2026-09-14 - Finance Committee

18:27Mr. Lucas has

18:31that

18:32>> it is on.

18:33>> All right.

18:41>> Good evening. Welcome to the meeting

18:45this evening of the finance committee

18:47and the medium board holders. I will

18:50begin by reading the publish notice.

18:53Almatic notice new haven. The finance

18:56committee will hold a public hearing on

18:58Monday, September 14, 2026

19:02at 6:00 p.m. in the aldermanic chambers,

19:05165 Church Street, New Haven to act upon

19:08following. These items are filed with

19:11the city clerk and may be inspected in

19:12room 202

19:14Street, New Haven. Per order, the

19:16honorable Adam Shan chair attest to

19:18Michael Smart City. If you need a

19:21disability related accommodation, please

19:23call three business days in advance at

19:252039467651

19:28voice or 2039468582

19:32TTY.

19:35Item one, O R 2026

19:390030.

19:42Ordinance amendment of the New Haven

19:44Board of Alers to appropriating

19:46Ordinance number three for fiscal year

19:482026 2027

19:51authorizing the issuance of general

19:53obligation bonds fiscal year 2026 2027

19:58and appropriating $27 million to fund

20:02the litigation self- insurance fund for

20:05the city's settlement of Horn versus

20:07City of New Haven at Jackson versus City

20:11of New Haven.

20:12at all.

20:14Item two, LM2026

20:180379

20:20order of the Maven Board of Alders

20:22approving amendment number two to the

20:24outside legal service agreement with the

20:27law firm of How and Budorf LLC to

20:31increase the total agreement amount by

20:33$235,000

20:36for fiscal year 2025 2026.

20:41Three

20:44O 20260029

20:48ordinance amendment of the New Haven

20:49Board of Alders to appropriating

20:52ordinance number one for fiscal year

20:542027

20:56authorizing budget transfer

20:59131-27-1

21:01in the amount of $37,451

21:05from contractual reserve

21:0814071

21:1001 410-50110.

21:14The mayor's office labor relations

21:16salary account

21:1811311340-50110

21:22for an increase in budget appropriations

21:25to the positions of director of labor

21:26relations, senior labor relations

21:29council, labor research associate, and

21:32labor relations specialist.

21:39Public comment may also be submitted via

21:42email to public testimony team.gov

21:45before 2 o'clock PM on the day of the

21:48meeting. Meeting can be viewed on board

21:51of alders YouTube page.

21:56I will now have members of the committee

21:58introduce themselves. Starting on my

22:00right,

22:02excuse me, Janette Morrison, board 22.

22:08Good morning, Mr. Chair. Alder Evelyn

22:12Rodriguez, Ward 4.

22:13>> Alder Salunzo, Ward 17.

22:16>> Alder Adam Marshon, W 25. Chair

22:19>> Brian Wing, W 29, Viva

22:23Moore, W 18,

22:24>> Anna Festo, W 10.

22:27>> Thank you, colleagues. I also want to

22:29recognize our colleague from the 20th

22:31Ward 13. I'd like to join us. Uh our

22:35agenda this evening has three items as

22:36you heard me uh read off the lengthy

22:39titles. Uh but in more colloquial terms,

22:42the first item is the issuance of $27

22:45million in bonds for the city to be able

22:47to pay some recent lawsuits that were

22:50settled. We'll hear that first. The

22:53second one is an increase in the maximum

22:56allowable allowable expenditure in the

22:59contract the city has with Henorf,

23:02an outside legal services firm that does

23:04a lot of work in the city. That's in

23:06regards to last fiscal year. Um and then

23:10item three is uh an increase in the

23:14salaries of various positions in the

23:17labor relations department uh and a

23:21transfer to pay for those salary

23:22increases. Uh so those are the three

23:24items. We're going to hear them in order

23:27starting with the issuance of bonds and

23:31we would ask the city staff team whoever

23:34is on board to come on and to give us a

23:37presentation.

23:39As they are getting settled, let me just

23:41remind everyone here that if you come

23:43forward to speak before this committee,

23:45either as a presenter or as a member of

23:47the public, you will come forward, you

23:49will sit down, you will give your names

23:51and addresses for the record, and then I

23:53will have you speak.

23:55Um,

23:57for anybody who's here, we all have

24:00really wonderful cell phones nowadays

24:02with amazing ringtones, really great

24:04speakers. I would like all of those

24:06turned off or put on silent mode. On my

24:09phone, it's a little button. You just

24:11flick it right here

24:13>> and it makes it so it doesn't make any

24:15noise. Um, uh, please make sure that

24:18your, uh, handheld devices or your cell

24:21phones are on silent mode. uh we would

24:24not want to hear your ringtones this

24:26evening. Uh if you need to have a

24:27conversation with someone here or

24:29elsewhere, please do so outside of the

24:31chambers so that we can proceed without

24:33interruption.

24:35>> So item one, names and addresses for the

24:38record.

24:40>> Ron 292 Rainbow [clears throat] Terrace.

24:43>> Michael Gormony, 45 Jefferson Road,

24:45Branford, Connecticut.

24:47>> The floor is yours.

24:48>> All right. Thank you. Uh thank you

24:50committee. Thank you, chair. Um

24:54before you um is an ordinance amendment

24:57for um 27 an amount not to exceed $27

25:02million. What I'm going to do is I'm

25:04going to talk about the um ordinance.

25:09Again, this has been settled through

25:12litigation, court processes, things like

25:15that. So all of that is done with. This

25:18is really the mechanism to pay for it.

25:21Um,

25:24so we submitted an ordinance which um

25:28was drafted in conjunction with our bond

25:31council um from Robinson and Cole um for

25:35an amount not to exceed $27 million for

25:38two cases as listed in the ordinance. Um

25:42this is

25:45um in conjunction with what we have done

25:47with most cases in the past this large

25:50um we have bonded through the market um

25:54to pay the costs for those settlements.

25:58Um this is no different. [laughter]

26:00One thing that this ordinance does um

26:04provide for us is two mechanisms. Um

26:07either to go to the market as we

26:11generally do with capital bonding or to

26:14do what we call private placements which

26:17is still going out but sometimes we get

26:19favorable rates from directly from

26:22lending institutions. So that is really

26:25the difference really the only

26:28difference from what we've done in the

26:30past. The reason we did it this way is

26:32because right now the bond market is up

26:36and down right now. Um

26:40there's strong investment in the bond

26:42market but the yield which is primarily

26:45affect the interest rates that we get

26:47are rising. and in talking to our

26:52financial advisors which help us, our

26:54financial advisors, our underwriters,

26:56like we have a team that deals with

26:58bonding um issuing bonds for the city.

27:02[clears throat] You know, we don't

27:04there's no predicting the market as it

27:06is right now. So, what we wanted to do

27:08with this ordinance was really give us

27:11two mechanisms to be able to choose from

27:14and give us the most favorable rate. We

27:17have done private placements before,

27:19primarily on short-term notes like our

27:21school construction line of credit until

27:24we, you know, get reimbursed on audited

27:27projects from the [cough] state. In the

27:29past, we've actually gotten more

27:31favorable rates than if we did a

27:33traditional general obligation bond or

27:36things like that. um

27:40in trying to borrow those funds

27:42themselves. Um you know, it could be as

27:45much as a percentage point less, which

27:48makes a big difference in our debt

27:49service because again, remember, we're

27:52borrowing money. So, the way that we

27:54repay that back is through the general

27:56fund debt service. Um

27:59so, that is really the primary

28:02difference in this ordinance than what

28:03we've done in the past um and prior. Now

28:06what I also did was just so you um as

28:09part of it fiscal impact was submit you

28:12know we have someone in um the

28:14accounting division in OPMG who works on

28:18city debt um along with our financial

28:22advisors. They ran an estimate of what

28:24it would look like based on the last

28:26borrowing last year of $60 million. But

28:29again that's just an estimate. Right now

28:32unfortunately the bond market really is

28:34up and down. there's strong investment

28:36in municipal bonds right now um in the

28:40market, but again those rates just

28:42continue to rise. So um so that's

28:47certainly something we're looking at.

28:50Um, [clears throat]

28:52in regards to the timeline on this, so

28:57if this committee was to pass it out and

28:59it was approved

29:01uh through the full board, we probably

29:03look at bonding sometime in November,

29:06Novemberish, Decemberish. Um, again,

29:09there's a whole process that we go

29:11through with bonding that involves

29:13underwriters doing something called the

29:15city's official statement, which is a

29:18lot of financial data and economic

29:20outlook that we work with different

29:22departments [clears throat] on.

29:23>> Um, so there's a whole process to this,

29:27but again, we'd be looking at probably

29:29November or Decemberish, you know, to

29:32try to issue these bonds to pay for the

29:35case. um you know if this was approved

29:39by the full board

29:41um Ron anything to add

29:43>> so Mike did include controller for me

29:46did include debt schedule so it be about

29:48$2.6 6 million added to our debt service

29:52for for the budget. And the other thing

29:56to which would be beneficial to us with

29:59the official statement, we are looking

30:01at a possible refunding for bonds as

30:04well. So that we would do that all at

30:06once. So there would be a little bit of

30:08a savings instead of doing the

30:10refunding. Now, this combines everything

30:13and then we'll do our normal $60 million

30:17during the 2020 budget.

30:21>> So, with that, Chan, uh we'd be happy to

30:24entertain any questions. [snorts]

30:29>> Thank you for that presentation. We'll

30:30now have questions from members of the

30:33queue is open starting with Alder Moore.

30:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both

30:38for being here tonight. Um just a

30:41question for you know the public and

30:42everyone's edification why are we

30:44bonding um and what are the alternatives

30:47and why are we not pursuing those

30:48alternatives just so that everybody

30:50understands why we're here and what

30:51we're doing.

30:53>> Sure. So again um bonding for larger

30:58litigation cases like this um is the

31:02normal practice within municipalities.

31:05Um, from a cash flow perspective, it

31:08would certainly hinder the city to try

31:11to pay out um, $27 million and recoup

31:15that, right? As you know, um, in the

31:18last monthly reports, the city is

31:20running um, a deficit, albeit better

31:23than reported in at June, but still a

31:25deficit, right? So, the only other

31:29alternative really is to try to pay for

31:32it ourselves, which really isn't a

31:34feasible option. Um, especially from a

31:38cash flow perspective because when you

31:40look at city cash flow, we have up and

31:43down months, right? Um, July, we get a

31:46bunch of tax money in Septemberish,

31:49October, we get state money in, right?

31:52We really have a dry month in October,

31:54November, December, and January because

31:57most of our tax revenue comes in at the

31:59end of January. So, we have to make that

32:02last. Imagine trying to add $27 million

32:05within

32:07that particular period of time to pay

32:10out and then also making up for that the

32:12rest of the [cough] year.

32:14[clears throat]

32:15Um

32:16so from a cash flow perspective it would

32:19certainly hinder some challenges for us.

32:23Um again bonding has generally been the

32:26traditional way um because this is

32:29certainly more than our standard

32:31litigation cases that we see. Um a lot

32:35of our litigation cases that we see we

32:38budget for in the general fund, right?

32:40Those are smaller settlements that we

32:42have, but unfortunately these are larger

32:44cases that are just creeping up on the

32:47city.

32:48>> Thank you. I I think it's really

32:50important that just so that you know

32:51members of the public, members of our

32:52community, they've already started

32:54asking me questions um that they have a

32:56good answer from the city as to why we

32:58do things this way and why it's

33:00beneficial to the city and the city

33:02budget. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

33:04>> Thank you, Alder Moore. Before we

33:05continue with questions from colleagues,

33:07I recognize our colleague Alder Furbo.

33:09Please join us.

33:11>> Alder Fesa is next on the queue.

33:13[clears throat]

33:13>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess while

33:15we're on that, um we have a rainy day

33:19fund. Is there any way we could use some

33:24of that and bond some? Would that make

33:28any sense? I I'm not saying take the

33:30whole running day fund and pay the 27

33:33million, but you know, a few million

33:34from there and then bond some. Would

33:36that help at all? So if if we do that it

33:40would hurt our credit rating more. So

33:44that's

33:45>> yeah and I thought about that but

33:48>> that's the downside of it. Yes.

33:50>> Yeah. How much would it be affected?

33:54So the standard so the standard practice

33:57in having a rainy day fund um based on

34:01GFOA standards is you should have 16% of

34:04your expenditures

34:07um which is basically three months of

34:09operating right prior to taking in

34:12whatever the fiscal year 27 result is. I

34:16think the city's raining day fund is at

34:18about 8% of expenditures.

34:21Um

34:23again the rainy day fund is an

34:26accounting mechanism as well as a cash

34:30issue. Um

34:34it's a accounting mechanism that takes

34:36into account the city's entire operating

34:39result from day one as well as cash for

34:44us. Right? So again, as I was talking to

34:47father Moore about cash flow, that's es

34:50and flows on highs and lows throughout

34:53the year. So while we would we could say

34:57we're going to take uh let's say 20 15

35:00million from rainy day, that does hinder

35:03our cash flow ability throughout the

35:05year and on making various payments,

35:09right? Because our city's cash flow is

35:12made up of we have to pay medical,

35:14right? So one month we could pay 2

35:18million in medical expenses. The next

35:19month could be six million. We have

35:22certain debt schedules. We have payroll.

