Department heads in Oh my god.

Uh there are extra copies now up by the podium.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is seven oh three PM on Monday, June twenty second, twenty twenty six.

Counselor at large Ian April, Counselor of Ward Two, Scott Pemberton, Councillor of Ward One, Leo Shap, Councillor of Ward Five, Joseph Lopes, Counselor at Large, Brian Gomes, Counselor at Large, James Roy, Counselor at Large, Naomi Carney, Councillor of Ward Three, Sean Oliver, Counselor at Large, and First Vice President, Shane Burgo.

I would like to note that this meeting is being live streamed and recorded, and that City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under quick links, then meetings.

I'll ask the clerk if there are any letters to be read into the record.

Mr.

President, there are not.

Okay.

I'll ask the clerk to move on to item A.

Mr.

President, item A is communication from City Council President Pereira to City Clerk Dennis Farius, calling a special city council meeting on Monday, June 22nd, 2026 at 7 p.m.

in the City Council Chambers, the second floor of City Hall for the FY27 final budget and budget cut session.

Motion received in place on file.

A motion to receive in place on file was made by Councillor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item begin the cuts.

Mr.

President.

If I may.

Chair mechanized Council of Burgo.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

As I reflect before we begin on our amendments to these proposals, I just want to take this moment as I reflect on how we arrived at this moment.

I can't help but think back to the day this budget was first introduced.

Many will remember that I had a bit of an outburst on this council floor.

My frustration was not about politics.

It was about people.

It was about the dedicated city employees who have spent decades serving New Bedford, many of whom were treated as no more than line items to be eliminated.

It was about the disrespect shown not only to this council, but to the men and women who have devoted their careers to keeping this city running.

I never imagined an administration could handle such a difficult financial situation in such a cold and dismissive manner.

Yet here we are.

After that moment, I did issue a formal apology.

I did so not because I did not want my sorry, I did so because I did not want my choice of words to become a distraction from the real issue at hand.

And so I say to the employees who have been laid off in this process, those who were effectively treated as sacrificial lambs in this budget crisis, I want to speak directly to you.

You are not line items.

You are not expendable.

You are individuals who have been dedicated servants.

You have spent years and in many cases decades of your lives to public service in this city.

Your work mattered, your contributions mattered, and the impact you made on this city and our community will be felt long after this budget is passed.

It's troubling to see careers end in such an abrupt and uncomfortable way.

No one who has given so much of themselves to this city deserves to be cast aside without dignity or recognition.

On behalf of this council and on behalf of the residents you served every day, I want to thank you for your years of service, and I want you to know that your work did not go unnoticed.

To the administration's credit, significant reductions were necessary, and we should acknowledge that.

But let's be honest about why those reductions occurred.

These reductions were not the result of a newfound commitment to fiscal restraint, but rather because there was no other choice.

What concerns me most is that throughout this process there was no effort to build a coalition of partners to solve the problem.

A city government is not one person or one office.

It consists of the mayor, the city council, school committee, and often the state delegation.

At a time when collaboration was desperately needed, this administration chose to pursue its own priorities rather than bring everyone to the table.

The result was a proposal that cut more than 4.5 million from our schools, threatening educational services and transportation for our children, a blacking out of a fire station, laid off firefighters, and a canceling of a fire academy that would have helped keep up with staffing.

Yet somehow, whenever difficult decisions are being made, there always seems to be money available for positions at the top.

There is always money available for additional administrative salaries.

There is always money available for the solicitor's office, ensuring the mayor has a team of lawyers prepared to defend whatever position he wishes to take, even when those positions stretch or outright misinterpret the law.

There happens to be money for a civilian chief of staff position within the police department while efforts to recruit and hire new police officers remain stalled in a department that has been understaffed for years.

And while taxpayers fund a growing number of six-figure administrative positions, the police union remains without a settled contract for nearly two years.

One would think that with all the resources dedicated to management, resolving such a critical issue would have been a priority.

Yet, like many things under this administration, it remains unfinished.

What makes this civilian position particularly troubling is that when this council requested the job description of the chief of staff, we learned that the actual functional title is not chief of staff at all.

The position is described as a deputy director of administrative operations.

Of course, that title does not exist anywhere in our code of ordinances.

That should concern everyone because it is not an isolated incident.

It is a part of a clear and recurring pattern of abuse.

If the administration believes the police department needs a deputy director of administrative operations, then it should come before this council, create the position through the proper legislative process and allow for public discussion and oversight.

Instead, the administration simply assigns a different title, avoids the ordinance process, and proceeds as though council approval is unnecessary.

That approach raises a fundamental question.

Are these titles being created to meet legitimate operational needs, or are they being created to avoid scrutiny and justify a particular salary level?

Unfortunately, the police department is not the only example.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this administration's approach to government is right at the top of the organizational chart.

The two positions listed in the mayor's office budget as chief of staff are not new to us.

They are the two chief of staff positions.

We know one is the actual chief of staff, and one functions as the city's chief operating officer.

The problem is that there is no chief operating officer title in our code of ordinances.

Rather than doing the work necessary to create that position through the legislative process, the administration simply lists both positions as chief of staff so the second position can be compensated at the same pay grade.

Think about that for a moment.

In the police department, a position functions as deputy director but is labeled chief of staff.

In the mayor's office, a position functions as a chief operating officer but is labeled chief of staff.

Different departments, different circumstances, the same result.

The administration avoids creating positions through the ordinance process and instead assigns whatever title is most convenient.

That is not transparent or collaborative government, and it certainly is not respective of the legislative process.

If the position is truly a chief operating officer, then create the title, submit the ordinance, work with the council, follow the process.

Same goes for the deputy director position.

But that would require acknowledging that the council has a role.

What we continue to see instead is an administration that continues, that looks continues to look for ways around the council rather than ways to work with it.

Now we might understand why the solicitor's office is always fully funded.

Time and again, positions are rebranded, titles are manipulated, and organizational structures are altered in ways that avoid the public discussion and approval that our ordinances require.

This administration believes it can govern on its own without oversight or accountability.

That is not how our government is supposed to function.

At a time when we are tightening our belts, we cannot afford to lose the people doing the real work on the ground.

We can't afford to eliminate frontline positions while protecting layers of administration.

We can't afford to tell firefighters, teachers, city workers, and taxpayers to sacrifice that sacrifices are necessary while six-figure management positions remain insulated from scrutiny.

The people of New Bedford do not experience government through titles in the executive office.

They experience government through the firefighter who responds to their emergency, the teacher educating their child, the police officer patrolling their neighborhood, and the public employee maintaining the services they rely on every day.

Those are the people who should be protected first.

Last week, during a finance committee meeting, we heard something that should concern every resident of this city.

The mayor's chief of staff, the legitimate one, openly stated that cuts made by this council to his office would simply be ignored.

