To this uh special meeting on the twenty-six twenty-seven proposed budget, madam chair.

We take roll.

David Carlin.

Lynn Underwood Segley here.

Carly Holder.

Here.

Cycam Zaforman.

Here.

Gene Marie Napolitano.

Here.

Alan Pinnock.

Here.

Stephanie Smythe.

Here.

There is a quorum present, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh please stand for Pledge of Allegiance.

I think it's by the United States of America.

And the republic is nationally.

And just for all.

Madam Chair, anyone sign up for the citizens forum?

I keep saying Madam Chair.

Madam Clerk.

No, we did not have one on the agenda.

Mr.

Chair.

All right, perfect.

Um, just a couple of notes before we get started.

Uh, do you want to make one announcement?

Um, I don't think he's here, but uh Public Works Director uh Bill Riccio, uh, he was named one of the top ten leaders for 2026 by the American Public Works Association, which is a great honor and great work on his behalf and his department.

So uh I just want to recognize Mr.

Riccio and uh there will be a uh reception for him uh to get his I guess probably a plaque or citation uh at the Edward King House on Thursday, this Thursday the 21st at four o'clock.

So give a round of applause to Mr.

Rickyo.

And then uh as uh for tonight as we get in, we're gonna um I know last time we had this meeting we had a public hearing where I allowed everyone to get up and talk about the subjects, but uh tonight um in lieu of that we'll allow people to speak as the topics come up.

So if there's something, maybe like the school budget, I think it's gonna be a uh a popular item.

Um you can just raise your hand, come up to this uh podium and have three minutes like like normal.

Um the only thing I ask on regardless of what item it is, um if uh we'll try to keep things flowing.

Um we appreciate if you have if you have different points of view that that's that's great, as opposed to having just the same comments at everyone that comes up.

Um I know it's a very important subject for a lot of people, but just in lieu of you know uh time management and uh getting enough people up here as as we can tonight.

So with that being said, uh turn over to Vice Chair Segley to start it off, okay.

So we're just gonna we're opening the public here.

Oh, we're starting with number three.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chairman, excuse me.

I'm sorry, madam vice chair, excuse me.

Uh, before we begin, can I exercise a point of personal privilege, please?

Sure.

Thank you.

I want to express my deep concern about what is not on the agenda this evening.

One week ago, tomorrow, the newport city council held the meeting.

It was our normally scheduled Wednesday meeting that we hold every two weeks of the month.

At that meeting, the newport city council by a four to zero vote, continued a resolution that I sponsored concerning the Castle Hill Association or the Castle Hill Inn and a permit that they have before CRMC Coastal Resources Management Council, the City Council by a four to nothing vote again, made it very clear that the item to be continued at my request was going to be continued to this evening's meeting, not to the May 27th meeting, to the meeting at which the council here tonight deals with the first reading or the first hearing of the Newport budget.

To my surprise, and I'm sure to my colleagues' surprise who voted for this continuance, it was not on the agenda this evening.

I asked the city administration four times, four times for an explanation of such I received not even the courtesy of a reply when the council makes a motion approved by the major when the council approves a motion, it's not a suggestion.

I'm extremely disappointed in the city administration for what I just described, and I thank my my chairman and my colleagues for the opportunity to express this personal privilege.

Yes.

Um Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance appropriating revenues on first reading.

We have a motion and second, any discussion.

Um I'm sorry.

Resolution first.

Take it off the table.

You know what?

Sorry.

No, I'm Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to make a I'd like to move uh resolution on the docket to remove from the table the fiscal year twenty-seven budget.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

So now I make the motion to for appropriating revenues.

Yes.

Okay.

Correct.

Um, make a motion to approve the um an ordinance appropriating revenues on first reading.

I motion and second, any discussion.

Um Mr.

Chair.

Could um the city manager just explain exactly what we're doing with this particular motion.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you, madam vice chair.

So this is the this is the part of the meeting where this motion is probably going to remain open for the vast majority of the meeting.

It's the opportunity to make uh perhaps dozens of motions about about the budget for either additional expenditures or offsets to revenues.

Um that could include anything from school appropriations to transfers for additional capital funds.

Uh we also uh would request that the council consider the change sheet that is before you this evening.

There are some pro forma uh adjustments that that uh we request that you make motions to accept so that we can ultimately have them on the record as part of being uh as being part of the uh uh final budget that ultimately is adopted.

This is the exhibit one page uh that you should have in front of you.

If you're not, I can give you a copy.

Okay, um so uh next we're gonna have a council discussion on items on budget sheet change chain sheet, civic services, and other changes council may want to make to the proposed budget.

Um Mr.

Chair, I have a few additions that I would like to make um tonight to the budget, they're very small ones.

Uh I would like to add $15,000 that was removed from the budget back into the tree conservancy.

Do we have a second?

Second, motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Um I'd like to put $35,000 back into the budget for the cemetery commission.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

I and I'd like to add the ten thousand dollars that was removed uh for the Edward King House Senior Center.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So um, I also have um something I'd like to add in to the budget.

It was not in there um previously, but I do think it falls under um like the building repairs, and that is the second floor door that leads to and from the elevator.

That door is not um accessible, it's not like you can pull it open, but it is if you're in a wheelchair and you need to hit a button or something, you there's no way for you to be able to do that, and I think that that's important.

And I know we explored the price before, I believe it was six thousand.

Uh yes, counselor.

We well, we feel that it's likely to be under 8,000, but we feel 8,000 is a reasonable number to make sure that we don't need any more additional funds later.

Okay, thank you.

So instead of the 6,000, I'd like to add in the eight thousand dollars so we can make sure this door is accepted.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Um, Mr.

Chair.

Uh on this exhibit one sheet, there is uh thirty-two thousand dollars to add to the um the budget for tow and disposable of abandoned campers.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Um, and also for um special events uh for Newport Fire Department and um the DPW, 50,000 fifty thousand six hundred dollars add into the budget for special events, including the St.

Patrick's State Grade.

Second, motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any further additions?

Any counsel?

Uh Ms.

Chairman, Council Carl.

Can we please uh, since we are dealing with with exhibit one, can we please uh continue with an explanation, please on bond interest and bond principal uh both for the public uh and for the members of the council.

And I might add this was something that I also asked for a detailed explanation of uh and I asked for that detailed explanation from the city administration.

Uh I asked four times, and I received no response with respect to what we pay for bond council, whether bond council was put out to bid for council approval, uh, what we paid for, so-called uh, if you will, bond support staff.

If it's outside council or non-council, uh I don't know because I didn't receive an answer from the administration.

Uh, again, extremely disappointing.

I don't speak to you, Director Nolan.

I speak to your boss.

Direct Nolan, sure.

Jim Nolan, Director of Finance.

Um, to discuss the uh the bond interest and the bond principal, uh, we went out for our first tranche of the um infrastructure bond in April 2026, and our estimates that we budgeted that we included in the proposed budget budget was higher by about three hundred and ninety-six thousand dollars.

So what we're we're proposing here in the chain sheet is to reduce that expense, our debt service expense by four hundred and three hundred and ninety-six thousand, and really offset that with our bank interest revenue and our short-term investment revenue.

Um, just given the market conditions.

I think that's a uh a conservative approach to take.

I appreciate the answer.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, for my sake, if not for the council's sake and the public's sake.

Uh can you please explain what the bond principal payments are for and what the bond interest is for very specifically.

Uh does this include in part the ninety-eight and a half million dollars uh that uh the voters of the city of Newport approved in the two thousand twenty-four general election, and does it improve uh include in part the two thousand twenty uh principal and interest regarding the construction of a new Rogers High School and the addition to the Pell School?

Yes, so included in the proposed budget is um so there's real really three pieces right now.

We have the uh Pell Rogers construction, we have the Pell School refunding, and then we also have the infrastructure borrowing that I was just discussing that uh we borrowed in April.

The amount that we borrowed in April was $36 million, and that was the first tranche.

Uh just because we're we're it's not the entire 98.5 million.

We're looking where we'll most likely be looking to go out in the next year or so on that that the balance of that 985.

I certainly understand that there's only 30 plus million dollars uh that you are going to bond for, and I appreciate that explanation.

Uh this includes, as you just alluded to, but I want to make sure this includes bond principal and bond interest with respect to the city's obligation to pay back uh the again ninety-eight and a half million dollars.

Ironically, both the same uh school funding or school construction, correct?

There's two separate line items in the budget, one for bond principal and then one for bond interest.

So that combined will make up our debt service uh for those three um for the three uh projects that I would just discuss.

Thank you.

Having that very clear, can we please, although it will be addressed if it's addressed at all later in the budget uh discussions?

Why not discuss it now?

Can you please tell us uh as it relates to the reimbursement from the state of Rhode Island uh for the specific school construction formula for lack of a better word?

Can you please tell us the difference between uh what could be tell us the difference between what we could have.

Should we consider regionalization or should regionalization actually let's pretend it's come to fruition, let's pretend it exists.

Talk to the council and the members of the public, please, about the difference between the reimbursement from the state of Rhode Island for a system which is regionalized versus a system which is not regionalized, the 7.3 million versus a TBD, to be determined number.

Do you understand what I'm asking?

I believe I do, yes.

Thank you.

Uh so if regionalization does not happen, we have a minimum housing aid of 35% reimbursement rate.

All right, and then there's incentives on top of that.

That can get us to 55% reimbursement of our total debt service for Rogers Pell construction.

If regionalization does go through that number increases, and what we're eligible for is up to uh right around 80 percent.

I believe it's eighty-one percent, um, added on to that 55.

So that's a significant difference.

Um, what we have to do is we need to make sure that we calculate and understand we're fronted money, uh pay go as part of the um uh ride reimbursement.

So that's all considered.

So when when we look at as far as our catch up, um, well, actually, let me go back.

So our total eligible reimbursement, all right.

So we have already been paying debt service, so we've already been paying interest and uh principal on the uh project.

So what we would be eligible for would be 12 million dollars if we did not regionalize based on the payments that we've already made.

All right, so we made payments of 22.7 million, Mr.

Chairman.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Director.

Let me let me pause you if I can uh right there.

Am I to understand, not based on what you said, but based on my research and my counselors, my colleagues' research, might to understand if we accept in fiscal twenty-seven the catch up, we are then devoid of or we are prohibited from, if you will, by state law uh receiving any regionalization matches from the city.

We are doomed, and I have no personal opinion at this point.

Well, I do have a personal opinion on regionalization, but I I'm not talking about that right now.

We are doomed to accept only the 51 and a half percent reimbursement from ride should we accept the catch-up money for fiscal 2526 and to be fiscal twenty-seven.

Am I correct?

That is correct.

Once we once we apply, so there's two forms that have to be submitted to Ride.

We have an F 100 form, which is uh due July 30th of this year, which is an estimate.

All right, and then uh what we would do is July of 2027, we would submit uh form F 105.

That F 105 is an actual analysis of uh the reimbursement, and then that's gets paid to us in September of 2027, which is our fiscal year 2028.

Appreciate that answer.

On a lookout basis, it's 25 year bond, correct?

20 year bond.

20 year bond, I'm sorry.

Excuse me, 20 25 for it is 25 for that, okay.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, on a lookout basis.

What is the difference between formally accepting in fiscal 27 the essentially 51 and a half percent reimbursement from the state versus uh at this point taking a chance and asking for the catch-up dollars from the state?

So just on the eligible reimbursement, as far as money that we've that we have paid so far in interest and principal, the difference would be about six million dollars.

So I'm sorry, Jim.

Uh Director Nolan, on a lookout basis.

So you're not on a 25 year basis, what is the difference between the two, please?

Um one moment, please.

So let me do a little math, but uh I don't I don't have that right in front of me, but it's it's multiple multiple tens of millions, correct?

We're talking so our total debt service, really what we have outstanding right now for Pal Rogers is one hundred and fifty-one million dollars.

So you look at eighty percent of that plus versus fifty-one and a half percent.

It's a significant amount of money in the tens of millions of dollars.

So it is the administration's uh proposal via this budget to hold off on asking for a catch up from the state of Rhode Island from Ride, correct?

That's correct.

All right.

Uh should we come back one year from now in the same condition, looking at the budget for fiscal twenty-eight, uh, are we allowed to once again put off the catch up?

We we can.

Yes, we can't.

How long does that last, Mr.

Nolan?

That'll continue indefinitely until we're we're really the the laws change.

Thank you.

And and should regionalization legislation be put forward, uh, because I assume everything that you told me is dictated by state law, correct?

Correct.

Should regionalization legislation be put forward, the legislature can change those conditions, correct?

Uh they could simply say, yeah, okay, thank you.

Uh I'll ask a couple more questions not regarding that.

Uh and then I will yield to my colleagues.

I appreciate your patience.

Uh Mr.

Who's our bond?

Who is our bond counsel, please?

It's uh Karen Grandy, uh Troutman.

All right.

Uh Karen Grandy has a contract, does she with us?

Uh she does.

So this is this is a long-standing relationship that we've had with Karen Karen.

How long is the contract?

When was the last contract signed?

How long is the contract?

And why did the council not so why was the council not approached for uh when you're going out to market for almost a hundred million dollars?

Why was the council not approached to approve bond council contract?

Under uh 45, I believe it's 455 14.

Um, we are the city is exempt from going to having to go competitively bid for legal services, and this has been a long-standing relationship that we've had with Karen that we've done a number of uh bond issuances with uh with Karen and her her firm.

So the city administration's position is uh that it was not necessary uh to competitively bid for a 100 million dollar bond council contract, but yet it's counselor.

Counselor, no, I'm not I'm not representing the facts, counselor.

Improv immature and improper, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I don't I don't believe I asked Mr.

Kennedy the question.

So just continue with your thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um I find it totally inappropriate that the council was not asked to approve a contract for bond council on a 100 million dollar bond issuance, which for bond council is worth quite a bit of money, quite a bit of money.

But yet the administration comes to us to approve nickel and dime forgive me type of contracts.

Also, excuse me, Miss Chairman.

Let me let me interrupt, please.

This is not point of order.

Council called I have Council Napolitana that wants to give her uh opinion if you don't mind.

Council Paulitano.

Yes.

There you go.

Um bond counsel for uh school projects is a very specialized type of legal matter, and we have had um the bond council for the beginning with Pell.

Uh we did it the second time with Pell School, and we did it with Rogers.

Our experience has been very good with it.

It's so specialized that we probably would have had to go out of state.

Our um the way that it has been handled, the bond council did at one point appear in front of us for the second bonding on Pell School, and they're very thorough, and our attorneys are comfortable and work with them, and uh I just think it's such a specialized field, and there's so few for this particular type of um construction that uh we have gotten our money's worth.

She's done an excellent job and has a team that works with her.

She's done it throughout the state for a number of schools, including East Providence, which is I think three times uh what Rogers has been.

So I trust her judgment and her firm, and I think they've done a good job, and that's probably why it wasn't brought to the council um it in the past, it has not uh formally been brought to the council.

It's something that the department research is.

Council Compore one.

Not gonna disagree with anything that Councilor Napolitano said.

I also want to make it clear that I am not speaking in my professional capacity.

It's probably one of less than a half a dozen people in the state license in this space.

I'm speaking in my personal capacity here.

Um it is indeed a specialized service.

Karen Grandy is indeed a terrific bond counsel and appropriate to use.

Question I think is more along the contracting process that we went through.

And so this is certainly a specialized professional service.

I think the process of selecting somebody who is specialized within that service, and there are probably about a dozen people in the state that do this work.

Um, but I would ask this you know, was the contract for bond counsel or the use of bond counsel on this transaction ever brought before the council for approval?

No.

And so what was the amount that was paid to bond counsel on this transfer?

55,000.

55,000.

Under what procurement mechanism did we not come before council for approval of that expense?

So that's on under 45, I believe it's 4555 14 that that exempts that the um professional legal services from a competitive bid.

Certainly from the bidding process, which I agree with, and I think the process you went through for procurement was good, and I think the ultimate selection was good, but the council approves the expenditure of funds.

And so my question for the administration is under what legal authority were these funds expended without council approval or vote.

I believe it's the legal services line item, correct?

You have I know we have one for the city solicitor's office.

Uh we have uh budgeted uh professional expenses uh sprinkled throughout the city budget.

Uh so those are the vehicles with by which we use uh when competitive procurement is is exempt and we're able to seek the services of a qualified uh legal counsel through that process.

Certainly, and I don't disagree with the appropriating process, which is correctly done, but in addition to when we appropriate in the annual budget money for any specific thing, after the appropriation is done, administration still comes before council for approval of the actual expenditure of those funds with the vendor, and sometimes you provide good explanation as you have here as to why the administration is recommending hiring somebody.

But um, to my colleague's point, we routinely have things that come before us on our agenda.

The procurement of a piece of playground equipment, for example, it's very specialized, right?

And you've explained okay.

Well, this is under either a master price agreement that we have with the vendor, this is under a preferred vendor the city works with, but you still ask for approval each time.

Is there some loophole?

Is there some exemption to that process?

Whereby for legal services, as long as it's there's a line item for it in the budget, you're free to choose whoever you want for that.

I would just um, based on my experience with the city, uh, I believe the correct description of what has taken place, probably for some 15 years or so now is that she has been basically on a retainer, um, and that um she has participated in uh a number of bond issuance, uh, a number of bond reissuance um with some time now for my um career in the solicitor's office.

Um I can't give you the exact number of years, but I think it's been you know, some maybe fift at least 15 years now.

So um I would say there's probably over the years before councils, her name is in a lot of materials that as acting bond counsel.

