderman Johnson.

I'll make a motion for final passage.

Applaud dash 26 days 039 by roll call.

You've heard the motion.

Is there discussion on that motion?

Saying none, would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tebow?

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wolchre?

Yes.

13 yes, 0 nays.

The motion carries, and resolution 2639 is declared duly adopted.

Second reading of R 26-040.

Approving the cost items of three sidebar agreements between the Board of Police Commissioners in the police supervisors association.

Alderman T bowl.

I'd like to make a motion for final passage of R 26-040 by roll call.

You've heard the motion.

Is there discussion?

Seeing none with the clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Clay.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tebow.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd?

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

No.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan?

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

Twelve years, one nay.

That motion carries and resolution 26-40 is declared duly adopted.

Second reading of R 26-041 approving the cost items of a collective bargaining agreement between the National Board of Education and the National Teachers Union Local 1044 AFT AFL CIO Unit C Secretaries from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Alderman Dowd.

Make a motion for final passage of R26041 by roll call.

You've heard the motion.

Is there discussion on that motion?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan?

Yes.

Alderman Tebow.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd?

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

No.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wolchhire.

Yes.

Twelve yeah's one nay.

That motion carries, and resolution 2641 is declared duly adopted.

Second reading of R 26-044, changing the purpose of up to $1,670,000 $85 of unexpended bond proceeds from five school building improvement projects to the bicentennial school roof replacement projects.

Alderman Doubt.

Alderman Doubt.

I believe that everyone got a copy of the presentation.

It was made at budget.

If there are any questions, I can answer them.

Discussion.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

I had sent some emails to CFO and right because I was asking questions about when these invoices were paid and how long some of this surplus on these bonds was sitting.

What I don't understand when they were paid off, how come we didn't use some of the money to pay off the bonds?

The Alderman Doug.

Yes.

And that was a short time ago.

The other bills came trickling in.

We finally sat down with Mr.

Gray and Ms.

Enright and a couple other people and Sean Smith went through all the invoices, made sure all the invoices are paid, and that was a process.

And we as soon as we were sh absolutely certain that all the invoices on these bonds have been paid, and this money was eligible.

And if we don't do this action this evening, um, if you do a bond later on, it's going to cost you a lot more money, plus you'll have a lot more leaking on that roof.

You've heard the motion, discussion, Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

And I get that, but I got some payoff dates on um R-22-066 and R-24-005.

They were paid off in June of 2025.

And those were the most money.

One was 452,690, and one was $823.

And you know, I guess what bothers me is the fact that we've been paying principal and interest on this money that could have been probably used to pay off some of the bonds.

Yes, it might cost us a little bit more money now, but we might not have known about the roof.

But the taxpayers were still paying principal and interest on this money that we bonded.

And so that's what my concern is.

I will support this tonight because we have the leaky roof.

But I but that's why I started asking when did all these invoices come in?

Because this isn't you know, chump change or anything.

This is quite a bit of money here that could have been used to pay off some of the bonds, you know, where we're paying, you know, principal and interest on.

But I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention.

And like I said, I wasn't here last week when you discussed it.

We we had other resolutions with the invoices and things processing through the school department to the uh city, and now Mr.

Gray, all of that's been corrected, and and we are in a much better position today than we were not the construction, that was fine, but the invoices.

Thank you.

We keeping you up.

Sorry.

Completely teasing.

May I said exactly I think probably how we're all feeling, but yeah, um just um I I do can't disagree with what um my colleague from Ward 5 uh said, if we had paid this down earlier, we would have saved some money, but um as it's been pointed out, we didn't were here.

Um so to this is something that's that's gonna have to get done anyway.

So whether we do it now or we do it, we we do a bond in um July or August or whenever it would be at a much higher rate.

May I may I ask?

I don't know if Alderman Dowd knows this answer, but um the do you know what the current rate of the bond is?

And do you maybe I need to um I could answer that, but I'd rather have it answered by the CFO part two of that is what would we expect if we did a new bond, the rate to be.

I'm sorry.

He's never coming here again.

But I do want it to be known that I do agree with um appreciate that my ward five colleagues.

