The finance subcommittee of the City Council is comprised of five council members and considers any or all questions appropriate for the purpose of considering the budget, including the creation of new positions to the payroll, changes to the employee classification plan, or any matters pertaining to increasing the City of Framingham employee headcount.

The following City Council Finance Subcommittee meeting coverage is brought to you by the government channel, a service of the City of Framingham.

Will come to order, the hour being 501 p.m.

Four of us in the room, Councillor Cannon is remote.

I believe he's in London, and he just tuned in.

First order of business is public participation.

If you're here for public participation, it's something that's not on our agenda.

Please raise your hand and we'll call on you to speak.

Mr.

Stefan.

And then I also asked you.

Okay.

Um in light of the vote of the CPC last night to um award Eastley an amount of money that really doesn't move the needle.

And also in regard to a couple of different discussions that have taken place regarding what the city council can and cannot do.

My purpose here tonight is to just query you, perhaps start a discussion if there is a discussion to be had as to what the city council can actually do with the recommendations that come from the CPC.

Do you have to do you accept them?

Do you reject them?

Can you do what you want when it comes to appointing or uh putting uh a monetary value onto uh I just I think we ought to start a conversation and it could end tonight as far as that's concerned, because it may be that what I'm suggesting uh that uh uh what I understand and what I remember from being on the CPC from the beginning was the bonding capability of the city council was the overriding uh influence, if you will, of uh or the overriding important aspect of um whether a large amount of money could be uh devoted to one particular project.

And because the CPC did not choose to do bonding, will the city council, or could the city council, not just in the case to case of Eastley, but in general, could it decide that it wanted to do something on its own?

Council Stephanie.

So I know we don't usually respond to uh public comments, but Mr.

Stefan is an unusual uh public speaker, and this is a topic of of particular interest and import.

The community preservation act statute um says pretty clearly that the council can act on the recommendation for funds out of the CPA fund from the CPC committee.

It also says that the council can, with other resources available to it in the city, meaning free cash, bonding, appropriation or whatever, make an additional appropriation to achieve the purpose.

So the answer is kind of a hybrid of what you might think.

The council cannot increase the spending out of the community preservation fund beyond what they recommend, but the city council can or the council can recommend or or spend money.

That's unusual in that most appropriations require the recommendation of the the mayor and the spending of the council.

In this instance, it's a little bit of a shortcut in that process, but it would be it would have to be from available resources, whatever they are.

Free cash.

Not bonding.

It could be bonding.

Oh, okay.

But it wouldn't be bonding of CPA money.

No, I understand that I'm not, I know CPA, we're kind of done with that conversation.

But it would it it would have to be whatever else it is.

I mean, I think before we get there, I'd want to reread the statute.

I read it when we wrote this when I wrote the CPC ordinance, but that was a couple years ago.

Five.

Yeah, but that's that's my my recollection is is the council acts on the recommendation for purposes of that fund, but has the ability to augment those funds with the bail available sources.

So that's really the reason I'm here to start.

Either there is a conversation to be had or there isn't, one way or another.

I will say that uh as of this afternoon, I've hired a planner to do a comprehensive plan of the farm from top to bottom, one end to the other, as to what we're doing, what we could or couldn't do in all aspects of the of the uh of the reality of the farm.

Just I I would just add, it's not on your direct point, but an editorial comment.

I think obviously the farm is extremely valuable, and preserving it is should be a high priority of the community.

Having a plan, I think is of critical import.

Given how this could potentially shortcut the appropriation process, I think you're right to be here.

And I would say when you get that done, I wouldn't wait for the CPC to come out if that's your intention.

I would come back here.

Yeah.

And unless the chair wants you to go back to the council first.

But I think it's going to need some process.

Yes.

Understood.

And I wouldn't start that process at the council at the last minute.

I'd start it in advance so that by the time we get to the council, we have a well-baked plan.

Let's say I'll let it take its course.

As long as you encourage her or not encourage me, do you decide or say that this is the next step, then we'll take the next step.

That makes sense?

I'd leave that to the chair and the chair, but I think given the fact that the statute outlines a process that is at the moment that it gets to the council.

I think you need more process before you get to the council to make sure the plan has buy-in and consensus.