Utica council sends 34 budget amendment proposals to committee after debate over police pay, CHIPS and health costs

The Utica Common Council voted to send a block of proposed budget amendments to committee after a lengthy special meeting that centered on disputes over police pay lines, special-services revenue tracking, use of CHIPS paving funds and health‑insurance accounting.

The council’s action, taken by voice and without a recorded roll-call vote at the meeting, moves 34 proposed changes into committee for further review and asks staff to provide precise line‑by‑line numbers before the council considers final votes. Council President (presiding) announced the referral after members debated multiple items and heard public comment from police union leadership.

The debate began during a public-comment period restricted to budget amendments, when Officer Joshua Harrington, president of the police union, urged clarity on why several police pay lines were reduced even as contractually required raises approach. “On the amendments, there is a reduction in our our holiday pay and reduction in overtime and other things,” Harrington said, adding that he expected a contractual raise in April and questioned how a cut to holiday pay would be possible in that context.

Council members pressed for accounting detail. Councilmember Joe Petar, who sponsored a set of the amendments, cited the holiday‑pay numbers in the fiscal records: “So 500,000 estimated year to date up to 577,000 would actually be an increase of 15% to that line year over year,” he said, arguing that the proposed change reflected an increase from one baseline rather than a cut.

Deputy Chief Noonan explained how the police department’s “special services” revenue line works, saying the account is used when outside entities contract for off‑duty officers at events and is intended to net to roughly zero after expenses. “Those officers are not working. They’re not on duty. They come to work and they work the events. The entity compensates the city for the officers being there. It’s at a rate that was determined by an actuary to account for overtime salary, pension cost, fringe, equipment,” Noonan said. Council members said year‑to‑date deposits to that account were running behind the expected schedule and asked the comptroller’s office to reconcile receipts against expenses.

Members also debated how to use a one‑time increase in CHIPS (state highway funding) that the city expects this year. City engineering staff confirmed the city’s CHIPS allocation at about $3.6 million and councilmembers discussed directing a larger share of that reimbursable money toward paving and ADA sidewalk work to reduce the need for additional bonding. Councilmember Katie Ayala said the council must first approve amendments before the mayor acts: “you have to have a majority to approve these amendments first, then that's when he's able to look at the amendments to agree or disagree,” she said.

Healthcare and the city’s self‑insurance program drew separate attention. Council members and staff discussed the composition of health‑plan lines, HRA/HSA accounting, and recent stop‑loss pricing. Staff reported the city carries stop‑loss coverage that triggers at large individual claims and said negotiations with stop‑loss carriers have indicated significant premium increases.

Several council members and department heads asked the comptroller and budget director for precise, up‑to‑date year‑to‑date figures for specific lines — particularly police holiday pay, police overtime, the special‑services revenue account, CHIPS project allocations, and the self‑insurance fund — before any amendments are finalized.

Votes at a glance - Motion to waive rules to allow extended public comment (moved from the floor; seconded). Outcome: approved (voice action; no roll‑call recorded). - Motion to place amendments 1–34 in committee as a block (mover/second not specified in the public transcript). Outcome: committed to committee (voice action; no roll‑call recorded). - Motion to adjourn (mover/second not specified). Outcome: approved.

Next steps Council members directed staff to supply reconciled, current year‑to‑date numbers and to meet with relevant department heads and the comptroller before the committee reconvenes; councilmembers scheduled follow‑up meetings and asked for documentation on the police staffing table of organization, special‑services receipts, CHIPS eligibility, and healthcare stop‑loss proposals. No amendment was adopted into ordinance at the meeting; the committee referrals mean final decisions will follow further review.

The meeting record shows multiple points where councilmembers said they would withhold final votes until receiving the exact reconciled figures.