Because in his view, there is a different standard that applies.

Those were his words, not mine.

Think about what that means.

And the response from the administration is that those decisions need not be respected because the rules somehow apply differently to them.

That is not how government works.

No department is above the law.

No administration is entitled to spend taxpayer dollars in defiance of a body that is legally charged with appropriating them.

What is particularly disappointing is the attempt to portray these discussions as politically motivated attacks on the mayor.

That is simply not true.

Had this administration genuinely included the council in setting budget priorities instead of conducting performative listening sessions designed to create the appearance of collaboration, they would have heard exactly what we have been hearing from the people we represent.

The residents of New Bedford are asking us to be their voice.

They are telling us that in difficult financial times, taxpayer dollars should be directed towards services that directly impact their lives.

They are telling us that public safety matters, education, and neighborhood services matter.

They are telling us that government should prioritize the people doing the work, not the politically favored few at the top.

The people of New Bedford expect us to speak up when priorities become disconnected from reality.

And if anyone wants to talk about politically motivated cuts, they should look no further than what this administration has done to the fire department over the years.

Not just this year, but over the last 14 years, firefighters have repeatedly found themselves in the crosshairs whenever difficult budget decisions were made.

We've seen prolonged staffing disputes.

We've seen resistance to firefighter hiring and concerns about minimum manning.

We've seen repeated battles over resources, equipment, and personnel levels.

We've seen public statements that cast firefighters as budget problems rather than recognizing them as an essential public safety asset.

This did not happen overnight.

This has been a slow, slow boil.

Year after year, decisions were made that weakened the department's ability to provide the level of service our residents and firefighters deserve.

The pattern is difficult to miss.

When budgets become tight, frontline public safety personnel are asked to sacrifice while administrative growth continues elsewhere.

When priorities are set, the fire department too often finds itself fighting for resources that should never have been in question.

That is not fiscal responsibility.

That is a pattern of abuse.

So tonight is not simply about balancing a budget, it's about restoring accountability, and it's about demanding that every department operate under the same standards.

It's about standing up for the taxpayers who expect their government to function responsibly and honestly.

I want the mayor and his administration to hear this clearly.

So long as I have the privilege of serving the people of New Bedford, I will continue asking difficult questions and demanding the answers and challenging actions that I believe undermine the public trust.

No mayor should govern unchecked.

No administration should be permitted to ignore the law, and no elected official should remain silent when they see their city heading in the wrong direction.

I thank you for the time tonight, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councillor Oliver.

I don't know if I'll be able to keep up with that one, but it'll be shorter, I can promise you that.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Good evening, everyone.

Before we get into tonight's work, I want to take a moment to thank everybody in this room, the department heads, the city workers, both past and present, to no fault of their own, and my colleagues on the council.

This has been an extraordinarily difficult budget season.

And I know many of us in this room have spent countless hours trying to make the numbers work and to justify the process that we're going to be going through, while continuing to provide the services that many of our residents depend on every day.

I want to be clear that none of the decisions or recommendations or cuts that are proposed here tonight are personal.

They are not politically motivated.

Even every department that is represented here tonight, they have important performances and important work to do.

And every employee that contributes to making the city of New Bedford a better place to work, a better place to live, and a better place to raise a family.

Our responsibility tonight is to not to judge value on any department or employee.

Our responsibility tonight is to represent the taxpayer who sent us here into these seats.

That is the work of the families who are raising a fan uh raising their families here, the seniors that are trying to live in their homes on a fixed income, whether whether they know it or not, if they can delive, they get to live in the homes that they've on a fixed income that they've uh been able to call home for decades, and about the young families who are trying to start a family here, uh whether they can stay.

Those are the people that I'll be thinking about tonight, and I hope that my colleagues uh will as well.

I also think that it's important to realize the reality of the process before us.

Regardless of what the recommendations come from from come out of this chamber tonight, the administration ultimately retains the significant authority over the resources and allocations to the funds and where they're going to be spent.

We all understand that.

But this budget process is one of the few opportunities that this council has to send a message and to advocate on behalf of the taxpayer that we represent.

This is our bite of the apple.

And because of that, I want to encourage all of us that are going to be making the decisions tonight to approach this evening with a willingness to make the difficult decisions.

If you believe additional reductions can be made without jeopardizing essential services, then cut it.

If you believe that you can find efficiencies throughout the year, then cut them tonight.

Because tonight isn't about what's comfortable, it's about the people of New Bedford who are making those difficult decisions, financial decisions, every day in their homes.

They expect us to show the same discipline when managing their tax dollars.

And let's let things let's keep this in mind as well.

You may see a proposed reduction tonight that you may not exactly agree with.

I encourage you to cut it anyways.

Some things that stands alone or stands out that may not make sense to you.

We're gonna find the money.

This this administration has already told you that they are only going to acknowledge the cuts that they want to from this body.

So take our opportunity with our one bite of the apple to cut it.

Let them come to us through the appropriate channels and through the transfer process or a supplemental budget and let them show us where the money is.

Check every cupboard, check every couch cushion, and turn over, you know, all the furniture to find every dollar that we can.

Because that's what the people of New Bedford are doing right now just to survive.

So without taking up any more of my colleagues' time, I'm sure there's others that need to spend their time.

I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Counselor.

Uh just I forgot to recognize before uh a while ago that we were joined by Wood Force City Councillor Derek Baptiste.

Uh Chair Recognizes, Councillor Gomes.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Well, I'm going to take a little different approach.

First of all, we're in a situation that we're in because we're 32 million dollars in the hole.

That's that's the main thrust of this.

And I don't understand how it happened.

I don't understand how every department head and I commend the department heads as it's been said by other colleagues for the job they do in the workers uh across the city.

I don't understand how you ask for a proposed budget, and everybody walks in with their budget, submits it, and then the budget comes out a little different.

You see this here?

You see this here?

This is the budget.

This is BS.

I said it before.

Because I come from budgets that are that thick.

Show us every line where every money is going to, and there's some people in here that might have had the opportunity to see those kind of budgets.

That budget is a stuffed dig.

Okay.

Where's the government on classified?

Where's a lot of line items because you stuck them all in somewhere?

You stuck them all in somewhere.

You're not going to recognize the cuts that's going to come out of the city council.

Me, I'm more worried about those five stat fire station and them firefighters and the people that have lost their jobs.

I'm worried about them 24 police officers that are not going to be on the streets that the city of New Bedford rightfully deserves from the tax that people pay for in the city.

That's where I'm worried about.

And I'm also worried about accountability.

It seems like nobody wants to use that word, accountability, but I'm going to use it.

Accountability for how we got to where we are.

It's funny that some of us are held accountable for our actions.

The hot department heads, counselors, whatever.

But for some reason, this administration is not held accountable.