So I think with that kind of has progressed where that's been a practice, that's not to say that the council doesn't have authority to ask that this be competitively um uh requested, uh try to get quotes from others and so forth, but that's basically been the practice uh that I have seen.

And in terms of the money, it's not in my budget, so I would imagine it's in the uh finance uh office budget for uh associated with the bonds in that.

Which and by the way, reaffirming, right?

You chose a good counsel, and she is terrific, and I think the logic behind it is solid.

It comes back to the actual expenditure of funds.

You know, and and that again, we so let's just move off that topic for a second, pivot to another one.

There are two processes by which bonds can be sold in the market that are traditionally used.

Either you put them out to the market and you say whoever the best buyer has come forth and buy this, and what's called an underwriter comes in and buy those, or you in advance choose an underwriter.

You say, All right, we want to work with this specific underwriter who then will go out and subsell bonds for us.

Um, that's an important selection.

These guys make a lot of money, usually for good quality credits like Newport communities go on a competitive basis.

I believe that Newport went on a negotiated basis that latter term.

How much were the underwriters paid on this transaction?

I can get that for you.

And I I guess my question is I understand that bond council is a firm that we've had for a number of years, and so maybe you could say, well, the council generally speaking approves of it, so we didn't go through the usual procurement approval process.

Underwriters are different, right?

These aren't people we have a pre-existing relationship with.

I'm guessing they were compensated north of $50,000 for the sale.

What was the procurement process for their selection?

I trust that you did a good one.

And then second, here's yet another appropriation of funds, public funds.

What was the council approval process for this vendor?

So I can speak to so that the underwriter that was competitively bid.

Uh, we went through Hilltop, who's our financial advisor, and that was the under the advice of Karen Grandy was to go through Hilltop uh on that competitive bid.

So our our manager was uh Raymond James and our co-manager was well for Wells Fargo.

And just to be clear, you competitively bid the selection of the underwriter who sold the bonds on a negotiated basis, right?

So you negotiated directly with those underwriters what you were willing to pay them per bond to sell those bonds on a competitive sale, a truly competitive sale, you put those out to the market, and whether Bank of America or Raymond James or Morgan Stanley or the nice folks at Goldman Sachs want to buy those bonds, they say, well, here's what we're willing to charge you per bond to sell it.

And so in this instance, the administration negotiated directly with yet again another good firm, Raymond James is a is a good firm, and the co-manager there, Wells Fargo, does good work as well.

But nonetheless, the city decided to pay these bonds these entities.

Did you end up finding the figure on what we we paid them?

I believe um, so title, I'm gonna look at a I'm just looking through the statement.

I believe it was our underwriter fees and expenses amounted to a hundred and thirty-six thousand.

136,000 appropriation.

Again, not judgment on whether or not that's fair or not.

But I would say this: if the argument before on the selection of bond council is this is somebody we've known for years that we're friendly with, they do a good job.

What's the logic here?

That it the council we chose was based on the practice that he solicitor addressed that long-standing city practice.

Talking about the bankers.

How do we choose the underwriters here?

The so we we got a recommendation from Karen Grandy to look at the Hilltop Hilltop actually did the procurement for the underburner.

This was not a city procurement, it was done through Hilltop security.

That's how we ended up, and I think there were 11 ultimately 11 bidders, and that was 15 bidders, and under the advice of our bond council was that we did not have to bring it to council.

So a well-run process, right?

But again, you've made the decision to expend over a hundred thousand dollars of public funds.

So regardless of whether or not the procurement process was done properly.

Is this a loophole in public oversight and approval?

Right?

Is this one of those situations where if it had been a million dollars, administration has leeway to decide to pick a bank that they're gonna pay a million dollars to without ever coming before the council for approval?

Well, that's I think that's where the oversight comes in.

So we we followed a long-standing practice that we had we had used as recently as two or three years ago without any question whatsoever when my predecessor was in the seat.

If if the opinion of the oversight body, that's that's the city council, is now changing, wishes us to take a closer look at these types of things in the future.

That is your prerogative, and we will abide by that.

But my position is that the city was going through a uh used a standing practice that had been accepted for a decade and a half at least, and and ultimately ended up with a very successful transaction in the process.

I will also note that bond issuances, bond issuance costs have been a standing allocation by resolution of the council as part of the overall bond allocation since the outset.

We always knew there would be issuance costs, and this is this is this is what that is.

Which is fair, right?

We authorize expenses like we do every year.

We say, All right, we're gonna authorize a million dollars for playgrounds, but you still have to come to us for approval of who the vendors are that are providing that equipment.

And regardless of the process, whether it's competitive or negotiated or for a master price agreement, when you ultimately spend the money down to like very small increments of funding on every council agenda.

If you look, you very thoughtfully provide a memo that lays out here's why we think this is a good vendor.

Here's why we think this is a fair price.

Here's how I think we're going.

When we go to Wall Street and we're engaging with a bank, doesn't it seem off that we're not going through the same process and coming for the council saying taxpayers of Newport are gonna play a Wall Street institution to help us sell bonds?

We want to make sure you're comfortable with them.

I don't disagree with a lot.

Uh and and if that's the council's direction, we will absolutely take that under advisement.

We have another issuance that we're looking at next year.

We will we'll update the process and do so accordingly.

Thanks, Councilman Balitano.

Um, I just like to recognize this is a very technical field.

Uh and in addition to bond council and Karen Grandy and her work over the years, we received additional, and this is due to Laura Citron and Karen Grandy, additional 14,413, 145, which we gave to the school department.

I just want to recognize that.

And it was the bond.

It it does, you know, we get a lot of business on the books.

We get a lot of questions and and going through every meeting, but uh she has served us very well.

I did not question it.

I've been around a while and seen a couple of the bonds, and I just don't I I don't regret having them or Hilltop or any of the rest of them.

I trusted them.

And I understand everybody has their own likes and dislikes in terms of the marketplace.

This is a little bit complicated, but you know, I do recognize that we got additional money, which we turned over to the school, and I'm glad we did.

Mr.

Hold on, Council Segley.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh, since we were going through this process, however, did anyone ever ask you these questions as to whether or not this was gonna come before the council?

No, this that that's point of order.

That's absolutely untrue.

My colleagues will understand that I sent them.

If you copied emails to the manager, deputy manager, solicitor, and others, a minimum of six, six questions, to which the vice chair just pointed out.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh, what I was going to say uh was that no until I received the uh the first question from Councillor Carlin.

Uh sometime.

I don't know the precise number of weeks.

But I I will note that that question also had the entire council uh included on it, and for me to reply to that would have been an open meeting that violation.

So I I did not.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

As I said to my colleagues and to the public, I asked six times if it was a violation to respond to all members, uh, the manager could simply have responded to me.

My questions, what did the bond council cost?

What did the bond advisors cost?

Have we put it out to bid?

Why did we not put it out to bid when are the contracts ending that exist now, and many other questions?

The manager answered zero of those to me personally, nor did he bring it up uh at any council meeting post my questions.

And uh Councilor Kamza Varavang, if I might, Mr.

Chairman, uh, I very much appreciate your wisdom on this.

Like having, frankly, in my opinion, it it's like having an astronaut on the dias and asking, you know, how is the moon?

Uh very few people in the state of Rhode Island uh understand this issue, the complexities of this issue.

Mr.

Chairman uh and the counselor explained it very well.

The questions you raised, I raised, they were answered in part by Mr.

Norman tonight, and they were totally ignored by the administration when I originally asked them.

Thank you.

Um, were any other counselors asking these questions before we went out to bond?

Uh quick question.

So, the contracts that that we're talking about right now, when were they inacted?

So we have uh we have a contract that's enacted with Hilltop, I believe, 2020.

We're gonna have to go look at that, and that's a renewal each year.

So that's that's our financial advisor, that uh really we reach out to them that's more on a uh as needed basis for for compliance for uh any new issuance or no when we're talking about the clarifiers, we'll reach out to them and discuss options with them.

Um on an ongoing basis.

So that's an annual contract that renews each year.

Um Karen Candy, that's uh I I don't believe that's that's that's a retainage that's based on her experience um that that we contract or that we're we're working with her firm, Mr.

Jack.

Hold on, I got one more question.

So why is this coming up with such a uh a big point this time around and not for the past six years?

I don't know.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I believe this is the first time we've bought bonded, in like probably at least four years.

At least I they haven't got a bond since I've been on council.

Mr.

Chairman, but it's been general obligation, even four years ago.

Yeah, by almost when was the last time?

Twenty.

Twenty twenty twenty.

Al Rogers, twenty twenty-one.

Yeah.

So five years ago.

So it should have come up with other with other councils as well, not just this council.

It would have been three terms ago the last time this came up, and I think so.

This isn't a a surprise or shouldn't be as really a surprise.

So the majority of the council that it went that or that it did not come in front of the council.

I think the majority of council wasn't here the last time, correct.

These services were bid.

Right.

Mr.

Chair.

On Council Napolitano had a no, I was just gonna say we bonded in 2020.

The majority of the council here wasn't on the council.

I don't recall receiving the information from you, Mr.

Carlin.

I I believe you, but I just don't recall.

When did you send that information out?

I would have to look at the emails that I sent, but I believe that uh several colleagues on this dais will confirm that they received copies.

Of the questions I asked of the city manager and of by default the deputy city manager.

I also copied the city solicitor, though uh the city solicitor is is excellent at responding to my questions and all of ours.

Uh so counselor Napolitano, I can't give you the exact dates, but I assure you.

But it was already after we had the bonding.

This is not no, absolutely.

Yes, okay.

That's exactly my point.

My point is is such, like Councillor Comzavoravan raised, uh who did we give these contracts to, and who are we spending these hundreds of thousands of dollars with?

Okay.

And if I might, um I also question Mr.

Chairman, Director Nolan, uh, whether we received a bond premium like that, which Councilor Napolitano spoke about by the wise counsel of of uh former uh finance counsel uh former finance director uh Laura Citron and you yourself, Mr.

Nolan, uh we invested in uh early 2021, uh the proceeds from the bond that was issued based on the vote in 2020, and that close to one hundred million dollars in bond proceeds that we received from the market, produced the premium.

Uh a bond premium, as Council Napolitano said, about 14 million dollars.

But since the administration has never answered any of my questions, I don't know whether we received a premium on the bond that we put to market this time around, and I have no idea whether we can use said premium for other things like what many of our friends are here for tonight.

So I can I can answer that.

So we we did receive a bond premium of 3.6 million dollars.

Um the way that this bond was structured, uh we needed to borrow up to 36 million, so we reduce that premium.

All right, so that we that's not in addition to our borrowing.

So we don't we don't have an additional $3.5 million that's going to be used for the projects that that are uh on our on the on the our noting your answer.

So the bond premium of $3.6 million dollars is out of the question for use unless the council reverses that decision for use in other projects, schools or otherwise, and goes back uh to the payment of the premium, correct?

So it goes back to the reduction of the total premium that the taxpayers must pay, correct?

We're paying we're not paying interest on $36 million, we're paying interest on $32 million.

Mr.

Nolan, Director Nolan, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

To my colleagues, appreciate your patience.

Council.

Just a brief explanation as to what certainly in the audience, and we plans keeping it down.

Thank you.

An explanation as to what premium is is important though, right?

Because this is the source of the 14 million additional funding that were available for schools, it's the source of this money.

Premium is not free money, premium is the equivalent to getting cash out when you refinance your house.

So what premium is is the market says, all right, you can borrow at a rate of 3.25%, and we say, well, we're gonna pay you five.

And that differential between we get as cash, but you're paying for it.

You're paying for it over the life of the bonds, you're paying for it in the debt service.

This is not free or found money.

And so there are two ways to treat that premium.

Either you downsize the issue, which is what I think finance did very responsibly here, or you take that money as a surplus and use it for other things that might not have been part of the original borrowing intent, which is what we did with the schools project because of the priority of education.

And that this is important stuff because look, if we're talking about, for example, the schools wanting additional funds, right?

What we're talking about here are six figure sums that were paid to Wall Street.

And I think it was money good because the money that's being spent here was spent on experts who helped us sell the bonds.

But nonetheless, that never came before us for actual sign off as to who was getting paid that money.

And if there's a legal loophole on that, we'll trust counsel on that, but it's a big oversight when we spend hours debating how much we're gonna pay for an F-150 truck for the public works department.

But a contract that major with money going to where it's going doesn't come before us, and I just think in the future, again, I think he chose good vendors.

I know these folks, you know, I've worked with them before in this field, uh whether it's the attorneys or bond council, but there's a flawed logic here.

If the initial logic is, well, we know these folks, we have what worked with them a bunch.

And the next one is, well, everybody else said they're good people, so we're gonna go with them.

We just have to I think the transparency will help in the future on that.

Mr.

Chair, I just have one last question.

But counselor consequently, did you have these questions before we went out to bond?

I think our notification as to who ultimately was selected as our underwriter was never put before us.

But did you have questions about the process before we did this?

I think our knowledge and awareness of the process was extremely limited until after the bonds were sold.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh may I ask a question of Councillor Comzavaravang, please.

Uh Councillor Comzavarvan, how can you ask questions about a process when you are not aware that the process exists?

I I think administration in their defense did a reasonable job of saying, hey, we are going out to bond.

Whether that process is through a competitive basis, which is what most double A rated municipalities would do, which is how you know that you end up ultimately get the best underwriter at that process or negotiated, you know, it is a huge inflection point of knowledge.

But I think the general assumption that regardless of that process for a contract of this scale, we would follow the procedure that's used by most other municipalities and come before us, at least giving an awareness as to who we're moving with, it would have been nice.

Um again, I we think that you chose good vendors here, and there's no critique on that.

I think the processes you went through for this you know for the identification of a good vendor was good.

It was just this is an expenditure of public funds in a major way.

And to that point, I I really sincerely appreciate feedback.

I mean, so what I'm doing here is I'm I'm you know, I'm learning what this what the council wishes.

We will apply these concepts going forward and we will take that under advisement.

Or I we will we will take that under this under order, um, you know, to the extent that we may have been guilty of you want to ask of using state law that's at our disposal when it comes to the selection of legal counsel uh uh in a way that we have done for several bondage issuances previously.

If we're g if we're guilty of of being a little bit complacent, I accept that.

I also accept the feedback and we will make sure that we make those changes.

Thank you.

All right, and further discussion on uh any budget budget change sheet items, civic service, was ours.

Mr.

Chair, um when will we be discussing the school budget?

We ought to be coming up next.

So if I make the motion to amend the ordinance appropriating revenues or agreed changes, that is excluding the the school budget.

Uh no, well, it'll be we have the school fund in that ordinance.

So what should be my next motion?

Uh I would make a motion to approve the ordinance appropriating revenues.

But what if we want changes to the budget?

The school budget.

We can make a motion and we're gonna open it up and then we can pass the school budget.

All right.

Um Mr.

Chair, um, I'd like to make a motion that um since we are looking at solar panels for uh Rogers High School, I would like to make a motion that we uh the city take on the electric bill at Rogers High School, which amounts to sixty-two thousand dollars a month, uh amounting to about five hundred thousand dollars a year.

Mr.

Chairman, I think just a point of clarification, please.

I appreciate uh the vice chair's motion and and question.

Uh this would need to come as an amendment to the budget.

We are dealing with the budget overall here, regardless of how we take it in sections.

Uh the business before us is the budget, and we're on that business.

So uh if you'd like to amend the budget, amend the budget by a motion, a second, and the appropriate uh numbers that your motion represents.

So when do I make that motion?

It's totally up to you, Lynn.

I just made it so.

Do we have a second?

Second question, motion, a second discussion.

Council.

Um, so we're looking at a total now a running total like a little over 200,000 dollars in additional expenditures we've approved.

Um how are we going to be paying for it?

Or are there commiserate codes circumvisor at revenue increases that we're considering?

And is this the ultimate um levy through which we raise about 80% of these funds part of this appropriating ordinance, or are we doing that separately at the end of the budget process?

That's my question.

Okay.

The ultimate levy is done uh at the final reading of the budget by resolution, the the cumulative levy, in terms of uh making revenue amendments to say if you wish to increase increase the levy to accommodate offsets for the new expenses you've incurred, then that would be a motion that you would put on the table uh right now, or at some point at some point during the reading of budget.

Council comes of Vorovang has an excellent question.

Uh I suspect it is far more than 200,000.

Uh what is the amount of money you would like to add to the city's budget by way of amendment, Council Segley?

I would like to add on top of what we just approved, um, we didn't approve anything.

Well, what we just well, the amendment.

Uh that well, we did approve some expenditures, but not as the final, I understand what you're saying, but not as the final.

Um, what we are have already voted on, plus I would like I'm one you know what I'm gonna say, I am wondering if there is a an appetite for taking on the electric bill at Rogers, um, while we look at um purchasing solar panels for the building.

Madam Vice Chair, when Mr.

Chairman, Madam Vice Chair, when did the school committee receive notice from the school administration uh that the electric costs at the new Rogers High School were increasing to a point where presumably uh you need to make your when we had when we had the budget meeting with the school committee.

Okay, so uh in fiscal 2026, how long has the school administration how often has the school administration been receiving budget or been receiving uh invoices for their electric services?

Since well, I'm obviously since the school has been built, but under the with the new building uh the and with the rising costs in rates, um it is making it very difficult for the schools to afford the electric bills at Rogers.

Now I would not be proposing this if we were not looking into look purchasing solar panels for the school.

So I think that this is a short time cost.

