2026-09-22 - 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>> p.m. M the city council finance

00:51subcommittee meeting will come to order.

00:53This is revised version 29226.

00:56[snorts]

00:57Present tonight, myself, Council Cannon,

00:58Council King, and Council Stephan Indie,

01:00Council Malik will be joining us

01:01remotely. Uh, first order of business is

01:04public participation. Is there anybody

01:05here that would like to publicly

01:06participate about something that is not

01:08on our agenda? Feel free to raise your

01:10hand and you will be recognized. Anybody

01:12for public participation?

01:15>> Yep. Absolutely.

01:16>> Is this in lie of speaking later on?

01:18>> Yeah, because yours technically isn't.

01:20Um, we're discussing collections, so

01:22you're more than welcome to speak now.

01:24Introduce yourself and speak. Y I'll

01:26allow that.

01:28Good evening everyone. My name is Jim

01:30Hman. I'm an officer of Eagle Rock

01:33Properties. We own two significant

01:34assets in the Framingham market. Uh one

01:37of them is called Eagle Rock at Metro

01:39West, which used to be known as Bayberry

01:40Apartments, and the other is uh Eagle

01:44Rocket Framingham, which is formerly

01:46known as Georgetown Apartments. It's

01:48over 600 uh units at these communities

01:51uh catering to workforce housing. Uh

01:55tonight you are discussing uh in part uh

02:00some water and sewer charges and

02:02collections. Uh while not specifically

02:04on the agenda, we would like you to

02:06think about and perhaps discuss at a

02:09future time the billing inconsistencies

02:12amongst single family homes and

02:15condominiums versus rental apartments

02:17which are being charged at different

02:19rates and also involve something called

02:22a multiple unit dwelling which is called

02:24a MUD which applies to certain

02:26properties. Also there is material

02:29inconsistency within the rates. Uh the

02:32rates did change back in January of

02:342025, resulting in multif family

02:36communities, meaning rental communities

02:39paying substantially more in water sewer

02:42charges than condominiums and single

02:45family homes. So I know it's for another

02:47time in detail, but we'd love the

02:50opportunity to sit down and talk. Uh as

02:54Eagle Rock is a believer in going

02:55forward, not going backwards, and we

02:58only want the the best for Framingham.

03:00We know that Framingham has

03:02infrastructure costs and is looking to

03:06uh derive revenue and cut costs. We know

03:09that's important to the city of

03:10Framingham. So, it's important to Eagle

03:13Rock. We want to be important and um

03:18valuable members of the community. We

03:20want to support this subcommittee and

03:21the council. We want to support our

03:23residents.

03:25under current billing,

03:27uh, annualizing May of 2026 water sewer

03:31charges. If we passed on those charges

03:34to our residents, they'd be paying about

03:35$190 a month.

03:38Eagle Rock has a strong commitment to

03:40workforce housing, as does Framingham.

03:43Uh, we think that those charges are are

03:46problematic for our residents as well as

03:48us as the landlord. I'm not standing

03:51before you telling you, oh, lower the

03:53rate. I think that there is other ways

03:56of addressing this. In part, the problem

03:59rests in, as I said earlier, the

04:02different rates being applied between

04:05single family homes and condominiums on

04:07one hand and rental communities on the

04:09other. So, we what I'd like to express

04:11to all of you is our willingness to sit

04:13down and be creative, work with the city

04:16and its infrastructure so that this can

04:19be resolved amicably. And we thank you

04:22for your time. and we very much

04:24appreciate all the hard work that you

04:25do.

04:26>> Thank you and thank you for being here

04:27this evening. Council Stephanie,

04:29>> thank you. Can we put this on the agenda

04:30for the next

04:31>> I was just going to say that.

04:32>> Can I say something? I was going to say

04:33>> we are not the rate setting rate we are

04:35not the rate authority.

04:37>> I absolutely agree but there's a huge

04:38problem and

04:39>> I'm not saying there isn't but we're not

04:41the rate authority.

04:42>> We don't need to be.

04:45I I understand but I mean we can think

04:49[snorts] we can agree a thousand%

04:52and we can't do anything about it. So I

04:54think often you know instead of just

04:58telling people that we feel their pain

05:00which we do and

05:03we put it on the agenda but we can't do

05:05anything about it. So I I think

05:08sometimes we should send people, you

05:09know, help people who want to advocate

05:11for their position to the people who can

05:13do something about it. I

05:15>> I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, that's

05:16completely accurate about us being

05:18unable to do anything about it. Um I

05:20think we need to have a wholesome

05:22discussion about it. One of the items we

05:23had in our budget writers this year to

05:27talk about was equity relative to water

05:30and sewer [snorts] just like we had a

05:33conversation about solid waste

05:35management. And I think we should have a

05:38conversation about it and bring some

05:40dialogue. The council can do an awful

05:42lot by adding a little transparency to

05:44government and having a conversation. We

05:46talk about affordable housing. We're

05:49talking about in an instance here where

05:51units in these rates can pay a thousand

05:54dollars more than their counterparts

05:56because of the aggregation of the

05:58taring. And we heard a very nice

06:00presentation, but you look into the data

06:03just quickly. And you can see units are

06:05paying $1,000 more a year. And we're

06:08talking about trying to increase

06:09affordability. There are people choosing

06:11not to rent apartments in Framingham

06:13because when they look at the total

06:14cost, it's $1,000 $1,200 more than it is

06:19in NITC. And if you have a condominium

06:21in the same exact configuration in

06:23Framingham, you're paying $1,1200 less.

06:28That's an equity issue. Council Kate,

06:33>> I I don't disagree

06:35that any of those things exist, but

06:40we still no matter what we do, we have

06:43to pay for our water and sewer

06:44operations and we that means we have to

06:47collect a certain amount of money.

06:50There's been great reluctance to raise

06:52those rates over the years and I

06:54understand why [clears throat]

06:56and I do think we should be equitable

06:58but this becomes a vicious circle

07:02because

07:03there was a huge

07:06this idea of this multi-unit I don't

07:08even know what the D stands for but

07:10[snorts]

07:11what is it

07:11>> dwelling

07:12>> dwelling thank you I was going to say

07:15discomfort I knew it wasn't that that's

07:16why I couldn't remember um So,

07:21you know, the one of the main reasons

07:23this is in there is because we were

07:25being pounded by people who wanted us to

07:27charge large business apartment owners

07:31the full commercial rate. We heard that

07:33all the time and that's what happened.

07:36Now, we have a large

07:39apartment business owner. I don't mean

07:40to classify you like that, but that was

07:41just a discussion.

07:43But I think a reasonable point I do I I

07:46don't disagree with the point at all. I

07:47just I just think though and I don't

07:51mind discussing it, but

07:53I also don't think we should let Mr.

07:55Houseman or anybody else think that we

07:57can make that decision because it's

07:59structured now. We cannot and we did not

08:01put the multi-unit dwelling charge in

08:06and we can't take it out. So, yeah, we

08:08can talk about it. And lastly, I don't

08:11think I am so tired of hearing the word

08:13transparency on every single subject we

08:16discuss. I think we are quite

08:18transparent but talking about things you

08:20can't do anything about doesn't make

08:22more transparency.

08:24>> So Mr. Chairman just uh to to pick on

08:27the point

08:30first the first council as you are aware

08:33of decided that it didn't want to play a

08:35role in water and sewer and delegated

08:37that to the mayor. That doesn't mean the

08:39council can't revisit that and decide

08:40that it wants to play a role in water

08:43and sewer. And if we don't have a role

08:44in water and sewer, why are we actually

08:46talking about water and sewer and

08:47collections and everything else, which

08:49by the way, we don't do any collections?

08:51Because one of the most important roles

08:52the council plays is to give a voice to

08:54residents. And a voice to residents, you

08:57can substitute whatever you want.

08:58transparency, voice of residence,

09:00opportunity to look at it, whatever it

09:02is. I have a belief the council has a

09:05role to play in bringing visibility to

09:07things because it increases the

09:10conversation, the clarity with which

09:12something is there, which is exactly why

09:14we're talking about collections tonight

09:16to understand it, to figure out what we

09:18can look at as part of that. We have no

09:20role in the collections. But the idea

09:22that we treat one class of residents

09:25differently because we want to shift

09:26costs because we want to have a reduced

09:29cost on our property owners. Some people

09:32would say a cynical view might be that

09:34they don't vote or they're not as active

09:36in the community or they're not engaged.

09:39But we talk an awful lot about

09:41affordability and we never seem to get

09:44around to whether it's zoning or water

09:47and sewer or taxes or anything else to

09:50do a lot about it. And I think having a

09:52little bit of conversation about it

09:54takes it from behind the scenes and puts

09:56it in front. I haven't heard any of the

09:58screams, callers, yells you're talking

10:00about of the need to increase the rate

10:04for commercial taxpayers. And I watched

10:06the last rate hearing and I don't

10:08believe there was a single person who

10:09testified. So maybe you're hearing that.

10:12What I'm hearing from cuz I have two of

10:15these um complexes in my district is

10:19people are being hit with very large

10:21water and sewer rates. And as you know,

10:24with people downsizing in our community

10:26to make housing uh available, that

10:29downsizing means that people who've

10:32lived in this community their entire

10:33life that vote are part of it are paying

10:36a larger piece of it. That's all. I

10:39think we should have some conversation

10:40about it.