There's no explanation for how we got there.

And the explanation that is given is the pension, the insurance.

Well, don't we hire somebody every year?

Isn't there somebody in the budget?

At least uh I think there is.

Uh they're supposed to deal with the insurance and watch that wave and go with what's best for the workers, go what's best for the city.

We've had that for a long time.

Long time.

We tonight are gonna cut whatever we cut.

He's not gonna recognize it.

That's okay.

That's okay, but I gotta believe that we should be more focused on all those people that lost their jobs, as one of my colleagues has stated this evening.

That's what's important.

What the services that the people of the city have lost and are going to lose.

And more importantly, what their taxes are going to look like.

And we're talking about this like it's nothing.

Like it is nothing.

Hey, your taxes are going to go up a thousand, your taxes are going to go up 1,500.

Where are people going to get it?

Where are people going to get it with the increasing costs of everything?

We can stand here and say, oh, this is happening all over the commonwealth, this is happening all over the country.

I don't accept that because I think New Bedford's better than that.

And I think the leadership that runs New Bedford should be better than that.

We don't follow the lead of everybody else.

And I've seen that so many times in this administration, because it always falls on everybody else.

It's everybody else.

It's our problem.

Why didn't you deal with it?

Why don't you come and tell us how I still want to know where 32 million dollars stretched out that put us in this situation?

32 million dollars.

And we don't have any idea of where we're going to get that money from.

So what are we doing here?

We're carrying on the deficit and anything else that's created in this city.

I'm a basic guy, just like our constituency.

I want to tell them the story so that they understand.

Is that what we got here?

Is that what's going on here?

Because that's what it seems like.

Shh.

Shh.

Again, don't you challenge?

And even if you do challenge, shh, they'll shut you down.

Because you got people out there that are doing the laundry for this administration.

You realize that.

I don't care.

I don't care.

Nothing to lose here.

Because you know who's losing the people of this city.

There are people out there to do the laundry, including the media.

The media always doing the laundry for the mayor, never doing the laundry for the city council.

The red be right up the attack that city council.

They're wrong, they're wrong.

No, we're not wrong.

We're not wrong.

Again, accountability.

I want to know.

And that's why I've asked for the inspector general to come in.

You know, I think if somebody else in this council had proposed that, it would have got some recognition so the people know.

Again, shh, they don't want the people to know.

They don't want the people to know that this council asked for the inspector general to come in and check out the books.

And I'm sorry to those department heads here.

Remember something, ladies and gentlemen.

Just months ago, we are told, I think we pay membership for it, but somebody came in and audited the books and told us how good the books were in here.

We're triple A, we can do this, we can do that, we can do that.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

They ought to be fired.

Get your membership back because they didn't pick up on this.

Nobody picked up on this.

You, Mr.

Mayor, did not pick up on this, or your administration before you had the department's heads of this city submit their budgets for the upcoming year?

You didn't have any clue.

You proposed a hundred million dollar police station, rah-rah-brah.

Put it on halt two weeks later.

That's incompetence to me.

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen.

That's incompetence.

You didn't know what was happening before that, and I don't care where it lies, because you've got to understand this administration has been one administration that don't care where they put their feet or who they put their feet on.

You understand?

Because they think they're all mighty.

You know that look, some of you.

You know that look that you get from him from the side when he looks at you from the side and says, leave it alone.

Leave it alone, Mr.

Mayor.

You're talking to your kids.

You're not talking to me.

You don't talk to me like that.

Tonight, we'll do what we have to do.

But I'm going to tell you right now, it's not over.

There's a problem here.

There's a big problem here.

And no matter what we do with this budget, and we can cut.

And I didn't submit that many cuts because you know why I didn't?

Because I started to look around and I see people who have already lost their job.

Who else will lose their job?

Who are what other services will go?

And then we propose something stupid like a green space assistant.

Like this the person that cuts the grass or doesn't know, at least that's what I got out of it.

We're going to hire somebody.

When you just knocked out firefighters, you just knocked out police, you just knocked out city services to the people of the city.

It's not making sense.

And I want to make sense of it all.

And I think that uh administration has an obligation to not fluff and stuff it to tell the people how we got to where we are.

What did you do?

Where'd you spend the money?

You can send me out these shots.

I've said it before.

Let me see the slips.

You know, it's funny how when we do our business in our lives, we spend a thousand five hundred fifty-nine dollars thirty-nine cents.

Around here, it's always an even number, always an even number.

I want to see some slips to tell me that things are above and beyond what they're supposed to be, and it's taking this budget where it is.

Because something stinks here, and I believe I'm on the right track.

I just haven't figured it out.

But we're on the I'm on the right track.

Something is not right here.

And the mayor has an obligation, and this city has an obligation to tell the people.

And I'm not ready to take on, and I'll cut it back, Mr.

President.

I'm not ready to hear from the people of this city.

Remember when we set the tax rate back in December.

I went for the lowest factor for the people of the city.

Some felt in this building that we should go up a little higher.

You know what that's going to do to those tax bills.

Remember that thousand you talked about, just add on a couple of hundred more.

Add a couple of hundred more.

I'm very, very worried about those people.

And I'm very worried about the services that are rendered here and what we pay taxes for.

You pay taxes for public safety, and most people, that's all they're asking for.

If the kids are out of school, they don't have them in school.

The seniors, where are they going to get the difference?

It's a messed up place.

And um I'm not sitting by.

I'm just not going to sit by and let it go.

I'm going to keep on snooping.

I'm going to keep on voicing my opinion, and I don't care who says who who has anything to say.

You're not going to stop me.

You can fluff and stuff it.

You can shut us off in the media.

You can do whatever you want.

The people are not stupid.

We represent some very intelligent people across the city, and they know what the hell is going on.

And it don't need the media to fluff and stuff it for the administration while we take the beat in trying to fix what's wrong.

$32 million, let's not forget that.

We cannot forget that as we do this tonight.

This is going to affect some other people.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr.

President.

God bless our city of New Bedford.

God bless the people who work for the city of New Bedford each and every day, these department heads, the people who put in the real meat and potatoes.

And God bless those that we took their job that we didn't take their jobs away.

The administration took their jobs away because he had no other way out, and that's where he goes all the time.

It's the small guy, it's the taxpayers.

And then, oh, let me finish it this way.

By the way, tonight we are having a fundraiser somewhere.

$500,000, maybe it's $5,000.

What the hell?

Them are not our constituents.

Those are not our people.

So who are you controlled by?

The big money?

That's the problem in government.

Is give me the money, giving me the money.

Let me get my kitty all worked up and everything.

That just shows power.

I got power.

I can run for this, I can run for that.

Let me tell you something.

This council has never had money.

I finished number one while others had to spend hundreds of dollars.

I spent pennies.

This administration tonight to have a fundraiser and publicize it on the night that we're doing budget cut.

