►
Description
Dockets 0762, 0763 - Fiscal Year 2023Budget: Returns and Modifications
Held on June 23, 2022
A
I
am
calling
this
working
session
for
the
record
it's
working
session
to
order
for
the
record.
My
name
is
tanya
fernandez
anderson,
the
district
7
city
councillor.
I
am
the
chair
of
the
boston
city
council
committee
on
ways
and
means.
Today's
work
in
session
is
on
docket
0762
message:
disapproving
the
annual
appropriation
and
tax
order
for
fy23
docket
zero.
Four:
eight
zero
passed
by
the
city
council
on
june
8,
2022
and
docket
zero,
seven,
six,
three
message
and
order
for
amended
annual
appropriation
and
tax
order
for
fy
2023.
A
The
council's
budget
review
process
to
date
has
encompassed
a
series
of
over
30
public
hearings
and
public
sessions,
beginning
in
april
and
running
through
june,
culminating
in
an
amended
budget
passed
by
the
council
on
june
8th
pursuant
to
the
2021
charter
amendment.
The
mayor
then
returned
the
council's
amended
budget
on
june
15
and
made
modifications.
A
The
council
can
now
choose
whether
to
override
or
accept
these
modifications
and
we'll
go
into
detail
explaining
how
or
what
we
are
allowed
to
do.
This
working
session
is
being
recorded.
It
is
being
live
streamed
at
boston.gov
for
slash
city
dash,
council
dash
tv
and
broadcast
xfinity
channel
8,
rcn
channel
82
and
fios
channel
964..
A
Today's
working
session
will
be
a
discussion
of
the
mayor's
return
and
modification
following
information
gathered
at
our
hearing
yesterday.
I
think
for
the
format
we
will.
I
would
like
for
us
to
review
the
charter
any
questions
or
concerns
and
answers
discussion
about
the
charter
amendment
and
then
review.
The
mayor's
submission
then
followed
by
inter-departmental.
Amendments
then
enter
our
departmental
amendments
and
then
thereafter
anything
that
we
hopefully
still
have
time
to
get
to.
A
B
No
opening
statement,
thank
you.
A
Madam
chair,
thank
you
is
that
the
consensus
for
everyone,
council,
lucien.
A
Okay,
as
far
as
the
charter,
I
mean
we
or
I
reviewed
it
yesterday,
but
if
I'm
open
for
suggestions
just
in
terms
of
decorum
here,
not
the
robert's
word
decorum,
but
in
terms
of
our
conduct
here
I
am
open
for
suggestions.
You
can
light
up
your
mic.
If
you
have
any
comments
that
you
like
to
make
any
questions,
we
don't
have
to
go
in
any
specific
order.
A
A
Yes,
council,
president
flynn.
B
Yeah
one
question
I
had:
would
you
be
able
just
to
outline
what
the
next
steps
would
be
for
the
council?
What
our
options
are
in
terms
of
of
voting
in
what
would
we
be
voting
on
in
how
that
process
would
work
out?
Just
so
we're
all
pretty
much
on
the
same
page
as
it
relates
to
what
to
expect
at
the
at
the
next
vote
in
what
that
vote
would
actually
be.
A
Okay,
great
idea,
thank
you,
okay,
so
basically
the
mayor
we
went
through
the
budget
hearings.
Then
we
held
working
sessions,
we
discussed.
There
are
our
amendments,
we
filed
them,
we
passed
them
unanimously
and
then
all
three
and
then
we
so
the
capital,
the
school
budget
and
the
operating
budget.
Then
the
mayor
had
seven
days
to
get
back
to
us.
She
could
reject
oviedo
and
return
with
a
submission
of
her
recommendations.
A
She
did
just
that
in
less
than
seven
days
on
monday
and
then
right
into
record
on
wednesday,
and
we
are
now
here-
we
held
the
hearing
yesterday
to
discuss
or
to
ask
questions
from
a
f
and
legal
was
so
gracious
to
accompany
us
yesterday
and
now
in
this
working
session
today,
I
would
like
to
review
all
of
what's
submitted
and
our
options
are
that
we
can
and
to
quote
the
amendments,
because
I
think
it's
important,
that
we
go
right
to
the
specific
language
of
the
amen
amendment,
so
we
can
either
override
in
part
or
in
whole
or
an
overall
budget
budgetary
veto.
A
So
basically
we
have
the
option
now
to
look
at
each
line
item
in
the
past.
In
the
not
past
like
past
tense,
but
in
what
was
passed
or
in
what
was
suggested
to
be
passed
and
what
was
suggested
to
all
the
change
that
the
ma
the
mayor
made,
we
can
pass
those
or
we
can
reject.
We
can
also
look
at
whatever
she
rejected
or
the
administration
as
a
whole
rejected
and
we
can
override
it
in
order
to
override.
A
We
need
nine
votes,
so
two-thirds
of
the
council
and
if
we
don't
reach
nine
votes,
basically
we're
not
overriding
her
suggestion
will
go
automatically
into
effect,
so
she
doesn't
need
the
the
administration
doesn't
need
seven
or
nine
in
the
numbers
that
we
have.
She
they
just
need.
A
Somebody
do
math
five.
They
just
need
five
in
order
to
not
for
it
not
to
be
an
override.
Is
that
clear?
Okay,
no
problem!
Yes,
council
black!
No!
It's
council
of
clarity!
Thank
you.
C
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
couple
things
I'd
I'd
like
to
take
a
vote
to
go
back
to
the
old
budget
process
because
it
was
much
easier,
much
smoother.
There
was
more
participation,
but
that
ship,
I
guess,
has
sailed,
but
I
would
be
happy
to
get
something
back
on
the
ballot
that
straightens
this
thing
out.
Madam
chair
would.
C
We're
in
the
middle
of
it
now
so
we
got
to
sort
of
just
trudge
through
the
question
I
guess
I
have
is
as
the
chair.
Did
you
get
any
feedback
from
the
administration
as
to
why
the
amendments
were
rejected
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
hypothetically
if
they
were
rejected,
because
the
administration
doesn't
want
to.
You
know
to
to
lose
three
13
million
out
of
the
police
department
budget,
but
they
like
some
of
our
amendments,
but
they
don't
want
to
take
it
from
there.
Did
they
give
you
any
suggestions
as
to
hey?
C
These
are
really
good
amendments,
but
we
don't
want
to
take
from
this
department
or
from
this
program.
Could
you
rework
them?
So
if
there's
been
any,
I'm
just
curious,
if
there's
any
dialogue
with
respect
to
hey,
these
are
really
good
amendments.
However,
we,
where
we're
taking
the
money
from,
is
not
sustainable
moving
forward,
particularly,
I
use
that
because
the
biggest
cuts
were
to
the
police
department
at
the
tune
of
13
plus
million
dollars
that
obviously
may
hamper
her
in
their
ability
to
prefer
to
perform
vital
public
safety
functions
for
the
city
hypothetically.
C
If
that
13
million
came
from
other
areas,
would
these
amendments
have
been
approved?
I
guess
and
we'll
be-
would
be
in
a
better
place
sort
of
in
partnership,
as
opposed
to
now
trying
to
figure
out,
and
we
no
longer
have
a
112
option
as
the
way
I'm
reading
this
based
on
what
passed
at
the
ballot.
So
we're
left
with.
I
guess
the
first
time.
Normally
budgets
would
you
know
for
capital
you
needed
two
thirds
and
for
operating
you
needed
seven
we're
now
in
a
situation
where
the
administration
only
needs
five
votes.
C
They
don't
even
need
a
majority
of
the
members
of
the
boston
city
council
to
pass
their
budget.
So
I
just
it's
a
little
there's
a
lot
there,
but
I
guess
the
question
is,
as
the
chairs
have
been
any
dialogue
with
respect
to
the
amendments,
whether
they
liked
them
or
they
didn't
like
them
and
if
they
liked
them,
but
they
didn't
like
where
we
were
taking
from
do.
We
have
the
ability
to
rework
where
we're
taking
them
from
and
see.
If
we
get
to
a
that.
A
Place
that
canoe
has
sailed.
That's
well,
okay!
So
no
to
answer
your
question:
no,
we
can't
we
can't
go
and
further
amend
the
amendment
or
amend
the
override
or
amend.
A
A
So
I
think
that,
from
the
conversation
yesterday
in
the
hearing
and
as
well
with
league
on
a
f
they're,
I'm
not
sure
that
they're
sure
of
whether
or
not
part
means
in
part
means
just
one
line
item
or
a
part
of
a
part,
and
I
have
reasons
to
believe
that
part
can
be
part
of
a
part.
So,
for
example,
that
you're
the
car
five
say
we
needed
said:
200
000
was
accepted,
but
not
the
full
1
million.
A
Then
could
we
take
800
000
so
part
of
that
part
and
take
it
from
some
from
whatever
we
suggested
in
override?
I
think
we
can
and
I'm
open
for
any
comments
or
feedback.
D
Would
it
be
individual
votes
or
would
it
still
just
be?
One
vote
would
if
we
were
going
to
look
at
different
things,
you
gave
the
suggestion
of
car
five
and
the
fire
there's,
probably
others
that
people
would
suggest
they
really
wanted,
and
would
you
know
rally
for?
Would
it
be
several
votes
that
need
what
each
one
would
need?
Nine
and
then
do
we
take
a
vote
once
we
decide
which
ones
we're
going
to
put
forward
as
a
part,
you
know,
can
get
legally
tricky
here
like?
D
A
D
A
A
Right
yeah
right
so
then,
so
then
you
know
the
the
concept
that
the
the
amendment
states
that
we
are.
We
have
shared
power
and
then
it
also
says
that
we
can
modify
in
whole
and
part
an
appropriation
order.
But
then,
when
she,
when
I
hate
to
say
she,
because
I
quite
sure
it's
a
team
here
so
when
administration
took
it
apart
and
they
took
part
of
a
part,
for
example,
if
they
only
said
you
want
a
million
on
this,
I'm
only
going
to
suggest
800
000..
A
They
did
that
they
took
a
part
of
a
part,
and
so
now
I'm
forced
to
go
dissected
and
go
one
by
one,
because
I
could
I
could
recommend
to
pass
what's
already
suggested
because
who's
going
to
say
no
to
money,
who's
going
to
say
no
to
that
right,
and
so
we
we're
gonna,
look
at
it
if
it
makes
sense.
Yes,
we
we
want
to
pass
these
things,
but
the
other.
A
The
first
docket
lists
all
of
the
items
that
were
vetoed
or
rejected,
and
in
those
we
need
nine
votes
to
override,
and
so
because
we
have
shared
power.
I'm
saying
that
she
took
part
of
part
we
can
take
part
of
part.
The
question
now
to
the
council
is,
if
you
guys
have
a
different
feedback
and
for
us
to
discuss
that
and
what
makes
sense
moving
forward
so.
A
Now
we've
passed
that
phase
where
we
can
actually
look
at
where
money
comes
from,
and
so
in
terms
of
intra-departmental
stuff
is
what
you're
talking
about
if
it's,
if
we
recommended
where
the
money
is
coming
from
or
if
we
know
that
we
had
already
allocated
or
appropriated
funds
from
new
new
funds.
The
attorney
yesterday
agreed
with
us
that
that
was
different
from
inter-departmental
stuff,
that
that
was
already
appropriated
councilman
here.
F
And
chair,
so
I
just
have
a
quick
question
just
so
that
I
can
follow
along,
and
you
know
I
believe
the
goal
has
always
been
for
us
to
have
some
sort
of
input
and
some
shared
collaboration
in
terms
of
how
we
believe
the
budget
would
best
reflect
right,
our
community.
F
So
if
you
could
help
me
understand
at
the
end
of
this
process,
what
it
would
look
like
for
us
to.
F
Veto
the
budget
and
reject
it
as
presented
to
us
what
would
be
the
the
impact
of
that.
A
You
can't
have
the
whole
apple
though
so
then
I
would
go
back
and
then
the
power
says
you
can
reject,
override
or
accept
in
whole
and
part
or
overall
I
can
accept
just
a
half
apple
in
the
one
orange
in
a
pair,
or
I
can
go
back
and
say,
wait
a
minute.
I
now
have
the
power.
I
have
to
go,
get
all
my
siblings
nine
siblings,
to
vote
with
me,
so
I
can
get
the
other
half
of
the
apple
or
just
a
quarter
of
that
which
is
in
part.
A
It
doesn't
necessarily
specify
whether
in
part,
it's
not
saying
specifically
in
part
only
means
the
whole
apple
or
the
whole
orange
in
part
could
be
by
definition
in
part
of
that
item
or
in
part,
meaning
that
whole
item
or
impart
could
mean
a
half
apple,
an
orange
or
just
an
orange
and
a
pair.
I
can
actually
create
clusters
right
combinations
as
I
want
to
okay,
and
so
what
I'm
saying
now
what
we?
A
F
I
appreciate
that,
thank
you
because
I
am
a
visual
learner,
so
the
apples
really
help
I,
but
I
I
just
wanted
to
you
know.
The
whole
idea
was
for
us
to
have
a
a
transparent
process,
which
is
why
I
really
love
this
way
right.
I
know
my
colleague
all
of
us
trying
to
figure
this
new
way
of
being,
but
it
forces
us
to
really
work
in
partnership
and
see
the
city
as
a
whole
right
and
that
it's
not
just
about
what
is
in
the
best
interest
of
just
one
individual.
F
F
So
if
the
mayor
has
already
reached
her
five
votes
hypothetically,
for
whatever
reason
that
is,
then
I'm
just
curious
about.
F
How
are
we
undermining
the
integrity
of
the
the
charter
amendment
and
how
are
we
really
working
towards
making
sure
that
all
nine
or
12
or
13
of
us
are
really
doing
our
dual
diligence,
because
I'm
not
advocating
behind
the
closed
doors,
I'm
actually
working
and
following
your
leadership,
madam
chair,
I'm
not
going
to
fight
for
anything
other
than
what
this
process
is
supposed
to
be
for,
and
that
requires
us
to
have
a
level
of
integrity
and
and
a
level
of
trust
that
everyone
is
moving
in.
A
Got
it?
Thank
you
I'll,
go
to
council
block
and
council
flaherty
I'll
go
to
you
in
a
second.
I
do
think
I
should
respond
here.
I
I
heard
a
few
things.
You
were
elected
you
from
you
know
by
the
people
and
for
a
reason,
and
you
bring
a
certain
level
of
tenacity
and
hard
work
and
consistency
and
continuity
to
your
style
at
night,
and
I
appreciate
you,
I
think
that
different
people
have
different
learning
styles
and
we
should
never.
A
We
should
always
welcome
spaces
to
safely
be
able
to
address
different
people's
styles.
That's
one
and
two
so,
and
I
thank
you
always
because
it
also
affords
us
or
the
public
opportunity
to
also
break
that
down
and
go
through
the
different
styles.
One
is
not
better
than
the
other,
but
rather
different
styles.
The
second
thing
is
in
terms
of
transparency
and
in
the
spirit
or
the
right
of
doing
this
amendment.
A
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
hear
you
loud
and
clear,
and
I
think
that
I
stand
with
you
in
terms
of
moving
forward,
to
address
this
with
the
administration
to
continue
to
build
on
on
this.
The
other
thing
that
I
heard
about
in
terms
of
the
process,
I
think
that
it's
also
a
new
process
and
everyone
is
learning
and
so
far
I
think.
That's
why
you've,
given
so
much
grace
in
terms
of
you
know
being
patient.
A
I
thank
you
for
having
faith
in
me
as
a
chair
to
be
able
to
guide
this
or
support
or
collaborate
with
you
and
then
the
other
piece
of
it.
You
know
if
you
are
standing
with
me,
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
always
advocate
for
everybody.
Even
if
you're
not
standing
with
me,
does
that
make
sense.
A
So
in
that
spirit,
I
hope
that
we
can
get
to
the
things
that
you
advocated
for
in
here
and
fight
hard
enough
to
get
through
it,
and
if
people
have,
if
people
have
somehow
benefited
from
negotiations
outside
of
this
right,
then
I'm
not
I'm.
I
I
don't
have
hardcore
proof
to
show
that,
but
I
know
it's
maybe
human
nature
or
politics
and
then,
hopefully,
little
by
little
as
we
learn
this
process,
we
improve
on
that
transparency.