10:40>> I think you're only 50% right, by the

10:42way, about the first council,

10:44>> right? It's on the sewer, not the water,

10:45>> right? So I know that

10:47>> and your question is to why are we

10:49discussing collections if I'm saying we

10:50can't impact rates? I think there is a

10:53totally different reason we're

10:54discussing collections. I do think as a

10:56city council we have the responsibility

10:59and the requirement. It's it's in the

11:01charter to audit the performance of

11:03government and investigate the

11:04performance of government when we have

11:06concerns. So [clears throat] just

11:08because we can't set the rates doesn't

11:09mean we shouldn't um make sure they're

11:12being whatever rates are set are being

11:14collected. Of course they should because

11:15that's all part of the equity involved

11:17in the entire situation. I also agree

11:19that we need to be equitable, but I

11:21think it's very unfair to suggest that

11:23this idea, this multi-unit dwelling

11:25charge came out of nowhere. I don't know

11:27if it came out of rate hearings, but if

11:29you say you haven't heard people talking

11:30about that for years, you know,

11:32advocates, then you're your head's in

11:34the sand because people have been

11:36talking about for a long time and now

11:37that it went the other way, it's going

11:39the other way. I again I don't disagree

11:42with you that there should be some

11:43equity because I also agree that the

11:45people renting are essentially single

11:48family homeowners so to speak because

11:50they are you know they have that's their

11:53unit that's homeowners not obviously not

11:55quite the right term but you know as you

11:57know legally you pretty much are

11:59recognized as a homeowner when you rent

12:01so you know I think that is important

12:05but that also has to be understanding it

12:07I just feel like too often we want

12:10We want to um

12:13>> plate, for lack of a better term. I

12:15don't mean to be that might not be a

12:17really good term, but we want to respond

12:18to the people who sit here in front of

12:22us and complain. And I get that. I get

12:24the reason why we want to do that. Okay,

12:26I do. And I It doesn't mean the

12:28complaint is not legitimate. But if in

12:32fact we or not us again because we don't

12:35set the rates. If in fact the

12:36administration changes it and goes back

12:39to the old way, just remember the single

12:43family homeowners that you represent are

12:45going to have a large increase in their

12:47bill. Somebody has to pay for that that

12:49water and sewer. And that's probably

12:51that may very well be the fairest way to

12:52do it. Okay? I'm not even saying it's

12:54not. But I'm just saying we can't be

12:58everything to everybody. And though

12:59it's, you know, Mr. Houseman, I see Mr.

13:02McDow online are here today. Okay. The

13:07room will be a lot fuller um when the

13:11single family homeowners. So, it's

13:13always a balancing act is all I'm

13:14saying. And I just think that we

13:16shouldn't make people think it's that

13:17easy. It we just can't say yes, you're

13:19right, and we'll reduce the bill. We

13:22can't do that because well we could we

13:24can't but it could be done I guess and

13:27maybe it should be done but that doesn't

13:29just go away somebody else pays that

13:31bill. That's my only point.

13:33>> Thank you councel King Mr. McDow online

13:36for public participation.

13:37>> Yes Roy McDow based on development

13:40listening to what Jim had to say I fully

13:42agree with everything he's saying and I

13:44understand the city council didn't do

13:46this. The mayor did it. I met with the

13:49mayor on this a couple of times. He said

13:51he would look into it. It's not so much

13:53the issue of the rate. And by the way,

13:56as we all know, apartments are taxed

13:59like residential because they are

14:01residential even though you have a

14:03commercial rate. But what's happened is

14:06not only did they change the level of

14:08rates for water which were raised for

14:11residential meaning homes and condos as

14:13well but the bigger thing that was done

14:16is they changed the classification for

14:19number of gallons to go into a higher

14:21category and they lowered the level that

14:25would get you to a much higher category.

14:27So that's part of the big part of the

14:29problem. And I don't even wonder I don't

14:31even I don't know the answer to this,

14:32but is it even legal to take a category

14:36of something that's classified as

14:38residential and charge them different

14:40water rates and other uses of

14:42residential? Don't know the answer to

14:44that. But my question is if the city

14:46council is not your purview, is it the

14:49mayor's office we should be speaking to

14:50or can the city council play a role in

14:53going back to the old levels? Not the

14:55not the rate, but the levels at which

14:58you rise to a higher water use.

15:01>> Well, the mayor's office actually he he

15:03he sets the rates and it's in they're in

15:06charge of it. However, I think there

15:07could be a thoughtful discussion and I

15:09think there should be a discussion

15:10between the council, the mayor's office,

15:12our our guy Anthony, and the new CFO and

15:15just come up with something that works

15:17better. Um, you know, I get calls from a

15:19guy that owns a car wash on Hall Street.

15:20We all get the phone calls and um you

15:23know the meters are working then the

15:24meters aren't working and we're trying

15:25to get that squared away but you know

15:27Mr. Teddy built some new homes off of

15:29Beaver Street that aren't that old and

15:31when one resells now they have to change

15:33those meters so I I don't know where we

15:35stand on the meters. I know they're

15:36trying like hell to get it straightened

15:38out but we got a lot of things going on

15:40and um you know water and sewer is very

15:43expensive. It's not cheap or it's not

15:44reasonable to live in the city of

15:46Firmingham and anyone that tells you

15:47it's reasonable it really isn't

15:49>> right. I

15:49>> I do know I do know in the past they

15:51would take the number of units in your

15:53complex and divide that into the gross

15:56amount of water which was de facto like

15:59you would do with uh condominiums or

16:01homes. But now they've done away with

16:03that and they've dropped the

16:05classification to a much lower level to

16:08get you into a much higher level of

16:10cost. Yeah,

16:11>> if we could just go back to way it was

16:132, three years ago and leave the rate

16:15the way you left it for everybody else,

16:17I think that would solve a big part of

16:19the problem.

16:20>> And just to answer part of that

16:21question, it was because some apartment

16:24complexes or condominium, I don't know

16:25which ones they were, we it's a while

16:27ago, some were getting that formula to

16:30do the multiply or divide by the number

16:32of units and some weren't, I guess. So,

16:33they were trying to make that fair for

16:35all different apartment buildings. But,

16:37you know, we we've heard you folks loud

16:38and clear and we will um it will I want

16:41to put it on a for future discussion and

16:43we can meet with the mayor's team and I

16:45think you and the other folks should

16:46also meet with the mayor and reach out

16:48to the mayor's office. Thank you, Mr.

16:49McDonald.

16:51>> Anybody else for public participation?

16:54Seeing none, first order of business.

16:56Motion to approve the minutes of 8:31

16:572026.

16:58>> So moved.

16:59>> Second.

16:59>> Motion by Canon, second by Stephanie.

17:01Roll call vote. Councelor Malik.

17:04>> Yep. Council Stephanie. Yes.

17:06>> Audi. Yes. Council King and Council

17:08Canon.

17:08>> Yes.

17:09>> Thank you.

17:10>> Next order of business. We have a

17:12presentation from our uh CFA, our

17:14council financial analysis, Anthony

17:16Kenahan, on the water and sewer

17:18collection process on the city of

17:19Framingham. Anthony,

17:21>> good evening, council. Um Marian, do you

17:24mind putting up that deck?

17:27Um, so working with the city finance

17:29department, we we took a look at current

17:32practice for water and sewer collections

17:34and some areas of improvement that Brian

17:37will get into. Um, so on the first slide

17:42um you can see the total collection for

17:46the city annually. This is um FY26. Um

17:49the water bill revenue was about 29

17:52million. sewer bill about 35 million

17:54totaling a little a little under $65

17:57million annually.

18:00Um on the next slide is where we get

18:02into what's past due. So of this 65

18:06million or so um a a little bit under $6

18:10million is past due. Um so in the in the

18:15category of over 120 days which is the

18:19largest category that could be anywhere

18:21from just three month or sorry four

18:23months overdue um to a couple years

18:26overdue and that total is about 3.2

18:28million. Um

18:32these this total makes up around 1,800

18:36accounts. Um, many of them are small,

18:39many are a couple hundred dollars. If if

18:42it's just a residential

18:44um account, it might only be hundred and

18:47something dollars because it's one or

18:50two quarters past due. Um, so this $6

18:54million or so represents about 9% of the

18:57total annual collections of these

18:59accounts. There's nine accounts on

19:02payment plans that are actively on

19:04payments plans. There were some that

19:06were on payment plans but um not paying

19:09so they're they're in default so they're

19:11not included in this. And then there's

19:13five accounts where the um the property

19:15is in bankruptcy. So that prevents um

19:19the taking um in the court. um those

19:22nine accounts that are on a payment

19:24plan, they don't represent a huge

19:28amount in dollars um under under

19:31$100,000 of that total outstanding

19:33almost $6 million um 6.3 when you factor

19:37in interest.

19:39Um on the next slide I took a

19:42[clears throat] look at what other

19:43communities do their process. Nearly all

19:46communities in December

19:48um they will commit the leans for the

19:52quarter 3 tax bill from the bills

19:54outstanding from the previous fiscal

19:56year. So anything that was outstanding

19:58June 30th of of the preceding fiscal

20:01year will be committed in December on

20:03the on the um tax bill that goes out for

20:06quarter 3. Um, Quinsey seems to be a

20:09little more aggressive. Um, at least

20:11according to that ordinance. They do

20:12this process every 60 days. In practice,

20:15I'm not sure if that's actually done,

20:17but that's what their city ordinance

20:19requires. Um, Brockton is a little more

20:21lenient um letting letting builds go a

20:25little little further past two before

20:27actually committing the leans.

20:30and and Brian will talk about um some of

20:33the city's processes

20:36>> um through you, Mr. Chair, and thank

20:38you, Anthony. Um so, when it comes to

20:40water and sewer, we've tried to kind of

20:43notate what the process is, what the

20:45trigger points are, and what some of

20:46these things actually mean and allow us

20:48to do so. When we talk about a lean

20:51under Mass General Law Chapter 40

20:54section 42A through D, any water and

20:57sewer bill that becomes delinquent

21:00automatically by an operation of law has

21:02a lean that is statutoily

21:04attached to the process. It is not

21:06physically recorded at the registry, but

21:08it is it is there and would prevent a

21:10clear title transfer.

21:13Um it, as I noted, it's automatic. It

21:16does restrict the clear title transfers.

21:17The process that is typically followed

21:19as noted in some of the other

21:21communities is that is any outstanding

21:24amounts are sent from the water and

21:27sewer department to the assessor's

21:29office. They put those on the real

21:32estate tax commitment which is then

21:34transmitted to the treasurer collector's

21:37office. It is added to the tax bill and

21:40then becomes part of the tax bill and

21:42then if it is not paid through the

21:44normal tax process then can be added to

21:47tax title and go through the process

21:49with all available remedies of

21:51enforcement.

21:53One thing to note with this which um is

21:56one of the things that we've been

21:57working on and I will tell you that

21:58we've worked to rectify and correct

22:01create a little bit more smooth process

22:03with the water and sewer department, the

22:05treasur's office and with the assessor's

22:08office here is statutoily those leans

22:11that are created by an operation of law

22:12have an expiration time period on them.

22:15They must be committed to a tax bill by

22:17October 1st in the third year

22:20of three years after they became due.

