Finance Committee — August 17, 2026

It is 7:02 PM on Monday, August 17th.

Calling the Committee of Finance to order.

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council committee meetings can be viewed on the city government homepage under Quick Links, then Meetings.

In attendance, we have Council Derek Baptiste, Council Shane Burgo, Council Sean Oliver, Council Naomi Carney.

Sorry, I will start this over again.

In attendance, we have Council Derek Baptiste, Council Shane Burgo, Council Sean Oliver, Council Naomi R.A. Carney, Councilor James Roy, City Council President Ryan Pereira, and Councilor Scott Pemberton, and myself, Councilor of Ward 5 Joseph P. Lopes, Chairman of Finance.

We do have 2 letters to be read into the record.

I have a letter from Councilor Abreu.

I'm writing this letter to inform you that I'm unable to attend the Committee on Finance meeting on Monday, August 17th, 2026, 7 PM, due to attending an out-of-town work commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and those in attendance and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

And I also received a communication from— actually, a call from Councillor Gomes.

He's ill and will not be here this evening as well.

Motion to receive and place on file the communication from Councillor Abreu, made by Councillor Burgos, seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We're going to get a motion to take item number 7 out of order.

Motion to take item number 7 out by Councillor Pereira, seeing no objection, seconded by Councillor Burgos.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 7 is a communication Ryan A. Paveo, First Assistant City Solicitor, submitting orders for the layout and taking of the Hillman Street variable width from STA 72 plus 32.80 at the terminus of Pleasant Street, 41.74 feet easterly to terminus at STA 72 plus 74.52 at Purchase Street for the purpose of realigning Hillman Street to the west so that a new signalized intersection can be built The matter was referred here on July 16th, 2026.

7A is registration of land and 7B is the requited land.

Motion to receive and place on file made by Councilor, um, Pereira.

Second by Councilor Burgal.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Councilor— uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, just to inform the public and, and my colleagues, uh, in the— in our mayor's papers this week for, uh, our August 20th City Council agenda.

We have received the appropriation order pursuing, uh, in conjunction with this taking of the land.

Uh, I— that is what was requested of this council, of this council in sending it to committee.

I don't know if my colleagues have any questions regarding this, but it all is in order.

In discussions with Attorney Garatowski, he agrees the order appropriation order is in pursuant to this item.

So this council would make a motion to refer if none of my colleagues have any questions.

Council, before we get— anybody have any questions for anyone in attendance tonight on 7, 7A, or 7B?

Seeing none, Councilor Pereira.

Motion to refer out to the full city council on August 20th.

Motion to refer out to the full city council on Thursday, August 20th, 2027.

Made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

Oh, Councilor Baptiste on the question.

Well, I'm not really on the question.

I just wanted to speak.

I spoke to Jamie today about the changes that they had to make and make sure that they made the proper changes.

And I think it's a good— I think this is a good project, making Hillman Street go all the way down.

I think it's a safer— you know, it should have been done years and years and years ago.

I don't even know why we get to the bottom of Hillman and have to take a right and then and then hook a U-turn just to get back on the street.

I think it's super dangerous for pedestrians and for drivers in the— and, um, for guys that's driving and people that's walking up over in that area.

I think this, um, they got all their paperwork in order and everything is the way it should be, and I think that this is, you know, this is a good thing to go forward.

So thank you, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Back to our normal agenda.

Item number 1, written motion, Councilor Morad, Gomes, Gieser, and Lopes requesting that Chief Financial Officer Robert Ekstrom, City Solicitor Eric Jakes, and a representative of the administration appear before the Committee on Finance to discuss options regarding the $3.5 million settlement to be received from the MBTA.

Said discussion shall include but not be limited to appropriating the monies to the stabilization fund or to a newly created revolving fund account with the intentions of restricting the funds to create a revenue stream dedicated to paying for ongoing maintenance of the pedestrian bridge currently being constructed across Route 18, and that the city of New Bedford will be required to maintain after construction is completed.

Oh, sorry.

The item was referred on August 13th and has remained on the table on October 21st and February 19th, 2025.

Motion to remove from the table made by Councilor Burgo.

