The Remarkable Framingham City Council Meeting of May 30, 2023

On May 30th, 2023, the City Council held a regular meeting at City Hall to consider multiple agenda items, including the upgrade of the Edgell Rd/Central St intersection, matters relating to the establishment of a Seabra’s Market in downtown Framingham, neighborhood concerns about a syringe exchange operation at Grant St., and a discussion of the Mayor’s FY24 city budget.

The meeting was run at a good pace by City Council Chair, Phil Ottaviani, ensuring that everyone was properly heard, especially residents contributing with public comments.

The news of a supermarket coming to downtown Framingham was very encouraging and the meeting proceedings showcased a real team effort to ensure a business of vital importance to downtown got the right support. It was a great example of the Mayor and his administration working with all parties to make real progress for downtown.

The discussion of the Edgell Rd/Central St intersection upgrade, complete with new traffic lights was also very positive. It is a project which anyone familiar with that intersection would applaud, so the public good was clear. The City Engineer provided a clear, factual report on progress and a good amount of time was spent making sure that all of the abutters had been treated fairly in the process, and that their voices were properly heard. The Councilors engaged in a good discussion which took account of the project facts, verified that all residents were content, and ensured that the project was soundly on track with the right approvals. To anyone present it was clear that this was a high performing City Council of which any community would be proud.

The discussion about the syringe exchange operation at Grant St. produced more contention, but it was well managed, with some conflicting viewpoints being respectfully delivered. The public good was that the program offered an opportunity to bring addicts into treatment programs and to lower the risk of death due to contaminated needles. Some Councilors referred to personal family or friends that had experiences with some of the very adverse outcomes which can befall people who are addicted, and the engagement by Councilors, who were well informed and had visited the Grant St. location, was impressive. The resident who lived in proximity to the Grant St. program was heard out by Councilors and got his viewpoint across with clarity. The downside of needles cast aside in the parking lot and causing a hazard, plus the discomfort caused by some activities adjacent to the program was clearly conveyed. There was some confusion about facts, but that was beautifully dispelled by an effective contribution from Cathy Miles, the Chair of Framingham Force, an advocacy group focusing on increasing awareness, prevention and compassion surrounding the opioid epidemic. Again, this section of the meeting was an excellent interplay of Councilors, community professionals and neighborhood residents. Appropriate referral action was taken by the City Council which signaled progress would be made on the issue.

Key takeaways from this initial part of the meeting were the balanced judgment, diverse range of commentary, respect for City staff, empathy with affected residents and engagement with the situational details by all Councilors. Again, this was a high performing City Council of which any community would be proud.

Then discussion turned to the recommendations by the City Council Finance Subcommittee regarding the Mayor’s FY24 city budget. The whole mood of the meeting changed as the range of budget cuts made to the Mayor’s original submission were enumerated by George King, Chair of the Finance Subcommittee: the various reserve cuts, the application of a ‘vacancy factor’ to unfilled positions, so that those positions were not fully funded in the FY24 budget, and a reduction of the school district Special Education Reserve to zero.

No mention was made of the fact that funding reductions in the tax levy with one time money such as reserve drawdowns, or vacancy factors would spell trouble in the FY25 budget, as reserve drawdowns cannot be repeated every year, and if the city is successful in filling positions, especially vital for rejuvenating infrastructure maintenance, the vacancy factor cuts would have to be reversed.

As a rule, one should never hire people into permanent positions for which there is only funding for one year, nor should one make budget cuts built on funding sources which are only available for one year.

All of the Finance Subcommittee budget cuts are built on sand.

It was clear from the ensuing discussion that there were serious concerns about the approach taken by the Finance Subcommittee. Councilor Long articulated it well by noting that city staff had been decreasing since 2016, and how could the city sustain its operations with so many vacancies. She raised concerns about the negative rating Moody’s gave city bonds and suggested that the budget was not sustainable unless taxes were raised.

George King rebutted with commentary that included his opinion that the Moody’s downgrade really was not important, that his general philosophy was that taxes should not be raised and that for many people tax increases are unaffordable. Then he gave voice to his newly minted opinion that the Framingham Public School (FPS) budget increase of 7.4% was unsustainable, even though that increase comprised: 4% for student population increase, 2% for inflation (!) and 1% for a state mandated increase in out of district special education tuitions. His views are best captured in a video clip from the meeting:

Basically, George has rules for budget increases that are plucked out of the air and bear no relation to the situational details in Framingham. He further claims to be driven by affordability concerns, but he refuses to support the Residential Exemption which would bring real property tax relief to low-income households. More on that in a subsequent newsletter.

The contrast with the first part of the meeting was very stark. There was no awareness of the school district situational details, and the budget planning and strategy of the high performing professional team of Superintendent Bob Tremblay and Executive Director of Finance & Operations Lincoln Lynch was implicitly disparaged.

The FPS budget is a level service budget with its increase funded by rock solid recurring state Chapter 70 aid. Chapter 70 funding has steadily and reliably increased for more than 15 years and is a central affordability commitment by the state to ensure that low-income students, special needs students and student whose first language is not English get the enhanced educational support they deserve.

George’s fallacious implication that Chapter 70 funding is rocky is a theme also amplified by Mike Cannon in a prior City Council Finance Subcommittee meeting.

If this approach to the school district persists, one can see the FPS budget being slashed in future years, with teacher layoffs, increased class sizes, reduced course offerings at the high school and all of the horrors that come with financial hacking away at the school system.

King, Cannon and also, in fact, Stefanini, in contrast to their performance with intersections and opioid programs, show no empathy for students, nor school staff and pay no respect to the fact that the school district has the best management team it has had in many years.

Can the full City Council push back on this?

Will it recognize that the King/Cannon/Stefanini-driven cuts to the Mayor’s budget fly in the face of Moody’s bond rating downgrade warning, draw down more reserves, choke off more city tax revenue, threaten the school district and are fundamentally unsustainable?

Does the full City Council share the King/Cannon/Stefanini lack of respect for the very capable professionals managing the school district and the staff to whom we entrust our children?

Will the full City Council show as little empathy for the very children whose education the King/Cannon/Stefanini faction aims to undercut both now and in the future?