22:23So, and if they're not committed to a

22:25tax bill timely and that period expires,

22:29then we have no lawful method to commit

22:31it to the tax bill any longer and would

22:33have to use any other available remedies

22:36such as um take somebody to court to get

22:38a judgment to be able to attach property

22:40and things of that nature. If it's not

22:42committed timely to the tax bill, then

22:44the [clears throat] lean automatically

22:46dissolves in that the in the October 1st

22:49and the third year after the bill became

22:51due. So, um, what we found is that we

22:55need to make some changes to the process

22:57and and kind of recodify it internally.

23:00Um, I've been very explicit that I

23:03expect these to be done as noted here on

23:05both the third and fourth quarter of the

23:07fiscal year tax bills. Typically most

23:10communities and we will follow this same

23:12process only do this on the third and

23:13fourth quarter bills because they're the

23:15actual tax bills. The first and second

23:17quarters are preliminary and most most

23:19treasure collectors and I have talked to

23:21a couple of colleagues that I have great

23:23respect for said they never bo they do

23:25only do them in the third quarter. You

23:27can obviously do them in the fourth

23:28quarter as it's an actual tax bill. And

23:30we are committed to doing these in both

23:33the third and fourth quarter every year

23:35so that we can ensure that we're staying

23:37current with everything that's passed

23:39due that should be committed. The

23:41process also starts with once we've

23:44transmitted that the treasur collector's

23:45office also sends demand notices and in

23:48that ensuing time period from say just

23:51use a July 30th due date. So July 1st,

23:54the bill would be due. Demand notices

23:58are going to be sent more consistently

24:00than they have been. And that gives

24:02people one final ability to pay it

24:04before it actually ends up committed on

24:06the tax bill. And usually you use a

24:08cutoff date of right around end of

24:10September, middle of October for any of

24:12those payments if the demands have gone

24:13out in a consistent manner as they

24:15should. And and what this really will do

24:17is it will protect all of the city's

24:20interest in terms of the money's owed.

24:23Um, and I'll I'll say it this way. It'll

24:26allow us the additional remedies under

24:28Mass General law through the tax title

24:30process. It is not something that we are

24:33going to be rushing to do through the

24:34tax title process if payments aren't

24:36made timely. It just protects the

24:38interest and secures that operate by

24:40operation of law lean and then does not

24:43expire once it's been committed to the

24:45tax bill until that payment has been

24:46cleared. So we are work we've like I

24:49said we've been working with both the

24:51water and sewer department for them to

24:53go through the list and identify

24:55everything that can be committed to the

24:57tax bill to enforce the lean. They've

24:59already transmitted that list to the

25:01assessor's office. demand notices are

25:03going out and then during the tax rate

25:06when the tax rate is set and that is

25:09calculated the assessor's office with

25:11the tax commitment will transfer um the

25:14amount of water and sewer commitments to

25:17enforce the leans and those will be

25:18added to all individual tax bills.

25:21So, um I've been working very closely

25:24with both the treasur collector's

25:25office, water and sewer. our assessing

25:27department has a really good

25:28understanding of this and I know it has

25:30happened in the past but the

25:32[clears throat] my directive is to make

25:34sure that this is is is um timely and

25:37consistent so that we're protecting

25:38these and so that none of these

25:40delinquent monies have this operation of

25:42law lean ever fall off and require us to

25:45go different routes to make any

25:47collections and to secure the city's

25:49interest.

25:50>> So for the average lay person out there,

25:52can you explain just two things? If a

25:53tenant doesn't pay their water and sewer

25:55bill, the landlord pays the water and

25:56sewer bill. It gets the landlord ends up

25:58becoming responsible. And just so the

26:00general public knows, the city isn't

26:02doing if people are in payment plans or

26:03doing different things. The city gets

26:0514% interest on all this money they'll

26:07take. What can you tell us what the

26:08current rate is we charge these people?

26:11>> Delinquencies, I believe, is still 14%.

26:13And so there is a rational reason to pay

26:15them um apartment units or renters and

26:19things of the renters. If the water and

26:22sewer account is in the homeowner, then

26:23yes, which is typically the way this

26:25would be done. So the landlord would

26:26ultimately be responsible for the

26:28>> commercial piece of property. You rent

26:29to a restaurant, the restaurant doesn't

26:30pay the bill,

26:31>> then the landlord is ultimately be

26:32correct. And so

26:34>> so it's out there. So the people

26:35>> we do work, we do do one thing, as

26:37Anthony noted, there are some payment

26:39plans and there are some um bankruptcies

26:41on there. Any account that's on a

26:43payment plan and is paying or any

26:46account that's in bankruptcy, we are

26:48prevented statutoily from enforcing

26:50anything after it's been committed to

26:52the tax bill unless they do not pay in

26:54accordance with the payment plan or the

26:57bankruptcy case is adjudicated and it

26:59would allow us to collect. One thing I

27:01would note is one [clears throat] change

27:03that we're making that we didn't really

27:05put in here is that um I'm not used to

27:08payment plans being not documented and

27:11written with steps on what happens if

27:13payments aren't made consistently. And

27:15it typically also requires

27:17um the individual entering into the

27:19payment plan to commit to keeping the

27:21current bills current or else that the

27:23city would have the authority to revoke

27:25the payment plan. Again, I'm not saying

27:26that we're going to be that draconian,

27:28but we are moving I've directed everyone

27:31to move to actual written documented

27:33payment plans so that we have a way to

27:36technically enforce them because

27:39um Handshake payment plans are very

27:41difficult to enforce and create

27:44potential issues with us for

27:46collectibility going into the future.

27:48So, we need we're moving away from doing

27:51that and we're codifying any of those

27:53agreements moving forward. Anybody

27:57have any questions for Council King?

27:58[snorts]

28:00>> So, of the $6 million that's overdue,

28:03how much of that is committed to tax

28:06bills?

28:08>> I would have to get back to you,

28:09Councelor King. I don't know off the top

28:11of my head. I know they committed, I

28:12believe, close to a million dollars last

28:14year. Um, so I'd have to go back and get

28:17a a payment calculation and see what's

28:19remaining that's still over um that's

28:21been committed.

28:22>> How much is past the three years? and

28:24therefore not available to be committed.

28:27>> Um I know of three right now, but we're

28:30doing we it's it's very labor intensive

28:33to go through every account that's

28:35passed due to figure out what has been

28:36committed and what hasn't been

28:37committed. And we're talking about I

28:39think close to 20,000 accounts. So that

28:41is a process that's being undertaken.

28:43But I know of three right now that I've

28:45personally found. Those

28:46>> just minor accounts or those huge

28:48accounts?

28:49>> Um one of them is a rather large

28:50account.

28:52How much?

28:55>> The amount uncommitted to a tax bill

29:00in excess of $250,000.

29:03>> So, the question becomes, and I know you

29:05weren't here, I know the mayor probably

29:06wasn't here. How does that happen? Mhm.

29:10>> How can how can how can that again I

29:13recognize this before both your times

29:15most likely, but how does it happen that

29:18a major uh water user does not have

29:22their bill committed to a tax bill?

29:24Isn't that a common

29:26uh duty of the treasur collector?

29:29>> Uh it would be a common duty of the

29:32water sewer department to notify the

29:34assessors of all the unpaid balances as

29:36of the cutoff date. In this case, we'll

29:38use June 30th. And it would be common

29:41for them to notify the assessors to

29:43commit them, which then gets committed

29:45to the tax bill for collection. So, um,

29:48so [snorts] the water sewer department

29:49does it, not the collector.

29:50>> No, the treasur collector is only

29:52responsible for the collection. The

29:54typical process always starts with the

29:56the water the utility in this case, a

29:58water and sewer utility. They do

30:01typically work closely with the treasur

30:04and collector, but it's the it's

30:05typically the utility's responsibility

30:07to transmit to the assessor's office the

30:11amount of unpaid past due utility

30:13charges. So again, we've already been

30:16working with I've been working with the

30:18water and sewer utility. They have

30:20reviewed a list with the treasurer

30:22collector's office. We've identified a

30:23cut off date payment um to to do and it

30:27is being done now. Um, I honestly cannot

30:31speak to what happened before I got

30:32here. It's my responsibility to figure

30:35out how we improve the process at this

30:37point and what we have to do.

30:39>> Um, which we have been talking to the

30:41city solicitor about how we would go

30:43about effectuating

30:45um the amount respectfully. I do think

30:48it somewhat your duty to figure out what

30:50happened before because you know not

30:52knowing history

30:54you know whatever that saying is about

30:56repeating it and stuff like that. So, I

30:58do think even though I recognize you

31:00can't control what happened before, I

31:02think there's some value you in

31:03understanding what happened before so

31:05that we can avoid that. I don't think we

31:06should just totally write it off saying

31:09it shouldn't have happened, but it did.

31:11>> Yeah. And let me I probably should have

31:13phrased that a bit a little bit better.

31:14I don't know exactly why it happened. We

31:16are working to understand what the

31:19process was, who was involved to correct

31:22it. Um, that's what I meant when I can't

31:24go back and [snorts] fix what happened.

31:25It's more I I I think that um we're

31:30still getting to the bottom of why some

31:31of this wasn't done to be honest with

31:33you and that that's something that we're

31:35working on. But I can assure the council

31:37this finance subcommittee that the

31:39commitment will has been transmitted to

31:42the um the assessors and demand notices

31:44are going out and as payments come in

31:46those will be removed from that

31:48commitment and it will be done and it

31:50will also be done in the fourth quarter.

31:51So the other question I would have and

31:53this is just this goes way back but it's

31:55timely for a couple of reasons is about

31:5820 years ago um it was after just after

32:01I left it started while I was here we

32:04came to an agreement with the town of

32:05Ashland to have to build them quarterly

32:07for the um trans transportation of their

32:11sewer into Frammingham and they have

32:13been paying us a grand sum of $4,000 a

32:15year and they offered to pay up to

32:18$16,000 a year

32:20>> and uh Chris Patrine he was as town

32:22council at the time took them through a

32:24uh process with the department of I

32:27don't remember the department called

32:28anymore maybe but um a state department

32:31and we won a case where they had to pay

32:34essentially at that time based on our

32:36current rates what they were doing and

32:37they were built quarterly and they paid

32:39up to over a million dollars a year I

32:42believe and part of the thing that the

32:44town and up later city did well was they

32:47made sure obviously that every quarter

32:49that was built I have some indication

32:51from public records requests whatever

32:53that that may not have been quite as uh

32:56on on uh point the last few years. Can

33:01you assure me that we are still

33:02collecting on a regular quarterly basis

33:04that money from Ashland?

