2026-08-31 - City Council Finance Subcommittee

00:01The finance subcommittee of the city

00:02council is comprised of five council

00:05members and considers any or all

00:07questions appropriate for the purpose of

00:09considering the budget, including the

00:11creation of new positions to the

00:12payroll, [music] changes to the employee

00:14classification plan or any matters

00:17pertaining to increasing the city of

00:18Framingham employee headcount. The

00:21following city council finance

00:22subcommittee meeting coverage is brought

00:25to you by [music] the government

00:26channel, a service of the city of

00:28Framingham.

00:34>> [music]

00:40[music]

00:45[music]

00:50>> PM fix this. Uh the city council finance

00:55subcommittee will come to order. Agenda

00:57the revised version 2 82826.

01:02>> Um we'll call the meeting to order.

01:08And can I have a motion to move into

01:10executive session order 2026086 upon the

01:13request of the council chair refer to

01:14the finance company to meet in executive

01:15session pursuant to master journal law

01:16chapter 38 section 2183 exemption 3 in

01:19Suffach Construction Company Inc. versus

01:21the division of capital management 449

01:23mass 444 and to admit the city solicitor

01:26to discuss strategy with regard to

01:27pending litigation the matter of

01:28tesmascal wellness of Massachusetts LLC

01:31versus the city of Framingham where an

01:32opening meeting may have a detrimental

01:34effect to the litigating position of the

01:36city and the chair so declares so I have

01:38a motion I have a second we've got to do

01:40a roll call vote we'll start with

01:42council Malik

01:42>> yes council Stephanie Ariani yes council

01:44Canon

01:45>> yes

01:45>> and councel king

01:50>> you I got on mute, George.

01:54All right, we're in executive session.

01:56We'll come back. We'll reconvene in

01:58public session. Uh, first order of

02:00business, minutes from July 28th and

02:02August 11th. Can I get a motion?

02:03>> So moved.

02:04>> Second.

02:05>> Got a motion by Council Canon. I got a

02:07second by Council Stephanie for the

02:08approval of the minutes. Roll call vote.

02:10Council King

02:11>> is on Zoom.

02:12>> Council Malik.

02:13>> Yes.

02:14>> Yes.

02:14>> Council Stephanie. Audi? Yes. Council

02:15Canon?

02:16>> Yes.

02:16>> Perfect. Okay. Next order of business

02:19number four, a continued discussion

02:23with the administration regarding

02:24staffing and maintenance of the Mary

02:26Dennis Park. Welcome. Um does the the

02:29park and Rex folks, Mr. Paley, are you

02:30and that group want to come up here with

02:31Miss Hawk and um Allison? You guys,

02:34there's three seats for you. Don't all

02:36jump at once.

02:50Welcome.

02:58So as a previous uh discussion that

03:01continuing

03:02um we took a deep dive in regards to the

03:05current staffing that that we have and

03:08the request of positions moving forward.

03:12One of the challenges is is that

03:15[clears throat]

03:15this park is really not a park. It's

03:18more of a complex. Um, and

03:20[clears throat]

03:21there's a lot of amenities there that

03:23are going to demand more than a a

03:25part-time staff person that can come and

03:27go um if we're going to use it to its

03:30full potential. And one of the

03:32challenges that after I looked at it is

03:34that if the a lotment of staffing is not

03:38appropriate there, it's going to then

03:40affect the a lotment of events that can

03:45take place. So this is like an anomaly

03:49right now because we really never had

03:51something like this of this scale. um

03:54and trying to figure out how much it's

03:57going to be used and and if it's used

04:00with its full potential, the staffing

04:02there is going to be beyond challenging.

04:05So my concern is is that we've made this

04:08investment and trying to find a happy

04:11medium uh for the taxpayer to enjoy it.

04:22open up to the council. Council Canon,

04:24>> thank you. Um, I I guess I'm unclear

04:27because we talked a fair amount about

04:30this over the years,

04:33but I and I was going back through

04:34minutes and my notes and it it just

04:37seems that there was not the the

04:39meaningful discussion of, "Hey guys, be

04:41ready for this because the staff

04:45I mean, I think everyone is a bit

04:47blindsided by the the not the scope and

04:50scale of the park, but the the sudden

04:52need that wasn't

04:54I don't think well articulated over the

04:56previous years and I know there are new

04:57faces and changing responsibilities and

05:00and I think we're moving in a in a great

05:01direction but what is I guess what is

05:04the current the most recent ask now um

05:08and maybe there's a way as we continue

05:10to reorganize and things unfold to ramp

05:13up what that capacity looks like. I mean

05:16on day one we're going to learn things

05:17about it that you just don't know before

05:19you open. Uh, so to anybody that kind of

05:21wants to unpack any of that, I'm

05:23throwing some broad stuff at you. So,

05:27>> take a shot of that. I I'll just make

05:30the a comment to your first comment and

05:32I'll take the hit for that because um we

05:36did have conversations with the park

05:38department when we were preparing the

05:40FY27 budget early on and they made me

05:44aware of the potential uh need for

05:47additional help for when Mary Dennison

05:51opened. But that was so far off in a

05:53distance in my eyes that as we

05:56progressed doing the budget and you

05:58remember we were kind of short-handed

06:00during the pre preliminary budget season

06:03that priority got lost. And so when I

06:07when we had the original budget and then

06:10we revised it and made more cuts to it

06:12um that priority never resurfaced. So,

06:16um, I'll take the blame for that, for

06:18not pushing it at that point in time to

06:21get more staff on. And then as we got

06:24closer to the completion and everything

06:26and Allison got more and more involved

06:28in it, um, I realized that this is

06:32really a serious issue that we need need

06:34to address and that's how we got to this

06:36point. No,

06:37>> it's magnanimous of you to say that and

06:39I appreciate that. But I mean, even

06:40before that, as we're talking about

06:42developing, you know, what this complex

06:45is going to look like, great, we've got

06:46these great big ideas and we can find

06:48ways to pay for them, but the ongoing

06:50operating expenses that are attached to

06:52them. I I you know, maybe that's just a

06:54because I remember during the skate park

06:56discussion and the dog park discussion,

06:58operating expenses, although a much

07:00different scale, were were talked about

07:02in the foreground of so many of those

07:04discussions. So, you know, I don't know

07:06if we weren't asking the right

07:08questions. I just am I'm kind of

07:10stunned, but all right. I'll I'll leave

07:12my my comments there for the moment, Mr.

07:14Chairman.

07:14>> Okay. Council Stephanie.

07:16>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

07:20I think I I don't think Mr. Cannon, your

07:23recollection is that far off. I think

07:26that there was a lot of

07:30excitement

07:33because the city sat on the contaminated

07:35site for almost a decade

07:38while neighbors played and everything

07:40else and it's in the lowest income

07:42census tracks in Framingham. There's a

07:44lot of emotion that drove the speed with

07:48which to correct what was not

07:50necessarily a bright chapter for our

07:53comm our town. And [clears throat] I

07:55think that drove that exuberance drove

07:58probably a little us a little bit faster

08:00than maybe we should have around what we

08:02designed. Um that said, we're we're

08:06here. Um what is your recommendation for

08:09staffing for where we are? You walk

08:11through this balancing act. How do you

08:13come down in that balancing act? And

08:15one, what is the your recommendation for

08:18staffing? And two, um, where are the

08:22where's the dialogue with, uh, uh,

08:26councelor Grove and the whole discussion

08:28about getting some sort of outside group

08:30to help with that? And three, have you

08:33looked at or thought about the

08:36concession stand in terms of who's going

08:37to run it? Have you looked at sort of

08:39the model that parks used for um, Bowage

08:43Field? Can we do something with the

08:46Harmony Grove PTO or someone else as a

08:49way to get some other eyes and ears on

08:52the site, but also someone to generate

08:54some revenue and activity? I know I

08:56threw a lot at you, but we're trying to

08:58figure out what's our comprehensive

09:00solution here. Obviously

09:03any output uh outside help is going to

09:06be extremely helpful and those are

09:09probably right now going to evolve

09:11because at the timing of the park right

09:13now and going into probably the busiest

09:16season which would be the spring that's

09:18when we'd have to probably implement

09:20things. If we do anything outside like

09:23an outside vendor for the concession

09:24that's going to have to be procured in

09:26some form or another. I know that the

09:28Lions Club has done this stuff about it

09:30previously. Um, and hopefully depending

09:34on their schedule and what their

09:36flexibility would be cuz to define right

09:40now the scheduling,

09:42you're almost throwing a dot at a dot

09:44board because until you really

09:46understand the scheduling and I hope I'm

09:49trying to be honest and have an open

09:50discussion with this because I think

09:52it's going to evolve for the first year

09:54and to work out the kinks and make sure

09:55that we have a welloiled machine going

09:57into the second year is is going to take

10:00almost a full year cycle of it because

10:02there's going to be some challenges.

10:03There's scoreboards there for

10:05programming. You're going to need staff

10:06to have that done. There there's there

10:08is some amenities that are normally not

10:11placed like if there's a football game

10:12at Bowage, there is staff there to take

10:15care of that. So, it's kind of in the

10:17same realm of that sort of complex. So,

10:22I don't know what the right answer is

10:24for the number. I know I know that if we

10:26ask for 6 10 4 it's going to be an open

10:31dialogue. Obviously if the lower the

10:34number the more we'd have to revisit to

10:36try to see where we're going to end up

10:38with the hours of operation and the

10:40hours of the the park is going to be

10:43open.

10:44>> Have you engaged with Judy and folks

10:47about possibility of do partnering with

10:49them?

10:50>> We haven't at this time. No.

10:52>> Well, excuse me. Alison has not I

10:54thought it was directed towards me.

10:56>> I think of you as a group.

10:58>> Yes.

10:58>> All right. Um and and is

11:02I I'll stop there.

11:04>> I'll just The Harmony Grove is a nice

11:06solution, but you know, when we were

11:08active in PTO's when my daughter was

11:09younger and the the inequities, you

11:11know, Hemingway could raise more money

11:12than the Harmony Grove. Two working

11:14parents. I really don't think the

11:16parents of the children at Harmony Grove

11:17are going to have a lot of free time to

11:18go down there and to police the park.