Um I don't see us having to do this for an entire year, but I, you know, I'm I'm wondering if there is an appetite on the council to do this.

The uh Madam Vice Chair, the fiscal year for the school department started July 1st, just like the city's fiscal year.

Yes.

Every month, presumably uh the school department receives a bill from an invoice from Rhode Island Energy, uh July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, April.

Nine months went by before the council or perhaps even the school committee was made aware that we have a problem.

We are paying far more for our electric than what we budgeted for.

The city does the city administration under the leadership of Director Nolan does a great job in looking at invoices each month or at the latest every three months, every quarter that come in and comparing those invoices to what was budgeted uh for that underlying purpose.

The school committee and certainly the council had no idea uh that this electric Rhode Island Energy Bill was blossoming uh to hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what was budgeted by the school department.

That is irresponsible.

And as such, I certainly will not be supporting uh your if you make a proposed amendment.

I I will not support it.

Mr.

Chair, I'd just like to call a vote.

Hold on.

I I can appreciate um looking at solar energy for the school.

I think it makes sense.

However, we don't know the cost of the installation, which we would have to have, and also I believe we would get the savings on it.

Um, but I'm not prepared tonight to make that change.

I am willing to work with them and try and work this out so that we know the costs that are involved.

Uh, I think it's a good idea.

You know, I was told that the uh billing on the electricity, because the school is all electric, is approximately sixty thousand a month.

That's a lot of money.

So I I would like to explore it further.

I'm not prepared tonight to vote on it, but I do think it's a good idea.

I I think that's fair, counselor Napolitano, and um I appreciate that sentiment.

So I think that we need to work on that together.

Thank you.

So, thank you.

Council Comorwan.

Just a couple questions.

I I think it's a great idea that we're moving in this direction.

Uh a handful of questions.

We have an energy environment commission that does great work at the city.

Has this idea either the solarization or um assuming the energy uh burden been brought to energy and environment commission for their input yet?

Uh I don't think so, but it was brought up before the building committee many times, um, the school building committee, and uh there was an appetite to to, of course, do it back then, but frankly, we didn't have the money to do it back then.

So uh we had to abandon it.

And unfortunately, you know, uh there's always uh a catch 22 because you have to pay for something somewhere or another.

So um, you know, I'd like to see us rectify that issue um in the very near future.

And I know that since we had the budget meeting with the school committee, that we have that the city has been working to procure um solar panels through the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank or other uh various methods.

So I I'm just saying that I I'm it's something that I would like to to work on.

I think that we need to somehow alleviate that cost from the budget, and you know, I'd appreciate any help with it.

Yeah, yeah, and I I commend you for this one because I think you're on to something that actually pokes at a slightly larger issue.

Um we know the schools are under an enormous amount of financial strain.

We assume responsibility for the cost of construction on new school buildings as a city, and we carry that separate of the school's budget.

It's a significant commitment.

I'm wondering when we start thinking about things like operations and finance, the extent to which we should be thinking about that burden being one that the city takes on as part of its responsibility, also because that's where the city has expertise, right?

Um, it's wild to me that we both have finance directors, we both have, you know, utility and plant managers.

We just heard about the great uh public work structure we have as a city.

My question is on procurement of energy here.

Are we under the same contract?

Are the city and the schools under the same contract or is it different and are is the city paying a lower rate than the schools so why don't I I I guess that that begs the question then how does that happen right?

Like because you have to stop and think well if the schools are paying more are they are they not as good at it as the city or did the city not afford them the opportunity to piggyback on it.

Why is there a differential here?

And um it's it's my understanding that the meter at the school did not come on to the contract that the school has so the rate is at the market rate it's not at a fixed rate.

So that that's from what I understand that's that's causing the significant increase in the utility bills that that they're seeing right now.

I'm just trying to new so under the construction there was a new meter that new meter was never added to their existing contract so that was not anything coming through that meter is not at a fixed rate that's coming through at a market rate who oversees that that would be that would be school administration that would have to put that that meter on their account Mr Chair.

Council Credit oh I know we hold on we see a you can come up I just I know council um I just wanted to say thank you to Councilor Sagley we have talked about this um prior to today in our liaison meeting and it was also brought up I believe Dr.

Power brought it up at the joint workshop um that we had with council the one thing that I just want to make clear is that we're one so I'm just a little confused as to why we talk about city versus school when the schools are part of our city and the city should be part of our school so if there's a deficit in the schools there's a deficit in the city these kids belong to all of us it is not solely this responsibility of the school and if someone overlooks something or whatever I think that just probably means that we need to collaborate more and have more conversations and make sure that we're not missing something um as big as a 5000 electric bill that the high school is receiving every year while we're receiving I mean I'm not receiving a discount at home I don't know about everybody else but um while we're receiving a discount on ours it's just wildly unfair and it's inequitable and I'm just that's it is what it is I'm not gonna like sit here and pretend that it's anything but that and go ahead and tell you thank you Mr.

Chair um when um Mr Nolan is correct when the new building was put into place a new meter was put on the building and a new account that new account did not go in at the rate that our contract states the billing was not received by the school department for a few months there was some mail went one way or the other when the mail was finally discovered that's when we received the electric bills and we saw the significant changes.

Immediately Director Gonzals has been speaking to them about this and I want to thank also the city um the city also pointed out that they noticed the rate was different when we have the discussion about the solar panels and what we can do to reduce this so this is under discussion we're getting the rate um adjusted and we're actually seeking for the higher rate the differential to get that back so I just wanted to clear that up.

Mr.

Chairman Council uh thank you Superintendent Dr.

Jermaine uh may I ask you a question please you may be at um a disadvantage because uh director Gonzal's I don't think is here this evening.

Uh and I know you have a good handle on everything that happens in the schools, but if Director Gonzal's was here, I would ask him uh where did that did the United States Postal Service simply not deliver Rhode Island Energy's bill to uh the Newport School Department?

How could it possibly have taken months and months and months to get the right bill before Director Gonzalves brought it to the attention of the Newport School Committee?

Uh who's to blame for I mean, should should we should we have a concern about the local postmaster?

Uh should we have a concern about the way the mail is received at the Newport School Department?

I I simply I mean I've had a lot of delayed mail, uh, but Rhode Island Energy has never failed to send me my bill uh on time and to the right place.

Believe it or not, there is confusion between 109 Old Forett Road and 15 Wickham Avenue, and we have had delays.

Even my own mail has been delayed because it goes to a different location.

During the summer months, we do not have as much personnel in the buildings as far as mail delivery.

That is some of the explanation.

Some of the buildings did go to different addresses.

We've gotten that all straightened out.

I will share.

That's not the first time this has happened with our address.

So for seven and a half months, your director of finance did not receive the correct bill.

Or did not receive a bill.

I can I can't quote if you have the correct number of months, but I do know it was a significant number of months that we did not have that at the time.

I also believe and I wouldn't need to lean into Director Gonzals for this, when the school department started taking over those payments, um, there was some kind of transitioning happening from when we were going to the bond to paying the bills.

So it's not something in writing for you.

It's not far from the realm of possibility for me uh to presume that uh somebody knew that these costs were massively increased versus what the school committee budgeted.

It may not be the school committees or departments' fault that the uh energy costs were higher.

Uh budgeting is not an exact science, but again, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for me to presume uh that someone knew about this a long time ago and waited until April, where there are only two and a half months left in the fiscal year to share that we have hundreds of thousands of dollars uh in increased costs that we did not expect.

Thank you.

So my electric bill has gone up significantly in the past year, and I believe others have as well.

Council.

So similar to the prior issue, I know everybody's talking about bonds, but but process is important and having personal and systems in place is important, and I agree with Councillor Pinnock that we are one city, right?

If that's the case last year during our budget processes, we talked about aligning our finance departments, bringing the school's finance department into the city, helping to absorb that portion of the expense.

And we noted that some of those efficiencies would also be improvements in process, ensuring there's more consistent oversight so that we aren't finding out about deficits with less than 60 days left in a year, so that we're catching things like overages where they may exist.

And here we have an example of a half a million dollar line item, right?

I mean, Jim, you check your mail every day, right?

Shows up.

So, and and similarly, we're one city, so we should be getting the full advantage of the contracts that the city has and the benefit and the oversight there.

I can't help but wonder.

I know this is a nuance, and again, I'd commend Councillor Segley for thinking of ways to help the city absorb some of those expected expenses, but can we improve the processes and the personnel and the reporting so that the schools can focus on what they're very good at, which is taking care of kids and delivering a good education, and the city can assume more of these operational burdens and bringing the oversight that the council wants on things like finance?

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman Run asked, I got a quick question.

And I I don't, I'm gonna ask a question, and I don't know uh Superintendent germain can answer.

And I I'm not saying this as a joke or being uh anything like that.

Why are we still getting electric bills in the mail and not online?

I don't know if anyone.

At this day and time, no, I have I have faith in the I've also no idea.

I don't know if the city gets them online, and I don't I have no idea, but I want to clarify something.

The city does our accounts payable, accounts receivable.

They do all our bidding.

We have switched everything over to the city, payroll, everything.

The one thing when Laura Citron, Joe Nicholson, and I sat down, and we gradually rolled the finance um roles, different parts of that, budgeting, etc., over to the city.

The one ask is I needed one person at least that I could turn to, speak to, go over the budget, go over the numbers that understood school finance, understood RIDE, understood UCOA, and did that.

That was the one ask of the whole thing, everything else has been and is shared with the city on a daily and regular basis.

As a matter of fact, he doesn't even have control of some lines to to do oversight, and that's something which I respect from the city side and the finance director, they want to be very tight on that.

And that is something we agree to.

So question is a follow-up and appreciate that clarification.

So, in your opinion, did the city know that the schools were facing a substantial deficit in advance of when the council was notified?

If they were seeing those accounts payable, if they were seeing the revenues that were coming in.

Because it feels to us as we sit up here, I think that we are kind of blindsided by the scale of the deficit that the schools are facing.

Well, so my question is like if the accounting portion is all there, and I trust you on that because I trust you.

Should we have known about this in advance as a council?

Should we have been notified of that in advance as a council?

So we're not in the position that we're in right now where we've got a bunch of folks who are you know looking at losing the educators they rely on every day.

We've got a bunch of educators who just got their layoff notices, and we feel blindsided as a council, and we feel backed into a corner when it comes to what we're gonna have in terms of revenue.

Should we have known about this six months ago instead of just the final 60 days of the year?

Please, I don't want to sound disrespectful, but the council has been receiving our financials, our reports, our transparency, and that we do and are and were facing a large financial problem, and this was noted as far back as of August of 2025, and each month we were reporting this out, and each month Director Gonzals has been very transparent in all his memos and everything he gives on a monthly basis, sharing what's going on with our budget, and every week, actually the day after our meetings with our school committee, we forward all this information to the council and to the city.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Again, I appreciate Dr.

Jermaine's candor and uh her willingness to answer our tough questions.

Uh I assure you, had the council been aware uh since August of 2025 of a pending multi-million dollar deficit, I would have spoken.

Uh, I would have brought it not only to the attention of the administration and my colleagues, but to the public, to say the least.

The first I heard of an impending uh potential 1.8 million dollar deficit or shortfall, if you will.

Deficit doesn't happen until the fiscal year closes was April of this year, uh, when in fact it was put on a city council agenda to receive a notice from you, Dr.

Germain, and the school committee by default uh that we were facing the schools were facing, and to Councillor Pinnock's point, we, we, uh, we're facing such a deficit because the money comes from the city and the state.

Uh, but it is, as council of Pinnock said, all of us.

Uh I would like to be proven wrong that the transparency of uh the school budget office was and is as described.

I I do not think it was and is.

To repeat, I would have raised uh an enormous amount of concern about this pending shortfall because you're going back to fiscal uh 25 as well as the current fiscal year 26.

Question for either you, Dr.

Jermaine, Superintendent Germain or uh Director Nolan.

Uh Council Kamsavorov raised an excellent point earlier regarding the finance departments.

Uh Dr.

Germain or Director Nolan, whoever wants to answer it.

Um the director of finance or whatever you'd like to call your finance professional at the school department.

Part-time or full-time job?

He works for us on a part-time, full-time basis.

And what I mean by that is he is available and not your typical hours from six in the morning till eight fifteen.

Then he's available again at 4 15 on for the rest of the night, and he's available on the weekends.

He's also available during emergencies at any time or during lunch hours, 12 to 1.

That is his time.

It works well with our school department and with our directors.

We know when we can reach him, and he's available to us at all times.

He's been available to me all night as I've had other questions regarding other matters in the school department.

So he has.

I look forward to that uh email search tomorrow.

Uh tonight I'd like to ask you how much is uh Director Gonzals on a part-time basis paid per month?

He's paid um, I believe we've discussed this many times.

I think it's ten thousand dollars.

10,000.

Yes.

I I find that set up to be especially for a role of such importance.

I mean, we're I I have to disagree respectfully that that it has worked out well.

Maybe it's worked out well uh for those who are not suffering in this 1.8 million dollar current fiscal year shortfall and 2.7 million dollar uh projected 2027 shortfall.

Uh but it hasn't worked out well for me, uh, and maybe for for my colleagues either.

Uh I I think it's a rather ridiculous setup that the school committee has apparently no problem with.

Director Gonsalv has done an excellent job, is well respected, and he knows his stuff.

And I agree that it is not your typical work day, but I'm going to say in today's age, I don't know when anyone has a typical work day anymore.

A lot of people are 24-7, some people work different shifts.

But at the end of the day, if you recall when you were on the school committee, we had a very challenging time finding a qualified school finance director.

They are very difficult to find.

You can go to probably at least eight school districts in this state that cannot find one.

So I just want to say I think Newport's very lucky to have Director Gonzals.

Thank you.

Council Smith.

I just want to say that I have my email in front of me, and every email that I get goes into a specific folder.

So I just checked the ones from superintendent's office, school committee, and I do not see a one that is specific to the budget.

You don't have anything from the budget?

No.

You don't have the budget, you don't have anything.

Does anyone from the finance department get it?

The finance, it's going to your finance department.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Council side.

I will make sure you all get it as well as the finance department.

I I share your respect for um Director Gonsalves, but my question is, why would that position not be better with the city's finance department if it was somebody who you could call?

If it's a virtual thing and they're on call, why couldn't it be somebody who's working in Director Nolan's office that you call on normal work hours from 8 15 to 4 30 to get those answers to those questions?

Who's available to do things like, you know, receive that mail when it comes in?

Was able to ensure there's that continuity in communication with the council.

So I don't know, Counselor, if you are aware that we did share and we tried to share some services in the past.

We had a facilities director that we tried to share, and it was it became unmanageable.

We had to go back and we had to get our own facilities director because it was just too much with all the work that needed to be done between the city and the schools.

I'm not close to the suggestion at all.

It would be something that the school committee would need to review as well.

But I do think that everyone needs to take a hard look at whether within the present setup structure that the city has now, if they're able to take on the incredible amount of work that needs to be done.

I just worry that we're gonna have a new superintendent that comes in and they're gonna say, well, I have a question about the budget, and someone's gonna say, Well, you can get an answer to that before 8 15, or you can get it after 4 30, right?

And that maybe this is actually the right time to have that conversation about whether this is something that the city might be able to take on from the schools, the schools can refocus, and I appreciate the history, and I I thank you for giving me that um recap on that.

But I think this is we got to think about how we get the schools as focused as possible on kids and on education in schools, take off some of these variables, but also improve the communication and the process so that we're not you know constantly in the situation that we're in right now, which is I know it's not just personnel, I know there are other complicating factors, but I do think if we're gonna be one city and we're gonna think with that mentality, we've got to align on things as basic as how we contract our energy and as complicated as how we set our budget.

And my apologies, um, Council Carlin.

I thought that all of you were receiving when it was sent to the city.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to call the vote on my motion, please.

We had a motion and a second.

Um just want to remind everyone when you do um add money, you have to consider the maintenance of effort so that that would probably that's not a non-reecurring um, this is this would be a non-recurring.

I don't you you're talking about paying an electric bill for them, right?

So it would have to be put into the main added to the maintenance of a okay.

So you'd be okay.

I alright.

So I'm going to withdraw my motion, but I believe that we need to work very closely in order to eliminate some of these expenses for the school department in order to help them with their budget.

So, and to go along with Council Napolitano, I mean, let's get all the information on something like that.

Yes, I agree.

Yeah, okay.

All right, um, we're gonna take um open this up to uh public comment.

Um, and please just keep in mind as I uh mentioned at the beginning of the meeting.

Just try to not repeat the same chairman over Council Carlin.

I'm sorry.

Uh somehow we we did get on to the subject of uh school funding, not directly uh regarding the four percent proposed increase or the maintenance of effort as was being just mentioned.

Uh but we we never left the budget change sheet.

Uh and uh I had a question regarding uh the uh uh the short-term interest on the budget change sheet under the revenue column, uh the original proposal that was sent to the council uh indicated uh short-term interest uh of what it I'm I'm sorry.

Let me just make sure I'm reading this right directly.

The revised proponent proposal.

What one point seven?

One point nine, uh one point.

So the the short-term interest with the the short-term interest will simply decrease by two hundred thousand dollars.

Is that correct?

That's right.

So basically the savings that we had on our debt service.

Yep.

So from what we proposed to actually what happened with our April borrowing was about $396,000.

Okay.

Based on the market conditions, interest rates that are are being pulled back by the by the uh by the feds.

I think it's prudent that we reduce our interest income and our short-term short-term investment line items.