33:06>> I can tell you that I looked at last

33:08year and the calculation and the

33:09invoices were sent and were paid.

33:11>> So each quarter they were paid.

33:13>> Yes.

33:13>> And about how much were they? um with

33:15the credit in the first quarter, I

33:17believe last year was just under

33:19$700,000 based on the estimate that the

33:22estimate and then the re the calculation

33:24after the actuals. So I I can tell you I

33:27looked at last year and it was just

33:28under 700,000 that was sent and I was

33:30provided copies of the invoices with the

33:33to that that was paid.

33:34>> And what about previous to last year?

33:36>> I would have to go back. I looked at

33:38last year because when it was conveyed

33:40to me to ask it was did they pay last

33:42year? So if there's a concern about

33:44prior years, I will go back and look at

33:45those as well.

33:46>> I'd be interested in the last couple of

33:47years.

33:47>> Okay.

33:48>> And is there a process in place that

33:49they have bills very regularly,

33:51quarterly with no who does that?

33:53>> Water and sewer department does it and

33:54the city accountant reviews it.

33:56>> Okay. Thank you.

33:58>> Anybody [clears throat] else? Council

33:59Stephanie.

34:00>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um that was

34:02interesting. It would be helpful uh

34:04first of all, Anthony, thank you for

34:06this work and putting this together.

34:08It'd be helpful when we see the next

34:09iteration of this to see a little bit of

34:11a breakdown of the $6 million in terms

34:13of the aging

34:15>> after 120 days. And I thought Mr. King's

34:19comments were uh right on in terms of

34:22breaking that down and figuring it out.

34:24Do we allow

34:27I I didn't keep track of this. Do we

34:29allow people who have outstanding water

34:31and sewer bills to get permits,

34:34licenses, and other things?

34:36Um or does that fit into the bucket of

34:38you owe revenue to the city?

34:41>> It fits into the bucket that if there is

34:43a request for a permit, a license from

34:46whatever department that issues licenses

34:48within the city, um there should be

34:51lists being transmitted from the

34:52treasur's office to every department

34:54that issues license permits of any

34:57delinquencies. And I believe, if memory

35:00serves me right, after reading the

35:01charter, that the city has the ability

35:03to withhold those. And I know of one

35:05that we are working with um an entity to

35:09be able to get the permit issued because

35:10they do have outstanding uh water and

35:12sewer charges. So there are cases where

35:15I know at least one case where it is

35:17being done and it should be being done

35:19and we are working on ensuring that the

35:21most accurate lists are being

35:22transmitted to all the departments so

35:24they have the current lists. Um, in

35:27terms of data, how many accounts do we

35:29have total? And how many accounts make

35:32up the $6 million? Like, is it 10 the is

35:36it proportional to the dollar value to

35:38the budget?

35:40>> I believe there's approximately 22,000

35:43accounts if I read it. I would have to

35:46do some more analysis of how

35:48proportional is. Um I think there's a

35:51half a dozen or a dozen that are

35:53extremely high that are in various

35:54issues that are are various states of

35:58holds and then the majority I think a

36:00larger amount is substantially smaller

36:04smaller amounts that we need to do

36:05better collecting. I one of the concerns

36:07that I have which I think I've expressed

36:09to in both Anthony and the mayor in

36:12talking about this is that we need to

36:14make sure that we're focused on

36:15collecting this because it puts an

36:16incredible amount of stress on the

36:17operation when we're asking people in

36:19the 30 to 45 days to pay and we're

36:22letting people go long periods of time

36:25without without collections or payments.

36:27So, we want to relieve that stress and

36:29by getting that money in, it will also

36:32help with creating retained earnings,

36:34which will also help by not having to

36:37raise the rate as fast if we could use

36:38some of that towards capital and things

36:40of that nature, not budgetary, but that

36:42would take some stress off the water and

36:45sewer enterprise fund itself. So,

36:47there's a lot of reasons why we need to

36:50be focused in doing a better job on

36:51this, and we're committed to doing that.

36:53And I'm also committed to making sure I

36:55understand

36:56um a better understanding of why we have

37:00not had this as a prime focus which it

37:02should be.

37:03>> I appreciate that. Um,

37:06in terms of delinquency,

37:10do you have any sense of where we are

37:12relative to other communities, relative

37:15to our own historic data in terms of I

37:18guess I'm asking a question which is are

37:21should we be concerned is this, you

37:24know, economic related the economy is

37:26where it is. Is this just normal?

37:32What's your sense of that? I I think

37:34it's probably a combination of the fact

37:36that we may probably need we we can do a

37:39better job in in ensuring the

37:41collections. I think some of it as we

37:44progress through the aging in currently

37:47not the over 120 is probably some

37:50economically driven. Um and

37:54I I don't I think that I don't know what

37:56the industry standard is. I'm I'm I'm

37:58used to having around a 5 to 6% rough

38:01delinquency rate in aggregate. So 10%

38:04would be a little bit higher than where

38:05I would think that I would want it um or

38:08hope that it would be, which I think

38:09will be that number will be reduced with

38:12the additional commitments and more

38:14communications via demands and

38:16notifications to to all of the users

38:19that this needs to be taken care of and

38:21paid. And if we need payment plans, we

38:24are open to those discussions and

38:26creating payment plans that are

38:28reasonable and enforceable and help

38:31individuals

38:33um get current and and stay that way.

38:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Anybody else?

38:39How about Council Mal? Council Malik,

38:41your hand is up.

38:44>> Awesome. Thank you so much. Can y'all

38:46hear me?

38:47>> Yep.

38:48>> Okay, great. Um, so thank you Anthony

38:51and Brian for your work on this. Um, I

38:54have two questions. The first, I think I

38:57heard Anthony say that there were nine

39:00payment plans currently, but there were

39:03others where people had defaulted on

39:06their payment plans. So they weren't in

39:08bankruptcy, but they were on a default

39:11from their payment plan. Is that what

39:15would sort of happen in that situation?

39:18Is there is there a different process?

39:22Is this a reflection of not having

39:25written

39:26uh payment plans that we can't do

39:29anything? How does that work?

39:31>> Uh so through you, Mr. Chair, um

39:35so typically even if you've entered into

39:37a payment plan, we commit the the money

39:40should be committed to the tax bill. So

39:42it protects the operational lean and

39:45allows us any remedies if you default on

39:47that. Um we are actively the treasur's

39:51office is actively engaged in

39:53identifying the the past due amounts and

39:56how far back they extend on the

39:58defaulted ones so that we can fully

40:00determine what we can and can't do. Um,

40:03but that is the reason why I'm an

40:05advocate and a proponent and going we

40:08are going to require written payment

40:10plans so that we have all of those boxes

40:13checked with what happens if um an

40:17individual defaults on those. But

40:19typically, depending on the age of it,

40:22if it's gone past 3 years and it was on

40:24the payment plan and they've defaulted

40:25and it wasn't committed, then we would

40:27have to look at other available means of

40:29collection, which would likely be filing

40:31some type of suit against the individual

40:33to enforce and effectuate payment or

40:36something that could be attached to the

40:38property. There'd be no other remedy

40:40under the statute once it once the three

40:43years and whatever months it is before

40:45October 1st would expires. there's no

40:47legal remedy to attach it to the or

40:49commit it to a tax bill at that point.

40:53>> Next question, Council M.

40:55>> Yes, I do have another question. Um, so

40:58we recently had a situation um here

41:01where there are two condo complex

41:05HOAs that share one water bill. And we

41:09had one of the condos paying as agreed,

41:14you know, half of the bill and

41:16[clears throat] the other half not being

41:18paid by the other condo complex in that

41:22situation. Um, so I guess it's a

41:27question about, you know, if there's

41:29partial payments of bills

41:33over a period of years,

41:36would that be caught in this that some

41:40of those expenses like would they be in

41:43the longer unpaid

41:46bills or because there's a partial

41:49payment, does it register as paid? like

41:52how does that work when there's partial

41:54payments over time without an agreed

41:57payment plan? [snorts]

42:00>> Um, so ideally this would have been

42:02caught or would be caught in a scenario

42:05because

42:06I come from an existence where these

42:09outstanding receivable reports should be

42:11reviewed every month to look for

42:12patterns or look for issues and and

42:15things like that. in large bills or

42:17partial payments on bills would

42:18certainly be something that would jump

42:20out at everybody if they if we had been

42:22looking at these on a consistent basis.

42:25So I would say that as we move forward,

42:27yes, they would likely they'd be more

42:29likely than not to be caught when you

42:31see large bills with only partial

42:32payments. should lead to people asking

42:35questions about the situation and it

42:38should lead to discussions with whoever

42:41needs to be involved in the discussion

42:42on what's going on, what are our

42:44options, what are our remedies, how do

42:46we have that conversation with the

42:48business, the homeowner, whoever the

42:50case may be. And it would also lead to a

42:53discussion about how to commit that

42:54whether what needs to be done. And so I

42:57think that as we move forward, yes, they

42:59will be caught because we are going to

43:01and should be reviewing the aging report

43:03on a monthly basis for these types of

43:05issues.

43:07>> Can I just ask one more question to

43:09follow up on that chair?

43:11>> Yeah. So just to clarify, when you say

43:13these will be reviewed on a monthly

43:15basis, like all accounts, but

43:18specifically for water and sewer, is

43:20that something that the water and sewer

43:22department will do on a monthly basis or

43:25is that something that the CFO's office

43:28will be doing on a monthly basis?

43:31>> I think it'll be a joint endeavor, but

43:33as part of the close process that we're

43:35going to be implementing uh on a monthly

43:37basis, that would be one requirement for

43:39us to review.

43:41uh internally the uh accounts receivable

43:44aging report. Um for one of the and one

43:47of the primary reasons is really for

43:49what's noted here is that um 3.2 million

43:53over 120 is an extremely large balance

43:55and and we need to get working on making

43:57sure that it's collected which which is

43:59what's underway. But it would solve it

44:02would highlight reviewing that on a

44:04monthly basis as part of a close process

44:06with water and sewer and finance office

44:08staff would highlight and hopefully is

44:11designed in a way that would catch these

44:13and these anomalies or these things that

44:15are um have the potential to become an

44:18issue. So I I do believe that it's a

44:20combination between water and sewer and

44:23my office itself as part of a closed

44:25process on a monthly basis.