11:21That's just that's just me saying it cuz

11:23you couldn't even and when we'd host

11:25events there, you we'd bring the pizzas

11:27and do different things down there in

11:28that neighborhood. And I remember when

11:30Repoua did something, it's hard because

11:32they need babysitters, they need this,

11:34they need different the needs of every

11:36neighborhood's a little bit different.

11:37And um I I don't I don't think we can

11:40depend on the the kids that go there and

11:43their families to do our job or the town

11:45the city's job. That's just me. I wasn't

11:47looking for the maintenance piece, but

11:48if you look at, for example, Stone Park

11:50and Ashland has an almost identical

11:53facility and they do um they have some

11:57community groups that use it for movie

11:59nights, for food, for programming. Um

12:02the Framingham Little League, I know Mr.

12:05Mayor, you've seen the uh Chris Connley

12:08and Jason Smith and the Framingham

12:09State. Those breakfastes, just coffee

12:12and breakfast sandwiches pay for all

12:13their referees for the whole season,

12:15right? So it there's a a I was just

12:20expressing I hope we end up with someone

12:22who's in the community [clears throat]

12:24who's going to get some financial

12:25benefit out of it as well as adding some

12:28programming and everything else.

12:29>> Okay. Like you're right about the Lions.

12:31They do a nice job at Bowage. You know,

12:33you got the Lions, you got Kowanas, you

12:34got all different groups that are still

12:35in existence. Not as much as they used

12:37to. You got the Rotary. And full

12:38disclosure, I'm a member of the Rotary,

12:39so I don't want to get in trouble and

12:40mention the Rotary, but there's plenty

12:42of groups that would probably like to be

12:43involved and help if they could.

12:45Um, so where does that take us tonight?

12:48All right, we the first we got we all

12:51got shell shocked. We're talking 2 4 6 8

12:5310. Then we come in, the administration

12:55asked for 10 that we we were blindsided.

12:57They were going to go back and

12:58reevaluate some numbers. We can't be

13:00sitting here tonight and say there's no

13:02ask. Is there an ask? Somebody's got to

13:03ask for something or is that up to us to

13:05make the decision? So then the blame

13:06will all come back on us as usual

13:08because that's usually what happens.

13:12>> Ask for sex. Have we heard anybody here

13:14tonight ask for anything?

13:17>> I mean, I guess [clears throat] through

13:18you, Mr. Chair, I think the

13:19recommendation from the administration

13:21is six people based on what we had

13:23presented and based on

13:25>> Well, it was 10 the last time, so now

13:26we're at six. Okay, but somebody needs

13:27to say that. So

13:28>> I I think in the background the

13:29recommendation from us is the sixth

13:31position based on the risk analysis that

13:33we feel it's the best way to um provide

13:37coverage and and protect the investment

13:40um at this point as as to um what Mr.

13:43Palini said you know we're the first

13:45year probably is going to be kind of a

13:46learning curve and I believe we feel six

13:49positions is the right number for that

13:52learning curve. Okay.

13:54>> And Mr. Chairman,

13:55>> Council Stephanie, Sure.

13:56>> You're going to uh and your

13:58recommendation also is that you're going

13:59to uh adjust local receipts as a way to

14:03deal with that.

14:04>> Correct. Uh the funding analysis

14:06provided for the six indicated that we

14:08believe we can transfer approximately

14:10120,000 from the lifeguard allocation

14:14and then the I think it's 321,000. Just

14:16let me pull it up really quick.

14:17>> 312

14:18>> or 312. Thank you, councelor Canon. um

14:21that my recommendation would be that

14:23we'd be able to increase um the local

14:25estimated receipts to cover that so that

14:27we wouldn't be going into raise and

14:29appropriate specifically.

14:30>> So your request is for $313,000

14:34appropriated to the park account.

14:38>> That would be the request. I believe we

14:40would have to do what? A supplemental

14:41budget request through the council and

14:44through the whole process or No, I

14:45>> I think we have something in front of us

14:46right now that we could recommend.

14:48>> Okay. So that would be the request and

14:50then we could put it together for the

14:52>> So for purposes of discussion I would

14:54move we recommend to the council the

14:56staffing as recommended for six position

14:58for $313,000

15:01transfer

15:03um using local revenue receipts to the

15:06park department.

15:07>> I'll second that for discussion council

15:09K.

15:09>> So of the four options thank you Mr.

15:10Chairman of the four options that were

15:12presented in the August 11th background

15:13material 10 being full coverage down to

15:16two low coverage. This is the high

15:17coverage six position option. Help me

15:19understand a little bit. This is high

15:21coverage. What just

15:23educate me what are these six people

15:26doing and what does that look like?

15:34[clears throat]

15:34I was hoping that wasn't me. Um, so what

15:37we looked at with these different models

15:39was how many days per week and what

15:41hours we could cover. So, the six

15:44employees, we are looking at a model

15:46that was 7 days per week um with

15:48overlapping shifts over overlapping

15:50shifts uh from 8 to 10 p.m.

15:56>> And what are they doing?

15:58>> They are picking up trash multiple

16:01times. There's bathrooms to be attended

16:03to. They are um general park

16:07maintenance. They're going to be doing

16:09the landscaping, um, mowing around the

16:13outsides,

16:14all those different pieces.

16:15>> They're going to be mowing every day. I

16:17mean, I'm I'm not trying to be I'm

16:20genuinely not trying to be sardonic. I'm

16:21I'm trying to understand these are six

16:23new full-time positions. I thought a

16:26portion of this would be we're taking ex

16:28individuals from this responsibility

16:30elsewhere in the enterprise who are

16:32currently doing this and they're now

16:33going to be doing this. So tonight I

16:35sort of somewhat expected if the ask was

16:38six and it sounds like we that kind of

16:40iterated on the spot here, but I'd get

16:43some sort of depth of knowledge as to

16:46how precisely they're going to be

16:47scheduled. Less so I understand, but I

16:49want to make sure that the parks

16:50department has a firm understanding that

16:52the reason the ask is six is because we

16:54absolutely need six and here's why based

16:56on the scheduling, responsibilities,

16:58duties, etc.

17:01Do we have anything like that prepared

17:03or

17:12back to the original statement I made

17:14before is that this is this is new and

17:17and

17:19using the six number

17:21>> um is to a point where I don't think we

17:25could have any loss of services if it's

17:27like seven days a week with the park.

17:29it's going to still be challenging. Um,

17:32and then as we evolve in it, if there's

17:35efficiencies to be created, um, we're

17:37going to take advantage of that.

17:39>> All right. I appreciate the candid

17:40answer and I'll I'll leave it here just

17:42for the the purposes of discussion. If

17:44we go to six and we find out that we

17:46only need four, there's no just

17:48government, it doesn't work that way.

17:50We're never going to it's just we're

17:51never going to have the conversation. We

17:52need fewer people than we thought we

17:54did. Where does that put if we go to

17:56your medium? If we start at your medium

17:58coverage

18:01and then we find out that in the ongoing

18:04dialogue that we're going to have about

18:05this exciting new asset, what is the

18:08hesitance the hesitation of coming back

18:10for an incremental ask? I' I'd almost

18:12rather ramp up than

18:16go in blind

18:19and perhaps more capacity than is

18:22needed.

18:25>> That's a good question. I mean obviously

18:26with the four we probably if you have

18:29time off sickness the the coverage on

18:32that is six allows some flexibility with

18:36that four you'd have to peel off from

18:39somewhere else. Um and it depends on the

18:42time of the season. If you're preparing

18:45fields for the schools and the that's a

18:48difficult time to peel someone off. Uh

18:51if you're doing clean up, fall cleanup,

18:53that's a difficult time like you need

18:55bodies. Um so it's all about how the use

19:00is going to fall during that time during

19:02the park which would probably indicate

19:05whether you would be able to find

19:07efficiencies within the organization.

19:10Obviously, I'm a little new with this

19:13and I'm still wrapping my head around

19:15how everything is functioning, but I

19:17will get to the full idea of how to

19:21create a more efficient department. I

19:24know that that's what I was tasked to

19:26do. Um, and with the model of obviously

19:30four, it could pose a challenge to

19:32provide some services and I don't want

19:34to I mean obviously it's an open

19:36dialogue as I said. Uh, I don't have a

19:39problem coming back to say, "Hey, we ran

19:41this for 9 months. Here are our

19:43challenges. This is what I think we're

19:44going to need to make to to make it

19:47really truly functional." Um,

19:51the six would provide a little bit of a

19:52safety net.

19:54>> Okay. I I'm And I'll leave it here, Mr.

19:56Chairman. I'm I'm buoyed. my confidence

19:58is is a little higher than it would be

20:00because of your track record in the

20:01community and our capital projects and

20:03other facilities um and the talent that

20:05you've developed and um the resources

20:08how you've kind of cultivated them. So

20:10if if you're saying here that the number

20:12is six and the the consensus for the the

20:14finance committee is is six we can go

20:16there and continue the conversation. So,

20:18>> Council King, thank you. Council Council

20:20King, you're next. Your hand is up, sir.

20:23>> Thank you. I appreciate u everything

20:26that was just said. I agree a lot with

20:28what Mr. Cannon said. I appreciate Mr.

20:30Palini being clear that this is new. I

20:34also agree with Council Cannon that you

20:36don't often see in government the

20:38reductions being made. I would rather

20:40see us uh appropriate four. At this

20:43point, we already have funds

20:45established.

20:47Um, it's late in the season now. If at

20:51some point, I mean, we have to remember

20:52these are four new positions. Excuse

20:54making some noise in the background

20:55here, which I can't help. But anyways,

20:57these are four new positions

21:01that are going into the department with

21:03many more people than that. So, the

21:05ability to peel off. I'm not saying

21:06there aren't times that we have to have

21:08a lot of uh people at different things

21:10like Mr. Pin just said, but I would

21:14rather see us start at four just given

21:16our financial situation. That's a lot of

21:18new people. Anyways, try to fill in with

21:21seasonal workers because they'll be on

21:23during the heaviest use times of the

21:25year for sure. You know, I'm also

21:28concerned by the fact that we're hiring

21:30six or four new people and it's going to

21:34be wintertime.