35:25We have payables. We have a bunch of

35:27things that we have to

35:30take care of every month that you know

35:33we can't default on. So again, while I

35:36understand,

35:38you know, trying to take some from rainy

35:40day fund itself, that does hinder our

35:44cash flow ability

35:46>> and mainly because we're not funding it

35:48to the level we should be anyway,

35:51>> right? I mean, cash and the balance are

35:54two separate areas. Um but yes, I mean

35:57if we had, you know, a larger cash

36:00reserve on hand for that that we didn't

36:04have to, you know, utilize from a cash

36:07flow standpoint as well, then I would

36:09say that would be a uh

36:13an option. But unfortunately, that's

36:16just not the reality of the city.

36:19>> Okay. So, switching it up

36:21[clears throat] uh from rainy day, what

36:23are the average interest rates that are

36:26out there? So, you said with the bond

36:28market, it's up and down. So, we don't

36:31really

36:32we should have an idea of a range of

36:34interest of what it is because you were

36:36able to come up with a uh a table with

36:42of amount. So you must have an idea of

36:45what interest rates are for both you

36:48said private and the um

36:51uh the bond market.

36:53>> So when we when I asked the staff to

36:55come up with that that was based on last

36:57year's borrowing like you said that

36:59interest rate I believe the average on

37:01all the bonds and investors and

37:03everything that was received was around

37:055%. Um, from talking to our financial

37:09advisors, it's still around 5%, but

37:12there's a possibility that rates, like

37:15we said, rates are starting to rise and

37:17things like that. So, um, unfortunately,

37:20[clears throat]

37:21I don't know, Ron, u, Mr. G, do you

37:23know, I wasn't here when they did the

37:26placement, so I'm not sure about what

37:28that interest rate was, but I think it

37:31was done last year. I don't recall off

37:33the top of my head, but

37:35>> estimating we're estimating 5%. But

37:38that's one of the other reasons why

37:39we're trying to move this quickly as

37:42well is to try and lock in a fairy rate.

37:48Um,

37:50I'm sure conversations have been had for

37:53this and we have to be well prepared and

37:55obviously this is an amount we don't

37:58have a choice but to pay uh justly and

38:02um

38:04you so were you able to at least freeze

38:08something until we decide you know how

38:10sometimes banks will freeze an interest

38:13rate for x amount of time. Were we able

38:16to do that? Yeah, we can in these type

38:18of transactions, we can't do that.

38:20Especially if we go out to the market,

38:22it's based on the market that day. So

38:25what happens is after this is approved

38:27through if this was approved through the

38:30full board, the bond sale committee on

38:32that day would have to meet to lock in

38:35that interest rate. Um, and it works the

38:39same way with private placements

38:41basically. So, it's not like we can call

38:43up investors or go out to the market now

38:46and say, "Hey, will you hold 5% for two

38:49months?" It it just doesn't work that

38:52way.

38:53>> I think the closest is maybe like a two

38:57week period, maybe that that short of a

39:00time, but it's not [clears throat] very

39:02long.

39:03>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

39:06>> Thank you, Alder Fesa. Uh we are on item

39:08one, the request to bond $27 million to

39:11pay uh legal settlement. Uh the queue is

39:15open for questions from community

39:17members.

39:21I have a few questions just reading

39:22through the material I myself mention of

39:25the possibility of uh this is more of

39:28the mechanics of it of depleting

39:30existing

39:33uh capital accounts and then

39:35replenishing them later on once the

39:38bonds are issued. So that raises the

39:40question for me. I think the order

39:43includes that but I want to make sure it

39:45does. And then two, like so what are the

39:48two different potential time frames

39:50here? There's the time frame for paying

39:52it

39:53>> and I'm sure the court has had something

39:54to say about that and then there's the

39:56time frame for borrowing the money. So

39:58if you could just be clear about those

40:00two different time frames and the

40:02mechanics of how we could

40:05borrow from Rob to pay Peter, you know

40:06what's the right expression here?

40:08>> Peter, sorry. Where does Rob come from?

40:12So go [laughter] ahead. So yes, uh,

40:14thank you for mentioning that. Um, Chair

40:16Marshand. Um, so that was really a last

40:20minute resort um that I think our bond

40:23council added into the resolution was if

40:26there was a time frame because um from

40:30my understanding

40:32the they're waiting on the results here

40:35of what happens with the bonding right

40:36with the bonding ordinance. But if there

40:39is a time frame, let's say they say,

40:41"Okay, Board of Alders approved it. You

40:44need to pay within 20 days." So, we just

40:48did a borrowing of $60 million

40:51last year for those capital projects,

40:54right? Obviously, some of that has been

40:56spent through this year, but we do have

40:59enough in there to say if they said,

41:01"Okay, you have 20 days to pay." We

41:04would pay it. hold projects and you know

41:09like I said this process could take up

41:11to a month month and a half so that's

41:13not really a long time to hold projects

41:15but we would hold you know spending on

41:18those projects and then once we did

41:21finalize whatever mechanism was used to

41:25borrow the 27 million restart those

41:27projects again

41:30>> so we don't have a date yet from the

41:31court when the money is here

41:34>> I will get I can get back to through the

41:38chair this week for that. But to my

41:41knowledge, they're waiting on the result

41:44of what happens. Um we did tell everyone

41:47we were doing this submission to the

41:49board. They understand there's a process

41:51to us getting the money um to pay these

41:54settlements. So they are understanding

41:56of that.

41:58>> Before we continue, I see that you might

42:00have something to say. I just want to

42:01recognize our colleague Alder Frank

42:03Douglas who has joined us

42:06>> but just we were trying to think of all

42:08the contingencies

42:10to the best option so it didn't cost

42:14more

42:16um in any if there was any late fees or

42:18anything else. So that's why we're

42:20trying to add as much as possible.

42:24>> But yeah, we really want to if we can

42:26use that as a last resort to stop

42:29>> any projects for a month, month and a

42:32half.

42:33>> Thank you for that information. Could

42:35you say a little bit more about the

42:36insurance policy that we've purchased

42:39that is clearly not big enough to pay

42:42for a settlement like this? What is the

42:44upper limit of what [clears throat] that

42:46policy will pay? And uh are we going to

42:51be looking for a new policy going into

42:54next year or are we happy with the

42:56company that provides the policy then?

42:59>> Um so yeah as mentioned in my letter um

43:02you know in looking at the city

43:04insurance policies and the types of

43:06policies that we had um insurance is

43:09covering up to 5 million of the actual

43:12total award. Um, I know corporation

43:15council um

43:18is the entity that talks to the

43:21insurance company because the insurance

43:23companies have their lawyers. We um that

43:26work with the city as far as their um

43:31the amount that they have to pay, you

43:34know, when it comes to these cases. To

43:36my knowledge, the 5 million is what um

43:39came about with these insurance

43:40companies.

43:42um as far as what they would cover, I

43:44know there are continuing conversations

43:47um that they have um with the insurance

43:51companies uh with the insurance company

43:53related to these cases and any and um to

43:57this to these two cases, [clears throat]

43:59but 5 million is the maximum that right

44:02now that's the number that we have that

44:04will cover these two particular cases.

44:07Um, as far as insurance goes, every year

44:10we have we actually have an insurance

44:12broker that's on contract with us with

44:15the city. Every year we go out and, you

44:18know, we look at different insurance

44:21policies. Um,

44:25and based on the trends that we've seen,

44:28the market conditions, things like that,

44:30they will sit with the city and kind of

44:32recommend the insurance policy coverage

44:36limits and things like that. Cases like

44:38these absolutely do affect our insurance

44:41policy. So, I'm sure that will be a

44:43conversation going into the fiscal year

44:4628 budget. And if of course if something

44:49else comes down the line then you know

44:51that will be a part of that conversation

44:54as well. Um

44:57but yeah right now 5 million is what we

45:00have that's covering these two

45:02particular cases right now.

45:05So is this an insurance policy that

45:07renews every year and so it's the

45:10insurer is able to increase the rate

45:12from year to year.

45:15Our insurance broker negotiates with the

45:19insurance companies. Um, think about it

45:22like your own personal, let's say, car

45:24insurance, right? You keep getting into

45:26accidents or whatever, insurance broker

45:28can drop you or raise your rate

45:31significantly or whatever the case is.

45:34Our insurance broker

45:37does that with all our policies from

45:40these type of cases to just general

45:42liability to employee

45:44insurance policies. You know, that's

45:47that's kind of what they do. So, um

45:50there's no saying what will happen in

45:5228. Um you know, she there the company

45:57also markets it, you know, um

46:00countrywide for us. Um, so again, we may

46:05get an insurer that will cover us

46:07cheaper than someone else, but it's

46:09always in the details of what comes in

46:13into that coverage. So again, it's

46:15something we look at every year.

46:19>> So previous cases did increase our

46:22insurance. Um, this year was a little

46:24bit lower, but now next year I'm sure

46:27it'll be a little bit higher.

46:31Um, I have one more question and then

46:33I'll give my colleagues another

46:35opportunity. Uh,

46:38there is of course one other thing the

46:40city could do, not for this particular

46:41settlement because it's right here in

46:44front of us. It's just, uh, building up

46:46a larger

46:48fund, legal fund, litigation fund, and

46:51that has to do with the taxes that we

46:54put in the milk we put in next year's

46:56budget and what kind of budget line we

46:58have for

47:00building up a bigger uh litigation

47:02settlement fund. Is that a conversation

47:05that you started to have in your

47:06preliminary discussions about the budget

47:08for next year?

47:11>> I think as these cases come up, we've

47:13been discussing kind of just overall

47:16funding mechanisms. Um again, I think

47:20these were sort of like the first two to

47:22settle with a time frame. Obviously, we

47:25have the third case that is on appeal

47:28right now. So, you know, depending on

47:31that outcome, but yeah, I mean, that's

47:33certainly going to be in our budget

47:35conversations. I know um

47:39from my understanding you know we've

47:41been talking to the state about

47:43legislative items you know just

47:46different ideas that may help out the

47:48city and you know these future type of

47:50cases you know um especially ones that

47:53happened early on in those periods that

47:57that you know there are different

47:58circumstances for especially from an

48:00insurance standpoint or a payment

48:02standpoint. So there there are different

48:05conversations that we're having, but

48:07there's nothing really concrete at the

48:09moment. We're trying to take it case by

48:11case as they settle because they're

48:13settling at different parameters here

48:17and it depends on what happens with

48:18litigation,

48:20>> but the legislation at the state that

48:22would hopefully limit exposure to the

48:25city. Um, so maybe that could be

48:29something Alder Moore could do in the in

48:31the future there.

48:32>> [laughter]

48:34[clears throat]

48:36>> Understood. Um,

48:39so

48:41thank you for that. I mean, I think

48:43we're not going to go into the weeds of

48:44that tonight because we have an item

48:46right in front of us that we have to

48:47deal with and deal with right away. But

48:50I do think it's I would just encourage

48:52the administration to keep that

48:54conversation going and include

48:55leadership in this committee on that

48:57conversation because you know unless the

48:59state comes to bail us out or help us

49:01out by restricting the liability we we

49:04know that there's some more settlements

49:06coming that are going to be sizable

49:07>> y

49:08>> and have you know we need to have the

49:10money to pay for it that bonding makes

49:12sense in a certain sense but it does add

49:14to our debt service and when you look at

49:16the amortization schedule for that

49:18bonding it just reminds Mind you that

49:20you end up paying a lot more money over

49:21time

49:22>> like a lot more money over time.

49:25>> Of course raising taxes you pay in a

49:26different way.

49:27>> Well, that was a downside. Like we have

49:29talked about increasing fund balance

49:32before and what level we want to be at.

49:34You know 8% is like controller already

49:38said 16% is ideal for us. That would be

49:4412 million $130 million. But then you're

49:47looking at that saying, "Wow, we have

49:48this fund balance of $130 million. Why

49:51aren't you raising my taxes?"

49:53>> So for New Haven, that's that's

49:55difficult choices.

49:58So that's why we're trying to balance

50:01everything. It's always that balance.

50:04>> Thank you for that discussion and those

50:06answers. Uh any further questions or

50:08colleagues on this item, item one, Alder

50:10Festa? Well, let me just check to see if

50:12there's anybody who hasn't asked a

50:13question first who would like to go.

50:15Seeing none older.

50:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's just a point

50:18of clarification. Since we owe the 27

50:23million, are we taking the 5 million

50:26from the insurance company and then uh

50:29borrowing the rest?

50:30>> So, the 27 million is up to 27 million

50:34is our portion. So, the total of the two

50:36judgments was like 30.5 or something

50:39like that. So, 5 million is covering at

50:4230.5. That would mean we would have to

50:45bond no less than 25 million. We did 27

50:50million in case there's like cost of

50:52issuance and things like that that could

50:54be paid out of those proceeds. But our

50:56portion is 25 million.