E
Yeah
a
couple
of
things,
one
was
just
kind
of
in
relation
to
something
counselor
flaherty
asked
about.
I
in
terms
of,
like
you,
know,
rationales
for
things.
I
know
that
I
asked
specifically
about
the
as
folks
will
remember.
I
kind
of
did
some
of
the
drafting
on
these
omnibus,
like
little
things
related
to
the
the
trees,
the
adding
the
roles
for
the
tree
care
and
urban
wilds,
and
then
also
the
hokies,
and
so
when
I
saw
the
administration
accepted
those
but
not
accepted
the
whole
amount.
I
asked
about
that.
E
Also
this
open
streets,
one
and
in
each
case
it
was
because
they
like
we
had
made
the
proposal
based
on
the
annual
salary,
but
with
new
positions
they
have
to
like
post
and
bargain
and
set
them
up,
and
so
basically
they
did
a.
They
did
a
pro
rating
based
on
how
soon
they
think
they
can
get
those
people
online.
E
So
I
just
wanted
a
flag
that
for
me
that
that
was
like
a
logical
explanation
and
so
like
that
would
not
be
an
example
of
something
where
I'd
look
for
us
to
override,
like
to
put
the
144,
for
instance,
back
on
the
on
the
project,
manager,
maintenance
roles
and
urban
wild
rules,
because
they've
actually
accepted
all
of
the
roles
they
just
reduced
the
number.
E
So
that
was
that
was
a
piece
of
feedback
I
got
when
I
asked
them
about
it,
and
I
mentioned
that
now
because
I
had
to
go
before
the
the
questions
to
the
budget
folks
yesterday.
So
I
just
wanted
to
flag
that
for
colleagues
and
then
the
other
thing
that
I
was
going
to
say
was
just
in
relation
to
counselor
murphy's
comments.
So
we
we
have
to
what
whatever
we
vote
on.
If
there's
an
override
vote
it
has
to,
it
has
to
balance
right.
E
We're
still
we're
doing
we're
we're
overriding
to
change
that
fundamental
order,
and
the
number
still
has
to
add
up
to
the
same
number
at
the
end
that,
as
was
clarified
in
the
memo
that
the
chair
had
requested
and
everything
it
has
to
add
up
to
the
new
number,
not
the
old
number
right,
because
they
updated
revenue
forecasts,
and
so,
but
it
does
have
to
balance,
and
so
I
mean
personally,
I
would
say,
like
I
do
think
again,
it's
one
of
those
things
where
it
makes
sense
what
the
chair
is
trying
to
do
here
to
try
to
get
a
sense
of.
E
Is
there
a
collective
thing
that
folks
would
support
because
well
procedurally,
it
would
be
possible
to
propose
a
bunch
of
balanced,
one-off
overrides
on
the
floor
of
the
council.
I
think
that,
just
like,
we
could
have
done
that
with
amendments
it
would
be
pretty
unworkable.
Is
my
opinion.
E
In
the
the
memo
said
that
that
we
don't
which
memo
the
legal
memo,
it's
like
the
it's
like
this
answer
to
your
second
question,
or
maybe
your
third
sorry.
I
don't
think
I'm
in
front
of
me
pete,
okay,
brayden
has
it.
E
E
But
yeah
so
where
it
says
you
know
if
the
council
amends
the
mayor's
hopes
one.
Second,
please:
okay,.
G
A
E
This
was
this
the
question
posed
in
the
memo
about,
if
the
count,
if
the
city
council
amends
the
mayor's
proposed
budget
and
the
mayor
returns
the
budget
with
an
increased
total
value,
as
she
did,
may
the
council
override
the
return
budget
with
an
increased
total
value,
or
is
it
bound
to
the
total
value
of
the
initially
proposed
budget?
Obviously,
if
the
answer
was
that,
if
we
did
any
overrides,
we
had
to
go
back
to
the
original
number,
then
we
would
lose
that,
like
whatever
was
10.
A
It's
the
new
number,
no,
the
new
number
meaning
no,
give
me
a
second
council
bloc,
the
new
number
meaning
the
new
number
that
includes
the
new
10
million
right,
exactly
okay.
So
what
I
thought
you
were
saying
that
it
meant
that
we
had
to
add
up
to
the
new
suggested,
for
example
like
if
youth
was
only
2
million,
whatever
we
override
has
to
add
up
to
that,
but
you
mean
overall
the
budget.
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
everybody.
E
A
It
so
if
we
have
to
reach
the
new
number
like
now
that
the
budget
has
been
increased
to
10
million,
my
question
to
adam
was:
do
we
have
to
add
up
to
just
the
old
total
budget
number
or
the
new
number.
That
was
my
question
right
and
then
now
that
we
have
an
additional
10
million,
if
we
no
matter
how
you
turn
do
the
math,
if
you
override
entirely
everything
plus
whatever
they're
suggested,
it
still
doesn't
reach
the
new
amount.
A
The
oh,
so
the
override
was
about
26,
something
right,
a
total
like
hypothetically,
if
we
override
it
like.
If
we
override
everything
it
was
like
26
million
right,
like
2600
17
without
the
interest,
I'm
talking
about
the
entire
thing.
If
you
override
an
entire
thing,
the
8.8
plus
the
17,
something
we're
talking
about
26
million
something-
and
I'm
saying,
if
you
override
the
entire
thing
it
would
have,
we
didn't.
We
didn't
increase
the
mayor's
budget,
the
old
number
right
now.
A
A
E
Right,
but
what
I'm
saying
is
simply
that
if
somebody
like
say
say
that,
like
all
I
was
saying
was
to
counselor
murphy's
point.
If,
if
I
got
up
on
the
floor
and
said
hey,
I
want
us
to
override
just
the
veto
of
the
mission
hill
link
subsidy
right.
So
I
want
us
just
to
like
the
mayor
sent
like
given
us
a
return
budget.
That's
the
budget
that
goes
into
effect.
If
we
don't
take
any
override
actions.
G
E
Right
within
and
it
would
have
to
be
something
within
the
things
that
we
would
write
exactly.
But
the
point
is:
is
that
the?
What
I
couldn't
do
is
just
propose
to
the
council
that
everybody
vote
with
me
on
an
override
of
the
link
item,
because
that
would
change
the
the
returned
budget
only
on
the
up
and
not
on
the
down,
which
then
would
cause
a
number,
above
even
the
new
number,
by
seventy
five
thousand
dollars.
E
A
Yeah
counselor
flaherty,
then
counselor
illusion.
C
Thank
you
manager
and
obviously
in
response
to
a
college
question.
I
happen
to
think
that
that
1
12
is
still
an
option
for
us,
and
I
say
that
because
the
charter
amendment
doesn't
speak
to
that
right.
We
have
a
requirement,
as
just
referenced
by
our
colleague,
that
we
have
a
requirement
to
pass
a
balanced
budget.
C
A
112
allows
you
to
do
that.
Every
single
month
we
have
to
pass
a
balanced
budget
department.
Heads
would
have
to
come
to
the
city
council
every
single
month.
You
know
hat
in
hand
with
the
request
for
their
budget.
This
body,
through
you
as
the
chair,
would
have
to
approve
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
charter
amendment
that
speaks
to
any
other,
so
we're
in
the
situation.
C
Right
now,
where
we've
sent
back
amendments
that
have
been
rejected
or
in
part
some
of
them
are
included
in
this
resubmission
and
then
based
on
the
charter,
amendment
we're
being
asked
to
either
a
support
it
or
override
the
veto.
I
think
there's
still
another
option
for
us,
because
the
amendment
that
was
passed
doesn't
speak
to
the
112.
C
and
I
wouldn't
want
to
defer
to
corporation
council
on
this,
because
I
did
watch
the
hearing
yesterday
and
know
that
I
have
history
here
where
we
have
counsel
for
the
council.
I
would
have
put
our
attorney
I
would
have
put
christine
in
in
the
well
and
have
them
go
point
counterpoint.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
corporation
council
is
always
going
to
interpret
how
best
suits
the
administration,
not
the
council
there's
an
inherent
conflict
there,
which
is
why
we
have
our
own
council.
C
So
with
all
due
respect
to
adam,
who
was
here,
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time.
I
watched
the
tape,
but
he
was
doing
more
electric
slide
in
how
about
than
anybody
right,
because
he
was
very
cautious
in
terms
of
what
words
he
used,
because
he
has
to
interpret
this
in
the
most
favorable
light
to
the
administration.
C
C
I
would
debate
them
until
I'm
blue
in
the
face
I
would
have
put
christine
in
the
chair,
and
I
would
have
had
her
go
point
counterpoint
as
our
counsel
to
technically
corporation
council,
who
was
supposed
to
be
representing
both
of
us
but
clearly
he's
going
to
be
making
statements
and
comments
in
view
of
the
greatest
light
and
deference
to
the
administration,
that's
kind
of
the
world
that
we
live
in
here,
so
anybody
that
says
that
112
is
off
the
table
because
of
the
because
of
the
budget
amendment.
C
H
C
C
That's
how
I
interpret
the
charter
amendment
in
what
it
says
to
the
overall
charter
in
our
overall
responsibility
to
pass
a
balanced
budget
that
could
come
in
the
form
of
these
amendments,
the
volley
back
and
forth,
or
it
could
come
and
play
that
we
decided.
We
want
to
go
to
a
112.
I
still
think
that
that's
an
option
for
us
now
corporation
council
probably
would
not
agree
that
that's
an
option.
C
I
would
suggest
to
the
chair
that
that
when
we
have
corporation
council
down
here
that
we
recognize
that
that
that
that
their
opinion
tends
to
be
skewed
and
it's
always
more
favorable
to
the
administration,
and
I
watch
the
questions
and
I
watched
the
duck
in
the
dodge
and
bob
and
weave,
and
it
would
have
gave
great
boxing
lessons,
and
I
know
that
he
stayed
longer
through
you.
The
chair,
you
had
asked
them
to
stay
longer
and
obviously
we
appreciated
the
respect
that
was
shown
to
the
council,
but
wasn't
a
lot
of
answers.
C
There
was
actually
more
confusion
frankly
and
for
those
that
were
watching
if
they
weren't
sort
of
in
the
mix
having
a
front
row
seat,
they
probably
probably
didn't
know
what
the
heck
was
going
on,
but
I
would
say
that
112
is
still
an
option
for
this
body.
A
Thank
you.
I
am.
I
have
a
response
to
that,
but
I
think
that
my
colleagues
are
itching
to
respond
to
that.
So
I
for
in
the
interest
of
time
I'll
talk
less
counselor
lujan
and
if
there
is
no
answer
by
the
time
we
get
to
council
bach,
then
I'll
respond
council
illusion.
Thank.
I
You
actually
I'm
not
going
to
opine
on
this.
I
had
two
things
that
I
wanted
to
state
one
one
is
regarding
the
intra-department
transfers.
So
let's
say
in
the
event
that
we
are
successful
in
overriding
that
and
the
administration
believes
that
that
is
a
separation
of
powers
issue.
What
happens
then?
What
do
we
know?
Did
they.
I
I
Okay
and
then
I
had
an
additional
question
that
is
at
the
moment
escaping
me,
so
we
can
go
to
because.
I
Yes,
yes,
I
understand
that
I
am
going
to
defer
to
my
other
colleagues,
while
I
remember
what
my
other
questions
were.
Thank
you.
Okay,
sorry.
A
I
interrupted
the
train
of
thought.
No,
that's
fine,
counselor
braden,
then
counselor
bach.
H
Just
briefly,
I
I
really
don't
think,
even
though
we
could
go
to
a
112,
if,
in
theory
we
go
to
112,
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
idea,
because
so
many
of
the
programs
that
kick
in,
like
especially
our
youth
programs
for
the
summer,
if
we,
if
we,
if
we
go
to
a
112,
that
just
throws
the
whole
thing
into
chaos,
I
think
we
can't
just
hit
go
on
dave
on
july
1st
and
and
you
and
disperse
that
money,
then
the
other
issue
that
we
have
challenged
with
is
that
when
we
get
into
looking
at
the
items
a
lot
of
the
the
stuff
is
all
presented
to
us
as
a
program
level
and
we're
really
talking
about
like
line
items
and
the
more
minutiae
of
the
of
the
budget.
H
But
we
don't
actually
get
to
see
that
so
so
it's
really,
we
don't
unders.
You
know
we
don't
have
a
good
hand
handle
on
what's
contractually
required
because
of
bargaining
agreements
etc.
The
administration
so
we're
sort
of
dealing
with.
Not
all
we
don't
have
all
the
information
while
we're
making
these
decisions,
and
so
let's
see,
personnel.
H
Yeah,
it's
it's
it's
challenging
so
and
then
the
other
issue
is
the
whole
issue
about,
looks
the
separation
of
like
administration
and
finance
that
made
it
into
two
departments
to
split
it
up.
So
this
year
it's
like
a
level
funding
level,
but
then
you
know
what
what
we
are
to
expect
next
year,
when
it's
two
separate
departments,
will
they
be
hiring
coming
to
us
and
wanting
more
personnel
to
fund
to
step
fully
staff,
two
departments
instead
of
one
a
f.
H
So
there's
all
sorts
of
questions
like
going
forward
like
what's
the
what's
the
the
challenges
that
that
we
will
have
to
face
next
year
that
are
are
changes
within
the
administrative
structure
that
we'll
have
to
deal
with
next
year
and
and
we
can
foresee
that
we're
going
to
be
asked
to
pay
more
money
for
those
things.
So
so
the
a
f
cabinet
is
now
separate
is
separated
into
two
separate
cabinets
and
just
really
thinking
that
again.
H
The
issue
I
brought
up
with
the
council
yesterday
corporation
council,
was
that
we
have
departments
that
are
we're
funding
that
don't
have
authorizing
statutes.
So
that's
something
we
need
to
clean
up
as
well.
Like
we're
being
asked
to
fund
something
that
isn't
doesn't
isn't
covered
by
a
statute
because
it
is
drifted
out
of
the
mayor's
office
into
into
its
own
department
and
all
of
those
things
need
to
be-
and
this
is
the
one
reason
why
we
really
wanted
to
get
some
money
to
and
I'm
getting
into
the
weeds
here,
get
some
money
to
do.
H
Re-Codifying
of
the
city
code
by
an
external
professionals
who
do
it,
the
the
administration's
attitude
is
well,
we
could
put
it
over
to
a
law
school
and
let
them
do
it.
It's
a
very
niche
specialized
area
that
needs
to
be
done
by
professionals,
and
I
think
that
will
help
us.
So
city
code
hasn't
been
recodified
in
50
years
and
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
needs
to
be
cleaned
up
and
this
you
know
and
then
we'll
go
through
and
we'll
find
things
that
need
to
be
fixed
that
we
as
a
council
will
be.
H
But
you
know,
I
think,
just
having
better
being
able
to
drill
down
and
get
a
better
understanding
of
them
at
the
at
a
deeper
level,
rather
than
just
the
big,
the
big
overriding
number
at
the
top
of
the
page
for
a
department
or
a
program.
We
don't
get
program
details
further.
H
H
A
Right,
I
think
that's
what
thank
you.
Council
braden,
and
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying
I
think
that's
what
council
mejia
is
alluding
to
that.
The
transparency
should
be
reciprocated
and
in
good
faith
that
we
should
be
working
together
and
also
like
it
clearly
states
here.
A
You
know
that
the
city
council,
the
mayor
and
city
council
and
the
city
of
boston
shall
hold
budgetary
powers
together
and
then
here
down
further,
it
says
clarify
declare
I
guess,
to
clarify
budgetary
procedures
to
take
such
other
actions
as
are
necessary
to
amend,
and
so
I
think
that
is
what
I
mentioned
yesterday
in
the
hearing
that
it
leaves
the
opportunity
for
in
the
filing
the
next
filing
the
ordinance
to
say
to
specifically
specify
that
within
the
office
of
as
well
as
as
well
as
here
like
as
far
as
what
what
is
the
process
right.
A
So
it's
an
instant
it
feels
incomplete
and
then,
but
it
also
gives
the
opportunity
to
say
in
that,
in
this
next
process,
you
can
clarify
what
the
procedures
are.