21:36So, I just don't see the need to put

21:39that many people on. Well, maybe I see

21:41the need. That's not a fair statement. I

21:43just don't have the same level of gusto,

21:46I guess, to put six people on. I'd

21:48rather try it with four. Let Mr. Palini,

21:50as he said, see how it goes. If he needs

21:52the six and he and he can tell us from

21:54the actual experience why he needs the

21:56six, then come back and I'm sure you'll

21:58get the six. The money's been identified

22:00and and what I just said. But, you know,

22:02we're looking at the trash issue, which

22:04is on tonight's agenda, I guess, but

22:06it's but we already made heard a

22:08decision about that a few weeks ago.

22:10Let's start with four and see what we

22:11can do. If we need six, we'll go there.

22:13So, I'd like to move an amendment to to

22:16the number four.

22:18>> I'd accept that as a friendly amendment.

22:21>> Okay, we got that. We got a friendly

22:23amendment. Council Malik,

22:26>> I have a question about timeline here.

22:28Is there a anticipated opening

22:34month?

22:36>> Was October the last time?

22:37>> October.

22:38>> October.

22:38>> October.

22:39>> The last one.

22:40>> So are so are these posi these positions

22:43would be hired to be full-time to start

22:46October? Is that what the proposal your

22:51proposal would be? Is that how this is

22:52budgeted out? I guess so. It's sort of

22:54two questions. One is would you want to

22:58have these four or six staff start

23:00October and then carry them through till

23:03next year? And then a question for maybe

23:05Mr. Turret is like do these numbers does

23:09that work with what these numbers are?

23:11Two questions

23:13>> um through you Mr. Chair to answer the

23:16questions. The numbers in the analysis

23:18since we started this a little while ago

23:20were based on an expected opening in

23:22September.

23:23>> Okay. So there's a little bit of a

23:25there's a little bit of a

23:27u buffer in there. So um that we I would

23:31suggest we might not want to subtract

23:33out for [snorts]

23:34a variety of reasons in case there's

23:36increased overtime or something along

23:37the way that we additional money that we

23:39need to calculate because we did

23:40calculate some of that but it's our best

23:43analysis of what we think is going to

23:44happen there. Right? So the analysis

23:47that we presented was based on a

23:48September opening. So, and obviously if

23:52we open later or we takes longer to

23:54fill, then that money would go back to

23:55free cash at the end of the year.

23:59>> Just a detailed question. Are you done?

24:01Cuz

24:02>> um I didn't know if you guys So, I think

24:05you nodded and said yes, you would want.

24:08Okay. I start October.

24:11>> Yeah.

24:11>> Is that the answer? Just the nod. I

24:13don't know. Um

24:14>> yeah, we we'd have to advertise for the

24:16positions. So, it's going to take a

24:18little bit.

24:19>> It's not like we're going to snap a

24:21finger and they're going to appear.

24:24>> Call just what is the new number that

24:28should be in the motion.

24:31>> Sorry. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um

24:33183,000.

24:34>> So, I I would accept that as part of Mr.

24:36King's amendment.

24:38>> Okay.

24:39>> So, if it's a friendly amendment, you

24:40we're all done. We don't have to vote on

24:41it. Correct.

24:42>> No, we have to vote

24:44>> on the friendly Okay. All right.

24:45>> No, we don't have to vote on the

24:46friendly amendment. Do we have to vote

24:47on the overall?

24:47>> That's what I was asking. Yeah. Yeah. We

24:48don't have to vote on the amendment

24:49because the motion's changed now to the

24:51four and the new

24:52>> four for 183,000.

24:53>> Okay. Is there any further discussion?

24:57>> Seeing no further discussion, we'll do a

24:58roll call vote. Council King,

25:00>> yes.

25:00>> Council Malik,

25:01>> yes.

25:02>> Council, yes. Council Cannon,

25:04>> yes.

25:04>> Yes. It's voted five to zero. It'll be

25:06recommended to the full council. Thank

25:07you.

25:07>> Thank you.

25:08>> Thank you.

25:09>> Thank you.

25:10>> Thank you.

25:12Number

25:14five, discussion. Upon the request of

25:16council Stephanie, discussion with the

25:17administration on solid waste management

25:19policies, including community

25:20collection. We put this on the agenda. I

25:23had it scheduled before you, we made the

25:25change that we're going to take care of

25:26trash for the condos, but um I was asked

25:30to keep it on the agenda because it

25:32involves a further discussion as we all

25:33know because my phone's ringing and

25:35usually it doesn't, you know, I know

25:36council king sometimes jokes his cell

25:38phone doesn't ring a lot. Well,

25:39Saturday, couple weeks ago, I got the

25:41call they're cutting down trees over at

25:43uh Salem Road. This one's complaining

25:44about my phone rings. I don't It just

25:46rings for whatever reason. Um so I think

25:50it's a discussion that needs to be had

25:52because there's there's information out

25:54there that isn't fair and it's not

25:56equitable. So, we need to come to a

25:58consensus who's getting trash, who's not

26:00getting trash, who's getting recycling,

26:02and figure it all out and figure out

26:03what's fair for everybody, especially

26:05for the taxpayers, because if just

26:06because a person lives in homeowners

26:08association that's paying $18,000 a year

26:09in taxes,

26:11should they have their trash picked up?

26:12I think they should. I don't know.

26:14Everything there's a lot of different

26:16situations in the town and it's

26:17something we need to look at. So, now

26:18I'll turn it over to you, Council

26:19Stephanie.

26:21I this was actually something that uh it

26:24has my name which is fine but this was

26:26something during the budget we actually

26:28put on as a writer and when we discussed

26:30how to deal with writers this was the

26:32first budget discussion we had as a

26:34writer so it was the comm it was a

26:36unanimous vote of the committee and

26:39um

26:40>> they accepted that list of riders

26:42>> correct so this is a conversation we

26:44were going to have irrespective

26:47my question I guess I would broaden the

26:50conversation a little bit. When you look

26:52at the city website and you look up the

26:55list of residential condos, there are

26:573,275

26:59units. I think it'd be good for us to

27:02figure out which of those units are we

27:03picking up from, which of those are we

27:05not picking up from, and how are we

27:08differentiating, not just for this year,

27:11but for future years. And we also have

27:13some places where we have written

27:15contracts with them to collect and some

27:18places we don't. I mean, I

27:21I just think we need to come to a point,

27:24Mr. Mayor, where we have a clear policy

27:26and we have we either do this, we don't

27:28do this, we follow something that is

27:31fair and equitable so that we don't have

27:35halves and have nots in the same

27:36category of people. And the example you

27:39were using, some of these condos, you

27:42can have people paying 10, 12, $14,000 a

27:45year in taxes, and they look and sound

27:48and act like a house, but they don't get

27:52uh solid waste collection. I gave a

27:53perfect example. My father lives at

27:54Stonegate. I bought that in 1990 from

27:57Premium Savings Bank at the foreclosure.

27:58There's 12 homes in there. It's not an

28:01over 55 community. There's not one kid

28:03in the school system. There's 12 homes.

28:05The average tax bill is 14 or 15,000.

28:07They get trash, but it gets pulled out

28:09to the street. They they they have to

28:11come because they they don't get plowed,

28:13but their trash gets pulled up onto

28:15Sailor Monroe and their trash gets

28:16picked up. Now, as you know, my 91y old

28:19father isn't pulling his trash out. It's

28:20I'm take we're taking care of his trash,

28:22but um

28:24>> but then look at May Cumber.

28:25>> Well, there's but there's now May Cumber

28:27actually they do the trash that it they

28:29were doing half of it and not the other

28:30half. Then Bob Lewis they you know I

28:32actually brought it to the mayor's

28:33attention in May Cumber they were they

28:36were having an issue they were picking

28:38up the single Terry Lane side but not

28:39the Salem men side there's a Calc may

28:41come gets their trash picked up but they

28:43don't get plowing but those aren't over

28:4555 communities the over 55 communities

28:48uh gripe is that they have homes in

28:50there Maris House is an example tax bill

28:53single they're singles and doubles so

28:55they're duplexes they're not huge condos

28:57but it's a condo/homeowners association

28:59where the average tax bill is probably

29:01closer to 175 and they have to hire out

29:04and have their trash picked up

29:06separately, but our bylaws treat over 55

29:09units differently. So, we need to bring

29:11this all in and figure out and have a

29:12policy that works for everybody. That's

29:15my opinion.

29:17>> And you know, council can

29:18>> I think this data would be helpful. I

29:19don't have visibility into some of these

29:21details and my my history in the town is

29:23not as extensive as uh the two gentlemen

29:27to my yes to my left. uh if we can pull

29:30that data but also include if there is

29:33what what's defined in various planning

29:34board decisions because in many of those

29:37that's defined and if that was defined

29:38okay the project moved forward and

29:40everybody was on the same page. Um, and

29:43so I I'd love to see that before we get

29:46too deep into what a I mean because it

29:47it you know there's always going to be

29:49somebody paying more or less and someone

29:50who always feels that somebody else gets

29:52a better deal. But let's look at what

29:53the actual decisions leading up to that

29:55have uh have been

29:56>> and get a list from maybe DPW of all the

29:58trash that gets picked which God bless

30:00you all the places that are getting

30:01picked up. We should get that data too

30:03because that I believe that

30:04>> include that in the

30:05>> Right. Yeah.

30:06>> Okay. Council Malik,

30:08>> is that something for Anthony to

30:10>> I think one phone call to DPW, we can

30:12get the the list of what's getting

30:14picked up

30:15>> of what's getting picked up.

30:16>> He can pull planning board.

30:18>> Well, if there's planning board

30:19decisions,

30:20>> you know, finding those.

30:22>> I would imagine that that would be

30:23>> a handful of those decisions. Milwood,

30:25Maris House, and Doug Stefins project

30:27would probably be the only three we're

30:28talking about.

30:29>> All right. Well, instead of assuming

30:30hypotheticals not yet found in evidence,

30:32wouldn't the evidence not yet would not

30:34drive the decisions made by DPW? because

30:36they should have the the the

30:38understanding of this is why we pick up

30:39here and why we don't.