Second by Councilor Brewer.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all in favor of the items in front of us?

Attorney Jakes.

Attorney Jakes, you want to give it— my apologies, your counsel had questions for me.

It's okay, it's okay.

Would you like to give an overview of the, of the possibility of creating the stabilization and having the funds set aside for the maintenance of the bridge?

Well, forgive me, I was a little surprised to see this on the agenda this evening, so I went back to the February 19th minutes when it was considered and we addressed the issue.

I explained where the various monies went, the percentage, and the fact that the ones that went to the Housing Authority, to the Redevelopment Authority, into Housing 70 all went there and couldn't be touched, which left a little over, I think, $460,000 that came to the city.

But forgive me, I've got an eye problem from surgery.

Bob Ekstrom spoke on Chapter 44, Section 63 at that meeting back in February of 2025 and indicated that the funds could only be used to retire debt from the asset being sold.

And so the monies were placed into the general fund.

Ultimately would have been free cash if there were free cash back in fiscal '25.

So the monies are long gone at this point.

They couldn't be placed in a revolving fund.

And that was explained back in February 19th, 2025, by both myself as to the allocations and by CFO Ekstrom as to limitations of the use of the funds after chap— under Chapter 44.

So based on that, the answer is no.

The answer is no.

There's only $460,000 that's— that was there, and it's long since gone.

It's 2 fiscal years ago.

Okay, thank you, Attorney Jakes.

Does anybody have any questions for anyone in attendance tonight in regards to item number 1?

Councilor Pereira.

When appropriate, if I could speak with Auditor Lowney, please.

Okay.

Any have any questions for Attorney Jakes?

Seeing none, we'll refer over to City Auditor.

That's Bob's minutes.

That's the minutes of what Bob said.

Council Forever, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Quillen, good evening.

Good evening.

Um, if we could get a breakdown of where the $460,000 that City Solicitor Jakes was, uh, referencing that came to the city general fund— if we could get a breakdown of where that was expended to.

Okay.

Okay, sure.

Thank you.

Uh, no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, oh, sorry.

What would your preference be?

It doesn't matter to me if you'd rather just table it and wait to get these documents, or when we get them, we can resubmit them for investigation in the committee.

What would— okay, then at this time I make a motion to table.

Thank you.

Item 2, communication.

Mimitsa City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $37,154 from mayor's purchase of services to mayor other charges and expense.

The matter was referred on July 16th, 2026, and 2A is the order made by Councilor Burgos.

Second by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

On the question, anyone have any questions?

Councilor Burgos, you're first.

Um, so just, I guess, for the public's view, um, who didn't get the chance to read the letter, essentially what we're supposed to understand from this is that the budget that was hastily put together and thrown together and given to us last minute essentially had certain items in the wrong category.

And then after the fact, when our cuts went through, the departments discovered their constant mistakes and said, oh crap, these cuts that were initially from this line item, I guess, and for this case, purchase of services, uh, was really from other charges and expenses.

Um, that's why now the negative balance, in this case of $37,154, is being requested to transfer to other charges and expenses because of the error of this administration.

Is that correct?

Uh, yeah, my understanding is that there were roll-up codes used for the proposed budget book which were different than the ones that are in our Munis system.

So 2 different softwares.

Some of the GL accounts were just given wrong roll-up codes.

So the amounts in total were correct.

It was just what was presented in the budget book didn't have the same roll-up as what was in the budget order.

And that's a new system we got for this budget book.

I think we used it last year for the first time.

So there— I think there are new accounts that maybe happened during the year that had been misassigned as far as roll-up codes.

So it only happened this year but not last year?

As far as I'm aware, yes.

Interesting.

Okay, um, so my other question I have, which I'll ask for this one and for number 3 and number 4 and number 6, um, so you'll get tired of me asking it, but I'm going to ask every time, is if we don't approve this transfer right now, will any bills not be able to be paid because of it?

Is it— especially since you're the auditor, I know purchases and payments of bills come through you as a second look.

Are people going to be denied or will there be delays because of these errors if we don't correct them currently at the beginning of this fiscal year?

Yeah, as of right now I don't see that just because we are so new into the fiscal year, so there should be available budget otherwise.

