Test one test one, two, three.

Hi, everybody.

The clerk will call the role for city council meetings started at six oh four PM.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Bowley, Gephot, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Ladissa, Mr.

Munham, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

Rix.

If Councilman Delouise will please lead us in a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of which is stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

And now if our special guest, Michael Bassett could please lead us in the national anthem.

Um it is with great sadness.

He served in the position of the um head administrator.

And it is a great loss in the passing of Mr.

Murphy.

So I would request a moment of silence, please.

An ordinance amending section sixty dash five zero zero.

Oops, maybe my cross out doesn't cover it.

Of the code of ordinances to provide flexibility and city OPEB contributions that would exceed those matching employee contributions for the period until the state reimbursement on school construction debt service begins.

So this is going to be before the full council.

However, the the hopeful path forward is that we'll first have uh introduction of a potential amendment, and then have it so that the administration can explain and then also have it so that the public can then speak, and then after that, we'll close the public comment and then be able to do the councils and bear in mind that's the plan for all three of these items, not just for this one.

So we're all clear.

Uh for this one, again, just to help orient everyone before we get into the discussion.

Bear in mind we're here to discuss the option to allocate uh the funds above and beyond the contractually agreed to funds to go into the OPEB trust fund, which would be approximately five million for this year.

The purpose of which would be in this case to allocate that money towards the school bond debt.

The reason for that is that the alternative would be to as uh stated so far.

The alternative would be to either take from the budget, so a loss of services, and as at least one that the mayor pointed out the last meeting, would be the for instance a loss of service doing trash pickup, uh half as much was one example, or alternatively, we could take it from the rainy day fund.

The problem with taking it from the rainy day fund is that we would lose interest that would accrue, and more importantly, it would be a potential hit to our bond or credit rating, which could have financial impacts of it of itself.

And to be clear, we're not talking about messing with any of the collective bargaining agreements at all.

Far from it, especially because we don't actually have the ability to mess with them here.

Uh we are talking about specifically the ordinance that was giving money above and beyond that.

We're also not talking about interfering with benefits guaranteed to current employees or retirees.

We are strictly talking about OPEB.

We're not talking about pension.

Again, we have no authority to mess with the benefits regardless of what happens here tonight.

The benefits for retirees and anyone else who receives OPEB will still happen.

If it's not paid via the trust, it will be paid via the method that we've always done, which is the pay as you go model.

And indeed, that is the method that we would be using anyway for probably decades, because you have to wait till the trust gets up to a certain amount before you can pull from it anyway.

So doing this diversion temporarily doesn't actually hurt anyone.

It's only the alternatives that stand to hurt.

Uh that being said, there is a the one impact that's not ideal is that by doing a diversion of funds each year, should we choose to do so?

Because again, this actually only gives the option for such.

And then when it comes time for the budgets, we'll actually be discussing it further.

Then we will lose out on the interest that would have accrued from that.

So that is a fact.

That is a fair point.

If anyone uh was going to mention it, that is arguably the only financial hit we take in that regard.

And so it's important to note the financial hit on the other end, far as if we took from the rainy day fund or the credit bond rating hits.

So those are all realities of the situation.

Uh all that being said, first a proposed amendment, councilman Gebhart.

Mr.

President, point of order, please.

Yep.

I would like to at this time make a request to suspend the rules, given the significance, financial significance of this particular item, and not just in the short term, but in the long term, and suspend the council rules as it applies to the um 10-minute limitation on uh individual comments.

You said the times, right?

I'm sorry, you said timed to suspend the um 10 minute all right.

I just want to make sure I heard you right.

I apologize.

significance financial significance of this particular item and not just in the short term but in the long term and suspend the council rules as it applies to a um 10 minute limitation on uh individual comments you said the times right i'm sorry you said timed to suspend the um 10 minute all right i just want to make sure i heard you right i apologize all right so it's a request so can you just want to go in that point where it's a it's a it's a request can we do the you want he has the motion that he was called upon to make can we then go to you after the motion so you can make your motion to suspend the rules I'm sorry what you what was the beginning you said so I had already called on councilman gebhart to make his motion that he's gonna make can we then immediately go to you so then you can make your motion sure all right just to keep everything ordered so councilman gebhart uh yes uh you'll recall at the uh around 12 30 in the evening last Monday I introduced uh an amendment um uh during the time from when I introduced that amendment till now I've had the opportunity to work with the city administration um to refine that amendment so I'll enter that amendment into the record here um so if you are uh looking at um at PCO626 subsection C which starts during the period of time from when the city makes any debt service payments for the construction of new high schools and refurbishment of existing schools up until such time the state begins full reimbursement of the debt service payment the city may at its discretion reduce its payment to the OPEB fund provided that such amount is sufficient to match employee contributions and that's where it ends the amendment introduces a uh separate sent a second sentence uh which follows and begins in the budget year following the commencement of full state reimbursement for debt service the city will begin repaying the opeb trust for any previously deferred amounts as confirmed by the actuary repayment may occur over a maximum of four years that is the second all right motion made and second it's now discussion but first and now councilman lattice you want to make a motion to suspend the rule Mr.

President I would like to make a motion to suspend the council rules limiting the um public comment on this including our own comment for um the 10 minute rule so just the 10 minute provisions yes so it's not limiting anyone's comments to just 10 minutes so is there a second regarding that request all right so discussion the reason for my request is um I think it's pretty obvious this is a huge financial issue that involves not just the people in this room but all of the taxpayers all of the employees and in the long term you're talking a lot more than 50 million dollars and in the big picture it's a lot more serious in my opinion than that and I think to limit the discussion to 10 minutes um on such a significant issue is not right it's not fair and that's why um made the motion to uh amend the council rules to suspend that councilman givehart your lights on I would I would just say that um in the in the interest of keeping things moving um that we maintain our rules and not leave them open ended however uh if there is a speaker who has more points than can be enumerated in 10 minutes that we address the problem should it come up I don't think we need to make the entire session open ended um you'll recall that most other cities have a limit somewhere in the two to three minute range as does the state they deal with substantially higher sums of money in those hearings so um there's nothing to be said that a cogent point can't be made in less than 10 minutes uh so I'll vote no councilman fully first I'd like to request of my colleagues and anyone in the audience who's going to speak please lean into the microphone I have a hearing device and councilman Gebhardt you and I are very friendly I barely heard what you with this on I barely heard what you said these comments are important tonight I want to hear them so please if you're speaking speak into your microphone that's a I am speaking against the uh doing away with the 10 minute rule for my five years on the council this time I have been the timekeeper at the finance committee meeting and I counted I went back and checked my notes figuring someone would request this tonight and I was able to find maybe 20 times in the five years where the 20 the 10 minute wasn't enough and that was probably because people were repeating themselves two and three times council president uh the rule is not to repeat something someone else has already said

I have been the timekeeper at the finance committee meeting, and I counted, I went back and checked my notes, figuring someone would request this tonight.

And I was able to find maybe 20 times in the five years where the 20 the 10 minute wasn't enough.

And that was probably because people were repeating themselves two and three times.

Council President, uh, the rule is not to repeat something someone else has already said, not to repeat what you have said on the record on this matter.

But as Councilman Gebhot said, to be succinct and to the point so we can deal with this measure.

I see a good crowd of Warwick citizens here waiting to speak.

I don't want them someone here to have to wait till eight o'clock tonight to speak.

So I think what Councilman Gebhardt said is how I would be voting on a need to basis.

If someone has hit the 10 minute mark and requests another two or three minutes, then we take it up on a case by case basis.

Councilman Napa.

I just share the concerns of Councilman Foley and Councilman Gebhardt that we do have a fair amount of citizens here that want to be heard, I would assume, and I wouldn't want to cut anyone short if someone speaks rather long-windedly and takes up a fair amount of time now.

If that person does have something to say and they go beyond the 10 minutes, I'm more than happy to give that person more than adequate time.

However, I just wouldn't, I would hate to see anyone here that wants to be heard run out of time because we run to the end of the meeting.

So that's my only caution.

Councilman Laviser.

Just so you all know, not here to rush this thing through.

And if it means we have to be here for a little longer than you'd like, so be it.

There's also a lot of people in this room who are not informed or not totally informed and have questions that they may need to have answered.

And twenty times over five years, okay.

That does not speak to how many times suspending the rules was denied.

We have three items on the agenda tonight.

This is the biggest of all.

This impacts a lot of people.

And if we can't give people a few extra minutes that need it to speak their mind, then that is um makes no sense to me.

So sure, you can do it on a one-on-one basis, and I will withdraw my motion.

If this council guarantees that if someone is needing an extra several minutes to complete their position, that it'll be granted and not granted because we like the person, or we happen to agree or disagree with what they're saying.

It's if someone needs an additional several minutes.

If they need an additional five minutes to finish what they have to say, it'll automatically be granted.

Thank you.

Councilman Foley.

I will not stand by and let my words be twisted.

I am not rushing anything through tonight.

What I said was I felt for my constituents, and then we don't need to hear the same point over and over.

That's A.

B.

A case-by-case basis doesn't mean you guarantee before you get to that point that you're going to give time.

A case-by-case basis is you ask the person, do you have any other points to make?

So asking us to guarantee ahead of time is not what case by case means.

Again, uh, on a case-by-case basis, let's judge whether or not people need more time.

I never said I was.

So hold on.

No, we're not gonna do back and forth.

We're not gonna do that.

So we've we've so far we've spent 10 minutes talking about talking about something, and so it doesn't seem like we're using our time well so far.

Uh and it does feel like we're putting the cart before the horse, insofar as there isn't actually an issue yet that anyone has had where they run out of time tonight, because again, we haven't even started, and it is also worth noting that we did start discussion on this at the last meeting.

So it's not like we have never discussed this issue at all.

Granted, the amendment is new before us, so that is fair to point out we did not discuss the amendment because it wasn't before us.

Uh, but people can vote whoever they want to vote.

Uh, we we can't guarantee what councilman lattice is saying.

It's not I understand your point.

Um, we can't we can't do that other than with via motion.

So I'm inclined to just have the clerk call the role, but councilman Gephardt, your lights on.

Given that the motion was withdrawn, I just does anyone need to hear the amendment again.

So the motion wasn't withdrawn because it was it was conditioned on something that we we can't fulfill.

Oh, can we call the question then?

All right.

Um please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi.

No, Mr.

DeLouise.

I need a clarification.

Oh, so a no vote would be voted on no, that's a perfectly fair question.

I should have I should have stated it.

So sorry, Councilman DeLuis.

So, right now, before us is the motion to suspend the rules regarding a 10-minute time limit.

No, thank you.

So a no vote means you're saying no to that motion, so we're clear.

So, no for me, no from Councilman DeLouise.

Please continue.

No, Mr.

Gephardt.

No, Mr.

Kirby, no, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Muro, yes, Mr.

Napa.

No, Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

Six motion fails.

All right.

So back to the amendment itself.

Uh, Councilman Gebar has introduced it.

There was a first, there was a second.

If the administration would like to speak regarding the proposed amendment.

Good evening, Bill Facente Chief Staff to Mayor Picoszi.

Um spent most of the day talking to many retirees that I have not spoken to in quite a few years.

Um, it was good to catch up.

Um, but it's also good to clear up some misinformation.

Um, as the council president mentioned, this does not this ordinance change does not affect any retirees, pension benefits, health coverage benefits.

We're not borrowing against any funds.

We're not borrowing against any retirement plan, we're not borrowing money against OPEB, we're not taking a loan against any fund.

What we are asking for the discretion to defer putting in a portion of the reduction in what the actuary tells us to put into the municipal pension contribution.

So the actuary does an analysis every year, and they tell us how much we should put in to keep the pension system, municipal pension, police and fire, all the pensions funded and functioning well based on market returns.

What they've told us is that we based on the market returns and how well funded the municipal pension fund is currently at 84 and a half percent.

We can make a smaller contribution from the municipal side.

Prior to 2024, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

2024, we started the OPEB trust.

The OPEB trust ordinance calls for any reduction in the pension contributions on the city side to be put into the OPEB trust to use it as seed money.

The OPEB trust is a 30-year funding plan.

Okay, what we're asking for is a deferment of the funding for one to possibly three years, depending on the state reimbursement for the schools.

Any of them we're putting in what is required by the actuary.

Prior to 2024, this fund this money would have just gone into the general fund because of the ordinance and the way it's written, it goes to the OPEP contribution.

This year in 2027 coming up, the city is facing almost 16 million dollars in school bond principal and interest payments.

We still have municipal bonds that we sold years ago, totaling approximately two million dollars.

So we're looking at almost 18 million dollars in debt service, principal and interest in 2027 alone.

The voters approved, the two high schools and 350 million dollar bond, and the other previous bonds for the elementary and middle schools.

The plan has always been to use the general fund, the fund balance, and any reduction in the contribution requirement per the actuary.

Or raise the taxes, or cut services, lay off employees.

And in the ordinance that Councilman Gephott read, the city is willing to pay it back, and we're only deferring, asking for the ability to defer it until such time as a state starts to reimburse the city for the schools.

The schools will not be reimbursed until substantial completion, which is estimated in FY29.

Pilgrim is a little bit behind schedule, so that may take till FY30.

Any deferred amount in principle back to the OPEB trust.

Keep in mind the OPEB trust plan was a 30-year plan.

We've done two years, we're doing very well with it.

We're still putting in 1.25 million from the employees.

We're putting in 1.25 as required from the employer, the city.

If possible, can we do a vote on the amendment just to have the full ask before us before we go to public comment and then the full council?