I completely understand and agree.

Uh going back again to revenue and the change sheet.

Uh, can you just briefly explain?

We dealt with this per my question earlier uh about school housing aid, uh, but there appears to be an additional 1.4 million dollars.

Yeah, it's from the time the budget was proposed.

This is gonna be this is a net zero.

So when we look at the first four line items of this revenue, so what happened was there was a cut and paste error within our budget document.

So the amount for school housing aid was put on the um pilot from state.

All right.

So in total, it that total amount for the category remained unchanged at 5.3 million.

Simple reclass of those line items to put them in the right line item.

So there's it's a net zero.

I understood.

When you say the total for that class at 5.3 million, where do I find that figure?

So if you add up those, that's gonna be in our our budget book and uh revenue line.

On the change sheet itself, it's not indicated.

It's not thank you, Mr.

Nolan.

Appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh we're gonna start down here.

This gentleman.

Should I make a motion?

Well, this is part of the proposal.

Hello and good evening, members of the city council.

My name is Caden Betts.

I'm a senior at Rogers High School.

I live at 4 Harvard Street.

We can all agree that every child deserves a quality education.

I'm here to advocate for my fellow classmates and teach teachers.

My current understanding is that there is a 4% maximum increase in the allotted amount provided to the school district budget by the city each year.

Today, I ask for this to increase.

Underfunding public schools is not a budget solution.

It's an economic and civil crisis for a city.

When we do not properly invest in education, we trigger a chain reaction that suppresses our local workforce and actively disinfra disenfranchises a large portion of our community.

A key part of strong education is manage manageable class sizes.

An ideal student to teacher ratio generally ranges from 12 to 1 to 18 to 1 for optimal learning.

Keeping these numbers low allows for personalized instruction where educators can tailor lessons to diverse learning styles and address learning gaps early.

Smaller groups drastically drastically improve student engagement, promoting active participation and stronger student-teacher relationships.

Teachers must spend on discipline.

What I'm saying is when schools cut teachers, it directly lowers education quality and uh fuels teacher burnout, overcrowded classrooms, uh, put immense strain on our educators, accelerating turnover and reducing the quality of feedback our kids receive.

We must recognize that 70% of children in Newport public schools are from low-income families.

These students rely on our schools the most, and our current investment level in Newport students is already too low.

If you continue down this path, enrollment will continue to drop as families with financial mobility fleet to better schools.

This demographic drain brain drain will permanently hollow out our tax base as school performance plummets, our housing market will follow, lowering property values and compounding our municipal deficit.

We cannot strip resources from our children without directly dismantling the financial and social health of our entire community.

What I am asking is for the city council to bring this matter to the Rhode Island General Assembly to increase the 4% gap on the yearly increase for the school department budget and to to save our teachers and our students.

Thank you for your time and dedication to the students and teachers of Newport was someone here in the middle that had their hand up pretty short Ida Neerie 36 Newport Avenue and parent of a Rogers High School student.

We I say this every year budgets are moral choices you make choices that's how that happens and you have to decide what you want to do.

So I am only going to read from um 2011 to 2027 how the city has funded the schools right so in um 2011 um the schools were actually not funded and the percent increase over year was minus 2.5% the next year it was 0% the year after that 2013 0%.

In 2014 1.75% great uh in 2015 0.18% in 2016 1.36% in 2017 8.46% and you're thinking wow what happened there it was a one-time technology purchase 2018 1.19% 2020 hey 2019 1.5 percent 2020 finally 4% hmm I wonder what happened in 2020 2021 zero 2022 one 2023 zero 2024 two point three five percent 2026 4% we need 13% this year I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that the fact that we have a deficit is a structural issue that has been that dates from 2020 from 2011 so we're having fantastic conversations about where to cut and how to combine services and all those things are great don't get me wrong all those things are great but we are looking at a 15 year deficit that's what it is it's a 15 year deficit as a whole the city of Newport has mostly funded the schools between 23% of the budget and 28% of the their budget our neighbors in middle town are going just last year either 35 or 36% of their budget portsmith is doing 49 or 51% and narragan said 50 to 51 percent so to that young man thank you for speaking at some point we all have to decide that everybody these are all our children and that we are going to put money in their education and we cannot cut our way to success we cannot cut our way to success and we are in extremely extremely lucky municipality of 2400 people that we have the means to raise revenue thank you thank you.

Thank you I was not on the uh the Newport City Council prior to uh December of 2022 question for counselors Napolitano and Segly did you appropriate outside as members of the council did you appropriate outside of maintenance of effort millions and millions and millions of dollars from the city funds to the Newport schools yes thank you good evening, Cabinet Munter, 22 Homer Street.

I know you're all thinking it's been a while since you've seen me, so you're welcome uh I am just here to say that we are stuck in this feeling of poverty that Newport is a poor town.

We are not a poor town.

We have literal billionaires and multiple of them living on Bellevue Ave.

We are in this predicament because we are tax averse.

Ask anyone who has lived anywhere else, who has homes anywhere else, our taxes are so ridiculously low that we now have found ourselves with not enough money to fund our schools, to do projects, to tackle our infrastructure, and nobody wants to hear it.

I make no friends, but we have got to tax at a level that we need for our city.

If we go through with the 4% budget increase for the schools, that will bring us to a new low in 15 years of 23.29% of the budget going to the schools.

23% going to the schools.

And I know nobody wants to pay more in taxes, but we have to look at what we are doing, and we are literally starving our community of assets.

When we have billionaires who live in this town, when we have second and third and fourth homeowners who live in this town, and we are sitting here nickel and dime because we are too afraid to make us pay what we need.

I don't want to pay an extra $500 a year, but if it means we're gonna have funding for schools, we're gonna have our playgrounds done more than every 25 years.

If it means the tennis courts can get resurfaced on a more normal schedule, then yes, please tax me.

It's fine.

You can tax us, we will be okay.

The billionaires will be okay, the millionaires will be okay.

Those who retired here who bought a $2 million house, they will be okay.

You can tax us to provide our community with the things we need, and I am begging you to, please, starting with our schools.

Amy Ozura, 102 Warner Street, Newport.

Good evening, Chairman Holder and committee members.

For far too long, we've had a history of underfunding our public schools.

Not only here in Newport, but other communities across the country are making difficult choices regarding how we fund public education.

I believe that these choices will make it clear to our children what our priorities are here in Newport.

Currently, we're losing Rhode Island state funding due to declining enrollment.

We're losing federal funds due to program cuts and directives coming from DC.

We cannot afford for the city of Newport to underfund our public education system.

Our students are the future of Newport.

If we are going to have a thriving community, it starts with educating all of our children.

As time goes by, we put more and more responsibility on our public schools and expect them to operate with less.

And this is not sustainable.

Historically, I don't quite understand why school committee does not ask for the full contribution that we would need to fully operate our schools.

Due to the constant underfunding over the past few years, we have lost reading specialists, math specialists, mental health professionals.

Pell doesn't even have a librarian anymore.

No more library classes in elementary school.

What message does that send to our kids around reading books?

Newport is a world-class destination.

How are we not investing in our children?

The city has done a good job over the past few years taxing second homes, increasing service fees for parking, moorings, and increasing the hotel tax.

The council has had proposals in front of them in the past for a one-time conveyance tax.

I would be in support of that and use that money to fund our public education.

We owe it to the community and our students to be thoughtful and creative in finding ways to make sure that we have the dollars to properly educate all of our public students.

Thank you for your time and please prioritize public school funding.

Thank you.

Liz Barron, 3 Ledyard Street.

I'm a parent of two children at Newport Public Schools at a school psychologist who works with districts across Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

I'm here to echo the impassioned pleas of students, educators, community members, to appropriately fund our schools.

We know that our schools are facing enormous challenges, and that our students' families, and educators are drowning.

It's becoming increasingly challenging for me to reconcile the image of America's first resort, this beautiful, thriving city by the sea, with an underfunded, underperforming school system that's forced to lay off talented and dedicated educators year after year.

Every year we ask our schools to do more with less, and every year our teachers, support staff, and administrators stretch themselves beyond what should be reasonably expected.

The budget cuts proposed out of necessity by our school committee are not abstract line items on a spreadsheet.

They are larger class sizes, they're reading specialists, they're less mental health support, fewer opportunities for students who are already struggling to stay connected.

They are exhausted educators leaving this profession because they no longer feel supported or valued.

They are families questioning whether Newport can truly meet the needs of their children.

Budgets are moral documents.

They reveal what we value.

You have an opportunity to show Newport's children, educators and families that they matter.

A community with our resources, creativity and heart should not be balancing its budget on the backs of children and educators.

I urge you to fully fund our schools and to fight for every available avenue, including requesting permission to exceed the 4% cap if necessary, because the cost of failing to invest in our children will far exceed the cost of doing the right thing.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Grania Phelps, and I live at 32 Cranston Avenue, Newport.

I'm here because I've listened for the last hour and 45 minutes about blame.

Who's to blame for this deficit?

Who sent emails, who read their emails, who knew about the information, who didn't know about the information.

What I'm gonna say is who didn't know about the information and who shouldn't be blamed for it are the students of Newport.

They did not create this deficit and they should not pay the price for it, nor should the teachers of Newport.

Sorry, you're not the mayor, and I can't pronounce your last name.

Said that we need to make education our priority.

He's correct.

We need to make education a priority.

And Councillor Pinnock said these are our children.

I have five children who went through Newport Public Schools, they are my children.

I'm a teacher in Newport Public Schools.

The teachers in my classes are my children.

I also go to all the events for Newport Public Schools, and every student in Newport is my child.

You need to properly fund their education.

You need to meet at the very minimum 4%.

I understand 13% will be fantastic.

I don't believe it would happen, but you need to properly fund our schools.

There are ways that we can, as a school department, save money.

I own my own home, I own rental properties.

I am responsible for the snow removal on all of my properties.

Why is Newport School Department paying for snow removal on a city-owned property?

Why is Newport School Department paying for lawn care, not lawn care, grounds care on a city-owned property?

Why is Newport School Department paying for a city charter to fund health care for our for our school committee members?

Those are things that the city needs to take off the school department budget.

They are mandated by the city.

The city should be paying for them.

If I had if my tenants do not remove snow from their property, it is my responsibility.

And if I don't do it, guess who finds me for it?

The city finds me for it.

So you need to take on those responsibilities.

You need to take them off the backs of the school department so that the school department can correctly fund the teachers and the students of Newport.

Thank you.

Um I want to first of all quell a rumor that's going around that the um school department did not cut administrators.

So I'm just gonna read you the list because I think it's important that you understand.

This is over the last three years, most of them in the last two.

One, social emotional learning specialist at Pell, MTS coordinator at Thompson, Vice Principal at Rogers, RHS truancy officer, TMS truancy officer, Pell truancy office, um MLL Multilanguage Learner Secretary, one HR business assistant, eliminated required TMS coordinator at Pell, eliminated required TMS coordinator at Rogers, all those adding to the vice principal's jobs.

Eliminated business director position, now using the outside contractor, but it saves us 40,000.

And these are some additional support people that left family service coordinator at Pell Behavior Support person at Pell, guidance position at Pell, guidance position at Rogers, behavior support at Rogers, and then also I just want to read all of the intervention people that have left recently.

So we have um one math intervention teacher at Pell, two reading intervention teachers at TMS, one math intervention at I think that's Thompson and a reading intervention at Rogers, uh librarian position at Rogers, library position at uh Thompson and one at Pell, um, an admin support at TAN, and also six reading teachers at Pell.

That's what is is not there anymore.

We don't have any intervention at the elementary school.

It's become the responsibility of the classroom teacher.

So I just want to say I appreciate if we can do any kind of um creative ways, like getting the solar in, taking maybe over the um electric bill, maybe it's only for a year.

How about the water bill?

We've already mentioned the snow plowing, but let's get some creative ideas.

How about a fund for when we go over on outside um uh placements?

Would that you would take care of that because we never know how much to budget for that?

So just do what you can.

I know we're all working together, and um and we've got to make this happen because I it's very difficult to walk through the schools right now and know what we're missing.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Side, and then you're not I'll get you next.

So thank you so much for coming in and some questions.

Look, I think when you look at Newport's education system, the entirety of that weight resides on the schools right now.

Let's be honest, you're running social services, you're running mental health, you're doing an enormous amount because the reality is that running Prep Disneyland requires a lot of working class people, a lot of families who are working their tails off to make this work, and that's expensive.

They need a lot of support.

That's the cost of doing business here.

You've outlined a lot of good areas that are heavily operational intensive, heavily financially intensive, and that in theory is what the city does well.

Whereas the schools, what they do very well is education.

In your opinion, would the schools be willing to cede control over facilities, finance, business management, at least the functional parts of HR, over to the city if it gave it more capacity to focus on educating kids?

I can't speak for the school committee, but I, for one, yes.

Because as we talk about concepts like regionalization, which I think continue to merit the focus uh that the city of Middletown have, maybe we should start within our own operations itself and really be one Newport with how we're approaching this.

So, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair uh Bolan.

You're one of the finest people I and I've been uh in in uh Newport politics for lack of a better term for a long time.

You're one of the finest people uh that I've ever met in public service, and I thank you for that.

I know how hard you work for years and years and years, and I know how difficult this is.

Uh thanks for sharing those statistics.

Can you help me clearly understand?

Because between uh what we see on social media, in print media, what we hear on the street, what we're getting by emails from the city or the school department.

Um, um there's different answers to the same questions.

Tell me, please, if you would, Becky.

Uh Ms.

Bowen.

How many?

For fiscal 27.

How many layoffs of school teachers did the Newport School Committee approve?

17.

Thank you.

How many administrators did the same body for fiscal 27 lay off?

So I I would have to go through this list, but administrators.

There administrative support people is also in that same category.

So we have the truancy officers.

There were three of them, right?

We have uh support person in um in I think the finance office, we have a support person that was working with HR.

Um, and uh, and it I was working on this list today and getting the years on all of them, and I have not finished that yet.

I appreciate that.

Uh, how many non-support administrators?

How many in my day we used to call them administrators?

Uh, we probably still do.

How many traditional administrators, such as principals, vice principals, uh, and you know, when you get down high-level right positions, how many did you lay off for fiscal 27?

Three schools, you have a principal and a vice principal.

That's all that's left to each school.

Which one of those would you like to have leave?

I I am not debating the merits of what you I am debating the merits of what the school committee did because I find it difficult uh to support a request unless there is a guarantee uh that school teachers and key personnel, counselors uh and uh psychologists and others, like I said in fiscal twenty-six budget debate, like I said, frankly, in fiscal twenty-five budget debate uh would be brought back.

So again, I I'm not I'm not I don't want to get into a contest, especially since I love you so much.

I don't want to get into a back and forth.

I I just want to know how many traditionally defined administrators were given layoffs for fiscal twenty-seven.

I don't believe one.

One.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair, because we've already done it.

Council Pennick, thank you.

Um, go ahead, but she's not a next.

Uh sir.

Are you coming on?

Yeah, I'll wait till he's done, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, my name is Patrick Wygant.

I live at 41 Bushard Drive in Middletown.

I'm a teacher at Rogers High School.

I had a couple things I was gonna say.

I'm gonna skip through some so I'm not repeating things that have already been mentioned.

Uh we're here because there's been a collapse in communication between school leaders and the city council as far as funding our schools.

I know the numbers have already been read out year over year.

The allocation of percentages of what's been given to the school, what hasn't, but if we average it, it's been 1.6 percent since 2011 out of a maximum of 4% each year.

The numbers tell that story plainly.

Had the council and the school leadership funded it, we would not be standing here today.

There would be no gutted programs.

The gap between what was possible and what was chosen is the gap that our children are now falling into.

What's been cut is not bureaucratic overhead.

All intervention programs and reading and math have been eliminated.

Uh multi-language learning teachers are gone.

These are programs that catch children before they fall too far behind.

Without them, students have fewer resources, fewer class offerings, fewer teachers, fewer opportunities.

Every one of those losses is a door closing on a child's future.

We all know inflation is real.

No one in the room is unaware of rising costs, but that's not an excuse to shortchange children who have no other options.

Every other budget line item has constituencies that push back, lobby, and advocate.

Children can't do that.

They rely on us to do it for them, and we failed them.

70% of Newport's children live in poverty.

These are not children with tutors and safety nets.

These are children for whom a strong public school is the single greatest equalizer available to them, and we're taking it away.

Our city has extraordinary wealth.

We have a vibrant tourist industry.

We cannot find the will to adequately fund our schools that serve the children who actually live here.

This is not a budget problem, it's a values problem.

We need to fund the schools, restore our programs, and make sure that the students who've been paying the price for a decade of inaction have the education they deserve because they paid enough.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Gene McLaughlin.

I live at Four Ledged Street.

And the parent of one that's already graduated.

Three in the system and three on the way.

There's a lot about public school systems that are awesome.

I've seen the budget cuts really, really hurt.

The loss of reading and math specialists.

I had a child that made honorable.

That's barely going to get out of the eighth grade.

That really, really hurts.

And I don't want to see these services decline.

We look at ways to cut the budget all the time, but we don't look outside the box.

I work in ALP, which is an amazing, awesome program at Rogers High School that's just not valued in the way it should.

If we were funded the way we should be, and we had the appropriated personnel, we could bring in many students that are sent out of district and handle them.

That's saving you one to two hundred thousand dollars a year on each set child sent out of district.

We can control a lot of the behavior programs when essentially funded.

I don't know what the fate of that program is.