In the case of number 2 for the assessors, right now they have a negative budget So that would be something we have to correct at some point because typically we just can't have a negative budget amount.

So, okay, because like in the mayor's budget, I know obviously we're talking to the mayor's office right now, their 100 account I know for a fact is going to be negative soon.

So we'll come back and have you talk about that later on.

Um, but all right, I just wanted to clarify that no city government or business is going to be delayed, denied, or hindered by us if we decide to wait to approve these transfers.

That is what you're telling us right now?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo.

Anyone else have any questions?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure?

Motion to table at this time.

Make a motion to table item number 2.

Made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Pemberton.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item number 3 is a communication, amendment to city council submitting an order for the transfer of $2,000 from assessor's purchase of service to assessor's other charges and expenses.

The item was referred on July 16th, 2026, and 3A is the order.

Motion received and placed on file.

Made by Councilor Burgo.

Second by Councilor, uh, Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Anyone on the question?

Oh, Councillor Burgo, on the question.

Um, so with this account, you made a reference to it being negative, correct?

So it's my understanding— so other charges and expenses, your other charges and expenses account— or not yours, sorry, the assessor's other charges and expenses account is currently negative $2,000, is what you're saying?

Yes.

Yeah, because the budget order was for $24,000 and change in the Proposed budget showed $26,000, so you would cut $26,000, which resulted in the negative $2,000.

Okay, so I'll ask the same question though.

With that account being negative $2,000 on paper right now, whatever is typically paid out of that account or supposed to be paid out of that account, will it not be paid currently or be delayed because we don't— if we table this tonight?

Yes.

Yeah, so in this case, had the budget order and the proposed budget been the same amount, the account would be at $0, so we wouldn't allow any payments to go out of it in the first place.

So the assessor's department has told me they aren't planning on having any sort of charges to that account for this whole fiscal year.

Okay, so basically it won't matter, it's just about cleaning it up afterwards, right?

Yeah, so it's the the, um, purchase of services would be overstated by $2,000 currently.

That's if this administration doesn't overspend like they typically do by the end of the year.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure?

Motion to table made by Councilor Burgo, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

Roll call vote.

Roll call vote has been requested by Councilor Roy.

Roll call on item number 3 and 3A, which is the order.

The motion is to table the item.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

7 to 1.

The item passes 7 to 1.

Item 3 will be tabled.

Excuse me.

Item number 4 is a communication.

Mayor Mitchell, City Council, submitting an order for the transfer of $650 from Labor Relations Purchase of Services to Labor Relations Other Charges and Expenses.

The matter was referred out on July 16th, and 4A is the order.

Motion received and placed on— made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Anyone on the question?

Councilor Burgos on the question.

Oh, I wasn't sure if anyone else had any questions.

Um, same question, $650, uh, but I guess other charges and expenses again is But this one isn't negative, correct?

And again, anything of the value of $650, labor relations, purchase of services, or other charges, expenses will continue.

Yes.

Whether or not we proceed to— yes, at the current time, yes.

Okay, so we can wait and take a review at this towards, uh, closer to the end of the fiscal year.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else on the question?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure?

Motion to table made by Councilor Burgos.

Second by Councilor Pereira.

Roll call vote.

Roll call on item number 4 and 4A, which is the order.

The roll call is on tabling item 4 and 4A.

Councillor Baptiste?

Yeah.

Yes, Councillor Baptiste.

Councillor Burgo?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Burgo.

Councillor Carney?

No.

No, Councillor Carney.

Councillor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Lopes.

Councillor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Oliver.

Councillor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councillor Pemberton.

Councillor Pereira?

Yes.

Councillor Roy?

No.

Item passes 6 to 2.

The item is tabled.

Item number 5 is a communication.

Minn Mitchell to the City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $157,791 from school general expense to school transportation.

The item was referred on July 16th.

5A is the order made by Councilor Pereira.

Second.

Second by Councilor Burgo.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, the item is in front of us.

I'm assuming Mr. Flynn— yes, would you like to come to the podium please, as it's a school-related matter?

Does anyone have any questions?

Councilor Bergo.

Thank you.