I see lots of lights coming on that are either saying yes to that or no to that.

So is this in regards to what I just said or elsewhere?

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So what exactly is the effect of the amendment compared to not having that particular sentence there?

Is the effect of the current ordinance, the current legislation as it's written?

Would that be requiring the immediate payment upon the reimbursement?

Or would that be leaving it open-ended that, oh yeah, at the end of the 30-year OPEP plan, then maybe we can go ahead and put the money back, resort at that point.

So by putting in that particular language of four years, well, what's that changing it from?

Thank you.

The item before us was never completed for a vote on anything uh for an amendment.

So the purpose of councilman Gephardt's amendment that he fine-tuned uh to it put a payback provision into the proposal.

So, as drafted in its original form before you, it does not have language requiring the that deferred amount to go back in.

The amendment seeks to put guardrails in place to say that those funds deferred shall go back in under the timelines presented.

Is that answer your question?

Uh not entirely.

So if the amendment were to fail, what would be the requirement as to the timeline for payback?

There wouldn't be one.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess a better way to go about this, assuming now we know what we're talking about.

Is there any objection to voting on the amendment just to get the full ask before us?

If there is, then we'll go through everything.

I have a clarifying question.

That's seems fair.

Clarifying question.

Would you mind reading the amendment one more time?

I heard too many maze in there.

Absolutely.

So councilman Gephardt's amendment uh would add two new sentences that currently follow the new language in the blue C subsection C, which which is the original uh component.

So the new language says in the budget year following the commencement of full state reimbursement for debt service, the city will begin repaying the OPEB trust for any previously deferred amounts as confirmed by the actuary.

Repayment may occur over a maximum of four years.

So it's that May that I'm really reacting to.

We're May over four years.

So we could technically be extending this seven years, eight years from we're deferring.

Follow me on this.

We're deferring three years, possibly four.

And then once we get reimbursed, we can it'll take another up to or may up to four years to pay back.

So it's a total of eight years, potentially.

Am I interpreting that properly?

The amendment adds a timeline that begins in a few years and extends potentially for a few years.

So yes, the the in generalities.

So the opportunity cost could be potentially up to eight years.

There is that is certainly a theoretical that is possible.

It would be the result of what each um council decides year after year as to the extent to which they decide to use the tool and to the extent that they within that window of time want to uh complete their obligation to return the funds.

The administration appears to seek to say something.

So the the ordinance um requires only allows for the deferment of the OPEB trust funds from the municipal pension contribution until such time as the state starts reimbursing.

The states, like I said, is it's I believe it's FY29.

I I don't know about pilgrims, but that could be FY29 as well.

Once FY29 comes, we can't defer the payment into the OPEB trust any longer, and we have four years to repay what we did defer.

So in all intents and purposes, it would be about two years, possibly three, depending on funding from the state getting the reimbursement.

That's when we stop.

So the the repayment could take up to four years, but the the withdrawals are only gonna be for up to the time when the state reimburses us, which was right now FY29 is what they've told us.

So the two years potentially of deferred into the OPEP trust.

Yeah, and the point of me seeking to make this the get the full ask before everybody is that it doesn't mean you're comfortable with a four-year timeline, it's just saying yes, you do want to mandate repayment, and yes, you do want there to be a timeline for it, and then once that's all before us, we can say, all right, but am I comfortable with that as a whole, or do I want to change any of the pieces of it?

It just makes it easier for actually us to discuss things rather than to keep talking about speculations regarding the really every aspect of it.

But I think that's the point is to understand all the aspects before we vote.

So with a payback period of four years, especially when we're gonna get a re uh the refund of the 23 million dollars beforehand.

Why is it taking the city or the administration four years to pay instead of moving it from one to the other?

So can we have a motion, please to open to suspend the rules to open for public comment?

So we can allow the public to speak.

So motion is suspend the rules for the purpose of allowing for public comment.

All right, motion made second.

Whoa, pardon.

All right, any objection to opening for public comment?

All right, hearing none.

So open.

So if anyone on members of the public wish to speak, please come up to the mic, just state your name before having at it.

Uh bear in mind uh I have to maintain decorum, which includes gaveling you or speaking up if you try to do personal attacks, if you're being repetitive, et cetera.

Council president, just point of order or point of something.

I'm not sure what's called this request.

Can could the solicitor maybe circulate or email to members of the council the link so I can actually see it?

Or can we get that printed and circulated in short order?

I didn't hear the question.

I just want to get a a hard copy or an email copy of the proposed amendment printed and circulated between the council so we can actually see it.

He's on it.

Thank you.

Uh bear in mind when it comes to this discussion, be it from the members of the public or from the council, we do have to stay on topic and on the correct subject.

I don't want to have to interrupt anybody, so please try to make sure to stay on topic because we'll bear in mind we were discussing specifically DCO6-26, which is the ordinance signal amend about OPEB and providing flexibility, etc.

We're not discussing other aspects of the budget or anything like that.

All right, so go ahead.

My apologies.

Thank you.

Michelle Comar Ward one.

I appreciate your directions, council president.

My comment, my concern is some unknowns.

Both the ordinance and the amendment address this reimbursement, this full reimbursement from Ride.

When is that going to occur?

And I understand from the last meeting, the council had this issue before them that both the high schools had to finish construction and the athletic fields need to be completed.

And we know that the school department was short money, the $50 million bond did not pass.

How is how are the athletic field component going to be funded?

And was that 2029 date that the chief of staff gave?

Is that just for the school buildings or also the athletic fields?

And the last component of that question is how are the athletic fields funded?

Because if the if there's more debt or more bills to pay by the taxpayers, maybe we don't have money at that time out of the ride reimbursement, because this is going to prolong out to pay it back right away without more burden on the taxpayer.

It's a matter of timing.

And there's unknowns on when the athletic ball fields will be completed and how they are funded.

I'll start there.

Thank you.

So Lynn, if you're able to respond, please.

So sorry, I know it's very blinding looking that way.

Um, the taxpayers of the city have said they want to spend 350 million on two schools, and the city's intent is to stick to that.

The um building committee is working on plans for that to be enacted.

Uh we assume that substantial completion of the schools will happen in 29.

Um, I have no reason to think otherwise at the moment, and then the reimbursement will be about 22 million from the state at that time.

And can you identify yourself?

Sorry, I'm Lynn Project, finance director.

Thank you.

Ms.

Comar, do you have anything else?

Yes, I I missed the answer.

When are the athletic fields going to be completed?

Are they not required by Ride to be completed for the full reimbursement in addition to the school buildings themselves?

They are in fact required, and the intent is they will be completed in 29.

And what is the source of funding for the athletic fields, please?

The building committee is working on it.

Well, this is a big concern.

Um what is it gonna cost the city to taxpayers?

Uh I think there's that big unknown at this point in time.

And this bond was passed in 2022 by the taxpayers, and we don't have all our costs in line for funding of part of the component that ride is looking for, which is ball field re ball field construction, as well as the school buildings for the reimbursement, um, which is 314.

I'll just use a round number million dollars.

I think it's premature to develop a plan today until we know the date, this the athletic fields, and we meet all the requirements for ride reimbursement.

We're just guessing, and we don't know the implications of that to the city budget in the future, the taxpayer burden, and any kind of payback within four years.

Um, we don't know how we're footing the bill for the athletic fields.

So I would think we're premature in voting on this tonight because we don't have all the funding sources disclosed, so we can really plan intelligently and accurately ahead for any kind of payback.

And just to benefit my friends that may have showed up for the first time tonight, the OPEB funds.

Council President, I'll ask you this question.

You can have somebody answer this that you like.

Uh, what did they really entail?

Are they just the retirees free health care?

No copay, or are there any other benefits that this funds are diverted from?

So that's a fair point.

Uh OPEB stands for other post-employment benefits, uh, typically by definition non-pension.

I don't know if the administration wants to comment on any particulars in that regard.

Are you asking um the what the intent of the OPEP trust is exactly?

The intent of the OPEP trust is so in our budget every year, we do fund health care for our retirees.

We started a trust a few years ago with the intent of putting a little bit of money aside to be able to pay that bill in the future.

Um not dissimilar to one of our pension funds.

The only way that that money can be spent because it's in an irrevocable trust, is to pay for retiree benefits and and that alone.

Right.

And I was here when the actuarial did the presentation, Mr.

Newton, and he looks in a box, not what we can afford, but what we could pay if we didn't have any other financial worries, and so what he suggested that we need to pay is when all things are well and good, and he didn't consider the school contract school construction debt, the municipal budget, the school department's budget, he's working on just that.

I'd be comfortable not know, and this is in light of not knowing how we're gonna pay for the athletic fields which are required to be built for each high school before ride reimburses the city.

I'd be comfortable because we're in a crisis situation to just approve this for one year, and I appreciate the mayor looking out for the taxpayers, but we need a long-term plan that we have not sat down, clunked heads together, the council and the public to get all the answers to our questions, which I want to um be considerate tonight, not to keep asking all these questions, but that is the main one is we don't know how yet to finance.

I haven't had the answer yet tonight, the ball fields which are required for state reimbursement.

So I would be comfortable.

My comment is um that the council only approved for one year because we're in crisis mode.

We've done no four planning.

Um, so the amendment um that the mayor can divert these funds for one year and revisit this again next year.

Hopefully, everyone's back here next year, gets reelected on the council.

So you could take this up again year by year because a lot can happen, as my Italian friend says from the Hill.

A lot can happen between now and 5 p.m.

We have a long ways to 5 p.m.

We don't have our ducks in order for financing the athletic fields.

That has not been disclosed to us.

The bond referendum had a completion date of 2027.

Now we're at 2029 for the schools.

What does that do to the costs?

Now we don't even know when we're gonna get reimbursed.

Um I don't want to put councilman Gephar on the spot, but it's his amendment for this reimbursement date and four years after that.

Do we know we can do that?

Do we know what the ball fields are gonna cost?

And how is that wrapped into our general fund or more tax burden?

Thank you to um the taxpayers.

So um that is my main concern.

I see seniors.

Well, I'm a senior, but I suppose we see more seniors in the audience tonight.

I know the concern about the tax burden, and I just want to shout out to them that we're glad the mayor is considering to lower the tax burden this year, but we need the full disclosure of what the game plan is on how to pay this bond debt off in the future and what it's gonna cost the taxpayer.

We haven't had a forum where the taxpayers have had their questions answered to this date.

The taxpayers went to the polls in 2022.

All right, I'll stop there.

Thank you, council.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Does anyone else in the public wish to speak on this?

Just make sure to introduce yourself before you get going, please.

Robert Cushman, board one.

Um just want to thank Michelle for bringing some of those important points up.

Um I I did send an email out to the mayor and to the all the council members, and and it's probably not going to be stuff they're gonna be answered now, but there's a lot of information, and there's a lot of questions I think that really need to be answered concerning how much we're borrowing, the different rates that we're borrowing.

We need a lot more transparency as to what's going on in terms of the total cost of the taxpayers.

And so I I do have a couple questions, and I'm not not it's just the sun's terrible over here.

So um, in the original um bond referendum, it talked about 350 million dollars in bonds, right?

But that's not exactly what we're borrowing, right?

Is aren't we borrowing a max of 325 million?

Yes, but because of the bond premium.

Hold on, one moment.

So we gotta make sure we stay on topic.

So we're talking about the proposed change to the ordinance regarding OPEB contribution.

We're not talking about the bond.

Uh miss even Miss Comar's comments started to deviate, but the only reason why I didn't interrupt her is because that she was talking about the trigger point of when we would get the repayment money, which is the proposal.

So this all ties into the fact of the matter is we are not getting any reimbursement at all from Ride into the athletic fields are constructed, right?

Is that correct?

That that's what at the moment that is what I'm told.

At the moment, I don't know what has to do.

And and and so right now there's no additional borrowing to construct the athletic field, right?

No, no, there's no more bond.

I mean, council president, that's the only reason why I'm asking.

I'm trying to determine you know what the totals are, you know.

For example, the taxpayers were told we're gonna pay 4.5% over 20 years.

That's not true.

We just did a bond offering of 138 million dollars at 5% for 25 years.

So that may or may not be true, but that has no bearing on what we're talking about here.

Because even even if the bond in question that you were speaking of is for a billion dollars, it doesn't change the fact that the question before us is about amending this OPEB matter so that we can defer so we contributions to finance the current bonds.

So we got 139 million dollars in bonds that were sold in January, right?

Is that correct?

Do you understand that?

I I would defer.

Well, I'm asking you.

My answer is the same.

So how many more bonds are we gonna sell in this next fiscal year coming up?

Again, I would defer to the solicitor, but I'm having trouble following the relevance because I'm required to keep us on top of not interrupting you for five.

I'm not interrupting you for five.

We're talking about using five million dollars from the old from from the missile pension fund because we're reducing it to pay for the principal and interest.

Nope.

So we're not actually talking about.

We are not taking any money from the pension fund.

We're taking where we the municipal pension contribution is being reduced by five point something million.

Not by us, it is just where the municipal plan amortization schedule is hit.

I've worked for three mayors, and all three have had different ideas about what to do with this moment in time.

I'm not arguing against that.

I'm saying we're getting a windfall because we're no longer paying 40% of a missible employee salary.

It's going down to 18%.

As a result of that, instead of paying 9.00 million dollars into the pension fund, the municipal fund, it's three point something.

But there's a five million dollar savings.

We're discussing tonight, taking that five million dollars and using that to make the interest in principal payments on the bonds, right?

So we should know exactly how much the principal and interest payments are gonna be on the school bonds in fiscal year 27.

Right.

