Beverly Budget Transfer Request Triggers Veterans Services Debate

BEVERLY, MA — What was to be a rather routine public hearing on transferring unused city funds from one account in the city budget to make up for mid-year deficits in others turned into an hourlong City Council discussion about veterans' funding in Beverly during Monday night's meeting.

It was proposed to transfer unused funds ticketed to fulfill the city's Chapter 115 veterans benefits obligations — which are not expected to be needed to meet those state mandates this year — to cover overtime fire and other cost deficits. While Mayor Mike Cahill and Budget Analyst Gerry Perry repeatedly assured the Council that those funds will be reinstated, if needed, the concept of transferring funds from a line item designated for veterans' benefits triggered a larger discussion on the Council about whether the city properly supports its veteran population.

"I just want to say to you there is no way we would ever do anything to undermine veterans' benefits in our community," Cahill assured. "Our Veterans Services Agent, David Perinchief, does a fantastic job of proactively seeking out and ensuring that people who are eligible for benefits sign up for them, and then he does a great job of managing that process.

"If in the, really unlikely, occurrence that there was a run on that line item between now and the end of the fiscal year we'd ask you to come back and replenish it. We're statutorily obligated to deliver those benefits and we certainly have no intention to do anything but that.":

At issue was, at least the perception, that unused Chapter 115 benefits could simply be used to enhance other veterans' services or increase the benefits for city veterans in a given year — which is not necessarily the case.

"I think there is a little public confusion about how this works so hopefully I can try to clarify it," Perry said. "I am going to stand here and reiterate that I can guarantee you that nobody who received veterans' benefits under Chapter 115 will be denied any benefits (as a result of the budget transfer). I am sure the mayor is not going to allow that to happen either and I guarantee you as your budget analyst I will watch it.

"I am absolutely convinced as your budget analyst there will be sufficient funds through the end of the year to get this done and the veterans should not worry about that."

Ward 5 City Councilor Kathleen Feldman summed up much of the debate by saying there was confusion between the discussion of the specific transfer as an obligatory budget maneuver and the greater issue that there are those who believe the city is underfunding its veteran population in need.

"What I'm hearing is that we continue to have a budget that we allocate wanting to support veterans' services every year for the last several years and it goes unspent," Feldman said. "And then we hear from veterans who feel like the city doesn't support them. So I feel like there is something missing somewhere in that we're trying to fund at a level that is funding veterans' services because that is our intention, but it is continuing to not get to where we would like it to go.

"At a broader level, if we continue to have this disconnect in the funding, and this (Chapter 115 line item) is where the overage is, I would like to know as a Councilor how to figure out how those veterans do feel better supported, and we do get the money to them, and they are using their budget to the capacity every year."

Perry suggested that those Councilors showing concern about the staffing in the Beverly Veterans Services office address those beginning with the upcoming budget process starting with Monday night's City Council Meeting of the Whole discussion on Council budget priorities for 2024 and continuing with public budget hearings in June.

"If people want more staffing down there I think that's a legitimate conversation to have and something we can address going into next year's budget," he said. "That's a conversation we should have. ... If you transfer this money, as I am recommending you do, we can still have that conversation, and we can still address that. The Council is certainly voicing their public opinion that sounds like a lot of you are interested in putting additional staffing there.

"The mayor is hearing this. He's here tonight. And I think that's a good discussion to have."

The public hearing was closed and City Council President Julie Flowers referred the transfer back to the City Council Committee on Finance and Property for further discussion. It passed the City Council by a 5-3 vote later Monday night.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at Scott.Souza@Patch.com. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)