How are you, Assistant Superintendent Flynn?

Good, thank you.

Um, I have some concerns, um, a lot of concerns actually.

Um, but in regards to the school budget, we already know that in regards to the net school spending side of things, SURE, the formula worked out to however it worked out, and they're telling us that $157,791 is no longer needed for the net school spend.

NSS, SURE is the acronym.

Um, my concern though is the budget that the school committee and technically the superintendent and yourself worked out for FY27 included not only this $157,791 but an additional $2 million plus on the net school spending side of things.

Not just the net school spending side of things but also an additional $2 million on the non-net school side eligible which we just say transportation.

But we know it's so much more than transportation.

It's custodial and other sides of that.

So I say all that to say there's about $4.5 million or so.

If I'm getting— if I'm rounding that number up too much or rounding down too much, you can clarify.

But there's a huge gap, and I'm just curious as to how this $157,000 fits into that.

So I want to address one thing you said about $157,000, quote, not needed.

That's, that's, that certainly would not be my term.

Oh, I agree, I agree.

I'm saying that's what the letter is saying to us.

The letter that's on file here says to us that it's no longer needed because the state's final, uh, calculations— if you're being completely honest, we take CFO Ekstrom's calculation of like the net, net amount that should come to the school department, and he applies his formula, and the actual end result of state aid compared to when the budget was passed.

Correct, there was a net difference of $157,000 in state aid to the city, which then trickles down through the calculations of the net amount to the schools of net school spending.

If you wanted to keep us at the exact minimum set by the state, would be lowered by the $157,000.

It's not to say that we don't need it, couldn't use it, but to meet being at exactly zero above and zero below using CFO Ekstrom's calculations, that's the amount that you would reduce net school spending by, but then transfer it into the non-net, which is 99% transportation, keeping the total school department budget the same.

But I guess that's for his reporting purposes, wanting to show that we're at the minimum net school amount on the net amount side.

And then addressing the shortfalls, well, that's You know, that's ongoing.

You know, Superintendent O'Leary and I speak about that every week.

We're watching all of our hires, all of our turnover in staff.

We're trying to ensure that, you know, the figure is what it is.

We have to live with it.

What can we do?

What can we defer to manage our budget within the amount that was appropriated to us?

The transportation side, quite honestly, is a little more difficult because there's not much leeway.

We, we transport who we must transport.

You know, the students in district, in the city, and outside of the district, largely run by IEPs or special education students, they, they need those services.

They're required.

We're going to supply those services.

If we come to March, April, May and this $2 million less than what we requested is really coming to a reality, I mean, if I'm being completely honest, I can't tell you today that we're going to make it through March, April, May, and June.

We're doing everything we can to consolidate routes, ensure that we're only transporting who we have to transport to make sure we're doing the minimum number of routes.

But we are going to service all the students who need servicing with their routes.

I will make that commitment.

So essentially, this $157,000 is barely a dent in the— it's— and I'm getting that number right, the $2 million?

It's less than one— it's less than one-half of 1% of the budget being transferred from one line to another.

It's I mean, I don't mean to diminish $157,000 at all, but it's not going to affect us one way or another.

You're new to my sarcasm, so I know that you're not catching any of the things that I'm saying.

Everyone else in the room— I'm catching it.

Okay, good, because I just want to make sure some of your responses, you were like, I wouldn't clap.

But anyway, um, again, I just want to highlight the, the concern that I have, especially around the net school spending side.

I agree with you, and I'm one of the people that I would want us to exceed net school spending, but my concern here too, and I will say that sometimes I don't necessarily have a lot of faith in you and the school administration, is when it comes time for the tough decisions around, okay, we're not going to get that $2 million, which I'm— we all know the reality of the situation is we don't have the money to fund the school department this year, which is why the mayor cut the school department by almost $5 million.

Um, I rounded up, um, but essentially at 4.5, whatever the number— but he cut that amount because there's not enough in the tax levy to fund it.

My concern though is what drastic decisions will the school be making?

Is it going to affect our teachers in the classrooms?

Uh, will it affect Prab more?

Those kind of things.

And since we have you in front of us, that's why I'm looking for those kind of questions, especially when you're saying we don't know what's going to happen in March or April.