So bear in mind what we're talking about is having the option to do what you described.

This doesn't actually do it because what you're getting to that discussion, if this passes, if it passes, yeah, and then if it passes again for second passage, then that discussion happens on May 18th, May 19th, and the final budget.

So, what's the total interest and principal payments in the fiscal 27 budget that we the taxpayers have to pay?

So I'm gonna make sure to formally ask them because I don't want to have to keep debating you on this.

Are we on topic here or have we deviated we're here to discuss the flexibility of this precise numbers are relative to when any potential action could be taken?

We're still in the theoretical zone of whether or not this flexibility would exist.

I mean, there's a there's a light connection here.

We're trying to need to keep it as close as possible.

I I don't even understand what that means.

I'm inclined to agree with Mr.

Cushman the bonds, the interest rates, those items are not on this agenda.

So for the purposes of tonight's meeting, we need to stick as close as possible to the contents of the ordinance.

So can I ask you a question?

For example, if you want to make an amendment to spend 5.3 million, can you do that tonight?

There's no dollar amount that's right to this.

We don't even know how much the total principal and interest is going to be.

So technically, this council is blind.

If they have more than five million dollars, they can make an amendment right if Mr.

Gebhard can make an amendment to put money back in four years from now.

Why can't the council make an amendment to use $5.3 million?

Don't we need to know all the math and all the equations before you can come up with a plan of X amount of dollars to pay for principal and interest?

So there's no in the proposed amendment or the original language, there is not a dollar amount stated because it's not relevant to that question.

It's not relevant.

No, because of what I've already said, we're only talking about having the option to do something.

The part that you you want to talk about is absolutely relevant for the budget meetings because that's when that happens.

So if if Mr.

Lattis wants to make an amendment to put five seven million dollars in, and the council agrees we could do that if he wants to put a dollar amount into the ordinance as a proposed amendment, that's his prerogative.

I I don't understand how you don't want to know what the total cost is before you decide how much money you want to put into that.

That's assining, but I will go on.

I will go on.

So I might be the only person who actually looked at the 330-page bond document of the bonds that were recently sold, and we're paying five percent interest at 25 years.

The taxpayers were told during the voter referendum in 2022, 4.5% over 20 years.

How much extra money is it costing the taxpayers for that?

Mr.

Kushman, I'm I'm in the same boat I was a moment ago.

I I'm not sure the I'll I would withdraw that question.

Ms.

Comart talked about we don't have the financing for the athletic fields, right?

Right?

We all agree on that.

Can you explain the concept of why we are using bond premium money?

Are we using bond premiums to be able to finance those athletic fields?

Sorry, this isn't relevant to the OPEB amendment.

I'm inclined to agree because as we both myself and the administration mentioned earlier on, this is about the purpose of this, as was stated was to pay towards the bond debt.

It wasn't to pay for fields or anything like that.

And you have an amendment that says after a certain amount of years, we have to take some money and put it back into the OPEB trust fund.

But you don't know what year that's going to be because you don't know when the athletic fields are going to be built, and you don't know when the reimbursement's going to come in.

So you're going to put an amendment into law that says to do something, and you don't even know what the hell the dates are when that has to happen.

So right, you you're you've described why why I did not interrupt Miss Comar is because she pointed out something that is relevant because we we don't know a date certain as to when the project will be done sufficiently to trigger the reimbursement.

We only know what the the triggers are supposed to be, but we don't know the exact date.

And the finance director just said we have a build, uh what was it, a building committee or something trying to figure out how they're gonna build these athletic fields, right?

And the thing is you don't have any money, but I want to let everybody in this audience know what's going on.

They are selling bonds at a premium, and maybe someone should describe what that means.

They're getting millions of dollars of extra money from these bonds, but we're paying a higher interest rate.

It's gonna cost us more money in future years.

And my question is, and you guys should want to know this.

If we do this for the entire 325 million, they're gonna get 25 million dollars more.

What are they doing with that money?

And how much is it gonna cost the taxpayers?

Is this a back end way to finance the athletic fields because the bond failed in February?

It is not.

Then why are you using bond premiums?

It's because the way the state mandates it now.

But also, this is not relevant to this OPEP.

I I know it's not relevant.

I I guess I'll be back during the budget hearings to talk about it because then that'll give you a lot more time to do your homework and answer the questions.

I mean just in all fairness of the administration.

Pardon just for the council's knowledge.

Legislation was written, bond premiums can't be used towards the project.

So there will be no extra money from bond premiums going into the projects.

And just uh just I I honestly I didn't I didn't fully hear that, but I was told something at the same time elsewhere.

But I just wanted to be clear that regarding Mr.

Cushman's comments.

The administration did answer all your questions.

I understand that not to your satisfaction, which you explained, which is fair.

Mr.

President, I've had my light on for quite some time.

We're we're waiting to make sure we get everybody from the public.

So is there anyone else in the public who wishes to speak on this?

Mr.

President, my question is quite relevant to the conversations that have already taken place.

So right now we're in public comment.

That's how we said we were gonna do that.

My light was on before public comment.

You moved to open public comments, so I don't understand.

My light came on before anyone stepped up to the podium for public comment.

And it was after, I believe.

Actually, my light was on right after, I believe, Councilman Mueller.

But anyways, it's really simple question.

So as the solicitor just stated to me.

You weren't recognized, nor did I even know about the situation you're describing.

We're in public comment right now.

We're gonna do public comment.

When public comment's done, everyone can have at it and say whatever you want to say.

Fine.

I'm sorry, please just introduce yourself and I'm Robin Gardness, and as you can see, I feel betrayed, and I can't have any trust in anything that's being said.

There are no guardrails being set up for how long, how much, or anything else?

There's no information being uh you know submitted and that we can see, and it seems a little shady.

That's that's why we can't be trust you can't be trusted.

That's why we don't feel like we can trust you to do the right things because we've been these schools have been going on for years.

And another question perhaps you could answer.

As the school footage has been decreased, is the reimbursement being decreased also?

Miss, I apologize.

I can't hear what you're saying first.

Can you just can you lean into the mic and say your name again and then please state your question again so we can hear it?

Uh because the school footage has been decreased.

Is the ride reimbursement being decreased also?

I'm here to talk about this OPEB amendment, not about school funding.

Yeah, well, we need that because of the schools.

It is relevant.

I I'm here to amend the ordinance to fund the OPEB trust, and that alone the same thing we just got done talking about with Mr.

Fishman.

There are no guardrails on this amendment.

I know there's no time, there's no money set out.

There needs to be some Godrails.

So you know, either we can say, Yeah, that's a good idea or no, it's not a good idea.

You just can't let it go through without a timeline and a money dollar sign.

It has to be some kind of endpoint to all of this.

You have to do it that way.

This city is a disaster financially.

It has to change.

It won't change quickly, but you gotta stop now.

Could you say that?

Can you just speak your name of the mic?

Yeah, we get our last name.

If at one point we could get your name missed because the clerk didn't catch it, neither did I.

You're gonna all right.

Never mind, she's on it.

Is anyone else would anyone else like to speak for public comment?

Would anyone else like to speak for public comment?

And would anyone else like to speak for public comment?

I can't tell if people are saying yes or they're blocking the sun.

All right, done fife.

I got a stupid question.

How much debt is the city of work in as of today?

So I we're in the same situation where the priority speakers, so that's not particularly relevant to the item before us.

I don't hear so we can't really get into that because it's not on the agenda.

Would we be an open meetings violation?

I'm just I'm adhering to council's advice.

Okay.

When was Congressman Marola?

Uh President of the Council.

I think that's the my answer's unfortunately the same as far as uh it unless there's something I'm missing that's not relevant to the item before us.

All right, thank you.

So is there any other member of the of the public that wishes to speak on the item before us?

Is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak?

Is there any other member of the public that wishes to speak?

All right, is there any objection to closing public comment at this time then?

And that's just for this item, it's we're not talking about the other two.

All right, so seeing no objections, so closed.

All right, so now Councilman Lannister, your light is on, and I can see that it's on.

Go for it.

Thank you.

And we're at we're back on the proposed amendment, which hasn't been voted on, so it's just a proposed amendment for discussion.

So we just get done hearing a lot of public comment.

And the questions evolved around ride.

When is ride doing this?

When is ride doing that?

What is ride doing?

What they are not doing.

I would like to hear from ride, because this is mostly about them.

So is there anyone here tonight from ride to speak to this matter?

Is there anyone here from RIDE to speak to this matter?

That seems like a no.

It sure does.

It sure does.

And I would think that ride would be present for this item, particularly speaking to the issues and the questions that are being asked.

I don't think ride is actually aware of our OPEB trust in any way.

And also this it affects our budget, absolutely, but it does not affect our our OPEB trusts.

I I get that.

I understand what I wouldn't have asked them to be here because of that.

Ride, I think would have been very helpful to answer these questions that are being asked.

When are the reimbursements?

How does this pay as we go thing?

Does the pay as we go?

Is that when it's uh done?

Or is it a percentage of invoices submitted, etc., etc.?

But um, it doesn't seem that you thought that would have been prudent.

No, I it the the funding of the OPEB trust, it it has absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Education and how the age.

But it has a lot to do with how the money and when the money is going to be reimbursed, because Ride is doing the reimbursement.

And they if they were here tonight, they would tell you the project is upon substantial completion of the project.

Substantial completion of the project is very open-end common.

I agree, especially considering when we're talking about the bond requirement of when both of the fields, both of the schools' fields are completed.

We have had, or I should say, at least there has been conversation taking place that perhaps instead of doing two fields, we're gonna do one super field.

I don't know if that's gonna come to be or not.

How does that change things?

These questions are something that you can't answer, the administration can't answer, I can't answer, but ride would be able to answer, and they're not here to do so.

Councilman Lassar, I understand your point, but currently even Ride can't answer the question because we're talking about things that are not settled yet.

Because as stated by the administration, what you're looking for is actively being worked on.

They haven't there isn't a decision affirm one on that.

So all this is speculative.

Um no one seems to know for certain um what we're gonna get, what we're not gonna get, when we're getting it, who's going to be issuing it, etc.

So I don't even know why we're talking about it.

Thank you.

Yep, to your point, the the part that's speculative is the trigger uh for the repayment of the deferred payments.

So understood.

I I follow your reasoning.

Are there any other like oh yes, there are?

Okay, I apologize.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So for the administration, this might sound like a dumb question, but I'm going somewhere with it, I think.

So if the city for years into the future, we make all required payments towards the pensions, towards the OPEB trust, but revenues are not sufficient, and then next thing you know, funding balance goes to zero dollars and we can't fulfill our operating expenses.

What happens to the city?

So again, sorry.

Hold on.

Again, we're back to we're gonna be fair because with Mr.

Cushman he wasn't relevant, and I think we're in the same boat here.

I'll withdraw that question.

So more to the point.

Let's say that we're able to make the operating expenses and we're making all the required contributions to the pensions, but the OPEB trust payments have not been sufficient, and so then the amounts at that future date when we would be counting on that OPEB trust to have funds available, those funds aren't there, then well.

So it's the OPEB trust has been funded for a few years now, and um, you know, my fiscal note said that we would be paying approximately one and a quarter million next year to the OPEB trust, which would match employee contributions.

So overall next year we'll still put away two and a half million dollars.

Currently, uh we're budgeted to pay $944,000 out of the general fund plus employee contributions.

So we're we're we're still funding this trust, just less, sir.

And bear in mind, Councilman Ricks focused on right now before us is the amendment rather than the whole concept.

So I know we want to I you obviously want to focus talk about both, which is fine, but do just the amendment for now.

Well, specifically relating it to the amendment, the amendment provides for four years afterwards.

So it all goes into a matter of the timing, and I'm not disputing that OPEB trust payments would continue to be made, just five million dollars fewer this coming year, and potentially up to five million dollars well this year and the next three years after that under the U ordinance.

But anyways, thinking about the long-term impact of that, if hypothetically there were a future in which we were counting on that OPEB trust fund money to be available and it wasn't available, and okay, X dollars are due, we have Y dollars, Y is less than X, and checks or electronic payments, however it is, uh it's not sufficient.

That would be a problem for the city, right?

If the city were bouncing its checks.

The city is in no danger of bouncing checks.

The OPEB trust money, it currently has seven million dollars in it.

I cannot touch that money.

Nobody can touch that money for anything other than paying or reimbursing.

It's only pension.

So I understand the point that you're making.

We are not at risk of bouncing any checks tomorrow.

Of course not.

I'm not concerned about tomorrow.

The reason that we're putting this money away in a trust so that it grows over time is so that it is out there in the future, because we're not just putting this money away for no reason at all.

We're just putting it away because we like bank account bounds to rise or whatever.

No, no, no.

I'm not talking about tomorrow.

I'm talking about the distant future when we are counting on that money to be there.

So please, I want us to be focused on what the purpose of all of this is.

If it makes absolutely no difference in the world to anybody whether we are saving money now, or whether we can just make it up at an indeterminate date in the future because we develop immortality, or somehow we develop some way to time travel.

Well, it's all nonsense.

We're not talking as if I don't know how many ways to put it, that the reason we save money today is so that it is available at a future date, and in between now and then the money tends to grow due to investments.

But if we don't put the money away today, then it's not gonna be there and it's not gonna grow.

And I think that if the money isn't there and it doesn't grow, then there are gonna be consequences when we want to go and use it in that distant future.

So if the money isn't there in the distant future when we would rely on it and it's not there, is that a problem for the city?

We will still contribute.

Yeah, and point of clarification, Councilman Rix.