You got to be one sick individual.

One sick individual, and whoever's responsible for that, again, shows the incompetence.

Because I wouldn't be telling the people that I'm having a fundraiser.

Don't want to tell them where the address is because you don't want the fire department.

They weren't going to go anyway.

You have your fundraiser and you enjoy yourself.

And you take those thousands of dollars and you build it up.

It's just like the $84 million that was spent in COVID money.

You see the total of what he made back as far as donations?

$84,000.

Give away $84 million of city taxpayers' money.

Didn't take care really anything for the people of this city, but you received $84,000 to your kitty.

Oh, how sweet it is, how sweet it is.

That's money.

That's power.

No.

My mouth is power.

The people of the city are power.

Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councillor Loebs.

Thank you, Council President Pereira.

I never enjoy going up after Council Gomes once.

I don't speak as long, and no do I articulate as much as Council Gomes does.

But it I will echo some of the sentiments of the at large council to my left.

The city administration has cited a deficit of 32 million dollars.

We've read it in the newspaper, heard it on the radio.

But that figure includes over 14 million dollars in department enhancements, new unfunded positions, program expansions, and one time equipment and capital needs.

Now we've all I've taken accounting classes, we've all balanced our checkbooks.

A true depot a true deficit is the gap between recurring revenue and recurring obligations.

What we have to pay, not what we would like to pay down the road.

Department enhancements or wish list items are a nice thing to have when it the budget is better.

But right now, that is an unfunded request by the administration or department head to the administration, not a structural deficit.

There is a difference between a request for funding for an employee, new tools or equipment, and an actual department deficit.

The deficit the administration projects has been inflated to create pressure on the constituents for the raising of taxes.

We all know that taxes are gonna go up in the administration as it takes the full tax levy as well as what is available to him.

And as the council to my left stated, we know taxes are gonna go up by the amount, we don't know.

The mayor is gonna raise taxes, and he's gonna change the organizational structure of how this city operates.

Behind me to my right is the fire chief.

Every fire chief during my tenure has had the same exact position as this young man.

I'm gonna say you're a young man because younger than me.

Every time there is a budget crisis, we're gonna close the station, we're gonna lay off firefighters.

Scott Lang, nothing against former mayor ling was the first one to do it during my tenure.

Mayor Mitchell has done it.

But every fire chief has been under the knife like no other department head.

And we all say the one insurance policy that we have in the city is public safety.

EMS, fire, and police.

We hope we never need it.

Nobody ever wants to call 911 for the House.

But if you do, you don't want a situation like in Fall River where there's only three people on a piece of equipment and not four, and we saw what happened.

The thirty-two million dollar number being proposed has inflated by the administration to include over 14 million dollars enhancements.

Now we can all say we know health insurance gone up and pension obligations have gone up.

Yes.

And do we need to continue to work to reel those in?

Yes, we do, and that is the body of the third floor and the second floor, collectively working together for the betterment of the community.

But that is where we have an issue.

The third floor and the second floor doesn't always talk.

Never mind the third floor with anybody else.

As was said previously, we know the fire department and the sorry the police department has gone without a contract for multiple years now.

That has been the process of every mayor that I can remember.

Rosemary Turney, Fred Calis, Scott Lang it doesn't matter who that mayor is.

They always go to the drag it out for as long as they can and then negotiate a contract that either has long back pay or a signing bonus.

And at the end of the day, this is the body that the administration has to work with to remedy those situations.

It would be nice if we could work together more than that one day out of the year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

All right.

Alas with that being said, we're going to begin uh the budget cuts.

I'll ask the clerk to begin.

Mr.

President item one is a proposed cut to the assessors, other charges and expenses to eliminate travel dues and subscriptions in the 700 account and the amount of 26,087 dollars proposed by Councillors Pereira and Abreu.

Councilor Abrew.

Yep.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

No.

No, Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

Council Loebs.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes six to five.

Item passes six to five.

We'll move to item number three.

Is cutting the auditors.

Personal services, project coordinator, the 100 account, the amount of $56,401 offered by Council Pemberton, Abrew, and Shoket.

Thank you.

Council Abrew.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes.

No, Council Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight.

Thank you.

Item four is in the auditors in the 100 account, the amount of $2,000 offered by Councillors Lopes, Abrew, and Carney.

Council Abrew.

Yep.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Council School Cat.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 10 to 1.

Item passes 10 to 1.

That'll bring us to number 5.

Item 5 is from the auditors.

In the amount of uh 200 account in the amount of 44,580 and 60 cents.

Offered by Council Abreu.

Councilor Abreu.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shulquette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails one to ten.

Fail 1 to 10.

Number six.

President item six is in the auditors in the 200 account in the amount of 33,435 and 45 cents offered by Councillor Abrew.

Counselor Abreu?

Yes, Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails one to ten.

Item fails one to ten.

Number seven.

Account in the amount of twenty two thousand seven hundred and eighty-two dollars offered by Councillors Burgo, Abrew, and Carney.

Councilor Abrew.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes 9 to 2.

Mr.

President.

Item passes 9 to 2.

That brings us to number 9.

Mr.

President, item 9 is a proposed cut in the auditors in the 700 account in the amount of $3,000 offered by Councillor Schoquette.

A brew Pemberton and Pereira.

Councilor Abreu.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Schulquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven or four.

Item passes seven to four.

That brings us to number eleven.

Mr.

President, item eleven.

Offered by Councilor Pemberton.

Council Abreu.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails two to nine.

Item fails two to nine.

That brings us to number twelve.

Mr.

President, item twelve is the proposed cut in the city clerk's office and two hundred account amount of one thousand six hundred and thirteen dollars offered by Councilor Pemberton.

Council Abrew.

No.

No.

Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fail zero to eleven.

Item fail zero to eleven, number thirteen.

Mr.

President, item 13 is a proposed cut to the city clerk's office in the 200 account in the amount of $1,000 offered by Councilor Abrew.

Council Abreu?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo?

No.

No.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails one to ten, Mr.

President.

Item fails one to ten.

We're on to number fourteen.

Mr.

President Item 14 is proposed cut in the city council office in the 700 account in the amount of 12,000 dollars offered by Councilman's Pereira, Carney, and Burgo.

Council Abreu.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Counter Schoquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes six to five, Mr.

President.

Item passes six to five.

Brings us to brings us to item 17.

Mr.

President, item 17 is a proposed cut to the elections office in the amount of the 200 account in the amount of 19,643 dollars offered by Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Abreu.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails 1 to 10.

Item fails 1 to 10.

Number 18.

It's now before us.

Is it proposed cut to the elections office in the amount of 200 uh in the 200 account in the amount of 10,000 dollars offered by Councillor Carney?

Council Abreu.

No.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Councilor Roy.