So
I
I
hope
that
we
can
include
a
lot
of
this,
that
we're
learning
as
we
are
experiencing
this
new.
H
Yesterday,
it's
on
we've
got
training
wheels
on
this
is
the
first
time
we've
done
this
and
we're
learning
as
we
go,
and
I
think,
as
we
go
come
into
this
process
next
year,
it'll
be
so
much
better
and
I,
I
think,
kudos
to
you,
you've
led
this
process
and
we're
learning-
and
you
know
we're
pretty
close
to
the
finishing
line
here
and
having
a
product
that
that
we
can.
H
We
can
support
we're
learning
a
lot
as
we
go
so,
and
I
really
was
impressed
by
how
we
all
sat
around
the
table
as
a
council
last
week
and
and
figured
it
out
like
in
terms
of
amendments
and
what
different
people
would
support,
and
it
was
very
good
to
see
that
level
of
collegiality
and
and
and
discussion
about
our
priorities.
It's
very
helpful,
so
I
think
you
know
I'm
very
optimistic.
This
is
a
good
process.
H
I
think
it
is
democratizing
our
budget
process
and
I
do
feel
that
next
year
will
be
even
it'll,
be
even
better,
but
this
year
you
know
we're
still
learning
as
we
go.
A
E
Bach,
a
couple
of
things
just
on
the
question
that
counselor
louis
jen
raised
because
the
intras
don't
change
any
actual
like
budgets,
I
think
that
what
would
happen
in
practice
would
be
that
the
administration
would
just
start
to
spend
moneys
and
do
things
in
the
year
and
then,
if
the
council,
if
the
council
felt
like-
and
they
would
probably
like,
make
a
decision
right-
if,
like
I
mean
they've
already
signaled-
maybe
some
of
these
things
they
do
voluntarily,
but
they
don't
think
that
they
are
obligated
to
do
any
of
them.
E
If
they
then
didn't
do
them.
I
actually
think
the
onus
would
end
up
on
us
to
sue
on
that
point.
If
count,
because
I
think
the
reality
is
they
would
be,
they
would
be
the
agent
deciding
what
the
departments
did
with
a
fixed
amount
of
money.
I
think
the
good
thing
about
any
such
dispute
would
be
that
those
would
be
that
it
wouldn't
be
leaving
a
question
of
how
much
money
was
in
each
department's,
like
account
open,
because
that
would
be
already
settled.
E
So
it'd
be
a
question
of
what
they
did
right
and
I
personally
I
I'm
convinced
by
the
argument
that
they're
making,
but
I
think
the
way
that
that
would
get
pursued
might
have
to
be
by
the
council.
I
I
did
want
to
dispute
with
affection.
My
accounts,
my
colleague,
counselor
flaherty's,
characterization
of
the
situation.
I
actually
don't
think
the
112th
is
on
the
table
and
I
would
say
that
you
know
legislative
intent
is
a
piece
of
these
charter
conversations
and
I
actually
think
like
when
we
were
all
talking
about
this.
E
There
was
just
that
nuclear
button
and
not
the
ability
to
kind
of
like
winnow
in
on
changes,
and
so,
although
there's
the
ability
to
go
to
a
112
budget,
if
there
is
no
approved
budget,
the
reality
is
is
that,
on
the
8th
of
june,
the
council
approved
a
budget,
an
amended
budget,
and
that
would
have
just
gone
into
effect.
If
the
mayor
had
taken
no
action
now
the
mayor
sent
us
back
her
version
with
modifications
that
goes
into
effect.
If
we
take
no
action,
then
there's
the
question
of.
E
E
It's
that
what
the
council
now
has
a
two-thirds
vote
on
is
the
areas
of
dispute
between
the
mayor
and
the
council,
but
we
actually
already
have
a
past
budget
in
a
way
that
we
had
not
before
so,
although
112th
is
still
an
option,
it's
an
option
if
the
council
had
rejected
the
budget
altogether,
but
because
we
passed
with
amendments,
it's
like
we're
not
facing
a
112
situation,
and
there
is
not
a
way
to
trigger
that,
and-
and
I
just
I
would
say
that
I
know
that-
there's
probably
like
a
political
disagreement
about
whether
that
was
like
the
right
course
for
the
council
to
to
take
with
the
new
power.
E
But
it
definitely
was
part
of
the
intention
to
have
it
turn
into
an
actual,
constructive
volley.
Where
now,
I
think
it's
you
know,
9.6
million
dollars
right
moved
into
the
things
that
we
prioritized
and
the
question
is
about
the
seven
and
the
intras
and
and
yeah.
So
I
would
just.
I
would
just
say
that
I
would
agree
with
corporation
council
here
that
the
112th
is
is
not
on
the
table.
A
I
guess
I
guess
for
me:
it's
not
like
you,
I
I
actually
agree
with
you,
but
I
don't.
I
think
your
response
needs
a
little
bit
more
and
I
think
it's
because,
like
step
by
step
right,
it's
it's
actually
telling
us
that
you
know
after
this
step.
A
You
take
this
step
and
I
think
that's
where
we
get
stuck,
but
I
I
did
pose
it
in
terms
of
the
way
they
filed
it,
because
if
we're
taking
action
on
one
docket,
that's
where
we
address
one
docket
and
then
the
second
separate
docket
separately,
then
we
was
it.
Was
it
a
new
budget?
And
now
the
charter
rules
apply,
and
so
so
let's
say
we
don't
we
don't
get
to
override
the
first
docket
because
that's
separate
from
the
second
docket,
but
because
there's
so
much
language
showing
content
like
that.
A
It's
connected
that
it's
one
action,
even
though
they
filed
the
way
that
it's
filed.
I
don't
know
I
just
it
just
feels
like
it's
two
two
separate
actions,
and
now
we
have
a
new
budget
that
we
can
actually
go
to
112
and
then
the
other
one,
the
first
docket
rejecting
that
we
can
just
either
fail
on
or
you
know,
not
override,
but
then
go
to
the
second
docket
and
say
we
want
to
reject
that
because
that's
a
budget.
E
A
Told
them
hold
on
because
then
we'll
go
back
and
forth
and
then
I
think
councillor
lujan
was
first
and
then
we'll
go
back
to
council
clarity.
I
Thank
you
again,
I'm
not
contributing
to
this
112
discussion
so
sorry
to
sidetrack
us
right
at
the
moment,
but
this
is
relevant
to
some
of
the
administration
said
yesterday.
I
have
not
had
those
discussions
like
counselor
brock
has
had
about
privately
about
well.
Why
did
these
decreases
happen,
but
I
did
ask
yesterday
on
the
floor
in
this
process
and
I
it
sounded
like
there
was
not
like
a
calculus
of
like
we've
calculated.
I
G
I
We
are
just
saying
that
this
is
a
pool
of
money
that
we
have
so
it
didn't
seem
to
me
my
take
from
what
the
administration
was
saying
was
that
it
wasn't
some
sort
of
calculus
of
what
we
decided
is
needed
and
we
did
the
math
it
just
you
know
we
reduced
the
amounts
to
an
amount
that
we
think
that
we
could
feasibly
manage
finance.
I
You
know
within
the
budget
and
not
based
on
any
calculation,
which
I
think
was
an
important,
an
important
comment
made
by
the
administration
yesterday,
as
we
think
about
you
know
the
decisions,
why
the
decisions
behind
why
some
things
were
reduced
and
a
lot
of
that
was
just
to
make
the
numbers
work
and
not
because
of
a
sense
that
the
department
didn't
need
or
or
couldn't,
spend
or
use
the
money.
A
They
did
try
to
make
the
argument
that
the
each
departments
that
we
were
suggest-
those
departments
that
we
were
suggesting
did
not
have
the
capability
to
build
capacity
in
time
or
that
they
didn't
have
the
programming
to
spend
the
money
in
time
in
within
the
fiscal
year.
And
then
I.
A
Right
and
then
I
you
know
what
I
mean
like
I
I
refuted
I
was
like
no
because,
for
example,
blackmail
advancement,
they
are
actually
like,
thriving
and
building
really
fast
right,
like
they
are
growing
really
fast,
and
this
is
such
this
is
a
department
that
specifically
it's
you
know,
not
a
pilot,
but
it's
it's
a
it's
a
department,
that's
going
to
show
what
the
need,
because
it's
growing
that
fast
and
we
know
that
and
we
all
agreed-
and
we
said
you
need
more
money
and
you
need
any
and
we
need
to
invest
more
in
that
and
then
we
did
it
in
a
way,
and
I
made
the
points
of
we
did
it
in
the
way
that
eventually
it
would
perpetuate
less
spending
and
overtime
anyway.
A
So
even
if
this
was
some
sort
of
like
reform
plan
of
eventually
reducing
over
time.
Let's
pilot
this.
You
know
strategy
until
we
see
if
it
proves
productive,
but
they
didn't
have
a
response
to
that,
and
I
think
that
it
does
feel
like
that,
and
the
frustration
with
all
of
us
is
when
we
suggested
numbers.
We
suggested
numbers
based
on
need
and
most
in
the
public
and
most
of
people
that
I
got
letters
from
you
know.
As
a
chair,
I
get
a
lot
of
emails.
A
They
were
basically
like
all
of
these
things
made
sense.
You
guys
were
so
thoughtful.
You
were
careful
with
what
you
increased
and
what
you
were
suggesting
and
then
the
response
to
be
to
to
what
you've
just
talked
about
just
now
the
response
to
be
about
number
about
saying:
okay,
you
know
what
this
is.
What
this
is,
what
we're
willing
to
work
with
with
them,
and
now
I'm
gonna
go
find
this
new
amount.
I
I
also
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
agree
with
councillor
braden
regarding
the
codification
of
our
of
a
lot
of
the
chains
that
have
been
made,
and
you
know
we
need
to
just
have
the
more
departments
and
offices
codified,
and
it
needs
to
be
clearer
for
the
general
public.
Also,
you
know
to
my.
I
think
it
was
cancer
break
in
and
comes
from
here,
that
toss
spoke
to
this
process
and
being
supportive
and
buying
into
this
process.
F
F
I'm
just
really
curious
between
my
colleagues
counselor
flaherty's
point
and
counselor
bach,
just
trying
to
really
understand
what
is
at
play
here,
because
in
my
interpretation
of
what
was
happening
is
is
that
we
allegedly
had
some
power
to
make
some
decisions
about
the
city
budget.
F
We
exerted
that
power,
and
my
thought
was
is
that
we
were
now
unpacking
that
power
and
debating
about
what
it
is
that
we
were
willing
to
accept
or
reject,
and
that,
based
on
that
track,
that
we
would
be
able
to
a
if
we
had
to
go
through
the
end
of
august,
going
back
and
forth
just
to
get
us
to
a
good
place
that
that
would
be.
F
You
know
what
we
would
need
to
do
to
find
some
compromise.
That
gives
us
a
sense
of
engagement
in
the
process,
but
it
sounds
like
that.
This
is
right
here.
Next
june,
29th
will
be
with
her
five
votes
that
I'm
sure
has
already
that
where
all
of
this
is
just
kind
of
like
right
now,
not
quite
okay.
So
that's
what
I
need
some.
I
need
to
know
coming
on
the
june
29th
like
what
are
we?
What
are
we
getting
and
where
are
we
going
with
this?
F
Does
that
mean
that
we
approve
the
bps
budget
right
and
everybody
already
knows
like
I,
I
did
that
with
based
on
the
political
landscape,
not
because
I
really
felt
that
they
deserved
it,
and
I
let
them
know
that
yesterday
and
the
the
capital
budget
and
now
the
operating
budget,
it
just
seems
like
we
have
lost
every
single
bargaining
chip
that
we
have
to
really
be
able
to
exert
our
power.
F
So
is
this
working
session
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
now
and
all
of
the
thousands
of
emails
that
we
received
for
overriding
the
mayor's
budget
is
not
going
to
is-
is
that
nolan
boyd
right
now
and
you're
shaking
your
head
counselor?
I
don't
know
what
that
means
and
you're
shaking
your
head
now.
I
just
need
to
know
what
the
bottom
line
is,
because
I'm
really
confused
right
now:
okay,.
A
So
we'll
take
one
more
comment
and
then
we'll
go
straight
into
these
numbers
because
we
need
to
address
this.
A
Yes,
it
will
be
hard,
but
I
think
that
it's
worth
going
through
the
process,
because
I
I
we
have
an
idea
right,
so
I,
but
I
think
we
have
the
people
that
we
need
here
and
to
to
your
so
to
your
point:
let's
get
to
the
meat
of
it
and
and
dive
into
it.
Okay,
yes,
thank
you.
Okay,
council
faraday.
Thank.
C
I
would
just
respectfully
disagree
in
the
sense
of
the
legislative
intent
with
the
author,
who
was
no
longer
serving
with
us,
but
I
think
the
desired
intent
was
to
create
an
additional
option,
as
opposed
to
sort
of
we
just
did
a
or
b
and
to
sort
of
inject
and
get
that
more
particip,
the
the
more
of
the
participatory
piece
of
it.
C
But
I
don't
think
the
intent
was
to
literally
whittle
down
the
leverage
and
power
of
the
council
from
seven
down
to
five
and
the
fact
that
the
amendment
doesn't
speak
to
that.
So
my
colleagues,
I
guess
interpretation
is
accurate
as
to
how
we
are
where
we
are
right
now
in
the
process.
But
I
don't
think
the
legislative
intent
was
ever
to
cede
our
112
capability
indoor,
our
ability
as
a
legislative
branch
of
city
government
where
it
requires
a
majority
for
the
capital.
C
C
So,
for
that
perspective
and
from
a
legislative
intent
perspective
and
because
the
amendment
doesn't
speak
specifically
to
this,
I
think
a
112
is
still
in
play
for
this
party,
despite
the
fact
that,
where
we
are
right
now
and
how
it's
played
out
to
my
colleagues
assessment,
which
I,
if
I
feel
is
accurate,
I
don't
think
for
any
point.
The
author
of
the
initial
ordinance
and
or
the
council
is
myself
included,
who
participated
in
that
process
and
also
voted
for
that
process.
C
Ever
once
thought
that
I
would
be
seating
as
a
legislative
member
of
city
government
I'd
be
seeding
our
112th
ability
on
behalf
of
this
council.
Nor
would
I
ever
vote
for
anything
that
takes
us
from
nine
to
seven
to
five
we're
going
backwards.
So,
while
we
wanted
more
options
and
we
wanted
more
participation,
never
once
did.
I
think
the
legislative
intent
was
to
cede
our
112
ability
and
I'd
fight
tooth
and
nail
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
the
112
ability.
That
was
our
as
reference
sort
of
our.
I
think
it
was
a
reference.
C
Was
it
a
nuclear,
a
nuclear
button?
It
makes
no
sense
for
us
to
give
that
up
and
to
my
colleague's
point.
Yes,
we've
given
the
administration
we've
given
a
lot
up,
we've
lost
all
of
our
leverage.
Our
only
leverage
right
now
is
the
112.,
and
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
we've
arguably
may
have
been
may
have
given
that
up,
but
yet
nothing
speaks
to
it.
The
amendment
doesn't
speak
to
it.
The
intent
in
the
spirit
of
what
we
were
trying
to
do
doesn't
speak
to
it.
I
participated
in
those
hearings.
C
A
Thank
you,
council
flaherty,
so
unfortunately,
it
does
state
in
the
amendment
exactly
what
we
can
do
and
what
will
happen
after
we
do
that.
It
does
not
like,
and-
and
I
know,
I'm
not
an
attorney
and
you
you-
we
may
defer,
and
I
and
again
this
is
open
for
conversation.
A
A
It's
not
saying
reject
it
all
together
to
start
prior
to
what
we
already
passed
and
I
think
that's
where
we
kind
of
got
ourselves.
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
the
I
think
that
to
me
this
this
is
a
great
opportunity,
but
it's
almost
like
I
got
excited
and
then
I
stopped,
and
there
was
no
more
explanation.
F
A
And
again,
this
is
a
beautiful
work.
It's
a
great
opportunity
we're
here
now
we're
experiencing
it
we're
going
through
it,
and
I
think
that
again,
there's
opportunity
for
us
to
go
through
budget
clarifying
budgetary
procedure
procedures
through
the
ordinance
that
will
file
yes,
constitution.