In that time frame, right?

So to address it right now, the last thing we want to have happen is to affect student-facing, direct in the classroom, direct to teachers.

That would be the last decision we would ever try to make.

Quite honestly, with the number of employees we have exceeding 2,400, there's a lot of turnover every year.

We're trying to squeeze every penny we can out of turnover.

We're being extra insistent this year with the principals that, okay, you have an opening, we do need to fill that opening.

But let's, you know, could somebody with 1, 2, 3 years experience fit the criteria of what you're looking for as opposed to someone with 9, 10, 11 who's going to be placed higher on a union scale?

And, you know, if you save $50,000, $20,000 here or there, it will start to add up pretty quickly.

So that's our very first attempt at closing this gap is being very vigilant this summer on all of our turnover positions is You know, hiring the best candidate, yes, but at the lowest experience level, lowest point on the scale that we can get them.

Second to that, you know, with anything, there's maintenance items we would like to do, there's things we have to do.

So right now we're just doing the things we have to do.

If there are maintenance items we would like to do but can defer them, we're making the decision to not do it right now because again, if it's $50,000 here, $20,000 there, it's going to add up.

So we're not doing those, and that's the And to clarify, the maintenance side of it is the, as you keep coining, transportation, but non-net school spending side falls under maintenance, is that correct?

Um, technically no.

Well, it depends on the size of the project.

To get— not to get too into the weeds, a maintenance project that exceeds $150,000 is non-net school spending.

A maintenance, say a $20,000 repair to a boiler, that does count towards net school spending.

So regular everyday maintenance of any one job under $150,000 counts towards the minimum net school spending side of the budget.

But the custodial staff— net school spending— they're on net school spending?

Yes, they are.

All right, that's all I had for clarifying questions.

Thank you.

Hi.

Hi.

So just one question, I think.

Do you— does, does your office support this transfer?

Support?

I mean, the net, the net amount of the total school budget staying the same.

So quite honestly, I don't have an opinion either way.

I think it's more a bookkeeping thing.

We want to— we, the global— we as the city want to do this transfer so that the schools are at the exact minimum net school spending.

I'd say I'm not really a fan of being exactly at zero.

I would not be a fan of the budget being reduced, but if it's just transferring from one line to the other and it's what the city auditor CFO's office wants to do, it's really not going to affect us at the end of the year.

I mean, it's the same bottom line that we have to spend, and we're going to spend on the expenses that we need to expend throughout the year anyway, if I'm being completely honest.

Thank you for being honest.

I'm all good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Roy.

Councilor Baptiste, on your first.

What's up, Dave?

How you doing today?

Good.

Thank you.

Good.

I just had a couple of questions with the trans— with the money going in transportation.

Did the sale of Tremblay Bus have anything to do with that?

Did the prices change with how your bus routes are going to— and how you're going to have to pay for your bus routes and all that?

And how do you put your net spending like with your routes, right?

You know how like you have clustered routes and you have double runs at certain places.

Have you ever thought about consolidating— not consolidating, but going back to old ways of transportation that maybe might handle the problem with timing, which probably wouldn't go towards so much of the— but like you need to transfer the transportation budget because kids need to get to school and kids need to get to where they're at.

I was just wondering if the sale, you know, of a new company coming in, a bigger company coming And will the prices change knowing that, you know, when you have a mom-and-pop company, you can get them little— you know, you can, you can make them little side deals and you can do a little bit of that stuff where, whereas another company comes in, you don't have that same relationship with them, same bonds.

So the good thing is that we were— right now we're entering year 4 of a 5-year contract that was with Tremblay's.

Part of the deal with them being bought by School Transportation of America is they need to honor all the terms and conditions of that contract.

So for year 4 and year 5, it's the exact same as if Tremblays had not sold out to them.

And then to your second question about consolidating routes so we can tier them better, that's absolutely something that, you know, Darcy Youngs and Superintendent O'Leary and I have talked about.

The one stumbling block to that potentially is that would require changing in times, potentially like start and end times of schools, to then tier them a little bit better.

And then that requires a lot of negotiations with the unions to change changed times.