Actually, I didn't have the if I may, Madam President, Don Enright, CFO.

Um the current rate most likely would be around four and a half percent on the bonding and I need to get it to the bond page, I believe.

Um these bonds were between three and uh four percent.

So not too too much difference then, correct?

Depends on the amount of money you're talking about, right?

Exactly.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Alderman Senate.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um the reasons I stated in the budget review committee, I'm not going to support this.

Um my support doesn't come from a lack of wanting students to have secure roofs overhead.

My opposition solely comes from the fact that if this same resolution had come to us a couple weeks later, it could be calculated against uh fiscal 27, and we would not need to exempt these monies from our calculation to stay beneath the uh spending cap.

So for that reason I'm going to vote no, but it is not anything personal against bicentennial or the students or the roof there.

Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

I actually had a question about the exemption.

I was uh looking at the um, so I have the resolution up here, and it says uh reading, reading, reading, that uh second paragraph, the capital expenditures described here in of up to 1.6 million uh are deemed necessary and have been recommended by the Capital Improvements Committee.

And then here is my question, and therefore exempted from the limitation defined by Nashua City Charter 56-C, which we all know to be the spending cap, and then in um in the city charter or in the uh NROs, I see here in paragraph B, it says the combined annual municipal budget for purpose of section 56 C of the city charter does not include the following: the fund balance account, special revenue funds, all prior year escore crown, escrow accounts, Hillsboro County taxes, the overlay assessment, and then all capital projects funded by bonds.

So my question to that is are we making a special exception because of the spending cap, or is that already written into the city charter that because it's a capital expenditure funded by bond that it's automatically exempted regardless of if we decide to or not?

That's my question.

Are you sure you're reading from the city charter and not an ordinance?

Um I'm reading the NROs, that paragraph B.

The NROs are the ordinances, yeah, right.

Yeah, right.

That that's that's where I got that from.

Right.

It's illegal.

So should I ignore that?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

So to my question.

Sorry.

But what's the question?

My question is, is this because it's approved by the Capital Improvements Committee and is bonded technically?

Is it uh exempted from the spending cap anyway?

Or would we or do we we bypassing this resolution?

We have to do that.

It is to take advantage of that exception in the chart.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, would the clerk please call the roll?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Tebo.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Greg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

No.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

Twelve years one day.

That motion carries and resolution 2644 is declared duly adopted.

Second reading of R-26-045 authorizing a lease agreement with Drop Bike Corp.

DVA drop mobile mobility at 117 Elm Street.

Alderman O'Brien.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to make the motion for final passage of Ba-26-045 by roll call.

You've heard the motion.

Is there a discussion on that motion?

Alderman Kelly.

I just have a question, maybe three to the mayor.

Um I walked by City Hall on my way to have breakfast the other day, and these are already out for us, so we're not for like a month.

Why did we need this vote?

She said that she they're already deployed.

They're already out.

They are already deployed.

So why are we?

This doesn't cost us any money at all.

I guess my follow-up is why do we need this?

If it's already been done.

May I address that question?

Thank you.

Alderman and Sullivan.

Thank you, Matt Sullivan, community development director.

The answer is that it's all good.

The answer is that currently these bikes require a maintenance facility, Alderwoman Kelly.

While the bikes are deployed, we do not have a maintenance facility that will last through the season of deployment.

Currently, they're being maintained in a parking space that's being leased in the high street flats parking garage.

That arrangement is only intended to continue through the month of July at such time that it's our intent to move into the cafeteria space at the Elm Street Middle School through October of this year.

And so that was really a temporary arrangement at the High Street Flats garage.

This is a more permanent, albeit still temporary home for the rest of the deployment season in 2026, hence the reason for the lease.

Yes.

And I I was unable to come to the um what's the infrastructure, whatever meeting it was.

Oh, I'm really blurry up there.

Um I'm just I'm just interested, like we've we've done this before, and and they ended up in the river and they ended up on top of the you know, pillars to the bridge.

Like, are there different I don't know how anyone got it up there?