C
A
Based
on
this,
I
can
suggest
it's
up
to
me
to
suggest
whether
we
do
it
in
part
or
in
whole
overall,
and
I'm
saying
that
I'm
interested
in
doing
it
in
parts,
and
so
let's
talk
about
that.
What
does
that
look
like?
Let's
talk
about
the
combination
of
those
parts,
if
we're
clustering
car
five
with
something
council
mejia
wants
like.
A
Let's
talk
about
that
and
let's
be
strategic
and
how
we
file,
what
my
recommendations
are
gonna
be
for
wednesday,
so
that
we
can
get
the
most
out
of
this
and
then
the
other
thing
that
council
black
was
talking
about
was
the
overall,
because
they've
the
administration
found
10
million
dollars
and
increased
their
own
budget
by
10
million.
The
new
total
is
no
longer
less
10
minus
10
million,
it's
now,
plus
10
million.
So
what
I
my
point
was
that
let's
say
we
were
successful
in
overriding
everything
that
was
rejected,
plus
accepting
everything
that
is
proposed.
C
C
E
Because
we
didn't
reject
the
budget,
we
approved
the
budget
with
our
rights
so
that
what
I
would
say
what
we
did
like
the
council
buck.
You
have
the
floor.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
a
couple
of
quick
things
because
I
know
you
want
to
get
to
the
thing
at
hand,
and
I
would
agree
with
you.
I
think
what
you
were
just
characterizing.
Basically,
it
lays
out
this
pathway
that
the
council
has
gone
down.
That's
what
the
chair
is
saying
right.
E
The
council
could
still
reject
at
the
on
at
june
8th
and
then
we
would
be
back
at
the
112
but
like
as
an
option
right,
but
I
think
it's
worth
saying
that
part
of
the
reason
that
the
council
had
always
talked
about
oh
going
to
a
112
is
the
idea
that
we
said
things
and
then
the
mayor
was
the
only
one
who
could
make
any
changes
and
then
those
changes
didn't
reflect
what
we
said.
That
was
always
sort
of
the
theory
of
why
the
council
would
allow
the
city
to
go
to
112..
E
The
council
now
has
the
ability
to
propose
amendments,
and
so
I
think
it's
in
my
opinion,
considerably
less
compelling
for
the
council
to
say.
Oh,
we
reject
in
the
first
instance,
because
there's
an
opportunity
for
the
council
to
say
this
is
what
we
think
would
make
a
better
budget,
and
I
just
I
think
there
is
a
difference
between
you
know
and
I
think
not
for
nothing.
E
Even
the
accepted
amendment
amounts
that
we're
talking
about
here
are
like
considerably
more
than
we
used
to
get
in
changes
between
the
initial
and
the
revised
resubmitted
budget.
In
most
years
most
years
you
didn't
see.
10
million
dollars
of
council
proposed
changes
go
into
a
new
budget.
Like
I
don't
know,
if
I
mean
you
know,
if
it's
ever
happened,
it's
certainly
you
know
last
year
what
we
did
was
with
a
supplemental.
It
wasn't
even
to
the
fundamental
budget,
so
I
just
do
want
to
flag
for
like
to
counselor
mahia's
point
like
where's.
E
The
power
like
the
council
has
substantially
changed
the
budget
already
under
the
chair's
leadership
in
ways
that
it
previously
was
not
able
to
do
so.
You
know,
I
think
you
know
you
can
always
debate
the
half
a
loaf
full
of
and
the
question
of
whether
like
where
brinksmanship
makes
sense,
and
you
know
and
like
and
but
I
also
think
that
there's
a
difference
between
a
problem
with
the
system
and
people
disputing
how
the
council
should
use
its
leverage
right.
E
Like
the
bps
vote
conversation,
I
think
there
are
folks
who
feel
like
we
should
have
held
that
vote
in
order
to
get
things
out
of
bps,
and
there
are
folks
that
feel
like
because
of
the
situation
with
desi.
It
was
important
to
do
the
vote
of
confidence
right
and
like
to
me.
That's
a
that's
a
political
discussion.
It's
not
a
debate
about
the
budget
powers
and
similarly,
here,
like
the,
I
think,
we've
as
the
chair
just
said,
we've
gone
down
this
path.
E
I
think
that
you
can
have
a
debate
about
whether
it
would
be
you
know
politically
advantageous
to
reject
and
force
a
resubmission
in
the
future
to
me,
because
we
can
make
changes,
it's
sort
of
abdicating
the
ability
to
be
constructive,
in
my
opinion,
but
that's
a
political
opinion.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
A
The
last
of
the
last
right
and
then
we'll
get
to
work
counsel.
You
with
me
here.
F
So
to
counselor
just
so
that
I
can
really
understand
this
right.
So
if
we
have
nine
votes
to
override,
then
we
have
passed
the
version
of
our
budget.
A
F
Right,
however,
we're
not
going
to
exert
that
power,
what
we're
going
to
do
instead
is
figure
out
how
we
can
get
to
something
that
will
be
advantageous
to
all
of
the
siblings
in
the
room.
A
I'm
saying
that
if
we
so,
for
example,
there
there's
about
seven-
I
don't
know
exact
total
sorry,
I
had
it
on
a
spreadsheet
seven
point,
something
million
that
the
mayor
suggested
to
allow,
and
we
can
address
that
by
just
I
can
I
can
I
can
I
can
go.
We
can
address
that
in
docket
number.
Two
right.
I
can
look
up
the
docket
number,
the
second
one,
which
is
zero,
seven,
six
three
and
we
will
we'll
say
yeah.
Thank
you.
A
A
Does
that
make
sense?
And
so
I
know
sometimes
I
I
speak
in
abstract
words,
but
so
like
if
we
pass
every
if
we,
if
we
get
the
seven
million
from
doc
at
zero,
seven
six
three
and
then
we
go
in
zero,
seven,
six
two
and
we
say:
okay,
what
can
we
get
out
of
that?
We
know
that
some
people
here
may
not
agree
with
moving
funds
around
we
and
we
don't
know
yet.
A
We
haven't
gone
through
that,
but
some
people
here
may
not
agree
with
the
full
amount
that
we
were
taking
out
of
bpd
over
time
and
so
we're
going
to
have
that
discussion
and
say
maybe
car
5
is
one
thing.
That's
really
important.
Maybe
the
business
thing
that
mejia
was
really
important
and
maybe
that's
a
cluster
that
makes
sense
and
that's
the
choice
that
we
make
it's
not
a
lot.
It's
not
13
million,
it's
only
2
million.
Maybe
we
can
do
that.
A
I
think
the
administration
actually
helped
us
out
in
this
part
because
they
found
10
more
million
dollars,
which
is
in
the
7
million
that
they
suggesting
to
pass.
And
now
we
can
still
take
some
portions,
not
in
personnel
with
obpd.
Not
in
anything,
that's
gonna
just
report
like
affect
them,
but
we
can
take
a
little
bit
in
ot
because
we
know
it
goes
into
reserve
and
we
disagree
right.
A
A
A
And
at
any
time
raise
your
hand
or
light
for
questions
or
suggestions
to
do
this.
We're
all
doing
this
together
as
we
go
right
so
for
the
first
appropriation,
the
four
four
eight.
A
From
for
department
of
ye,
the
administration
is
agreeing
or
suggesting
to
for
contractual
services
in
the
amount
we
asked
for
four
million
four
hundred
eighty
six
thousand
six
hundred
and
sixty
seven
dollars
for
youth
jobs,
direct
cob
payments
and
the
response
was
they
rejected,
2
million
290
000
of
it
and
accepted,
or
suggested
only
2
million
196
thousand
dollar
96.
Sorry
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
seven
dollars.
A
I
won't
go
in
that
much
detail,
but
now
that
you
see
sort
of
like
how
we're
going
I'll
only
talk
about
the
department,
the
amount
and
what's
accepted
next
time.
Okay,.
F
F
A
These
are
the
amounts.
Yes,
I
was
saying
that
there
are.
There
were
new
dollars
that
went
into
that
department.
I
think
we
can
actually
override
that
interdepartmental
one,
because
it
was
new
dollars
coming
in,
and
I
think
I
can
file
it
and
explain
these
are
monies
that
we
are
bringing
in
from
wherever
we
bring
it
in
already.
So
we
are
creating
a
new
line
item
and-
and
I'm
saying
to
you,
but
I
want
to
go
all
through
what
came
from
the
administration
first,
because
that
intro
departmental
stuff
is
not
on
here.
Okay,.
F
A
I'm
so
anyway,
like
so
I'm
gonna
go
down
the
list
and
then
we'll
go
through
the
stuff
that
was
vetoed.
Does
that
make
sense
and
then
y
e
next
one
the
administration
is
suggestion.
1.3.
A
For
moh
special
appropriation,
bha
payments
for
returning
citizen
voucher,
we
asked
and
bha
home
ownership
pilot.
It
was
combined
and
I
think
one
was
1.5,
the
other
one
was
was
it
800
000
or
how
did
we
suggest
it?
Let
me
look
at
my
list.
I
Yes,
may
I
speak,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
isn't
the
this
isn't
the
2.5
million
dollars.
That
was,
you
know.
I
filed
an
amendment
for
and
that
councilor
brock
found
an
amendment
for
based
on
the
city
coalition
to
support
the
city-based
vouchers,
and
I
think
that
is
that
it
yes
and
then
so.
I
If
that
is
the
case,
I
just
want
to
call
into
question
the
brief
amendment
description,
because
this
it
wasn't
actually
pegged
towards
returning
citizen
vouchers
or
bha
home
ownership
pilot
like
I
just
want
that
to
be
clear
that
it
was
just
for
further
expansion
of
the
city-based
voucher
program.
A
I
don't
see
another
one,
so
I
think
we're
talking
about
the
same
thing
but
you're
saying
that's
not
not
actually
the
program
it
was
just
for.
I
It
was
just
it,
it
was
just
a
supplement,
so
you
know
in
the
operating
budget.
You
know
the
mayor
proposed
seven
put
added
initial
2.5
to
its
allocation
of
5
million
brought
up
to
7.5
and
this
and
we
proposed
matching
that
with
an
additional
2.5.
I
think
you
know
there
were
discussions
about.
I
I
personally
like
I.
I
love
the
city
about
voucher
program
and
we
had
talked
about.
You
know
expanding
it
for
other
reasons,
but
for
this
it
wasn't
pegged
towards
returning
citizens
or
to
a
homeownership
pilot.
I
A
E
I
think
the
there
was
there
was
conversation
at
various
points
about
you
know.
Maybe,
with
the
expanded
money
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
do
some
set-asides
for
the
coalition's
very
focused
on
idp,
right
things,
and
also-
and
also
there
was
the
conversation
about
returning
citizens,
and
so
I
think
that
in
the
language,
that's
in
the
order
it
sort
of
references,
the
possibility
of
those
set-asides.
E
It
doesn't
say
this
is
for
all
that,
but
I
think
it
was
like
in
that
conversation
that
sort
of
it
did
that
did
get
memorialized
as
kind
of
like
a
piece
of
the
puzzle.
Now
that
could
be
five
vouchers
right
like
it's
it.
I
don't
think
that
the
council
expressed
a
specific
intent
there,
but
I
do
think
that
I
think
the
idp,
deeper
idp
affordability,
piece
was
is
also
referenced
in
the
in
the
council
language
here.
I
I
just
yeah.
I
appreciate
that
I
just
you
know,
don't
want
to
seem
like
we
lobbied
for
a
restrictive,
2.5
million,
because
that's
not-
and
I
know
that
I
probably
was
the
one
that
brought
up
something
regarding
returning
citizens,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
not
saying
that
the
administration
for
the
record
that
we're
not
saying
that
it
must
be
for
these
two
but
like
we.
This
is
something
that
the
council
and
the
body
of
the
council
cares
about.
I
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
go
down
this
list
and
if
there
are
any
types
of
clarification
like
that,
I
mean
I
think
that
if
we're
passing
it,
it's
it's
what
it's
stated.
If
there's
a
miscommunication
of
like
how
they've
listed
it
here,
we
certainly
can
reference
back
to
the
original
cloud,
the
council's
filing
and
correct
them.
We
and
I
think,
there's
room
there
to
correct
it.
A
Obviously,
it's
the
way
we
worded
it
so,
please
feel
free,
but
for
now
I
think
in
the
interest
of
time
we're
going
through
the
list
to
just
sort
of
go
on
record
like
what's
on
the
table
in
terms
of
recommending
to
pass
and
I'm.
A
I
think
that
it
looks
like
in
my
in
correct
me
or
make
suggestions,
we're
going,
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
pass
this
thing
in
hold
so
that
we
can
address
the
other
stuff,
the
the
override
the
other
items,
unless,
unless
we're
picking
it
apart
and
I'm
not
sure,
does
anyone
here
have
any
suggestions,
I'm
not
sure
if
doing
it
in
whole
means
that
we
can't
do
the
first
docket
in
part,
which
is
interesting,
because
it's
supposed
to
be
one
action
but
two
dockets.
So
now
it's
it
separates
the
action.
But
yet
what
like?
A
A
A
So,
at
the
clerk's
request
I
mean
I,
the
administration
filed
two
dockets.
A
It's
supposed
to
be
one
action.
The
action
is
rejected,
with
rejection
with
veto
with
suggestions
right
or
their
amendments.
What
I'm
saying
is
if
we
pass
if
this
this
docket
number
two,
which
is
the
list
here
in
whole,
because
they're
making
the
argument
that
it's
one
action
like
my
argument,
was
it's
a
separate
docket.
A
A
It's
no
longer
a
response
to
the
action
in
the
amendment
in
the
first
docket,
that's
the
case,
but
then
they
separated
it,
but
they
made
the
argument
that
it's
all
connected
because
the
language
in
one
says
this
is
a
response
to
the
other
thing
and
really
it
was
the
clerk's
office
who
told
him
to
file
it.
That
way.
A
What
I'm
saying
now
is
we
can
amend,
reject
recept,
I'm
sorry,
not
a
meant,
accept,
rejec
override
the
we
can
override
or
accept
in
whole
in
part
or
overall,
but
if
we
go
to
docket
the
second
docket,
which
is
the
list
of
everything
that
they're
suggesting
and
we
do
it
in
whole,
then
does
that
prevent
us
from
taking
apart
the
first
docket
if
they're
saying,
essentially
it's
all
connected.
A
E
I
mean
what
I
would
say
is
we
actually
only
have
one
of
these
two
dockets
that
actually
has
a
tax
order.
So
when
we
talk
about
like
like
there's
only
one
of
these
dockets,
that's
actually
substantive,
the
other
one
is
basically
a
cover
letter
so
like
to
me.
There's
there's
one:
it's
not
like.
We
have
filed
two
separate
like
tax
order,
detail
with
all
the
language
that
you
need
in
a
in
a
budget
like
orders
in
front
of
us,
there's
only
one.
E
So
to
me,
the
the
like
cover
letter
docket
is
sort
of
a
ceremonial
thing
that
the
clerk
asked
them
to
do,
but
I
don't
think
that
it
creates
something
where
we
could
take
a
budget
establishing
action
and
then
end
up
with
a
duplicate
set
of
budgets.
I
would
say
we
only
have
one
tax
order,
docket
in
your
committee
right
now,.
E
E
E
E
Right,
so
our,
if,
if
we
yeah
we
could
we
could
override
that's
basically
us
substituting
back
the
like
stuff
from
ours
yeah.
I
agree
with
that.
I'm
just
saying
that
I
don't
think
that
we've
got
two
actionable
documents
like
we'd
be
reversing
this
thing
that
she
has
in
front
of
us
back
to
our
stuff.
A
A
A
Essentially,
if
the
administration
disagrees
that
we
cannot
I'm
talking.
I'm
sorry,
sorry.
If
the
administration
disagrees
that
we
cannot
override
a
thing,
they
should
have
listed
it
back
and
just
rejected
it.
E
Manager
are
you
talking
about
the
interest,
the
intros?
So
I
think
that
if
the
council
were
like,
I
think
the
way
that
you
would
do
it
is
say
the
council
wanted
to
override
completely
what
the
mayor
had
sent.