Yeah, but it's certainly something that we could do.

When the school times were staggered, I'm sure the bus routes were easier to get people, you know, with everything coming a little bit— with high school starting a little later or closer to the middle schools, you know, like their time being closer together.

So the drop-offs being more clustered, whereas earlier drop-off after high school used to happen.

You used to go like the high school, the middle school, elementary school, and it used to make it easier for runs.

I didn't know if that would, you know, deal with anything with the budget.

And also, like you say, they have to honor Tremblays from 4 and 5.

So we're going to think about a drastic change after year 5, right, with the transportation budget.

Yeah.

And unfortunately, that could, that could be a reality of a bigger company taking over.

But at least we have years 4 and 5 under our known pricing structure.

So let's just make sure we maintain good relationships with every little company around here.

So when these prices balloon, we can always have people that can back us up because we want to make sure with all the issues that people complain about with the times and like when I'm going to work, I'm seeing buses packed like I've never seen buses packed like they are like right now.

And I know there's more people coming into the city.

There's more kids going to school, thank God, um, and showing up, and the attendance is better, so the graduation rate goes up a little bit more.

But, you know, making sure that these kids get there safely is, is the main thing, and making sure that we, you know, stay within the budget and can help out, you know, you guys in any way possible.

But thank you.

Um, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Baptiste.

Anyone else on the question?

See no one else on the first.

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, motion referral to the full City Council for adoption.

Made by Councilor Burgos, second by Councilor Baptiste.

Roll call vote.

Roll call vote.

Referring to the full City Council.

Yes, sir.

No, 5, 5, and 5A.

Okay, uh, I'm referring out for approval.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Virgo?

Yes.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No.

Item passes 8 to 1.

Yep, item passes 8 to 1.

7 to 1, I'm sorry, sorry.

Yeah, 7 to 1 on referral to the full City Council.

Item number 6 is communication amendment to City Council submitting an order for the transfer of $395,000 from Zaitarian Theater Supplies to Zaitarian Theater Purchase of Services.

The matter was referred here on July 16th, and 6A is the order.

Motion.

Made by Council Oliver.

Second by Council Pereira.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Who would you like to hear from?

I'm assuming I know the answer, but Rosemary— oh, Mr. Lowry, please.

Council Pereira on your first.

Thank you, Mr.— thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, Quillen, we, uh, I'm reading this, it just looks like again the order line was put in wrong as it's a contractual service that we have with the Citerion Theater which needs to go in the 200 account, which is the purchase of services, and it was incorrectly put in the 400 account.

Yes.

Okay, so this is just transferring from the 4 to the 200 and it's the entirety of it.

So this one doesn't have like— for them to start getting their payments, it needs to be in the 200 account.

Yeah, for proper UMass accounting, we need to have it being paid out of the 200 account.

Okay.

Have they received a payment yet?

No.

No.

So if once we get it in the 200 account, they can start receiving the payment that we are obligated to give them based on the— our agreement with the Zeitarian?

Yes.

Okay.

Contractually obligated to pay them?

Yes.

By law?

Per the contract.

Per the contract.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Oliver, on your first.

Thank you.

Councilor Burgo, you're on deck.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, thank you, Quellen.

Uh, contractual— what's this contract?

Uh, just a— it's a support agreement with the Zaitarian the city entered into with the Zaitarian, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh, how long do we have on that, the existing agreement?

Do you know?

Off the top of my head, I don't know.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

I can get back to you with that.

I know, I know the answer.

I'm just— oh, okay.

Um, and this is— so this, this support agreement, it's sitting in supplies now.

It can't be touched because it's in the wrong— in the wrong drawer, if you will, right?

It's in the wrong account.

Yeah, if we want to have it be correct, it would be paid out of the 200 account.

And the whole idea of this support agreement, you— is for What, what does your office believe it's, it's for, or know that it's for?

To support the Zaiterian in their operations.

Support the Zaiterian.

Okay.

Um, it is— we give the building to the, to the Z at no cost, correct?

Uh, I believe a $1.99 a year.

Yeah, yeah, for $99.

Yep.

Okay.