But like, are there different um parameters in place with this company so that we won't necessarily be seeing that sort of level of vandalism?

Madam President, if I can address the question, uh Matt Solving Community Development Director.

Yes, Alderman Kelly.

I think that unfortunately, as we look back at the VO ride deployment, which happened several years ago, as you reference, uh that deployment is, I think, remembered unfortunately based on the misconduct of individuals that as you say would uh toss bikes in the river, uh, vandalize them in various stages.

But the program was actually relatively successful at that time.

And so for all those vandalism incidents for all that misuse that deployment was quite successful, and so I can't say there are additional parameters in place to prevent someone from throwing a bike over the bridge to prevent them from unfortunately damaging a vehicle.

Um but what I hope we will find is that the benefits to the community provided by this additional micromobility access that's relatively affordable.

Uh my hope is that there'll be benefits generally to limiting vehicle transportation, allowing for folks to get around the city in a different manner than they traditionally would.

So will there still be misuse misuse?

That's certainly a possibility.

Uh, but my hope certainly is that the public benefit will outweigh any potential outlying misuse that may happen throughout the deployment season.

Thank you.

Alderman Lopez.

Um to Director Sullivan.

Um, does the lease agreement stipulate the use of the cafeteria specifically, or is it just a 117 Elm Street?

Uh I'll address that question, Madam President.

Uh the lease will ultimately stipulate the use of the cafeteria.

Uh some of the lease terms are yet to be defined, but just for the record, because I think it is important, that is the intended use, Alderman Lopez.

And if I may maybe uh jump ahead to a question that you might have, uh, we're very cognizant of the fact that the cafeteria could be used potentially again as a uh a warming station location for the 26-27 season.

So we do intend to vacate the cafeteria space in advance of any potential use uh for a warming station.

We have contemplated the fact that those uses could intersect, and we'll make sure that they don't as part of the lease that's agreed to Alderman Lopez.

If somehow this city slipped on its conscience and we decided to do a resource center there, would that also be included if in terms of the lease saying if the city found a different use for it, we could rearrange it, or is it gonna stiff it specifically stipulate the warming station?

Alderman Lopez, the lease that's being contemplated here will not speak to the resource center, sorry, the warming station use explicitly.

What it instead will do is say that there's a finite term of the lease.

And as of this point in time, what we are moving forward with is October 15th.

Um so our intent is, and I you know I shouldn't go beyond just intent.

We will be presenting a term of October 15 being the end date for this agreement with drop mobility.

In the event that there is a further conversation about using the Elm Street Middle School for something earlier in the season, there will be a need to directly revisit the terms of this lease to ensure that we're not violating the terms of it with drop bike mobility.

Uh but certainly Alderman would have the ability to have that conversation a later time.

But just to be clear, this lease term is through October 15 of 2026, um, which we believe to be far in advance of when the warming station would open uh for the year, based on conversations with Director Bagley.

Okay, thank you.

Seeing no one, uh, would the clerk please call the roll?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes.

Alderman Thibault, yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Greg.

Yes.

Alderman Dows.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Aldman Moshar.

Yes.

13 yes, zero nays.

That motion carries, and resolution 2645 is declared duly adopted.

Oh, I'm sorry, unfinished business ordinances.

Sleeping over here.

Second reading of O-26-013, amending the zoning map by rezoning land along Northeastern Boulevard in Industrial Park Drive to Highway Business HB.

Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion for final passage of O twenty six-013 by roll call.

Could I speak to it very briefly?

Alderman Sullivan.

This essentially adopts it allows our land use code to adopt to the current economic situation.

It's zone park industrial now.

This highway business allows for more flexibility in that specific area of Northeastern Boulevard.

There is talk of perhaps a uh new restaurant moving in, and I think that this uh by passing this ordinance, uh, we open up the flexibility of that uh specific area of the city, which is welcome.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Alderman Klee.

Uh thank you.

Um Madam President, I just um want to make two points.

Um first during the um we had the public hearing and then we we spoke about it at PEDC and uh um a gentleman um from the other side of the highway who was still considered a butterhead showed up.

