Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 6/28/2021
HOLYOKE – After weeks of meetings and discussions, the Holyoke City Council approved a final budget for fiscal year 2022.
The June 21 meeting was the last in a series of budget meetings that were hosted by the council. The meeting was attended virtually by some councilors, while others met in person in the council chambers. Councilor Joseph McGiverin kicked off the meeting by proposing the second reading of the budget be passed, which the council voted unanimously to approve. McGiverin called the budget and the revenue that supports the budget “a moving target,” and said going into the budget meetings they had a deficit “of what we all thought was $3.6 to $3.8 million.” He explained that both the city solicitor and Acting Mayor Terrance Murphy had worked to calculate how much of the money they were receiving from the federal government could be used to supplement the budget.
“Close to $1.7 million can be appropriated into the city budget itself,” he said. McGiverin said in an updated document they had received the day of the meeting, the budget deficit was now $2.7 million. He said of the deficit, “close to $1.3 million is directly related to the sewers.” He explained that the city was looking to increase the sewer rate and “capture dollars that have not been captured over the fiscal year.”
“The [Department of Public Works] superintendent has told us a lot of those not paid bills are related to COVID and will correct itself as water is shut off in the near future,” he said. With all this information, he said, he believed the budget was close to balanced and without the sewer deficit he believed they’d have a surplus in funds.
When addressing the budget, Murphy said he believed “the key” for whoever was to be Holyoke’s next mayor was “to resolve the sewer deficit.” When asked by Councilor Howard Greaney what the “actual estimated” budget deficit was, Murphy said it was $2.7 million, but that number did not include the $1.7 million in anticipated aid from the federal government.
When Councilor Mike Sullivan asked how the budget had gone down so significantly, Murphy said that payments regarding sewer had come in and reduced the budget. He explained that without increasing the city’s sewer fee, they were looking at a budget deficit of $1 million after the federal monies were applied.
Murphy said that the budget was “factoring in a 93 percent collection rate” of sewer fees. When the collection rate, along with the rate increase, was factored into the budget, Murphy said the city would be “taking in $1.3 to $1.4 million extra.” He added that should the collection rate in the city be 100 percent, that would give the city $1.5 million extra in funding. With this, Murphy explained, that it would help pay off bonds for several planned sewer projects, delay another sewer increase for four or five years and potentially give the city a slight surplus.
When asked by Councilor James Leahy how much a homeowner in the city would see their sewer bill increase, Murphy said the “approximate” amount a homeowner might see their bill increase would be “$80 to $90” yearly. After recent collections, Murphy said the deficit for sewer at the time of the meeting was $1.3 million and recently $300,000 had been collected, bringing down the initial $1.67 million deficit.
Councilor David Bartley said that both Councilor Peter Tallman and Murphy had been “taking a lot of heat from fellow city councilors” with regards to cuts being made and votes. However, he said they had been the only two to volunteer their services to the city as acting mayor and this should not be happening. Additionally, he said that no councilor was required to give a reason as to why they were voting on any measure or proposing any cuts within the budget. “They ought to be thanked and thanked profusely,” he said.
McGiverin said while Bartley was correct, they had met with all department heads to discuss what they needed to have a sufficient department. He said he wanted to support such department heads to ensure they were able to run their department. During discussion of the budget, several cuts were proposed by councilors regarding a variety of items. Among the items discussed to be cut was an $80,000 cut proposed by Councilor Linda Vacon for computer consulting services. There was some discussion regarding the contract for the company the city was using. McGiverin said he was not in favor of the cut as he felt it would create a liability issue as the contract was ongoing. However, Leahy said he was in support of Vacon’s motion. Councilor Rebecca Lisi agreed with McGiverin and said once they agreed to the contract they were obligated to pay on it.
Tallman agreed that he would not be supporting the cut and suggested bringing someone from the company before the council while Bartley said he was in favor of the cut for a variety of reasons including the “not so great” service, giving Murphy negotiating leverage and to try to get back to a local service provider. Leahy said that should they bring someone before the council they would be charged as it would be considered a service. Ultimately the cut did not carry as there were six votes in favor of the cut and six votes opposed to the cut.