51:00>> Okay, that's with the insurance

51:03>> coverage. And I'm sure these are

51:04specialty insurance companies that we're

51:07dealing with. It's not ones we use for

51:09our mortgage for our homes and cars. Um

51:13>> and it's very

51:16um

51:18so there are fewer probably of these

51:21types of insurance companies or these

51:23specialty type.

51:25>> Yeah, it's not your stand or something

51:27whatever they're called.

51:28>> Yeah, it's not your standard really

51:30standard insurance companies although

51:32some of them do do like commercial and

51:34municipal maybe not to the maybe for

51:37like smaller municipalities and things

51:39like that. But yeah, again I think it

51:41depends on our broker will shop year

51:45every year around our policies and what

51:48we need coverage. Um it just depends on

51:52the insurance broker of the insurance

51:55company themselves. Honestly, some do

51:57just the northeast, some will do just

51:59the west, some do all over the United

52:02States. So it just depends on who you

52:05get that responds to your request,

52:08>> right? Um, is there

52:12a state insurance that

52:17you know and maybe this might be

52:19something? it's too late for this, but

52:22since we know we're going to have future

52:24uh cases, um if the state has an

52:28insurance policy that we can

52:32I hate to say borrow against, but maybe

52:35look into where rates would be lower or

52:39I don't know, [clears throat]

52:41consortium purchasing agreement.

52:42>> Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I think

52:44like similar to how we piggy back off of

52:46state contracts for services and things

52:49like that. Unfortunately,

52:52>> it's really

52:54we use some of the same insurance

52:56brokers that the state uses, but again,

52:59each municipality has its own unique

53:01set. So, we do sometimes use some of the

53:04same insurance companies that the state

53:07uses, but they're still going to give us

53:09our own rate. It's not like what Chair

53:12Marshon said like some purchasing

53:13consortium. They literally go by your

53:17metrics of your

53:18>> your situation basically in your city.

53:21>> Okay. Even if we were to do like a state

53:23thing, they're still going to look at us

53:25individually. Is that

53:27>> I think I I think that's primarily the

53:30case because there's not really a

53:32consortium that I I'm aware of regarding

53:34insurance. Um, I'm not aware that

53:36they'll look at sort of like like they

53:39do health insurance where you can join

53:42the state partnership plan, but they

53:44still look at it by county, right? It's

53:46not just everyone together. So,

53:50>> okay. Thank you. Thank you for the

53:51clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

53:53>> Thank you, Fesa. I'd like to recognize

53:56our colleague, President Michael.

53:59Any further questions? On item one, the

54:02request to issue $27 million in bonds to

54:06pay the city's portion of 7 million for

54:08those two cases that are mentioned in

54:10the title. Any further questions from

54:12colleagues on [clears throat] this item?

54:14Seeing none, thank you for your

54:16presentation. We're going to move on to

54:18item two, which is increasing the legal

54:22services agreement with Howor.

54:24Are you both staying up here for that?

54:27We are both here and I believe attorney

54:30is here from corporation

54:36to come and join us.

54:42>> Good evening.

54:44>> Good evening committee members.

54:45>> Name and address for the record.

54:47[clears throat]

54:48>> Assistant corporation councel Joseph

54:50Merley, 79 Grandville Avenue, Milford,

54:53Connecticut. Thank you very much. So

54:56let's hear the presentation.

55:03[clears throat]

55:05So what you have before you is an

55:07amendment to um

55:11I apologize.

55:15You have an amendment to increase the

55:17contract with Howen Rudorf. Um,

55:22so before I turn it over to attorney

55:24Merlin to just uh go over a little bit

55:27about the the contract itself. So this

55:32is coming before the board because of

55:35the amount um which we are um increasing

55:38by 235,000.

55:40Obviously um legal services are exempt

55:43by the procurement ordinance up to

55:46$150,000.

55:49Um so because this is exceeding that

55:52amount we are um here before this

55:56committee to seek approval. In addition

55:59um

56:00the actual funds for this are being paid

56:03out of fiscal year 26. These are for

56:06services that happened um prior to July

56:09[clears throat] 1st um with the start of

56:11the new fiscal year.

56:14And you do not have a transfer before

56:17you for these funds because this is

56:19going to be part of the overall closeout

56:22transfer. As you know, when we get to

56:23this point in the year, um, acting

56:26director Gizzy, the budget office, the

56:29finance department, we are reconciling

56:31and closing out everything related to

56:35fiscal year 26. So, generally, you'll

56:37see a year-end transfer that comes

56:40before the board. um this would actually

56:42be part of that urine transfer. But

56:45because these services um

56:49were rendered and we're just looking at

56:51the me mechanism to make sure that the

56:53contract and all the detail match the

56:56amounts that we're paying for fiscal

56:58year 26. That's one of the reasons why

57:01we're here before the committee um

57:03seeking approval for the 235,000.

57:07So I will turn it over to Attorney

57:09Merley.

57:10Thank you. Um, committee members, the

57:13the $235,000.

57:21>> Is this working?

57:23>> Okay. Um, where the $235,000

57:29comes from is uh really the result of

57:32the work this law firm did on three

57:35cases. Um,

57:38one is the Adam Carman case, one is

57:41Stefan Morant, and then there was a case

57:44called Kijana Cornelius. And I'll tell

57:46you just a little bit about each of

57:48those uh cases. Um, the it was

57:51contemplated that Jav Ludorf would be uh

57:54trying both the Adam Carmon and Stefan

57:57Morant trials during the prior uh year.

58:01the uh the Karman trial

58:04um came up to to the brink of trial. A

58:07lot of work was done, a lot of time was

58:09spent, motions and lemonade, all kinds

58:12of litigation issues, and then for

58:14reasons unbeknownst to me, Federal Judge

58:17Hall uh continued the case right before

58:21jury selection was scheduled to begin um

58:24and continued it to January 2027. But

58:27again, the the law firm of Howard

58:29Bludorf did a substantial amount of work

58:33on that trial leading up to uh the

58:36continuence. Um I'm not sure if the

58:39committee members are aware that uh the

58:41city has parted ways with How Ludorf as

58:43outside council. Um so they will not be

58:48the uh attorneys of record when that

58:51case, the Karman case actually is tried

58:53in January 27th.

58:56Um I expect you're all familiar with the

58:59Stefon Morant case uh which resulted in

59:02a very very significant verdict.

59:05[clears throat] Um the again Howen

59:08Ludorf tried that case and did an

59:12inordinate amount of work

59:15[clears throat] in preparation in trying

59:17it and even uh in post-trial litigation.

59:21Um

59:22th that trial we believe is it now holds

59:27the record for the longest wrongful

59:29incarceration trial ever heard in the

59:32state of Connecticut. Um the amount of

59:35time exceeded everyone's expectations

59:37including the judge for that matter

59:40required just

59:45substantial hours of preparation and

59:47trial work. There were many many times

59:49during that trial that the judge would

59:51order the lawyers to brief issues that

59:55night for argument the next morning

59:58which means the lawyers were putting in

1:00:01sometimes 12 14 16-hour days uh to keep

1:00:05up with the litigation and there were

1:00:07several lawyers from how to move north

1:00:09involved including a team of uh

1:00:11parillegals.

1:00:12Um

1:00:14while the Stefon Morant case was going

1:00:16on, the same law firm um Howard Ludorf

1:00:21was also trying a case here in uh New

1:00:24Haven Federal Court, Kajjana Cornelius

1:00:27before Judge Hall. Um that case went

1:00:32there was much much trial preparation,

1:00:35much uh litigation involved. That case

1:00:38went to trial and um I think evidence

1:00:42went for about four days. The jury then

1:00:45got the case and the jury deliberated

1:00:48for several more days and could not

1:00:52render a decision. Judge kept sending

1:00:54them back and after about three days of

1:00:58deliberations the judge declared a

1:01:00mistrial segment jury was hung and the

1:01:03case the entire case had to be

1:01:05retrieded. All of it. all the same

1:01:08amount of work, same amount of uh trial

1:01:11preparation etc. litigation went into it

1:01:14a second time. Um so these cases

1:01:18obviously were uh extraordinary and they

1:01:21were happening at the same time. uh the

1:01:24initial forecast from the law firm um

1:01:28when we asked for the first amendment to

1:01:30the legal services agreement that

1:01:32brought the total to $644,000.

1:01:35Um that that was you know how is making

1:01:40a good faith estimate of what they

1:01:43thought at the time would be uh would go

1:01:46into the trial. litigation takes on

1:01:48[clears throat] a life of its own. And

1:01:50um in in the Morant case, for instance,

1:01:52I personally some of this uh the judge

1:01:55would continually ask the lawyers to

1:01:58brief issues and file certain documents

1:02:01by you know 8:00 the next morning. So it

1:02:06it there's inherent uncertainty in

1:02:09litigation and um it obviously ran much

1:02:13past the initial estimate for what the

1:02:16the fees should be because again it does

1:02:19take on a life of its own. Um,

1:02:24[clears throat]

1:02:25I mean, if the committee members have

1:02:27any questions about the cases themselves

1:02:29or about, you know, the the kind of time

1:02:31the law firm Muldorf put in, I'm happy

1:02:34to answer to the, uh, extent that I can,

1:02:37not having been personally involved in

1:02:39litigation myself. But uh again those

1:02:42really those three litigation those

1:02:45three cases u are really represent the

1:02:49sort of overrun and why we need we're

1:02:51asking for uh the amendment for

1:02:54$235,000.

1:02:59>> Thank you. Anything else from the city

1:03:01staff before we proceed with our

1:03:03questions?

1:03:05>> No. Thank you.

1:03:07>> Okay. So, just to remind colleagues a

1:03:10couple things. One, these are for

1:03:12services already rendered

1:03:15in the last fiscal year.

1:03:18And so, there are bills outstanding that

1:03:20this approval would enable the city to

1:03:23pay.

1:03:24The money would come from a year-end

1:03:26transfer [clears throat] from some other

1:03:28account within the department. Most

1:03:29likely, we will see that shortly.

1:03:32>> Yes.

1:03:34um thing I thank our assistant

1:03:36corporation council for the information

1:03:40about why it's taken longer and why the

1:03:42bills are bigger. We're not at liberty

1:03:45to ask about the content of the cases.

1:03:49Um and so any questions to that end I

1:03:51will disallow. But if there are

1:03:54questions about the mechanics about

1:03:58you know if somebody has doubts that the

1:04:01explanation is sufficient about why

1:04:04these increased amounts are necessary

1:04:06then I invite colleagues to ask those

1:04:08questions now and the queue is open

1:04:10questions from colleagues

1:04:13al

1:04:16thank you Mr. And I think my question is

1:04:19along the line of your instruction. Um I

1:04:23just did a brief uh before coming just

1:04:25trying to figure out. I think first of

1:04:27all thank you for your presentation.

1:04:28Thank you for being here this evening.

1:04:30Did I say thank you Mr. Chair?

1:04:31>> You sure did.

1:04:33>> Um

1:04:35could you [clears throat] just give us

1:04:36uh a quick synopsis of the breakdown in

1:04:40court counsel? Let me just give a little

1:04:42bit of background and I think it'll fit

1:04:44into what we're discussing this evening.

1:04:46Um, and my number could be wrong, but I

1:04:49think I saw approximately $1.6 million

1:04:53that was paid out last year in outside

1:04:57legal services. This is coming before

1:05:00[clears throat] this committee because

1:05:02as our controller said, it supersedes

1:05:05the $150 amount, but there are a lot of

1:05:12outside services that are below that

1:05:14amount that are approved.

1:05:17Um, so my first question is to you, Mr.

1:05:20Chair, if we can get a

1:05:24total

1:05:25of this year to date of outside

1:05:29services amounts that have been paid

1:05:31out. And then going back now, I wanted

1:05:33to give a little bit of substance um to

1:05:35my question.

1:05:37I'm assuming that court council is made

1:05:40up of researchers,

1:05:42litigators,

1:05:46President Walker Myers is the attorney

1:05:47on the board, I don't know, bookkeepers,

1:05:51parillegals.

1:05:53How many do we actually have that are

1:05:57able to go to court and litigate? Am I

1:06:00asking this right? [clears throat]

1:06:02>> Yes. Yes, you are. Um, in the

1:06:05corporation council's office, we have um

1:06:08the head court council, Ally Jacobs,

1:06:11could do [clears throat] litigation and

1:06:12she's responsible for everything. Of

1:06:14course, there is deputy corporation

1:06:16counsel Rod Williams who is the head of

1:06:19the litigation team.

1:06:22As far as the litigators, that would be

1:06:24myself,

1:06:25um, attorney Givvon yellow,

1:06:29attorney [snorts] John Leonard,

1:06:32attorney Jonathan Bowski,

1:06:37and including Rod Williams, that would

1:06:39be five active litigators [snorts] in

1:06:42the Corporation Council's office.

1:06:43Several of the other members of the

1:06:45Corporation Council's office are on the

1:06:48uh, do contracts and things like that.