We have not been told, but I do know that all the teachers in that program were sent as placement letters.

When I started with that program eight years ago, uh 11 years ago, we had eight paraprofessionals.

Last year, it was just me.

This year we got two extra people.

It's just not enough to take a program that could take not only so much burden off the school, but we could reach out to Middletown.

We could take their out of district placements, and we could fund them in our high school.

We could do the same for Portsmouth and Tiverton and Little Compton, and we could charge them less than normally out of district placement would be and be able to run proficiently.

Build a system back up that's really well, and actually increase revenue.

It's just frustrating when we don't think outside the box.

I know sometimes we look at it and say we don't have the money to do it now, but like our electric, if we had just put the things in, we'd be looking at a different rate.

What if we built an amazing clubhouse that there's only one indoor track in the whole state?

We had built an indoor track when the building went up.

We would make our money back in less than two years and would increase our funding because there's no one else that's running a new track.

We could have run tournaments, we could reach out to the wealthy people of the city, ask them to support our programs, put their name on it, you know, go out to some of the wealthy people in the area.

We had such a history with the Celtics when our gym was up.

Maybe they'd be willing to do input.

I just really hope that not only will you go to assembly and ask for more money, but you think outside the box, and so we can get school grade again.

My child graduated in 2022 from Rogers High School.

He's doing amazing, and the difference I've seen since the budget has gone way down, I have a sophomore now, is sad.

And we have so much to celebrate at Rogers and the other schools.

Great things that happened that people just don't talk about.

Our music department went on a great trip and they won three amazing awards, and they won one award for being the most polite, most appropriate uh school in the entire East Coast that went.

So those are things we should celebrate and talk about all the time.

Our automotive just won a bunch of stuff building a car.

So I'm not gonna keep you, but I wish we could brag more and then raise some money.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Um, first I just wanted to say thank you to all of the people representing Newport Public Schools that showed up um today.

I know it's been a long meeting so far, and you've had a long day, and this is very stressful.

Um, I will say this is probably one of the hardest conversations.

This is the second time since I've been on council that I've had that I've taken part in this conversation.

This is one of the hardest conversations to have because I struggle with trying to rationalize why it's a debate.

Our kids need support.

I'm in Newport public schools in some capacity every single day for free.

Um Amy spoke about there not being a library any librarian anymore at Pell.

Well, our volunteers are running the library.

So the kids have access to books.

We've heard about test scores and all these things, like the literacy rate.

But how if we are denying access to children to receive books from their own school library, how in the world do we expect literacy rates to rise?

Like it can't be both.

We have to pick one.

And it's at the point now where the fourth graders have learned how to work in the library, so that their younger classmates have access to books.

And while that's adorable, and I think it's a great skill to have, that responsibility should not be fallen on nine-year-olds.

And if we don't see a problem with that, then we have far bigger issues than I think that we have.

I don't care about any of those things.

What I care about are these kids and their experiences in this community.

I care about their experiences in school, I care about the resources that they're losing, and I care about the teachers that are losing their livelihood.

I think that's the thing that we're missing.

Those of us that work, I'm not in any fear of losing my job right now.

But I know what it feels like to be afraid of losing my job, and I know what it feels like to be afraid of losing my livelihood while I have children at home to take care of.

It's a really scary feeling.

And I understand that there are budget cuts and that there's a deficit and all of these things, but I just think we need to work harder to try to figure this out and stop the blame game.

Okay, cool.

We didn't get whatever report we didn't get.

That was something that should have happened.

It didn't.

We need to move forward and we need to figure out how to move forward.

But go all this back and forth and like all of this deficit thinking and all of this blame, it's not solving a thing.

It's not solving anything.

At the end of the day, we still have a deficit in our budget.

And I'm saying our budget because it's our budget.

We have a deficit.

Kids need help, and it's up to us to help them.

We're here to leave things better than the way we found them, not to make things worse, and not to put this horrible responsibility on the shoulders of children.

Children.

All of us were kids at one point.

Some of us had a lot more responsibility in life than we should have had at that younger age.

I know how that feels, and I don't want that for kids.

We have to wrap around these kids and we have to do what is right.

And if I have to go by myself, the general assembly and ask, then I will.

Whatever it takes, I'll get on the next thing, smoking plane train, automobile, bicycle, roll of skates, whatever it is.

I'll go because I'm in the schools every single day.

I know the deficits that exist.

I'm at the bus circle.

I see the amount of kids who get off that bus who need their own para, their own.

I know the deficits that exist at Thompson.

I ran programs in that school for free for three years.

I taught podcasting at Rogers High School for three years for kids who were failing English class for free, because that's what it takes sometimes.

And I implore us all to do what we need to do to make sure that these kids have a better experience.

They deserve it.

It's not debatable, it just isn't.

And I apologize for being upset.

But like I said earlier, these kids are all of our kids, and I mean it.

I love these children with every fiber of my being.

I know what their experience is, and I'd be a liar if I sat up here and said otherwise.

We need to figure out a way to solve this problem, and that's all there is to it.

Um, Mr.

Chair, um, I would like some clarification on the four percent.

I know that there is some legislation that says something we have to go back to the General Assembly, but could you please please explain it one more time?

Sort of, there's a lot of four percents floating around.

So I want to start with there's the four percent that only pertains to the school budget, and and the cap by law by which the school department and the school committee is permitted to propose a budget in terms of the city's contribution above what it was the previous year.

So that's that's a facet of the school budget only.

It also coincidentally happens to be that number four, the overall city uh levy cap that can be raised year over year without any additional exemption or permission from the general assembly.

Within whatever levy we raise is also included the school appropriation.

So the school appropriation is just one of many expenditures in the city budget, they can only propose a four percent increase, likewise on the larger city budget, we can only raise the property tax levy by four percent.

The exceptions are we get permission from the general general general assembly via legislation.

You may recall that Providence did that last year, and it was principally for their schools.

Uh, the other option is if we qualify for one of the uh it's about four standard uh provisional exemptions depending on circumstances.

Uh I was speaking with Director Nolan earlier today.

The circumstance that we are most that we would be most likely to be eligible for right now is because of the increase in our debt service, which is somewhere in the ballpark of about 17 or 18% higher than it was last year.

I'll I won't bore you with the math, but he and I figured that out today.

Uh it would be approximately 1.2%, give or take a tenth uh above four percent that we could go if we got permission from the department of revenue on the certification of that increase in debt service.

So without the General Assembly, there's still a way, but we would need certification from the Department of Revenue, and we would it would be about an extra 1.2%.

That aspect comes with one critical big asterisk, and that's that by state law to approve that exemption requires a supermajority of the governing body of four-fifths that equates to six of seven affirmative votes from the city.

So it's it's a tough bar to reach, but it can be done.

Okay, but just to clarification, do we have to go to the general assembly to raise the city's four percent, or do we have to go to the general assembly to raise the school departments four percent?

I mean, if we're not if we if we can fund the schools, let's just say hypothetically speaking, we can fund the schools, right?

More than four percent without raising our own four percent.

Correct.

That you can do that correct.

That's a that does the school department and committee by law can only propose a four percent increase.

That does not restrict the city council from appropriating more than that voluntarily.

However, I will point out something that the city solicitor has frequently pointed out, which is when you do that because of the maintenance of effort law, you reset the floor for the next year.

And never then go below it.

Absolutely, I and I and I understand that, and that's why over the years we have um appropriated funding outside of the maintenance of effort to help fill in gaps for you know many many years since I've been on the council.

Um, and I understand that that doesn't help with the overall budget year to year, but that's something that we tried to do in order to um certainly fill in the gaps.

Um, let me ask another question.

Um if we were to let's say absorb some of the city's um expenses, for instance, electric, water, you know, whatever, mowing, snow.

Why would that be considered part of the maintenance of effort for the schools when those are city buildings?

Because under law, the school committee is in control possession of the property, so if you were to take over obligations that they would have as someone in control of the property by law, then it could be um out of the maintenance of effort.

So it's not people have brought up a landlord tenant relationship, it is not a landlord-tenant relationship.

It is they are entitled to uh the property, the use of the property, possession of the property, they're entitled to direct what goes on at that property, so it would probably call into question the maintenance of effort.

Now there may be ways to, you know, depending on certain it would really be dependent on the nature of the expenses too of what the city might take over.

Maybe you can argue that it isn't, but you would have to take a close look at that and and and realize if you're doing that, it is part of your maintenance of that.

When we when we um took over the finances when we did the budgeting years ago, we did that I don't know, maybe eight nine years ago, something.

Nine years ago.

Did that money um was that money put it had affect the the maintenance of effort?

I mean how okay, okay.

Thank you.

And I mean, some of these you can see clarification, probably the commissioner of education get an opinion as to whether they would consider that as the maintenance of effort.

Okay.

Um for a non-reoccurring expenses that has to be approved by the um commissioner, um, so tonight we have to vote.

We have to do the first reading.

We have to vote on a first reading because we don't have the time to continue this budget, right?

So, I mean, if we were to say, okay, under first reading, we're going to allocate four percent in the next budget hearing, we can do something else.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Nothing will be final tonight.

Council of Paul.

Yes, I I just want to point out something because I have repeatedly gone to the finance office for answers in terms of the schools.

One of the biggest problems that we have is the economy of scale, the number of students that require special services and special help.

Um, we don't really get, in my opinion, a fair reimbursement from the state.

When you hear 70, maybe more students um have free and reduced lunch, give me a break.

The state should be looking at Newport differently.

What I want to say is the school funding in from 2017 to 2024, school funding in excess of the annual allocations, that's the maintenance of effort, the city provided or the city taxpayers, I should say, 29 million, 783.

Which is our capital improvements plan from 23 to FY 27, provided another one point three nine one million.

It's and we do share some services.

Um city plumber, the share of city purchasing agent, and accounting and payroll from 2019 to 2027.

Total amount 469, 139, uh 139.

It's not like we haven't been providing the extras.

We just haven't provided enough to accommodate the students that we have.

This is a dilemma, and this is part of the problem with the rents and the housing costs being so high in Newport that it's not families moving in.

And I remember years ago when I came on the council when they started saying the point section is dark in the winter.

You know, this has been an ongoing issue.

And the only way that I feel we can solve this is by joining forces.

Whether it's regionalization, whether it's certain classes, whether it's certain schools, we need to look at it seriously.

If we want to provide all of our students, and particularly the neediest of our students with a good education so that they can thrive, so they can survive, so they can contribute to the city of Newport.

We got to figure this one out.

We have we've tried over the years, at least I know I have, tried over the years to provide some of the extras for the Newport School Department, and the voters certainly overwhelmingly want it warm and dry school.

They voted for a hundred and six million dollar uh bond for not only Rogers, but for also helping put the addition on to Pell.

You know, we've got to figure this out.

We have primarily new schools, with the exception of the middle school, but we have a declining school enrollment, and we also have students that have tremendous needs.

Going to the state house is fine, but I know I've gone on a number of occasions, particularly in regard to the schools, and you know what one chairman said to me?

Oh, here comes Newport Bellevue Avenue.

I don't think so.

I don't think so.

So I, you know, I just want to say that we've done, or I feel I've done what I could to help the schools, but we really need to take a look at this and figure it out.

And it has to be an enrollment that can support our teaching staff or the teaching staff be able to support our enrollment, you know.

We have to look at combining resources.

Council Seglink.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I just I have a question uh for um Superintendent Jeremy.

Um Superintendent Jermaine, when will we find out?

Now that we're considered a core city, um, when will we find out if there will be any benefit to that?

Bottom line.

Um, actually, um, there's gonna be testimony, I think, on a Thursday um regarding um additional funding for core cities and for students uh in the every student succeeds act.

So the governor does have in his budget a proposal to hopefully increase that funding.

Okay.

So we will be hearing some more on that.

Do you think that we would know that by the time we listen to the budget next is it next week, right?

Is it next week?

We listen to it again.

No, I do not, unfortunately.

Usually, and I've always said this, it's the most ridiculous thing.

I don't know how you run a $50 million business and find out your budget three days before the new fiscal year, but we don't usually get our final allocations or any of our awards until the usually the third week of June, and our new fiscal year starts um July 1.

Um, may I address something that keeps people keep asking?

So I am, and even this evening I was asked the question Receiving the 4% from the city, and thank you for putting it in the budget.

Will that enable us to bring back the staff we laid off the 17?

And the answer, unfortunately, is no, because even after we receive the 4%, and I've already texted people to make sure you get all the documents.

I don't know if they're coming in now, but you'll have them first thing tomorrow morning.

Um, we have a 2.1 gap.

So because of that, we have been in the fiscal um in our financial group, but also we've thought of different ways to the point about being creative.

And if our OPEP costs, which the city has, you know, looking at what they do, started to take over some of those.

If they took over the 650K from that and the OPEC costs, and then to Ms.

Segley's to Lynn's point about the Rogers half a million there, and then if we just set up a restricted fund, which someone I believe did raise tonight for about 1.6, that would bring us to the 13% and enable us to re bring back our staff.

But at this point in time, that is our biggest struggle.

Even with the 4%, the staffing reductions are still there.

And we're trying to think of different ways and creative ways, as Ms.

Bowland said today, that we can do something to try to bring them back.

So I just wanted to get that out there and to clarify that for the public.

Thank you.

So just quickly, the 4% equates to how much in funding right now?

1.1 million.

What would the 15% be?

Or the 14%, the 13.9.

It's an additional 2.1.

Okay.

And you can shout from there, it's fine.

Or I don't know.

Um if the city were to start receiving its reimbursement from the state for the Rogers construction, how much additional funding would that be per year for death service?

Well, we would not receive that until 2028.

Oh, sorry, Mr.

Nolan, you're gonna have to come up to the microphone just for the rec uh for the records.

So we would not be up, we're not eligible whether we decide to regionalize or not regionalize, we are not eligible to receive housing aid until 2000 fiscal year 2028.

So we that that number in 2027 is zero.

Um, but as far as what we would receive, we would receive, you know, maximum if we did not regionalize 55% of our debt service for Pell, which our debt service per year is about 6.5 million.

Um if we did regionalize it would be up to 80 percent.

So 4 million ish.

So we get an additional 4 million.

So we're looking at three, three a 3.2 million dollar hole right now.

We have 4 million that we're leaving on the table.

We need I think to preserve the option of a better educational future, that being regionalization or otherwise, but that funding will come at some point, right?

Either through taking this reimbursement now, or by regionalizing and potentially increasing that reimbursement in the future, but it is coming, it's there, it's it's not farcical.

To Councilor Carlin's point much earlier, the state's ability to decide whether or not we're eligible for that reimbursement is a matter of state law.

The state can create and change that law at any point in time.

I think it's reasonable to be a little conservative on that comes, but the money's coming.

So what we have right now this year is a cash flow problem.

Right?

We have a cash flow.

We know the money is coming, whether it's next year or the year after or in four years, and whether that money's gonna be four million or five million, we know that money is coming.

But we've got to get to that tomorrow at some point.

I think we've got to figure out how we close that cash gap, whether it's like I said, for a year or multiple years.

So now we found the money.

That's good news, right?

What we need to do is figure out the cash flow problem.

And I think we should probably couple that with another problem we have, which is that if you've sat on this council for a few years, this is this this day, this moment is like groundhog day.

We do this every single year.

It's not fair to the school committee, it's not fair to the council, and it's really not fair to kids.

And so we have to ask ourselves if we're gonna address this very complicated cash flow problem this year.

Should we also use it as a lever to break down that silo, whether it's through a consolidation of services, whether it's rethinking about what we want as a future.

But I think that's probably the crux of the conversation.

So that's hopefully a glimmer of hope.

I don't mean to make that sound dark.

That the money's there, and it's there before we raise taxes a single dollar on residents.

And so we just have to figure out how we bridge to that gap, I think.

And I hope that's helpful framing for the group to give us a little light at the end of the tunnel.

Thank you for your answers.

Council Carl.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Superintendent Jermaine, thank you again.

Uh the as I understand it, the governor's budget, even as amended, with the revenue estimating conference at the uh House Senate finance participates as well, but House Finance holds a revenue estimating conference to determine uh how far off from what the general assembly enacted as its budget are we, and very fortunately for the state, we are on track to be 323 million dollars uh to anticipate 323 million dollars more uh in state revenue than what was enacted by the general assembly.

Unfortunately, however, in none of the amendments to the budget that I've seen from the governor, does the governor fully fund an addition to the urban core districts?

So there are five urban core districts now.

If I understand it, Providence, Tuckett, West Warwick, Winsocket, and Central Falls.

Uh well, Newport was was recently added, but in the proposed fiscal twenty-seven budget that the governor released uh there was no funding uh for Newport, even though it was to be named an urban core district.

And in the amendments that I've read, again, there's there's no funding uh for uh Newport and the Newport School Department as part of that urban core classification.

Am I understanding that correctly?

At 8 45 this evening, you are correct.

There is nothing, no amendment at this point in time.

The reason I state the time and the date is because, as you know from your experience up there, that in June, many things happen and many amendments are put on the floor.

There are advocates up there uh pushing for more for the core and for the every student act.

I urge the Newport School Committee for the members who are still here, chair Vice Chair Bowling is here, uh, and the department, of course, to contact the local delegation.

We have two chairs of the finance committee.

We have uh Senator Abney or Senator uh DePama, who represents county portion of Newport, about the size of Ellen and I's chairs here, sliver, but nonetheless, very powerful individual at the assembly, and then we have uh Chairman Abney, who's the chair of the House Finance Committee.