Councilor Mike Sullivan then went on to propose a $20,000 rather than an $80,000 cut, which also failed with a vote of six to six. After the vote failed, Greaney proposed a cut of $10,000 which once again failed with a split vote. After the vote failed, Sullivan proposed to cut $20,000 from the police and fire network. McGiverin said the item pays for an IT person to be at the Police Department, but felt as though it was not properly explained by department heads and was in support of the cut. The cut ultimately passed with a vote of 11 to one, with Lisi voting in opposition to the item.
Another significant item within the budget that was discussed was a cut proposed by Sullivan to eliminate $3,500 for the Connecticut River Channel Marker Program, which was the entire amount allocated for the program. He said surrounding communities benefited more from the program and it wasn’t fair for Holyoke to “carry the lion’s share” of the cost of the program. McGiverin said he had spoken to several constituents who were boaters and benefitted from the river, and it was important to show that the city “believes in water safety.” He added that the Fire Department responded to safety incidents on the river. Vacon said the markers would need to be there no matter if Holyoke contributed or not.
Bartley said he didn’t believe cutting the entire amount allocated for the program, however, he was in favor of cutting a smaller amount to get the attention of surrounding communities and open discussions about the funding of the program. He then went on to make an amendment to cut the amount by just $1,000. Lisi said she thought the conversations “didn’t need to be incumbent on the withholding of money” and she felt as though cutting the budget was not beneficial. However, several councilors including Bartley and Leahy disagreed. Bartley said a similar tactic had been used with regards to T.J. O’Connor as they were not receiving reports, but now they consistently got quarterly reports. Ultimately, the cut was approved by the council.
Later in the meeting, Vacon proposed a $75,000 reduction to the Police Department overhead. This cut, she said, would allow for the current three captains to be retained, but would eliminate adding a new captain. Murphy said he felt this was a way to reduce overtime within the department and if they cut the funds the department would have one less lieutenant. Ultimately, the motion passed with McGiverin, Murphy and Tallman voting against the cut. Lisi was not present for the vote.
Vacon went on to propose a cut of $160,000 to the Fire Department’s overtime budget. She said this would bring the budget amount for the department’s overtime to a total of $200,000, the same amount that the council had allocated last year. McGiverin said he was not in favor of the cut as overtime for firefighters was much different than those for the Police Department. He said the summer season was already difficult prior to COVID-19 due to vacations and scheduling. He added the new fire chief had done a great job of maintaining the budget for the department, controlling the budget and ensuring seven fire apparatus were online at all times.
Leahy expressed similar sentiments, stating that the chief had done an incredible job and he would be voting against the measure. Murphy agreed and stated that the goal was “to get to 80 firefighters,” but that likely wouldn’t happen until the fall. Vacon said she “shared the respect and appreciation” for the work the chief had done and recognized the need; she saw funding for six positions where money could be transferred into the overtime budget if needed. The six positions, she said, were a result of retirements.After additional information given by Murphy regarding budget conversations he’d had with the fire chief, Vacon reduced her cut to just $100,000.
Barley said while he would not vote in favor of $100,000 and “wouldn’t want to cut it more than $60,000.” Greaney said he wanted to ensure that the department had adequate coverage and he would not be supporting the measure. Ultimately, all councilors including Vacon voted in opposition to the cut. Bartley then went on to propose a $60,000 rather than $100,000 which would allow for $300,000 of overtime for the department. The second proposed cut also failed to pass with a vote of eight to four.
Following a vote to eliminate $5,000 from other contracted services, which failed, Bartley questioned who was in charge of building codes and inspections. Council President Todd McGee confirmed that it was Damian Cote, who is married to Lisi. He questioned if it was okay for spouses to vote on such budget matters. “Without that vote, it would have been a 6 to 5 vote, and that would have passed. So I don’t think it’s right for the spouse of the department head to take a vote on this, I think it’s a pretty clear cut conflict,” he said.
After McGee and McGiverin said that Bartley’s comments were out of order, Lisi addressed the matter. She said, “I just beg to differ because you need to have enough votes to cut. So if I were not voting, I would be abstaining, and therefore you still wouldn’t have the votes necessary to cut, so thank you for your concern there.”
After more discussion and cuts to additional items in the budget, the second reading of the budget was passed with the amendments that had been approved during the meeting. The city clerk said a total of $423,250 in cuts had been made to the budget. To conclude the meeting, the City Council meetings for the month of July and Aug. 17 were cancelled due to summer recess.