30:40>> But that's not a hypothetical. Those are

30:42the only three over 55 communities that

30:43were permanent.

30:44>> I don't know anything about the policy.

30:45Okay, I appreciate that. I'm looking to

30:47get deeper into the weeds on why we do

30:49certain things and why we don't. That's

30:51all.

30:51>> I'm with Mike. We need to understand

30:54there's 32 3275 units. Let's figure out

30:58which of the 3275 units they're picking

31:00up, which ones they're not, why they're

31:02not, what's part of it. Um, part of this

31:05relates to the three places you're

31:07looking at. There is a provision that

31:10town meeting adopted in our zoning board

31:14code um that I I don't think is an

31:18equitable policy. And if we need to

31:20change an ordinance, that's what we do.

31:22We adjudicate what is fair and what

31:24isn't fair. And I appreciate that when a

31:28developer is developing it and making a

31:30profit, they agree to something. But the

31:33homeowners who are yet to be known, that

31:35isn't a decision they got to make.

31:39>> They did in the course of deciding

31:40whether or not to purchase the property,

31:41>> right? Knowing what the aux,

31:44>> right? I mean, if if they were if you're

31:45telling me that there are cases where

31:46somebody was blindsided by something

31:48that they didn't go into, but in

31:49Massachusetts, you usually have to sign

31:51documents that go out of their way to

31:52explain that you're coming into this

31:54with a full education of your

31:55responsibilities.

31:56>> I understand. I'm just saying in terms

31:57of equity, I'm uncomfortable with the

32:00idea that we treat two almost identical

32:04property tax owners, residential tax

32:06owners differently. And we do that based

32:08on a policy adopted by the legislative

32:10body town meeting, not and we're the

32:13legislative body, which means we can

32:15change policies as we see them fit.

32:18>> I look forward to a transparent process

32:19where we undertake that responsibility.

32:21I hope that data is something that's

32:22easily easy for us to obtain because I I

32:24don't know what we're walking into.

32:27>> Mr. Mayor, any comments on your side?

32:29You or Brian?

32:30>> Well, as you pointed out, it's more than

32:32just a policy. It's it's an ordinance.

32:35Um, when these developments were

32:37approved, it was very specifically

32:39written into the into the approvals that

32:42the city would not be responsible for

32:45picking up trash, for maintaining the

32:46streets in the development, and for

32:49maintenance such as snow plowing. And in

32:52some cases, the development was

32:55constructed to accommodate that

32:57condition. So, it's not even clear

33:00whether the roads in some of these

33:02developments can handle the traffic of

33:04heavy rubbish packers going in there.

33:07Um, and the zoning bylaw is very clear

33:10on over 55 units that it prohibits the

33:14city from doing that. So, uh there's a

33:17lot of things that you have to and then

33:18you're not even thinking about the extra

33:20cost uh for picking up and disposal of

33:23that trash. So there's a lot of things

33:26to consider and a lot of parts that

33:28would have to be altered if you want to

33:31change the so-called policy.

33:33>> Okay. Well, I too like council Ken and

33:36I'd like to get the data, Anthony. And

33:39like I said, and I just I just know

33:41because the over 55 thing never was

33:43actually they wrote a bylaw in the city

33:45of Framingham a few planning boards ago,

33:47long time ago when we were town. They

33:48made it so nobody would build one. Okay.

33:50So that's from my zoning board days. So,

33:53we've only seen three of these

33:54communities come to Framingham. So,

33:56those three decisions you should be able

33:57to pull and then get we can get the data

33:59from DPW what's getting picked up and

34:01what's not. And then you've got, you

34:02know, I say they're apartments if it's

34:04owner occupied, if it's a four family,

34:06somebody lives there. The rules are kind

34:07of different. They're all over the

34:08place. So, if that's something we could

34:10look into and then council King, your

34:12hand is up next, sir.

34:15>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So,

34:18I suggested when we heard from the mayor

34:20last time that we do have a, you know, a

34:23comprehensive review and recommendation.

34:26I really think that should come from the

34:27administration, not from us. I don't

34:30really care. I guess if Anthony wants to

34:31do it, but they're the ones providing

34:33the service. I would be interested in

34:36seeing a comprehensive list of I think

34:39it has changed over the years like even

34:41in terms of like up to four families you

34:43know what residents we do pick up from

34:47you know again I don't want to talk

34:48decades old war stories but I will um we

34:55you know this whole idea of condo trash

34:57pickup came up back during my 10 years

34:59town manager and uh there were a couple

35:02people who were leading the fight who

35:03were condo owners at the time. There was

35:05a gentleman whose name I cannot

35:06remember. He since passed away that

35:08lived down in Winthrop Street and uh

35:10Ricky Finley was another person who is

35:12very u at the front of front of it and

35:15they had an argument as to similar to

35:17what we've heard now.

35:19>> But uh Phil, do you remember the name of

35:21that gentleman in Winter Street? Because

35:22he's important to this story.

35:23>> No, I can't. I'm trying to think because

35:24I knew Ricky because he lived in Mills

35:26Falls, but I can't think of the guy on

35:27Winthre Street.

35:28>> Okay.

35:29Columbo passed away but his was a

35:31>> he was a small older gentleman lived on

35:33the corner lot

35:34>> Harold Harold

35:36>> Harold Weaver there you go

35:39good job

35:40>> for the win

35:43>> good yeah good good a good man and he

35:46was very um he was he he was very you

35:49know insistent that we change this

35:51policy and I can never I'll never forget

35:53one day he calls me and he goes you know

35:55he felt that I was opposed to the policy

35:57but that that's the different story. But

36:00um he called me and mentioned to me that

36:02we were picking up uh all the apartments

36:04on Second Street and that was against

36:06our policy. He wanted to know why we

36:07picked up all those policy all those

36:09apartments. He also wanted to know why

36:11we picked up the housing authority. And

36:13I looked at our policies at the time and

36:15he was 100% correct. We were doing that

36:17and we stopped it. And then the uh then

36:20the corporation that owns manages the

36:22Second Street Beaver Park Road area sued

36:24us and that went to court and we won.

36:27And uh not only did they lo lose their

36:30trash pickup, they were ordered by the

36:32judge to pay us back for three years. So

36:35we actually recovered

36:37uh a lot of money at the time for

36:39payback for even though we were picking

36:41up voluntarily, they were taking it and

36:43they were deemed not supposed to have

36:45done that. And the housing authority was

36:46also no longer picked up at that point.

36:48We don't provide pickup to the housing

36:50authority either. Uh so I'd like to see

36:53and and we had a fourunit limit I

36:56believe at the time. Do we still have

36:57that? You know, there are certain places

36:59that, you know, we seem to pick up that

37:01odd and there's a there's a person who's

37:04often complained about group homes. So,

37:06I think we should see all the categories

37:08of residential living and which ones we

37:10pick up. Frankly, I think the ones where

37:12the zoning bylaw speaks to it and it's

37:14in the decision, fair or not, that that

37:17was the decision that's made. I think

37:18those are easier to adjudicate, but I

37:21think there are others that, you know,

37:24you know, do need to be looked at. So I

37:26would think personally I'd rather see

37:28the administration do it but whoever

37:31>> sorry can you hear me?

37:32>> No I can hear you but we had three

37:33phones go off tonight. Yeah you're up

37:35council.

37:36>> Okay I just finished up. I'm finishing

37:37up. So I prefer to see the

37:39administration present this to us but

37:40whoever presents it to us I think we

37:42should have a comprehensive list of you

37:44know that covers almost everything so

37:46then we can have a a discussion as to

37:48what we want to do and understand the

37:50impact because again you know we have

37:52some financial issues and we're spending

37:53a lot of money here in theory so we need

37:56to keep that in place you know equity is

37:58important and I do think it's important

38:00and that's why I'm happy the mayor

38:01reinstituted to the current um to the

38:05current people being collected because I

38:06I think that was the right thing to do.

38:09But before we make any other major

38:11changes, I think we really have to

38:12understand the depth of what we do, why

38:15we do it, and how much it would cost us

38:16to change doing it.

38:18>> Okay. Thank you. I'm just going to call

38:19on Lori Brooks. Then back to the

38:20council. Miss Brooks, your hand is up.

38:23>> Hi. Actually, I'm on my wife's uh

38:25>> Okay.

38:26>> Apologize, but it said Lori, so

38:28>> that's okay. My name's Richard Brooks.

38:30>> Okay.

38:31>> Um I'm glad you all remembered Harold

38:32Weaver's name. Um, I work with him for

38:3610 years on that project. So, I'd like

38:38to at least volunteer to be a a conduit

38:42of information. I've worked on this

38:43issue. I'm I'm a condominium attorney,

38:46but I volunteer my time over the last 40

38:48years on this issue. I've been involved

38:50with probably 50 different towns, over

38:5330 of which, including yours. At the

38:55time, it was a town um changing the

38:58policy because they saw the fairness

38:59argument. It was always money versus

39:01fairness. And the question always was is

39:04it do you see the do you see the

39:05fairness in it or do we get to they just

39:07can't afford it. So but mo most the

39:10towns I was involved with in cities

39:11change the policy. So I absolutely

39:14volunteered my time to give you

39:16information. Um there's many arguments

39:18on both sides. I've seen all of them. Um

39:21I think so far including some of them

39:22was raised tonight about access to the

39:24property and the roads wide enough and

39:26there's there's a lot of things but I'

39:28I've had to deal with them all and

39:30satisfied most of these cities and towns

39:32with the information and then they voted

39:34on if they thought they could afford it

39:35and if it and if it was fair and the

39:37bottom line always was that these

39:40homeowners, taxpayers, your residents,

39:42they pay the exact same tax rate as the

39:45single family homes. And that's what

39:46it's about. And you'll find many

39:48condominiums that pay 10 times more per

39:50acre in tax dollars than the single

39:52family homes do. Yet they're being

39:55denied a service. And it seems easy

39:57enough, the developers say it, but would

40:00you my last point, would you not provide

40:03them with the school service or the

40:05police department or any other service

40:07that you normally provide a homeowner um

40:09just because the developer says, "Hey,

40:10we don't necessarily need to give the

40:12condominiums trash pickup." It's it's

40:14just a fairness issue. But I'd be happy

40:16to go through whichever the mayor's

40:18office or whoever you need to answer

40:20questions, talk about other towns, what

40:21they've done, and how it works out.

