The most intense exchanges centered on the school transportation budget. Citizen Colin Das addressed the council, urging them to approve the school committee’s transportation budget of $17 million. Das alleged that Mayor Paul Coogan initially pledged to fund the budget fully but later retracted his commitment. He claimed the mayor pressured the superintendent to align with a lower budget figure, although Das could not provide documentation to support his allegations. The council members questioned the veracity of these claims, with one demanding evidence from Das, who admitted, “I don’t have paperwork to give you.”

Council Vice President Dionne clarified the council’s role in budget approval, stating that while they must pass a balanced budget, they are not obligated to accept the mayor’s proposal. Dionne emphasized the council’s authority to make adjustments, recalling previous cuts to indirect costs in the stabilization account. The council’s discussion highlighted the friction between the mayor’s office and the council over financial priorities, with one member underscoring the importance of the council’s independence in budgetary matters.

The meeting also focused on the city’s budget for fiscal year 2027, particularly the allocation of funds to schools. The council debated whether to allocate the full $17 million requested by the school department or a reduced amount of $16.65 million, considering anticipated savings from redistricting. The interim superintendent, Kathleen Smith, and financial officers from the school department highlighted uncertainties in transportation costs due to fluctuating student enrollment and the potential impact of redistricting.

Council members expressed concerns about delaying funding decisions, fearing it could lead to drastic cuts in other departments if additional funds were needed later in the fiscal year. One council member emphasized the necessity of funding the school department’s request immediately to avoid more severe cuts at year-end, stating, “If we have movement in the budget, why wouldn’t we just fund the school department?”

Further complicating the discussion were questions about the reliability of projected savings from electric buses and the impact of redistricting on transportation costs. The council sought clarity on these issues, with some members expressing skepticism about making budget cuts based on assumptions. They called for concrete data to guide their decisions, particularly concerning the use of electric buses, which had not been in service long enough to provide reliable savings data.

The council also discussed using reserve funds to cover a $450,000 shortfall in the transportation budget line item. A motion was made to communicate with the administration about these adjustments, but procedural concerns delayed immediate action. After a recess, the council reconvened to continue discussions, resulting in a consensus on the appropriation vote and the decision to adjust the budget.

In addition to transportation funding, the council addressed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the mayor concerning outside legal counsel. The MOA aimed to bridge gaps between the council and the administration. The agreement was described as a compromise that would protect future councils and administrations, allowing for collaborative governance.

The council also considered a motion related to a revised municipal budget proposal for fiscal year 2027. The proposal was ultimately withdrawn, and a previous proposal was rejected.