He he was late for the um for the hearing, and he was very concerned, and his concern when he received the letter was um that the city was going to potentially take I don't understand I don't know why, but that he was gonna potentially lose his property through eminent domain or parts of it or so on, and I said no, that had nothing to do with it.

So I just want to reassure that those that are listening, is that this uh rezoning does not affect any of the residential areas, but if you're a butting, whether you're across the street or physically abutting it, um so those that are across the street from this area are not being touched or affected in any way.

Um whether or not there would be an increase in in traffic, I don't think I think it was discussed that there would be no uh true impact on traffic.

However, whatever comes there, whether it be a restaurant or something like that, still has to go in front of uh the planning board where those discussions will happen.

Um potential um traffic impact studies and so on.

This is just allowing them to um to apply for and so on.

In the past, if a restaurant wanted to come there and this isn't quite zoned, they could go to the zoning board and ask for variants or something to that nature.

Um they would still then once they're building and so on, still have to come through planning.

So this is not saying that as um my colleague from Ward 9 said, Um, you know, there's a discussion of a potential restaurant.

It's not a done deal that the restaurant just gets it.

They still have to go through all the other processes of um of the um of the the planning board and and so on.

So I just want to reassure those that are listening is that we are not allowing this restaurant to come.

We're just allowing the potential of a restaurant or something of that ilk.

So thank you.

You welcome.

I have a comment.

Alderman Johnson, thank you.

Since Ward 9 basically abuts ward five, and Northeastern Boulevard, you have a McDonald's, and now you have the big Porsche dealer, which is massive compared to the holiday inn.

You know, everybody was afraid of the Porsche deal.

It hasn't seemed to be putting in a lot of traffic there.

You have the FAA center, and you have a couple of small um business um businesses all over there.

I'm pretty confident in this that I don't think it's gonna draw as much traffic as a casino is gonna do an exit one that this is, and I hope that if there's any problems, they will contact Alderman Sullivan and myself because we I kind of abutted going down certain points, and we'll be more than happy to work with our constituents if there's any issues here, but I don't foresee anything.

You know, if we get a restaurant there, you know how much you see costs coming in, it's not gonna be like a Walmart.

So thank you for I couldn't make the meeting that night, but thank you for giving me the information.

Alderman T ball.

Sure.

Hey, it abuts uh ward A2, so give me a call.

Literally could walk there, so we'll get anyone oh Alman Lopez.

It does not abut ward four, but I know their number, so you could call me we're getting punchy.

Yeah, the hour is late.

Yes, okay.

Motion is for final passage.

Seeing no one else with questions, would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes, Alderman Tebo.

Yes.

Alderman O'Brien.

Yes.

Alderman Gregg.

Yes.

Alderman Dowd.

Yes.

Alderman Sullivan.

Yes.

Alderman Senate.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderwoman Kelly.

Yes.

Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Wilshire.

Yes.

13 yes, zero nays.

And motion carries an ordinance 2613 is declared duly adopted.

Okay.

New business resolutions.

First reading of R 26-046 authorizing the sale of surplus property.

Additional sponsors.

Alderman O'Brien.

Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Morgan.

Alderman Greg.

Alderman Gregg and myself.

Given its first reading, I'll assign that to the Committee on Infrastructure, Planning Board, and the Board of Public Works.

First reading of R-26-047 authorizing amended and restated master development agreement and fourth amendment to purchase and sale agreement with Lansing Melbourne Group, LLC regarding NIMCO site.

Additional sponsors.

And Alderman Gray.

May I also ask that it be referred to the Bida committee, please.

Sure.

Thank you.

Given its first reading, I will assign that to the Finance Committee, Planning Board, and the Business Industrial Development Authority.

BidA.

First reading of R 26-048 relative to the supplemental appropriation of 1,607,694.55 cents for various expenditures from miscellaneous revenue facility and field rental fees in assigned fund balance.

Additional sponsors.

Alderman O'Brien.

Okay.

Given its first reading, I'll assign that to the budget review committee and schedule a special board of alderment public hearing on Monday, July 27, 2026 in the Aldermanic Chamber at 7 p.m.