Right now, the current method is to pay as you go.

If for whatever reason the trust was not sufficient, the we don't just not pay, we then pay as you go.

So one way or another, the the OPEB benefits get paid out.

Your point is still valid that if the money's not there tomorrow, we're not building interest on it until it is there.

Absolutely true.

Agreed 100%.

If you're you're trying to make some other point, with if so, have at it.

Then a question.

In that case, why do we have pension funds or an OPEB trust fund at all?

Why don't we just pay it all as we go?

And then magically in the future, the money will just be there magically.

It's not like we need to invest it and allow it to grow over time.

I don't know.

Uh, if we can pay it all as we go, then why are we bothering saving to do the prudent thing of you know having the money grow in the future?

The point of all of this is that if we don't have pension funds, if we don't have an OPEB trust, if we are not saving now for the future, no, we cannot simply pay as we go.

The money is not going to be there.

There's a point of clarification, Councilman Riggs.

One, that's not true.

And number two, and perhaps more importantly, uh again, try to focus on the amendment rather than the broader concept as a whole, and references to the pension are not on topic.

We're only talking about OPEB.

Okay, I'll focus very specifically on the amendment.

Now, the copy that was erroneously distributed earlier, I didn't have a chance to really read it in quite the detail I would prefer.

But in that moment it was handed to me.

I noticed that instead of saying a maximum of four years, which the current draft does, it referred to one year.

So in the back and forth that I was not uh privy to in the drafting of this amendment, it seems to me that there was a reason why it apparently an earlier draft was to require the repayment within one year, and yet the version before us now says four years.

So as to the amendment, I would say that it is a point of major concern to me that the entire initial purpose of this legislation, 6-26, as I had understood it, is that it's simply a matter of us waiting for that reimbursement for from ride, and then we take that money and we go ahead and we put it back in that OPEB trust and we let it grow and so on and so forth, because it's simply a matter of needing that reimbursement for ride.

year and yet the version before us now says four years so as to the amendment I would say that is a point of major concern to me that the entire initial purpose of this legislation 6-26 as I had understood it is that it's simply a matter of us waiting for that reimbursement for from ride and then we take that money and we go ahead and we put it back in that OPEB trust and we let it grow and so on and so forth because it's simply a matter of needing that reimbursement for ride but if now we're talking about a four year period then what on earth do we need that money so badly for for up to four years before we can allow it to go into the market into the investments to grow and fulfill its purpose for the administration do you want them to address that seems like a good question that is question yes why why four years yes flexibility I mean it truly the in the intent is to put it over four years because we're delaying this right and we can re-amortize it to help kind of smooth out this whole crazy metric we have going on in the budget process out in fiscal year 29 or 30 or whenever we can amend put in a budget that says we're going to put in 20 million dollars but we don't have to does that make sense so it the I mean the wording says you may but you don't have to but you have to do it in four years.

I mean it makes perfect sense to me I mean ride could come in and give us suddenly decide one day to give us uh partial reimbursements and at which point we can present something different at the moment they're giving us one huge balloon payment with substantial completion but I don't know what's gonna what it's gonna be in two years yeah so I mean what makes sense to me is that one month ago at the actuary presentation that is directly on point here because that actuary presentation told us that it's going to take a lot of discipline to fully get there and then of course depends on what the competing resources and obligations look like that was the quote a quote from our actuary that was referring to us increasing these contributions to the total funding of two and a half percent every single year.

It's gonna take discipline to do that the actuary didn't say it's gonna take flexibility you might uh decrease that line item by nine percent one year and then you know you put in 11 and a half percent to make up for that nine percent decrease that that that that's not what the actuary told us last month so I think that we need to have discipline if we're going to reach our funding goals here which have can been just continuously pushed out kick the can down the road for decades with this city and as long as we're not putting that money in the market or investments to grow over time we find ourselves digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the hole because we lack the discipline to make the hard decisions sooner rather than later so I understand flexibility is very much desired but flexibility is not what we need in the long term here to solve our problems we need discipline in order to solve the problems.

All right uh I got a message to councilman latticer's question actually from Mario Careno at Ride the repayment begins at substantial completion of a project because we are only reimbursing the first 313 million if you say the fields are in the last 37 million then it wouldn't matter either way in other words it can make the timing of the completion of the fields irrelevant for the purposes of reimbursement irrelevant that's correct so rather than the question mark it would be substantial completion of all the other stuff included in the 313 million not the remaining 37 million so that varies from the bond referendum language I believe.

Because I believe it states that the reimbursement begins upon the completion of the schools including the fields.

I'm just relaying what Ride said and that's what we were seeking for I'm sorry.

No no no problem Mr.

President but we're now we're both on the record thank you.

Um I'm gonna focus more on just the actual amendment here that's in front of us.

So we had just a couple of specific words in here that are concerning to me.

So I'll start with full state reimbursement, the operative full director.

You just mentioned that ride could give partial reimbursement.

So in that instance, then it doesn't seem likely to me, but I mean it stranger things have happened.

Okay.

So that is a possibility that they begin partial, in which case that makes this amendment irrelevant until a full reimbursement begins.

Um I don't know how I feel about that.

And then just one point of clarification in the budget year following the commencement of some sort of reimbursement.

So if substantial subcommission is determined to be made in 2029, we're thinking, and then ride reimbursement comes in fiscal 29, that means that the repayment would begin in fiscal 30.

Is that a correct interpretation of this?

Where's our solicitor?

That's how I read it.

So the operative following the commencement of state reimbursement.

So if the as the director stated, reimbursement would begin sometime in 2029, then the the repayment schedule would start in fiscal 30.

Is that it would be the succeeding budget year.

So he said that the it would it would begin so re replenishment of the OPEB fund would be the subsequent uh year.

So if reimbursement started in 29, replenishment of what was deferred would start in fiscal 30 or so on and so forth.

Um my last point of concern is the last line.

Repayment may occur over a maximum of four years.

I I think the operative may is concerning for me, and I would suggest possibly an amendment to make that a shall occur over a maximum of four years.

The may occur over four years, I think we're it's being framed as kind of rear looking is that we can the may occur over four years is sort of allowing the city to do it in a shorter period.

However, the way I'm reading it is that it may occur over a maximum of four years, meaning pointing towards the end of that sentence that it may occur over four years, but we could do it over longer.

So I think a shall occur over a maximum of four years still gives the city the right flexibility to do it in quicker time in quicker fashion, but caps it at four years.

Um the maximum, I don't think because it it you you may do the maximum, not shall do the maximum.

That's where that's my concern on that.

So can we amend the amendment or can do we have to approve it and then amend it?

Thank you, Councilman.

This was a a point of clarification that I'm working on at the moment.

There's two um things to consider.

Should this amendment move forward um and both relate to inserting the words shall to give that affirmative um completion of the uh the requirements here?

So one would be following the word um city.

It says the city will begin repaying.

I think we should consider making that a shall.

And then as what in the last sentence, as you were just noting, that repayment shall be completed over a maximum of such time.

Those would be I think things for everyone to consider to get this more precise.

So if we if we change that last sentence to repayment shall occur over maximum of four years, it would require the city to repay that money firmly over four years, no longer than four years, but give the city still the flexibility to fund it quicker if we had the excess funds.

I would based on that I would recommend language that says repayment shall be completed over a maximum of four years rather than shall occur over it would mandate a four-year payback.

It would so this would give you the flexibility to pay it off earlier.

How do we make that change?

Do we have to propose that or is that I would encourage further debate on the amendment and then once debate has so we we can revise it in one shot at that time.

So I would say hold for now.

Desire and what I would like to see is some for the guardrails as a member of our public has pointed out that the guardrail should be we need to firmly cap the city's timeline for kicking this can down the road at a at a specific time, which four years seems a reasonable amount of time to stretch that out.

It's not super long, it's not too short, where we'd be repaying 20 plus million dollars in one year.

I think that I think we can all agree that that would put too much of a financial strain on the city.

Um but I would I would strongly consider or strongly urge my colleagues to consider putting a shell and capping it so that the city it has to, we have to make good on this repayment in a maximum of four years.

I think that operative does that.

If we have the excess funds, we certainly could do it sooner.

Um the other point I just want to circle back to is full state reimbursement concerns me because if the state decides they're not fully reimbursing, it eliminates what we're doing here.

So I think commencement of state reimbursement and 86ing the full is more palatable for this councilman at least.

So if anyone else has to would like to comment on those concerns.

So councilman, the only thing I bring up as far as the partial repayment thing, bear in mind, assuming some version of this passes, regardless of what that looks like, when it comes time for our budget meetings, this discussion will happen again as far as hey, there's this chunk of money we're gonna put over here instead of over here.

So that'll be before us at that time.

So if for instance, if next year it turns out Ride chose to give us 10 million dollars early reimbursement, we could say, hey, that money that you want to go from here to here, we don't want to do that because Ride gave us a partial reimbursement.

So you don't need to do that this time.

So that I think that speaks directly to my point is if they do a partial reimbursement at any time, we couldn't use that according to this.

I mean, I guess we could as a as part of a budget, but then this ordinance wouldn't kick in.

I'm just throwing it out there just to keep in mind, it doesn't mean your prospect of amending it accordingly isn't valid.

So it's still potentially viable.

Okay, thank you.

So all right, we got two councilman Gebhardt and then councilman meadow.

Wait, did it what happened?

What did I miss?

Oh, I apologize.

I I looked right and then I looked left.

Councilman Mudo, sorry.

You were first, you were first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure everyone is aware of what the trade-off costs are here when we're looking at making this decision.

We are looking at an opportunity cost of our future value of our money.

We are looking at paying a five percent debt with a five point nine percent offset, which is our return by our actuary.

So we're paying one credit card of 20% to another one that's 18%.

So number one, that is a terrible way of managing money.

Number two, let's look at future opportunity cost.

What does five million dollars just once one five million dollar look like in 30 years?

That maturity value.

Have you done that those numbers?

Uh finance chief of what is our opportunity cost if we defer the five million dollars without interest for what that would look like if we paid that five million dollars.

The actuary uses six percent, so it's three hundred thousand dollars.

Yeah.

So for five million, no, for six hundred thousand.

How are you five million dollars, six percent, three hundred thousand dollars?

Yeah, but the future value, the what that five million dollars is gonna cost in the future.

Well, I did.

Yeah, I did.

Okay, so for two years, uh for 10 million dollars only, we're looking at for 10 million dollars, we're giving up approximately 49 million dollars in the future.

If we go three years and it's paid back within three years, point just point of order, councilman, just so I can understand your math.

How long are you thirty?

Well, uh doing what the actuary, so it's a 30-year uh a um OPEP program.

We we're in it two years, so it's maturity in 28 years.

So your math is based on a 28-year projection.

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, uh, so this you know, and it's ballpark.

You know, I just want people to know the proportion that we're looking at.

So let's just assume a three-year, this is what we're looking at, three year fifteen million dollars.

At that time, that value is approximately 75 million dollars.

So we're trading off 15 million for 75.

Now, if we take the payment as an equal payment for four years after that, that number is a staggering 130 million dollars.

So we're trading off 15 million dollars present value to about 130 million dollars at the maturity of this.

So when we're doing this decision, it has consequences.

When in fact, have we looked at other options such as you know the budget?

We're looking at about 1.3% of our budget to make up that five million dollars.

I don't know any household that can't find 1.3 million dollars to pay their extra higher level electric bill or gas bill.

What's that?

Oh, percent, I'm sorry, percent 1.3%.

So all I'm saying is I'm not comfortable paying, you know, deferring bills at a higher opportunity cost of 5% to 5.6 or your point, six percent.

That even makes the math worse.

And then not paying the opportunity cost, we're just paying the principal back, and we're shorting our future value of these dollars, whether or not it's a pay as you go plan and ope plan, whatever it is, it we're still talking about 130 million dollars future cost, future value for 15 million dollars.

To me, I can't make that math justify at this point.

Make it make sense to me.

As another point of order, can I I think I can do this?

Councilman, did you is those numbers is that the delta from when you put back the money?

Yes.

So that's 10 million dollars over 28 years less the yeah, because the payback, the paybacks uh staggered over the last.

So I just made it easy.

I divided the 15 million, divided by four, and the payback would be in each subscription sub schedule year.

So again, it's ballpark, it's back to the envelope.

So you let's say it's 100 million dollars.

If we but if you took if you added that 10 million dollars back in in the four-year repayment at the end of the four, let's say at the end of the four-year repayment plan.

And then we amateurize that across 20 years, right?

So then we would have to take the delta of your 28-year amateurization of negative 10 and your re-amateurization of putting that money back in over 20.

Well, it's and that's your true loss of that's your true true loss, yes.

Right.

So this the those numbers that you just gave out are not the actual true loss.

Yeah, so I'm not the finance person for the stuff.

No, I'm just I want to be sure.

I mean, I think you're bringing up valid points, and I'm not trying to be argumentative.

I want to make sure that I'm understanding the math.

Yeah, so that is not the actual true loss.

We'd have to delta back what we're gaining, so substantially lower than those numbers, but not but I mean it's not nothing, it's we're talking about millions of dollars.

I I would I would propose we table this till we actually get the numbers that are costing this.

Okay.

Well, I appreciate the work, Councilman.

Thank you.

Yeah, the other part is the again, the flexibility as far as the uh reimbursement goes.

Why are we giving the flexibility of when we get the money back from the state?

Uh I'd be more comfortable if we put something in there that has to do with we can't we can't use the reimbursement of the state, no matter if it's partial or full for anything but reimbursements, and then over and beyond that.