1:06:51As far as litigation, court cases, it

1:06:53would be the five of us.

1:06:55>> So, five or perhaps six if you count

1:06:58courts. [clears throat]

1:06:59>> Okay. Um Okay. So, that makes sense to

1:07:03me on why we would need so much outside

1:07:07counsel considering the volume of work

1:07:10that the city has in being sued and

1:07:14various law uh lawsuits.

1:07:18Okay, that's really all the explanation

1:07:21I wanted to Does that number sound about

1:07:23right, Mr. Controller?

1:07:25>> 126 about 1.6

1:07:27>> sounds about right. Yeah.

1:07:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:07:29>> Thank you, Alder Fellow. And I'll take

1:07:31as a followup requesting

1:07:34information that I'm going to add last

1:07:36fiscal year to it as well um because

1:07:39they they will have that information

1:07:41more readily at hand than the current

1:07:42fiscal year, but we can look at both.

1:07:44>> I think last fiscal year was the 1.6.

1:07:46Yeah, last fiscal year was a slightly

1:07:48over 1.6. But but but what you asked for

1:07:51was not just the number, it was the

1:07:53breakdown of the different firms that

1:07:55those monies had gone to, I think. Or

1:07:57were you asking just for the running

1:07:59total for this year?

1:08:00>> Yeah, I'm I'm sorry for the

1:08:01[clears throat] confusion. I was kind of

1:08:02mumbling uh but yes, I would just like

1:08:05to know what we've paid out

1:08:07>> um this fiscal year and outside legal

1:08:10counsel

1:08:11>> overall figure.

1:08:14Yes. And I apologize. I kept talking and

1:08:16didn't wait for you to say so not

1:08:19[laughter]

1:08:19>> right so um I I will ask on my own

1:08:23behalf [clears throat]

1:08:24for the breakdown for last year

1:08:26>> to see you know where that 1.6 6 went to

1:08:29which firms and to which area of law.

1:08:32You know, we know for example that Mer

1:08:33Moses does education law. We know that

1:08:35Hudor did a lot of these cases, but I

1:08:38think it would be useful for us to

1:08:39understand that in addition to your

1:08:42request, which I duly note and we'll

1:08:44follow.

1:08:45>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:08:47>> Thank you, Alder. Uh questions from

1:08:49colleagues on this item. Alder Fes.

1:08:51>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you

1:08:54for your explanation. Um, I'm going to I

1:08:56think this probably be towards uh budget

1:09:00maybe the controller.

1:09:03You mentioned that we're actually in

1:09:05debt and that any transfers um this

1:09:09money will be paid through those

1:09:11transfers. if we're in debt

1:09:16and those transfers have to cover,

1:09:19you know, that the deficit, I should

1:09:22say, not debt. That's we are in debt

1:09:24already. [gasps] Uh but the deficit, um

1:09:27I mean, can you just touch on that a

1:09:29little bit because we're we're in a

1:09:31deficit, but yet we're going to be

1:09:32taking this this funding from these

1:09:36transfers.

1:09:38>> Well, Fesa, that's where the fund

1:09:39balance comes in. Whenever we have a

1:09:42deficit, in other words, expenditures

1:09:45larger than our revenues, then the money

1:09:48comes out of our fund balance. And

1:09:50that's what's that's what happens each

1:09:52time. So what you would see is at the

1:09:54bottom of the transfer, you would see

1:09:56fund balance. So you see all the

1:09:57negatives on one side, all the positives

1:09:59on another side, and then within that

1:10:01positive column, the very last line is

1:10:03probably fund balance to make up

1:10:05whatever that overall deficit is.

1:10:08>> You know, I and and I get that. I

1:10:10guess um do we have enough to cover

1:10:15that our our deficit plus that

1:10:18>> that fund balance

1:10:20>> whatever our overall so we're closing

1:10:23the

1:10:24>> because we don't know really yet we're

1:10:26still closing the books

1:10:27>> we're closing the books in the next

1:10:30couple of weeks to kind of finalize

1:10:32which is why this was important to get

1:10:34before the board so we could um get

1:10:37before the committee Um so we could

1:10:41include those in our final closing

1:10:44projections. Um

1:10:46>> so the pro this is included in the

1:10:48projections that the projected the

1:10:51projected deficit that we've been

1:10:52talking about. Yes. So this is included.

1:10:55Everything that we're going over is

1:10:57included.

1:10:59the final numbers. Once we close and

1:11:01have everything

1:11:03paid and closed and all the invoices in,

1:11:06then we'll have our our good close

1:11:09[clears throat] number. But as far as

1:11:11projections, yes, this was included in

1:11:13the deficit projection.

1:11:15>> Okay, thanks for that clarification. And

1:11:19then just um it was mentioned that we

1:11:21are parting ways with this current uh

1:11:24office. Who will we be using for future

1:11:27cases? the one that will be in January.

1:11:29>> I think um probably attorney Alli Jacobs

1:11:33or attorney Ralph Williams could better

1:11:34speak to that, but I believe the law

1:11:37firm of Card and Torrance has come in to

1:11:41handle um the Stefan Morant litigation

1:11:46that continues post verdict.

1:11:50So, uh they are now in for that case. I

1:11:53I personally can't speak to how much we

1:11:55will give to that firm. You know, what

1:11:58types of cases, you know, does this um

1:12:01you know, how involved they'll be going

1:12:03forward. I'm sure attorney Rob Williams

1:12:06or Jacobs could speak better to that.

1:12:08>> Okay. But [clears throat] we have the

1:12:09cases covered even though we're parting

1:12:12ways.

1:12:13>> Oh, right. Right.

1:12:14>> Okay.

1:12:15>> Right. Yeah. And it's going to be right

1:12:16now Carmen and Torrance

1:12:18>> for for [clears throat] at least that

1:12:20case and I think even with others

1:12:24>> I think I should follow up on that

1:12:26>> and I was just going to ask maybe

1:12:27through you Mr. Chair we could just get

1:12:29an update more

1:12:32on it.

1:12:33>> Yeah just uh for our information as

1:12:35well.

1:12:35>> Yeah.

1:12:36>> Thank you.

1:12:38>> All set.

1:12:39>> All set. Thank you. Thank you.

1:12:41[clears throat]

1:12:41>> Further questions from colleagues on

1:12:42this item. Alder Rodriguez.

1:12:44>> Thank you.

1:12:45Looking at the fiscal [clears throat]

1:12:47year 2025 2026,

1:12:50what period did the does the 235,000

1:12:54cover?

1:12:56>> Thank you.

1:12:57>> That should cover through June 30th. Um

1:12:59this is a fiscal year 2026

1:13:02um matter. Now, normally we try to have

1:13:07everything reconciled, you know, towards

1:13:10the end of July, beginning of August,

1:13:12but you know, we know legal cases take a

1:13:14little bit longer to reconcile based on

1:13:16the work and the review of the invoices

1:13:19that's done by uh corporation council to

1:13:22ensure um the billing is correct. So, um

1:13:26that's why we're just now hearing this

1:13:27one, but this these are for services

1:13:30rendered through June 30th.

1:13:32>> Oh, for the entire year. um I'm not sure

1:13:36what period

1:13:38um

1:13:39>> through the chair I can get that

1:13:40information for you, but I know it's

1:13:42through June 30th, but I I can get the

1:13:44exact period that these invoices cover.

1:13:47>> Thank you, Mr.

1:13:48>> These were extensive invoices, so they

1:13:50didn't take a lot of time to go through.

1:13:52So, that's another reason why it was

1:13:54taking so long to get this through.

1:13:56>> Okay. because I'm aware that you come to

1:13:59the finance committee to do other asks

1:14:02for to meet up with debts for the

1:14:05[clears throat] attorneys as time goes

1:14:07by. That's why I was saying 235,000.

1:14:12>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:14:14>> Thank you, Alder. Further questions from

1:14:16colleagues on this item. Any further

1:14:20questions from colleagues on this item?

1:14:24Anything else?

1:14:27Uh, seeing none, we thank you, attorney,

1:14:29for your time.

1:14:31>> And we're going to move forward now to

1:14:32the third item on our agenda. Uh,

1:14:41>> but before we go to the third item on

1:14:42the agenda, let me see if there's a

1:14:44member of the public who wishes to

1:14:46testify on either of the first two items

1:14:48that we've heard so far. Is there a

1:14:50member of the public who wishes to

1:14:52testify on either the $27 million?

1:14:56There's a person back here. So, I would

1:14:58ask you two gentlemen to please step

1:14:59back. My apologies to the members of the

1:15:02public that I didn't pause after the

1:15:04first item to ask for public comment,

1:15:07but I see a member of the public who is

1:15:08here.

1:15:10Thank you, gentlemen. Fern

1:15:13and when you are seated, we will ask for

1:15:15your name and address for the record.

1:15:18Uh Paul Macho, 64 Front Street, New

1:15:21Haven. Um I have a question. Is this

1:15:24going to be a a a judgment bond or a

1:15:28regular general obligation bond?

1:15:31>> I think we'll ask the city staff when

1:15:33they come back to talk about those

1:15:35because it's the higher interest rate

1:15:37for judgment. And just let you know, the

1:15:40interest rates are spiking today.

1:15:42>> They went up one and a half% in one day.

1:15:45So yeah, but then they're supposed to

1:15:47settle down again. So hopefully um what

1:15:50about the 30 million we're getting from

1:15:52Yale? Is that earmarked um or restricted

1:15:55or can you use that?

1:15:58>> Well, the money that we get from Yale

1:16:00goes into the general fund. It's treated

1:16:02as revenue like any other revenue.

1:16:04>> So not restricted.

1:16:05>> No, it's not.

1:16:07>> No, no earmark ahead of time.

1:16:09>> So why not try to use that? There's no

1:16:13restriction. Just it's 30 million. So

1:16:16yeah, just saying we could do that, but

1:16:18then that would produce a $30 million

1:16:20hole in our general fund budget for this

1:16:22year.

1:16:22>> Oh, because you already it's built into

1:16:25our is part of the revenue that we built

1:16:28into our budget. So if you take it out

1:16:30to pay for this, then there's a big old

1:16:31hole.

1:16:32>> Oh, so much for that. Okay. I I didn't

1:16:34know.

1:16:36>> Okay. So you already accounted for it,

1:16:38correct?

1:16:39>> Yes.

1:16:39>> Okay. Um, how many years were are we

1:16:43paying this bond off for? 30 10

1:16:5020 years. Oh, okay. Yeah, because I was

1:16:53I was calculating about a million

1:16:54dollars. A little over a million dollars

1:16:56a year in interest alone. And then it

1:17:00depends on how you're paying it back. If

1:17:01you're paying it back, you know, every

1:17:03year or if you're a lump sum at the end

1:17:05of the bond issue. So it just depends on

1:17:08how you're interest lower if you're

1:17:10paying if you amateurize it and pay it

1:17:12off little by little. But if you're

1:17:14doing it at the end then more interest

1:17:16along the way. So

1:17:18>> yeah. So yeah, but by that it's a

1:17:21judgment because I think that the

1:17:24interest rates are higher.

1:17:25>> When the city staff come back to discuss

1:17:28the last item on the agenda, we'll pose

1:17:30that question to them for sure.

1:17:31>> Okay. Okay. [clears throat] Thank you. I

1:17:33was just really interested about the

1:17:35Yale one, you know, like why not just

1:17:37use that money

1:17:38>> if they have an extra $30 million,

1:17:40>> but it's already covering things in the

1:17:42budget.

1:17:43>> Wow.

1:17:43>> Okay. Thank you. [laughter]

1:17:45>> Thank you for being here, sir.

1:17:49>> Any other member of the public wishing

1:17:51to testify on either item one or item

1:17:54two? Any other member of the public

1:17:56wishing to testify on either of the two

1:17:59items we've heard so far? and third

1:18:02time. Anyone from the public wishing to

1:18:04testify on those two items? Seeing none,

1:18:06we'll now move on to the third item,

1:18:09which is uh a proposal to change the

1:18:12salaries of a number of staff in the

1:18:14labor relations division.

1:18:29And we'll just have all three of you

1:18:31give your names and addresses since you

1:18:32two gentlemen have to excuse yourself

1:18:34and get back starting [clears throat]

1:18:3833 coil.

1:18:41>> Michael Garmin 45 Jefferson Brown

1:18:45>> Ron Gizzy 219 Rainbow Terrace Hampton.

1:18:49[clears throat]

1:18:49>> Okay. Well, we're all ears. Please

1:18:51explain the request.

1:18:54>> Sure. Um before we get started, I would

1:18:58ask um if the chair and the committee

1:19:00after your presentation would entertain

1:19:03this an [snorts]

1:19:05an amendment or scrier's error to this

1:19:08particular ordinance. Um one of the

1:19:11positions listed in this ordinance

1:19:14>> [snorts]

1:19:14>> um

1:19:16and I do apologize.

1:19:19>> The labor research associate.

1:19:21>> Thank you. the labor research associate

1:19:23in this order um we had as an increase

1:19:27of $3,396.