We
would
say
we
would
I'm
just
saying
that
we
would
vote
on
that,
like
that
substantive
docket,
but
I
think
what
it
would
look
like
is
you'd,
basically
staple
our
order
of
june
8th
to
the
thing
and
say
the
council
has
overridden
this
docket
and
reverted
to
this
packet
of
juniors.
E
I
don't
think
the
fact
that
our
thing
is
not
reproduced,
like
perfectly
there
blocks
us
from
doing
that.
I
mean
then
there's
the
whole
legal
argument
about
the
intros
but
yeah.
So
I
think
I
think
we
would
just
make
a
because
that
that's
a
formal
action
of
the
council.
We
can
just
refer
to
it
in
our
override,
but
I
wouldn't
say
that
that
makes
us
going
back
in
action
on
that
first
ceremonial
docket.
F
E
A
Right
so
now,
do
you
understand
my
point
that
we
cannot
do
it
as
in
whole
because
they
didn't
include
what
was
missing.
We
have
things
to
address
that
they
didn't
include.
So
if
we
accepted
in
whole,
we
couldn't
do
that
because
now
it's
an
effect,
essentially
their
amended
version
or
suggestion
that
goes
into
effect
with
the
missing
parts.
A
A
If
I
go
in
whole
and
I
pass
what
they're
suggesting
it
excludes
the
stuff
that
they
disagree
with,
which
I
want
in
here.
So
I
cannot
do
this
in
whole.
We'd
have
to
go
line
item
by
line
item
and
then
what
bring
in
the
stuff
that
they
filed
in
the
in
the
in
the
first
docket,
because
they
didn't
mention
it
in
the
second
docket.
E
Okay,
just
so,
I
think
that
I
think
that,
from
a
like
fundamental
perspective,
if
the
council,
if
the
chair
produces
a
committee
report
that
says
like
you
know,
my
recommendation
is
that
the
council
override
in
this
way
that's
balanced,
that
iterated
all
the
things
that
were
each
of
which
had
a
footing
in
our
prior
thing.
Right
to
your
point,
it's
not
a
new
amendment.
A
G
A
E
A
Thank
you.
Yes,
sorry,
council,
ferry.
C
Maybe
we
missed
a
couple
things,
but
it's
a
case
of
first
impression,
arguably,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
in
the
interpretation
and
in
the
legislative
branch
through
the
chair.
So
I
guess,
but
depending
on
how
we
view
what
it
is,
determines
what
maybe
measures
we
take
on
our
end.
So
it's
to
make
sure
we
have
open
lines
of
what
we
can
do,
what
we
can't
do
and
by
the
way
who
says
we
can't
do
that,
because
we
have
the
legislative
branch.
C
We're
a
representative
government
elected
by
the
people
in
this
new
process
that
this
body
also
helped
create,
but
may
have
not
may
have
missed
a
few
things
and
or
we're
leaving
it
to
the
interpretation
of
corporation
council
who
will
always
defer
in
light
in
best
light
to
the
to
the
administration.
Those
are
just
the
facts,
and
I've
been
here
20
years.
I've
seen
it
hardly
evidence.
Corporation
council
ruled
against
the
administration
inside
for
the
council,
which
is
why
we
have
council
for
the
council
and
once
again
I
would
ask
through
the
chair.
A
A
Every
day
so.
A
I
think
that
I
mean
we,
I
I
held
a
meeting
and
both
of
the
attorneys
christine
and
michelle
weren't
in
and
I
so
then
I
we
came
into
the
hearing
yesterday
now
we're
in
the
working
session
and
I
have
monday
reserved,
and
so
I
think
we
still
have
time
to
go
back
and
forth
with
them.
C
And
I
think
that's
helpful,
madam
chair,
for
two
reasons:
one
they're
both
attorneys.
They
represent
our
best
interest
as
a
legislative
branch
of
city
government,
and
they
worked
here
during
the
creation
of
this
ordinance,
not
only
working
for
this
body,
also
working
alongside
in
partnership
with
the
administration
and
corporation
council.
So
if
anyone
has
sort
of
historical
knowledge
on
legislative
intent,
what
was
put
in
why
it
was
put
in
what
was
not
put
in
and
why
it
was
not
put
in.
C
I
would
argue
it's
christine
and
michelle,
and
I
would
suggest
through
you
the
chair,
that
they'd
be
present
on
any
interpretation
of
the
charter,
the
amendment
and
what
we're
looking
to
do
here.
C
I
don't
want
to
sure
change
ourselves
from
the
budget
process
and,
if
it's
coming
down
to
semantics,
that
we
didn't
reject
without
prejudice
and
then
submit
amendments,
if
we
didn't
use
those
appropriate
words
or
if
we
rejected
and
now
we're
getting
a
resubmission
or
are
we
getting
a
new
budget
or
so
there's
many
different
ways
to
interpret
this,
and
if
we're,
if
we're,
depending
on
corporation
council,
to
give
us
what
they
determine
the
accurate
reading
of
it.
I
just
want
everyone
to
have
their
eyes
wide
open.
C
A
C
One
other
thing
that
drew
the
chair,
and
obviously
the
council
president
as
well,
is:
if
we
don't
pass
this
budget
on
the
29th.
I
would
caution
and
urge
that
when
we
normally,
we
would
adjourn,
I
would
suggest
that
we
recess,
we
keep
it
open.
C
If
we
have
to
come
back
here
on
a
thursday
which
we've
done
in
the
past,
we
literally
have
up
until
thursday,
at
until
11
59
pm,
to
pass
a
budget,
so
just
caution
language
in
terms
of
how
we're
adjourning
and
recessing
those
words
matter
when
we
close
out,
particularly
in
light
of
the
fact
that
if
we
don't
have
the
112
ability,
then
we
need
to
be
real
cautious
in
terms
of
when
we're
discussing
it
when
we're
voting
on
it
in
the
language
that
we're
using
to
call
for
the
vote
and
or
to
recess
or
adjourn.
C
And
so
in
light
of
that,
you
know.
If
we
don't
take
action
on
the
29th,
we
reserve
our
right
as
a
legislative
branch
to
stay
open
to
stay
in
session.
We
would
call
a
recess,
not
an
adjournment,
and
we
would
come
back
at
the
call
of
the
chair
at
any
time.
That's
convenient
for
this
body
to
continue
to
deliberate.
We
have
the
ability
up
until
june
30th
at
11
59
to
pass
a
budget,
so
I
just
want
to
throw
that
up
there,
food
for
thought.
C
A
You're
welcome,
thank
you.
So
do
we
want
to
have
those
discussions
before
continuing
our
working
session?
I
mean
where
it's.
It
sounds
like
that's
where
people
are
constantly
here.
Oh
counselor,
murphy
thousand
murphy.
D
Yeah,
so
I
would
go
one
step
further
than
what
flaherty
council
of
flaherty
said,
and
I
would
also
ask
that
the
clerk
come
down,
he's
very
capable
and
very
well
versed
and
if
he
could
explain
forest
because
we're
kind
of
assuming
and
assumptions
are,
I
think,
what's
putting
us
in
this
circle
of
semantics.
D
So
I
would
I
mean
I
would
ask
him
personally,
but
I
think
for
us
as
a
body
to
hear
directly
why
he
suggested
it
be.
That
way
would
really
help
us
moving
forward
on
then
why
we
got
ourselves
into
this,
and
council
of
flaherty
did
touch
on
it
already.
But
my
question
all
along
has
been
when
we
passed
with
amendments.
Should
we
have
rejected
without
prejudice
with
the
amendments
and
what
difference
would
that
put
us
in
in
this
position
now?
D
I
know
that
that
is
what
I
I
didn't
have
the
votes
to
back
me,
but
myself
and
two
other
counselors
did
do
that
with
the
school
budget,
hoping
that
you
know
pass
reject
without
prejudice
to
keep
the
line
of
communication
open.
So
if
you
know
chair
or
if
any
of
my
colleagues
in
the
room
know
what
different
position
we
would
be
in
right
now,
if
we
had
rejected
without
prejudice,
knowing
that
we
were
going
to
come
back
to
it
anyway,.
A
D
A
Now
let
me
clarify,
I
think,
not
particularly
just
you
or
you,
council
murphy,
but
I
think
other
counselors
may
disagree
with
what
my
response
is.
A
Not
you
other
counselors
counsel,
flaherty
or
council
bach
disagree
with
council
flaherty
council
flaherty
may
disagree
with
what
I'm
saying.
I'm
saying
that
we
are
disagreeing
and
I
would
like
to
I'm
I've.
I've
opened
this
up
right.
I've
said
I'm
allowing
conversations
and
suggestions
and
input.
A
I
can
also
at
some
point,
have
to
make
a
decision.
A
I
think
I'll
have
to
think
about
the
schedule
and
what's
what
we
have
in
play
and
make
the
best
decision
that
I
can
come
come
to
come
up
with,
and
while
we
are,
while
I'm
entertaining
the
conversation
or
taking
suggestions
and
feedback,
I
have
a
position.
If
you
disagree,
it's
another
thing
and
I'm
saying
I've
heard
from
attorney
goldberg,
and
this
is
what
she
said
as
well.
A
If
we
want
to
now
add
another
attorney
to
say
the
same
thing
or
different
or
bring
something
different,
I've
heard
that
too
so
I've
said
something
that
there's
a
disagreement.
Then
I've
I've
backed
it
up
with
what
attorney
goldberg
have
said
and
then
there's
still
a
desire
to
get
that
reinforced.
A
That's
not
a
reflection
on
me.
That's
a
reflection
on
what
people
feel,
and
so,
if
there's
a
need
to
continue,
I
will
make
that
decision.
Council
me
here.
F
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
stepped
out,
so
I
may
have
missed
some
of
the
comments
that
my
colleague
was
making
in
regards
to
the
integrity
of
the
information
that
we
are
working
under
right
like
there
were
some
questions
about
the
clerk
and
how
it
was
filed
and
all
of
the
stuff
that
has
gone
down,
and
I
guess
for
me
what
would
be
extremely
helpful
is
understanding
what
the
bottom
line
is
right.
Where
are
we?
Where
is
any
real
power?
F
If,
if
we
have
any
and
if
we
do
exert
our
ability
to
interpret
things
the
way
we
choose
to
interpret
them,
because
that's
a
matter
of
choice,
oftentimes,
right
and
legal
counsel
can
help
us
debunk.
These
things,
I
do
believe
even
walking
in
here
speaking
with
the
council
administration,
is
that
they
do
not
have
our
best
interest
in
mind
and
I
feel
for
me.
I
go
to
a
place
of
feeling
I
feel
like
the
there's.
F
The
things
that
our
colleagues
and
myself
included
are
advocating
for
so
that's
kind
of
like
where
my
head
is
at
based
on.
You
know
the
back
and
forth
that
I'm
hearing,
because
if
michelle
attorney,
goldberg
and
christine
have
weighed
in
and
they're
supposed
to
represent
us-
and
it
seems
like
we
have
lost
everything
in
the
sense
of
like,
or
at
least
that's
what
it
sounds
like
and
maybe
I'm
misinterpreting
it.
F
But
it
just
doesn't
feel
like
we're
moving
in
a
direction
with
the
tools
and
the
ammunition
to
go
to
war,
and
I
feel
like
we're
going
to
war
with
skittles,
and
I
want
to
go
to
war
with
armor
on,
and
I
really
feel
like
I'm
at
a
loss
right
now-
and
I
don't
know
when
I
think
about
the
my
colleagues
and
the
13
bot-
you
know
the
13
of
us.
F
A
A
The
administration
have
their
own
vested
interests
and
we
have
our
own
vested
interest
for
the
community
and
what
we
advocated
for,
but
it's
still,
the
fact
still
remains
is
that
the
wording
is
the
wording
I've
consulted
with
michelle
goldberg
and
I've
gotten
the
same
thing
that
corroborates
what
attorney
cederbaum
have
said.
A
If
we
need
is
christine
to
do
to
to
to
reiterate
or
to
say
different
or
maybe
add
to
that's
okay,
but
I'm
saying
that
I
have
to
make
in
the
interest
of
like
being
productive
with
this
session
and
the
budget
the
whole
budget
season.
I
would
like
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
actually
get
to
the
to
the
work
to
the
discussions.
A
Or
we
review
this
amendment
one
last
time
and
then
we
get
to
the
conversation
like
we
I've
I've
broken
it
down
to
the
best
of
my
ability
several
times
and
if
folks
are
feeling
like
you
know
what
I
still
disagree
like.
Let's
make
it
simple,
I
still
disagree
and
because
we
missed
a
hearing
or
because
we
didn't
come
to
the
meetings
or
because
we
didn't
read,
there
are
emails,
we
want
another
conversation.
A
A
A
What's
next
and
that's
where
we
are
and
I'm
saying
again
that
the
beautiful
thing
about
that
is.
If,
when
we
file
that
ordinance
for
the
office
of
prescriptory
budget,
we
can
actually
give
some
some
of
those
clarifications.
A
If
you
would
you
guys
like
to
take
a
break
for
lunch,
and
then
we
have
this
discussion,
please,
okay,
let's
break
and
look
can
we
say
30
or
40
minutes?
How
much
should
people
need
130?
It's
106.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
think
the
what
we're
going
to
do
is
just
jump
right
in
we're
going
to
address
this
list.
Shane
is
creating
or
has
created
a
spreadsheet,
so
it's
easier
to
read,
but
if
we
can
talk
about
them,
one
item
by
item:
if
the
folks
that
are
not
advocating
for
these
things
are
not
here,
then
we'll
table
it
for
later
as
they
come
in
the
first
one.
A
Is
the
for
the
line?
Item
decreases:
bfd
boston,
fire
department
equipment,
four
line,
zero
lease
purchase
to
increase
to
take
to
take
out
565
thousand
dollars
to
increase
it
in
boston.
D
A
Sorry
guys,
I
should
have
read
what
I
said
earlier,
that
the
agenda
will
address
the
inter
and
then
the
intro
all
right.
So
if
we
can
cross-reference
what
was
recommended
by
the
administration
for
the
15
hokies,
if
you
have
it
just
let
me
know,
but
I
found
mine
and
it
says
that.
A
Oh,
no,
okay,
so
I'm
taking
the
narrative
summary
of
amendments
and
now
I'm
going
to
address
the
inter-departmental
amendments
and
then
I'm
cross-referencing
it
with
what
was
accepted.
A
Yes,
so
I'll
go
the
first
bullet
item
by
item
one
each
amendment,
one
by
one
and
then
I'll
go
to
what
the
mayor
accepted
or
rejected
or
whatever
and
I'm
reading
out
originally
what
we
wanted
and
what
was
accepted
and
any
comments,
I'm
just
taking
comments
or
feedback
so
that
I
can
make
a
decision
on
how
to
file
how
to
recommend
the
filing
okay
sounds
good.
I
think
we'll
get
more
done,
because
it's
not
an
argument.
It's
not
me
making
a
decision
right
now
or
us
making
a
decision
right
now.
A
It's
the
shane
is
taking
your
comments
and
putting
it
next
to
that
line
item.
So,
instead
of
just
addressing
the
administration's
recommendations,
we
will
address
what
we
filed.
A
A
A
You
see
where
the
admin
change
to
amend
took
out
two
hundred
thousand
yep
yeah.
Thank
you
teacher
illusion
and
you
see
accepted
amount,
482,
584
dollars,
and
so
shane.
Is
it
okay?
If
I
okay
call
of
shame,
thank
you.
Is
it?
Okay,
if
I
ask
you
to
just
create
a
column
after
the
description,
the
amendment
description
and
put
exactly
what
was
accepted
even
if
it's
zero
thank
you,
okay,
and
so,
as
we
go
I'll
list
it
for
the
record,
what
was
accepted
or
wasn't,
and
then
I
need
your
feedback
on
it.
A
No
worries
so
we
are
trying
to
consolidate
information
or
from
amendments
our
amendments
to
what
was
accepted
or
rejected,
or
changed
we're
going
to
work
from
our
narrative
summary
and
I'm
going
to
go
from
I'm
going
to
start
with
inter-departmental.