New business ordinances.

First reading of O 26-018, removing the total time limit for the public comment periods during committee meetings.

Additional sponsors.

Alderman Lopez.

Given its first reading, I'll assign that to the Personnel Administrative Affairs Committee.

First reading of O 26-019 incorporating the Environmental Health Department subdivision review fee with the other subdivision plan review fees.

Additional sponsors?

Alderman O'Brien.

Given its first reading, I'll sign that to the Planning and Economic Development Committee.

Planning Board and schedule an aldermanic planning and economic development committee public hearing on Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m.

in the Aldermanic Chamber.

Period for general public comment.

Stephen Scare.

Good evening, Stephen Scare Nashua.

I'm responding to board members' reactions to my comments at the June 9th meeting.

I said that the word hate is a rhetorical weapon used to silence those who question gender ideology.

I describe this ideology as a destructive and incoherent religion and challenge the board to define its basic terms.

Boy, girl, man, woman, gender, and gender identity without collapsing into circular reasoning or stereotypes.

Predictably, board members dismiss my comments as hate.

Alder Woman Cleve claimed that people are suffering because of hate for transgenders.

No, people are suffering because of medical interventions that lack sound evidence of long-term benefits.

When patients get worse after transitioning, advocates blame insufficient treatment rather than the interventions themselves.

When affirmation fails, it's always because you didn't affirm enough.

Even tragic outcomes like suicide are blamed on those who raise concerns rather than the snake oil puddlers who sell this as life-saving care.

Alderman Tebow said, I don't define people as men, boys, girls, or women.

I define them as people.

This is an evasion.

If a seasoned alderman can't tell you what a boy is, how does a vulnerable middle school girl know infallibly that she's a boy?

Alderman Smith recommended the book I am me for anyone who heard hateful or hurtful speech.

A story about affirming a child's beauty as they are.

I agree children are beautiful as they are, without puberty blockers, cross-x hormones, or surgeries that remove healthy breasts.

Gender ideology doesn't promote acceptance.

It tells girls who don't conform to stereotypes that they're actually boys who need to be chemically and surgically altered.

I recommend the book, Jack, not Jackie, available at our public library.

It tells the story of a girl who dislikes pink sparkly things and prefers bugs, climbing trees, and mud.

Instead of accepting her as she is, the story reframes her as a boy and assigns her a new name and pronouns.

The real harm lies not in questioning gender ideology, but what this religion does to young people.

The damage and the chronic pain it inflicts on girls and boys whose bodies are irreversibly harmed.

The true intolerance belongs to those who shut down debate, brand dissenters as bigots, and punish anyone who refuses to bend the knee to transgenderism.

Prove me wrong.

Instead of announcing how loving you are and how hateful I am, tell me what a transgender child is without resorting to circular reasoning or stereotypes.

Make this make sense.

Thank you.

Beth Scar.

Beth Scare Nashua.

Now that we have the judgment against the city in our flag lawsuit and the new flag ordinance has been passed, a five-year fight for my constitutional rights finally comes to an end.

For five years, Mayor Donchus decided whose message was allowed on the citizen flag pole in front of City Hall.

My Save Women's Sports flag was taken down less than 24 hours after we raised it after former Alderwoman Jan Schmidt called it a hate flag, and she pressured the mayor into having it removed.

The mayor was so frightened by my flag that he sent city workers at 8 30 a.m.

on a Sunday morning to take it down.

It feels really good that although my flag won't fly on the citizen flagpole, the pride flag won't fly either.

At the risk of again being called a hater by members of this board, I will call out what I saw at Nashua Pride this year.

The Satanic Temple marched in the parade for the second year with the demon Baffament on their banner.

Thanks to Mayor Donch's staff who approved their parade application again.

The reproductive freedom fund of New Hampshire had condoms and morning after pills freely available on their table.

And a drag performer named Lucifer Crisis performed dressed as a devil.

Another drag performer had a noticeable bulge under his two tight leotard.

Sex and Satanism are not family friendly, and there were many young children there.

I know members of this board want to focus on the happy side of pride, but the dark side was on my mind Saturday.