No.

No.

Feels one to ten.

Mr.

President.

Item fails one to ten.

Number nineteen is now before us.

Proposed cut to the elections office in the two hundred account in amount of three thousand one hundred and sixty dollars offered by Councillors Abru and Pemberton.

Councilor Abreu.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Chilquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails four to seven.

Item fails four to seven.

We're on to number twenty.

Mr.

President.

Item twenty is proposed cut to the EMS in the one hundred account in the amount of fifty thousand dollars offered by Council Pemberton.

Councilor Abreu.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shulcette?

No.

No.

Councilor Gomes.

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fail zero to eleven.

Item fail zero to fail zero to eleven.

Number twenty-one.

Mr.

President, item twenty-one is the proposed cut to the facilities and fleet management office and then one hundred account in amount of forty thousand dollars offered by Councilor Carney.

Council Abreu.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Schulquette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails two to nine.

Item fails two to nine.

We're on to number twenty-two.

Mr.

President, item twenty-two.

It's a proposed cut to the facilities and fleet management.

The two hundred account in the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Proposed by Council Carney.

Council Abreu.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shilquette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails two to nine.

Item fails two to nine.

Number twenty-three is before us.

Mr.

President, item twenty-three is proposed cut to facilities and fleet management in the two hundred account in the amount of forty-eight thousand thirteen dollars.

Proposed by Councillor Pemberton.

Council Abreu.

No.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails four to seven.

Item fails four to seven.

Number twenty-four.

Mr.

President, item twenty-four.

Proposed cut facilities and fleet management.

No.

In the four hundred account in the amount of two hundred and forty-five thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight dollars proposed by Council Burgo.

Counselor Abru.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shoket?

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Councilor Roy.

No.

No.

Fails two to nine.

Item fails two to nine.

Number twenty-five.

Mr.

President, item twenty-five is the facilities in fleet management in the four hundred account in the matter of two hundred thousand dollars.

Proposed by Councillors Carney and Burgo.

Councilor Abrew.

No.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shulkette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes six to five.

Item passes six to five.

That takes us to the couple.

No problem.

Appreciate that.

Yes.

25.

Mr.

President, item 34 is a proposed cut to facilities and fleet management in the 800 account in the amount of 757.

Proposed by Councillors Abrew and Carney.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes.

No.

No, Councilor Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six.

Item fails five to six.

Number thirty-five.

Mr.

President, item thirty five.

Is it proposed cut to the fire department in the seven hundred account in the amount of two thousand one hundred and fifty-two dollars proposed by Councilor Shoket?

Councilor Abreu.

Number thirty-five, Council from the Fire Department.

No.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No, no.

No.

Council Lopes.

Just one no.

No, Council Oliver.

No, Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Zero to 11, Mr.

President.

Fail.

Zero to 11.

Number 36.

Mr.

President, item 36 is a proposed cut to the health and human services in the 100 account in the amount of 102,000 dollars proposed by Council Carney.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Councilor Burrough.

I just want to remind colleagues that if they change their mind on cuts, they can withdraw them instead of going through the rigmarole of voting no and having 0 to 11.

Also, on this cut.

So I just I rise today to make sure my colleagues are aware that there is someone in this role right now and to eliminate this position would to be laying off another person in a time when this department has already seen huge reductions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Item number 36.

Counselor Abreu.

No, Council Baptiste.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket?

No.

No, Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No.

Council Pemberton?

No.

No.

Council Pereira?

No.

No, Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails 1 to 10.

Item fails 1 to 10.

Number 37.427 offered by Council Shoket.

Councilor Abrew.

No.

No.

Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes?

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails four to seven.

Mr.

President.

Item fails four to seven.

We run to the number thirty-eight.

Mr.

President, item thirty eight is cut to the Health and Human Services Department in the 200 account in the matter of $3,044 offered by Councillors Abreu and Pereira.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Loebs.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six.

Item fails five to six.

Number thirty nine is proposed.

Mr.

President, item 39.

Is proposed cut to the Health and Human Services Office in the amount of 400 in the 400 account in the amount of 1,620 offered by Council Pemberton.

Councilor Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptiste?

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shilquette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six.

Item fails five to six.

Number 40.

Mr.

President, item 40 is cut to the Health and Human Services Department in the 700 account in the amount of 100,000.

Offered by Council Carney.

Councilor Abreu.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

No.

No, Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight.

Item 41 is before us.

Mr.

President, item 41 is proposed cut to health and human services in the 700 account in the amount of 99,600 offered by Councilor Abrew.

Council Abrew.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shulkett.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six.

Item fails five to six.

Number forty-two.

Mr.

President, item forty-two is cut to the Health and Human Services Department in the 700 account in the amount of thirty-three hundred dollars offered by Council Shoket, Abrew, and Pemberton.

Council Abreu.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven to four.

Item passes seven to four.

That brings us to number 44.

Mr.

President, item 44 is cut to the library in the 200 account.

The amount of $5,663.

43.

Oh, yes.

Labor relations.

Oh.

That's okay.

No, my fault.

Mr.

President, item 43 is a proposed cut to the labor relations in the 700 account in the amount of 1,331 dollars.

Proposed by Councillor Shokette, Abrew and Pemberton.

On the question, Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven or four, Mr.

President.

Item passes seven to four.

Now we're on to 44.

My apologies.

Mr.

President, item 44 is a proposed cut to the library in the 200 count in the amount of $5,663 offered by Council Pemberton.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shulquette.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight.

Number 45 is before us.

Mr.

President, item 45 is a proposed cut to the library in the 400 account in the matter of 3500.

Sponsored by Councilor Abrew.

Councilor Abreu.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

No.

No, Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes?

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight, number forty-six.

Mr.

President, item forty-six is proposed cut to the management and information systems in the 100 account in the amount of 86,400.

Sponsored by Council Shoket.

Councilor Abreu.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Councilor Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Shilquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes?

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight.

That brings us to number 47.

Mr.

President, item 47 is proposed cut to management and information systems in the 200 account and the amount of 100,000 dollars by Council Carney.

Counselor Abru.

No.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shulkett?

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No, Councilor Loops.

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premerton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight, number forty-eight.

Is the cut to the management information systems in the 200 account in the amount of 36,955 offered by Council Schulkett, Abre Pemberton and Pereira.

Councilor Abru.

Yes, Council Baptist.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shulkette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven to four.

Item passes seven to four.

That brings us to number 49.

Mr.

President, item 49 is a cut to the management information systems in the 700 account in the amount of 10,600.

Proposed by Councillor Schulquette, Abrew Pemberton, and Pereira.

Councilor Abraham.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Schocket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven to four.

Items pass seven to four.

That brings us to number 51.

Mr.