1:19:30We would ask that that be removed. Um

1:19:32that position is actually filled and did

1:19:36in the last in this year's budget um

1:19:41did receive an increase along with other

1:19:44positions um within the budget. So that

1:19:48position does not need to be increased.

1:19:50So the actual budget transfer and ask

1:19:53would be reduced by $3,396.

1:19:59>> That's a decrease.

1:20:01So um

1:20:04so that's um just one side note before

1:20:08we start the presentation. Um thank you

1:20:11for that. Thank you. So before you have

1:20:15a transfer um related to the labor

1:20:20relations department um on the fiscal

1:20:24side before I turn it over to Miss

1:20:26Aladdie um we are looking to increase

1:20:30three salaries within the office. Um the

1:20:35primary salary that we're really looking

1:20:38to increase which has an effect on the

1:20:41director salary is the senior labor

1:20:43relations council. We are asking that

1:20:45that goes from 138,000 to 150,000

1:20:50within this ordinance.

1:20:52Um

1:20:54and we are asking that the director's

1:20:57salary go from 153 175 to 161 due to the

1:21:02closeness.

1:21:03Um, if approved, how close the senior

1:21:07labor relations council salary would be

1:21:10to the director of labor relations? Um,

1:21:14when looking at those two particular

1:21:16positions, obviously the senior labor

1:21:19relations acts as either a deputy or

1:21:23successor to the labor relations

1:21:27director of labor relations position.

1:21:30Um, generally you need that you need the

1:21:34um,

1:21:36oh my gosh, why am I losing my word? Um,

1:21:39you need that space in between those two

1:21:41salaries. Oh yeah.

1:21:43um

1:21:45in order to either promote from within

1:21:48or hire from the outside or whatever the

1:21:51case be. you know, if you ever find

1:21:53yourself in that position of looking for

1:21:57um a director of labor relations. Um

1:22:01[clears throat] and looking at the

1:22:03senior labor relations council salary, I

1:22:06know it seems like a big ask from 138 to

1:22:10150, but I think um director will go a

1:22:13little bit into it. We did look at

1:22:16really some comparisons within the city

1:22:19and then outside of the city as well

1:22:21when it came to the salary. So this

1:22:24position of senior labor relations

1:22:26council

1:22:27with internally when you look at the

1:22:30lawyer structure in corporation council

1:22:32is closer to the equivalent of the

1:22:34deputy corporation councils. So right

1:22:37now we have two deputy corporation

1:22:39councils who make um who are budgeted at

1:22:42153. One of the less senior are at 148

1:22:46and then the most senior who has been

1:22:49around for a while he is above the 153.

1:22:53Um, so that's what we were comparing

1:22:56internally that senior labor relations

1:22:59salary to when it came to work and

1:23:04comparable titles. Outside of the city,

1:23:08it was a little bit more difficult to

1:23:10compare because not every municipality

1:23:12is structured the same. What I did was I

1:23:16had my staff look at different cities

1:23:18and how they're structured. Believe it

1:23:20or not, labor relations in some cities

1:23:22is within the human resources realm.

1:23:25>> Um,

1:23:27>> so I know the municipality I just

1:23:29previously worked at, that was the same

1:23:31structure. It was part of the human

1:23:33resources

1:23:35role within that office. Um, so we

1:23:38looked at Stanford, Waterberry, and a

1:23:42couple of others. That's how it's

1:23:44structured there. The closest that we

1:23:46could find with an actual labor

1:23:49relations like division department was

1:23:51the city of Bridgeport. Um

1:23:54we looked at their budget for example.

1:23:57So what we seen online with their

1:23:59council adopted budget was the director

1:24:02in Bridgeport is at 174415.

1:24:07They have two deputy labor relations

1:24:10director. Now, they don't break it out

1:24:12like we do, but their total budget is

1:24:14about 221,850

1:24:17for those two positions. So, you divide

1:24:20it in half if that's how it is um for

1:24:25that. And then, um they have a senior

1:24:29labor relations officer at 107,000

1:24:33within that department. So, that's

1:24:35really our comparable of what we're

1:24:37looking at. if you're looking at another

1:24:38municipality and how it's structured

1:24:42um within that department.

1:24:46Um

1:24:48so that was really the reasoning for

1:24:51increasing it and to attract a

1:24:53candidate. Um and then again the labor

1:24:56re relations specialist

1:24:58when we look internally is closer to

1:25:02even though um the credentials are

1:25:05almost there with that position compared

1:25:07to our assistant court councils. Our

1:25:09assistant court counsels range from 115

1:25:12to 130 within their position structure

1:25:18um within that department. So, we're

1:25:21comparing those to try to attract

1:25:23candidates um for that position as well.

1:25:27So, what I will do is turn it over to

1:25:30[clears throat] director to just give a

1:25:32little bit more context.

1:25:34>> Just pull that a little bit closer.

1:25:38>> I apologize ahead of time. I seem to be

1:25:41freezing in my office and I'm getting a

1:25:44bit of a scratchy throat today. It was

1:25:46just today.

1:25:48Uh thank you for uh uh honorable members

1:25:51of the board, the chair, presidents.

1:25:55Um it's uh it's difficult for me to come

1:25:58back to you again seeing that I was here

1:26:01six months ago, but uh we've had a

1:26:05significant time filling the two

1:26:07positions in our office. Um as you may

1:26:10or may not know, I'm the only

1:26:11functioning attorney in [clears throat]

1:26:13the office at the moment. We're in the

1:26:15middle of contract negotiations with all

1:26:17the bargaining units and the workload is

1:26:21overwhelming. Um we have we hired

1:26:26pri uh subsequent to your approval a few

1:26:29months ago we hired a labor relations

1:26:33specialist and we lost him within six

1:26:35weeks.

1:26:37>> He was absolutely excellent, perfect for

1:26:39the job. talking, an attorney, retired

1:26:41from another state, came in and hit the

1:26:44ground running. And we were we were so

1:26:46excited. He was uh we lost him to

1:26:50another company for $25,000.

1:26:55[clears throat]

1:26:56$25,000 more. So, in essence, he came to

1:27:00us for 115 and he left going to another

1:27:02company for 145. So, that was a bit of a

1:27:05disappointment. Um, prior to him, we had

1:27:09another attorney who came again and we

1:27:12lost her within three weeks to the city

1:27:15of Hartford for roughly 20 to $25,000

1:27:19more. So, we seem to be behind the

1:27:21eighth wall. We can't seem to hire uh

1:27:25someone to fill these positions. They

1:27:27come in and they see the case load, the

1:27:30work capacity, uh what it's required,

1:27:33the experience that's needed to perform

1:27:36in the city, our staff is is uh working

1:27:40uh we are we are under staff to say the

1:27:42least. Now, [snorts] I'm I'm happy to

1:27:45report that in the fiscal year that we

1:27:48just ended, 2026, our outside council

1:27:51budget was uh for the first time since

1:27:54I've been here, uh we exceeded the the

1:27:57uh budgeted amount by roughly $10,000.

1:28:02That's unheard of in the city of New

1:28:04Haven. We've we have come before you in

1:28:07the past seeking a lot more than that.

1:28:0950,000 and upwards from Burches and Bur

1:28:12and Mim Moses. Uh we we uh exceeded it

1:28:15by $10,000. That is tremendous amount of

1:28:18work that's being done by our office in

1:28:21matters that we are not sending to

1:28:23outside counsel. We're trying to keep

1:28:25inhouse. That is part of my philosophy.

1:28:28When I arrived here, I felt the outside

1:28:30council budgets were too high. I feel

1:28:33that the work needs if you have people

1:28:35in the office the work needs to be uh

1:28:38you have to have people who have the

1:28:39capability or the capacity to do it but

1:28:41you also have to pay them. So I'm not

1:28:44sure what's going to happen with our

1:28:45outside council budget this year. Uh as

1:28:48you know uh four years ago I negotiated

1:28:51all of those contracts finished them all

1:28:53off. I didn't the only contract that

1:28:56went to outside council several years

1:28:58ago was a merchant of Moses was the

1:29:00police contract. Uh this year I have had

1:29:04to reluctantly uh assign one of our

1:29:08contracts to virtual mimosas and another

1:29:10one to another outside council while we

1:29:12struggled to do the others within the

1:29:14office. So I am appealing to this board

1:29:17uh to approve the request so that we can

1:29:22we did not get one single bite

1:29:25on the senior labor relations council

1:29:28position at 138. not one single

1:29:31application came into the office. Um

1:29:34when we compare the salaries as Michael

1:29:36indicated to other municipalities and

1:29:39other colleagues out there that is what

1:29:42I'm hearing. The salaries are probably

1:29:43too low based on the capacity and the

1:29:46requirements of the job. And that's I

1:29:49think what's happened speaks for itself.

1:29:51There's nothing else I can offer the

1:29:53committee um to explain what's happened.

1:29:58Thank you. Anything else from city staff

1:30:01on this item?

1:30:02>> So, the funding to cover this $34,000

1:30:05increase, we have that coming from the

1:30:07salary reserve line, which we

1:30:10[clears throat] have over $6 million,

1:30:12$6.1 million budgeted for that. Uh that

1:30:15is part of we're including some of union

1:30:17contracts settlement there. Uh we have

1:30:20the police, the second retro payment is

1:30:22included in there. So 34,000 is a small

1:30:25amount against that 6.1 million.

1:30:29>> Thank you. We appreciate the

1:30:31presentation. We're now going to take

1:30:32questions from colleagues starting with

1:30:34Alder Windgate.

1:30:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:30:38>> Um, thank you for your presentation. I

1:30:41remember I was here 6 months ago when

1:30:43you asked for this. Um,

1:30:46is it [clears throat] enough?

1:30:49That's what I asked Michael [laughter]

1:30:51and Rod. Uh

1:30:54>> I I I believe you should get paid for

1:30:57what you do as well. So my question is

1:30:59is it enough? Um I know that you was

1:31:02when you talked and 6 months ago it was

1:31:04you put it on indeed, you put it on all

1:31:06the websites, you you know

1:31:08[clears throat] you did all of that.

1:31:09>> Um is it enough to attract?

1:31:14I think that it may be enough to attract

1:31:16and I think that once we get people who

1:31:18may submit applications and we start to

1:31:20interview people perhaps we can they'll

1:31:23negotiate what they feel is a fair

1:31:25salary. We may have to negotiate with

1:31:27people at that [clears throat] point but

1:31:29we need to get some people in the door.

1:31:32We've got to open the door, get a leg in

1:31:34and I [clears throat] think that this is

1:31:35this is this will go a long way doing

1:31:38that. Um, I've spoken to a senior labor

1:31:42relations council in another

1:31:44municipality and that person is at 163.

1:31:50>> That person said 163. We're asking we're

1:31:52we're asking for increase to 150. Person

1:31:56may consider coming to New Haven, but I

1:31:59didn't tell that person what the salary

1:32:01was in New Haven or what the proposed

1:32:03salary was because I actually went out

1:32:05to lunch with that person. I said, you

1:32:07know, what are you making? And I was

1:32:09kind of shocked that it was 163. So,

1:32:12>> what did you take them for lunch? You

1:32:13take that Frank Peps [laughter]

1:32:18pizza, you know.

1:32:20>> Um, no. Um, I do have one more question.

1:32:25Um,

1:32:26is the job descriptions

1:32:29online or wherever you put them at has

1:32:33are they going to be changed? Are they

1:32:34going to be tweaked? Are they just going

1:32:36to be straightforward as senior? You

1:32:39know,

1:32:41>> we we're not going to tweak the job

1:32:43descriptions because we revise the job

1:32:45descriptions to be more accurate to

1:32:48[clears throat] what the job entails. I

1:32:50think it's difficult to expl.

1:32:58>> I think you do that during an interview

1:33:00process. You're quite honest with

1:33:02people. You have to let them know before

1:33:03they actually walk through the door.

1:33:06No, I asked that because when you look

1:33:10at John sometime you can [clears throat]

1:33:12see yourself in it,

1:33:13>> right? And I just want to know is

1:33:15there's going to be some that you think

1:33:18will attract people to come to the city.

1:33:20>> I share also I think labor law is really

1:33:23exciting. It's an exciting area of the

1:33:25law,

1:33:26>> but it requires a commitment. You know,

1:33:28you got to love it. It's hard work.

1:33:30>> Absolutely.

1:33:31>> You have to love it. But I hope it

1:33:33attracts people. I mean, I love what we

1:33:35do here and I I I hope that that that

1:33:40excitement will translate to other

1:33:43likeminded platforms. [laughter]

1:33:48>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

1:33:49[clears throat] Chair.

1:33:51>> Thank you, Alderate. Next in the queue

1:33:53is Alder Furlow, followed by Alders

1:33:55Festa and Warner.

1:33:58>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your

1:34:02presentation.

1:34:03Uh, thank you for all of the work that

1:34:05you're doing and thank you for keeping

1:34:07as much as you can in the house. That

1:34:09was so encouraging

1:34:11>> to hear that. Um, I think it may touched

1:34:14upon I kind of just want to follow up uh

1:34:18some of the questions from my colleague.