We were there to bring attention to the children and vulnerable adults who are left with missing body parts, pain, trauma, infertility, and sexual dysfunction after medical transition, including our friend Amanda who had her uterus and ovaries removed and her vagina closed up at St.

Joseph Hospital, leaving her body irreversibly damaged.

It's ironic that Alderwoman Smith recommended a book for children about being their authentic selves and not conforming.

And yet she called my husband hateful for saying that gender non-conforming kids are beautiful just as they are and shouldn't be put through body damaging treatments in order to conform to gendered stereotypes.

Can we all agree that our goal should be that kids grow up healthy with their bodies intact?

It's okay for boys to be feminine, it's okay for girls to be masculine.

Let's discard regressive gender stereotypes and let kids be kids.

Thank you.

And the last person is no longer here, so that concludes the public comment.

Remarks by members of the board.

I'll start over here with Alden Lopez.

Um, first I just want to comment.

Um, as was just immediately pointed out, the Pride Festival and Parade were organized.

Um it seemed like everybody was having a good time.

I think the people of Nashua generally liked it.

Um, so I want to commend the mayor for being able to pull together the parade part of that.

Um, and then uh downtown NASA Nashua Association for doing the festival.

Um, we also had a successful Juneteenth celebration on Friday.

Um, I want to recognize the um the organizers of that, uh, particularly the Family Resource Network.

Um, and on a personal note, Kim Whitaker has worked with um myself as Alderman Award for the Block Party for many, many years trying to get Juneteenth recognized and celebrated in a community way.

And there are a lot of other partners and community members who do as well.

I know Soul Sisters does um a luncheon and a breakfast.

Um, but it is nice to see a community member who really cares about the community and cares about an issue, able to find people that will work with her and make an event that is accessible and welcoming to all.

Um, I also want to thank DPW for bringing the garbage uh cans on short notice.

Um there's a little bit of a hiccup with some of our permitting process, um, but they were very receptive, responsive, and uh we appreciated it.

Um, and then finally, um, July 11th, we are doing the Tree Streets block party um from 1 p.m.

to 5.

Thank you.

Alderman Johnson, thank you.

I just want to let everybody know that Thursday on this Thursday, June 25th at 6 p.m.

to 7:30.

I'm having a ward five meeting at Maine Dunstable School, and it's been on the Nashua scoop, and also um Donna was nice enough to put it, send it out in emails, and also city events.

Um, so I don't want anybody to say that they didn't know anything about it this time, but I always make the announcement.

I'm looking forward to this time.

The mayor and a director photo cannot attend, but I'm going to have the police chief and the fire chief that's going to be there so they can answer any questions.

So I just wanted to put this out.

Thank you.

Alderman Senate.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to uh wish all the students in Nashua a uh happy summer as of anywhere between 11 45 and 12 30 this afternoon when they were all thrust upon their parents for the summer.

Um I just also want to uh remind people as I often do uh at this time that with the closure of school comes the opening of our city pools, I think by the end of this week, if not already, and um just to caution folks uh when traveling around uh Burke Street by Girls Inc.

or uh Centennial Pool over by Hudson uh Holman Stadium or um Fairgrounds Elementary and Middle School because I think one of the uh great bastions of summer vacation is uh kids being able to get together and go to their local pools and make noise and cause trouble, and uh we want them to be able to do that um safely if not rambunctiously.

So uh happy summer to all, and that's all I've got tonight.

Okay, Alderman Sullivan.

Thank you.

I wanted to use my time to congratulate uh congratulate uh Nash was uh Ubuka Uboga Accori.

Um I'm sorry if I butchered that.

He was drafted tonight, 17th overall.

And uh he went to the Oklahoma City Thunder.

Uh just for those maybe if you're not basketball fans, they were the world champions last season, 2025.

Uh, but then he was traded to the Detroit Pistons, also a very good team in the NBA.

So look forward to having him on the bench and uh playing the Celtics next year, and hopefully you get some time.

So congratulations to him and to his family.

Thanks.

Alderman Dowd.