President, item 51 is a proposed cut to the mayor's office and personal services in the 100 account in the amount of 342,542 offered by Councillor Pemberton.

Council Abri.

Sorry, Council.

On the question.

Chair Beckness, Councillor Oliver.

Thank you thank you, Mr.

President.

I only rise to uh remind my colleagues, no, they don't need reminding, but the and the general public that the administration has already said that they are not going to observe uh cuts to this department.

This is an opportunity in which the council can knowingly cut this department, knowing that the mayor is going to have to find it from somewhere else.

As I said in my opening remarks, it's there.

We might not agree where it is or where what department the money is sitting in, but I assure you they will find it to fund these positions.

We are not gonna make this cut assuming that we're going to lay anybody off.

They've made that clear.

So this is an opportunity to reduce this department, knowing full well that they are not going to adhere to the council's cuts, and they're going to have to come back in front of the council to uh remedy that situation, whether it be through a supplemental or a transfer from another department, which will they'll then show us their priorities.

So I hope my colleagues will vote accordingly while we go through this department.

Thank you.

Excuse me, thank you, Councillor Oliver.

Anyone else?

All right, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on number 51.

Councilor Abru.

No, Council Baptiste, no, no, Council Burgo?

No.

No, Council Carney.

No.

No, Councilor Shulquette.

No.

No, Council Gomes.

No.

No, Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails two to nine.

Item fails two to nine, number fifty-two.

Mr.

President, item 52 is a proposed cut to the mayor's office in the 100 count in the amount of 245,480, proposed by Councilor Oliver.

Counselor Abru.

Oh, on the question.

Chair recognizes Councillor Burgo.

Yes, thank you.

Um, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Ward 3.

Um, I wanted to speak on this one in particular and not to go after what he said, because this one in particular I'm going to join on in voting yes.

Um, I know initially I had been saying all along throughout the budget uh meetings and in private meetings uh with the administration that we want to eliminate the one chief of staff position, which in my very lengthy opening remarks I explain that the administration obviously titles one of their positions as chief of staff, which is actually a chief operating officer position.

Um we want to eliminate it.

Uh not because we're attacking his office, but because we see obviously in other departments we've consolidated five departments into one.

There isn't really a need for that much oversight.

That's one justification there.

But as my other colleague has uh mentioned to me, during the mayor's budget um the chief of staff during the mayor's presentation department, uh they had acknowledged that one of the administrative manager positions would not uh they would be leaving and that they would be looking to hire someone again during a time where obviously we got rid of vacancies and other positions that in that case this is a time where we shouldn't be hiring new people.

Um so that's why during this next cut I want I will be voting yes, and I I find it necessary to stand up to justify why I have to vote why I'm going to vote yes, even though I've justified it during many budget hearing meetings and other private meetings that I've had with the administration because I want to be clear this is not politically motivated, it just makes fiscal sense because in other departments we've done the same when there was a vacancy we did not hire someone.

We remember just last year during FY26 budget when we had austerity measures, we did not hire people when uh someone left a position that was vacant, we did not hire someone.

So I will be joining on for this next cut, and I hope that you all would join me in support of that this next cut as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on number 52.

Councilor Abreu.

No.

No, Council Baptiste, yes, yes, Council Burgo.

Yes, yes, Council Carney?

No, no, Council Shulkett.

Yes, yes, Council Golmes.

Yes, yes, Council Lopes, no, no, Council Oliver.

Yes, yes, Council Pemberton.

Yes, yes, Council Pereira, no, no, Council Roy.

No, no, passes six to five.

Item passes six to five.

That brings us to number fifty-eight.

Mr.

President, item fifty eight is a proposed cut to the mayor's office in the two hundred account and amount of eight thousand dollars, sponsored by councilor Oliver, Councilor Abreu.

No, no, Council Baptiste, no, no, Council Burgo.

Yes, yes, Council Corney, no, no, Council Shulkett, yes, yes, Council Golmes.

I'm sorry, Councillor.

No.

No.

Council Loebs.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Council Prememberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Item fails four to six.

Number 59 is before us.

Mr.

President, item 59 is proposed cut to the mayor's office in the 200 account in the amount of 7,591 dollars proposed by Councillor Oliver.

Council Abrew.

No.

No, Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shulkett?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Loops.

Councillor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Feels four to six.

Item Fills 4 to 6.

Number 60, the chair recognizes Councillor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I I rise.

I know maybe the description is scaring some of my colleagues for voting no one.

This said it's for the senior dances.

These are for the Mayor John Mitchell senior dances that are paid for by our city budget.

That's how they tend to get advertised as.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else?

Clerk will call the roll.

Council Abrew.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Corney.

No.

Council School Cut.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No, Council Lopes.

Council Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premerton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

No.

No, Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails four to six.

Item Fills 4 to 6, number 61 is before us.

Mr.

President, item 61 is a cut to the mayor's office in a 200 count in around 4,658 dollars, sponsored by Council Oliver.

Councilor Abreu.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

No.

No, Council Shilcett.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premeton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Adam fails four to six.

Number sixty-two is before us.

Mr.

President, item 62 is a proposed cut to the mayor's office and the 200 account in the amount of $2,329.

Proposed by Council Oliver.

Counselor Abrew.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shilquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Counselor Lopes.

Counselor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premerton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Item fails five to six.

Five to five.

Five.

Five to five, excuse me.

I'm sorry.

It's okay.

All right.

Number sixty-three is before us.

Mr.

President, item 63 is proposed cut to the mayor's office in the 700 account.

The amount of 38,267 proposed by Councillors Pereira and Burgo.

Counselor Abru.

And the question the chair would just like to make a comment.

We have been tonight eliminating travel and budget in subscription lines from our account from uh person uh other departments in the city's account.

The mayor does have some need to travel.

So I have proposed elimination of all dues, like I did for a lot of other departments, and half the travel that still allows the mayor to travel as needed when representing the city on official business, but reduces it in a budget crunch because when as a corporation or uh enterprise does when there's fiscal problems, it's reduced on the stuff we don't need.

Dues and subscriptions and travel are sometimes secondary.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councillor Schulkett.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

It's my understanding that the mayor is able to fund his travel account using his uh political funds if necessary.

Um so I wouldn't worry too much about that, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else?

Okay, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abrew.

Yes, yes, Council Baptiste, yes, yes, Council Burgo.

Yes, yes, Council Carney, no, no, Councilor Shulcette.

Yes, yes, Council Gomes, yes, yes, Council Lopes, yes, yes, Council Oliver, yes, yes, Council Premerton, yes, yes, Council Pereira, yes, yes, Council Roy, no, no, passes 9 to 2, Mr.

President.

Item passes 9 to 2.

That brings us to number 68.

Mr.