40:23>> Yeah, if you don't mind just reaching

40:24out to Miss Kelly with your information

40:26just so we have it um in our office,

40:28that would be appreciated. Council King.

40:30Oh, Council Stephanie and then Council

40:32King because your hands back up. I

40:34believe George.

40:36>> Council Stephanie, you're up. Uh, I was

40:38just going to add, I think we focused on

40:41the existing folks and the three over

40:4455. Looking at this list, I think there

40:47are other condominiums that fit in the

40:49same thing. So having an analysis

40:52collaboratively collaboratively done

40:54with the administration and um Anthony I

40:57think would be helpful to understand the

41:00data. Who's getting it? Who isn't

41:03getting it? What's our policy? How are

41:05we going about trying to figure this out

41:08so we at least have some thoughtful

41:11approach to this? Uh and hopefully some

41:14level of fairness and equity as well.

41:18>> Thank you.

41:20Any further discussion? Anybody in the

41:21audience want to comment, talk,

41:26>> Mr. Gley? Sure.

41:34>> Good evening.

41:36I'm Michael Krillley. I live at North

41:37Side Meadows, which is off of Pleasant

41:40Street and over 55

41:42um HOA.

41:45uh there are no uh kids [clears throat]

41:47in the uh in the development. So we

41:50don't put any uh any uh demands on the

41:53school system. We pay our sewer and

41:55water taxes and our taxes. And um the

42:00city currently

42:02picks up the trash at other HOAs.

42:06And I think uh for those of you who are

42:09interested in equity that uh we think we

42:12should all be treated equally and that's

42:14what um I just want to reinforce any of

42:17you who are thinking that way. That's

42:20the way we would like you to think. On

42:22behalf of my neighbors uh it would be a

42:25big deal for us to have our trash picked

42:27up.

42:28>> Thank you Mr. Gley. Anybody else?

42:31[clears throat] Mr. Stefan and the

42:32gentleman in the back.

42:34>> I'm Doug Stefen. I'm the developer of

42:36Baiting Brook Farm. I am really

42:40suffering tonight because apparently

42:42according to the most unreliable source

42:45in Framingham, I'm getting too old to

42:48take care of the farm and my duties. So

42:50I brought it brought a bottle geratl

42:52with me tonight. So I be sure to be able

42:54to get through this explanation of why I

42:57think there is need for consideration.

43:00Um, as the mayor knows and the assessors

43:03know, all we have uh 26

43:07residents in there now. They've all

43:09received their first or second tax bill.

43:11All of them, I think, with the exception

43:14of one has been taxed at a higher number

43:17than they paid for the place that they

43:21bought. And so, every one of them has

43:23applied for an abatement. Uh, they have

43:25not come to me and asked uh to have me

43:28speak on their behalf. not the HOA. I I

43:31do run the HOA, so I guess I'm speaking

43:33on their behalf and my behalf. I think

43:36that there is a huge huge um pro problem

43:41with everybody being treated fairly,

43:43frankly. Um and admittedly, when the

43:47mayor was touting what we were doing and

43:49he said, "Well, city's going to not have

43:51to pick up the garbage. Nobody's going

43:52to have to go to school. Don't have to

43:54plow the street." We did build a street

43:55so that it could be accepted as a city

43:58street under the circumstances if it

44:00ever presented itself. But I just think

44:02the consideration needs to be there for

44:05uh equitable treatment as has been

44:08suggested here by um most of you. It's

44:11just

44:13it's not right.

44:15It it just it isn't.

44:17>> You want me to stand here mic or you

44:19want me to ask your questions?

44:20>> When you're done. I'm sorry. I didn't I

44:21wasn't interrupted.

44:22>> No, no. I'm okay. I've said what I I

44:25probably could keep talking, but I've

44:26said what I need to say.

44:27>> Well, since you're there, I'll I'll ask

44:28a question through you, Mr. Chairman.

44:30Are you saying that there is something

44:32that is happening outside of the

44:34agreement that you as the developer

44:35signed?

44:37>> In terms of what, Mike,

44:38>> did you did you I'm unclear on what the

44:41ask is other than you want the trash

44:43picked up. I get that piece. But when

44:44you were when you did the when you had

44:46the decision from the planning board,

44:48when you were going through that

44:49process, was it your understanding in

44:50the agreement that the city of

44:52Framingham was picking up the trash?

44:53That's what the agreement

44:54>> No, never was it. That was never an

44:55understanding. Not we never We was very

44:58clear. No trash, no plowing the street,

45:02no services.

45:04>> Okay. So then what is the problem? It

45:06sounds like the city of Framingham is is

45:07is honoring the agreement that you

45:10entered into.

45:11>> That's a great point. One of the things

45:13that we weren't expecting because it

45:15doesn't usually happen the way that it's

45:17happened is that people get taxed at a

45:19rate higher than the value of their

45:21property. And so I'm looking at that

45:23although they most of them got

45:25abatements I still think that it's kind

45:28of you're absolutely right. They agreed

45:31we agreed

45:32>> values went up

45:33>> to well that's yes thank you but still

45:38it's it's kind of a stretch. It really

45:40isn't in terms of if it happens it'd be

45:43great.

45:44>> Not selling the houses for more than you

45:46anticipated when you be.

45:48>> Okay. So, you're upset because you

45:50you're the city of Excuse me, Mr.

45:51Stefen. So, it sounds like you're upset

45:53that the city of Framingham entered into

45:55an agreement with you that made it

45:56explicitly clear that the residents who

45:58purchased at your development from which

46:00you purch from which you profited, I

46:02would imagine handsomely

46:04are you're upset that you're not getting

46:06trash because that's what the agreement

46:08said. I'm not upset about anything,

46:10Mike. I'm upset only to the point of if

46:13we're gonna do it, you do it for

46:14everybody or you don't do it for

46:16anybody.

46:16>> But you It's a community over the course

46:18of hundreds of years where laws have

46:20changed and practices have changed and

46:21standards have changed. You're coming to

46:23us upset at the city of Framingham,

46:25upset at the mayor perhaps because what

46:27is being what is being honored is the

46:29agreement that you entered into as the

46:31developer.

46:31>> I'm not upset at all. So don't give me

46:33don't put that word in my mouth. I'm not

46:35upset. I'm requesting that it be

46:38something that look gets looked at.

46:40>> You think that's fair?

46:41>> Yeah, I do.

46:42>> Yep, I do.

46:44>> Okay, Mr. Chairman,

46:45>> I admire you for having this

46:47conversation publicly because typically

46:48in communities when a developer comes up

46:50and says, I know that the city of

46:52Framingham and its taxpayers are doing

46:54exactly what they said they were going

46:55to do in terms of providing

46:57infrastructure and operating expenses

46:59and and all of that capacity, but we

47:02want something more. Typically

47:04developers are not I mean I I I admire

47:06you having the conversation publicly and

47:07and for your cander.

47:09>> I'm always happy to

47:10>> my concern as we undertake this process

47:12Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the indulgence

47:13Mr. Chairman is I would like to if there

47:15are cases where we're not living up to

47:18our side of the agreement. I want to

47:20know about that. Those are the cases

47:21where we should be I think there's

47:22there's consensus there. That should be

47:24a fairness thing. if we're not doing

47:26something and that happens and that's

47:28where I thought we were going with this

47:29conversation. But if this is just going

47:31to be folks that hey this guy over here

47:33has a different agreement because it was

47:35done at a different time in a different

47:36place and a different st whatever if

47:38we're honoring the agreement if we're

47:40doing our part I'm less concerned about

47:42that. So I want to see what the

47:43decisions are and what's driving the

47:44execution of of us undertaking those

47:47services. If this is just going to be a

47:49hey I know I agree to this but I want

47:51more even though the values have gone

47:53up. I'm sorry that leads to greater

47:55taxation, but that also means as a

47:56developer, you're selling houses for

47:58more than you forecasted.

48:00>> You know,

48:01>> this is not about me.

48:04>> You you you rose your hand, so perhaps I

48:06am I am I

48:07>> speaking on behalf of the HOA. I'm not

48:09speaking on behalf of myself.

48:10>> You identified yourself as the developer

48:12at the beginning of the conversation,

48:13>> right? Yeah.

48:14>> So, I'd like to know if if we're

48:15undertaking if we're honoring our side

48:17of this on behalf of the taxpayer,

48:18that's what I'm concerned with. If we're

48:20not doing that, let's fix that. This was

48:22eye opening for me. I appreciate the

48:23discussion, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.

48:24Stefan, I appreciate uh the candid

48:27insight that you provided and my warmest

48:30loving regards to Ferdinand.

48:33>> Well, thank you.

48:34>> Stephanie, I'm glad to hear that. I

48:35>> I just want to point out something uh

48:38which is obvious. I think he pointed out

48:40obviously that it's the actual

48:42residents, not the developer that this

48:44is about. But I wanted to point out

48:46something which is that under the

48:49agreement and under the zoning bylaw,

48:51his if if the HOA in his instance wants

48:54to have the city collect the trash, all

48:57they have to do is have the street

48:58accepted and then we pick up not only

49:00the trash, but we plow the street. It's

49:03I it's an option in the way uh the bylaw

49:09is written and it is our duty to look at

49:15fairness and equity in the way policies

49:18are adopted and I won't go through all

49:20of the areas where we have changed the

49:22way we look at policies because we wish

49:24to be fair and they involve

49:27all kinds of issues that we consider to

49:30be um repugnant today But we have

49:33changed our policies because we wish to

49:36be fair and equitable. And I'm I'm I'm

49:38suggesting at this juncture that we do

49:40what you suggested. Let's collect the

49:42information. Let's look at it and figure

49:44it out. And we're focusing a lot on

49:46these three. I suspect when we get the

49:48data, what we're going to find out is

49:49there are a whole bunch of people that

49:50are in this category that fit into

49:53different groups because we have over

49:55years picked winners and losers and

49:57people have accepted them because the

49:59city is more powerful as a negotiator

50:01than is a land owner.