Yeah, just real quickly, I want to thank all the members of the budget committee.

It's been uh long process getting to where we are tonight.

And uh we I have comments and have talked to several of the budget committee members, and we have changes that we want to see in the next year's budget process, and we're gonna be having a meeting.

Uh I don't know whether it's gonna be a budget meeting or a separate meeting to decide how we want this to look going forward, Alderman O'Brien.

Yes, uh, I would just like to sadly make the board aware that the uh Nashua Fire Rescue lost a very good guy, Deputy Chief Glenn Talking.

Uh he was one of the ones didn't immediately, but he took over my position uh group one.

But Glenn was an outstanding firefighter, great family, and uh he will be sorely missed.

It was pancreatic cancer.

I had cancer myself.

It's what you do.

Step in.

But it happens, it happens.

And I'm glad that we're compensated, and I'm glad to stay realized.

But for us, what you're concerned, it is classified as a long uh line of duty death.

And so I wish detergents all the best.

And uh Glenn, someday we'll see up in heaven, brother.

Take care.

Thank you.

Alderman Tebow.

Thank you, madam president.

Um, yeah, congrats to Abuka, Corey.

Um, I'm glad he got moved to Detroit instead of Memphis.

Um, or because it was Memphis originally.

Um, so uh I prefer him there.

Uh also um, so the Pride Festival was excellent.

Um, thank you for uh the mayor and his staff for putting on the parade, although it was smaller than normal and a different route.

It was still excellent.

Um it's it's shameful that the that people want to shun a community because they just don't agree with with what they are or what they do or um who they love, and that that's just awful.

It's awful people.

Um they were thrown out, they may not have told you that, but they were thrown out because you know what?

It's a private community event.

They were in there taking pictures and taking video of people, the vendors that were there serving the people and other people, and they had to be thrown out of there because it's a private community event.

Also, yeah, there was kids in there.

You know why?

Because the parents that approve of going in there took their children in there.

No children were just running into Holman Stadium past the gates and hanging out in there and seeing all kinds of crazy things, sacrifices and all kinds of stuff that the people say that happens in there.

Um you know, I heard today uh someone who was running for governor called me and told me uh what a great event it was.

Um that's the only reason they called me.

They didn't call me for support or any other kind of thing.

They just wanted to tell me how great that event was, and it was one of the best pride events they've been to, and they were at the Portsmouth Pride Festival earlier in the day.

So kudos to the National Downtown Association.

Again, you shouldn't be going into events that you shouldn't be at.

So you can laugh all you want.

You're a hater.

I'm glad, I'm glad that uh I'm glad you think it's funny to hate on people that are just trying to live their lives without being bullied and and uh brutalized.

Um and then finally on the budget.

I hate to vote no on a budget.

I absolutely hated to vote no on it.

Um, and you know, it wasn't political at all.

I just wanted it to be a decrease instead of an increase.

Um for people who will use it politically, and there will be people out here probably on this board that will use it politically and saying, hey, we got the money back to the unaffiliated people.

Um it was never brought up once except for the time that all the woman Kelly put in the fire unaffiliated, and I approved I voted for approval of that.

So because it was done in the budget, and I knew where we were standing, and I knew we were still coming in under, I said yes to that.

And I believe strongly in a strong fire department and a well-paid fire department.

Um no one mentioned it before.

No one, we had two sessions, two sessions of people can make amendments on the budget committee.

No one did, and yet I'm hearing today.

Oh my god, the the passion to to put this money back in there.

I didn't hear one time except for the fire, which we did.

So for people to come in here now and say, Oh, yeah, I've been thinking about this the whole time.

If we brought it to the budget committee, maybe we could have used those sessions to pair off money, which is hard to do in this session.

It's hard to do in this this aldermanic meeting.

We could have done it in the budget sessions a lot easier than tonight.

And so I wasn't gonna vote yes on that.

I'm sorry.

And if people are gonna take a victory lap tomorrow that they get the pay, I'm not against them getting the pay.

I just didn't like the way it happened, and I didn't want to put an increase in the budget.

So sorry, not the year to do it, but thank you.