Uh, I urge the committee to strongly advocate for uh an amendment to the proposed budget to fully fund Newport or Newport School Department as an urban core uh community.

Uh that means potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars uh in income, and I would be very happy to support that.

I'm sure my colleagues would as well.

Uh, second point, not for you, Dr.

Jermaine, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Council uh uh what do we call you, manager Kennedy.

Uh thank you very much for uh your very thorough and and basically on the on the money explanation to Council Segley's question about what's up with the four percent.

One thing I do want to mention, folks know this perhaps, but just to repeat for the public's uh understanding and and the manager's uh comment was just a tiny bit off, and that is to say with maintenance of effort.

First of all, maintenance of effort does not require us to um allocate the same percentage that we did in the prior fiscal year, just the same dollar amount.

You made that clear, uh, but uh uh maintenance of effort also has uh for communities escape patches.

We're not advocating an escape hatch, I'm certainly not.

Uh but uh many communities have thought about using this, and that is to say when when the manager accurately says maintenance of effort means the following fiscal year, you need to fund to the same dollar level.

There is an exception, uh, and the exception is is a rather big one, which we've experienced.

We have since the school year of 2019, prior to COVID, um, and it's it's awful.

Uh, when I was a kid, when I went to Rogers and Charlie, the mayor and I, uh around the same time.

Uh, you know, there were 2900 students in our system.

We started in in 2019 with about six hundred and ten more students in our system that we than we have uh as of the reports, which I did see about a week ago.

We we have some fourteen hundred actual Newport uh residents who are attending Newport schools, and for that decline, the state allows a decline in the maintenance of effort.

We could actually again nobody's gonna do this.

Don't anybody worry about this, but we could actually uh say we've lost hundreds of students.

Therefore, we can give the school department less money.

It's a fact uh as we are dealing with asking potentially for more than the four percent.

Uh let's think about what I just said, which I would never support.

Thank you.

Well, uh, Mr.

Chair, um, okay, so I guess what I'm trying to wrestle with right now is voting for the four percent tonight because we're under some time constraints, um, but also to look at what we would need to do to look at what council comes over on talked about, and also to um what the effect on the rate for for the levy um would be if we took over the OPEB and the electric bill and did a restricted fund.

So I'm just I'm not sure I feel comfortable going to the general assembly to ask for the four percent increase in the levy, but um, you know, I think that you know, if we have the leeway between what is being proposed and what we can possibly fund the schools, you know, perhaps we can get closer to where we need to be.

Mr.

Chairman Council, just an inquiry, point of inquiry if I could.

We uh we have far more than than just the appropriations to the school department uh in our budget hearing.

Where are we?

At what point?

Based on next we based on what we have been doing.

Next the motion would be to amend the ordinance appropriating revenues per agreed upon changes.

We haven't even discussed the budget as a whole.

We've discussed the change sheet and we've discussed the appropriation of the school department.

We haven't discussed the budget itself.

Okay, that's a we have a 133 plus million dollar instrument before us here.

We haven't said one word outside of what I just mentioned.

What when are we gonna get to the actual underlying appropriation?

Why don't I come make a motion to amend the ordinance appropriating revenues per agreed upon changes to have a second?

Question, what agreed upon changes?

The ones that the um tree conservancy, the um, we we made that motion hours ago.

It was seconded and but this is this is this is um this is the amended.

This is to say that we have we're voting on those amended changes, correct?

I'll ask the city as the parliamentarian.

Yeah, the uh quit you.

No, I um just uh w with regard to the change sheet.

Though we talked about some of the items, uh I don't I'm not tracking that we had formal motions on the the increase of the decreases in the bond interest and bond principal costs, nor the uh changes to the revenue.

Again, we talked about these, but um the only motions I have tracked that we have approved are for the operating supplies and special events for the St.

Patrick's Day Parade, and uh the $35,000 for the cemetery restoration and 15,000 for the three canopy.

So and the 10,000 for the Edward King Senior Center.

Correct, in the in the civic service budget.

Yeah, and the $8,000 for the um uh for the uh accessible entry on the second floor.

I just I just for the closure of the record, I believe that we should we should complete the motions on the fine.

So let's um let's do that, Mr.

Chairman.

I move to approve the motions or I move to approve uh the change sheet uh as presented to the council uh with a note, and this is not a part of my official motion, uh, with a note that the uh accessibility portion and the uh Edward King portion are not included on the change sheet.

So uh let's deal with those as they arise.

Move to approve, as I said, uh the change sheet as presented.

I looked for a second.

Second.

So do we have to make another motion for Edward King?

Yes, you do.

That's not included on the change sheet.

All right, we have a motion and second, any further discussion on the change sheet.

Second.

We already have the motion and second.

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

I seven.

Um I make a motion that we add ten thousand dollars for the Edward King's Senior Center in the civic support second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Please uh appreciate and look forward, appreciate Council Segley's motion.

Look forward to supporting it.

Can we please take it up in the order that it should be taken up?

That is to say uh there is uh there is a civic support line item uh contained within the overall budget.

When we get to that, let's let's deal with that, and then under the appropriations for fiscal 27, we can then tackle the accessibility uh funding.

But let's do things as as frankly, I think we should okay.

So, we're gonna make a motion to approve the ordinance appropriating revenues as amended on first reading, second.

Second, any discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh as I pointed out a few minutes ago, uh, this is the bulk of the budget.

Uh this absent the school department uh funding, this including the enterprise funds represents uh some 100 million dollars.

Uh I'd like at least a little discussion on this, if not from the administration itself.

What are you proposing so that the public understands?

I have had the luxury of reading this uh and in its current form and in its prior proposed forms, but we shouldn't be in the business of adopting a budget in 30 seconds that involves a hundred million dollars.

Let's get an explanation of some sort of that, but that's why we make the motion so we can discuss it.

Right, so let's let's hear what's in the budget, please.

Assuming you would not like me to read all 500 pages, I'll just I'll I'll go to the executive summary and kind of hit some of the high points.

Um the budget includes the uh proposed one point eight per seven one point eight seven percent uh levy increase.

Uh it has a breakdown of uh what those increases would be for both owner-occupied and non-owner occupied residential commercial uh properties as well, the tangible rate remaining flat.

Uh we talked a little bit about responsible taxation.

Uh um we've uh the administration felt that uh with the addition of the hotel tax increases that we were uh that we were blessed to receive.

Thank you to the General Assembly for that last year.

Uh that helped us take a little bit of the edge off of what otherwise would have needed to have been a fairly significant uh revenue increase to support many of the ongoing improvements we've been making to collective bargaining agreements with our four labor unions.

Uh the right now we're uh we just wrapped up any uh NEA.

Uh we have uh ask me council 94 uh on the brink of being completed, but there are anticipated increases that come along with that that the city must responsibly fund.

So 1.87% helped us at the mark.

Mr.

Mr.

Manager, maybe you'd want to wait until Mr.

Carlin comes back into the room.

So, uh the budget also uh uh um makes a six million dollar total six uh six point two million dollar total increase to uh capital investment in the capital improvement fund.

That's our most significant increase in several years, owing in large part to the fact that uh thanks to the city council's approval of the uh committed fund balance policy a few months ago, it gives us a little bit of the wiggle room to start spending some of that really deep excess in fund balance that we've that that we've had the privilege of building up over the past uh 15 years.

Uh, we used to sit around 10 11 million dollars for the fund balance.

Uh in more recent years, that has greatly increased uh thanks to conservative spending, but also due to some favorable market conditions to the point where we're uh in excess of 30 million dollars now, uh 34 million.

So, what that amount is over 34 percent uh equals about 3.8 million dollars, and we recommend in the in the course of this budget process that the council commit that money to the capital improvement fund to help fund some of the projects that we have listed.

The remainder of the money will come from so that will be that that that's taxpayer money that's already been collected in previous years.

The remainder uh which is whatever the balance is between that, I think it's about 2.8 million, 2.8 uh would come from this year's contribution, which is which is commensurate with previous year's contributions, capital improvement fund.

For staffing, uh, in the general fund, we are only proposing uh to fund two new positions this year.

Those are the public services laborer.

Um we are also uh requesting that the council um set up but not initially fund um a uh a reconfiguration of the Office of the City Engineer, which will include both a permit technician and a deputy uh city engineer to help with some of these very projects that we now have all the money that we need to spend, but don't have the bandwidth to actually execute.

So this would that would be very helpful for that.

Um we did talk a little bit about state reimbursement from the schools.

Uh depending on whether or not we ultimately sue uh state reimbursement through regionalization.

Um that has uh already been discussed.

Um utilities.

Uh, you may recall from the utilities presentation that no uh no rate increases to the to the uh wastewater uh or to the water pollution control fund, which is commonly known as the sewer rate are being proposed for this year on a one-time basis to bridge the gap that we need to ultimately get to the point where we're ready to set up a stormwater utility uh uh for next year's budget.

Um there are tiny tiny little fractional increases that most consumers won't even notice in the water uh in the water rate, and that's strictly due to um uh adjustments that were granted by the public utilities commission last year.

So the big increase in water was last year.

There's less than one percent fractional increases that are built into the budget, and most again, most consumers won't even notice.

Um maritime infrastructure, we are uh moving out with our projects uh uh in the maritime fund with Parati Park and the Harbor Master Building.

Uh, we are also uh recommending um the establishment within the parking fund, not not at the expense of property taxpayers, but in the parking fund uh of the superintendent of parking authority position to ultimately try to house all of the city's parking related needs for the first time under one office.

Uh so we don't have like collections doing permits for residential parking and the parking manager doing meters.

We want to put all that parking infrastructure under one roof with expertise to handle it all, and we believe investing in a superintendent authority will do that again, not taxpayer funded for that.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chairman.

On that note, question uh Mr.

Kennedy.

Um, backing up first uh with respect to and I guess it's approving to take the enterprise fund uh proposals as in context with the entire budget here since you mentioned uh enterprise fund spending.

Uh can you first tell us uh the six positions uh if I read it correctly that are proposed within uh the utilities lack of a better uh phrase uh enterprise fund, and then uh can you tell us uh regarding what you just mentioned?

Uh the parking superintendent position uh how much you propose for each individual.

Can can you tell us the positions?

First of all, uh rather than lumping them all together.

Can you tell us the positions you're proposing?

Uh and then what the pay will be for each one salary and benefits, please.

Uh I would have to get the pay chart.

I can give you the pay grades if you'd like to chart.

Hey, Jim, you want to tag team that's with me?

I'll I'll give you the positions and he'll be ready with the with the actual grades uh or pay grades for those positions.

But for utilities, uh again, in in all of the context of utilities, these will be this will these will be budget neutral.

And by that I mean what we are doing is finding efficiencies in previously uh where we previously used overtime uh expenditures and temporary and seasonal work and in some cases contract work to to fund what we believe establishing the six positions will help us to do um uh with with more dedicated service to the city.

Thank you.

I I appreciate that answer, uh and I look forward to the the answers to my remaining questions, but nothing's budget neutral.

Uh you know, when you're dealing with budgeting, whether it's an enterprise fund or general revenue general funding, uh what you spend on one thing or don't spend on something can be used for something else.

We had mentioned uh a tiny increase that the public utilities commission approved of uh in uh water bills, but um if we, for example, were not to use let's say a million dollars in enterprise funds from the utilities enterprise fund, we could use uh some of that money should the council decide to do so to reduce sewer fees.

So uh I respectfully disagree that it's budget neutral.

You take from one give to the other, give from one take from the other.

Um, I think what I meant by that was no, no, I I'm not it's not a Chris's.

I just want to thank you.

Understood uh the positions are uh in utility, an assistant supervisor for administration and finance.

That will be at the grade of an S7.

Uh, then with a proposed salary of 94,554 dollars.

Okay.

Uh the next one uh will be a distribution supervisor S9 with a proposed salary of ninety-four thousand nine hundred and ninety-four dollars.

Okay.

Next one is a water meter supervisor, and this is uh N5 in the NEA union.

With a proposed salary of eighty-one thousand two hundred and ten dollars.

Uh next is a customer care associate U4 in Ask Me 94.

And that's uh those are two positions and that's with a proposed salary of sixty-one thousand one hundred and eighty-one dollars, and that's it.

No, I asked for the uh enterprise fund expenditures on uh parking as well, please.

I apologize.

Uh for parking, that is going to be the superintendent of parking authority at an S9 position, and that proposed salary is eighty-eight thousand five hundred and eighty dollars.

I did ask for salary and benefits.

What's the total line item on that, please?

Uh the benefits I'll have to go back and get to get the benefits.

Um is it or is it not 173,000 or somewhere in that vicinity?

It won't be at 173,000 benefits.

166,000?

How much did you budget for?

I would add 45,000 dollars on for benefits, but I can I can confirm that.

Just yeah, all I want to know is how much did you put in the budget for that position?

Yeah, I can get that to you in about two minutes.

So thanks.

How much can I ask the superintendent uh uh related question?

Uh not to do with any utilities department issues.

I don't want to uh an 18 year an 18 year, 15 year, 16 year, 20 year, uh or even uh uh you know 12 year near to top step teacher in Newport who is uh on the layoff list, how much does that individual earn as compared to the salaries we just heard uh listed?

Salaries range, uh I should have the contract in front of me.

Anyway, oh you have it.

You have it?

Okay.

Let me get the that for you.

Um that's all right.

Uh Dr.

Germain is it usually doesn't go above 105.

We we heard those we heard those salaries uh from the uh director and from the manager that are proposed to be added to the the city budget, and I'm just trying to compare uh what the and this is again I I I apologize for putting you on the spot.

I'm just trying to figure out we're adding uh potentially eight new positions to the city budget that pay uh a good deal of money.

And I'm just wondering if the teachers that are on the layoff list uh will be or had earned uh equal to or less than that.

I'd say in the same range, yes.

With benefits, we usually um budget about 40k with benefits.

But I can give you more accurate.

That's okay.

That's okay.

I I hope my colleagues understand uh the direction in which I'm but we're talking about people that have been in positions for sixteen to eighteen years.

Completely and totally understand.

Thanks for making that very, very good point.

People in sixteen to eighteen year positions are earning about the same amount that we're bringing somebody in brand new.

Uh we're getting rid of 17 teachers and bringing on eight new employees on the city and Newport's payroll.

Uh I gotta think long and hard about that.

Council, uh a request and a point or question.

The request I have is that when we talk about funds, whether it's fees that are earned on parking or on dockage or on other services, they're all taxpayer funds, whether they're being paid directly by the taxpayer in the form of property taxes, or if their revenues being earned on assets that the city taxpayers have paid for in the same way that the rent that's collected on the unit within my house is still very much money that I am earning and driving every single year.

And so I'd ask that we just kind of frame it that way, because I think whether directly or indirectly, the taxpayers bear a lot of that burden.

To get to the point that I think Councillor Carlin was was touching on also, though, when we made the decision to go forth with investments in a number of other areas of the city administration, and we knew that it was going to be a good number of new positions, a good number of um additional expenses.

Were we aware that the schools simultaneous to us adding positions were looking down the barrel of having to lay off a substantial portion of their workforce?

No, that that didn't that didn't come to our knowledge until uh we learned about the 17 proposed cuts, and that was that was three months after we initially put together the first draft of the proposed budget.

So I just to circle back on superintendent's point.

How did we think they were going to close a budget deficit without layoffs if we were aware on a monthly basis dating back as early as August, or at least the city administration was, that there was a mounting deficit.

Like all of you, I I didn't receive those emails, and I I I think this is just something that we'll have to address, you know, internally to the staff to say, okay, where was that information coming from?

How could it have been better acted upon so we can learn from that?

Um but uh I I wasn't privy to that information until I received the uh the announcement uh in accordance with state law, the letter that was sent at the end of March.

This is very concerning because the schools are essentially a quarter of the city's expenditure, and so to not have a line of sight on the annual operating or the monthly or even weekly operating results of a quarter of the city's operation is a jarring oversight, and to put forth a budget that adds new positions, many of which I think are well justified and well-intentioned, in the face of a quarter of the city's operation running a massive deficit, is just wildly out of balance.

It's tough to look at this budget that was formed absent the realization that we're looking at substantial layoffs in our schools, and to not just want to start over.

And that's just where I sit looking at this and the frustration I have.

But I appreciate your engagement on this.

No, it's it's a fair point.

Um the counter to that, and I'm and I'm certainly not engaging in an argument, but the counter to that is that the city's obligation is to contribute, why the council holds the person, is to contribute to an appropriation to Newport Public Schools.

Once it does so, though we though we should maintain some visibility on that, your point once once it does so, there is an administration governed by a separate duly elected governing body that administers and runs and oversees that that budget that they use our appropriation from, also state aid and in some cases federal aid.

So they are they are separate related but separate.

Now I know that that but then you go to Councilor Pennock's point.

But we're one Newport.

And so this is I think a cultural thing that we were going to have to get better at understanding is we can't think of ourselves as two separate bodies going, we do have to get better, but they are separately administered and separately uh uh governed bodies by separately duly elected governing board.

So uh city manager, let me ask you this.

If say these six positions are six hundred thousand dollars, average.

We could give them money to the school department.

Are you talking about the utilities positions?

Well, the six positions that we're talking about that we have added in the budget.

That we just the ones you just went through, 94,000 for the uh assistant supervisor, uh 88,000 for or 61,000 for customer care, 88,000 for parking authority superintendent, 94,000 for the distribution supervisor, those positions.

Say there's six hundred thousand dollars.

Okay, we can give that money to the school department, correct?