44:28>> Thanks. I have one more question, but

44:30I'm happy chair if other people have

44:32questions.

44:32>> Keep going. You had two, but keep going.

44:34You got the floor.

44:35>> Okay, this might be my last question.

44:37Um,

44:38>> when does it make sense for us to review

44:42this again? So, we're looking at data

44:45from July 7th. were putting into place a

44:50new system with notifications,

44:53tying it to tax bills, which would

44:57presumably,

44:58you know, create some action and some

45:00payment. So, when does it make sense for

45:05this to be back on our agenda with new

45:08data?

45:10Um,

45:12not to push this out too far, but if we

45:15want any meaningful understanding of the

45:17success of commitments to tax bills and

45:19and things of that nature, the third

45:21quarter bill goes out on December 31st

45:23and it's due the first week of February.

45:25And that's would be the likely best

45:29indicator of how successful at the

45:31commitments have been. But we could

45:34review it any time between now and then.

45:37Um once demand not with the demand

45:39notices I I we could put this back in

45:41November or December if the subcommittee

45:44so desired and we could give you an

45:45update with what's been going on up

45:48until that point.

45:51>> Uh I mean I'll defer to my current

45:53counselors

45:55what y'all when y'all would want to

45:57continue this conversation. I would be

45:59fine to wait until the end of February,

46:01but if it makes sense to do it after the

46:03demand letters go out just to see

46:05progress. Um I'm happy to um have

46:09[clears throat] that discussion then

46:10too. Thank you.

46:12>> Thank you, Council King.

46:15>> I don't think it's a large number of

46:16accounts, but I I mean I appreciate your

46:19um ideas regarding the payment plans and

46:22committing them nonetheless that even if

46:24they're in place. I am surprised. How

46:26can you have a payment plan if it's not

46:27in writing? So, you're saying over the

46:29years we had payment plans and people

46:30just said, "I'll send you 100 bucks a

46:32month or whatever the case may be and

46:34those and they were checked off as being

46:35on the payment." I mean, I'm sure people

46:37would do that. I see I see people why

46:40people would do that. But are you saying

46:42that some

46:44some people formally said they were

46:46going to do that? Like if I have a $900

46:48bill, I might decide to pay it off at

46:49100 bucks a month. I get that. But I

46:51don't think I'd come down here and say,

46:52"Hey, can I do that?" uh through you,

46:55Mr. Chair. So, what we're really talking

46:57about with the formal payment plans is

46:59people over the 90 to 120 days where

47:02it's a relatively larger balance and

47:04they come in and say, um, as an example,

47:07I don't I'm not picking on any one

47:09account on there, but if it's $35,000

47:11and they come in and say, "We need a

47:12payment plan to do this."

47:14um historically and I think it's a lot

47:17of the ways in a lot of communities not

47:19you know but I think that historically

47:21we would not have formally codified a

47:23payment plan we would have relied on the

47:25individual to come in on a monthly basis

47:28pay what they were telling they telling

47:29us they were going to pay and in that

47:31scenario we don't have a lot of legal

47:34recourse if it hasn't been committed to

47:35the tax bill. So that's why this is

47:37really a dual track. We can agree to

47:39payment plans because we certainly

47:41understand that situations arise and we

47:42want to be helpful and respectful and to

47:45to whatever situations the residents and

47:48business owners in the city may have.

47:50But it should be formally documented so

47:51that everybody understands what we're

47:53doing and what the expectations of both

47:55sides are and also do details and

47:58documents what the outcomes are if it we

48:01don't adhere to it. Which is why I've

48:03did instruct everybody that if it's

48:06within the lean hasn't expired, it needs

48:09to be committed. Even if there's a

48:10payment plan or they're in bankruptcy,

48:12it prevents us from collecting. It

48:14doesn't pre it would not prevent us from

48:16enforcing our rights to to secure that

48:19lean.

48:20>> I think that's great. I mean, I agree.

48:21Payment plans are fine because, you

48:23know, we do pick up 14% interest on it.

48:25So, it's fine, but I do think they have

48:27to be well documented. I always

48:29incorrectly apparently assumed they

48:31were.

48:35Anybody [snorts] else?

48:40Okay. Um, I think we'll leave it up.

48:42I'll reach out to the CFO or Anthony can

48:44reach out and we'll figure out when's

48:45the best time to put this on the agenda.

48:47So, what they think is good for timing.

48:48Maybe we do it one more time and then do

48:50it after those notices go out. But, um,

48:53[snorts] we'll get it on on a timely

48:55basis. I'll let you and the CFO figure

48:56out what's best and then just let Marian

48:58know on that.

48:59>> Sounds great. Thank you.

48:59>> Anybody else?

49:00>> Thank you.

49:00>> Okay, we'll wrap this one up. Number

49:02three, order 2026093

49:05upon the request of the CFO for referral

49:07to the finance subcommittee

49:09consideration of the reauthorization of

49:10the opioid stabilization fund. Brian,

49:12you have the floor.

49:13>> Thank you. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um,

49:15so as noted in the memo, the the city

49:18council um in 2022 voted to accept

49:21paragraph 4 of Mass General Law Chapter

49:2440 section 5B, which created the opioid

49:26stabilization fund. Um, as a matter of

49:30law, when you accept that section, it is

49:32must be um continue in existence for a

49:34minimum of three years. The city council

49:37at the time voted it to become effective

49:38in fiscal year 2024 and to be

49:43um effective for three fiscal years.

49:46Both the city solster and I believe that

49:48it essentially with the vote in 2022 has

49:52ceased to be in existence. Um, we've put

49:55a motion in that would reauthorize that

49:58and we would ask that it actually not

50:01have a time limit on it given that the

50:03opioid settlement funds are going to

50:05consider continue for the foreseeable

50:07future. Um, knowing that in order to

50:10have any orders for authorization to

50:12expend sums of money, we would have to

50:13come before the city council through the

50:15and through the finance subcommittee,

50:17it's our recommendation that we leave it

50:19open-ended so that we can continue to

50:21receive the money and continue to come

50:22before you for funding to um expend in

50:25accordance with the settlement

50:26agreements. I I do apologize for the the

50:30timing delay. We provided you a list

50:34today

50:36of um

50:38a brief PowerPoint that just details

50:41that through July of 2026 in the

50:43settlement payments, we've received

50:451,197,377

50:49in the opioid stabilization fund itself.

50:53um up through recently up through June

50:5630th, the city council has approved

50:58orders for expenditures from uh for opio

51:01opioid um through the settlement of

51:04$440,000.

51:06The stabilization fund itself has a

51:07balance of $757,027

51:10in it. From that $440,350

51:15authorization of through the multitude

51:18of orders that were authorized, the city

51:20has spend expended $246,837

51:24to date. Remaining on those orders is

51:27$193,500

51:29to be expended. And then in that

51:31documentation, I broke down between

51:33salary and then listed all the other

51:36expenditures totaling the $246,000

51:39for the council. and um the health

51:42department is here if there's any

51:44questions. Um I would note that without

51:46reauthorizing this stabilization fund

51:49that 750,000 would have to go back to

51:52the general fund and close to free cash

51:53and I don't believe that anyone would

51:56like that to happen. So this vote would

51:58reauthorize it retroactive to July 1st.

52:00>> So moved.

52:02>> Motion by council, second by council

52:04canon. Any further discussion?

52:05>> Just one. Councilor Stephanie.

52:08>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

52:11on a related point, when do you think

52:13we'll have the report we uh requested on

52:17all reserve accounts?

52:20>> Uh we're working through closing the

52:22year. Everything is unudedited and I

52:24would prefer with that to finalize those

52:26balance which we're closing the fiscal

52:28year on this weekend.

52:29>> Okay. So soon yes we can look at that.

52:32One of the things that [clears throat]

52:37I find um

52:40frustrating is we take something like

52:44this settlement account and we saw this

52:46recently with the Council on Aging and

52:48the $600,000 in surplus there and we

52:51could go through other accounts. We set

52:53up an account to do something in an area

52:55that is desperately needed and we can't

53:00seem to figure out how to spend it.

53:03Why is that?

53:07Through you, Mr. Chair. I I'm

53:11I'm not sure that I'm the right person

53:13to answer the why we can't spend it or

53:15in a in a method that people may think

53:19is not affectuating what's under the

53:21settlement. I think that that's for

53:22people outside of out of me.

53:24>> I mean, is the procedure too ownorous?

53:26Is the

53:26>> I I don't believe that the procedure is

53:28too ownorous because once the 440,000

53:32was authorized through council

53:33expenditures, that was actually

53:35transferred to a special revenue fund

53:37which we can spend up to the 440,000. So

53:40I don't I would hesitate to speak to why

53:43what the issues or obstacles that anyone

53:46involved is encountering in spending the

53:49funds that I think would

53:50>> when was the 440 authorized?

53:53>> It was more it was multiple orders over

53:55at least five orders that were

53:56authorized up to that amount.

53:58>> So we've authorized 440 and we've spent

54:01we haven't spent 193.

54:03>> Correct.

54:04>> Right. Okay. I Mr. King I know you've

54:07been intimately involved. Maybe you can

54:09shed some I I'm just trying to figure

54:10out how we use the money to for the

54:12intended purposes.

54:13>> That's a good question. So we've tried

54:15it twice now uh with major expenditures.

54:19One time at towards the beginning and I

54:22and the reason we this process I agree

54:24is not overly cumbersome. It does have a

54:26step involving us but that was by design

54:28at the time I think because I think we

54:30wanted to be involved in in it and I

54:32think that's a good place for us to be

54:34appropriating that level of money. I

54:35don't think it should just be spent. Um,

54:37but we we originally did a mini grant

54:40program which we put out potential

54:42grants and hoping that people might have

54:45great ideas and submit those ideas. And

54:48and I don't mean this in a bad way

54:50really, but maybe a little bit. Uh, we

54:52kind of got the usual suspects, but we

54:54didn't get any uh new innovative ideas

54:58to apply for those grants. So, I don't

55:00think that felt like it was

55:01accomplishing what we wanted it to

55:03accomplish. Then we structured and we

55:06had a full-time employee for a period of

55:08time. We lost that employee. As far as I

55:10know, we have not replaced that

55:11employee. I'm not sure that employee

55:14felt I and I I'm not speaking for her in

55:16any way. I never only spoke to her a few

55:18times ever, but just from what I've

55:20heard, I'm not sure she felt like well,

55:23I let you guys talk about that, but I

55:25think she felt like the mission was hard

55:26to accomplish given the tools and

55:28situation she was in. And I'm sure if

55:30you have a job like that, it's difficult

55:32to stay in a job like that. I think the

55:34problem is knowing a bit about this

55:37field and it sounds strange. It's a lot

55:40of money, but it's not so much money

55:44that we can do major major major things.