A
We
not
do
that
instead,
that
we
get
the
565
000
for
15
hokies
instead
that
we
got
less,
but
it's
combined.
So
it's
not
clear
how
many
hokies
that
is-
or
I
mean
we
could
do
the
math
or.
H
Yes,
I
think
the
reason
one
one
my
understanding
is
one
reason
why
they
reduced
it
somewhat
is
that
they
won't
be
able
to
hire
those
people
on
july
1st.
So
it
will
be
a
little
of
a
lag
time
to
get
them
in
get
them
in
place,
so
that
would
it
wouldn't
need
a
whole
full
year's
funding
for
them,
as
I
think
the
way,
it's
that's
part
of
reason
why
it
might
have
been
reduced.
A
A
They
put
it
all
in
one
department
in
public
works,
but
they
said
we're
not
going
to
accept
all
of
the
hokies
that
you're
asking
for,
because
for
the
reason
that
council
braden
just
just
stated,
we
are
going
to
accept
total
amount
of
482
000.82
584
thousand
dollars.
I
mean
dollars,
and
so
I
want
to
hear
your
comments
about
what
you
think
about
that
and
instead
of
us
like
trying
to
make
a
decision
by
each
item.
A
A
I
B
So
the
reason
for
the
reduction
is
that
the
hokies
would
not
start
would
not
start
right
away,
so
there
would
be
some
savings.
Is
that
is
that
what
what
I
heard.
A
So
so
right,
so
that
if
the
money
can't
be
spent
all
in
fiscal
year
23
because
they
can't
hire
fast
enough
to
hire
all
15
hokies,
they
are
suggesting
about
nine
hokies.
Instead
they're
they're,
saying
realistically,
we
can
hire
about
nine
hokies.
What
I
did
is,
I
just
took
482.
A
Hundred
eighty
four
dollars
and
I
subtracted
the
118
000
for
the
two
waste
reductions,
ftes
and.
C
B
The
the
only
the
only
question
or
concern
I
would
have
madam
chair
is:
is
you
and
I
and
council
councillor
baker
represent
the
area
in
and
around
mass
and
cass,
instead
of
decreasing
the
hokies?
B
I
I
think
they
play
a
critical
role
in
in
the
city
and
the
quality
of
life
issue
for
and
as
a
district
city
council.
That's
about
that's
a
that's
as
about
an
important
job
as
I
could
I
could.
I
could
think
about.
A
Okay,
casa
brady,
could
you
explain
the
delay
again
for
me
right
yeah
in
terms
of
it's
not
every,
it's
not
reducing
the
amount
of
hokies,
but
rather
that
there's
a
delay.
H
B
B
That's
how
that's,
how
focused
we
need
to
be
on
hokies
I'd
like
to
see
them
start
monday
start
collecting
resumes
tomorrow.
I
know
I'm
being
facetious
here,
but
you
know
we
can't
wait.
We
can
we
can't
wait
in
and
around
the
mass
and
cast
area
we
need
to
have.
We
need
to
improve
quality
of
life
for
residents.
A
Sounds
like
we
need
to
have
a
conversation
with
mayor
wu
and
ask
her
that
she
prioritizes
moving
hokies
to
mass
and
cast
for
sure,
I'm
with
you
looking
forward
to
that
conversation,
but
okay.
So
it
sounds
like
we're
still.
A
I
guess
when
you
reduce
the
full
amount,
and
I
I'd
have
to
do
the
math
to
see
if
that's
actually
accurate.
So
still
it
doesn't
take
away
the
two
ftes
for
waste
reduction
and
that's
a
hundred
and
eighteen
000,
because
that's
listed
here,
it
didn't
take
to
take
it
away
unless
it's
doing
that,
it's
also
re.
You
know
subtracting
the
three
months
pay
because
it
takes
that
long
to
hire.
A
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
both
of
my
colleagues
say
is
I
I
agree
with
counselor
flynn
in
regards
to
the
urgency
around
the
hokies
and
from,
if
just
so
that
I
understand
exactly
what
we
are
going
to
be
getting
or
naying
or
just
supporting
here
is
that
there
is
a
need
for
more
hokies,
but
right
now
the
budget
has
come
back
with
less,
and
that
is
because
when
we
don't
have
the
infrastructure
to
hire
more,
so
we're
going
to
be
starting
off
with
nine.
A
I
understood
it
to
be
that,
but
the
other.
The
reverse,
is
true:
that,
for
example,
not
that
we're
reducing
nine
hoax
when
reducing
it
to
nine
hokies,
because
when
I
did
the
math
I
was
like.
Oh
that's
just
nine
hokies,
but
that
instead
it's
because
it
would
take
the
administration
july
august,
all
the
way
to
september
so
two
months
really
two
months
to
hire
so
still
15
hokies.
A
But
they
took
away
the
two
months
money
amount
of
money,
the
pay,
because
it
doesn't
need
to
be
there
if
it's
not
going
to
be
spent
if
they're
not
going
to
start
until
september,
and
what
counselor
flynn
is
saying,
we
can't
wait
till
september.
That's
right!
What
are
we
going
to
do
about
that
and
I
think
that's
a
conversation
with
the
mayor
to
say
we
need
to
prioritize
this.
F
A
If
it
takes
two
months
to
hire
15
hokies
and
we're
going
to
hire
15
hokies
by
september,
we
just
need
to
do
the
math
to
see
if
the
number
is
accurate
because
they
didn't
exclude
the
two
full-time
ftes.
Okay,
we'll
have
to
reduce
the
money
for
the
ftas
as
well.
So
I'll
do
that
out
loud
with
you
guys
as
I
go.
A
But
then,
if
you,
what
is
that
divided
by
12
for
the
months,
then
we
know
that
four,
four
thousand
nine
hundred
that's
per
month
and
sixteen
dollars
just
rounding
off.
A
And
we
need
it
for
15
so
divided
by
15.
That
brings
us
to
about
37
66,
I'm
sorry,
thirty,
seven
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
six
point
six
six
for
each
hokie
and
then
because
there
are
fifteen
of
them,
though
right.
But
you
have
to
divide
that.
What
is
what
is
that
by
month,
so
divided
by
12,
then
you
have
3138.88.
A
A
A
So
we
have
to
deduct
for
for
the
total
total,
which
is
the
eighty
two
thousand
five
hundred
and
eighty
four
dollars.
We
have
to
deduct
this.
Ninety
four
thousand
for
the
three
months
for
two
months
for
hokies
and
this
close
to
ten
thousand
for
the
two
months
for
the
fts.
A
584
and
zero
and
one
cent
so
really
the
number
that
they
suggested
is
four
four
hundred
eighty
two
thousand
584.
A
A
A
But
they
search
they're,
suggesting
482
584
dollars
and
we
did
the
math
we're
missing
96
000.
Do
we
want
to
override
to
add
the
96
thousand
dollars.
A
A
H
I
I
it's,
they
haven't,
given
any
rationale
for
why
they've
next
this
one,
but
I'm
wondering
with
the
having
a
new
chief
of
planning
for
the
city
and
and
the
state
of
transition
that
we're
in
with
our
bpda
infrastructure.
I
I
think
it's
important,
very
important
role
to
have
that
we
have.
We
have
some
very
mindful
and
intentional
planning
along
the
waterfront,
but
I'm
wondering
if
there's
some
duplication
or
overlap
in
terms
of
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
conversation
about
why
this
was
next.
H
But
I
imagine
that
there's
is
some
concerns
about
bpda
and
chief
new
chief
for
planning
and-
and
we
are-
we've
been
duplicative
in
in
in
the
environment
department
as
well
as
the
bpda.
Are
we
going
to
marry
those
two
functions
a
bit
more
than
we
have
in
the
past?.
B
B
It
was
important
for
her
district.
It
was
important
that
you
know,
I
think
I
think
the
mayor's
office
as
well
shifted
the
focus
of
attention
more
towards
the
east
boston
waterfront
in
in
in
the
ongoing
development
there.
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
that
council
coletta
recommended
this,
but
I
certainly
would
go
on
record
in
support
of
my
of
of
my
colleague,
council
clutter,
and
in
that
position
I
think
it's
important
to
her
district,
so
I
I
would
support.
I
would
support
that.
F
From
what
I
understood
from
the
conversation,
I
think
this
was
yes,
it's
important
to
counselor
claudetta's
specific
district,
but
I
do
believe
what
I
remember.
It
was
for
citywide,
because
there's
waterfronts
across
the
entire
city,
and
I
believe
that
the
position
was
that
it
would
also
serve
south
boston.
F
The
seaport
and
I
do
believe-
and
I
will
also
go
on
the
record
as
a
city-wide
counselor,
then,
when
we
think
about
our
waterfront
and
planning
for
it
that
it
needs
to
be
a
position
that
is
specifically
focused
on
that
and
I
believe
it
was
citywide
just
so
that
I
am
clear
on
that.
D
Also
follow
up
if
counselor
flynn
doesn't
want
to
advocate
to
keep
it
in
there
that
it
was
citywide
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
position,
and
but
I
also
do
want
to
address
what
counselor
braden
said.
It
may
already
be
included,
and
it
may
be
something
that
this
new
planner
is
going
to
address.
So
I
wouldn't
want
to
spend
money
on
something
that's
already
in
somebody's
job
description,
but
do
agree
that
all
of
our
waterfront
don't
forget
dorchester.
D
Even
though
the
expressway
cut
us
off
from
being
a
waterfront
neighborhood,
we
definitely
still
have
waterfront
in
dorchester,
so
I
know
you
meant
us
too,
because
we're
both
from
there
but
to
if
we
are
going
to
say
that
this
is
needed,
because
the
current
new
position
is
not
covering
this
job.
I
thought
it
was
city-wide
not
just
for
east
boston
or
the
north
end.
H
Thank
you
speak
support
in
support
of
my
colleague,
like,
I
think,
she's
very
much
east
boston
and
the
north
end
and
charlestown
right
in
the
epicentre
of
impacts
of
climate
change,
and
so
I
really
feel
it's
a.
It
definitely
has
merit,
but
as
councillor
murphy
said,
maybe
it's
been
duplicative.
Maybe
we
maybe
there
is
a
position,
and
maybe
we
need
to
elevate
that
position
to
more
importance,
but
either
way.
H
We
definitely
want
this
issue
addressed
in
in
in
in
the
budget
and
in
in
planning
and
in
our
operating
budget
that
we
we're
definitely
need
to
provide
the
resources
to
have
this
happen.
B
B
Well,
I
know
now
it
is,
but
but
I'm
glad
that
both
council,
murphy
and
councilman
here
brought
that
up
to
me,
but
it's
definitely
something
something
I
support.
So
I'm
glad
I'm
glad
they
pointed
that
out.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
F
I
F
If
there's
a
way
for
us
to,
as
we
continue
to
move
through
this,
if
there's
other
situations
like
that,
then
we
may
want
to
flag
it,
or
at
least
for
us
to
know
if,
if
there's
a
job
description
that
is
going
to
look
at
that,
I
believe
that,
even
if
there
is
there's
such
a
need
for
it,
that
maybe
a
blurb
about-
and
you
will
also
be
responsible
for
the
waterfront
as
part
of
your
job
description-
may
not
be
enough
for
what
this
moment
requires.
So
in
other
words
regardless.
F
A
A
I
I
do
I
have
the
floor.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
support
as
the
original
filing
of
the
council
on
this
for
the
full
2.5
million.
We
know
that
this
is
not
personnel.
This
is
about
housing,
needs
and
meeting
the
housing
needs
of
our
residents
for
extremely
low
income.
Folks
for
folks
in
shelters
folks
experiencing
homelessness,
and
we
also
received
a
lot
of
advocacy
here
so
I'm
in
full
support.
I
A
So
here
we
have
a
situation
where
the
decrease
of
400,
a
400
000,
is
coming
from
bfd
contractual
services,
repairs
and
service
equipment
to
service
equipment
and
over
here,
though,
the
amount
to
get
to
that
is
for
650
000,
that's
missing
from
the
original
suggestion,
and
so
I'm
wondering
then
do
we
ask
to
override
to
return
to
what
we
said
means
that
we
override
a
lot
more,
the
the
rest
of
it
to
get
to
that
amount.
I
A
Anyone
else
so.
A
A
They
went
and
shifted
things
around
and
took
this
1.8
million
about
and
took
it
from
one
place,
but
ours
is
in
three
parts.
What
makes
it
difficult
is
that
if
we
override
their
suggestion,
so
that's
the
the
thing
that
I
was
going
back
and
forth
with
council
bach
about
that.
We
couldn't
even
do
this
in
whole
because
it's
missing
a
whole
bunch
of
other
stuff
from
our
original
filing.
A
The
next
one
is
decrease:
bfd
miscellaneous
equipment
increase
moh.
I
think
this
is
part
two
appropriation
of
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
bha
same
for
the
city,
housing,
voucher
program
and
the
rest
reads
the
same
as
what
I
just
read
above.
A
A
The
next
one
is
decreased:
bfd
equipment,
lease
purchase
by
178,
six
hundred
and
eighteen
dollars
to
increase
public
course
personnel
services
to
accelerate
waste
reduction.
I
think
we've
already
addressed
this
because
it's
part
of
the
three
one
one
right.
A
A
If
we
want
to
address
it
but
they're
kind
of
like
together,
which
makes
it
interesting
so
96
thousand
dollars
where's
my
math,
the
96
000
I
was
missing
to
get
to
the
578.
000
is
not
the
same.
The
total
amount
in
just
the
vfd
equipment
that
we
had
suggested
to
take
out,
and
that
means
that
we
would
only
need,
like
twelve
thousand
thirteen
thousand
to
get
to
it.
D
So
we
are
going
through
each
amendment
individually
deciding
this
group
here
if
we
want
to
override
them.
When
you
write
up
your
committee
report
on
wednesday,
will
it
go
in
for
each
individual
one
will
vote
on
as
a
council
on
wednesday,
or
will
you
submit
it
like
the
budget
on
the
eighth
as
one
whole
package?
D
G
D
A
Perfect,
thank
you
no
problem
and
right
now
I'm
just
get
taking
feedback
because
and
going
through
it,
because
it
takes
way
too
long
to
like
disagree
on
the
floor
and,
yes,
I
will
we'll
doubt
the
vote
on
each
docket
and
we'll
file
a
separate,
but
I
think
that
you'll
find
that
some
of
my
suggestions,
my
group,
two
items
or
three
and
some
of
my
filing
like
some
dockets,
will
only
be
like
one
item
depending
on
what
makes
sense.
A
Okay,
so
do
we
want
to
take
out
the
additional
13
000
from
the
second
part
of
this,
which
was
originally
for
waste
reduction?
I
wish
council
black
was
here
because
I
think
this
was
what
she
was.
This
was
her
recommendation.
H
Yes,
I
have
to
leave
in
a
minute.
I
have
another
meeting
in
five
minutes.
Could
could
I
beg
a
favor
and
ask
I
leave
and
leave
you
with
this.
The
issue
about
the
contractual
services
for
the
clerks
department
to
recodify
the
the
city.
A
Let
me
we're
jumping.
H
A
A
We
need
thirteen
thousand
about
thirteen
thousand
dollars
more.
Should
we
get
the
difference
in
this?
Second,
in
the
second
line,
five,
the
one
we
just
suggested-
the
second
reduction
from
bfd.
A
Okay,
what's
the
what's:
where
is
it
on
the
page
and
what
line
is
it.
H
Clerk
city
clerk
contractor
services,
we
had
asked
for
200
000,
I
think
on
reflection
I
think
100
000
would
be
good,
but
an
absolute
minimum
of
75
000.
We
would
accept
because
we
we
want
to
have
this
this
job
done
properly
and
done
by
a
professional,
a
professional
organization
that
does
this
on
a
day.
You
know
weekly
basis,
and
rather
than
so
I
I
would
amend
that
ask
to
a
hundred
thousand,
rather
than
two
hundred.
A
H
Was
200
000
in
the
original
ask,
and
I
think
that
was
a
generous
ask.
I
think
maybe
a
hundred
thousand
would
be
adequate,
but
an
absolute
minimum
of
75.
A
Here
it
is
it's
the.
H
You
know
this
this
this
this.