No, we can't, uh, because those are supported and funded through uh uh a confined enterprise fund for both water and water pollution control.

So we can't just take money from an enterprise fund and say, Oh, we want we want to give it to the school.

I suppose we probably could, but we'd have a lot of regulatory oversight.

Right.

So it's the regular mayor hold our.

So some so someone wants I'm sorry, one second.

So, so I don't think we're talking like apples to apples when we're talking about these salary positions to the teacher's salary positions.

Just just so um follow up with with uh counselor Carl and Council of Overlock.

Even if we could give that money to the super to the uh uh school department, they don't have to give that money to salaries.

They can do whatever they want to do with it.

If they receive revenue, they administer it as they see fit in accordance with state law.

So if we want to say, listen, you're gonna take the $600,000, but it has to go to bring these teachers back.

We can't force them to do that.

That's so we would be strictly up to them.

Right, thank you.

Uh Ms.

Sullivan, how are you doing?

Thank you.

Um, Christine Sullivan, 26th Admiral Kalpus Road.

I just want to say I understand all the challenges with the funding, and I appreciate the discussion um that Mayor Holder just raised also with the city manager, but I think that it's pretty obvious that if we have to lay off 17 valued community members that make a difference every day with our with our children, we need to have an immediate hiring freeze on any more city employees.

We certainly do not need six new utilities workers being paid with benefits.

It sounds like a hundred and thirty thousand or something like that.

I mean that's that's that's just ridiculous.

I know a lot of children, including my household, are served by lead pipes in the north in the north end, and no one's talking about the need for special education, the need for help, which which um which Gene Napolitano mentioned.

Could it be caused by the fact that these kids are drinking out of contaminated water in many in many cases?

I mean, I absolutely think we have to save the teachers' jobs, have an immediate hiring freeze and figure this out.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

But we just said that we cannot take that money from those enterprise funds because those are self-sustaining funds in order to give them to the schools.

I also do want to mention that, you know, it looks like okay, we have $30 million, you know.

Uh um, but you know surplus and all.

I mean, we have a hundred million dollar unfunded mandate for those lead pipes.

We have the hundred million for the school bonds.

I mean, we have a lot of expenses that we need to look at also.

So I'm I just want to say that when you're looking, I I saw some faces in the audience that's why I am saying this that it's it's it's not that we're we've got all this money to to pass around, it's because we have these these mandates as well.

So I just want to I just want to clarify that we're not like you know, utilities is not really floating in cash, you know, is all I'm saying.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Um thank you, Lynn, and thank you, Colin, for the explanations.

Um I disagree first of all that the council cannot use enterprise funds as um as part of general operating.

Uh the council is under no obligation by state law to have a parking enterprise fund.

We set that up ourselves, uh, and we did it for certain reasons.

We make uh an ordinance change, we have two public hearings, and boom, it goes back to wherever we say as a council or any council says it should go.

There are certain regulatory uh and uh, namely public utilities commission uh rules and state laws that we must follow with regard to how we use revenue uh that comes in via uh water and sewer fees and other related utilities fees, but the public utilities commission does not fully uh control the use of said enterprise funds.

For example, the city council, the city of newport by the city council uh has sole discretion over what we charge for sewer fees so uh yeah apples to oranges okay fine you can say that my point was in raising the questions about how much the new positions will pay versus what uh the pay is for the seventeen teachers who are being laid off is uh my reason for asking that question is to point out that it doesn't look good guys for us it really doesn't thanks yeah superintendent thank you I do have clarification I have the chart actually in front of me the salary ranges go from 78000 to top step at masters plus thirty a hundred and two so those are the salaries we're talking about on the teachers that were laid off and I do want to say I do understand that the council does not have final authority on how the revenues that are given to the school committee are spent but we will make every effort I've always been straight with you about when you say if we give you this money can you bring this person back or do that and I've been very straight with you about that our goal right now is to try to get as many as our teachers back into our classrooms.

Thank you.

And I by no means say you wouldn't do that I'm just saying you're not obligated to not you correct school I'll smile at you on that one thank you.

Counselor Carlin just uh to answer your question uh for benefits on the superintendent of parking authority that's at 43 thousand so the total is line item is so it's eighty eight thousand five eighty plus forty three thousand so one hundred and thirty one thousand thank you very much that decreased from what the original proposed budget line item was yes so I believe what you were looking at was I I thought that the original budget item was 166400.

13100 at this point yes thank you very much appreciate it director nolan uh mr chairman I appreciate the patience from my colleagues and from the city staff um can we continue with the general fund appropriations and revenue yeah please do mr ice you've been standing up you want to come up with uh looking for an answer to uh question I asked at the abbreviated eight minute meeting we had a couple weeks ago uh couldn't get an answer then I wonder if it's appropriate to ask it now or my off topic I can come back it's only been four hours three hours Ron repeat the question I asked the question yeah please yeah I'm not sure I kind of get lost in all the spreadsheets and paperwork but it seemed to me uh there was a proposal being made to reduce a uh uh roadway sideway sidewalk improvement budget line from three million to two to one million dollars and we were also going to uh eliminate a uh two and a half million dollar uh line item for seawall repairs uh it seemed kind of short sighted uh didn't understand why you would do that and uh I also don't understand why you need to do it uh because you'd already uh we'd already okayed the money so CIP money bond money you aren't saving anything you already appropriated the money why don't we go ahead and fix the seawalls and fix the roads.

Why, why, why was that made?

Why would make that reduction?

I'll answer the C wall question first.

That one's easy.

Uh that one was inadvertently double booked on the capital improvement program sheet we we we had a double line item by accident.

We realized we were spending the money twice.

We said we don't need that 2.5 million dollars.

So we took it back.

There is still 2.5 million dollars for seawall repairs.

Not 5 million.

Uh for the roadway improvement program.

Uh the previous two years we've been blessed with bond allocations that have allowed us to consume $3 million for each of those years.

That was always known that the ability to continue spending at that pay that pace was not going to be sustainable.

And so by coming down to 1.7, we have returned to our more traditional pace of roadway improvement repairs going forward.

Certainly, the it is within the council's prerogative to augment that if they wish, uh, but that's the proposal in the budget.

Well, I submit the traditional pace of road improvement around here is inadequate at best.

And you can drive down Bellevue Avenue and go uh dinging along uh through the concrete.

Uh you can put why not jump some more money at it.

Fix the thing.

Mr.

Sher, question on this?

The council.

What what bonds were those funds allocated from?

That was the infrastructure bond.

The it was uh six million dollars was the allocation line item for roadway improvement for fiscal was 25 and 26.

Yes, fiscal 25.

So we're just wrapping up those expenditures um uh this spring.

And that was the bond we just approved in the most recent election.

That's correct.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Uh continuing, Mr.

Kennedy or Mr.

Nolan, can you tell us please uh what uh the uh mill rate is, what the levy increase is, and uh compare that please uh to the tax rate and the same information fiscal 26 over 27, please.

If if you understand what I meant, uh so the uh the mill rate, and this is for those unaware, this is this is number this is dollars per per thousand dollars of assessed property.

So this is a silly example, but if I had a house worth thousand dollars, um last year I would have owed uh seven dollars and as an owner-occupied resident, I would have owned seven dollars and seventeen cents in taxes.

Uh under the proposed budget, uh I would now owe seven dollars and thirty cents.

So that's an extra 13 cents per thousand dollars of assessment.

Thanks.

Can you explain to us and to the public uh what the difference between the mill rate and the tax rate is, please?

Uh that's uh so the mill rate is just what I just explained, which tax rate, uh, uh Jimmy you can probably help me out a little bit with this, but but the it sounds almost identical, uh Mr.

Director Nolan, which is why for the public's and my education.

Uh what's what's the discrep uh the discrepancy?

There is no discrepancy.

What's the distinction?

So I want to make sure I'm looking at the correct amount, correct numbers.

So we're we're looking at the proposed residential owner occupied um tax rate of seven dollars and thirty cents, the residential tax rate for non-owner occupied at eight dollars and ninety-seven cents, and the commercial tax rate at ten dollars and ninety-five cents.

Versus what the manager just explained the mill rate, the distinction.

No, that that's gonna that's what that's our rate.

So it's all encompassing, correct?

Thank you.

I think what um what you might be asking is what happens when property values are revalued?

That's a great question because uh on December 31st of this year, we're gonna have our triannual statistical revaluation, and um it's it's it's it's expected that home values around the city will will be shown to increase in value with that new revaluation.

So for next year's budget, in order not to shift if if we didn't change the mill rates next year, that would still cause everybody to see a much bigger uh uh tax bill because their property is now valuable.

So to compensate for that next year, we will have to come down with our mill rates so that so that the so that uh residents and businesses don't realize otherwise significant taxes when there when there's a when there's a shift in in assessed value, those those rates are equalized.

Appreciate that great explanation.

Can you talk or tell the council and the public?

Uh what and counselor Segley mentioned this earlier or asked about this earlier uh what is the levy the total levy and how does that relate to counselor segly's earlier question uh the parameters that the state prohibits us from going beyond the four percent sure the the the levy is the the revenue that we take in for for property taxes and currently our our on based on our certified tax levy uh for fiscal year 26 our levy was at 91900 what we're proposing um with that 1.87 percent increase what we're proposing would that be that tax levy of 93 million seven hundred and thirty nine thousand thank you can you explain to all of us why the levy increase does not mean uh a 1.87 percent increase in an individual's property tax as an automatic sure and that that's all based on our our two-tiered tax system in that um that if you're if you're a resident and you receive that that exemption of two hundred and eighty four thousand dollars your rate will be uh um your assessed what your tax on is is less where that has to go who has to pick that up that's gonna be the non-owner occupied that will pick that up so it's really just moving that tax burden from one category to another when you talk about the levy.

Am I wrong in assuming that the levy includes uh something other than property tax or other than residential commercial property commercial industrial property for example uh this microphone uh could be assessed at four dollars is that included in the levy in terms of uh a taxable uh yeah so so when you look at our categories we have our our residential which is going to be our owner occupied non-owner occupied we're gonna have our commercial rate that commercial weight rate rate is at 1.5 times our residential rate and then we also have our tangible rate which is set at uh by state at 14.88 cents thank you very much thank you mr chairman any further comments or questions what what um yes what is the there is a percentage that um and I remember Zi you mentioned this um that we can't uh have the residential go so much more than the I can't remember this I'm sorry I'm so tired um then the commercial um so can you just explain that a little bit it's 1.5 times is the easiest way to think about it okay but if we were to raise the non residential rate to the same as commercial could we do that you fear you theoretically could but you would essentially be passing all of that exemption on to uh owner occupied and you'd end up with like I think I think that the exemption would then be like over 50% which is which is wild so theoretically yes I think realistically no.

That's uh Mr.

Chairman yeah that's a great question counselor segly what is preventing us as a city council uh not from doing as you said going wild so to speak on uh the differences between the classes but what is preventing us as a city council from bringing the proposed uh levy increase the proposed tax rate increase uh from last year to this year down to zero what is preventing us from doing that there's there's there is a way um and that was actually the subject of the memo last week um or one of the subjects of the memo if we increase the exemption right now it's at twenty four percent it has been since the program was instituted this is for residential property uh owner occupied.

If we were to increase that uh a certain amount, uh we could effectively have our residents see no effective tax rate increase, but that burden then has to be pushed on to someone else, and that someone else would be the non-owner occupied uh resident.

Do you know what that uh effective number would be, Mr.

Kennedy?

Uh, we found the sweet spot right around 25.5 percent so we'd be we'd be exempting about an extra one and a half percent than we already are, and that would keep tax rate even and this is by the way, by the way, I must I must I have to add this is assuming a four percent levy increase overall.

Um we could we could do a 3.95% levy increase, keep the the realized tax burden for our owner occupied properties the same while passing uh the delta on to the non-owner occupied.

That's that that's that's right.

I just want to make sure what manager uh Kennedy is is saying is that if we were to keep the 1.87 percent, and that would get passed along to our residential, our our owner occupied non-owner occupied, right?

If we wanted to jump that up to a 4% levy increase without impacting the owner occupied, we could do that, but we would have to increase that exemption amount to from 24% to 25.5%.

That's only a 1.5% increase in the exemption amount, as uh the manager said, based on the assessed value of uh in the most recent assessment of Newport property, uh, the median property in Newport is one million dollars.

Uh one million minus the 24% exemption now is uh million minus 240,000 dollars.

Uh so that $760,000 is your presumed start.

Um, how difficult frankly is it to do that?

Uh and you know what I'm asking here is how difficult is it to ensure that our full-time residents have a zero percent tax increase and that folks like Jay Leno who lives in my ward picks up the bill.

So I I would so that would probably be you'd be looking at more of a 26%, maybe 27% exemption if we were to hold our owner occupied flat and what uh we have at 26.

Yeah, but if you're measuring the residential rate to the commercial, you have to use the owner occupied that's measuring for the 150%.

So how does that trigger commercial?

All that's gonna do that's just gonna shift that tax burden onto the non-owner-occupied, yeah.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Um, just wondering how much um the 3.95 levy increase would generate in revenue.

Give me a quick second.

Okay, thank you.

While he's calculating, uh in case you're wondering why 3.95 not four.

We always come a little bit short of four just in case some of our numbers come in out of estimate.

What we don't want to do is get in trouble with the department of revenue because they'll ding us if we ended up at effectively a four point oh two percent.

We're like, oops.

So we we set it that way to what does it mean to get dinged?

Well, we don't know that's a good point.

You get a slight, some communities have done it.

I don't think there's really a penalty other than embarrassment.

Okay.

We don't want to be embarrassed.

Okay.

And the difference between 3.95% and 4% is roughly I'd say $35,000.

So it just accounts for any kind of rounding because we're looking at such big numbers.

Sure.

We'd want to be on the conservative side of that.

Um a four percent increase would um be a three point six three million six hundred and seventy-six thousand dollar uh increase in the levy, and that compares to what we're proposing at one million eight hundred and twenty-nine thousand.

Mr.

Chairman, uh, to make it even more complicated, Mr.

Nolan.

Uh, is there a way?

I know there's a way.

Whether there's a will, there's a way.

Uh how easy is it to take that proposal that you just uh talked about, or to take the answer that you just gave us and and further differentiate between full-time residents of the city of Newport, those living here seven months and one day of the year, non-owner-occupied residents who are in that higher tax bracket or higher uh assessed bracket, and then a third category, uh non-owner-occupied residential real estate, which is not used for what I would call a commercial benefit, a short-term rental, even a 30-day summer rental for three months, a salve rental, etc.

Suppose you have a person who lives uh in Pennsylvania now, but grew up in the city of Newport and owns a house, uh, and does nothing with that house but bring her family or his family back to it to visit a couple of weeks a year.

Can we give that person or that homeowner the same consideration or close to the same consideration we give to uh full-time residents of Newport, as opposed to those who are not full-time residents of Newport, own property and use that property to make a ton of money on short-term rentals and uh, you know, rentals during the 30 days of June, July, August.

And I'll I'll really point to um Sorry Bean, but that that would be a change in our in our tax.

Okay, so we would have to go to the general assembly to do that.

We cannot simply institute that by council ordinance.

Appreciate it.

But you understand my my colleagues, I hope you understand the distinction.

There are quite a few uh former residents of Newport who own property and and they simply do not rent it out.

They don't like advantage of that.

You know what actually I want to I want to backtrack, because some of uh the General Assembly enabling legislation allowing us to do the two-tier tax, residential tax, does give us some authority by ordinance to determine who is a owner uh uh uh long-term uh resident and who is it, um, whether we could carve off a third on the non-owner occupied, I'm not sure, but we do have a little bit more authority under our ordinance than I my initial response.

Appreciate that, Mr.

Bean.

My uh top priority is to ensure that the residents full-time of the city of Newport have as low a tax rate as possible year over year.

Uh my second priority would be, and I don't know if it's a priority, but uh my second wish would be those who do not rent out their property for short-term, uh 30 days or less, or even longer term salve type rentals would get some consideration as individuals who do not uh contribute to what I call our housing stock issue, and as far as I'm concerned, the ones who I have no priority for are the folks who are running commercial businesses, those who own uh property uh they barely ever see it, if ever, uh they rent it out as a short-term rental or a three-month, fifteen thousand dollar a month rental in the summertime.

Uh I want to ensure that the first two categories, particularly the first category, are taken care of and the last category, you chose the business you're in.

Mr.

Chairman.

Oh, one second council Smith.

Uh, Council Crown.

So, in that scenario, just so I'm um I'm clear.

So if you have a resident that owns a house that doesn't no one lives in it, you're saying.

Correct.

Because they don't they don't rent it out.

Yeah, I I mean we would have to put parameters around it as uh Solicitor Bean said.

In other words, you do not rent it out short-term uh or longer term, nine months.

Uh I frankly, you know, while it is necessary to have nine month rentals uh for a variety of reasons, not just not just salve, the that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about giving somebody whose family has owned the property for years and years and years, generations in some cases, likes to come back to Newport, visit every, you know, two weeks, a month of the year, but doesn't rent it out in any way.

I don't think they should be treated tax-wise the same way uh that a fellow from New York who buys a uh short-term rental or who buys a house for short-term rental purposes is treated.

No, because I'm just want to make sure that we're clear that, you know, the whole part of the two-tier tax system is to make sure that houses, whether they're single family, multi-family, are getting rented on a year-round basis and not sitting empty.

That's absolutely right.

And that's there's there's there's no system is is perfect.