So that would be an amendment that I would add that way that money that's received for the purpose of paying uh the interest on the loan is diverted first to paying paying back the OPEP.

I I think it's pretty clear that's the intent.

The intent.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It seems very clear to me that's the intent of this amendment.

Yeah.

And I hope it's clear to whoever.

I don't work in intense.

I intends.

I want to work in in absolutes.

And if we could do some absolutes, and this is a big problem with the city.

And if we're too vague and too squishy with this numbers, that putting better absolute this.

This isn't a hard economic or financial problem to calculate within some you know constraint.

All we're asking for is tell us what the trade-offs are.

Tell us what the cost is.

You know, when you get this money back, it further, you know, first bills paid is is the OPEB to reimburse.

So if we're using and leveraging the OPEB, and we get and the whole idea is we're not we don't have the funds to do it right now, but we will have the funds when the state pays us back.

It only makes perfect sense is that money is allocated to um to that uh to that reimbursement.

So I'll I'll uh I'll yield my time.

Already just give me one moment, please.

I just gotta keep track of everybody.

Uh this is the an important point to dovetail with Councilman Mutos, because he's right as far as that there is a cost to this proposal.

If we, for instance, took the money from the Rainy Day fund, that money will not obviously accrue interest because it will be gone.

So similarly, there would be a cost associated with that, albeit not as much because it's a lower interest rate, it's not as good as the interest rate afford to the trust.

Not to mention the costs as far as a bond rating or a credit hit.

Uh all right.

So the next up is Councilman Gebhart, followed by unless there's somebody else new, then it will go to Councilman Ricks.

I I just had a couple quick ones on things that that came up.

I just had a couple quick ones on things that came up.

I do have some more detailed thoughts for when we get to the heart of the matter.

But um, thank you.

Good to and we have a bunch of lawyers in the room, but I appreciate the feedback on the word May and Shall.

I think that is important, and it it speaks directly to the intent of why this amendment is on the floor.

Um, because the original proposal provided absolutely uh no repayment uh plan at all.

Um, and to what uh several other commenters and colleagues have said, you know, we want to give the city the flexibility to operate the finances of the city within guardrails, right?

And while we'd love to all live in absolutes, we are dealing with unknowns.

We're dealing with a project that we don't that we this council and that's the and the mayor and the city and the administration don't control, right?

We're partners in that in that process, but we don't we we don't control the construction timeline, we don't know when it's going to be done, we know when they tell us it will be done, and we are watching it closely.

However, those are not absolutes, we need to give the city the toolkit in order to be responsible.

And you know the reason we're here tonight is that over the next five years, we have a challenge in making these short-term interest payments prior to the school being completed, and the city and the council hopefully tonight will be supportive of the plan because the reason we brought the plan or the reason the plan has been brought forward, is to not put this the short-term challenge completely on the backs of the taxpayer.

Now, of course, every dollar that comes in and out is a dollar of the taxpayer, absolutely, but without an alternative plan, we need to raise taxes to a substantially higher level this year to cover short-term interest that is being reimbursed in four years.

Is this the perfect plan?

No.

But does it provide some relief in a time when folks need relief?

I filled up my gas tank the other day.

It was four dollars and forty-two cents uh a gallon.

People are feeling that.

Um, we are trying to be responsible with the tax levy and the tax rate.

Um, and this is part of it.

Is there a trade-off?

Absolutely.

Are the numbers of the trade-off what you have just heard?

Absolutely not even close.

That that the back of the napkin, we should get a new napkin, because that is not even in the neighborhood of what the cost is, but there is of course a cost.

This is a trade-off, but we are the money is being returned to us, reimbursed to us by the state at a at the substantial completion of the project.

We do not need to raise taxes in order to cover the short-term borrowing costs when we know we will recoup those those monies.

Sorry, I'm I'm going on and on here.

I did think about an analogy, Councilman Ricks, while you were talking.

And I know I know you have since I arrived in this room have been the most passionate about the city getting its house in order and making sure that we have the funds to pay for the benefits and the retirement plans that we made a commitment to the employees and to the retirees that would be there.

Uh and I I know why you're passionate about it because you don't want to be here or be looking back on the day when those can't be paid, right?

I don't think any of us uh none of us want that.

Um we may differ in our in our beliefs about how the plan that we are currently participating in gets us there, but we all made that plan together.

Maybe you mean we have four new folks who weren't here at the outset 2021, 2022, when we made the conscious decision to put the OPEB trust in place, but it answers, you know, one of the biggest kind of el elephants that's been in the room uh since I've been following, and and many of the folks in this room have been following, and um and it is a step towards being responsible with the long-term obligations that we have.

We uh you're seeing the the only reason we're having this conversation is that 30 years ago, someone who sat in our exact same seats, maybe the same chair, um made a push to make sure that our pension plans were solvent.

We are in the enviable position across the state of having pension plans that are fully that are not fully funded, but are funded at a exceptional level.

And because of the level that they're funded at, the actuary has told us hey, you don't need to put nearly as much money into those pension plans anymore, and you can do something else with it.

And what we're choosing to do with it this year is to give it back to everyone in this room.

You know, you could say you were getting a little uh wound up, councilman, and and I the passion is coming out, and I understand it.

And you know, we could all I go to my job every day, I get paid every couple weeks.

I could put a hundred percent of every paycheck into my 401k, and I could r retire a hell of a lot sooner than I'm likely to.

But if I starve in the process, is that a good financial decision?

And I think that's what we're talking about, right?

We don't want to starve people while we're trying to save money.

And we have the opportunity here to provide a little bit of relief that does come at a cost, but over time we will make it up.

And the point of this amendment is to tell the city we are serious about the plan, we are serious about the path we are going down, and we are committed to saving money on a 30-year plan to make sure that we have those funds to pay for the benefits that we have promised those retirees, and that's the whole conversation here tonight.

And so I probably said all the things I intended to say later, so maybe you won't hear from me again.

But I urge your support on both the amendment and on passing this important ordinance.

So thank you.

All right, so let's see.

We got lights.

Uh councilman Ricks.

How about it?

So, councilman, you have one minute and 27 seconds left.

Thanks.

I'll try to be brief here.

Famous last words.

So I would analogize this not to matter of investing from one's paycheck, but to what I often do at my law firm of if I receive a settlement check.

Guess what?

Not all of that money is mine.

What I do is I immediately disperse those funds as soon as that payment clears.

So here comes, for instance, that reimbursement for ride to the tune of all of those millions of dollars.

I think that my clients would be upset with me if I were to say, okay, I just need uh flexibility of up to four years to disperse your funds.

Well, that's uh that's not direct, that's not entirely fair, and I'm sorry for that, but that is the analogy that I had been thinking of here.

So when it comes to deferring these payments, deferring, you know, taking that money and putting it back to where really it should be in the first place, ideally, being invested.

We really should be having as instantaneous a turnaround as we possibly can.

Additional flexibility is the opposite of discipline.

And if we don't have discipline, we're not gonna make these financial goals.

Now part of what was infuriating to me earlier was the whole notion of councilman, you're out of time.

So if you could just wrap up that scene, if I may have uh two minutes.

So yep, so we gotta do the whole thing.

So someone's gonna motion for it.

So is there any objection for any objection to councilman Ricks having two more minutes?

All right, no objection, so so be it.

Another two minutes, councilman.

Thank you.

So two quick points I'll try to make.

First point is that what's really infuriating to me is part of this too, is that the notion of we can just pay as we go in the future.

No, no, no.

We try to do that in the future when the money's not there.

The entire reason why we are saving money now, trying to invest and gain on that is because if we were to try to pay in the future, that is called a financial crisis, and we cannot, we would have zero flexibility to kick the can down the road any further.

I'm also just uh concerned here when it comes to not looking at this as the entire picture.

Now, the analogy of the Titanic, it's been a little bit overplayed over time, but as the survivors of the Titanic put it, there wasn't initially any real, you know, noticeable impact.

There wasn't that uh here I am paraphrasing it a bit, but there wasn't any visible damage above the water line.

But you know what?

You have one piece of that financial one big piece of that piece of the city's finances that suddenly has a big old gaping hole in it.

It we're all in one boat here.

So if the boat goes down because one piece of it has a big gaping hole in it, well, the fact that uh the rest of it seems fine.

That's not gonna count for a heck of a lot.

That's all 15 seconds to spare, councilman solicitor?

Uh yes, one cla point of clarification for the administration.

Um line 15 of page two, there's a qualifying language full before reimbursement.

Um, and then that language is repeated as part of this amendment.

Um I believe that could lead to open-ended interpretations.

If the intent is to say when the reimbursement begins, we should probably remove the the words full in those two places.

Is that a fair?

Thank you.

While we have you there, is there any objection to the suggestion made by Councilman Napa regarding the two shalls?

I could do one pardon.

Oh, you were at it.

Oh, so all right.

So as far as logistically we could try this through uh to do one technical amendment if everyone wants to try following.

If not, we can try it in portions.

Um the the amendments that were discussed here to the amendment, so a second degree amendment, uh I would recommend that we remove the words full in the two places that they appear on page two, line 15 in the original new language, it it says the state begins full reimbursement of the debt service.

Uh we would delete that word full, and then as part of the amendment that you see uh in the budget year following the commencement of full state reimbursement, delete that full as well.

And then at the end of that uh line, the city change the will to shall begin repaying the OPED trust, and then change the last sentence to delete the words may occur and replace it with shall be completed.

So that would uh remove the words full, change the the will and the mays to shall uh and ensure that uh payment begins upon the state reimbursement and is completed uh over a maximum of four years after repayment begins.

So that would uh remove the words full, change the the will and the mays to shall uh and ensure that uh payment begins upon the state reimbursement and is completed uh over a maximum of four years after repayment begins so is there any objection to the technical amendments as provided by the solicitor so yes as an objection because you want to do there go for it.

Uh I'd like to uh change the or add to the max of four years, but as I'd like to put something in there that has to do with when we receive the reimbursor from the state from ride that it gets paid to uh the OPEP at that you know at that time.

The reason is if we're saying that this is the reason.

We're making it back.

Yeah.

Yep.

Yeah.

So go on, sorry.

Yeah, I'm just trying to explain for to put it into that.

So what I'm looking at is to is to put the language in there, you know, when we get the reimbursement, that within we could we could set a time that that dollar goes directly to the payment and we don't hold that dollar for something else.

That's the deferred amount, correct?

Not the full reimbursement.

Yeah, as as we're coming in.

So for example, if we get two and a half million dollars for bride, that two and a half million dollars goes to pay back the OPEB without without holding it.

Let's just we say it's for this purpose, let's use it for that purpose.

And that would make me feel a lot more comfortable.

So, councilman, my under if I'm following you, that would mean the last sentence you either want to just you you actually just want to remove because you don't want to have a cap of over a maximum of four years.

You just want, hey, once you get the money, put it here.

That's it.

Okay, I understand.

He's pondering.

Council President, could I ask a question of the administration just to clarify what councilman Mutal's request is?

Sure.

I thought my understanding was that we would be doing two things as part of this process is one deferring OPEB while still also drawing down fund balance.

Is that correct?

Over the next several years, we're gonna be deferring some money here and also drawing down fund balance to pay back some money.

Possibly.

I mean, in I the 27 budget does have the use of fund balance, yes.

Okay.

So then my suggestion would be instead of just strictly limiting it to OPEB, and this is just a suggestion that we sort of look at where we drew down.

Was it OPEB plus fund balance or and and how do we divvy up, you know, how do we prioritize one over the other or which way to go?

But I if I just want to keep that in mind prior to strictly saying it has to be used for X.

No, that's a great point.

And you guys are the lawyers, so I'll let you guys figure out the wording.

Yeah, and I'll reiterate what I mentioned before as far as each each year for and when it comes time to do the budget.

This can be that exact situation as far as hey, we're not gonna do it this year, or we're gonna do it less this year, or we're gonna do some from the fund balance, some from this.

That would undoubtedly be part of the discussion each year, regardless of tonight, as far as what language we go with if we go with it.

Um else have any questions?

Oh, go ahead.

I uh councilman Muto's uh sounded pretty good.

Can I just hear it one more time?

Because I didn't hear what I'm looking to do is I'll just use round numbers.

We uh we pick we take five million from OPEB and two million from the drawdown.

We get seven million back on a reimbursement, five million goes back to OPEB, two million goes back to the I obviously that it's not as simple as that, but what I'm looking for is you know I get the gist of it, and I think that's what we're all looking for because as I said, when we get when we get the um the balloon payment, we really want to build the truth the uh fund balance back up.

So yes, we're on the same page.

Cool.

You guys figure out the language.

Councilman Gebhardt.

The only the only point I would make is and I know this is hard because this is kind of our first our first attempt to weigh in on this, and we want to solve all the all the problems of the future.

I I like the idea of sort of first in first out in terms of stacking the payments.

That said, I I would just say we might we may want to just confine this ordinance to sort of the outer bounds of the control we want to put into ordinance.

As this is more difficult to all, I guess what I'm saying is don't bake all the rules into the ordinance as things may change over time.

So try to get at least the build the guardrails, but don't chart the entire course in the ordinance.

So I think conceptually the first in you know wherever we took the money from first, pay it back first as the monies come in.

Um enumerating too many other conditions into this ordinance may it may get in our way of uh of a better solution down the road, I guess is all I'm saying.

Yeah, and to your point, that's actually why how we got here in the first place, because we attempted to chart the course so far in advance, and we we didn't realize this would happen.

So, councilman Napa.

Just a more of a clarification point is process booth as we get through this.

