Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fall River council grills budget as motions to lower tax levy fail
Summary
Councilors spent hours probing FY2027 revenue and reserves, pressed staff on investment income and a $4M diamond stabilization transfer, and twice moved to force a lower tax levy (1% and 2%); both motions failed after roll-call votes. Staff promised updated five‑year projections and more department briefings.
The Fall River Committee on Finance and full City Council spent much of their May 26 meeting in a detailed review of the proposed FY2027 municipal budget, probing revenue lines and reserve transfers as members pushed for lower tax increases.
CFO Emily Arky and treasury staff led a line-by-line review of general fund revenue, answering repeated questions about why the city’s diamond stabilization fund showed a zero balance in the March 31 quarterly report while current materials listed several million. Staff said timing and planned transfers — including a previously authorized $600,000 move and a potential FY27 appropriation — explain the apparent discrepancy, and described the stabilization fund as a dedicated reserve to smooth a large school-related assessment coming online.
Investment income proved the most contentious revenue topic. Staff said strong short-term yields and sizable ARPA-era cash balances temporarily boosted FY25–26 receipts; they recommended a conservative FY27 projection of roughly $2.5 million absent continued high rates. Councilors asked for a longer historical breakdown (15–19 years) of investment income and for clearer breakout of ARPA-derived interest versus ongoing yields; staff agreed to provide the data.
Several councilors repeatedly asked whether the budget could be restructured to avoid sending a larger levy to taxpayers. Councilor Chris Pekkham offered a motion to reject the administration’s appropriation and send the budget back to the mayor’s office with instructions to limit the tax levy increase to 1 percent; the motion failed on a roll-call vote. He subsequently proposed a 1.5 percent levy and then a 2 percent levy by way of referral; those motions also failed to gain majority support.
Corporation counsel and finance staff warned about the limits of one-time transfers and the budgetary reality of large mandated increases — notably net school spending, a rising pension assessment and health‑insurance costs — which together account for most of the proposed increase. The administration said it would update a five‑year forecast with the latest FY27 numbers and said the available tools to absorb costs are limited to steadying revenues, fee reviews, and the city’s capital plan.
Where it stands: The committee and council continue hearings on departmental budgets. Councilors who oppose the levy level pressed for follow‑up departmental reviews and five‑year projections; staff committed to provide more detailed breakdowns and supplemental materials ahead of the next votes.