This
issue
hasn't
been
attended
to
for
50
years
in
terms
of
recodifying
and
it's
past
time
to
put
it
right,
so
I
I
don't
want
it
to
just
fall
off
and
be
kicked
on
the
kick
the
can
down
the
road
for
another
year.
We
need
to
get
started
on
this
and
correct
this
situation.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
need
to
find
it
on
my
spreadsheet:
did
we
get
to
it
yet
we're
not
there
yet?
Okay,
we'll
just
I'll
just
take
notes
on
paper
or
we'll
take
notes
on
paper,
okay,
so
counselor,
president
flynn,
it's
the
fourth
page
on
the
summary
of
amendments
and
line
item
number
appropriation,
number
161.
B
Yet,
thank
you,
madam
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
have
I
have
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
information.
I
did
have
a
very
positive
conversation
with
counselor
braden
about
the
importance
of
of
this
type
of
work
that
is
needed
and,
as
council
braden
has
has
mentioned,
it
hasn't
taken
place
in
the
city
for
many
many
years
and
I'm
I'm
concerned.
If
we
don't
do
it
now
and
we
we
kicked
the
can
down
down
the
road
a
little
bit.
B
You
know
that
200
000,
that
we're
asking
is,
is
going
to
be
more
than
there's
going
to
be
more
because
time
will
have
passed,
but
I
I
think
it's
important.
I
think
it's
an
important
ask
it's
important
request
and
we're
trying
to
get
the
get
our
documents
really
in
in
order.
So
I
just
wanted
to
weigh
in
in
support
of
council
braden's
request.
H
H
I
thought
the
total
amount
accepted
was
zero,
like
I'm
I'm
looking
at
the
worksheet.
The
amendments
is
that.
D
A
A
You're
saying
that
we
override
that
to
but
then
ask
for
a
hundred
thousand.
A
D
Can
I
ask
so
to
clarify
councillor
braden?
It
seems
that
our
ask
was
passed
for
the
80
000
for
the
personnel
and
200
000
for
contractual
and
you're,
asking
that
we
increase
the
80
to
100
to
make
sure
that
no
personnel.
H
Full-Time
equivalent
has
been
approved
of
like
they
accept
that
the
the
piece
that's
been
discussed
is
they
contract
your
services,
and
we
had
asked
for
two
hundred
thousand
and
it
was
thrown
out
entirely
and
I'm
saying
well,
a
compromise
position
would
be
to
at
least
get
a
hundred
thousand
to
do
the
contractual
services
to
contract
this
out
to
a
municipal
to
a
a
company
that
it
will
be
put
out
to
bid
for
a
select
number
number
of
companies
that
would
have
been
on
on
doing
this.
This
work.
D
A
I
think
this
was
console
box
and
she's,
not
here.
I'm
in
support
of
this
mission.
Hill
link
services.
A
Does
anyone
else
have
any
comments
about
this?
Yes,
council,
president
flynn.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
also
in
support
of
that
request
as
well.
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
important,
so
I
I
support
it.
A
Decrease
bpd
contractual
services,
communications
increase
products
and
recreation
department,
personnel
services
by
688;
000,
I'm
sorry,
6
373
for
one
additional
project
manager;
five,
additional
tree
maintenance
roles
for
four
person
or
similar
and
three
maintenance
roles;
park,
maintenance,
four
person
or
similar
to
specialize
in
urban
wilds,
with
aim
to
creating
a
pathway
from
power
course,
boston
to
parks
and
recreation
department.
A
Okay,
the
administration
is
saying,
you
know,
decrease
that
decrease
by
hundred
and
forty
four
one
hundred
and
eighty
seven
thousand.
I
mean
dollars
to
accept
five
hundred
forty
four
thousand
one
hundred
eighty
seven
dollars,
probably
the
same
logic
here
in
terms
of
when
to
hire
people
decreasing
the
two
months
or
so
that
it
would
take
them
to
hire
sorry.
The
first
page
on
the
administrations
is
300.
A
I
guess
this
is
like
appropriation
by
department,
so
you'll
see
that
numbers
are
similar
if
it's
the
same
department,
but
so
it's
a
first
page
and
then
over
here
it's
bullet
number,
it's
the
last
one
on
the
second
page
of
the
summary.
So
I
think
this
is
the
same
logic,
and
I
think
we
can
accept
this.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
a
pass
bpd
next,
one
we're
moving
on
to
the
third
page
of
the
summary
of
amendments.
A
A
Decreased
personnel
services
over
time
by
four
million
one
hundred
twenty
twenty
thousand
dollars
increase
ye
personnel
services;
one
million
three
hundred
seventy
three
thousand;
and
three
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
and
y
e
contractual
services
to
one
two
million:
seven
hundred
forty
six
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
seven
dollars
to
fully
fund
six
thousand
youth
summer
jobs
and
account
for
a
pay
adjustment.
A
So
the
administration
is
suggesting
that
we
decrease
that
amount,
obviously
taking
it
out
of
somewhere
else
and
not
over
time
or
police
over
time
and
decreasing
that
amount
by
2
million
297
thousand
dollars,
but
to
accept
suggesting
to
accept
an
amount
of
two
million
one
hundred.
Ninety
six
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
seven
dollars.
A
To
accepting
the
mayor's
propos
suggestion.
B
The
well
I
had
a
question
is
the
similar
to
the
hokies
and
similar
to
the
parks
department.
Is
this
similar
to
that
in
that
summer,
youth,
if
we're
hiring
summer
youth
and
starting
the
process
in
july?
Is
that
why
it's
it's
decreased?
I
I
know
I
know
the
I
I
agree
with
the
administration
on
on
the
need
for
public
safety
and
police
resources
in
overtime.
B
I'm
not
I'm
not
questioning
that,
but,
but
is
the
decrease
because
of
that
the
summer
would
be
half
over
at
that
time.
Is
that
why
it's
it's
being
decreased?
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
anyone
knew
the
answer
to
that.
A
A
Because
that's
what
we
heard
from
the
hearings
with
ye,
but
also
that
they
felt
that
department
wasn't
prepared
to
build
capacity
that
fast.
It
was
already
getting
an
increase
and
they
felt
that
over
time
it
could.
It
could
get
more
increase,
but
that
at
the
moment,
because
they
already
increased
that
they
needed
time
to
build
capacity.
B
No
thank
thank
you
for
that
response.
Madam
chim.
E
A
A
Feel
free
to
go
through
the
summary.
If
there's
anything
you
want
to
address
before
you
go,
I
think
it
was
on
the
mission
hill
link.
We
supported
that
and
then
we
moved
on
okay,
all
right,
yeah
and
then
the
groundwater
thing
like
that
was
done.
A
Like
the
waste
we
figured
the
math
out,
we
were
gonna
right,
override
only
one
side
to
kind
of
get
closer
to
the
amount
that
we
needed,
because
it
was
like
still
missing
when
you
added
the
two
ftes
for
waste
reduction
and
the
15
hokies
to
start
in
september.
A
It
would
just
reduce
two
months
of
pay
for
both
sides
and
therefore
missing
an
amount
of
96
000,
and
then
we
were
like
13
000
short,
so,
but
still,
if
we
only
override
one
portion
of
it,
we
would
be
fine
so
like
accepting
it
and
overriding
only
one
portion
of
it
to
get
the
remaining
or
not
at
all,
just
leaving
it,
as
is.
A
No
worries,
okay,
so
without
if
no
one
else
has
any
other
suggestions
on
that.
We'll
move
on
all
right.
Second.
Item
decrease
ppd
personnel
services
over
time
again.
Fourth,
four
to
four
million
one
hundred
twenty
thousand
dollars
increase
ye
personnel
services,
one
million
to
one
million
three
hundred,
seventy
three
thousand
three
hundred
thirty
three
dollars
and
ye
contractual
services:
two
million
seven
hundred
forty
seven,
I'm
sorry,
forty
six
thousand
six
hundred
sixty
seven
dollars
to
fully
fund
six
thousand.
Oh
did
I
read
that
already.
A
Is
that
the
same
one?
Yeah?
Sorry
about
that?
So
the
second
one?
Sorry,
it's
actually
just
taken
out
over
time,
2
million
2.7
about
2.7
million
and
then
increasing
it
to
yee
contractual
930,
000
and
sorry
personnel,
930,
000
and
contractual
1.8
about
1.8
to
fully
fund
1500
youth,
year-round
and
so
for
the
year
round.
A
A
Well,
here
interesting,
they
have
that
we
recommended
2.3,
but
it's
actually
2.7.
A
A
I
don't
see
it
in
here
explained
at
all,
but
okay
anyway,
there's
a
mistake.
The
amount
is
inaccurate.
That's
not
what
we
recommended.
We
actually
recommended
two
million
seven
hundred
ninety
thousand
dollars
and
they
put
down
that.
We
recommended
two
million
three
hundred
and
three
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
three
dollars
decreasing.
They
recommended
that
they
decrease
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
just
accept,
and
I
think
it's
not
taking
it
out
of
bpd
over
time,
but
a
total
amount
of
one
million
point
about
one
million
point
three.
F
Yes,
so
does
that
mean
that
the
2.3
that
we
advocated
for
is
what
we're
going
to
keep
right?
Two
point:
yeah
two
point:
seven:
if.
A
A
A
A
A
I
think
so
the
line
one
six
one
on
the
second
page
right.
It
was
interesting,
it
was
accepted,
but
I
mean
the
money's
not
coming
out
of.
A
A
Okay,
next
one
decrease
ppd
personnel
to
increase
blackmail,
advancement
personnel
services
by
to
six
hundred
thousand
dollars.
Can
you
guys
tell
me
where
it
is
on
do
here?
It
is
five
page
two,
five
one,
nine.
A
Excuse
me:
instead,
the
administration
is
recommending
two
hundred
thousand
decreasing
it
by
four
hundred
thousand.
A
F
A
F
A
I
mean,
I
think
everything
is
a
conversation
right.
The
administration
is
showing
that
they
want
to
talk
beyond
this
point.
So
let's
say
you
say,
look
five
is
acceptable
right
then
I'm
going
to
say
to
them.
A
Five
is
the
is
the
least
that
will
allow
that
we
are
gonna,
we're
gonna
override
to
five
and
we're
trying
to
compromise
or
collaborate.
Do
you
want
me
to
just
say,
override
to
five.
F
Yeah,
I
think,
in
the
interest
of
being
collaborative.
I
think
that
this
would
be
a
good
faith
compromise
on
our
behalf.
I
hate
to
speak
for
counselor
rorell,
but
I
know
he
was
asking
for
eight
and
I
asked
for
a
million
and
I
think
if
we
can
learn
somewhere
in
five,
that
would
be
a
little
bit
more
acceptable.
A
Okay,
I
think
that
so
I've
I
can
I've
taken
notes,
and
I
will
certainly
have
that
conversation
and
you'll
see
it
in
the
report.
Thank
you
all
right.
A
A
Oh,
it's
just
a
whole
bunch
of
all
clumped
up
in
there
the
esol
accepted
they
were
all
accepted
in
whole.
So
we'll
just
can
we
find
those
items
thanks
all
right
so
pass
and
let
me
know
when
you
find
it
I'm
looking
as
well.
I
I
A
A
I
Yes,
on
the
matrix,
it's
on
the
first
page,
it's
three
eight
eight
three.
A
I
So
we've
heard
from
multiple
I'd
like
to
see
this
office
fully
funded
we've
had
we
had
hearings
on
this
issue.
We
brought
in
folks
from
dc's
office
of
returning
citizens
affairs
to
talk
about
what
a
robust
office
would
look
like.
I
We
know
that
here
in
the
city
of
boston
city
hall,
in
the
office
of
urban
mechanics,
we
have
folks
who
are
dedicated
to
looking
at
how
we
build
up
an
office
that
has
been
disinvested
in
since
its
inception,
and
so
we've
heard
from
the
advocates
about
what
we
think
that
800
000
is
the
right
number
to
for
and
just
to
correct
the
record
as
well
for
programming
and
community
support.
So
we're
not
talking
about
money,
that's
being
allocated
for
staff
capacity
right,
so
we
don't
have
that
issue
of
you
know.
I
Do
we
are
we
able
to
hire
the
personnel
in
time?
This
is
about
you
know,
working
in
deep
partnership
with
the
community-based
organizations
that
have
been
doing
the
work
are
responding
to
the
needs
that
have
been
going
on
matt
of
returning
citizens
of
formerly
incarcerated
folks
when
they
come
to
the
office
with
basic
needs
and
are
unable
to
get
the
support
that
they
need
because
of
the
lack
of
bandwidth
in
what
and
how
the
office
can
support,
formerly
incarcerated
folks.
So
I
I
believe,
the
that
this
is
a
request.
I
That's
coming
from
out
of
the
work
here
in
city
council,
in
the
partnership
with
community
members
with
organizations
that
are
being
led
by
formerly
incarcerated
folks,
with
strong
coalitions
here,
including
the
greater
boston
interfaith
organization.
So
I'm
in
support
of
us
as
a
city
council,
doing
what
we've
already
done
in
supporting
the
work
of
orc
and
formerly
incarcerated
folks
and
fully
funding
this
800
thousand
dollar
request,
and
you
know
similar
to
councillor
mejia.
You
know
I,
in
good
faith,
want
to
work
in
collaboration,
so
you
know
I.
I
believe
that
there
are.
I
You
know
if,
if
for
whatever
reason
we
can't
meet
that
you
know,
I
didn't
put
forward
that
many
amendments,
that
of
that
of
a
significant
amount,
but
I'm
open
to
discussion.
I
would
like
to
see
the
800
000
fully
funded
office.
We
know
that
that's
a
number
that
is
doable
and
that
community
has
been
asking
for,
and
we
were
really
intentional
in
our
hearings
and
in
follow-ups
about
what
that
number
should
look
like.
F
Else,
yeah
I'd
like
to
second
that,
in
terms
of
just
having
worked
in
that
space
in
other
capacities,
I
really
do
believe
that,
if
we're
really
serious
about
addressing
the
needs,
then
we
need
to
fully
invest,
and
so
I
will
second
and
fight
alongside
you
for
that
council.
A
A
Okay,
so
decree
next
one
decrease
equipment,
just
52
000,
also
from
bpd
equipment,
property,
inc,
property,
increased
property
management
department
contractor
services
for
graffiti
busters.
Do
we
have
it
on
the
matrix.
A
A
I
A
Okay
degrees,
vpp
personnel
vpd
must
be
watching
us
right
now.
A
Sorry,
the
list
to
go
down
is
yeah.
Quite
interesting,
decreased
ppd
personnel
services
over
time.
This
is
taking
money
out
of
overtime,
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
to
increase
right
staff
wages.
I
think
administration.
A
B
A
G
B
A
Said
that
that's
passed
away
on
13.,
so
on
13.
it
was
passed
but
not
to
take
out
of
bpd.
The
administration
found
money
somewhere
else
for
the
for
the.
What
was
it
neighborhood
services.
G
A
A
A
A
A
385
second
page
385,
and
then
it
was
coupled
with
another
one
that
was
kind
of
similar
to
that
and
then
we'll
get
we'll
get
to
that
we'll
get
to
the
youth
workers,
but
for
the
first
one
for
the
soar,
I
think
I
want
to
have
a
conversation
with
administration
about
this
one.
Okay,
only
because
we
know
council
coletta
did
not
was
not
able
to
advocate
or
get
her
stuff
that
she
advocated
for
all
right.
So
that's
a
conversation
for
override
or
compromise.
A
A
A
I'll
mark
that
red
all
right
do
nothing
about
that.
Fine
and
next
one
decrease
boston,
public
health
contractor
services.
Nope
address
that
already
decreased,
departmental
innovation
technology.
Do
it
personal
services
increase
city,
council
personnel?
Didn't
we
get
that.
G
I
A
I
A
I
G
I
Oh,
that's:
that's
funding
car
five.
F
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
certainly
I
certainly
support.
I
know
this
is
a
major
request
from
actually
from
council
flaherty
but
supported
by
all
of
our
colleagues
car
five.
So
I
I
would
support
that.
Recommendation
of
the
city
council
is
in
support
of
of
car
five.
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
needed.
A
Okay,
I
will
have
a
conversation.
I
think
the
issue
is
where
it's
coming
from
I'll
have
a
conversation.