Um, all right, that's— I just wanted to clarify for the general public what the what this $400,000 is, um, and why it was— it needs to be changed, um, because it, like you said, it is sitting in one account, needs to be moved to the other account.

Um, and, um, that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Burgo, on your first.

Yes, thank you.

Um, I just want to clarify with this particular account, why we're not able to make payments to the Zaiterian Theater while we wait?

Well, I was told that we can treat this as just a sub-functional department where the purpose of this department is to just provide support for the Z.

So as for reporting to the state and for our audit, it really is just one line for it.

But ultimately, we do need to charge a certain object code, and so right now we would have to charge it to the 400 account to have it match, even though ultimate roll-up to all the same point.

But we do want to get it right, as we have with the other items as well.

So even though you get it wrong any other time, you guys wouldn't be able to make the payment?

That's my question, is that if, for example, it's table tonight and the Zaitarian needs their, their funding, you wouldn't be able to cut them a check with it being in— we would, because the way we report it is just on the Zaitarian line in total.

So you would be able to?

Correct.

Even though you just told my colleague Councilmember that a payment would not be able to go out to them?

Well, for me, I would like to have it go out of the correct account, but if we need to put in the wrong— and that's fine, and I understand that.

I think that we should do things that way.

I just want to, again, on the record, clarify that this administration picks and chooses, not you, and I want to make that clear.

I think you're doing a great job, Quinlan.

Thank you.

You're excellent.

I'm so proud of the work that you're doing as our auditor.

So proud to have voted for you.

Keep up the good work.

This administration, though, picks and chooses when they want to do things right and by the book.

And so right now, I think it's too early in the fiscal year to be doing transfers.

And so I want to, again, just like these past transfers that we just tabled, to table this item.

And I'm glad that you just clarified for us that the Zeitgeist Theater can still receive this access to the $395,000 because this administration tried to play with this money in a previous budget when it was under DFFM, when we knew that DFFM's line items budget— when it was under DFFM's budget, they had the money to pay.

But the administration at that time played games and said, nope, we can't because it was cut from the budget, even though they could have funded it.

But they did it as a tug of war.

And so the same thing's happening again.

I just wanted to clarify, I don't want to hear on the radio, I don't want to see in a press release from this administration that, oh, the Zaitarians are at jeopardy again, because a check— and it's on the record now— can be cut for them.

Although the, the source code might be messed up, we can fix that later on, just like we fix every other mistake from this administration, just like we did on item 7 here from the registered land taking for this easement.

Just like I can list a whole other— in my tenure here, just for 5 years, I'm sure my other colleagues who've been here longer can tell you all the other mistakes this administration has made.

So again, I do not want to hear that this administration has not given a check to anybody when these funds have been appropriated.

Understood?

Yep.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo.

Anyone else on the first Anyone on there second?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure?

Oh, really quick.

Second.

Oh, there was a motion on the table to refer the full city council.

Is that for adoption?

Councilor Pereira, motion to refer to the full city council and adoption of items 6 and 6A, made by Councilor Pereira, seconded by Councilor Roy.

Motion to receive and place on file this report that we should have all received and know if Rosemary handed this to everyone.

Rosemary, did I get one?

Did you give this to everyone?

Oh, you don't have that?

Okay, never mind then.

Okay, well, I just thought because everyone's always complaining they don't get this, but you'll get an electronic copy of it.

Thank you.

It's just the report to the city I thought was appropriate to receive.

But motion to table.

Second.

Motion to refer takes precedent.

No, it doesn't.

The motion to table takes precedent.

Sorry, I apologize, Councilor Burgo.

There is a first made by Councilor Burgo.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second made by Councilor Oliver.

Roll call vote on tabling.

On tabling.

Roll call vote on tabling.

Councilor Baptiste?

Yes.

Councilor Baptiste.

Councilor Burgo?

Yes.

Councilor Burgo.

Councilor Carney?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Carney.

Councilor Lopes?

No.

No, Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pemberton.

Councilor Pereira?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Pereira.

Councilor Roy?

No.

No, it passes, um, 6-2.

Item to table, passed 6-2.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn is made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

All those in favor?

Opposed?

We are adjourned at 7:42 PM.