President, item 68 is a cut to the planning department and 200 account in the amount of 52,442 dollars, sponsored by councillors abrew and shilquette.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes, Council Baptiste, no, no, Council Burgo, no, no, Councilor Carney, no, no, Council Schoquette, yes, yes, Council Gomes, no, Councilor Lopes, no, Council Oliver, yes, yes, Council Pemberton, yes, yes, Council Pereira, no, no, Council Roy, no, no, fails four to seven.

Item fails four to seven, that brings us to number sixty-nine.

Mr.

President, item sixty nine is cut to the planning department in the seven hundred account in the amount of twelve hundred dollars, sponsored by councilor abrew, councillor abrew, yes, council baptiste, yes, yes, council Burgo, yes, yes, Council Carney, yes, yes, Council Shoket, yes, yes, Council Gomes, no, Council Lopes, no, Council Oliver, yes, yes, Council Pemberton, yes, yes, Council Pereira, yes, yes, Council Roy, no, no, passes eight to three, Mr.

President.

Item passes eight to three, that brings us to number seventy.

Mr.

President, item seventy is cut to the police department in the 100 account, the amount of 383,975 dollars, sponsored by Council Burgo.

Councilor Abru.

Oh, on the question, the chair recognizes Councillor Burgo.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Um so again, just as I mentioned in my remarks, another position where the mayor wanted to usurp uh the city council uh put someone as a chief of staff when they really wanted to title them a deputy director.

I won't go too much in that I already spoke about that, but also included in here is an assistant deputy chief.

Again, not saying that we don't need uh a secondary assistant deputy chief again to clarify we already have an assistant deputy chief who does an amazing job.

We've gone without an assistant deputy chief for quite some time.

Um I think right now we can hold off for this fiscal year until uh next year to see where we're at.

Uh this body just recently voted on trying to eliminate an assistant director in a different department.

I would hope that in this time where we have a vacancy, this is a position we can hold off on.

The other uh add-in that I add in here was an admin manager.

The police department was doing fine with just one admin manager.

This year they added a secondary admin manager, which is why I included that in there.

So I just wanted to give some explanation on why these three particular positions, uh, and I hope that I'll have the support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abroom.

No, Council Baptiste, no, no, Council Burgo, yes, Council Carney, no, no, Council Shoket.

No, no, Council Gomes, no, Council Lopes, no, Council Oliver.

Yes, yes, Council Pemberton.

Yes, yes, Council Pereira, yes, yes, Council Roy, no, no.

Fails four to seven item fails four to seven, that brings us to number seventy-one.

Mr.

President, item seventy one is a cut to the police department in the 100 account in the amount of 368,207 dollars, proposed by Councilor Oliver.

Counselor Abru.

No, Council Baptiste, no.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

No.

No, Council Schulquette.

No.

No, Council Gomes?

No.

No, Councilor Lopes.

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails four to seven.

Item fails four to seven.

That brings us to number seventy-two.

Mr.

President, item seventy two is cut to the police department in the 100 account in the amount of 306,264 offered by Council Pereira.

Question from the chair.

You know, uh looking at this budget, and when the chief was here, I questioned A.

The what I see as a usurpation of this body's legislative authority in creating that position of the chief of staff.

We should have had a direct role in creating that position.

The position might have merit, but it deserved debate.

It deserved public debate so that the taxpayers who sent us here can know that we were reviewing it and it just wasn't being created out of thin air.

So I have no appetite to fund that position.

And one uh the addition of an assistant deputy chief.

This department has operated with a chief and a deputy chief, as my colleague from Clara Street has said for decades.

They created two assistant deputy chiefs to create four upper management.

We know there's some issues going on right now, and then what they're trying to do with the captain's position in that department.

So we have uh a chief, we have a deputy chief filled, and we have an assistant deputy chief filled.

There was an available vacant fourth deputy assistant deputy chief.

Eliminate that, no one loses their job, and eliminate this illegal chief of staff.

Thank you.

Council Abroom.

No.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Council Shulquette.

No.

No, Council Gomes.

Sorry, no.

No, Council Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premeton.

Yes.

Yes, Council Pereira.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six, Mr.

President.

Item fails five to six.

Number seventy-three.

Mr.

President, item seventy-three is uh cut to the police department in the 100 account and then at 288,207 dollars sponsored by Councilor Oliver, Councilor Abru.

No, Council Baptiste, no, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Shulkette.

No.

No, Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Loebs.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes six to five, Mr.

President.

Item passes six to five.

That will take us to number eighty-four.

Mr.

President, item 84 is a cut to the police department in the 200 account in the amount of 14,740, sponsored by Councillor Pemberton.

Councilor Abroom.

No, Council Baptiste.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Councilor Carney.

No.

No, Council Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No, Councilor Lopes.

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

No.

No.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails 1 to 10, Mr.

President.

Item fails 1 to 10.

Number number 85.

Mr.

President.

President.

Yep.

I'd like to withdraw item number 85.

Number 85 has been withdrawn.

That brings us to number 86.

Mr.

President, item 86 is a cut to the police department in the 700 account in the amount of 20,000 offered by Councillor Pemberton.

Councilor Abru.

No.

No, Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

No.

No, Council Carney.

No.

No, Councilor Shoket.

No.

No.

Council Gomes?

No.

No, Council Lopes.

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight, Mr.

President.

Item fails three to eight.

That brings us to number eighty-seven.

Mr.

President, item eighty-seven is a cut to the public infrastructure department in the one hundred account in the amount of ten thousand dollars.

Sponsored by Councillors Abreu and Pemberton.

Council Ray Brew.

Yes.

Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo?

No.

No.

Council Corney?

No.

No.

Council Schulcette?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails five to six.

Item fails five to six.

That brings us to eighty-eight.

Mr.

President, item eighty eight is a cut to the public infrastructure department in the full, I'm sorry, two hundred account in the amount of twenty-one thousand five hundred and twenty-five dollars.

Councilor Abru.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Schoquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Council Lopes.

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes seven to four.

Item passes seven to four.

That takes us to number eighty-nine.

Mr.

President, item 89 is cut to the public infrastructure department in the 400 account in the amount of 127,000 offered by Councilor Abrew.

Councilor Abru.

Yes.

Council Baptiste?

No.

No.

Council Burgo?

No.

No.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Shouquette?

No.

No, Council Gomes.

No.

No.

Councilor Lopes.

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

No.

No.

Council.

Councilor Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight, number ninety.

Cut to the public infrastructure department in the amount of four hundred.

I'm sorry, in the four hundred account in the amount of forty thousand dollars sponsored by Councilor Pereira.

Just really quick on this cut, co colleagues.

Uh this is a large line item with a lot of variables uh given the price of uh gas and uh in vehicles and such and with the fluctuation as markets hopefully stabilize.

This is something that we can monitor and always adjust moving forward.

We get one chance to reduce it.