We're approving the amendment would be the first vote, I'd assume, right?

And then or shooting it down one way or the other, and then we're left with whatever ordinance proposed as amended or originally as presented.

Is there another opportunity to discuss then the merits of the entire as amended in addition to any public comment so they can speak on whatever amendments we may or may not end up with, or are we voting and then voting again?

So first the vote would be on the proposed amendment, and then after that, the ordinance would stand before us as amended for still for discussion.

So you can discuss it whatever length you want at that point as regarding the full scope, just like how we were asking Councilman Ricks, hey, limit your topic to just the amendment, and once we get to that point, there's no reason to limit now, it'll be everything.

Okay, just because I think it may be helpful to direct some questions perhaps through Chairman Gallagher, who just arrived to relative to some of those issues about reimbursements and timelines and such.

Oh, so you're also asking about public comment.

Yes, be reopened.

Yes.

So that's my knee-jerk thought is I prefer not from the perspective of how we normally handle this, because once we start doing it that way, arguably would there's no reason not to do that to uh do it that way every time we have this situation.

Uh that being said, the countervailing fact is that he might be able to speak to this matter from the perspective of just like how the mayor and uh Lynn and Bill all speak to it.

Uh I will say though, I think we got at least the main answer we needed from uh that was from school committee member Testa who stated what Mario Creno from Ride had mentioned.

I think we got that answer.

Uh I I can't speak to if there's anything else though that might be relevant.

So I I'm not gonna pretend to know the answer to that.

But it at the end of the day, it's the it's the it's up to the council in that regard whether or not to suspend the rules.

I cannot decide that unilaterally.

Councilman Gephardt, are you up?

Never mind.

You and nope.

You're just messing with me.

Okay.

Uh solicitor, you still buffering.

Uh so we have a handful of uh potential amendments to the amendment.

Um we could discuss them individually, or try and uh insert one omnibus amendment in its place.

I defer to the members of how they would like to try this.

So just for my own two cents, it sounds like based on what everyone said, there's a general agreement with the approach, including the administration administration regarding all the proposed amendments.

So if we could at least get all those on the record, and then we can talk about the thing as a whole, because maybe people don't want it anyway, which is fine.

It's your prerogative, but at least we can get the whole darn thing before us.

I'd I'd be good with withdrawing my original amendment and replacing it with the amendment with the collaborative feedback from the from the session, if that helps okay.

Councilman Gephardt uh withdraws the original amendment and inserts uh the following new amendment that would need a second.

So the new amendment would so let's just work with the original C delete the word full, page two line 15.

Original amendment and replacing it with the amendment with the collaborative feedback from the from the session if that helps okay councilman keppard uh withdraws the original amendment and inserts uh the following new amendment that would need a second so the new amendment would and this so let's just work with the original C delete the word full page two line 15 now the new language that would be inserted would read in the budget year following the commencement of state reimbursement for debt service the city shall repay the OPEB trust for any previously deferred amounts upon receipt of a reimbursement good Mr.

Solicitor that also includes removing the full the term full from line 15 is that correct?

Yes, the sentence that I read uh would be the only new language being inserted motion to move favorable action as amended motion made and second it.

So is there any comments or questions on the proposed amendment?

All right, so seeing on the clerk will call the role on just in the proposed amendment that we'll still have the whole thing before us as amended if said amendment passes, Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gebot, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Ladisa, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Riggs, yes, and yes to amend.

All right, so it now stands before us as amended.

So discussion if if there is any councilman.

An amendment to the legislation as amended.

So looking at the phrase begin repaying the OPEB trust for any previously deferred amounts and before the comma.

I wouldn't my amendment that I am moving would be to insert the following language.

Together with an amount representing six point nine percent compounds you might your mic stopped working.

I'm sorry, councilman.

So we last heard you were together with the amount.

Thank you.

Together with an amount representing six point nine percent compound annual gains on any such previously deferred amounts, comma, and then pick up with the rest.

Can would would you be open to proceeding how we handled the prior portion where we discussed that concept before we actually jump into all right?

Let's move second and vote.

All right, appreciate it.

So just everyone keep that in mind as part of this discussion because we're discussing this as a whole, just like we did with a prior portion.

So I didn't see the order.

I know I saw your light first.

So councilman Lattice or hopefully I got that right.

Just uh clarification question.

So what we're potentially what we're going to be voting on is the proposed amendment on the floor now.

Sorry.

That will move us into full discussion on the presentation as amended, correct?

So we're currently currently before us is the PCO 626 as amended.

Right.

And then we begin discussion on the entire package as amended.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh, do we solicitor we need to have a forced a formal motion so we can open discussion because councilman riks agreed to hold off on his amendment if there's no amendment before us, we're back on the item as amended.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

So we'll be taking additional comments on the whole package.

We're doing that right now.

Okay.

No further amendments were on the item that we just amended.

So this is potential action.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Maybe.

Move favorable action.

Uh I'll I'll make a brief comment on what Councilman Ricks brought up.

Um the way I look at this, the way I look at this, and and hopefully I got to this in my comments.

It sometimes I lose lose track, but this is an imperfect situation.

In the ideal case, we would not be deferring funds from the OPEB trust, and we would be putting every last penny we can squeeze into the trust as soon as possible.

However, we do not live in a perfect world.

And we have a use for these funds that provides relief to the taxpayers in a time when we need it.

Including in this ordinance that the city repay the compounding interest over the period of time.

Well, we past performance is not uh indicator of future gains, right?

So we don't know that 6.9% or whatever we put in here is the actual number could be substantially worse.

It could be substantially better, unclear.

But if we're gonna put ourselves, all of us, the city and the taxpayers on the hook to repay with compounded interest, we might as well not do this at all.

Just bite the bullet today, raise everyone's taxes to the maximum, raise everyone's taxes to the maximum and let the compounding happen on its own.

I don't think that is the prudent move here.

Um I think we are acknowledging that we are sacrificing some long-term gains, solving a problem that's existed for I don't know.

The length of the city's history or whenever we you know first included benefits as a retirement uh as a part of a retirement package.

This problem has existed since then.

Uh we have made great strides in addressing it.

This is a little bit of a setback in terms of addressing it, but it does solve other challenges that we have directly in front of us right now.

So I would I would just suggest that we we we not include uh that language in this amendment.

I think we together all got to a good place, something that we're comfortable with.

Nothing in this ordinance in the updated language prevents us from expending monies beyond what we are pledging here, what we deferred into the trust.

So should the city find itself in a beneficial position, I would think at that point it would be best to return some of those funds to the taxpayer.

But we could have that debate at that time, right?

Because the taxpayers on the hook for these funds, whether they come due now or they come due 50 years from now, we're paying it one way or another.

And the whole reason for the trust is that the benefit of time and market makes uh a dollar today worth multiple dollars down the road.

Um, but I don't think we should uh handcuff ourselves to that in this amendment.

I think it sort of defeats the the purpose or the spirit of of why we're we're working on this tonight.

That those are just my comments there.

Thank you.

All right, so councilman Nappa, you open next just one moment.

All right, how about it?

Sorry.

Oh, okay.

You band blues with me.

Councilman DeLuis.

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I would agree with councilman uh Gephardt.

But I just have a question for the mayor.

Um, might be a little bit off topic, and I think a lot of people in the audience are concerned.

Um with the with the schools, and is there a plan in place that is going to fund the fields for the schools?

Is there a plan in the new budget to let me answer quick before they uh currently the uh all the athletic fields are budgeted for other than the baseball fields?

That's I think we took advantage of my of the solicitor talking.

I'm not sure this is on topic.

That's why I tried to answer quickly.

All right, thank you.

I apologize.

We gotta be fair because we we pointed out for Mr.

Cushman and for Councilman Rick's so it if if you have an on-topic question, please have at it, but otherwise if it's not on the agenda, so we can't deviate.

No, I I understand that, but I've only used up about 30 seconds, so thank you.

So thank you.

Thank you for the latter two.

It was a noble effort.

All right.

Uh councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

I mean, really, the reason that I would uh propose inserting that language as a motion here is because the city actuary assumes projected 6.9% compounding returns.

Well, it's never going to be exactly that.

And for the sake of uh an amendment, sake of an ordinance like this, I didn't want to overcomplicate it with you know greater than less than okay, calculate the returns that the rest of the fund had over X period of time, just becomes quite unwieldy.

But beyond that, I would be highly confident that even if we included that language in the ordinance, we're still not going to actually follow it.

However, if we were to include that language in the ordinance, then at least when we don't follow it, we have to have a hearing and have to explain to the public, the retirees, the employees, why we failed to follow it.

So and the reason I say that is because uh my timeline here might be a little bit off.

I believe that the problem of underfunding benefits began in 1971.

Then in the 1990s, we had the 40-year plan.

Then in 2023, we abandoned the 40-year plan to switch his pays you go, and here in 2026, we're looking at further adjustments.

So as I see it, the more recently, if you kind of picture that as a spiral, the spiral is getting tighter.

And so with all due respect to everyone on this city council who I know want all of this to succeed, of course, obviously.

It's a matter of these are problems that are compounding over time.

And the further along we go, the harder it is for anyone, no matter how good their intentions, no matter how qualified uh really anybody is gonna have harder times digging out of a deeper hole.

So really I see that additional language in there as a matter of okay, let's get back to where at least set the goal of getting back to where the actuary just last month was telling us that we need to be and we need to be disciplined.

And uh maybe not at this last actual presentation, but certainly at the one before, I do recall uh there was a discussion about a stress test at 5.9% returns instead of 6.9% returns.

So, you know, if uh certain periods of time, we are not increasing our contributions by that recommended six, excuse me, increasing annual contributions by the recommended 2.5%, but instead of decreasing by nine percent, well that has obviously an impact.

So that's the greater logic with why that number.

And sincerely the way that things are going, I don't expect us to actually comply with that, but at least there would be some semblance of accountability when we don't.

Thank you.

All right, just a brief note.

According to the actuary report, the rate of return projected is six percent, based on what I'm seeing.

Uh says investment rate of return six percent.

Uh that being said, uh request was made to take a uh have a brief recess.

Is anyone have any objection to that?

No.

All right, so we'll take a we'll say five minute recess, please.

All right, first things first, we're going to cut to Sister Walsh.

And bear in mind the acoustics in this room are awful.

So even if you think you're talking quietly, the way it ends up echoing, it makes it hard for us to hear over here.

The reason for this is there's a current conflict about using the terminology in the budget year following in the language that we just inserted upon receipt of a reimbursement.

This makes clear that in the subsequent budget, the money, any money that comes in uh would go back to repaying whatever is left owed uh on that was deferred.

So it it just refines that scope.

Happy to read it again in the budget year following state reimbursement for debt service, the city shall repay the OPEB trust for any previously deferred amounts received.

So we're deleting the words the commencement of and upon receipt of a reimbursement and inserting the word received.

Um happy answering questions on the technical amendment.

So does anyone have any questions regarding what the solicitor has suggested?

All right, so in that case, does anyone have any objection to adopting that as presented?

So then we can move on to councilman rix's request.

All right, so we just say so so accept it.

If it's unanimous, it appears to be.

All right, so no objections, so so ordered.

All right, so now councilman Ricks, you have a proposed amendment.

Do you want it to be 6.9 or 6?

Because if it says 6.9 and in that report and I missed it, please tell me because I I'm not suggesting you're wrong.

I just that's the one I saw.

So if it's somewhere else 6.9, that's fine.

At the end of the day, it's your amendment, it's your number you pick.

Yeah, the 6.9% is what I had seen in the various presentations.

That's uh I was pretty sure that that was the number that uh the city has used for uh for many years for those on those presentation slides, and I had double checked that.

So I would be more comfortable with that, especially considering that the 5.9% returns is considered the so-called stress test.

Okay, no, that's perfectly fine.

It's like I said, your amendment, so don't let me dictate.

So can you state your full amendment so that way it gives somebody the opportunity to second if they would so choose to do so?

Thank you.

After that phrase, the phrase ending in any previously deferred amounts, adding in the following language, together with an amount representing compound interest at 6.9% on such previously deferred amounts, comma, as confirmed by the actuary councilman.

Do you have this uh written down?

And could you send that to me if you have it written or electronically?

Uh I could uh send a quick email.

And is there a second regarding this proposed amendment?

Seconded by councilman Lattisser for discussion.

Well, I sorry, seconded by councilman Lattisser.

So now we can discuss.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to flavor the second.

All right, so for discussion, councilman Ricks's amendment proposed amendment stands before us.

Does anyone wish to speak on this?

The mayor has gestured at you, chief of staff.

Um just reiterate what councilman Gepott said.

I mean, at this point, if you're putting compounding interest on top of the amount, the principal amount, it's it's kind of defeats the purpose to save the taxpayers.

You're pushing it down the road, and it's gonna cost the taxpayers more towards it at the end of when the reimbursement is stopped.

So it this whole compounding interest, the administration's okay with the principal, but compounding interest of or interest on the principal, it defeats the purpose of you know the relief that we're looking for and the flexibility we're looking for.

Anyone else wish to speak on this proposed amendment?

Right.

So for my own two cents, uh I'm I'm I'm inclined to agree because I don't want to be back here having the same conversation because we we were overzealous in our guardrails.

So clerk will please call the rule regarding the proposed amendment made by councilman Ricks.

This is for a motion for favorable action.

So a yes vote means you agree with the proposed amendment.

Mr.

Sinapi?

No.

Mr.

Delouise?

No.

Mr.

Foley?

No.

Mr.

Gephardt no.

Mr.

Kirby.

No.

Mr.