55:47And it's so much money that you know

55:51it's you have to think a little bit

55:52about how you spend it. I think I'd be

55:54interested in finding out more

55:57specifically how much money we think we

55:59have each year and then see if we can

56:01find a long-term way to spend it relying

56:03on that money for the period of years

56:05even if ultimately we you know things

56:07like housing, transportation,

56:10shelter are you are critical for people

56:13in recovery and it would be great if we

56:16could figure some way to spend this

56:18money to provide those services to

56:21people and I just I think we need

56:24somebody who can really and maybe I

56:26think personally going back to the

56:27employee is a good idea, but I know

56:29there's probably some people that don't

56:30because of the past experience, but I

56:33think somebody who could take a job like

56:35that and really brainstorm ways that we

56:37can help people with those life needs

56:40that people fall through the cracks and

56:42when those people fall through the

56:43cracks,

56:45good not good things happen.

56:48>> I I I'm going to go next. I got to

56:50concur with councelor King. You know,

56:51I'm on a board for the 200 Foundation.

56:53We're lucky we raise a couple hundred

56:54grand a year. We give all the money

56:55away. Food, clothing, shelter,

56:58rehabilitation. We got hundreds of

57:00thousands here. We don't know how to

57:01give it away. We get 400,000 in requests

57:03for $150,000.

57:05So, there's got to be a better way.

57:07There's got to be a way. He said it some

57:09housing. I had a gentleman that worked

57:10for I used to pick him up at Smark every

57:12day, bring them back and forth, and then

57:13he slipped through the cracks. But

57:14there's got to be a way. You know, at

57:16one time we were talking about we had to

57:18have a um

57:20this I hate the thing. What uh we were

57:22gonna get a consultant to figure some

57:23stuff out. We don't need a consultant.

57:25All we needed was Bob Donnie and Kathy

57:26Miles to get in a car and drive around

57:28downtown Framia or councelor King. This

57:30shouldn't be this difficult to give this

57:31money away and all you have to do is

57:33drive through downtown framing and we

57:34have a lot of challenges and we should

57:36give the board of health or whoever the

57:38the resources. Can we use some of this

57:40to give them some more staffing? Can we

57:42There's money to be used here and we got

57:44big money coming in and we should be

57:45using it instead of just leaving it in

57:47the checkbook.

57:48>> Always my opinion. Just briefly, I'll

57:49show

57:50>> Stephanie.

57:51>> Oh, sorry. But

57:51>> no, go ahead. I want to hear what George

57:53has to say.

57:53>> But I mean, I don't know how you would

57:55do this and how you would manage it, but

57:57I don't know how much money we have, but

58:00housing is a huge issue.

58:02>> So, I mean, even if we were able to use

58:04some of it to have a few of our own

58:06units that we could temporarily put

58:08people up in in good locations, not not

58:11bad locations, and that's all part of

58:13managing or, you know, and to feed them

58:15or that type of thing. it it but housing

58:18and transportation I find to be two of

58:21the biggest problems because if they

58:23have nowhere to go it's so much easier

58:25to fall through the cracks and get you

58:26know get get off the the wagon so to

58:29speak so that's what I would like to see

58:32>> absolutely Mr. Murphy,

58:35>> Bill Murphy, board of health director.

58:37Um, one of the large successes over the

58:39past few years is the transportation. If

58:41you look on the um expenditures, uh,

58:4380,000 of our money was put up and it

58:46was matched by the state to put directly

58:47towards transportation. And we can come

58:49back and show you the Uber program that

58:52was set up to get people back and forth

58:53to treatment, to medical appointments,

58:55to to and any life issues that they have

58:57solved a lot of those and we hope to

58:59continue with that. We also did try to

59:02get matching CPA um CPC CPA funds um for

59:07first rent first month last month rent

59:09um security deposits and things. It

59:11wasn't accepted this time. So we're

59:13still we're still pursuing that. The

59:15position that we hired didn't work out

59:17and they only stayed 15 months and as a

59:19task force we were talking about better

59:20ways um to spend that money and we'd

59:22like to come back to the council and

59:24talk a little bit more about our ideas

59:25how we move forward. But I know what's

59:27before you was a stabilization fund, but

59:29I agree finding other ways to get money

59:32out. Um, a lot of these places that can

59:35make an impact are reimburseable grants

59:37and they don't have the money to front

59:38it. So without money to front it, we

59:40can't reimbur um, we can't reimburse

59:42them. So again, I'd like to come back

59:44and talk a little more depth on a lot of

59:46those line items and what we have

59:47planned for the future.

59:48>> Thank you and thank you for doing what

59:49you do. Council Stephanie and then

59:51council Canon.

59:51>> So I I have a followup for George if I

59:54could. I know you've spent a lot of time

59:56on this um this area. What do we do to

1:00:00do what you just described? How do we

1:00:02get to be operational in terms of

1:00:04figuring out if we want to do housing or

1:00:07something else? How do we get

1:00:08operational in terms of spending this

1:00:09money?

1:00:11>> So, so there are a lot of people, right?

1:00:13There are a lot of people who've done a

1:00:15lot more and been a lot more involved

1:00:16dayto-day than me. So, I I don't want to

1:00:18act like I'm day-to-day involved.

1:00:19There's been an internal task force

1:00:21which I'm not a member of. I am a

1:00:23founding member of Premium Force and

1:00:25we've had some input and we've also done

1:00:27some stuff on our own. So like anything

1:00:31else, it's a very good question. It

1:00:33requires and that's why I thought the

1:00:35position might work. I agree it did not

1:00:37work out. I don't I don't know why, but

1:00:40um we just think we didn't get I still

1:00:44don't think unlike the task force, I'm

1:00:45not sure it's a bad idea. No, I'm not

1:00:47saying you guys think it's a bad idea,

1:00:48but I know you don't want to redo it

1:00:50right now and I respect that. And I

1:00:52wouldn't want to substitute my judgment

1:00:53for that decision. But I I I I was

1:00:56disappointed that we weren't able to get

1:00:58more creativity out of it because it

1:01:01would seem to me, John, a position like

1:01:03that that was full-time dedicated that

1:01:05could be maybe somebody who could think

1:01:07of the bigger picture and implement

1:01:09that. So the problem is I don't know the

1:01:11answer to your question. It's like

1:01:12everything else we think is a good idea.

1:01:14We got to find somebody who can actually

1:01:15do it and we seem to have fallen down

1:01:17there.

1:01:18>> Yeah. No,

1:01:19>> succeeded.

1:01:20>> Yeah. I know. I appreciate that. I and I

1:01:22appreciate the work that you and

1:01:25Framingham uh force and the board of

1:01:28health have done in this area. Um I and

1:01:32I and I do appreciate having spent a

1:01:34decade of my life in healthcare policy

1:01:37how $750,000 isn't really a lot of money

1:01:40to deal with some of those things, but

1:01:42maybe it can be used to leverage

1:01:45somebody who could do housing or maybe

1:01:48it could be used for something else. I I

1:01:50I would just I don't want to tie this up

1:01:53any further. Uh and Mr. Murphy, I have

1:01:56full faith in you and your department. I

1:01:58would just say it'd be helpful to know

1:02:00if we could figure out and and I leave

1:02:02this to you, Mr. Mayor. Um what we can

1:02:05do to help, not come back here a year

1:02:07from now and find out there's $950,000

1:02:10in the account because we've built it up

1:02:13and we haven't achieved the purpose of

1:02:16what's going on,

1:02:17>> the money. I I won't belabor it any

1:02:19further, but I I think somebody needs to

1:02:21do some thinking about how we achieve

1:02:24the intended purposes that we all want

1:02:26to achieve and figure out how to spend

1:02:29this money. When it comes to the

1:02:31municipal budget, we don't have any

1:02:32problem spending money.

1:02:35>> No question. But these reserve funds

1:02:37always seem to be a challenge.

1:02:38>> Council Gon.

1:02:40>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a

1:02:41financial question in the in the report

1:02:43and thanks for all the work and um and

1:02:45the effort here. It's difficult to look

1:02:47at financial data and expenditures in a

1:02:50PowerPoint PDF that's undated. I think

1:02:54for the purposes of this exercise, it's

1:02:56fine. It kind of tells a story, but it

1:02:58points to a larger question. There were

1:02:59thousands and thousands of dollars spent

1:03:01to Amazon uh capital services. I'm

1:03:04guessing those are supplies of some

1:03:06health product, but it points to a

1:03:08larger question which I'm hopeful we

1:03:10have a better understanding of that

1:03:11maybe we can talk about a different

1:03:13time. When you look at our payables, we

1:03:15spend a lot of money on to Amazon. And I

1:03:19wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to

1:03:22drill down and figure out exactly what

1:03:23that uh was for. I'm not entirely sure

1:03:26what that was for here. Out of

1:03:29curiosity, just since it's on this

1:03:30report, what did we we paid the town of

1:03:32Hudson $5,000.

1:03:35What was that for? I'm sure there's a

1:03:37good reason. I just have no way of know.

1:03:39We don't seem to get a report back of,

1:03:41hey, these are all the great things we

1:03:42did in uh this. So, whoever wants to

1:03:45answer that. Also, there's something

1:03:47$1,200

1:03:48Olivier USA professional and technical,

1:03:51but it's got the word movie in it. Movie

1:03:53SC, and then it's truncated. Um there's

1:03:56some Verizon wireless stuff here. I just

1:03:58don't have any insight into I mean,

1:03:59there's a mailing company for just

1:04:02>> uh the 5000 was a partnership with the

1:04:04town of Hudson. there was a regional um

1:04:07substance use programming that was done

1:04:09regionally and it made sense which a lot

1:04:11of other uh regional groups were doing

1:04:12is they put on um information resources

1:04:16for the substance use population. Um but

1:04:19uh each each city paid in 5,000 to to

1:04:22run that.

1:04:22>> So what did we get for the 5,000 that we

1:04:24paid Hudson? Again, I'm not prepared to

1:04:28answer a lot of these questions tonight

1:04:29because that was uh the uh

1:04:31responsibility of the person who who

1:04:33left and the manager who is no longer

1:04:35here as well because that wasn't funded.