50:04>> The data is extraordinary is going to be

50:05what drives this. I'm hopeful, but I

50:07think councelor King hit it on the head.

50:09The ones where the planning board

50:10agreement spec the planning board

50:12decision specifies this explicitly,

50:14those are the easy ones. I don't want to

50:15spend a whole lot of time on those. And

50:17street acceptance is a far more

50:19complicated process often times visited

50:21within certain planning uh board

50:23decisions on what I mean it's it's not

50:26as simple as as you've made it sound.

50:28Bless true. So I think the data would

50:30>> but in this case they're building the

50:32streets per specs for uh acceptance and

50:35so the question comes to us and do we

50:37not accept a street because we don't

50:38want to have the responsibility for the

50:40plowing we take on a regular basis we

50:43have over the last few years let me just

50:45finish the last few years we've taken

50:47and we've accepted streets that don't

50:49meet our standards that developers have

50:51had written agreements to finish them

50:53they since have left and they didn't

50:55follow them um the the one up off of

50:58Grove is the most notable one.

50:59>> Panini, isn't it?

51:00>> Panini. But we've done three or four a

51:03year each year for the last few years

51:05and we're trying to work through those.

51:07We have no obligation to do those

51:09streets,

51:09>> right?

51:10>> None whatsoever. But the equitable and

51:12fair thing to do is for us not to punish

51:15someone who is the third or fourth

51:18property owner to purchase something for

51:21a developer that agreed to something and

51:23then left long ago.

51:25>> But this is not a case. You're you're

51:26lumping a lot of things together, John.

51:28I appreciate that and this is why the

51:29data is going to be so helpful because

51:31this does not fit into any of the

51:33criteria that you've just referenced and

51:35the third or fourth owner knows going

51:37into the property because they have to

51:39sign about a ream's worth of paper that

51:42says you know what you're getting and

51:43you know what you're not. Are you sure

51:44you know what you're not getting because

51:46you got to sign this form that says and

51:47by the way you got to sign this form to

51:49show that you signed the form.

51:50>> That's true on a private street

51:52>> 100%. But it it if if people are are the

51:56the discussion is not, hey man, I think

51:58the city of Framingham said we were

51:59going to be getting picking up my trash.

52:01That that's just not the case. Now I I I

52:03appreciate the discussion, but let's

52:06look at the data and and and as

52:08councelor King uh outlined the the

52:10entirety of it. I think the easy ones

52:12are where there's a planning board uh

52:14case that a decision that dictates what

52:16is included and what is excluded.

52:19>> Thank you.

52:20>> Thank you. I think councelor King is

52:22>> Yep. Council King, you're up.

52:24>> Yeah. Just briefly, I I I don't want to

52:26keep this going either, but the issue of

52:29street acceptance is a whole different

52:30issue because John's right. There were

52:33some areas we did accept streets which

52:35we didn't have to do

52:37and I think there was some compelling

52:39public policy reasons to do that and

52:41maybe some arguments not to, but I think

52:42in general that was the case. But a lot

52:45of these what essentially a cluster

52:48developments or different types of

52:49developments I believe and correct me if

52:52I'm wrong this is not my area of

52:53expertise. I believe that's also in the

52:55decision too as to whether they are

52:56intended to be uh public streets. Most

52:59of the time the subdivisions that we

53:00accepted and we've done some of the work

53:02I agree with that in the initial

53:04subdivision plan it says they will be

53:06public streets and unfortunately not to

53:09cast a spurgeon on anybody but somewhere

53:10at the time in the administration of

53:12this town people weren't overlooking it

53:15and released bonds and stuff like that

53:17before the streets were completed when

53:18they shouldn't have the town should have

53:20had a bond and those bonds should have

53:22been enforced until the streets were

53:23completed so I don't know how that got

53:25messed up and that's why it happened but

53:27I and again I never read these decisions

53:28But I suspect the issue of public street

53:30acceptance is in these decisions. It's

53:32not like they have the option. People

53:34just can't come and get their driveway

53:36accepted as a public street.

53:39>> Thank you. The gentleman with your hand

53:41up, sir.

53:45>> Um maybe a little different perspective.

53:48>> Name and address of the record.

53:49>> My name is Lou Orsan and I'm a resident

53:52homeowner of Windsor Green Condominiums.

53:56Uh we have 200 condominiums in our

53:59development. Um we do our own I'm

54:03speaking for myself as a resident, not

54:05the board. Um we do our own snow

54:08removal. We maintain our own streets. We

54:11do get trash and recycling pickup and um

54:16um and I appreciate the mayor u allowing

54:18us to extend this maybe uh until the

54:21study is done. But um uh I'm 81 years

54:25old and I live on fixed income with my

54:28wife and um we pay about $2,600 a year

54:32in property taxes for a small

54:35three-bedroom footprint condominium.

54:38And um um if uh we were required to pay

54:42trash and um um recycling pickup um uh I

54:48think our board estimated our cost for

54:51us would be uh $90 a month extra in our

54:55homeowner dues. And that's a lot of

54:58money for a a senior citizen on fixed

55:00income to be added. our uh homeowner

55:04dues are already um more higher than our

55:08principal mortgage. So, um I would

55:11appreci I appreciate this discussion um

55:15tonight and I would ask the uh the city

55:19and the count uh council and the mayor

55:22to um uh since we're paying property

55:26taxes just like the people across the

55:28street that have single family homes. Um

55:31I would appreciate us to receive trash

55:34pickup and recycling pickup just like

55:36they do. Thank you.

55:38Thank you very much, sir. Back to the

55:41council. Any further questions? Anything

55:42else?

55:42>> Just to say that 81, I was like I

55:44thought you were in your early 60s at at

55:46I mean, whatever you're doing, sir,

55:48please keep doing it and and give me

55:49that advice. Thank you.

55:51>> So, I think Anony's

55:53>> I think so, too.

55:54>> So, Anthony, you've got your mach

55:56instructions.

55:56>> You have a woman with her hand up.

55:57>> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see the hand up.

55:58She

55:59>> gonna raise it so I could see it.

56:01>> You're up. Um, my name is Evelyn and I'm

56:04a Conno unit owner and I just want to

56:06say thank you mayor for extending but

56:09this issue has to be discussed and I

56:11agree and I also think that uh I agree

56:13with John Stephanini according to as of

56:162020 there was 3,275 residential

56:19condominiums out of that the 21 that

56:22were affected [clears throat]

56:23by the decision that total 2289

56:28so that leaves 980 other residential

56:31units. So, we need to and I hope that

56:34with the decision in this discussion

56:36that you involve the condominium uh

56:40associations that want to be involved

56:42with this discussion as well as um

56:44Richard Brooks um says that he wants to

56:47be involved with this too. I think that

56:50you know as of uh 2023 based on a

56:52Framingham report there is 52% of single

56:56family homes detached. The rest are 48

56:58is remainder of multi-residential units.

57:01There are discrepancies. There are

57:04inconsistencies. I hope that it gets

57:07evaluated and that we can sort it

57:09because I think that you know with

57:11everyone's discussion that you know we

57:13all pay similar taxes the same tax rate

57:17and you know we should have you know our

57:20garbage and trash and recycling and from

57:22my perspective all other condominiums

57:24are really good at recycling. So, um,

57:27and that was the impression a long time

57:29ago. As long as the condominiums do the

57:32recycling, the trash will be picked up.

57:34And that's all I have to say that, you

57:36know, I hope that we are included into

57:38the discussion as well as others. And I

57:40appreciate your time.

57:43>> Thank you.

57:43>> Thank you.

57:44>> Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

57:50>> Okay. I'm gonna try to do this. I hate

57:52public speaking, so bear with me. Uh, my

57:54name is Devin Woods. I live um 73

57:57Nicholas. I'm in that condo complex and

58:00for I've been there I think it's on

58:02almost 3 to four years now. I bought

58:04during COVID. Trash pickup was always

58:06included

58:08and I just feel that it would be unfair

58:10to have like con you know I pay my

58:12taxes. I probably pay close to around

58:15like you know a single family home. It

58:18would be unfair to have like a you know

58:19somebody owns a home versus a

58:21condominium. they get their trash picked

58:23up where I have to, you know, my HOA has

58:26to pay for it and that's just it's a

58:28double standard because I am a

58:30homeowner. I bought my condo. I'm not

58:32renting. I bought it, you know, from the

58:34HOA and all that paperwork and

58:35everything. So, I really urge that you

58:38guys continue to allow my condo

58:40association along with others to

58:43continue to let the trash be picked up

58:46as part of a service through the city.

58:48Thank you.

58:49>> Thank you very much for coming out.

58:51Anybody else?

58:53Seeing none.

58:55>> Yeah, sir. Absolutely. I didn't see your

58:56hand up.

58:57>> Prescott Gardens. Sorry.

58:58>> No, that's all right. Take the mic. Just

59:00>> I'm uh I'm from Prescott Gardens. I'm

59:02also a homeowner. And just like

59:04everybody else, we have a track company

59:06come in. But unfortunately, next year

59:09we're going to see a significant

59:10increase. They do come out and pay our

59:12do our recycling. But if you're going to

59:15take away all that, we're just going to

59:17see our fees go up. and we're paying the

59:19same amount of taxes of Norwe like

59:21everybody else says. So if other people

59:23are getting the same thing, why can't

59:25you know, we all do it. Well, why don't

59:27you just start charging homeowners for

59:28it as well as you know, I mean, some of

59:31these single family homes, I mean, some

59:33of these homes might have five or six or

59:35seven apartments in it. Are they getting

59:37charged? I mean, so you have to look at

59:40it that way. Um, I'm sure you're going

59:42to do the right thing. I appreciate your

59:44time. I appreciate everybody taking a

59:45look at this, but I think it has to be

59:46done fairly. That's all I have to say.

59:48Thank you.

59:49>> Thank you very much. Well said.

59:50>> Nobody on Zoom

59:52>> on Zoom. We've got one more person that

59:54just went on. Thank you. Uh Miss Santon,

59:58welcome. Susie Santon, you're up.

1:00:04You got to unmute, Susie.

1:00:09>> Is that better?

1:00:10>> There you go. You're good.

