APPRO-2023-28 : Fiscal 2024 Operating Budget in the amount of $101,173,341 (one hundred and one million, one hundred seventy-three thousand, three hundred forty-one dollars and 00/100 cents)

Transcript (~11 min @ 2:25:45)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 2:25:41 Speaker 2: Appropriation 2023 dash 28 fiscal 2024 operating budget in the amount of $101,173,341 and 0 cents.

▶ 2:25:53 Speaker 7: Councilor Elli,

▶ 2:25:54 Leila Migliorelli: Madam President, this comes from Appropriation Over Oversight Committee with a recommendation for passage. And at this time, I motion for passage. Second,

▶ 2:26:01 Jen Grigoraitis: We have a motion for passage made by Councillor Melli, seconded by Councillor Ella on discussion, Councillor Gupa.

▶ 2:26:08 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I believe I've been pretty consistent over the last six weeks with my questions in concerns with the FY 24 City budget presented to us by the mayor, especially the school department portion. In my opinion, the mayor has submitted a budget based on hope, especially the school department portion. He hopes that there's enough free cash next year, it'll appropriate to the schools. He hopes that the next mayor agrees with his strategy for the use of free cash, and he hopes that the next city council approves free cash appropriations. Any successful institution does not build their financial strategy on hope. Operating costs should not be paid with one-time money. It is a recipe for disaster. As I stated a few weeks ago, I believe this budget is unbalanced and, and in violates the city ordinance. Now, I'm assuming the administration will say, and others will say that the proposed budget meets the requirements of the ordinance because they have publicly promised the use of free cash for the balance of the FY 24 School P portion. Like I stated a few weeks ago, I would argue that free cash that is being promised is not a valid revenue source because it is not certified. And for all intents purposes, this does not even exist today. We also learned last Thursday night that the school department needs an additional 900,000 to balance the current FY 23 budget by using circuit breaker and offsets. They believe they can reduce that number to just over 300,000. Now, depending on the circuit break of money and offsets the FY 24 budget, we we could be looking at a larger deficit in the range of 3.1 to 3.6 million in 2024, not the 2.7 to 2.8 that was discussed for the use of free cash. I hope I am wrong, but I believe we adjust about at the financial cliff. We have a revenue issued that has long existed in this community. The city over the last 20 years has merged school maintenance into D D P W. There was a citywide one year wage freeze joined the GIC health insurance, regionalized Health Department in veteran services. All, all, um, all items that saved money. Um, if we do not find ways to generate more revenue or save money, whether organically or other ways, I believe F Y 25 could be catastrophic to the schools and city surface services. I would encourage the school department, uh, not just talk about saving reallocating resources and hiring drivers to reduce transportation costs, but to create a plan and act over the next year. The administration, this city council, school department, and school committee have to be honest with the residents and the parents, with the children in the schools, that if we cannot get the spending under control and we continue down this path, tough decisions will probably have to be made One time. Money will not always be available to run the city's operation, operational budget and schools because of these financial concerns. I, I plan on voting no on this budget.

▶ 2:29:02 Speaker 7: Anyone else on discussion? Councilor Stewart?

▶ 2:29:06 Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, consistent with Council Gar pays,

▶ 2:29:09 Robb Stewart: uh, thoughts. Uh, I have major reservations about supporting this budget because it is, there's a structural deficit. Uh, it's not the way that I think any of us want to be able to run and make decisions going forward. Uh, it puts us in a very difficult position for next fiscal year, and for me, it's, it is a very challenging decision whether to vote yes or no on this. Um, based on everything that we've heard, uh, I voted yes for every department because individually it makes a lot of sense, but at the whole, it doesn't, uh, and large part because of, uh, the issues that we have with the school deficit. Um, and the other statement that I made the other week is that I felt as though it was a little bit of business as usual in terms of coming forward with the budget. I didn't see any major plans of reconstruction as, um, Mr. LaRusso had suggested might be needed, uh, at now or in the near future. So, um, so Madame President, I'm not sure how I'm gonna support this, uh, going forward. Thank you.

▶ 2:30:30 Speaker 7: Anyone else on discussion? Councilor Melli?