1:04:37So I can come back with that with that

1:04:39specific

1:04:40>> I mean it would be helpful just to get a

1:04:41sense of

1:04:41>> absolutely the movie we brought a

1:04:43recovery city that is a movie that we

1:04:45showed uh at Mclliff it was uh sold out

1:04:4850 people attended and that's really to

1:04:50address the stigma um but it was a

1:04:52documentary about uh four lives affected

1:04:54in Worcester and uh Framingham was

1:04:57mentioned quite often within that um

1:04:58within the documentary. So um a lot of

1:05:01cities and towns are bringing that movie

1:05:03to uh show in their cities and towns.

1:05:06>> So it was for a movie. Yes. Yeah.

1:05:08>> Not the 5,000.

1:05:09>> Not the 5,000. The It was the other

1:05:11>> woman's name

1:05:14or something.

1:05:14>> I I mean, when I Googled it, it it

1:05:17looked like a company that made pastry.

1:05:18So, I I

1:05:19>> It was recovery city was the name of

1:05:21them. They were documenting.

1:05:22>> Okay. I mean, there's no way in looking

1:05:23here if a member of the public wanted to

1:05:25to drill and this is it's a big problem

1:05:28and I'm squabbbling because it's a

1:05:29finance committee. It just points to as

1:05:31you go through the reporting in our

1:05:33city, this is more to the CFO about

1:05:34larger issues. Being able to drill down

1:05:37on what we're spending money on and how

1:05:39and all of that is great. And I

1:05:41appreciate the cander of your answer um

1:05:43and people depart and whatnot, but

1:05:45that's a really scary answer in terms of

1:05:47financial.

1:05:47>> Uh that person also presented a budget

1:05:49and the council approved the budget and

1:05:52I'm not and explained what that money

1:05:54was going to be spent on. So I just want

1:05:56to say there is an explanation. I just

1:05:57don't have it.

1:05:58>> I recognize that and and you I I

1:06:03appreciate that. I wasn't questioning it

1:06:04in in a negative way, but I'm I'm

1:06:06hopeful we can get some clarity. There's

1:06:08there's a lot of stuff that happens when

1:06:09a budget is presented and approved. And

1:06:11then if we're not taking the time to

1:06:13celebrate the wins and the achievements

1:06:14that come after the fact, let's make

1:06:16sure we use those opportunities to

1:06:17celebrate what we've done, learn, and

1:06:19and move forward. So, I wasn't

1:06:20questioning anything from a suspicious

1:06:22perspective. it was more the confidence

1:06:25that I have in your Amazon funding is

1:06:27probably a lot higher than other areas

1:06:29of our budget where I think there's even

1:06:31less transparency. So, it's I'm kind of

1:06:33tying together a number of different

1:06:34things, but I would like to to know more

1:06:36because a number of good points have

1:06:38been raised here and it's it's a large

1:06:40uh and complicated issue.

1:06:42>> What I'm hoping also is to um stress

1:06:44that this is settlement money. This

1:06:46isn't taxpayer raise money and I

1:06:48sometimes we have to look at it

1:06:49different. This was to get into the

1:06:51hands I've heard it over and over from

1:06:52the council. We want to get into the

1:06:53hands that can make a difference. So, it

1:06:55was supposed to be set up to get money

1:06:57out faster and and into the hands of

1:06:59people who can make a difference.

1:07:00>> I appreciate that. But sometimes that

1:07:02sentiment gets us in a in a pattern

1:07:05where hey, it's not taxpayer money so we

1:07:07don't have to our our stewardship

1:07:09doesn't have to be as as careful. I

1:07:12disagree with that. I think these are

1:07:13even these are very important dollars

1:07:15that that need the the same public

1:07:17transparency, scrutiny and and careful

1:07:21um

1:07:22>> but to some degree I think it slowed the

1:07:23process down and getting the money out.

1:07:25So I just hopefully move forward when we

1:07:27talk to Brian we can come out with come

1:07:28up with different ways to get money out

1:07:30faster and more.

1:07:31>> I think the council has been very if

1:07:33there's an idea come to us and I think

1:07:35there's a you've heard it tonight from

1:07:36the majority of the council. I think

1:07:38there's a real appetite to to move as

1:07:39quickly as is able. I'm not I'm not

1:07:41certain. I'm puzzled by the back and

1:07:42forth a little bit, but all right, I'll

1:07:44leave it there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1:07:45>> Thank you very much, Council Malik. You

1:07:46have the floor.

1:07:48>> Thank you so much. Um, thanks, Bill.

1:07:51Actually, I think this is a question for

1:07:53you, so looks like you sat down, but

1:07:56[laughter]

1:07:56um, I appreciate that this is a

1:08:00conversation about the creation of the

1:08:02stabilization fund and that we are going

1:08:05to have another conversation about

1:08:08expenditure of that fund. Um, do you,

1:08:12and I appreciate you saying that you're

1:08:14going to come back with a proposal.

1:08:17Do you have a sense when can we

1:08:19anticipate you coming back? When can we

1:08:21anticipate that conversation?

1:08:24>> Um, within a month or so. That's fine.

1:08:29>> Great. See you at the end of October.

1:08:30>> Okay.

1:08:31>> Thank you.

1:08:31>> All right. Thanks.

1:08:34>> Okay. Anybody else?

1:08:36>> Yeah. I'm sorry question. Yes. Thank

1:08:38you. since um a number of uh

1:08:40expenditures had to do with um sharps

1:08:42and I'm sorry we're doing the the back

1:08:43and forth, Bill. Um uh we're just making

1:08:46Bill do laps tonight. Thanks for for

1:08:48being here. Um are we able to have we

1:08:51made any progress on on

1:08:53just because it's in the background

1:08:54material. Sharp's collection throughout

1:08:56the city. Um

1:08:58>> yeah, we did add a site at Kennedy

1:08:59that's been successful. Um, we've

1:09:01noticed that a lot of the collections,

1:09:03our collections are taking GLP-1 shots

1:09:05and filling up the containers and that's

1:09:08so we we're shifting away from using

1:09:10opioid money because knowing that it's

1:09:12not really uh syringes with substance

1:09:14users. So, um, but we're going to we're

1:09:17talking with the Callahan Center uh,

1:09:18Noelia, she's open to to putting in

1:09:21another um, kiosk there, which I think

1:09:24>> of the would be very very helpful for

1:09:26the seniors who uh, are the majority of

1:09:28people who use the kiosk. Do you have us

1:09:31what are the hours of um not to put you

1:09:32on the spot, do you happen to know that

1:09:33the hours that that's available at

1:09:35Kennedy?

1:09:36>> Uh Kennedy actually has weekend hours.

1:09:37So it's basically open during the all

1:09:39the day same hours as the city similar

1:09:41hours to see all, but they also have a

1:09:43day on Saturday. You can drop those off

1:09:44as well.

1:09:45>> And have we made any progress in

1:09:46revisiting this with police and fire?

1:09:48there seemed to be some uh reluctance

1:09:51there, but um in talking to a lot of

1:09:54seniors and and whatnot, they felt

1:09:55comfortable that it was a it was public,

1:09:58it was safe, it was staffed 24 hours.

1:10:00>> We've had some unfortunate incidents,

1:10:02too, and really should talk to the

1:10:03public about some of the unfortunate

1:10:05things that happen with those kiosk,

1:10:06people putting things that shouldn't go

1:10:08in there. Um so, it's it's it's at times

1:10:11could be we might have to restrict

1:10:13access because people are

1:10:14inappropriately using them. That's again

1:10:16for another discussion. And they

1:10:17wouldn't do that at the other sites that

1:10:20you mentioned.

1:10:21>> They've done them before. So that's it's

1:10:23it always keeps it in jeopardy. So any

1:10:26any kiosk that's improperly used is at

1:10:28is at risk of being closed down. We

1:10:31can't watch it 24 hours a day. So

1:10:33>> it's at a police station.

1:10:35>> All right. Well, let's let's make sure

1:10:36we revisit this. I feel like we're we

1:10:38can I know this is a struggle uh and an

1:10:41ongoing issue.

1:10:42>> Thanks.

1:10:44>> Yes, sir. Right. uh through you, Mr.

1:10:46Chair. I just wanted to answer count the

1:10:49question that councelor King had about

1:10:51future monies. Um beginning in 2027

1:10:55ending in 2029, we can expect to receive

1:10:58an additional 1,642,000

1:11:01from the from the settlement funds and I

1:11:03will provide a a yearly breakdown by

1:11:05each by each settlement. That's great

1:11:08because with that knowledge and the

1:11:10amount of money that allows the planning

1:11:11to be a lot more a lot more

1:11:14>> robust I would hope.

1:11:15>> Thank you very much.

1:11:16>> Because that we could we we should be

1:11:18able to do something substantial with

1:11:19that amount of money.

1:11:20>> Right.

1:11:21>> Absolutely.

1:11:21>> We got money in the checkbook. Plus you

1:11:23got more coming in the next couple

1:11:24years. Y

1:11:25>> okay. Next order business. It is

1:11:28>> Oh yeah. We got a motion on the floor.

1:11:29We have a second to um upon the request

1:11:32of the CFO a referral to the finance

1:11:34subcommittee consideration of the

1:11:35reauthorization of the stabilization

1:11:37fund. We had a motion in a second. We'll

1:11:38do a roll call vote. Council Malik,

1:11:41>> yes.

1:11:41>> Council um Council Stephanie, yes.

1:11:43>> Aani, yes. Councelor King,

1:11:45>> yes.

1:11:45>> And council Kenny,

1:11:46>> yes.

1:11:46>> Let the record reflect the vote is 5 to

1:11:48zero. A discussion and preparation for

1:11:50the FY2026 audit.

1:11:52>> Um

1:11:53we want to get back the auditing firm.

1:11:56So, I wanted to get we wanted to put

1:11:57this on the agenda so we could start the

1:11:59discussion and um

1:12:02that's where we're at. That's why it's

1:12:03on the agenda complicating.

1:12:05>> So, I think I said this last time, but

1:12:07maybe I'm misremembering.

1:12:09I think and we should maybe look for a

1:12:12subcommittee of this committee of two

1:12:14people to work directly with the

1:12:16auditor. I just think it's it's really

1:12:18hard to do even a five member

1:12:20subcommittee because of the fact that

1:12:22it's you know

1:12:25it's granular.