Latticeah.

Yes.

Mr.

Muito?

No.

Mr.

Napa?

No.

Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

Two seven motion fails.

All right.

We're back to the PCO6-26 as amended and the last amendment, just so everyone is clear.

It was the one, the technical amendment that Susan Wall suggested, and we adopt it, given that there was no objection.

Uh, my understanding is that uh a member of the school committee is here to speak regarding some of the questions and uh concerns on the timing of things.

So school committee chair Gallagher.

And you're gonna have to turn that on if you know how.

I don't if you don't, we can do it.

Well, I'm not here to formally speak, but I am here to absolutely answer a couple questions after uh watching from home.

And I do apologize to members of this uh honorable body for my attire tonight in these council chambers.

I certainly respect all of you.

Um Sean Gallaghan Ward II, chair of the war school committee, also warks whipping boy.

So bear in mind, uh this isn't addressing what you just said.

I swear I didn't mention it yet.

Uh make sure you confine your remarks to not as a member of the public, but just as in as the uh your capacity as chair of the school committee.

I will reply as you guys so request to the best of my ability.

Councilman Napa.

Oh boy.

That's what Chairman, thank you for making yourself available tonight.

Um, so I just had some questions that I think you could clarify for this body and for members of the public that are still here and possibly watching from home.

There's been a lot of discussion about the substantial completion uh and as it relates to when the state will start to reimburse either partially or in full.

Yes, sir.

And there's at least I am a little bit confused as to what uh in your opinion, or with any information that you may have from Ride, what is considered substantial completion, so we can sort of wrap our minds around what that might look like and when we might be expecting uh reimbursement to begin.

Great question, counselor.

Substantial completion is not defined by a particular date.

Substantial completion is defined by based on when this the facility is occupied.

It does not be uh it's not defined but based on the athletic fields being completed.

Um, because we are only reimbursed the first 313 million dollars.

Uh 37 million dollars relative to fields and abatement and um demolition of the existing structures are not factored in there.

So substantial completion, in my opinion, and that of the chief operating officer ride would be when the facilities are occupied and our existing facilities are demolished.

Uh, there's no defined date to that.

It's important to note that there are milestones here relative to this project, and we are uh expected to hit those milestones.

We can't drag this on forever because state funds are associated with this, so it's not like we can go out to third uh 2032, and then you go, whoa, we've hit substantial completion.

That's when we'll reimburse.

Okay.

So um Director Proger had mentioned she was expecting that substantial completion would be reached, so maybe sometime in 2029.

Is that a accurate characterization?

And I won't hold you to this.

I just don't I don't want you to think that I'm gonna throw this back in your face later.

But is that a fair estimate of time, or are your project timelines quicker later?

I would say that would be a fair estimate at this time.

We anticipate the schools to be occupied in 2028 and athletic facilities being completed and available for use in 2029, but again, to the statement of the chief operating officer of ride for reimbursement, 2029 would be when the fields are available.

2028 would be when the schools are available for occupancy.

So um, I would say there's a bit uh of vagueness here based on ride.

Uh I would defer to bond council if I were sitting in your seats this evening, if I were in your position and I had a vote on uh a situation of this magnitude, I would highly advise you guys to consider uh speaking with bond council and going, can you clear up this ambiguity here as to when the reimbursive reimbursement would hit?

What are the milestones specifically?

Is it finishing the fixed structures that the children will go into?

And then is milestone two demolition of the existing structures, and then is phase three completion of the athletic fields.

We now know from the chief ath um chief operating officer or ride, it's not the construction of the athletic fields that consider um would constitute to his exact words, substantial completion of the project is what I have in writing.

Um so you know, 2028 is when you can possibly consider substantial completion of the project when Pilgrim and Tollgate are demolished.

Thank you, Chairman.

It's all I have.

Thank you very much.

No problem, councilman.

Thank you for coming out and appreciate you.

Yeah, anything for the city, anything for the city.

Councilman Gippart.

I actually don't have any questions for you, but I did want to just say thank you for coming down here and for how invested you are in this project for the kids and for the amount of time and effort and energy that you put into all the work that you do.

I just want to say thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

And if I could respond to that, uh Council President, I I respect that before you nine honorable members of this uh of this council tonight.

You guys have a difficult decision.

Um you're playing either the long game or the short game.

Um you're very much in the same position as all the other locally affected uh locally elected officials in the city.

Uh so I respect the position that you guys are in tonight.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak, make sure that uh the record is straight.

Um, and just know that uh, you know, as far as the school department and the school committee goes, we're continuing to move forward.

Uh we're excited for the third week of May to hopefully hoist the final steel beam over at Pilgrim.

All of our unknowns are kind of getting out of the way.

So we're moving, we're on track, we're managing the project aggressively.

So uh I just I really appreciate and respect the position you guys are in tonight, and uh I respect you guys as public servants.

So thank you.

Councilman Gibbard, back to you.

Uh, with that, with all the clarifications we received with all the work we've done on this amendment, I move favorable action on the item before us as amended.

Second, seconded by councilman Napa.

All right.

So is there any further discussion on this matter as amended by this matter?

I mean PCO six-26.

Uh seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gephott.

Yes, Mr.

Carby, yes, Mr.

Ladisa.

No, Mr.

Muito, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

No seven-two motion passes as amended.

All right, and so the the reason why we had a special meeting is to make sure this is ideally finalized by the time we sit down on May 18th for the budget meetings.

So, is there any objection to this second passage being heard on our May 11th meeting?

Mr.

President, I thought that there was going to be additional discussion and comments on this entire item.

That's what we just did.

I thought we were only voting on the amendment.

We had done that prior.

Okay, and make a motion to reconsider.

You're not part of the prevailing party, somebody else would have to make that motion.

So there's no opportunity to make additional comments on this entire OPEB proposition.

So unless there's a motion to reconsider, we we we could say, is there any objection to is there any abortion?

Hold on, I just want to make sure I word it right.

Uh any objection to how would we phrase this?

So with all due respect, we've we've motioned, we've seconded, we've voted, we're done.

Um, with all we do respect, we just spent two and a half hours on your amendment.

So um, what do you mean we're done?

Well, hold on.

So you're entitled to bring this up.

He's entitled to bring that up, but that's not neither here nor there.

Um the the question is if if we can do this logistically, or at least even if it can be brought up.

So the question would be is there any objection to allowing a certain amount of time on this topic, but does that reopen it or just allows further comment?

The councilman seems to wish to have a couple additional remarks added to the record.

Um yes, I have um but there's comments we we have I would like to have added to the record.

Okay.

So then what you suggested sounded like it would is there any objection to providing councilman Latticer a set amount of time to add those final remarks to the record, but we've already reflective the fact that we voted this item first passage already.

Is there an objection?

So this hold on.

Um so as you just pointed out, this is first passage.

We still have to come to second passage, right?

Correct.

Absolutely.

No problem.

I'll make my prepared comments public, and I will have an opportunity to bring them before this honorable body again when we come for second passage.

Absolutely.

Yep.

That's that's absolutely your right.

So again, uh yeah.

So to return to my my requests.

So if as long as there's no objection to second passage appearing before finance committee on May 11th, then we can have it then.

I object.

All right.

So that means we're we're one of two options kicks in.

We either have another special meeting to have second passage, because that's the only way to have this finalized prior to the budget, or we have second passage at the first budget meeting.

Well, which is so on the 18th, rather.

Sorry.

So it appears that the determination is to have this item voted on prior to us receiving the city budget prior to us receiving the school budget, prior to us having time to analyze all of it and have this voted on prior to the budget hearing.

I can't speak to having time to analyze because I I'm not going to pretend to know how much time it's going to take for any particular person.

But as far as the school budget, we'll have the the detailed school budget any day now, because they're they're about to be discussing it in roughly two days.

So we'll definitely have that prior to second passage, regardless of when second passage is.

As far as the city budget, my understanding is we'll be getting it imminently.

Is it fair to say it would be prior to the 11th?

Because I don't want to speak for you.

My understanding is that there are certain individuals that already have received the draft school budget.

That's my understanding.

We're off topic on the so that's why I worded it the way I worded it as far as the detailed school budget, councilman.

Because there's a difference.

Got it.

So it is it is it fair to say we'll have the budget before the 11th, or no?

I don't want to speak for you.

The budget will be in the paper on Thursday.

So that is prior to the 11th.

So you will have it on Wednesday.

So in answer to your question, yes, we'll have it prior.

Yes, we'll have it prior.

Uh unknown as far as whether or not that gives each and every one of you time to analyze both when it comes to being able to decide second passage on this.

So the statement that it will be in the paper Thursday does not mean that it'll be in our email box or an odd copy on Thursday.

Yes, it will.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

If it's if it's advertised, it's on the city website.

Thank you.

Um, so Mr.

President, to your point that um if I continue with my objection, um, we're just gonna burden everyone with another special meeting as opposed to allowing this to go to the regularly scheduled meeting.

I'm just I was just saying the options.

I'm not criticizing one way and there.

I'm saying if if it's if the objection stands, then we either have it on the 18th, or we have another special meeting.

That's all.

That just those are the options.

Would be that what they maybe I think the question here is whether this body would like to see if this is fully settled prior to any deliberation of the budget.

There is a window of time.

The budget doesn't take legal effect until July 1.

So there is time for this to continue, but it provides an opportunity to give greater certainty as to whether this tool is officially available uh for the budget considerations.

I see the choices are we either are going to have a special meeting to overcome my objection.

And that's it.

So perhaps um there should be a vote taken by this body.

Do we want to have this meeting held at a special election?

I'm sorry, another special meeting between now and the 18th, or do we want to have it on the 18th?

Uh traditionally we hold ordinances skip a meeting or they're held at the next subsequent meeting, depending on the schedule, right?

So if we have one meeting, one meeting a month at some point sometimes it goes to the very next meeting.

Otherwise, we usually skip one meeting.

The question is whether the body would like to give unanimous consent to have this before the finance committee on May 11th for second passage.

That's up to the nine of you.

Mr.

Solicitor, just a point of order.

And this is only because I'm new and I this is I haven't run into this before.

Is the reason why we skip a meeting just because it's customary, or is there a codified rule as to why we skip that meeting?

It has been the practice.

So there's no other reason other than it's customary.

We customarily use the precedent that a second passage has some sort of delay unless unanimous consent is granted.

And that delay is either a full month cycle or the next uh skipping one meeting to the next meeting.

Those have been my recollection of the historical precedents, but it is not codified to my knowledge.

So it's just historical precedent that that's the procedure we choose to follow.

Yes.

Could I direct a question through council president to councilman Lattice?

Or what is the what is the basis of your objection to hearing it next week?

The basis of my objection is to have something that we're voting on a manner that is not timely for us to have all this discussions.

So perhaps you would be willing to put this to an individual vote as to whether or not we want to schedule this for the second hearing on May 11th or not.

And just to be clear, Council President, if there's no the council president, there's no ordinance defining what timely is in this instance, and why are we voting on it?

I mean, we could just we could just do away with our longstanding practice because it is not codified, but bear in mind that's a that's that's permanent.

So I don't have any objection to going to that route, but if someone was particularly attached to that practice, it's gone.

Well, Mr.

President, I am not going to put everyone through another special meeting to avoid having this happen on May 18th.

So if that's going to be the case, I'll withdraw my objection to the May 11th.

What's the condition?

Just so I make sure I don't want to the condition is what you asked to do, which is to have this moved to the next meeting, which is May 11th.

Okay, I understand.

I apologize.

I didn't want to misinterpret.

Okay.

So then the object it appears the objection is withdrawn.

So therefore, this will be heard uh for second passage on May 11th.

Thank you for actually considering that, Councilman.

I appreciate it.

All right.

So then the next item before us is PCO 11-26 and ordinance.

Wait, hold on.

One of these was supposed to go before the other.

Let's make sure we get the right one.

Uh the the agenda has 11 before five or PCO 1126 scheduled for to decide what happens there if that action is getting favorable action, then an amendment to PCO526 would be in order.

So that's why we're taking them in that order.

All right.

Now you switched them from the last agenda.

All right.

That was smart.

All right.

So PCO 11-26, an ordinance amending the code of ordinances to eliminate the personnel hearing board and provide appeals to the city personnel directors.

Administration.

Good evening, Bill Pacenti again.

Um so this should be pretty simple.

Should be the administration is um looking at removing in various sections of the city code of ordinances references to the personnel hearing board.

The personnel hearing board is set up as an appeal for employees, non-union employees, and some union employees, depending on their choice.

Uh, as it's mentioned, um appealing decisions of the appointing authority, which would be the city um for various um termination suspensions, disciplinary actions.

The way it stands right now, the personnel hearing board um is made up of three individuals.

Um they're appointed, they have uh stipend um which will be taken up in the next um ordinance.

We're moving to um just ban the personnel hearing board and having the um the appeal beard by a panel um selected by the mayor, it's not a board, it's it's just an impaneled as needed.

The current personnel hearing board, I believe, has not met since 2018.

Um this is a requirement that the city have some form of appeal, adjudicating appeal.

Um, I believe it's uh both state and federal law.

And um, so the mayor would appoint um no less than one and no more than three persons to hear the appeal.

Um, and that's on uh starting on page three line one and two.

Um and there's also other various amendments that reference the personnel hearing board throughout the uh the section that is proposed.

So there's there's no change to the appeals.

Um the employees will still have the right to appeal.

It's just removing the personnel hearing board.

And I don't know if you've stated it, but the personnel hearing board hasn't met for some ungodly amount of time, right?

2018, I believe.