Uh, first of all, uh personal apology.

Uh, I was late for personal reasons, and I apologize to everyone for the lateness.

Uh, two things.

Uh, Ward 1, the CMC emergency room is opening soon.

There will be a uh ribbon cutting ceremony.

I will get you the date.

Uh come on down and watch the women get cut.

Uh but not unsafe.

Yeah.

So, and second of all, uh, the actor singers uh teen group will be doing the School of Rock this weekend, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Uh, and it's just gonna be a hoot.

So come on down.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um, Madam President.

Uh, first, I I want to um thank my my colleague um Alderman Thibault for his passion, and he's 100% right.

Um, I I should have asked someone to do that, and I will throw myself on the sword for this one.

Um, no, I I will.

You can say no you want, but I I will because the truth is I wasn't thinking that the firefighters had been extracted from the um affiliated.

So that is that's on me.

Um, and I take full responsibility for it.

You are 100% right on everything you said, and I don't think anybody's gonna fault you for it, or anybody else who voted against the budget.

So please know that.

Um, and I on that note, I want to thank all my colleagues for that.

You're going through the entire process.

I think we all needed to go through that.

The the vote of no, the discussion as to what could happen next.

Um, I think it's important education for us and so on.

Um, I I'm not thrilled with the budget either, but it is what it is, and I did not want to hurt anybody going forward.

So and I I want to also thank my colleagues, um Alderwoman Greg, who um I know is truly under the weather, but stuck it out for this meeting, and um she's here, as well as um Alderman Sullivan, who is on the other side of the ocean, um, and um in a different time zone and so on, and he stuck it out for this meeting.

Um, two really good people for um for what they're doing and and so on.

But um, I want to make comment to um the the public speaker.

First off, I respect everything that that person said.

Um I don't think it was very nice for the person in the audience to be laughing.

While it is their right if we were to sit here and laugh at something that they had said, we would be severely chastised as well.

We should.

So I think we should all be respectful of when people are speaking and not try to make the laugh so loud that everybody could hear it to let you know the disdain.

Um last week um someone laughed when I spoke, and that person came over very kindly and apologized to me.

Um and we had a very decent conversation.

I also want to comment um that I did tell that person that I had two family members who committed suicide because of gender identity, and it was truly as a result of gender identity and not being accepted.

Um my uncle, who we didn't find for one week, had hung himself in the middle of a heated August um summer, so you can imagine what his body was like when we found it.

We couldn't even read the uh note in his pocket.

Um but he had been suffering from that, and my um first cousin um Tommy, who took a gun to his head because his his parents turned on him when he came out to them.

So um to say that the gender identity conflict and so on does not push someone to suicide um was just a one-sided um comment.

And um, and I'm not gonna call it hate speech because I just I think it's your opinion, but it's wrong.

And as far as a satanic um type of people that were at the um pride parade, if this had been a Halloween parade, would they have felt differently that young people would see this satanic and and so on in someone dressed as a devil?

So having said that um uh we're all exhausted, and thank you for indulging me, Madam President.

Um just thank you for everything tonight, everybody mostly on their best behavior, so thank you all for that.

Um I just want to um reflect on the time that Alderman Clemens has been absent and um certainly not wishing to be in his shoes at this time, but I wish him well and I wish his family well, his wife.

That's all committee announcements okay, Alderman O'Brien.

Uh yes, madam chair, uh uh president would like to make a motion uh that the June 23rd, 2026 meeting of the Board of Alderman be adjourned by roll call.

Motion is to adjourn.

Would the clerk call the roll, please?

Alderman Clee.

Yes.

Alderman Ravan.

Yes, Alderman Tow.

Yes, Alderman O'Brien.

Yes, Alderman Gregg.

Yes, Alderman Dow.

Yes, Alderman Sullivan.

Yes, now we can get breakfast.

Go to bed, John.

Alderman Sonnet.

Yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes, Aldwoman Kelly.

Yes, Alderman Morgan.

Yes.

Alderman Lopez.

No.

Yes.

Twelve years one day.

That motion carries, and we are adjourned at 11.03 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.