If
you
know
the
administration
can
make
suggestions
on
this
one
and
I've
noted
that
we
all
supported
it.
Thank
you.
A
I
A
A
A
A
It
was
braden
yep
and
she
didn't
make
any.
F
Extra
slow
today
no
worries.
I
did
we
skip
the
first
page
because
I
don't
remember
talking
about.
We.
A
Did
I
skipped
it
on
purpose?
Oh,
so
we're
not
going
to
talk
about
it.
We
are
we're
on
enter
we're
going
to
intro
next,
oh
okay,
all
right
so
anyway.
No
one
is
here
to
speak
on
behalf
of
this
I'll
I'll
get
in
touch
with
I'll.
Put
a
question
mark
on
this
council
braid
all
right.
Next,
we
are
already
that
next
one
is
addressed.
A
The
next
one
is
increase:
vphc
special
appropriation,
160
000.
A
F
Oh
yep,
all
right,
so
this
one.
This
is
the
youth
development
network
that
works
with
students
who
are
chronically
absent,
and
this
is
we
only
ask
for
160
000.
A
Well,
probably
because
it's
like
bpd
asking
for
more
money
out
of
epd,
I
I
didn't
a
logical
explanation,
I
don't
I
don't.
I
don't
have
for
you,
but
can
we
you
would
like
to
override
it?
Can
I
yeah.
F
I'd
like
to
oh,
I
I'd
like
to
so
some
clear,
override
situation.
I'd
like
to
advocate
that
our
request
for
160
000
remains.
A
F
Anderson,
yes,
was
it
because
these
are
the
most
complicated
ones
or
do
you
have
a
strategy
as
to
kind
of
why
we
left
this
one
for
last.
A
Because
I
mean
it's
going
to
be
a
quick
list,
some
of
the
rules
that
they,
like
their
argument,
applies,
but
some
of
it
doesn't
so
I
just
wanted
to
like
go
through
it
and
if
it's
exactly
what
they
said,
then
fine.
But
there
are
a
couple
of
items
here
that
I
think
can
still
be
moved.
Okay,
so
for
the
first
one
within
inspectional
service,
150
000,
to
go
to
for
two
additional
environmental
health
inspectors.
A
So
interdepartmental
the
argument
that
they're
making
I
mean
we
can
push
back
and
get
their
response
on
it.
The
argument
was
that
if
it's
interdepartmental
going
from
iced
to
isd
technically,
it's
sort
of
like
encroaching
on
executive
power,
telling
the
commissioner
or
the
chief
what
to
do
or
how
to
do
their
job
or
who,
because
then,
if
you're,
not
saying
here's
the
money
to
do
to
create
that
position.
A
With
that
line
item
then
you're,
essentially
asking
or
telling
them
to
fire
or
lay
off
somebody
or
move
money
around,
and
that
technically
is
against
the
rules.
So
what
they're
saying
is
we
can't
do
that
and
then
I
asked
legal
in
terms
of
what
about,
if
it's
new
money
that
we're
sending
to
that
department,
then
how
could
we
move
that
around?
But
I
think
that
the
administration
has
like
in
good
faith.
They
should
work
with
us
and
say
we
understand
what
you
were
trying
to
do
here.
B
Yet,
if,
if
I,
if
I
could
just
add
madam
chair,
the
pest
control
is
an
issue
that
I've
focused
on
for
the
last
five
years
and
it's
critical
that
we,
we
add
more
resources
to
various
departments
to
address
pest
control
because
the
the
amount
of
mice
and
rats
in
this
city
it
continues
to
increase.
And
you
know
it's
a
public
health
emergency.
In
my
my
in
my
opinion,
so
I
really
want
to
advocate
for
more
support
for
pest
control.
A
A
Thank
you,
counselor
flynn.
I
am
I've
highlighted
that
as
a
priority
for
you
and
we'll
definitely
be
having
conversations
with
the
administration
to
see
what
we
can
do.
A
You
so
we
can
move
past
the
abatement
because
I
think
that's
kind
of
all
related
counselor,
mejia
and
counselor
flynn.
If
you
guys
go
through
this
list
and
pull
out
exactly
what
you
want
to
address
plus
time
sake.
Okay,.
C
F
G
F
F
So
there
are
two
separate
items
and
you
know
based
on
the
work
that
we've
been
doing
during
covet
and
post
code
and
working
in
collaboration
with
becma
and
other
organizations
that
are
working
towards
supporting
black
and
brown
businesses.
F
We
have
come
to
learn
that
there
is
a
gap
for
immigrant
businesses
who
are
not
english
speaking
in
terms
of
navigating
city
services
right
so
they're,
usually
the
last
to
get
things.
But
we
know
that
immigrants
are
also
a
big
part
of
you
know
the
economy
and
they
are
struggling,
and
so
for
me,
based
on
the
budget
pop-ups
that
we've
done
and
even
hearing
here
on
the
council.
F
We.
I
believe
that
this
item
here
is
worth
fighting
for
to
really
support
immigrant
owned
businesses,
and
I
know
I
asked
for
500
000
and
we
came
back
with
zero,
so
in
good
faith.
I
do
believe
that
this
is.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
the
city
to
really
reflect
the
values
of
you
know
having
a
high
concentration
of
immigrants
working
towards
supporting
them,
and
what
better
way
to
do
that
and
making
sure
that
they're
able
to
access
city
services
apply
for
grants
and
be
able
to
do
so
successfully.
So.
A
While
we're
on
your
priorities,
council
media,
I
think
that
the
500
000
for
experiential
learning
can
be
argued
because
it's
new
funds
that
is
going
in
they
didn't
appropriate
it.
We
are
the
ones
who
sent
those
funds
there
they're
recommending
a
new
amount
that
still
covers
the
500
000,
specifically
for
contract
or
experiential
learning,
like
so
stipends
to
go
toward
that,
and
I
think
I'm
gonna
definitely
recommend
that
we
override
that,
because
I
think
that
that
does
not
the
rule
that
they're
explained
does
not
apply
here.
A
So
basically,
they're
saying
you
can't
tell
us
what
to
do
with
money
that
was
already
planned
to
hire
people.
We
have
a
plan
with
that
and
that's
if
you
tell
us
how
to
do
that.
That's
technically
and-
and
I
still
think
it's
open
for
arguing
argument,
because
it
the
amendment
says
we
can
amend
and
line
items.
So
I
think
that's
what
we
did,
but
still
in
terms
of
their
argument.
A
They're
saying,
if
it's
already
appropriated,
then
you're
technically
asking
for
an
executive
power
or
you're
trying
to
encroach
on
executive
power
to
tell
them
to
like
who
do
they
fire,
who
they
lay
off.
In
order
to
create
that,
but
when
we're
sending
new
funds,
then
yeah
use
500,
we're
saying
use
500
of
that
to
and
I
can
I
can,
I
can
send
it
back
in
that
way
actually
specifying.
This
is
the
funds
that
we
have
approved.
F
That's
specifically
for
the
exponential
learning,
which
is
different
than
the
minority
businesses
right
right,
because
the
immigrant
business
is
the
one
that
we're
talking
about
right
now
that
came
back
with
zero.
A
F
And
so
my
question
is:
is
what
I've
heard
from
the
administration
in
regards
to
wanting
to
support
immigrant-owned
businesses
they've
also
identified
a
gap
in
being
able
to
do
so
in
terms
of
multiple
languages.
You
know
counselor
flynn
had
asked
about
if
they
had
any
cantonese
or
mandarin
speaking
folks
on
the
on
the
team,
and
so
this
is
where
I
talk
about
building
capacity.
F
B
B
Could
I
just
echo
what
council
mejia
talked
about
in
terms
of
immigrant
owned
businesses,
my
district
in
in
chinatown,
the
business
community?
Most
of
it
is
most
of
the
businesses
are
owned
by
immigrants
that
speak
a
different
language.
They
see
they
speak
english,
but
they
also
speak
another
language.
B
I
also
have
a
large
community
in
the
south
end
that
speak
spanish,
that
many
of
the
businesses
there
are
also
immigrant
owned
as
well.
So
I
certainly
support
the
the
efforts
in
in
the
outreach
and
the
supports
of
immigrant
owned
businesses,
and
you
know
agree
with
council
me
here
that
there
should
be
some.
There
should
be
some
funding
in
in
the
budget.
For
that
you
know,
maybe
we
don't
get
everything
that
we
ask
for,
but
we
we
certainly.
B
We
certainly
should
have
something
in
there.
That's
able
to
help
a
number
of
businesses
owned
by
immigrants.
B
Yes,
I
did
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I,
on
the
first
page,
the
second
one
from
the
bottom,
the
public
works
and
public
boston
transportation
department.
You
know
one
issue
that
I've
really
focused
on
over
the
last
five
years
as
pedestrian
safety
measures.
B
B
B
Many
of
them
are
our
parents
taking
their
little
kids
to
to
school
or
taking
their
little
kids
to
you
know
the
library
or
after
school
programs-
and
I
see
these
people
cutting
through
boston
at
excessive
speeds,
going
50
miles
an
hour
up,
illustrated
down
broadway
well,
while
an
elderly
person
is
trying
to
cross
the
street,
that's
outrageous!
B
B
I
also
think
we
should
lower
the
speed
limit
25
miles.
An
hour
is
excessive
in
the
city
of
boston,
especially
in
in
dense
neighborhoods
of
the
of
of
the
city.
But
I
know
that's
that's
for
another
discussion,
but
I
certainly
support
the
money
in
the
budget
for
pedestrian
safety
measures.
It's
it's
a
matter
of
life
and
death.
F
That
I
have
two
more
on
the
list.
One
is
a
pilot
program
for
housing,
stipends
for
young
people
19
to
24
year
olds
and.
F
A
For
both
the
special
appropriation
500
000
for
the
pilot
housing
stipends
for
young
people,
aged
19
to
24
and
the
1
million
dollars
for
housing
stipends
for
municipal
employees
struggling
to
pay
with
this
one,
we
I
don't
know
if
you
recall,
we
were
talking
about
taking
it
out
of
bpdf.
First,
you
suggested
that
and
I
think
one
of
the
counselors.
A
I
won't
mention
names
because
she's
not
here,
but
mentioned
that
we
wanted
to
limit
what
we
were
taking
out
of
ppdo
over
time,
so
that
we
can
prioritize
the
youth
jobs
when
you
agreed
to
that.
We
thought
that
we
could
prioritize
this
as
a
footnote
sort
of
saying
this
is
you
know
we
can
actually
ask
the
departments
to
do
this
as
a
priority
and
there
they
came
back
and
said
at
first.
They
said:
yes,
that's
okay,
because
we're
just
moving
money
around
in
into
a
department
and
into
a
department,
and
it
didn't
hurt.
A
A
A
I
appreciate
the
respect
that
you've
extended
to
me
as
chair,
and
I
will
do
my
best
to
advocate
for
you,
but
also
we
can
have
that
conversation
together
with
the
administration.
I'm
I'm
ready
to
support
you
in
having
that
conversation.
A
A
That's
correct
and
then
there's
a
little
bit
on
page
two
as
well:
we've
covered
most.
B
B
Yeah
I
know
I
I
highlighted
the
the
issues
I
had
mine
were
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
city
government,
quality
of
life
issues
and
for
some
reason,
they're
they're
knocked
off
the
budget.
A
I
think
that
you
know
these
are
things
are
in
capital
and
if,
let's,
let's
have
a
conversation
about
how
we
can
prioritize,
what
you're
highlighting
here
council
fund.
A
We
wanted
to
create
a
footnote
about
something
that's
already
being
spent
or
planned
for
in
capital,
but
I
think
that
it's
open
for
for
conversation.
The
administration
is
expressing
that
they're
open
to
work
with
us
collaboratively
on
this.
So.
B
Madam
chair,
can
you
explain
the
the
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
mental
health
response
crisis
training
to
be
provided
by
the
city,
council
and
311
staff?
I'm
not
familiar
with
that.
A
Oh,
yes,
can
you
tell
me
the
bullet.
A
A
So
actually
this
one
it's
it's
worded.
I
think
it
comes
off
as
if
it's
like
intra-departmental,
but
it's
not.
A
It
was
supposed
to
be
contract
funds
from
to
to
to
council
to
the
city
council
budget,
but
it
does
read
as
though
it's
just
bringing
the
person
from
boston,
public
health,
and
so
it
was
essentially
that
a
lot
of
our
director
of
constituent
service,
our
staff,
the
admin
staff,
deal
with
a
host
of
information.
That
comes
their
way.
A
lot
of
it
requires
trauma-informed
types
of
responses
and
had
if
we
contract
contract
or
someone
to
actually
provide
that
level
of,
like
you,
know,
weekly
check-in
or.
G
A
It's
being
knocked
off,
I
would
you
like
for
me
to
to
highlight
that
as
well.
B
B
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
make
an
excellent
point-
council
flynn-
and
then
it
ties
back
to
what
you
said
earlier
and
what
councilmember
was
saying
about
the
frustration
of
if,
if
this
was
a
miscommunication,
where
we
understood
that
this
was
okay,
that
we
could
do
inter-departmental,
footnotes
or
changes
and
that
at
one
point
it
was
communicated
that
it
was
okay.
Then,
at
whatever
point
they
decided
it
wasn't.
Okay,
that
it
should
have
been
a
conversation
and
to
prioritize.
A
In
all
fairness,
I
think
it's
saying
it's
looking
at
what
people
are
interested
in
and
the
two,
the
couple
of
things
that
was
that
were
moved
were
the
chairs
mine
and
probably
because
in
the
things
that
I
moved
wasn't
like
project
based
or
things
that
I
was
working
on.
It
was
mostly
for
admin
staff,
and
maybe
they
saw
that
as
like.
That's
not
really
for
her.
Let's
try
to
get
everyone,
something
that
they're
passionate
about,
and
so
I
think
in
consideration
for
everyone.
A
They
tried
to
do
that
to
the
best
of
their
ability,
and
I
think
they
made
a
mistake.
Sometimes,
for
example,
if
they
said
well,
let's
look
out
for
council
mejia.
They
might
have
not
seen
that
they
might
have
thought
something
else
was
mejias,
whereas
it
would
belong
to
some
someone
else
was
advocating
for
it.
A
So
I
don't
think
there
was
like
ill
will.
It
was
more
about.
We
are
willing
to
move
around
this
much
money
and
how
can
we
divest
that
in
everyone
fairly
and
then
again
faulted
at
where
they
mistake?
One
item
to
belong
to
one
person,
but
it
actually
belongs
to
someone
else.
So
I
think
that's
the
that's
my
attempt
to
be
fully
transparent
and
we're
saying
seven
point:
something
million
is
not.
H
F
I
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
just
note
that
I
also
agree
with
counselor
flynn
in
regards
to-
and
everybody
knows,
I'm
always
talking
about
mental
health
and
wellness
is
key,
and
I
think
that
this
is
also
one
of
those
situations
where,
if
we
can't
get
it
through
the
people's
budget,
because
that's
what
this
is
not
the
mayor's
budget,
no
or
the
councils,
just
to
be
clear
that
this
is
something
in
terms
of
arbor
upper
funding,
because
a
lot
of
the
cases
that
we've
heard
from
311
and
even
our
staff,
you
know
there's
trauma
right
and
there's
still
the
residue
of
that.
A
I'll
take
any
final
comments
or
statements.
I
just
want
to
again
extend
myself
my
time
to
work
with
you
guys
and
going
through
this
and
making
sure
that
I
am
properly
advocating
for
your
priorities.
A
I
will
probably
over
the
weekend
one
in
the
next
couple
days:
work
with
administration
and
second
part
working
with
myself
to
put
this
together
and
file.
I
think
we've
gotten
to
a
point
we
will
check
in
in
a
hearing
on
monday.
It's
a
check-in-
hopefully
it's
nice
and
quick,
and
then
we
will
I
will
file
on,
and
so
it
will
essentially
be
mad
as
recently
heard
and
that
and
then
on
wednesday.
A
I
look
forward
to
the
meeting.
F
B
A
B
A
Thank
you
so
much
counselor
mejia
counselor,
president
flynn
and
I'll
we'll
keep
working.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Meeting
adjourned.