I think we play a little more conservative, reduce it by the 40,000 and monitor it and look at it in a few months.

Thank you.

Council Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Gomes.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 9 to 1.

Item passes 9 to 1.

Number 91 is before us.

Mr.

President, item 91 is a cut to the public infrastructure department in the 700 account in the amount of 7,085, sponsored by Councilor Abrew.

Councilor Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste, Council Burgo.

No, Council Carney.

No.

No, Council Shoket.

No.

No, Councilor Gomes.

No.

No, Councilor Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No, Council Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to seven.

Item fails three to seven.

Number ninety-two.

Mr.

President, item 92 is a cut to the public infrastructure department in the 700 account in the amount of 4500 sponsored by Councilor Schoquette.

Council Ray Brew.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Council Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

No.

No.

Council Schocket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes?

No.

Council Lopes?

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Council Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes seven to three, Mr.

President.

Item passes seven to three.

Colleagues, we're at the halfway point, so I'm going to ask the finance team to give us a tally of where we're at so far on totals.

And we'll take a five-minute recess, please.

Don't take more than ten minutes.

Five minute reset.

Five minute recess, all right.

Colleagues, we're gonna bring it back.

All right.

It is eight thirty-seven p.m.

We'll resume budget cut session.

So the total so far from cuts from the general fund total nine hundred and fifty-seven thousand, two hundred and thirty-four dollars.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

I will ask the clerk to start with number ninety-three.

Mr.

President, item ninety-three is a cut to the purchasing office and amount of the two hundred account and then a thirty-two hundred dollars offered by counselors lopes in Abrew.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes, Council Baptist.

No, no, Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

No.

No.

Council Schocket.

No.

No, Council Combs.

President item ninety three is a cut to the purchasing office in the amount in the two hundred account in amount of thirty two hundred dollars offered by councillors lopes and abrew counselor yes council baptiste no counterburgo no councilcarney no council no council combs no council lopes yes yes counselor Oliver Yes Yes Council Pemberton Yes Council Pereira no Council Roy No Fails 4 to 7 item fails four to seven number 94 is before us president number 94 is a cut to the purchasing office in the 200 account in amount of three thousand dollars sponsored by counselor and abrew counselor yes council baptiste no counselor Burgo Council Carney No Council Shoket No Council Gomes No Council Lopes Yes Yes Council Oliver Yes Yes Council Pemberton Yes Yes Council Pereira No Council Roy No Fails 4 to 7 Item fails 4 to 7 number 95 President 95 is cut to the purchasing office in the amount the 400 account in the amount of 1000 dollars offered by Counselor's Lopes and Abrew Council Abreu Yes Council Baptiste No Council Burgo Yes Council Carney No Council Shoket Yes Yes Council Gomes No Council Lopes Yes Yes Council Oliver Yes Yes Council Pemberton Yes Yes Council Pereira No Council Roy No Passes 6 to 5 Item passes 6 to 5 Colleagues number 96 has been withdrawn that brings us to number 97 Mr.

President item 97 is a cut to the resilience and environmental stewardship department in the 200 account in the amount of $13,000 sponsored by Councillors Lopes and Abreu.

Counselor Abrew Yes Council Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

No.

No, Councilor Shoket.

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes, Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Premerton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Council Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 9 to 2, Mr.

President.

Item passes 9 to 2.

That takes us to number 99.

Mr.

President, I'm number 99 is a cut to the resilience and environmental stewardship department in the 700 account in the amount of $2050.

Sponsored by Councillors Lopes, Shoket, Abrew, Pemberton, and Carney.

Councilor Abreu.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Council Shokette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Roy.

No.

No.

No.

Passes 10 to 1.

Item passes 10 to 1, number 100.

Mr.

President, item 100 is the cut to the city solicitor's office in the 200 account in the amount of 150,000, sponsored by Councillors Pereira and Burgo.

On the question from the chair, I would just like to reiterate very similar to my uh comments about DPI.

This department's 200 account has estimates for outside legal counsel.

Now we have heard from the city solicitor about the the strides that assistant uh first city solicitor Ryan Paveo has been making in assisting the the city with union negotiations.

Why are we still funding the firm uh I forget the name off the top of my head that deals with that to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars?

If our in-house council is handling the majority of that, we should reduce this budget by 150,000, allowing them still a hundred thousand dollars with vote uh VHR or something like that, I forget the name, and allowing them to still use that at the end of the day, they can still come to us and say, Counselors, we're running out of money to look in our legal situation, and we can make a determination if it is necessary.

We get one shot to take it away.

We should reduce this over a $500,000 budget, by the way, in outside legal council, most of which is meritable, some of which is an exaggeration.

So let's reduce it.

We can add it a little back later if needed.

Thank you.

Counselor Abreu No, Council Baptiste, no, Council Burgo, yes, yes, Council Carney, no, no, Council Shoket, no, no, Council Gomes, yes, yes, Council Lopes, no, no, Council Oliver, no, no, Council Pemberton, yes, yes, Council Pereira, yes, yes, Council Roy, no, no, fails four to seven.

Item fails four to seven, that brings us to number one oh item 101 is a cut to the solicitor's office in the 200 account in the amount of 125,000, sponsored by councillors Pereira and Burgo.

Counselor Abru.

No, Council Baptist.

No.

No, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Carney.

No.

No, Councilor Shoket.

No.

No, Counselor Gomes.

No, Councilor Loops.

No.

No, Councilor Oliver.

No.

No.

Council Pemberton.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Roy.

No.

No.

Fails three to eight.

Item fails three to eight.

Number one oh two is before us, and I just would like to reiterate again.

We have an opportunity to reduce.

We could always add back a budget of over half a million dollars for outside legal council.

Chair recognizes Councillor Burgo.

Thank you for mentioning that.

I was just gonna reiterate that point, and I guess we lost someone in the last vote at 150 to 125.

Um again, uh in a situation like this, I guess the council doesn't want to have the oversight to determine when we add money to the tax levy.

This is one of those situations.

I'm concerned that we we don't want to have this option when it comes to fiscal management.

If and when, just as m Mr.

President, you just mentioned the solicitor can prove to us, oh yes, we're running out of money, we need this these extra funds, and here's why.

We can add the money back.

So don't be squeamish in this moment, colleagues, especially when we hear people in this very chamber crying out all the time about where we need to make these cuts to save uh different priorities in this city.

This is the moment in moments like this where we can make these cuts and restore them if this administration can come back and prove that.

Please vote yes.

Thank you, Councillor.

Anyone else?

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Number 102.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Yes, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Shulkett.

Yes.

Yes, Council Gomes.

Yes, Council Lopes.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Council Premerton.

Yes.

Yes, Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes, Council Roy.

No.

No.

Passes 9 to 2, Mr.

President.

Item passes.

Item passes 9 to 2.

That brings us to number 106.

Mr.