▶ 2:30:34 Leila Migliorelli: Um, I just wanted to say that I share my colleagues concerns about the fiscal cliff that we seem to be moving towards the sharply increasing costs, um, from the schools, special education, transportation, the ailing infrastructure with our public safety buildings, city and school buildings, and it, and revenue constrictions. Um, due to prop two and a half, um, I'm grateful that we have the funding to support the city budget this year, but I'm concerned about f y 25 and beyond if we don't have a plan to increase revenue or prioritize expenditures. Um, as I said earlier tonight, the way we voted on some big ticket items in the city have been piecemeal, as I've asked over the past several years. This creates situations in which we're evaluating projects on one-off basis rather than looking at the totality of our resources and how we could prioritize what should come first. All this being said, this is still a balanced budget legally. It has to be. The State Department of Revenue would not certify an unbalanced budget. The CFO has indicated that we have the revenue to back up the 101 million budget, which includes the 38.5 million, which we approve for the school budget. Even if the CFO fabricated this revenue, which is a pretty hefty accusation, we would still have the state's Department of Revenue process to provide a check and balance. There are many unknown expenditures in the city budget that we are not voting on as part of the $101 million. We don't know the, for example, we voted tonight on the free cash for police and fire overtime. We cover that cost in free cash every year, and that's not in the operating budget. This applies to the schools who by state law, are governed by the school committee, and they have the authority to vote on a budget in ex in excess of what the city provides because they're permitted to project revenue to cover their costs. This may not be something that's comfortable for many of us, but it is a law. So while free cash isn't something we want to rely on annually to fund operating costs, we know we're going to have it next year. We know that right now. CFO de la Russo had mentioned that in an earlier meeting. And free cash is available by state statute to be spent on operating costs. In fact, we do this year over year, we do it for city operating costs and we've done it for school operating costs. Is this ideal? Absolutely not. It would be fantastic if we had the income revenue from taxes, grants fees to cover our operating costs. Do I think it's risky to put $2.7 million of free cash for the schools in the hands of an unknown council next year? 100%. But I have faith in the residence of Melrose in our electoral process to ensure that we have the folks around this horseshoe who will prioritize education when considered, when considering the budget. I think we don't wanna confuse discomfort or of how we're covering our budget are costs with, um, the legality of it. And we don't wanna go down that slippery slope of making assumptions. And conjectures are relying on hearsay to dictate how we legally evaluate how we operate. We have a city solicitor and CFO for that. I've consulted with both of them and both are confident that we are voting on tonight. What we are voting on tonight is a hundred percent permissible, um, according to the law. So while I do have and share exact same concerns about budget issues next year and beyond with revenue and expenditures, I'm supporting the budget tonight because it's balanced. And as, um, as we know, even if we don't vote on the budget tonight, and no matter what, it still passes as the mayor has the final authority on that. So, um, unless we're proposing some costs, cutting costs, um, on the budget, on any item line items, which we've had the opportunity to do over the last five to six weeks, um, voting against it isn't really making any substantive change. Thank you.

▶ 2:34:05 Jen Grigoraitis: And just to, um, um, from a procedural standpoint. So we legally, under state law and the City Charter have to act on this budget by this coming Friday. That is our 45 day deadline. So if there is any motion tonight other than an up or down vote in passage, we will have to meet again on Friday in order to be compliance with the open meeting law. Otherwise, if we fail to take action, whether it's the budget fails to pass tonight or we don't meet again by Friday, by default, the Department of Revenue will take up the mayor's budget as the budget for next year. And I had confirmed that with the city solicitor and the CFO as well. So, is there anyone else on discussion? Councilor Williams?

▶ 2:34:42 Ryan Williams: Only to say that the piece of information we need to be most honest with the taxpayer about is not that we need to find more room to cut, but that we need to find more room to grow. We have a revenue problem, we have a very low tax rate, and we as a community need to be very serious about, um, what we need to do to get that budget in line with the expenses that we need to pass it. And if that means an override, it means an override, but I don't think the right answer is, uh, the, the spiral of, of cuts and efficiencies, especially now when you see the state that the school and the public buildings are in.

▶ 2:35:15 Speaker 7: Anyone else? Councilor Eccles,

▶ 2:35:17 Jack Eccles: Just kinda reflecting on the last six weeks in the motion before us. Um, as it was said, it really doesn't make a difference what what happens right now, because if we don't pass it where we do, um, I think that ultimately, you know, going forward maybe we need to be, if, if we're going to get to this point and decide that we're not gonna approve the budget, maybe we need to take a look at individual line items more and actually make some Motion to reduce bottom lines if that's how we see fit. I didn't see a lot of room for that as we went through that whole process, but, um, if we are gonna get to this point, it seems like if we do have an issue with spending, the, the option to reduce the bottom line is always there. Um, but again, I didn't hear that from, I didn't hear many opportunities to do that in any of the departments we heard from. So I'll support the budget as, as is. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

▶ 2:36:17 Speaker 7: Anyone else? Okay. Madam Clerk.

▶ 2:36:20 Speaker 4: Eccles? Yes. Councilor Ella? Yes. Councilor Carpe? No. Councilor Aldine? Yes. Councilor Karen Shady? Yes. Councilor Elli? Yes. Councilor Stewart?

▶ 2:36:32 Speaker 5: Yes.

▶ 2:36:34 Speaker 4: Councilor Williams? Yes. President Grigoraitis? Yes. Eight. Yes.

▶ 2:36:38 Jen Grigoraitis: Eight. Yes. So that budget passes. Moving on