1:00:11>> Hi guys. This is Susie Santon. Um I live

1:00:14at Mil Falls Condominiums. um and one of

1:00:17the things that really struck me was the

1:00:19gentleman who lives in the 55 and over

1:00:21condo community. Um who uh they don't

1:00:26have any children in the school system.

1:00:27Um they are paying for for the for their

1:00:30their trash removal. Their their roadway

1:00:33within their complex is not being

1:00:35plowed. Um taxes include um money going

1:00:39to the school system. Taxes include your

1:00:43trash being picked up. taxes include

1:00:46your roadways being plowed. So, the

1:00:48people who are living in the 55 and over

1:00:50communities have three strikes against

1:00:52them. Um, they don't they're not they

1:00:55don't have kids in the school system

1:00:56right now. They're over 55. I think at

1:00:59the very at the very least the city

1:01:01could be picking up their trash since

1:01:03they're not educating their children.

1:01:05Um, and and I do agree unless you want

1:01:08to look at a system like Worcester has.

1:01:10Um, I have friends who live in a condo

1:01:12in Worcester. They pay to have their

1:01:14trash pickup pick up, but trash pickup

1:01:17is not part of their taxes. Um, and my

1:01:21friends who live in that area, they have

1:01:22to pick up, they have to buy these

1:01:24yellow Worcester City trash bags,

1:01:26>> and their trash must go in these bags

1:01:28and put on the side of the street. And

1:01:31if the trash is not in a yellow

1:01:33Worcester City trash bag,

1:01:35your trash doesn't get picked up. And

1:01:37they I think I think it's like five $5

1:01:40for 10 large bags. and $5 for 15 smaller

1:01:44ones. Um, and that's how they do it. So,

1:01:47the condominiums take care of their own,

1:01:50but there's trash pickup is not part of

1:01:53the taxes. Um, but again, I just I felt

1:01:56I felt kind of this this man man with

1:01:58the 55 and over community, you know, you

1:02:01he's paying taxes to put kids through

1:02:03school and he doesn't have any. Um, I

1:02:05think at least picking up our trash is

1:02:08an is an equitable um thing to do for

1:02:12everybody in the city.

1:02:15>> Thank you, Susie. Anybody else?

1:02:18Seeing nothing, we'll move on to our

1:02:20next item on the agenda.

1:02:22Next order of business, at the request

1:02:24of our financial analyst, Anthony of the

1:02:26council, a continued discussion on city

1:02:28vehicle fleets. Mr. Canazian, you've got

1:02:30the floor, sir.

1:02:31>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

1:02:34Mary, do you mind putting up the newest

1:02:37presentation?

1:03:07Um that's it. Yep. Um so on the um

1:03:11overview, just a recap from a month or

1:03:14so ago on the number of vehicles um that

1:03:17the city has. um 320 vehicles throughout

1:03:20the numerous departments. Um 49 with

1:03:23with GPS and and 32 are take-home. Um

1:03:28the follow-up questions were really more

1:03:31about I believe the um the vehicles that

1:03:34are are used by city hall departments

1:03:36rather than than all departments. Um, so

1:03:39if you if you go to the um next one, the

1:03:43I spent some time at the DPW with the

1:03:45fleet manager. Um, the in went over

1:03:48looked at the the software they're

1:03:49currently using. Um, it's called CFA

1:03:51software. It's an older fleet management

1:03:54system. Um, you can tell right when you

1:03:56look at it has that '9s view. It's it

1:04:01looks like dated software, but um, he

1:04:03walked me through their process of how

1:04:05they use it. and it's mostly used for

1:04:08tracking their maintenance. Um,

1:04:12and they seem it works for them for what

1:04:15their needs are for tracking the

1:04:17maintenance. It works. Um, it's a cheap

1:04:20software. It's around 1,600 bucks a

1:04:22year. Um, significantly cheaper than

1:04:25than anything else that's on the market

1:04:26today. Um, it also keeps track of the

1:04:30parts inventory. Um, so parts. Um

1:04:32there's one gentleman in the in the

1:04:34parts who runs the parts department and

1:04:36um they use it. It integrates um with

1:04:39the maintenance ticketing and it tracks

1:04:42the history of each vehicle. So each

1:04:44vehicle once it is brought into um the

1:04:48TBW for maintenance. it's it's given

1:04:51essentially a birth certificate and um

1:04:54after that all the maintenance is

1:04:56tracked and also if any maintenance is

1:04:58outsourced um that's also tracked within

1:05:01within the software. Um

1:05:05it doesn't do all that much beyond the

1:05:09maintenance tracking. Um one of the gaps

1:05:12described to me was that it doesn't

1:05:13integrate with um the fuel pump

1:05:16software. Um so those two systems don't

1:05:18integrate. there's no way um you know

1:05:20from the the CFA software you can get to

1:05:23fuel consumption or anything like that.

1:05:26Um

1:05:27there's a number of nice to have what I

1:05:30call them gaps um which is what you'd

1:05:33get from a a new type of software um if

1:05:36that were desired. um things like real

1:05:39time vehicle utilization so you can

1:05:43easily track how frequent are vehicles

1:05:46used, when it was last used, trips, all

1:05:48that data, which um kind of goes to the

1:05:52the second bullet, the the GPS um most

1:05:55of the new software has GPS built in. Um

1:05:59so that would give the location history

1:06:01and some more of that um utilization.

1:06:06um also

1:06:08um not in the current software is engine

1:06:11hours, idle time, um fuel consumption

1:06:14like I had said and it doesn't give any

1:06:16sort of vehicle costing beyond just

1:06:21the the parts for maintenance. Um,

1:06:26so new software would allow you to tell

1:06:29would you'd be able to tell exactly how

1:06:32much each vehicle was costing, which

1:06:34would help with the replacement

1:06:36schedule. So you'd have a better idea of

1:06:38what you were spending per vehicle

1:06:41and if it was time to replace it based

1:06:44strictly on that. Um the next slide

1:06:50um is essentially or if not exactly the

1:06:53same from last time just what it would

1:06:54cost to implement a new system and it's

1:06:56expensive. Um it would probably be at

1:06:58least 50 grand to implement and then

1:07:00ongoing costs of somewhere between 15

1:07:02and $40,000 a year. Um

1:07:07so it would it would definitely you know

1:07:09be a financial undertaking and

1:07:12also um it could be a challenge for the

1:07:16the current um staff with the limited

1:07:21number of staff in the in the fleet

1:07:23management department of of undertaking

1:07:25a a change like this. Um but again you'd

1:07:29get substantially more data to make

1:07:32better decisions. Um, on the next slide

1:07:36is what we we talked about briefly is a

1:07:39potential option if desired of changing

1:07:43the type of pool system that that city

1:07:45hall uses. Um,

1:07:48I'd estimate there's about 22 vehicles

1:07:50that are just regular passenger vehicles

1:07:54that could probably potentially be used

1:07:58throughout numerous departments. Those

1:08:00are just regular everyday sedans. Um a

1:08:03lot of um inspectors use them or or

1:08:06they're primarily used by inspectors. Um

1:08:09there would be the challenge of just

1:08:11logistically who's managing that now?

1:08:13Now now that they're shared, who's

1:08:15managing it, where are they parked? When

1:08:17you go get a vehicle, how do you know

1:08:19where that vehicle is? Um and holding

1:08:22people accountable to things like making

1:08:25sure it's clean, making sure it's

1:08:26fueled, things along those lines.

1:08:30And I did for your request um on the

1:08:33next slide speak with a few towns

1:08:36um only one or I'm sorry cities because

1:08:40only only one city I'd say of the size

1:08:43of of Framingham is kind of using a true

1:08:46pool system like that where all city

1:08:47hall departments share vehicles. Most

1:08:51Brockton and Taton are similar to

1:08:54Framingham where each specific

1:08:56department is allocated a number of

1:08:58vehicles and they're responsible for

1:08:59their um vehicles and and some may

1:09:02assign to individual inspectors, some

1:09:05may not. Um but they're the overwhelming

1:09:08majority do have a similar system um to

1:09:12Framingham.

1:09:13Newton has substantially more employees

1:09:17in their fleet department. Um they have

1:09:1918. Framingham has has seven plus there

1:09:22are a few others. I think four uh

1:09:24mechanics who work in in other

1:09:26departments, fire um and police. Um

1:09:30Newton also outsources its parts

1:09:32department. So that's um we're here in

1:09:35Framingham. It's in house. Um and like I

1:09:39was saying, these vehicles are not

1:09:42scheduled to or assigned. They're just

1:09:45you you go to a key box and you pick

1:09:47your vehicle for the day or for however

1:09:49many hours or um or what your needs are.

1:09:54Um

1:09:57and so that is the update. Um it's an

1:10:00option to do. It would potentially

1:10:05result in

1:10:07fewer vehicles needed, but there are

1:10:09logistical issues too and costs upfront

1:10:12costs.

1:10:16questions for Anthony.

1:10:18Anybody? Council Steph.

1:10:20>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

1:10:21that presentation and continuing the

1:10:24work that uh councelor Grove started uh

1:10:28in the finance committee, I think in the

1:10:29first council. Um

1:10:33I have a couple of thoughts. Um Mr.

1:10:35Mayor, what is our timeline on a new

1:10:37garage?

1:10:41>> Yeah. Is it like two years off, three

1:10:42years off?

1:10:43>> We we are now reviewing. We had a couple

1:10:46of uh proposals submitted by

1:10:49architectural firms. Those are being

1:10:52reviewed. Uh we will be making a choice,

1:10:54a selection on which firm within the

1:10:57next month or so. And the uh firm will

1:11:00then get started on the design. The

1:11:01design will take about a year and then

1:11:03the construction will probably be year

1:11:05and a half, two years after that. So

1:11:08something I know this isn't I don't mean

1:11:11this to sound fresh. I know we don't

1:11:12normally spend a lot of time thinking of

1:11:14policies that far in advance on

1:11:16something like this, but maybe one of

1:11:19the things we think about here is how we

1:11:22take and design a a plan and integrate

1:11:27it into our new garage when we get it up

1:11:29and running, which would make certainly

1:11:31fleet management a little bit easier

1:11:33because everybody will be in the same

1:11:35place. Um cuz it seems I appreciate

1:11:39Anthony a lot of this thought. One I

1:11:41just all these logistical bells went off

1:11:43in my head about you know we're not

1:11:45parking here is going to be a nightmare

1:11:46for the next few years because of

1:11:49construction because of parcels. Maybe

1:11:52we start to put together a policy and

1:11:54think about how we

1:11:58look at the purchases of vehicles. look

1:12:00at how we're going to do this so that

1:12:02when we open a new garage, we're ready

1:12:04to have a fleet of vehicles that make

1:12:08sense because it'll deal with the

1:12:10management. Um, I really appreciate

1:12:13this. I think there's money to be saved

1:12:15here. I think that um there are some

1:12:20coordination that's required. One of the

1:12:22questions I had that would certainly be

1:12:23interesting is what we need to do to

1:12:25make sure all vehicles have GPS on them

1:12:28other than public safety.

