Typically, the City Council’s budget vote is characterized by sparse attendance and routine proceedings.
Monday evening proved different. Teachers, students, and School Department staff filled the Chambers as councillors engaged in heated debate over several contentious budget reductions.
Councillor Bob Bishop notably cast the sole dissenting vote against the City Budget.
Ultimately, the Council voted to approve the budget 10-1.
Total expenditures reached $195,964,074, distributed as follows:
- General Fund Budget, $174,074,177.
- Water Enterprise Fund, $8,397,199.
- Sewer Enterprise Fund, 12,808,779.
- General Fund Free Cash, $683,919.
This represents a 6.6 percent increase compared to the previous year’s budget.
According to City Manager Tom Ambrosino, the budget embodied a particular governmental philosophy that he endorsed. “A budget is not just a compilation of numbers and spreadsheets,” he said. “A budget is always a document expressing a philosophy of government. This budget delivers services and programs and invests in our people, our community.”
The evening’s primary focus centered on the School Department, which required substantial additional City funding to prevent severe program cuts. The state’s funding formula had consistently underfunded the schools over several years, necessitating City supplementation. Monday saw numerous school representatives advocating for approximately $4 million in additional spending—5.7 percent above the mandated contribution.
Sam Baker, vice president of the Chelsea Teacher’s Union, expressed his support. “The state is letting Chelsea down,” said Baker. “They can’t be relied upon to support urban Gateway districts like Chelsea…When the federal government lets you down, the state government lets you down, there is only one place left to turn – to the neighbors and the local officials of the city. This budget shows that the students and schools in Chelsea can rely on their local neighbors.”
Additional speakers advocated particularly for preserving special education positions, which had faced significant reductions previously. School Committee Chair Jeannette Velez appealed to the Council to authorize the supplemental budget allocation.
Following the vote, applause erupted in celebration of the school funding decision.
Nevertheless, the process encountered obstacles.
Although the Council unanimously backed school funding, members strongly opposed various other items. Council President Damali Vidot introduced several major amendments, which underwent intense debate over approximately one hour.
Vidot proposed most of these amendments.
Her initial proposal involved a $15,000 Law Department reduction—a controversial measure among many councillors. This cut targeted funding designated for the Council’s independent attorney to provide alternative legal counsel when dissatisfied with City staff attorneys.
Only Councillors Giovanni Recupero and Damali Vidot supported this measure, which failed 9-2.
However, a $100,000 Fire Department cut succeeded, intended as a warning regarding overtime expenditures and alleged misuse over recent years.
Vidot noted the Department had hired numerous new personnel recently and proposed increasing its overtime allocation. She argued this budget should decline rather than expand.
The amendment passed 6-4, with Vidot, Recupero, Bishop, Luis Tejada, Enio Lopez and Rodriguez voting affirmatively.
Vidot subsequently proposed reducing Police Department salaries by $150,000 to address overtime compensation for officers assigned downtown walking beats. She contended such costs should reflect standard pay rates rather than overtime rates.
This proposal narrowly failed 5-6. Calvin Brown, Tejada, Avellaneda, Robinson, Perlatonda, and Garcia opposed it.
Significant debate followed regarding elimination of the Downtown Coordinator position, budgeted at $72,000. Vidot characterized the program as unsuccessful, advocating instead for a Chelsea resident coordinator capable of uniting diverse community members downtown. She expressed doubt this was occurring.
The majority, however, believed progress was evident and the coordinator required additional time.
Downtown Councillor Judith Garcia emerged as a strong proponent.
This amendment failed 3-8, with only Vidot, Lopez and Bishop supporting it.
The final controversial proposal sought to eliminate funding for retaining retiring EMS Director Allan Alpert as a consultant. Alpert’s retirement is scheduled for June 30, though he would remain on staff for one year to transition the incoming director. This arrangement costs $55,000.
Vidot argued this was unnecessary, contending the City should cease retaining retiring municipal employees as paid consultants.
Councillor Avellaneda countered that Alpert’s previous succession plan had failed. To ensure a new plan could be developed, Alpert’s continued employment was essential.
Following extensive debate, the amendment narrowly failed 5-6. Rodriguez, Tejada, Avellaneda, Robinson, Perlatonda, and Garcia voted to retain Alpert.
For the overall budget, every councillor except Bishop voted affirmatively.
Bishop, recognized as the Council’s fiscal conservative, contended the spending level was unsustainable.
“I cannot vote for this budget,” he said. “I can’t be for this budget because it is not sustainable. We’ll hit the wall one day and that $25 million in the Rainy Day Fund will go out one ear because out budget is almost all salaries.”
The City Budget becomes effective July 1.