Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fall River council rejects mayor’s FY27 appropriation after cuts to EMS indirects; sends budget back to administration
Summary
After a line‑by‑line review and targeted reductions to EMS indirect costs, the Fall River City Council voted to reject the mayor’s FY2027 appropriation as submitted and directed the administration to return with a revised appropriation or a continuing appropriation; councillors also pressed the mayor on polling‑place and transportation figures.
The Fall River City Council rejected the mayor’s proposed FY2027 appropriation as submitted on June 23, sending the budget back to the administration to be reworked after a prolonged line‑by‑line review.
The council’s action followed a sustained focus on the city’s EMS enterprise fund, where council members moved to reduce a set of indirect costs — including health insurance, pensions and an “other” category — arguing the original projections were inflated or misallocated. Council Vice President Dion led a motion that reduced indirects in the EMS appropriation by roughly $1.15 million overall, lowering the EMS departmental total to $16,894,935 and an indirect subtotal of $4,069,390. "The numbers are inflated," Dion said during debate, asking staff to justify pension and 'other' charges to the EMS fund.
The cuts created a ripple effect through the general fund. Several councilors said the reductions made the mayor’s submitted appropriation unbalanced and therefore unacceptable in its present form. After voting down or rejecting numerous line items across sections, the council adopted a procedural motion to reduce the appropriation to zero — a formal step that means the administration must return with an amended appropriation or a continuing appropriation before July 1 if it wants spending authority.
Councilors repeatedly urged the administration to identify how much of the adjustments could be covered from operating turnbacks or year‑end transfers rather than free cash. Interim City Administrator Ann O'Neal Souza said staff can work with the mayor to reallocate resources and address the EMS change. She also acknowledged that some line‑item detail — notably snow‑and‑ice reimbursement amounts and other year‑end data — had just arrived and required reconciliation.
The budget debate also highlighted a persistent dispute over transportation funding for the schools and a long‑standing request from the council for a written retained‑earnings policy for utility enterprise funds. Councilors said they wanted the administration and School Department to reconcile competing transportation estimates before the matter returns to the council.
The council did not adopt a revised appropriation at the meeting. Several councilors urged the administration to return quickly with a corrected appropriation or a continuing appropriation so the city can avoid an extended 1/12th budget; others argued the administration should bear responsibility for fixing an unbalanced submission.
What happens next: The administration must decide whether to submit a revised appropriation for council approval or to file a continuing appropriation (a temporary 1/12th funding measure) to keep municipal operations funded while negotiations continue. The council signaled it expects a revised submission that reflects the EMS reductions and reconciles transportation and other contested figures.