Yeah, all right, and so before we get going, uh solicitor walsh has some potential amendment or amendments.

Uh I have one uh correction of some scrivener's errors on pay bottom of page three, lines 41 and 42.

Um, if we could if there's no objection to delete the words uh the by there's a duplication of uh words there, um, as well as pluralizing persons on line 42.

So we would delete um the word in between all charges of such violation shall be investigated and determined by not less than it would delete the additional language there and then uh insert an S at the end of person to pluralize it.

Is there any objection?

So is there any objection to the technical amendments?

All right, so seeing none, assuming I'm interpreting the lack of reaction appropriately, so ordered.

So then again, back to you, solicitor for the other one.

I believe is it councilman Napa was had asked for some clarifying language?

Was that where we came from?

Your proposed amendment regarding it not stating the personnel director, if I'm not mistaken.

Uh yes, but I'm not sure where that he's got the language for it.

Or uh great.

Top of page three, line two.

Um, we would where it says not less than one, no more than three persons designated designated by the mayor, and then we're deleting a bunch of language.

We would insert the language which shall not include the personnel director.

So the personnel director would not be eligible to participate in the panel that they are appointing.

So Mr.

Solicitor, thank you for that.

I just have like a follow-up question to that instance and just some clarification as to why I suggested that.

So my thoughts on this were initially like thinking of the NFL.

When you get suspended by the commissioner of the league, then you appeal to the commissioner of the league.

So it would be nonsensical if the director, the personnel director fired you, laid you off, disciplined you, and then you're appealing to that same person.

So that was the kind of the genesis of my suggested amendment here.

Now this bears the question that what if this is a mayoral decision to discipline or terminate someone, and that person then has to appeal to a board that the mayor is appointing.

But just along the same lines.

But I'll leave it at that.

Well, one at a time.

First, your your first item that you wanted to hit the personnel director.

Can we do that one?

And then we can potentially do whatever else after.

So is there a second regarding the proposed councilman gethard?

Second.

Uh is there any discussion regarding that first that uh amendment to make it so that the personnel director cannot be part of uh that committee?

And my understanding that the administration has no objection with that proposed amendment.

So I know the lights are on, but I I don't know if it's to discuss the whole topic or the proposed amendment.

It appears to be to discuss the whole topic.

All right.

So do we want to do a vote first for that?

All right.

So first uh can we have a can the clerk call the role on the vote for the amendment to remove the personnel director as proposed by councilman?

Not removed from work, but from the potential committee.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuiz, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephot, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, Demuto, yes, Napa, yes, Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

And yes, motion passes.

All right.

And now the other thing that you wanted to do.

So I guess it bears a question to the through the council president to the administration.

Is what happens in that instance if you decide as the administration to terminate or discipline someone, what is the appeal process in that instance?

What's that?

Would be the same process.

I mean, bear in mind the um the uh it's always been like that, the personnel hearing boards uh appointed by the mayor.

It was yeah.

Um biggest reason we want to get rid of it, they haven't met since 2018, but they've been getting paid since 2018.

And um these people wouldn't receive any kind of a stipend, and and you would uh you just have to trust the mayor to be fair.

I mean it's a most of the discipline decisions don't get to my level.

They handle the personnel.

Except for the really big ones, and that's a whole different ball game.

Okay.

Thank you.

So do you still have a proposed amendment or are you fine?

Oh, that was just a question as to like what's in the process if the administration takes on that action.

And the fact that we've been operating under a mayorally appointed board, uh sort of we're in the same position, we're in no different position than we would have been otherwise, other than we're not paying anybody to do these roles and sit around for five years.

It is certainly an improvement.

Councilman Latticer.

Eight years mayor, I think I just heard you say that uh the appointments currently have been made by the mayor.

Is that exclusively by the mayor?

I lose track on um, I know there's only very few appointments the council has, but I lost track on that one.

Yep, personnel hearing boards, just uh just the mayor.

And how many appointments are there are three?

There are three now.

Well, there actually two.

I didn't fill one because they never meet anyone.

But currently it calls for three.

Yep.

And I think mayor Abadijan appointed them.

Okay.

And if this passes, it could be one or it could be as many as three.

Right.

So at the mayor's option, and again, for me, this is long term, it's not necessarily directed to your administration.

There could be a time when the mayor will appoint only one person to this appeal board.

Which as I look at it, gives the mayor pretty much total control.

I think Councilman Napra brought up a very good point of what happens for someone's appeal process when the individual or the administration who's making the recommendation of termination is being judged by the sole person appointed by the mayor.

Um that's concerning to me.

If there's three people, then fine.

At least two would have to either confirm or oppose the mayor's direction.

I I just think that um this is a problem with separation of powers.

I think it creates um uh a bad perception where the administration could be perhaps the mayor has fired someone, and that's being appealed to the very person the mayor has appointed.

I think it just uh gives too much power to whomever is sitting in that mayor's seat.

That's my opinion.

So is it fair to say you would prefer it to be always a three member, not a one, two, three?

Um good point, Mr.

President.

I thought that's what you were getting at.

I apologize.

Good good point.

Um so that would just keep it where it is.

So if it stays to three members, then I don't see any need for this legislation at all.

Well, so to be clear, so the other item on the docket is the reason why this legislation is before us, because the other item of the docket seeks to abolish the personnel hearing board because we're paying them for basically nothing as of now since 2018.

So this PCO11-26 that's before us would be the alternative process because we do have to have a process per this state law according to the administration.

Um and that process as proposed now would be an ad hoc committee of one to three members, not consisting of the personnel director.

And I thought what you were getting at was you'd prefer that number not be one to three, but instead just be three.

Ideally, I would prefer to see it stay at three, with the mayor having two appointments and the city council having one.

No, that can't happen.

This is purely an executive function.

This panel would be put together for a particular case.

Yeah, so this is an ad on demand committee, it's not a standing committee.

Okay.

As proposed.

Well, at the very least, then I would um prefer to see it be uh a minimum of or three members as opposed to one.

All righty.

So I'm gonna make sure we come back to you before we wrap up so that you have the opportunity to make that motion if you so choose.

Uh Councilman Gephardt um okay.

So we're we're here at this cleanup because when we were cleaning up stipends for other boards, we identified this one as one that hadn't met in a substantial amount of time.

My opinion on this, I mean, I I come from the private sector, state of Rhode Island, we're at will employees.

The mayor is the chief executive of the city.

The mayor deems someone fired, they're fired.

What happens after that is why there's lawyers in the room.

Um so I would keep this as minimal as possible.

Um, I think this is you know, for I don't I don't know what this is for, but maybe for extreme exam, you know, extreme cases where there was a miscommunication or or something else, but Rhode Island at will employment, fired for any reason at any time, and that's that's how it is.

So um I would I'm fine with making it one person or three people.

Um I think simplicity though is better.

I like the range.

You could get a uh you could get sort of a ticky tacky appeal for someone who should have should be fired, should have been fired, but decides to exercise, especially now that we're talking for multiple meetings about the appeal board, we may actually see an appeal out of this.

Um, but but you you could get sort of a ticky tacky appeal.

Um that doesn't really have merit.

Um that I guess would be the step before hiring a lawyer for a wrongful termination or something of that of that nature.

Um, and do you really want to force the mayor to put three people together in a room to hear this appeal?

You know, maybe if it doesn't necessitate it, I could see your point.

However, I I'll fall back to the point of I would love to not even have this at all if it wasn't required by state law, because to me, you know, if if the if whoever's sitting in the corner office decides you're fired, then you should be fired.

All right, so councilman Ricks.

A question to the administration to clarify.

Are all persons all employees that is of the city who would be contesting termination before the personnel hearing board?

Is every single person that could possibly appeal considered an at will employee?

No.

Well, I think we'll state what go ahead.

Yes, it's so uh I'm not an attorney, so I would defer to the four of you that are here.

I believe to councilman Gepott's point, we're an at-will state.

Obviously, um, we have three different types of employees with the city.

They're appointed serve at the pleasure, non-classified employees like myself, serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

There they can, you know, if he's not happy, he can tell me to leave tomorrow.

Then we have classified employees, you have to be fired for cause.

Then union employees have additional protections.

This covers all employees that in the that choose or have feel they're been aggrieved by the appointing authority, an action by the appointing authority, whether it's through um uh suspension, the termination, um, pass it over for a something, anything that an employee feels aggrieved.

The union employees also have an option in here to take advantage of the personnel appeal board.

Um excuse it, the personnel hearing board or person an appeal to a body, but they have to choose because in their contract is also another remedy.

They can't do both.

You can't get two bites of the apple.

Um this is part of the fair labor practices.

We have to provide some form of appeal, and this is what we're trying to do.

I mean, if you want to leave it the way it is, that's fine.

I mean, that's we're just doing it because it was brought up that you know, the personal appeal board personnel hearing board has not met since 2018, they're getting paid.

I we have two members on it that you know, we don't know if we can get them to actually meet you know, so but it's it doesn't matter, it just cleans up and makes things more efficient, which we try to do.

Don't want to do it, that's fine.

You know, thank you.

As to the number of the panel, I mean if you're thinking that I can fix it by putting one person in there, I could as easily do it with five.

I could put my staff on the personal hearing board.

You just have to trust the mayor.

And also, I mean, to get fired from this city, it's severe, it's usually open and shut, and we don't get appeals.

It hasn't been done in eight years.

The union will go to the grievance process.

Thank you.

I mean, it makes sense to me.

I mainly wanted to clarify that.

Um has to go with the other.

That assumption, I suppose, about at will employment applying to all of the city employees who could potentially take this appeal process.

Yeah, the point is certainly very well taken as to the process not exactly being taken very often at all.

But if that option has to be provided as a matter of state law, then it seems to me that we should probably be making sure that it's complying with both the uh the spirit and the letter of state law to make sure that it's uh uh not an entirely redundant type of process.

So I would tend to agree with councilman loudiser.

Uh I'll reserve my time.

All right, so back to you, Councilman Lattiser.

Do you want to make that motion?

Based on based upon the conversations I've just heard, I will um withdraw my motion and revert back to simplicity, particularly given that there has been no instances in the last eight years.

I um also am considering the potential for getting a quorum, even with three people.

So with that said, I will withdraw my motion.

So just to make sure I'm I'm I understood probably you don't want to move forward on a proposed amendment.

No, that's why that's why I withdrew it.

All right, making sure I understood all right.

So is anyone else wish to speak on this as amended?

And this being PCO 11-26.

All right, so seeing none, do we have a motion for favorable action from anybody or unfavorable?

All right, so move for favorable action for councilman foley, seconded by councilman Gephardt.

Any further discussion?

Seeing non-clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi.

Yes.

Mr.

DeLuise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Sinapa.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Yes, as amended.

All right.

Next is PCO5-26 and ordinance amending section 64-5 of the code of ordinances relative to the compensation of other officials.

This would be first passage.

Uh please.

Okay.

So we were to make sure because we didn't have public comment on that item prior.

So for PCO 11-26, does anyone from the public wish to speak on it?

All right, fair enough.

So PCO5-26, then so we don't forget.

Is any member of the board want to speak on that?

And I get that being an ordinance amending section 64-5 of the code of ordinances relative to the compensation of other officials.

Okay.

So councilman Gebhart.

This is yours.

Or do you want to go to the solicitor first?

So the uh the original item was to limit the uh payment of the personal hearing board.

Um councilman Gephardt has an amendment that would eliminate uh the personal hearing board in its entirety now that the potential adjustments made from the prior item would flow.

So the amendment would rather than insert new language to number seven, the personal hearing board.

Uh that new language would be deleted, but all of the existing language would be deleted so that there would be no number seven, and we would just put a reserved in its place.

So this would the amendment would entirely eliminate the personnel hearing board.

All right.

Does anyone have any objection to that amendment as proposed?

Oh, to his point.

Is there a second first?

Second, seconded by councilman Appa.

So I'll just go back again.

Um for discussion purposes.

Does anyone have any objection to adopting that amendment as proposed?

You're gonna make me call roll anyway.

All right, he let me do it up.

So by unanimous consent, so ordered.

So now it's before us as amended.

Uh so now this the proposal is to eliminate the personnel hearing board altogether.

I'll ask again just for completion sake.

Does any member of the public wish to comment on that?

All right, and now does anyone wish to make a motion regarding the PCO5-26?

Favorable action, second motion made and second it.

Is any discussion?

Does anyone have anything for discussion regarding PCO5-26 as amended?

Councilman DLouise.

I'd like to make an amendment.

Because he's a good friend of mine.

Just kidding.

Does anyone else have anything for discussion on this?

Do you need a second on that?

All right, so motion made and second it.

The clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi.

Yes.

Mr.

DeLouise, yes, Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Get hot.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladisa.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

Seeing no more of this in front of this honorable body.

I'd move to a document session.

Is there a second to go to the docket session?

Second.

Any objections?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Ward one.

Pass.

Ward two.

Pass.

Ward three.

Ward four.

Pass.

Ward five.

Ward six.

Ward seven.

Pass.

Ward nine.

And one moment on mine.

I just have to check.

Yes.

No.

I don't think so.

Uh Council President Sinapi has two items to dock it.

Uh the first item is a resolution relative to transfer, supplemental appropriations, and emergency appropriations.

Uh it's a resolution that would go to finance.

And the other item is a resolution adopting and setting the tax rate of the city of Warwick for the fiscal year beginning july one, twenty twenty-six and ending on June thirtieth, twenty twenty-seven.

Both of these are on behalf of the mayor.

This is a resolution would also go to the finance committee.

Do you have anything else?