1:12:27>> So at this point why don't um on that

1:12:30note anybody interested in serving on

1:12:32that subcommittee send me an email and

1:12:34um just a little note saying I'd be

1:12:36interested. We'll see how many people

1:12:37respond and we'll take it from there.

1:12:39So, I think that's a good idea.

1:12:40>> And then we'll um I'll work with Anthony

1:12:42and he can work with um Brian this in

1:12:44the um the mayor's office and we'll set

1:12:45something up with the audience.

1:12:46>> We can't get two applicants. Maybe a

1:12:48leazison on with Anthony work too,

1:12:50>> right? That work too. Yeah. If we get

1:12:53one. So, anybody that has some interest

1:12:54in that, please reach out and we'll um

1:12:56set that up with Anthony and I'll put

1:12:57that together. Member member

1:12:59prerogatives.

1:13:01I I just want to throw out, you know, we

1:13:03we the reorganization was a challenge,

1:13:06but I think it I think it's something

1:13:07that we've been looking for. I'm happy

1:13:09the mayor did it. I I think we need to

1:13:11take it a step further. I know it's his

1:13:12it's his football, but you know, we've

1:13:14made some changes and we talked about

1:13:17future um consolidations and looking at

1:13:20other things for consolidation. So, you

1:13:22know, we told folks and I I I can hear

1:13:24some people at our city council meeting

1:13:26saying, you know, this is only the

1:13:27beginning. So, I I think it's something

1:13:28we need to start looking at and be

1:13:30ahead, be proactive, you know what I

1:13:31mean? Let's let's see how park and wreck

1:13:33and things go there. Is there a way to

1:13:35do things with procurement? Is there a

1:13:36way to do things with facilities and the

1:13:38schools? And we've been talking about

1:13:40this as long as I've been here and it's

1:13:42it's a long time. So, I think we've made

1:13:44a progress and went into the right we're

1:13:46in the right track. We started something

1:13:49and um I'd like to see us to continue it

1:13:52and um whatever way we can, you know,

1:13:54work on that.

1:13:56Anybody else for member progressives?

1:13:58Council Stephan.

1:13:59>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I wouldn't

1:14:01disagree with that at all.

1:14:04Uh, we started to go through some of the

1:14:07things we put on our to-do list during

1:14:09the budget. One of the ones that, um,

1:14:13we've talked about that I think we need

1:14:15to spend some time, and I'll leave that

1:14:18to you, Mr. CFO in terms of what to do,

1:14:21but what do we start to think about in

1:14:23terms of next year's budget and what do

1:14:26we do to get a structurally balanced

1:14:28budget because the budget is going to be

1:14:30upon us and I'd rather have that

1:14:33discussion beforehand so that we don't

1:14:35have the pressure of individual

1:14:37expenditures driving us so we can have a

1:14:40thoughtful conversation about

1:14:44what we should be looking at for targets

1:14:47relative to balancing the budget.

1:14:51We had set u to do that in early

1:14:55September. When do you think we can have

1:14:57that conversation, Brian?

1:15:01>> I think the initial conversation is on

1:15:03the agenda for the mayor's meeting next

1:15:05week with a plan. Um, I think that the

1:15:08mayor and I have talked and we've gone

1:15:11over a very rough

1:15:14rollover of what we think is going to

1:15:16happen for next year. Um,

1:15:19it's not very good. Um, a lot of what it

1:15:23looks like depends on the 10 million in

1:15:25free cash which we're trying to sort

1:15:26through. Um, but I think that I had

1:15:30suggested to the mayor that

1:15:33around the same time that capital is due

1:15:36to all of you, which I believe is the

1:15:391st of November, that we have a

1:15:41discussion with where we're at. I will

1:15:44in with the budget and what the

1:15:45challenges we're going to be facing over

1:15:47the next four months to get to a budget

1:15:50presentation inund the 120day March 1st

1:15:54deadline. Um,

1:15:57likely we could probably do it a little

1:15:59bit sooner, but I I think that we have

1:16:00already sent everything out to

1:16:02departments for the budgets with some

1:16:05notices and instructions that next year

1:16:07is going to be equally tough, more

1:16:09tougher than this year. Um, and I think

1:16:12before we really get that gauge, we've

1:16:14worked with the school before sitting

1:16:16and giving a presentation where we think

1:16:18we are. I think I'd like to see where

1:16:20everybody's budgets are and what they

1:16:21look like and then have a conversation

1:16:24after one full quarter of revenue has

1:16:26come in. Um, especially around local

1:16:28estimated receipts to to drive that

1:16:30conversation. So those have been my

1:16:32conversations uh councelor Stephanini

1:16:34with the mayor that I think that and I

1:16:36think there's a broader discussion next

1:16:38Tuesday on this with a timeline but my

1:16:41discussions would have have been late

1:16:43October very early November to align all

1:16:46of that

1:16:47>> good that's helpful um I think it might

1:16:50be helpful if you carry that out as

1:16:52you've discussed with your pillars

1:16:55three years and incorporate into that

1:16:58what you had talked about relative

1:17:00relative to retirement liability

1:17:03>> and whether or not that can provide us

1:17:06some window at the end of the tunnel

1:17:08that is helpful from an operational

1:17:11standpoint.

1:17:13>> That is part of the internal discussion

1:17:15about what that looks like. Um and part

1:17:18of that planning is also how do we deal

1:17:22with the delta in that retirement um as

1:17:25well. So yes, that is all part of this

1:17:27discussion and whether we should be

1:17:29setting any of the that

1:17:32m rather large pickup aside in case the

1:17:35rate of returns are not where they

1:17:37expect to be so that we don't put stress

1:17:39on future budgets as well. So there's a

1:17:41lot of those discussions that the mayor

1:17:43and I have had and it's kind of

1:17:44coalesing all of those into one document

1:17:46that looks at the three years.

1:17:48>> Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate that.

1:17:50Council me, you have the floor.

1:17:53>> Thank you so much. I have um two

1:17:55questions. The first is um chair through

1:17:59you to councelor King who when the as

1:18:03chair of the city council when this

1:18:05committee was first formed um I

1:18:08understood that after the budget process

1:18:10was done you had intentions to step off

1:18:13of this committee. Um and I was just and

1:18:16I know there's an issue with the school

1:18:18building committee. I'm just wondering

1:18:20if you can give an update on um your

1:18:24status here on the committee.

1:18:27>> I find Jack,

1:18:27>> you're still sitting here.

1:18:29>> I'm still sitting here, Miss Malik. I

1:18:31find it kind of an odd question to be

1:18:32honest with you, but uh and I have

1:18:35talked to other whatever. But um I did

1:18:39initially state that I and I do kind of

1:18:41feel this way that I did not want to

1:18:43necessarily be both chairman of the city

1:18:46council and a member of the finance

1:18:47subcommittee. However, uh what you state

1:18:50is true. I am the chairman of the school

1:18:52building committee, appointed by the

1:18:53mayor and uh I'm appointed by the mayor

1:18:56as chairman of the school building

1:18:58committee, but my position on the school

1:19:00building committee comes as a member of

1:19:01the city council. Uh the city council

1:19:04has three representatives in the school

1:19:05building committee. To the best of my

1:19:07knowledge, no one wants to step off.

1:19:10this the mayor's uh executive

1:19:13proclamation or whatever it is that

1:19:14created the school building committee

1:19:16requires a member of the finance

1:19:18subcommittee to be uh on the school

1:19:21building one of the three city councils

1:19:23in the school building committee. There

1:19:24is no one here else the other two

1:19:26members are not on this committee. So uh

1:19:29I'm sure you're probably excited to hear

1:19:31this. So I don't make make a good

1:19:33evening for you but I I am staying for

1:19:35the foreseeable future.

1:19:38>> Thank you.

1:19:41Um, and then my second question is, as I

1:19:44see it, the next Tuesday for us to have

1:19:46a finance subcommittee meeting is

1:19:48October 27th.

1:19:50>> No, did you see the email from Marion

1:19:51today? We set a date for October 15th.

1:19:53>> Oh, I didn't send anything.

1:19:54>> Oh, sorry. Thank you.

1:19:56>> I haven't looked at my email.

1:19:58>> No, she hasn't said it yet. Okay. So, I

1:19:59was in the office today to sign the

1:20:01warrant and um we we talked about

1:20:04October 15th because um the other wasn't

1:20:06going to be it was going to be far out.

1:20:08So if that day works for everybody at

1:20:105:00 October 15th.

1:20:11>> So if it could be an hour and a half

1:20:13because um planning board has a meeting

1:20:16at 7.

1:20:17>> That's fine.

1:20:18>> Okay. October 15th 5 p.m. okay with

1:20:20everybody.

1:20:22>> Tuesday.

1:20:22>> Um no

1:20:23>> Thursday. It's a Thursday.

1:20:25Just double check. Um just because we

1:20:27weren't having one till the end of the

1:20:28month.

1:20:28>> But why are we not meeting on Tuesday?

1:20:30>> Because it's spectacular.

1:20:32>> Oh, of course. How can I forget that?

1:20:34[laughter]

1:20:34>> And that's always on a Tuesday a few

1:20:36weeks before Halloween as you noted. I

1:20:37thought it was right before Halloween

1:20:39number one.

1:20:39>> It usually is, but it's an election year

1:20:41and it's early voting.

1:20:43>> Can I ask Do we have a theme for

1:20:45Spooktacular?

1:20:46>> I sent you an email.

1:20:47>> I saw it, but

1:20:48>> So, what is it?

1:20:49>> You You were asking what it should be.

1:20:51>> No, no, what it is.

1:20:53>> Oh, they don't Some people don't read

1:20:54their emails, I guess.

1:20:56>> Oh, yes. Yes. Or they forget.

1:20:59>> Or they forget.

1:21:00>> Anybody else? [laughter]

1:21:02>> Member prerogatives. Anybody else?

1:21:04>> Motion to second. Motion by Canon,

1:21:06second by Stephanie. Roll call vote.

1:21:08Council Malik,

1:21:09>> yes.

1:21:09>> Council Stephanie, yes. Council King and

1:21:11Council Cannon.

1:21:12>> Yes.

1:21:12>> Okay, we are. Thank you.

1:21:14>> That's right.

1:21:16[music]

1:21:40>> [music]