1:12:30because that is always helpful in terms

1:12:33of understanding the wear and tear on

1:12:35vehicles and utilization etc.

1:12:39>> Anybody else?

1:12:44>> I I'll just concur. I think it's a start

1:12:46in the right direction. You know what I

1:12:47mean? Because there's a lot of vehicles

1:12:48there. The policies are, you know, go

1:12:50back and forth. So, thank you for your

1:12:52work on this and uh your continued

1:12:53efforts on it.

1:12:54>> Thank you,

1:12:55>> C. Canon. just to say thank you and I I

1:12:57echo the the cooperation that I've seen.

1:13:00Um this was talked about in the first

1:13:02council and I remember those meetings

1:13:04and I remember there was a lot of it it

1:13:06was an uneasy I wouldn't even say it was

1:13:09collaboration. It was like pulling teeth

1:13:11um to see how far we've come really

1:13:13frankly in in just a few weeks. Not that

1:13:16it was as as bad as it was in those

1:13:19early days. Um but there I see more

1:13:22collaboration in recent weeks. uh more

1:13:26of a feeling in the building of we're

1:13:28all on the same team, rowing to the same

1:13:30destination, rowing in the right

1:13:31direction. Um and I I thank everybody uh

1:13:35for that and I'm I'm optimistic and

1:13:36hopeful that it will continue because

1:13:38that's how the community benefits. So

1:13:40great to see us all working together on

1:13:42some of these things that have been on

1:13:43lists for a long time. So thanks team.

1:13:46>> Thank you.

1:13:46>> Anybody else? Seeing that any member

1:13:50prerogatives seeing

1:13:53>> I just is there I mean an action item or

1:13:56a sort of next steps is this coming to

1:13:59the full council is this

1:14:02is there a specific proposal that would

1:14:05be going to the coming from the mayor's

1:14:07office in terms of funding a software

1:14:09like I guess I'm just sort of curious

1:14:12where we go from here.

1:14:14I mean, I I'm not sure to be entirely

1:14:18honest. I think that a change like this

1:14:21is is more of a an administrative type

1:14:23decision. Um

1:14:26I mean, I'm glad to assist if if there's

1:14:28any other information that that you'd

1:14:30like, Mr. Mayor. Um

1:14:32but I I truly don't know the answer to

1:14:34that question on what the next steps

1:14:36are.

1:14:38called Stephanie.

1:14:39>> So

1:14:41I think that in terms of I mean I I

1:14:44agree with you. I think the next

1:14:45conversation on this fits into other

1:14:48items that we put and sort of pushed off

1:14:51which include talking about a balanced

1:14:54budget and what our budget approach is.

1:14:56Now that our CFO has had uh what a few

1:14:59months like you're an old hat here. Um,

1:15:03I think it would be helpful for us to

1:15:04schedule a meeting like we talked about

1:15:06in early September about how we're going

1:15:08to balance our budget next year, how

1:15:10we're going to deal with your pillars,

1:15:12what is our general approach, not to

1:15:15start the budget process, but like what

1:15:16are what are things we want to

1:15:18accomplish in that? And I think

1:15:19certainly this could be one of the

1:15:21things that we look at as to is this

1:15:24something the administration wants to

1:15:25take on or do we want to push this into

1:15:28the new garage and the policy? How do we

1:15:30get there? Um,

1:15:34but I I I'll leave it to you, Mr.

1:15:36Chairman, but I think we've got to

1:15:37figure out our scheduling on some of

1:15:39those items. Um, balancing the budget

1:15:43because I think next year is going to be

1:15:44a challenge. So, the sooner we start

1:15:45talking about it, the better. Um, what

1:15:48is [clears throat] our followup on the

1:15:49solid waste management and some of that

1:15:51stuff and a few other things. But I I

1:15:54could see this very easily fitting into

1:15:55that [clears throat] budget

1:15:56conversation. Okay.

1:16:02All good.

1:16:04>> I guess the other question I would have,

1:16:05sorry, would just be if there's been any

1:16:08engagement with city staff who use the

1:16:10vehicles,

1:16:11if they have opinions at all.

1:16:14>> Um, so I have not talked with the, for

1:16:16instance, the building um, commissioner.

1:16:19Um, I spent some time with um, Mike Tino

1:16:22and the um, fleet manager, but not with

1:16:24the um, specific departments. I know

1:16:27Mike Tceto was not really in favor of of

1:16:31this type of system because a lot of the

1:16:34inspectors are out at the same time each

1:16:36day. So So that's one of the one of the

1:16:38issues.

1:16:40>> Mr. Mayor, do you have any

1:16:41>> No. Uh

1:16:43Anthony makes a good point. I think

1:16:45before we move too fast on the issue of

1:16:49the pooling cars and everything, I think

1:16:51we need to talk to the individual

1:16:52employees because as he said, the

1:16:55inspectors have different hours. They go

1:16:57out early. They're out all day. Um, and

1:17:00they have equipment, specialized

1:17:02equipment that they have with them that

1:17:04they use in the course of their daily

1:17:06work. If they're going to end up taking

1:17:09a different car out in the field every

1:17:12day, not knowing what car it's going to

1:17:13be, that means that at the end of the

1:17:15each day, they're going to have to take

1:17:17the equipment out, bring it in, and

1:17:19store it somewhere and then find out the

1:17:21next day what car they're going to be in

1:17:23and then take the equipment and and move

1:17:25it to a different vehicle. There's

1:17:26there's a lot of logistical things that

1:17:28you have to take into consideration

1:17:30before you just arbitrarily create a

1:17:33motorpool. Um, and the fewer amount of

1:17:38vehicles there are, the harder it is, I

1:17:40in my opinion, to create a motor pool.

1:17:43It's worth looking at, but um, if you

1:17:48use it to try to reduce the number of

1:17:50vehicles, you're going to end up with

1:17:52employees looking around for a car to go

1:17:54out and do an inspection and there's no

1:17:56vehicle available. And then what do you

1:17:58do? They can't do their job. Um, and at

1:18:01some point we may have to revert to

1:18:04employees using their own vehicle and

1:18:05paying them a stipen or a a per mileage

1:18:08aotment for the use of their own car.

1:18:11So, there's a lot of different angles to

1:18:13it that need to be studied in more

1:18:15detail before we can come up with a new

1:18:18policy for uh motorpool, but we're

1:18:21willing to do that. We'll we'll talk to

1:18:22the employees and and we'll see what the

1:18:25issues are uh before we rush to

1:18:28implement something that may not benefit

1:18:31us as much as we think it may.

1:18:34>> Okay.

1:18:35>> Council Gon say I'm trying to think of

1:18:38there's a term for when you study

1:18:40something and the cost of studying it

1:18:43the bandwidth to study it outweighs I'm

1:18:45the CFO this sounds like something he

1:18:47would know off the top of his head like

1:18:48a business school term. the act of

1:18:50researching it outweighs the benefit of

1:18:52doing the thing. There's probably a

1:18:54better way to explain that as well.

1:18:55>> There's probably a word for that, but

1:18:57>> it's definitely a word. It's a term.

1:18:58There's one of those things. I I was

1:19:00absent that day. Um I think you're

1:19:02probably going to come I don't think

1:19:03it's a it's an A or B. I appreciate that

1:19:06we're having this conversation and the

1:19:07data has been collected because as the

1:19:10fleet comes up for renewal, it will give

1:19:12you the the the ability to to find maybe

1:19:15the a hybrid option. And I don't mean a

1:19:17hybrid vehicle, but something that is

1:19:19maybe not quite a pool, but maybe

1:19:20there's a handful of vehicles that

1:19:22aren't in use every day by employees

1:19:23that aren't on the road every day.

1:19:25There's going to be something that's

1:19:26probably better and different than we

1:19:28have now. And I guarantee the idea

1:19:29probably exists somewhere in this

1:19:31building because there are people in

1:19:32this building that use uh these vehicles

1:19:35every day and have a better way. You

1:19:37know, here's a better way to do it. And

1:19:38um getting that feedback as as time goes

1:19:41on will be will be helpful. And I I

1:19:43appreciate the fact that the previous

1:19:44COO was very resistant to a lot of

1:19:46discussion about some of these ideas and

1:19:48even just looking at ways of seeing if

1:19:50there's a different way to do things,

1:19:51but I appreciate that we're having those

1:19:53discussions. And um and I'm hopeful that

1:19:56we'll look at take-home vehicles and how

1:19:57we do that. And I think we've probably

1:19:59gotten well maybe the the pendulum has

1:20:01swung back to where it should be, but

1:20:03for a while we were a lot of people were

1:20:05going home with City of Framingham cars

1:20:06or town of Frammingham cars. But anyway,

1:20:09that's all I have. Mr. Chairman, do you

1:20:10want a motion to adjurnn? So move.

1:20:12Motion by council K. Is there a second?

1:20:13Second.

1:20:13>> Second by council Stephan. Any roll call

1:20:15vote? Councelor King.

1:20:17>> Oh, he went to his building committee.

1:20:19He had to go to a school building

1:20:20committee. I apologize. Council Malik.

1:20:22Ashley. Everybody in the room, please

1:20:24raise your hand.

1:20:24>> Four to zero. Thank you.

1:20:26>> Thanks.

1:20:26>> Have to do a couple different things

1:20:27there. Thank you.

1:20:30[music]

1:20:43>> [music]