1:34:21Um, so I see the percentages of the

1:34:24changes. Um, how did you come up with

1:34:27these amounts?

1:34:29Again,

1:34:30I think we're just trying to look at

1:34:32some comparables and then taking into

1:34:34consideration what um

1:34:39what director just mentioned in her

1:34:41testimony. I mean, for the senior labor

1:34:44relations one, it's [clears throat]

1:34:46exactly what director just said. We only

1:34:50held the last candidate for three weeks

1:34:53or so strictly because of a compensation

1:34:56issue.

1:34:58Um,

1:34:58>> but if I heard it right, it's not

1:35:00comparable. It's still lower, right?

1:35:02Right.

1:35:03>> So, the

1:35:06director salary is still lower. The the

1:35:10senior labor relations is higher and

1:35:14lower. It's kind of in that median area.

1:35:17And then when we compare internally,

1:35:19it's right there along the lines of like

1:35:21the deputy court counsel. Um,

1:35:25>> so again, we're trying to increase the

1:35:29compensation. I mean, listen, will it

1:35:31we're hoping it attracts more candidates

1:35:33because that's what we've heard is that

1:35:36it's the compensation, right? Especially

1:35:38if we're sitting here having candidates

1:35:40here for only three weeks and then

1:35:42leaving because of compensation. We're

1:35:46we're trying to increase that position

1:35:49to where we hope it attracts

1:35:52attracts

1:35:53candidates for the labor director's

1:35:56office. Can I absolutely promise you

1:35:59that in six months if we come back and

1:36:01say we have we got absolutely no

1:36:04applications again, you know.

1:36:06>> Oh, no. I want you to promise.

1:36:08>> Promise.

1:36:08>> I want you to promise that this is going

1:36:10to work. Absolutely.

1:36:11>> I wish I could.

1:36:13>> I might go play tonight. I don't

1:36:15[laughter] know. I recalled the attorney

1:36:17who stayed with us for three weeks um

1:36:20and moved it to another office in

1:36:22Hartford. And once she arrived at the

1:36:25office, she asked whether or not she can

1:36:28negotiate her salary.

1:36:30And at that point, I said, "Well, no,

1:36:32you can't negotiate your salary. You

1:36:34know, you accepted the offer. It's an

1:36:37offer and acceptance, but we may have to

1:36:39be a little bit more flexible. If we get

1:36:41somebody that's qualified

1:36:44>> and they want to negotiate a salary, we

1:36:46may have to be a little bit more

1:36:48realistic. And I don't know how we can

1:36:49go given your process. This is not the

1:36:52private sector, right? I'm from the

1:36:54private sector. You don't negotiate on

1:36:56the spot. You the salary is what you

1:36:58what what it's advertised to be. But we

1:37:00may have to have some flexibility. Just

1:37:03I'm just saying.

1:37:05I just have two more quick questions.

1:37:07Thank you. Just have two more quick

1:37:08questions. The first is if that's okay.

1:37:11Okay. The first is we have an executive

1:37:16management

1:37:18manual

1:37:20that has the salaries that are listed

1:37:22for all of those that are in executive

1:37:24management. I am in no way implying

1:37:28that our director does not deserve every

1:37:31penny and more of what um she's being

1:37:35paid. But I'm just wondering, is this

1:37:37going to trigger

1:37:39>> the other

1:37:42the other positions in the executive

1:37:44management to also go up? And my second

1:37:47question I was asking in concert is

1:37:50we're raising it now before the budget.

1:37:54Are we anticipating to change the range

1:37:59in this upcoming budget for these

1:38:03positions? I imagine these positions

1:38:05should have a is this there's no range

1:38:07of these positions. It's just this flat

1:38:09amount.

1:38:12>> There's a range of the I don't know

1:38:15exactly what this one is, but it's a

1:38:17range. It's not like a like a union

1:38:18where you have range and staff and

1:38:20they're all set. this one like it could

1:38:23be from 100,000 to 150. So anything

1:38:26within that

1:38:29amount. So it could be a E8. So that

1:38:32would go from a,000 to 150 just for an

1:38:35example.

1:38:36>> So that would be the range.

1:38:38>> So with this position it's up to 150.

1:38:43So we have to look at the executive

1:38:45management manual to see the personnel

1:38:47director sets the range for each

1:38:49position and can move a range or

1:38:54move a position um based on any key

1:38:58factors or metrics that come with that

1:39:00position. And it's rarely ever rarely

1:39:03done in any situations, [clears throat]

1:39:05but within the executive management

1:39:07manual, there is a minimum and maximum

1:39:10for each

1:39:12range and positions are placed in those

1:39:15ranges. So that is your hiring

1:39:19that is that is the minimum and maximum

1:39:21that you can hire for that particular

1:39:24position.

1:39:26>> Now you just confused me. So let me ask

1:39:28it a different way. Maybe I heard you

1:39:29right, maybe I asked you wrong. So this

1:39:32150,000, is this the lower amount or is

1:39:36it the higher the highest amount for

1:39:38this position?

1:39:39>> I do not believe it's the highest is

1:39:42closer to that upper tier than the lower

1:39:44tier of that particular range, but I do

1:39:47not believe it is the max. So then it's

1:39:50possible that we could hire someone

1:39:52>> at 150 plus

1:39:56>> which would give some more of that

1:39:57wiggle room that we're talking about.

1:39:59>> It's it's comparable to the deputies in

1:40:01the corporation council's office and

1:40:04>> I don't know what they make.

1:40:05>> The two deputies are at 153.

1:40:08Okay.

1:40:08>> Or thereabouts. So

1:40:11[clears throat] that's

1:40:12>> yeah two of the deputies are budgeted at

1:40:15153. One of the deputies who has I

1:40:18believe like a year year and a half

1:40:20experience less than the other two

1:40:22deputies are is at 148. Um and then the

1:40:28other deputy.

1:40:30>> Yeah. And then the other deputy is um

1:40:32has been here for a long time. So that

1:40:35deputy is just that upper range of that.

1:40:39So, so these ranges are more or less

1:40:415,000

1:40:43>> it seems

1:40:43>> within that attorney's union. Yes. But

1:40:46again, um the executive management

1:40:48manual does have a minimum and maximum.

1:40:51I believe through the chair I can verify

1:40:53that this week this position at 150

1:40:56would be going more towards that upper

1:40:59tier. Not really at the max of the range

1:41:03but closer to that upper tier.

1:41:06>> Okay. And then the second question about

1:41:09the anticipated increase in these

1:41:11salaries for our next

1:41:15I I imagine that's going to

1:41:16>> for this. So the executive management

1:41:18contract does have language about um

1:41:21increases in the ranges of the executive

1:41:27management um contract. Again that's the

1:41:32[clears throat] salaries for executive

1:41:33management are set through the budget

1:41:35process. So if there is an increase

1:41:38[snorts] in the next budget cycle, we

1:41:40would see that. I think that's something

1:41:42that's thought upon during the actual

1:41:45budget process itself [clears throat]

1:41:47internally as we're submitting the

1:41:49mayor's proposed budget. I can't give

1:41:51you a solid yes or no.

1:41:53>> That's true. It was it wasn't an

1:41:56intelligent question. I'm sorry for that

1:41:58[laughter]

1:41:59>> because it's not something kind of

1:42:01throwing it out there. But the labor

1:42:03relations labor relations budget will

1:42:06increase if this is approved. The labor

1:42:08relations budget will increase. Right

1:42:09now we're taking this from the salary

1:42:11reserve line to increase the labor

1:42:13relations. We're not increasing the 744

1:42:15million. We're just moving next year. We

1:42:18will increase the labor relations budget

1:42:21to cover this going forward. But as far

1:42:23as the actual position again increasing

1:42:26from a general wage increase, if the

1:42:30committee and the full board was to

1:42:32approve this particular package as

1:42:35outlined, [clears throat] will the 174

1:42:37increase again in the next budget cycle,

1:42:39I think is your question. And again,

1:42:41that's something that we think about

1:42:43internally during the budget process and

1:42:46then propose to the board itself. So

1:42:49that's why I said I can't give you a

1:42:50solid yes or no right now because that's

1:42:53an internal process that we look at with

1:42:56executive management positions.

1:42:57>> I'll send a fly on the wall so we can

1:42:59listen.

1:43:01>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:43:03>> Thank you for uh next on the queue is

1:43:06Alder Festa followed by Alder.

1:43:09>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I actually just

1:43:12went in to look to see what those ranges

1:43:15are. Um,

1:43:17so some of the higher ones are up to

1:43:20162,000,

1:43:23but I don't know.

1:43:26Uh,

1:43:28>> you're looking at the the information

1:43:30available on the city's website about

1:43:32this.

1:43:32>> Yes. Um, but I'll go to my questions

1:43:35since we'll be getting that information.

1:43:37Um,

1:43:38>> how long have these positions been

1:43:42vacant? I know you mentioned the labor

1:43:44relations specialist. You've had

1:43:46somebody, they left, you had somebody

1:43:47else they left for higher salaries. But

1:43:50how about the other position, the senior

1:43:52labor relations council?

1:43:54>> That position was created earlier this

1:43:56year by restructuring the two positions

1:43:59that have been vacant that had been vac

1:44:03for for a year and a half. Um so that so

1:44:06that the senior labor relations

1:44:08specialist senior labor relations

1:44:10counselor position has been vacant since

1:44:12it was created. And um so for the last

1:44:15nine months we haven't had any any any

1:44:19applicants

1:44:20>> and I I remember during the budget

1:44:22process we asked you these questions as

1:44:24well as you know what is what are the

1:44:26challenges and we know what the

1:44:28challenges are and here you are tonight

1:44:30trying to

1:44:31help with those challenges by increasing

1:44:34the salary. Um and I know that Mr.

1:44:38Normandy, [clears throat] you did give

1:44:39us

1:44:41mun other municipality salaries, but how

1:44:43you gave us which one? Bridgeport. How

1:44:46about Stanford and Hartford? Are they

1:44:48structured like us or

1:44:49>> so? It's a little bit harder because

1:44:51their their labor is built into their

1:44:55human resources

1:44:56>> and they don't line item it out.

1:44:58>> No, not all municipalities line item it

1:45:01out. plus like their human resource

1:45:04director may take on labor or have lower

1:45:07level staff that takes on labor, but the

1:45:10HR director is also labor director as

1:45:13well. So, it's structured differently in

1:45:15different municipalities.

1:45:17>> Okay. Um,

1:45:20so I I

1:45:22do have a proposition here. I I mean

1:45:25there's all Well, we're removing a

1:45:27position because it's already filled.

1:45:30and what what was originally before us

1:45:33was the 37,451

1:45:35net change. What if we were to just keep

1:45:38that and take that

1:45:403,396

1:45:43and apply it either as a range for these

1:45:46positions or split it among the two and

1:45:50increase it a little bit more. Let's

1:45:53let's hear what the staff think about

1:45:57>> using those proceeds to bump other

1:46:00positions up rather than reducing the

1:46:02amount. But then we'll talk about

1:46:05>> So we'll ask the staff of their opinion

1:46:08on this idea that you're floating under.

1:46:12team.

1:46:15>> I think if you were to do that, it would

1:46:17be so the position that's in most need

1:46:20right now is the one that would assist

1:46:22Mandela as the senior labor relations

1:46:25staff attorney. So if you were going to

1:46:26keep those proceeds, I think would go

1:46:28from 150,000 to the 100 to 153,000

1:46:33primarily because that position would,

1:46:36you know, assist direct with labor

1:46:40negotiations. grievances, MPPPS, things

1:46:43like that where that lower level

1:46:45position may be doing and correct me if

1:46:48I'm wrong, more research

1:46:51work.

1:46:52>> That that's not how the structure of the

1:46:53office work that this both positions do

1:46:56the same work.

1:46:58>> We I I expect both positions they they

1:47:01typically have the same qualifications.

1:47:04The difference between the two to widen

1:47:06the net was that one has a a law license

1:47:10and the other doesn't. So the the

1:47:13practice generally before an

1:47:15administrative agency uh the labor board

1:47:18or the board of mediation arbitrary you

1:47:20you don't require you're not required to

1:47:23have a law license

1:47:25admitted not excuse me admitted to the

1:47:28bar in order to do [clears throat] that

1:47:30work. Typically [snorts] people who are

1:47:32admitted to the bar do that work. It's

1:47:34it's mostly attorneys. But within the

1:47:37bargaining units, excuse me, within uh

1:47:41the the labor realm, there are many uh

1:47:44labor advocates that don't have a law

1:47:46degree. And so the intent was to attract

1:47:50those Yes. Yes. I see. The intent was to

1:47:53attract some of those people to be able

1:47:56to come into the office and do the same

1:47:57work.

1:47:58>> We file motions. We do motion practice.

1:48:01We go into court. We do the same thing.

1:48:03That requires a law license. That's why

1:48:05the senior labor relations person is

1:48:08going to be paid more because they're

1:48:10going to be senior relations council

1:48:13because they're going to be required to

1:48:14go into court to phys to physically go

1:48:17into court motion practice and even try

1:48:20cases

1:48:21>> as do our outside councils.