There's a drawback to everything, but uh the more we increase the taxes on those who use their properties for short-term rentals, the less likely there will be uh a high demand for those properties to be used as short-term rentals.

Sooner or later, if we tax them to Kingdom Come, which nobody's suggesting, but uh if we tax them to Kingdom Come, folks are gonna say, I'm out of this short-term rental business, and we will free up housing stock.

Council Napolitano, Mr.

Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Council Smith, my apologies.

No problem.

Um I was just wondering how if we know how many of our non-owner occupied properties rent to year-round residents.

Do we have a number or percentage of that?

I do have the breakdown from owner-occupied to non-owner occupied, but I'd have to go back to you on what what specific category are you looking for?

Is it non-owner occupied?

How many of those properties are actually rented out to year-round residents?

Okay, I can certainly get that to you.

Okay, thank you.

Jim, is that oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

Great question, Council Smith.

But by being in that category, you are receiving the highest possible tax discount currently.

If you rent out, if you rent it out year-round, uh, you're already getting the same discount that I get.

Right.

I understand the question, but you're right, it's it's a bit of a distinction without a difference in that sense.

If you are doing well, we'll get that number for you.

Absolutely.

If you are doing that, you're receiving the same ease if I live in.

Yeah, I just like to point out something that um a lot of people overlook.

If you come back to a home that you own in Newport for two weeks, you're paying your income tax to the state where you came from.

There are a lot of people that are down in Florida and have empty houses in the city of Newport, and a lot of them will have their water stopped.

Which means they don't get the water charge that we get.

And the you know, it it's there's a lot of moving parts here, and I don't think people realize that.

Hey, if you live elsewhere and you're paying taxes in Florida or Georgia or wherever you are, God bless you.

But if you own a house, I I don't see it the same way, and you come back here for two weeks a year.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Uh that's an outstanding point.

And again, there's deficiencies in the system.

Another uh possibility is the and whether you grew up in Newport or not.

Uh the person who owns a piece of property in Newport and stays here for four months of the year and does not use the property for short-term rentals or for any type of rental, just enjoys it.

Uh they contribute to the society or to Newport, they contribute to uh the socioeconomic well-being of our city.

I mean, that's an even stronger distinction than the one who, as you just said, owns the house and only comes back for two weeks and pays part of the four months a year if they're here four months a year.

Eight months, we have all the bills.

We have the traffic, we have to pay for our roads, we have to pay for our uh all our systems.

We have to pay for teachers, we have to pay for all of that.

Yeah, it's a totally imperfect system, but right now we're treating anybody but non-seven month and one day of the year owners as uh non-residents.

Do we uh do we have do you want to come up and speak?

Because we're not gonna have this back and forth with Dylan from the crowd.

I know you love to do it.

I just want to give an anecdote, because I think um So I'm with Mrs.

Munter tax us.

I I don't get this non-taxing thing.

Um when we bought our house, so 36th Support Avenue.

When we bought our house in 2010, my father-in-law also sold his house in 2010 in Omaha, Nebraska.

Same price.

He sold it for the same price that we bought our house.

We won't even discuss how much smaller our house is than his.

His taxes on that house with $10,500 are taxes, same house, same price, worth three thousand dollars, and therein lies the fundamental problem.

Therein lies the fundamental problem.

The Omaha Public Schools OPS is a really, really good school district because they ta as long as America decides to fund its schools through property taxes, then you need to raise property taxes in order to have good schools.

And with I'm 100% with Councillor Napolitano.

If you have a residence here in Newport, and you live somewhere else, that is your second residence.

We have people who live here who don't have a primary residence.

So if you don't live here, I'm sorry, Councillor Carlin, but if you don't live here and you have a home here, it means you have a home somewhere else.

That means you have two homes.

How many of us here have two homes?

And how many of our residents don't even have one?

Or can't even find a rental.

So there we go.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Are we allowed to tax individuals' residents higher?

If they're willing to pay it.

Would you like to pay this?

They've brought up twice, so we won't.

That's true.

We'll we we do accept donations.

We have a line I usually get them from philanthropists, but we'll take $20 and $40.

Yeah, I mean, I think most of the primary residents uh name saying your name and address.

Sorry.

Uh Ian Conroy, I live at uh Three Channing Place.

Thanks.

Um I think I think most of us do take the primary residence exemption, but I'd happily not take it and pay the difference if it meant that that money was going toward bringing those teachers back.

Mr.

Sheriff, I could uh Council Bourbon.

You know, I think, well, I appreciate that those who are here that are residents are fine with their taxes being increased.

We have to reconcile with the reality of housing in this community, and that we have one of the highest cost burdens for residents when you look at the aggregate of anywhere in the state.

60% of our households who rent are cost burden, 30% of our homeowners in the city are cost burdened.

So I'm all for talking about raising additional revenue, but I want to be cognizant of people who aren't sitting here right now because they're working two or three jobs to be able to afford their home.

That exemption is real, it's driving a real benefit for people who live here.

We have to protect it and stand by it.

Um, Mr.

Chair, we've we've been here for a nice stretch of time this evening.

And I'd like to propose a package of changes here for the council's consideration.

I know they're a lot.

I'm gonna propose them in one package, and then we can talk about them more at the next meeting if it feels like people need to be vetted a bit more.

Um, but I'm trying to listen to where my colleagues are on these issues.

I'm trying to listen to where I think the public is, where the schools have come at us from.

And I want to see if you'd be willing to consider this in the aggregate.

Again, I know this is a bit unusual because it's in the aggregate, but I think it's probably the cleanest way for us to at least frame where we sit as a council right now.

What is yours?

First, I'd like to, from a rate setting perspective, do two things.

One, I propose that the city increase the aggregate levy to the full 4% that's allowed under state law.

Second, I propose that within that we hold the mill rate constant for residents and increase the exemption by the portion mentioned earlier to 25%.

Third, I would like to propose that the additional funding that is available be allocated as follows 1.1 million to fill the four full 4% for the schools as requested.

The balance of additional funding that's left over from that levy to be allocated for the purposes of roads and sidewalks in the city.

Fifth, this is um a bit more structural than anything else.

There have been a number of concerns that have arisen here uh throughout this process.

Namely, I think of of oversight and process management.

And I think they're warranted.

I think we'd be much stronger oversight of our administration and finance, um, particularly when it consists of coordinating with the schools.

I also think we talk about infrastructure in the city, we need to be much more serious about the oversight that's getting paid here.

Mr.

Rice was very right in his statement that the roads are a mess and that if we're shorting that, we're not thinking about that.

That's important.

I propose that we align the following divisions underneath the deputy city manager.

I ask for a second on this motion.

Second.

Motion and second and discussion.

Yes, discussion.

Yeah, I'd like to know.

May I uh first ask one quick I just want to get a clear clarification first.

Yeah, she uh I'm sorry, she.

Our city clerk, uh, I believe had a question regarding perhaps the clarification of what the motion was.

Number five, please.

Administration to realign those positions in the organizational chart under the deputy city manager.

And what what positions are those?

Is the entirety of those departments?

Both administration and finance and resilience and sustainability.

And by admin and finance, you mean we call it admin and support service.

Correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So the increase, so you are you looking to keep owner occupied at the same rate as they were in fiscal year 26.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Um do we want to have that buffer of 3.5%, though?

I mean, just in to make sure that we're that's absolutely fine, yeah.

3.95 is five.

Okay.

Thank you.

3.95 or 3.5.

3.95.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Crawlin.

On the first motion, I realize it's consolidated, and I appreciate that, and I intend to support it.

On the first motion, what you're effectively doing, Councilor Council Barvong, is you are ensuring that there is no tax increase for up full-time residents in fiscal 27, correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to call a question.

Second.

All right.

Uh motion and second to call the question.

Um is in favor, raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

So uh for just for clarification.

So the that was five to two.

I'm just opposed to that just because this is the first time hearing about it.

Yeah.

So I don't disagree.

So just because I vote against it, it's not I disagree with this, but I would just like to dig into a little bit, get see exactly what the numbers are, see exactly what the realignment would be, and then vote on it.

Um so just to clarify that.

I disagree because we've been here three and a half hours.

I don't fully understand it, and I think that's a big deal to pass, and without really understanding it and not having it presented to us ahead of time.

Um, and this happens quite often with this council.

I'm just really, you know, I I don't know whether I agree or disagree.

I just don't want to cost uh or make a mistake that's gonna cost our residents or the schools a lot of money.

Um, Council Segley first.

Yeah, I you know, I know that this seems um uh last minute, but um, you know, we are in a time constraint on this, and we don't we only have one more time that we can listen to this, do a budget discussion.

So um, and that's why i i voted for it's a good question thank you uh actually we counselor side called the question uh it was seconded and we voted on it the vote was five to two so that presumably ends debate but since we're prolonging uh we'll call it non-debate because you know whatever but now uh but I want to make make clear uh to counselor segly's uh well I don't know if it was your point but another uh very good portion of counselor size uh now approved amendment is the schools aren't fully funded at the four percent that uh the city proposed in fiscal 27's budget so when those folks come back uh and when those folks uh who are here tonight concerned about the school funding go home uh we at least have the the understanding through counselor comes of amendment that the schools will be funded at four percent and I was happy to support that as well that was a if if unless I am totally mistaken and and I assure you I'm not uh the and I don't want to sound like a jerk here but uh it was a five part uh consolidated motion which include which included fully supporting the proposed four percent increase in fiscal twenty seven for the newport school department am I correct counselor Kamza Barba?

Yes let's touch on part two though right we've gone to the max that we're able to do as a city under the tools that we have available to us within immediate reach I think there's a part two here we should have a serious conversation about right which is when we look at the balance of the funding that's needed to ensure that we don't have draconian cuts the two point one million need to be thinking about a strategy on how we get there right and that probably needs to include things like looking at the fact that the money is coming whenever we decide to start claiming that reimbursement from the state whether it's in the immediacy now or if it's after regionalization at an even higher threshold if we know it's coming we should be thinking about what tools we have to bridge that gap if we can avoid those cuts working within the corners of what we have control over here within our budget before going to state we tried to maximize what we're able to do.

Mr.

Chair I also think we need to have the discussion as to how we can absorb some of these costs that the school department is looking at and see if we can take them on uh without them being you know part of the maintenance of effort so uh I think that's some work that we need to do over the next chairs on all yeah i can I ask a question of the assistant manager.

Is that a responsibility were you consulted in terms of assuming that responsibility I I don't know maybe I always thought the manager I don't know.

I mean y yeah no I'm I'm talking to Mr Carillo I think from an organizational chart perspective and for lack of better words chain of command in in shifting oversight of those two uh super departments uh so be it um under my supervision I think from a chain of command perspective I'm I'm still reporting to the city manager.

So I I'm I'm I I guess um I guess my question would be um in that from that perspective uh my oversight merely um has limitations um from a from an organizational perspective because I'm I'm still reporting up regardless of uh what's happening to uh to senior leadership to the city manager.

So I I guess it would be uh I guess there's a process um that would have to be discussed uh um from a formal uh formal organizational perspective and chain of command that I that I I would have to think we'd have we would have to think through that.

Mr.

Chair, point of order, yeah.

Counselor.

We've got uh at least a week or two here to work through additional questions folks may have on this.

I think Councillor Ponaton is totally fair in her vote on this.

That being said, at least it puts on the table what's to be discussed over the next two weeks.

But that's just just in the interest of adhering to proper procedure, we move on to the next item on the agenda.

Well, then I can also also mention that we had the same situation at our last meeting that ended up getting tabled, and some of this information was on because we didn't get because some councils got a memo three hours before the meeting and didn't think it would suffice to have that.

So I don't see what the difference between that and this is.

So that's just my my opinion on it.

Mr.

Chairman, can I ask what is uh what is properly before us uh is the motion before us to adopt uh the ordinance appropriating revenues?

Yes, so uh and does that ordinance uh appropriating revenues include or not include the enterprise fund uh revenues and expenditures.

Um it does, okay but don't isn't this now when I put in the Edward King Senior Center?

Can I do that please?

Well, may I first suggest uh I'd like to make a motion to approve uh the fiscal twenty-seven proposed budget as amended absent the enterprise fund allocations, and I'd like a second, please.

Second motion and second uh and discussion, yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carl.

What I'm simply trying to do here is uh, and I know I've taken up most of your time compared to my six colleagues.

Uh but what I'm trying to do here is move the budget forward, separating it from the enterprise funds.

Let's adopt uh as amended.

Let's adopt the budget uh that is presented to us, including, of course, as amended, Councillor Comzavarovang's uh recommendation, which was approved.

So when are we going to and the Edward King House?

Yeah, well, the Edward King House is included in the FY27 civic services.

So I don't need to make another motion for that.

No, not if you I thought you did at the very beginning of the meeting, but I I did that it hadn't been affected.

All right, all right.

I want to make sure that counselor has an answer to make sure that's on the record.

Yes, I just want to make sure that that is on the record.

Okay, and then same likewise counselor for your 8,000 yes, and the three conservancy and the the good news about the the rest of all that it was it was all it was all balanced in the change sheet.

So the only the only eighteen thousand dollars that ended up outside of that are Edward Kinghouse and 8,000 for the so we're good with that.

I I we've not voted on civic support, have we?

No, it's inclusive.

That's what it's I would just ask that we just demand that out separately because I will confuse from that item.

Okay, can we can we can we do the civic can we approve the civic support before we follow your do you absolutely I remove my I remove my uh motion?

Okay, so motion to approve the ordinance appropriating revenues with the exception of the fiscal year twenty-seven recommendations for civic services, second.

Just because we're except we are not including civic support.

I'll recuse on civic support, but not on the budget.

Is this on this is on the civic support?

No, no, that's ex-excuse me, point of order.

That's not how I heard the the motion.

I heard uh that we would be uh voting on the appropriation absent uh the civic services or civic services support.

So, yes, if that is the correct motion that you wanted to make, then I would suggest that both councillors Pinnock and Council Varavan can stay.

I'll second that by the way.

All's in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye, seven.

Okay.

Okay.

Fiscal year recommendations, civic services.

I make a motion that we add $10,000 to the allocation for the Edward King House Senior Center.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Now.

Now we gotta vote on the civics support.

Right.

So motion to approve uh the motion to approve the civic support as amended.

Second.

Motion and second any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

I next we're good.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, I having I'll check with you.

Uh having voted on the FY 27 General Fund appropriations.

Can we move please to the enterprise fund appropriations and expenditures?

Thank you.

Uh yeah, we can do that.

So do you want to um make them two separate two separate motions then?

So we'll vote on the ordinance minus the.

Well, we we just approved the are we sorry.

We'll just go into the discussion on the uh yeah.

All I want to do is move us to the enterprise fund discussions.

Thank you.

Uh make a motion to approve the uh FY2027 enterprise funds second.

Motion a second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I move knowing, of course, that this is a first hearing.

Oh, sorry.

Uh knowing, of course, that this is uh a first reading of the enterprise fund uh budget items.

Uh I would uh I'm particularly concerned about what I detailed earlier uh regarding the uh new positions found within uh the parking enterprise fund and the utilities enterprise fund.

Uh I think we need to take uh a closer look at it, which we can do before the second reading of the enterprise fund and the second reading on the budget for that matter overall.

Uh I I just I don't feel comfortable voting for these new positions uh knowing at the same time that uh as was mentioned, and it might be apple staranges, but I frankly don't mind the comparison at this point.

Knowing the layoffs that are occurring in the school department, uh I don't feel comfortable adding these hundreds of thousands of dollars in positions.

Uh so um discussion can continue if if counselors want, but at the appropriate time I'll make a motion to remove such.

I would think that this is the time, Mr.

Chairman.

I would move uh that we uh remove uh said positions from the enterprise fund budgets, uh, and I seek a second.

No second.

Motion fails.

Okay.

Um, so can I do now the motion and vote to approve the person?

What am I what am I what am I motioning now?

Six okay motion to approve the ordinance appropriating red revenues as amended on first reading, and this is the ordinance amending.

Um this is the ordinance amending ordinance number uh two zero one eight zero five entitled appropriating revenues of the city for of Newport for the fiscal year July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.

So just a point of clarification or question, please.

I believe that we voted on that uh some time ago.

What's before us now uh are two separate um granted it's all a part of the budget, but I separated the general fund revenue from uh the enterprise fund revenue.

What is before us now?

If you want to vote for those five positions, uh go ahead and vote for them.

Uh but uh that's the only item before.

This is a motion to approve as amended.

So I think we did that already.

I understand that, but I think we should do it again.

So madam clerk, we already voted on the as amended number six, okay.

Okay, so number seven, all right.

Number seven, motion and vote to approve personnel ordinance on first reading.

Any changes that affect the personnel ordinance after discussion above will be incorporated into ordinance for second reading.

Do we have a second?

Motion and second, any discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, we need to fund these positions before we create the positions, or at least I think that's the proper way to do it.

Before us now, as I understand it, the motions I made is to fund or to vote on funding uh the enterprise fund budgets or proposed budgets.

Once we fund those budgets, if you want to do that, fine.

Uh, then we can vote to uh officially adopt the additional personnel created as a result of the aforementioned vote.

I I think that's correct.

You have to you took out the enterprise zone, the enterprise um funds, and now you have to vote on that, right?

And then counselor collins, right?

And then you go to the person.

I make a motion to approve the enterprise funds for fiscal year 2027.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Posed.

Aye, seven.

Okay.

So now we're on the motion to a vote to approve the personnel ordinance on first reading.

Second, yeah.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion to adjourn, motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.