1:48:24>> That's a separation. but they they're

1:48:27going to be hopefully skilled enough,

1:48:29experienced enough to be able to do all

1:48:32of the work. We don't make a distinction

1:48:33in our office except for the labor

1:48:36research associate. All three positions

1:48:38should be doing the same thing. I my

1:48:40expectation is that the the senior labor

1:48:43religion council as well as the labor

1:48:44religion specialist will be doing

1:48:46contract negotiations as well, helping

1:48:49me draft proposals, doing all of those

1:48:51things.

1:48:53>> Okay. And you had mentioned that your

1:48:55friend makes about the 153

1:48:59163 for that position.

1:49:02>> All right. So even if we were to apply

1:49:03that, we're still under but still better

1:49:05than what we were. Is is this an amount

1:49:09that you feel would attract?

1:49:10>> I do. I do.

1:49:12>> 150. look at most experienced lawyers

1:49:17once you crack that 150 mark there's

1:49:20there's not that much separation unless

1:49:22you're in a large firm and you're a

1:49:24senior partner [clears throat] uh you

1:49:26know that kind of I made more than that

1:49:28in my private practice but then I was

1:49:30doing bit of every little thing in the

1:49:33private practice in the private sector

1:49:35most of my colleagues that are doing

1:49:37labor law or senior partners in firm

1:49:39they're not coming into for 150 the

1:49:42kinds of people that are going to be

1:49:43attracted to this position are perhaps

1:49:45retired lawyers,

1:49:48which is what this person was who left

1:49:50in after six weeks. He was he retired

1:49:53from another state doing pretty much the

1:49:56same thing. So, he wasn't admitted in

1:49:57Connecticut, but he'd been practicing

1:50:00law, labor law, and was excellent at his

1:50:05job.

1:50:06>> Yeah. And and one of the reasons why um

1:50:09I mentioned that possibility of using

1:50:13that 33.96 is because of what you said

1:50:16too that you try to do as much of the

1:50:18work inhouse as much as possible and

1:50:21that's actually saving us

1:50:23>> money by doing that. So in my head,

1:50:26we're somewhat compensating

1:50:30from using outside counsel and this is

1:50:33less than using outside council if that

1:50:35makes any sense. So um I did appreciate

1:50:38you making that statement. So thank you

1:50:40for that and thank you Mr. Chair.

1:50:43>> Thank you Fesa.

1:50:45>> Thank you Mr. Chair.

1:50:46>> And let's make sure there's a

1:50:47microphone.

1:50:50>> Thank you.

1:50:52[clears throat]

1:50:53>> Thank you Mr. chair and thank you for

1:50:54your presentation.

1:50:56My question is, so we know that the

1:51:00amount of money that we're offering is

1:51:02kind of on the low side and we might not

1:51:04attract

1:51:07anybody to um to the job. Are we

1:51:10planning on doing anything different in

1:51:12how we posted or I mean I know you did

1:51:15everything. We put it on all the social

1:51:17media outlets and everything, but I'm

1:51:20just trying to figure out are we are we

1:51:21going to change any wording? Because

1:51:23sometime wording attracts people to get

1:51:25them in an interview to be persuaded and

1:51:26I know you're really good at that. Um,

1:51:30so that's my question. Are we planning

1:51:32to change anything with the wording? Do

1:51:34we think anything with the wording will

1:51:36help? I I will discuss that with HR.

1:51:38They're they're pretty skilled over

1:51:40there at the team that we work with

1:51:42who'll do our our listings and posting.

1:51:45She's quite skilled. Um, and we I will

1:51:48discuss that with her.

1:51:49>> Yeah, that may help. And listen, I'm

1:51:51impressed that you was handling all

1:51:54those union contracts cuz I know how

1:51:56that work

1:51:57>> and doing it with just you and said one

1:52:01other person or or just you. I'm really

1:52:04impressed by that. Thank you. Thank you,

1:52:06Mr. Chair.

1:52:06>> Thank you, Alber. Are there any

1:52:08questions from colleagues on this item?

1:52:11Are there questions from colleagues on

1:52:13this item? Any further questions before

1:52:17we let you two gentlemen and go, would

1:52:19you care to respond to the question that

1:52:21the member of the public made about the

1:52:23types of bonds

1:52:25>> the in the ordinance? Um, we asked that

1:52:28it's primarily going to be a general

1:52:30obligation bond. Um, that's what we've

1:52:32done in the past, our general obligation

1:52:34bonds, um, which can be used for

1:52:37litigation settlements as well. So,

1:52:40that's um, what we're planning on going

1:52:43for.

1:52:44and ARPA funds would not be eligible for

1:52:46this expense. No.

1:52:48>> Any further questions from

1:52:50[clears throat] colleagues on any of the

1:52:51items that we've heard so [laughter] far

1:52:52this evening?

1:52:54>> Seeing none, thank you very much for

1:52:56your presentation.

1:52:56>> Thank you.

1:53:01Any questions? Questions? Is there a

1:53:04member of the public who wishes to

1:53:05testify on this third item related to

1:53:08the proposed salary changes in the

1:53:10Department of Labor Relations?

1:53:13Anyone from the public wishing to

1:53:14testify on this third item?

1:53:18And for a third time, anyone from the

1:53:20public wishing to testify on these

1:53:22items?

1:53:22>> Alder Pansa.

1:53:23>> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to close

1:53:25the public portion of this meeting.

1:53:27>> Second.

1:53:28>> Motion to close the public portion has

1:53:30been made and seconded. Any discussion

1:53:31of the motion?

1:53:33Seeing none, all in favor say I.

1:53:35>> I.

1:53:36>> All oppose say nay. The eyes have it.

1:53:39The public portion is closed. Alder

1:53:41Puna. Mr. Chair, I make a motion to move

1:53:44item number one favorably.

1:53:46>> Second.

1:53:47>> Second.

1:53:48>> Item one has been moved favorably and

1:53:51seconded. Discussion of the motion.

1:53:53Alder Panza.

1:53:54>> Uh Mr. Chair, uh in order to pay the

1:53:57settlement, the city has to bond the 27

1:54:00million. Even though it happened 20 plus

1:54:02years ago, the city is still liable.

1:54:05Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:54:06>> Thank you. I take that you're speaking

1:54:08in support of the motion. Thank you,

1:54:10Alanzo. Further discussion of item one.

1:54:12Alder Furlow. [clears throat]

1:54:15>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I'm in favor of

1:54:17giving this a federal recommendation to

1:54:20the board. We know that New Haven

1:54:23has had some challenges

1:54:25um during that time span

1:54:29and um it's unfortunate

1:54:33that we now have to suffer because of

1:54:37what was done unjustly this many years

1:54:40ago.

1:54:42Um, and I think I'll just end by saying

1:54:44that I'm grateful for the current police

1:54:47department that we have um under its

1:54:51um several leaderships that have um

1:54:55worked to increase the structure and um

1:54:59we're hoping [clears throat]

1:55:01that um

1:55:04this settlement will bring a um some

1:55:09sort of healing [clears throat]

1:55:11not just to the ones who were convicted,

1:55:16but also to our black community as a

1:55:19whole as judgment is um

1:55:24uh being rendered now. [clears throat]

1:55:26Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:55:28>> Thank you, Alder Furlow. Alder Wingate.

1:55:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um [clears throat]

1:55:35I um in support of this item moving

1:55:39forward.

1:55:45Thank you. Thank you, Alder Windgate.

1:55:46Alder Walker Myers.

1:55:49>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am

1:55:51[clears throat] in support of this um

1:55:54item moving forward. Like my colleague

1:55:56said, hopefully this and no amount of

1:55:59money, right, can take away what

1:56:02everyone went through. Um but maybe this

1:56:06will do two things that show that we are

1:56:08holding people accountable even if it's

1:56:10years later. Um and

1:56:13you know it's always difficult when

1:56:16somebody do something wrong but it

1:56:18always corrects itself and come back.

1:56:20So, I think this will bring some healing

1:56:22and if not healing, more understanding

1:56:25to the black community. And I think

1:56:27that's really important in this moment

1:56:29in time that we're going through in the

1:56:31city. And I think the it was a couple of

1:56:36um police chiefs and his department that

1:56:39started that process of that healing and

1:56:41I think this is just one more piece to

1:56:43that puzzle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:56:46>> Thank you, Alder Walker. further

1:56:48comments, further discussion from

1:56:50colleagues on this item.

1:56:52I'll just say for my part that I also

1:56:54support the moving this item forward

1:56:57favorably. Um, I won't repeat what

1:57:00colleagues have already said. I think

1:57:01it's important on the merits. Um, and I

1:57:04hope that we hear more discussion from

1:57:06the city staff during our budget cycle

1:57:08about the litigation uh portion of our

1:57:11budget. Uh given the likelihood of

1:57:14future [clears throat] settlements and

1:57:15judgments we need to be planning ahead.

1:57:19Any further discussion? Seeing none, all

1:57:21in favor of the motion, please say I.

1:57:23>> I.

1:57:24>> All opposed, please say [clears throat]

1:57:25nay. The eyes have. We will move forward

1:57:28favorably. Alder Pa. Mr. Chair, I move

1:57:30item number two.

1:57:31>> Second.

1:57:32>> Second.

1:57:33>> Item two has been moved and seconded.

1:57:35[laughter]

1:57:37>> Let's have discussion. Alder Punza.

1:57:40>> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh the legal

1:57:42uh the city needs legal counsel for he

1:57:44and these difficult cases and it costs

1:57:47money and uh that's why I'm in favor of

1:57:50this moving this.

1:57:51>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:57:52>> Thank you, Alder Punzel. Further

1:57:54discussion of this item, the request to

1:57:57increase the maximal allowable

1:57:59expenditure on the contract with Howard

1:58:01and Ludorf by $235,000

1:58:04last year. Alder Festa and then over.

1:58:08>> And thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, this

1:58:11is um I'm in favor I'm in support of of

1:58:15voting in favor of this item mainly

1:58:18because it was already work that has

1:58:20been rendered and no one wants

1:58:24outstanding debt. So, I encourage my

1:58:26colleagues to support this item based on

1:58:28that alone. Thank you,

1:58:30>> Alder Wate. You're next on the queue.

1:58:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll also support

1:58:35this item.

1:58:38Thank you, Alder Wink, for the

1:58:40discussion of this item.

1:58:42I'll just note for the record that there

1:58:44are some information requests that were

1:58:46made in the course of the discussion

1:58:47this item, which I will follow up on

1:58:50in my capacity as chair. Any further

1:58:53discussion of item two? Seeing none, all

1:58:55in favor of moving it forward favorably,

1:58:58please say I. I.

1:58:59>> All opposed, please say nay. The eyes

1:59:02have it. It will move forward favor of

1:59:04Rapunzel.

1:59:05>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I move item number three.

1:59:07>> Second.

1:59:08>> Item three has been moved and seconded.

1:59:12>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This money is

1:59:13needed to increase salary compensation

1:59:15for these positions to attract more

1:59:17applicants. I think it's a safe and wise

1:59:20move to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:59:22>> Thank you, Alder Panzo. Um,

1:59:26before I call on anyone else for the

1:59:28discussion, I'm going to move an

1:59:31amendment. Um, I wanted to ask for

1:59:34someone

1:59:36to move an amendment to strike out the

1:59:39labor research associate from this

1:59:43uh ordinance amendment. Can I have a

1:59:46motion to do that?

1:59:47>> Uh, Mr. Chair, I make a motion to

1:59:51>> I move that motion.

1:59:52>> Second.

1:59:54>> Thank you. The motion to amend has been

1:59:56made and second. Let me just explain it

1:59:58a little bit. Um,

2:00:01so if folks look at the resolution,

2:00:04the first place that we change is in the

2:00:08title.

2:00:10Near the end of the title, it lists

2:00:12labor research associates, comma, this

2:00:16amendment would re would remove the

2:00:18words labor research associate and that

2:00:21comma.

2:00:23The next place that this amendment would

2:00:25change is in that list of positions. and

2:00:28their amounts, salary amounts. It would

2:00:31remove

2:00:33from that list position number 230001,

2:00:38title labor research associate, position

2:00:40status fil etc. That entire line would

2:00:43be removed.

2:00:46It would also

2:00:48change the

2:00:51totals at the bottom

2:00:54such that the net change would not be

2:00:57$37,451.

2:00:59It would be $34,55

2:01:03which is simply taking the $37,451

2:01:05and subtracting the $3,396

2:01:08from it. That's the next change this

2:01:10amendment would make. And the final

2:01:13change is in the effective clause now

2:01:15therefore be it ordained etc etc. You'll

2:01:18see again that 37,41

2:01:21amount listed. This amendment would

2:01:23change that to $34,55.

2:01:27That is the amendment that's proposed.

2:01:29It is fulfilling the request of the city

2:01:33staff to remove that position from this

2:01:35request and adjusting the order

2:01:37accordingly.

2:01:40discussion of this amendment.

2:01:44Alder Fesa.

2:01:45>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm assuming

2:01:47that the whole document will be updated

2:01:49to reflect those numbers. Particularly,

2:01:51there's a whereas

2:01:53uh second to last from our position

2:01:55where it says the mayor's office labor

2:01:57relations is seeking approval for budget

2:01:59transfer 131-27-1

2:02:02in the amount of 37451.

2:02:04>> Would you like to suggest that change as

2:02:06a friendly amendment?

2:02:08Yes. But let's make sure that that is

2:02:10correct because now that I'm

2:02:12>> It is.

2:02:12>> It is. Okay. Yes.

2:02:14>> Would you like to make that as a

2:02:15friendly?

2:02:15>> Yes, sir.

2:02:16>> I accept that as a friendly. Thank you

2:02:18for pointing that out.

2:02:20>> Thank you. I second it.

2:02:21>> No. No. I accept it as a friendly. That

2:02:23means it's incorporated into my motion

2:02:25to amend.

2:02:26>> Perfect. Thank you.

2:02:27>> Do you have any further discussion on

2:02:28the motion or amendment?

2:02:29>> Uh, no. That was it. Thank you.

2:02:31>> Any further discussion on the motion to

2:02:32amend?

2:02:34Seeing none, all in favor of the motion

2:02:36to amend, please say I. I. All post say

2:02:38nay. The motion to amend passes. Back to

2:02:42the item as amended. Discussion on the

2:02:44item as amended.

2:02:47Fa.

2:02:48>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had um made that

2:02:52proposal earlier regarding that 3,396

2:02:57net change from the position we just

2:02:59amended. And I'm just wondering if maybe

2:03:02we should use that amount as that little

2:03:04room for the senior labor relations

2:03:08council position since it's already

2:03:13somewhat in here and it seems like that

2:03:16$3,000 could may or may not make a

2:03:19difference. Um but also we

2:03:24>> are you are you moving an amendment or

2:03:26are you what are you doing? Well, I want

2:03:28to get thoughts from if it's worth

2:03:30making an amendment to do that

2:03:33considering that in a few months we will

2:03:35be hearing a budget. I don't know if

2:03:37raises will be included in

2:03:42I think it's safe to assume that they

2:03:44will. Um so at this point uh if you just

2:03:48want to put that out there for

2:03:50colleagues to respond to that's fine. Do

2:03:52you have other comments on the item

2:03:54overall?

2:03:54>> Overall I support the item. I think we

2:03:57heard from our corporate uh from our

2:03:59labor director um you know we heard it

2:04:03back in March April when uh they were

2:04:05present here for the budget process and

2:04:07we heard that the position has been

2:04:10vacant for a very long time it's not

2:04:13attracting anyone that's a problem look

2:04:15we all want a decent salary right we

2:04:17know that um it's tough already out

2:04:20there and and I really truly appreciated

2:04:23uh our our director of labor relations

2:04:26's comment regarding she and her office

2:04:30doing most of the work if not all of it

2:04:33and not going out to court to to outside

2:04:36counsel and that as we know we see it

2:04:39even tonight how expensive it can be. Um

2:04:42so for me even this you know 3396

2:04:46is still a fraction of what it would

2:04:48cost us for outside console and this is

2:04:51coming from me. You all know

2:04:54>> how I'm like, wait. And I'm I'll tell

2:04:57you when they sat down and said, "Oh,

2:05:00we're removing that." I'm like, "Oh,

2:05:01cool. There's a $3,000 that we're

2:05:03saving." But then when you think about

2:05:05it, when you have a $700 million budget,

2:05:09what is $3,396?

2:05:12um you know so I I support the item

2:05:17that is before us and um I encourage my

2:05:21colleagues to do the same.

2:05:23>> Thank you Fesa.

2:05:25>> Next in the queue is older furlow

2:05:26followed by

2:05:29>> Thank you Mr. Chair. So I I guess we are

2:05:31in discussion now.

2:05:33>> We're in discussion of the as amended.

2:05:35Yes

2:05:35>> as amended. Um because there's no

2:05:37[clears throat]

2:05:38>> there's no amendment. No motion or no

2:05:41amendment to

2:05:41>> although if you wish to apply on the

2:05:43suggestion you made.

2:05:44>> Yes, I think I will. So we just we just

2:05:47amended the amount and now we're talking

2:05:50about amending it again but we don't

2:05:53know what the wiggle room is because

2:05:56that was never established by the

2:05:58controller or the budget office. Um, I

2:06:01suggested that it could be between three

2:06:03and $5,000, but um perhaps

2:06:07[clears throat]

2:06:09uh through you, Mr. Chair, perhaps we

2:06:11can find out what that wiggle room is or

2:06:12what the what the upper amount the upper

2:06:15amount of that is and then that would

2:06:18give us something to maybe consider

2:06:20between now and the second reading.

2:06:23Perhaps perhaps that would make sense to

2:06:25do it that way rather than adding money

2:06:27to something that we don't know what the

2:06:30upper and lower amount or what the range

2:06:32is. Outside of that, um I support this

2:06:35amendment and um it makes sense. Thank

2:06:38you, Mr. Chair.

2:06:39>> Thank you, Alder Fury.

2:06:42>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I'm also in

2:06:45support of this um $3,000 um increase as

2:06:51it is and if it's more is more right as

2:06:53we get more of the numbers. I think that

2:06:56um the increase should go to the senior

2:06:58labor relations council position. Um

2:07:02from my understanding that's where the

2:07:04rug is um around trying to attract

2:07:07people. So my my uh support goes to that

2:07:12particular position.

2:07:14And also um there was talk about needing

2:07:18flexibility around these

2:07:22um jobs real time and perhaps

2:07:25[clears throat] we need to look at that

2:07:27in reference to moving forward in the

2:07:29future. Right? I know we have a process

2:07:31and I know we don't like to change

2:07:33processes but I think sometimes to

2:07:36attract and get the best talent you got

2:07:38to you got to have some best practice

2:07:40think around this stuff. So I think that

2:07:43it would be you know to our advantage in

2:07:46the long run if if if when these things

2:07:49come about if there's a mechanism that

2:07:52the corporate council can get back to

2:07:55this board and have some kind of

2:07:57flexibility around [clears throat]

2:07:59the actual uhh persons or persons that

2:08:03is in that midst of negotiations, right?

2:08:06Because this this [clears throat] is

2:08:07hard work, right? This is really hard

2:08:09work dealing with the labor process and

2:08:11all that is really really hard work. So

2:08:14um my two points is I do support

2:08:17[clears throat] this whole thing. I

2:08:19think we should look at uh some kind of

2:08:21flexibility and my uh my position that

2:08:26the money should go to the senior labor

2:08:29relations council position.

2:08:35>> Okay. Is that all?

2:08:38Thank you.

2:08:40You're welcome.

2:08:41Um, Alder Walker Myers,

2:08:45I just want to remind colleagues that we

2:08:47we have no motion to amend on the floor.

2:08:50Um, but it's fine to give opinions.

2:08:52Alder.

2:08:54>> So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am in

2:08:58support of this whole

2:09:02um item that we're dealing with now. I'm

2:09:04in support of amending it or not for the

2:09:08second readings. It's 3,000 or whatever.

2:09:11And the range that they're going to be

2:09:13able to go up to for that position, I

2:09:16think is important to know what it is.

2:09:19But even with that, we're going to be

2:09:20dealing with them doing raises during

2:09:23budget season. And once you get a raise

2:09:25during the budget season, they don't do

2:09:27it one position gets 2%, one position

2:09:30get 1%. They don't do it like that. they

2:09:32do everybody as a whole group. So, if

2:09:34it's higher or make it all the way at

2:09:37the top of the range, I guess that'll be

2:09:38something that we can talk about. Um,

2:09:40but I understand that it's no motion on

2:09:43the table and I was about to ask that as

2:09:45a second question, but but did I hear

2:09:48anybody even put forth a motion?

2:09:52>> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:09:55>> Thank you, Alder Mark Myers. Alderman

2:09:57Moore.

2:09:57>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to

2:09:59note that I support this item as

2:10:00presently amended. Um, it's not uncommon

2:10:03for the public sea.

2:10:05[laughter] Um, it's not uncommon for the

2:10:07public se sector to um, experience

2:10:10issues keeping up with private sector

2:10:12colleagues. It sounds like that's the

2:10:14situation here. We want a functioning

2:10:16uh, office within our city government.

2:10:19And so this makes sense. Thank you, Mr.

2:10:21Chair.

2:10:22>> Thank you.

2:10:22>> Thank you, Aler.

2:10:24>> Any further discussion? Alder before

2:10:27further. Anybody who hasn't spoken and

2:10:30wish to speak.

2:10:32Okay.

2:10:34>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as um a point

2:10:37of clarification, perhaps you're just

2:10:38adding to the discussion.

2:10:40[clears throat] Um it might be good to

2:10:42note that if we are going to consider

2:10:44adding that 3,000 plus between now and

2:10:48the second reading, just note that the

2:10:51the change was by percentage for the

2:10:54director of labor relations.

2:10:56And so because we don't know what that

2:10:58range is,

2:10:59>> the director of labor relations is going

2:11:01to have to make more money than the

2:11:05senior labor relations council.

2:11:08>> And so that range also

2:11:11may have to change depending on what the

2:11:13range is.

2:11:14>> And so it would be good to keep that in

2:11:16mind as we're looking at well I guess

2:11:18what I'm saying is not we're not just

2:11:20looking at the senior labor relations

2:11:23council

2:11:24salary. We'll also need to consider the

2:11:27director of labor relations to make sure

2:11:29that there's that cushion between

2:11:32[clears throat]

2:11:33the two positions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:11:35[snorts]

2:11:35>> Thank you, Alder.

2:11:37Um,

2:11:42Alder Festa, one more time. Go ahead.

2:11:44>> That Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, we

2:11:47obviously need this range to better

2:11:50judge, but maybe

2:11:52we should still get this range, but

2:11:53maybe we should wait till the next

2:11:55budget process because we could always

2:11:57increase it at that point as well. I'm

2:11:58just afraid in the six months will we

2:12:00get someone

2:12:02um for this range. That's all. Um you

2:12:06know, because we're in September, March

2:12:09is still

2:12:10we have to go through winter and fall.

2:12:13Um, it's still about 5 and a half months

2:12:16away. Um, I'm just thinking out loud

2:12:20just because I I get it. We do need to

2:12:23have that range, but at the same time,

2:12:25budgets are being discussed now for

2:12:27March 1st. Do we wait to change it then

2:12:32or should we just wait until

2:12:33>> Let's um let me make a suggestion on

2:12:36because I've been I've been liberal and

2:12:38allowing folks to discuss something that

2:12:40wasn't actually moved as an amendment

2:12:43and it's led us to be a little bit

2:12:45rambling. So, let me let me just say

2:12:48that I will follow up on the information

2:12:49request about the how the ranges work

2:12:53and what wiggle room is allowed to the

2:12:56candidate who selected to negotiate a

2:12:59figure that's higher than this listed

2:13:01amount. If it's less than this amount,

2:13:03it's not really a problem. It's more

2:13:05about can they negotiate a figure that's

2:13:07higher.

2:13:08>> I I seem to recall that that has

2:13:09happened. But I think clearly we need to

2:13:11understand that process better

2:13:13>> and to see what if any ramifications it

2:13:15would have on the others. I am committed

2:13:17to follow up on that with a personnel

2:13:19director

2:13:19>> and report back to colleagues. I think

2:13:21we should hold off on making chiefs

2:13:24until we have that report and understand

2:13:28the mechanics a little bit better.

2:13:29>> That would be my suggestion. Any further

2:13:31comments on the merits of the item

2:13:33that's before us?

2:13:36Seeing none, all in favor of moving

2:13:39forward favorably the amended item, the

2:13:41item as amended, please say I.

2:13:43>> I.

2:13:44>> All oppose say nay.

2:13:47>> The eyes have it. You will move forward

2:13:49favorably. All

2:13:52>> Mr. Chair, I make a motion to

2:13:55>> second.

2:13:56>> The motion to adjurnn has been made.

2:14:01>> No. It's been seconded already. Yes.

2:14:05>> Main and seconded. Any discussion of the

2:14:07motion to return?

2:14:10>> Yeah, we did. Yes, we voted on all three

2:14:13items.

2:14:14>> Senior moment.

2:14:15>> Yes.

2:14:18>> Discussion of the motion to adjurnn. And

2:14:20part of that discussion is making sure

2:14:22that we did our business correctly. The

2:14:25last item.

2:14:26We voted yes on the item as amended.

2:14:30We definitely did. Let the record show.

2:14:34Do you agree, Mr. Lucas?

2:14:35>> The record. Okay.

2:14:38>> Any further discussion of the motion to

2:14:39adjourn? Seeing no, all in favor of

2:14:41journey, please say I. I. All opposed,

2:14:44say nay. The motion carries. We are

2:14:47injured.

2:14:49>> This my favorite.

2:14:55>> Wait,

2:14:57this my favorite part.

```*