In His Own Words: Craig Kelley, June 13, 2010
“I’m working on scheduling a Committee meeting to explore changing our parking fee structure, but anecdotally I have learned that for a lot of people, even a massive increase of a few hundred bucks per sticker wouldn’t change whether they own a car or not. To some extent, that makes sense – a 300 dollar a year parking permit fee (to pick a number) is relatively small bucks when compared to 1500 bucks a month or more rent, mortgage payments, the cost of owning and maintaining a car a so forth. And for many people, if not most, a car is as almost as necessary to their lifestyle (whether it be commuting to work in Reading, taking the kids to soccer in Newton or visiting friends in Quincy) as housing and food. They won’t be happy to pay that 300 bucks, but they won’t see they have much choice. For folks who truly have ‘extra’ cars, this fee may be enough to convince them to get rid of the extras, but I can’t imagine that number is big enough to have much of an impact on our parking issues.”
June 15, 2010
$300 resident parking sticker – Councillor Kelley
June 14, 2010
June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
Tonight’s agenda is dominated by the disposition of several zoning-related matters. There’s also a potential time-sink in Councillor Cheung’s Order regarding the legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts House regarding illegal immigration. The Order does not just “disapprove” of the legislation, it “condemns” it. Here’s what we have, starting with the proposed amendment regarding conversion of buildings from Institutional to Residential use (which was initiated by the advertised sale of buildings by the Jesuits and the questionable suggestion by Councillor Toomey that these should be purchased in order to densely pack subsidized housing units onto the sites – Mar 22 Order #1, Apr 5 Mgr #11):
City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the City Council Rezoning Petition to Modify Section 5.28.2 Related to Buildings Occupied by Institutional Uses. [The Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the Petition as filed.]
Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 6, 2010 to consider a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of Section 5.28 to structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional (religious, educational, governmental) use for at least ten years.
Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of section 5.28 Conversation of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use to include structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional Use for at least ten years.
There were significant issues raised at the committee hearings about this proposal and the Planning Board gave the idea a “thumbs down.” This proposal was primarily a reaction to the apparent sale of these buildings to Harvard University. The spirit of the proposal was similar to the rhetoric that accompanied the allocation of CPA funds toward historic preservation at Shady Hill Square, i.e. the insincere statement that subsidized housing should be built in the tonier parts of town as an act of class warfare against a perceived elite. There are also elements of resentment growing from the frequent siting of such projects in places like North and East Cambridge. In any case, zoning amendments should ideally not be proposed just because you’re pissed off.
Committee Report #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accord with the recommendations of the Green Building Task Force to encourage energy efficient buildings.
With a positive Planning Report and now an Ordinance Committee Report, this will presumably be passed to a 2nd Reading and ordained later this month. The zoning change would only affect new construction and large scale renovations.
Charter Right #2. Charter Right exercised by Mayor Maher on Order Number Six of June 7, 2010 requesting the City Manager to confer with the Community Development Department and Boston Properties to report back to the Ordinance Committee of the City Council on June 9th, 2010, on whether the ground floor retail proposed by Boston Properties would be of the size and nature suitable for a grocery store, convenience store, or small foodstuffs boutique.
This matter was hotly debated at the previous meeting. There are numerous issues at play such as whether the proposal would effectively kill the possibility of new housing in the Kendall Square MXD district. Councillor Cheung’s Order #6 from last week was actually far more comprehensive than I had originally noticed and included a provision for what was arguably commercial rent control for “upstart local entrepreneurs”. Another significant issue was whether there was any guarantee of the long-term tenancy of the Broad Institute at this site, a new local institution with “favored nation” status. As is often the case, allegations of quid-pro-quo political contributions by the developer/owner have been made but not substantiated.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and report back to the University Relations Committee the feasibility of the City creating a “Welcoming Packet” for new students, distributed by the universities with information on public services, Cambridge history and culture, and a calendar of civic events. Councillor Cheung
This brings back recollections of a similar Order in 2000 from former Councillor Jim Braude calling for a “welcome wagon” for new residents. (Order #6, April 24, 2000). Here’s an summary of the ensuing conversation a decade ago.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of instituting a five cent per disposable bag fee, collected by the City that would in turn be put aside into a fund which purpose is to buy canvas bags wholesale and distribute them to Cambridge residents. Councillor Cheung
Nanny government. Reusable canvas (or any other material) shopping bags are what everyone should use, but they’re plentiful and cheap and already distributed at all sorts of events. Cambridge residents don’t need to be taxed or subsidized for such trivialities, especially when they are already so freely available.
Order #3. Opposition to the amendment that was passed to the budget bill regarding immigrants. Councillor Cheung
It’s interesting that the primary point made in opposition to this state legislation is that it is unnecessary because it adds little more than what is already required of those seeking to take advantage of taxpayer-funded services. Is so, why the strong condemnation? It’s worth noting that Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses on all the contributions of immigrants to this country, but the proposed legislation is not about immigrants. It’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. those who are residing in Massachusetts but have not adhered to existing laws. Councillor Cheung’s Order also correctly challenges the practice of creating policy through budget amendments, but the federal government does this routinely. The Order correctly points out that there may be substantial costs associated with enforcing the proposed legislation. In any case, be it Arizona or Cambridge, it’s ridiculous that the inability of the U.S. Congress to address these matters causes individual states to take such actions. Regardless of party affiliation, spines appear not to be part of anatomy of U.S. Congressmen and Senators. – Robert Winters
June 7, 2010
June 7, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
June 7, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
It’s primarily routine stuff this week, though I suppose we could be treated to another “International Night” as part of Councillor Decker’s El Salvador Order #8. Meanwhile, back in Cambridge, we have the following, starting with two Planning Board reports on pending zoning amendments:
City Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the green building zoning petition. [The Planning Board recommends adoption of the petition as proposed.]
This matter will presumably be passed to a 2nd Reading with expected ordination later this month. Not quite ready for ordination (and still in committee) is the zoning petition affecting a portion of Kendall Square. An interesting aspect of this is the never-ending effort to reinvent Kendall Square in the wake of unenlightened urban planning/renewal that depopulated the area. The petition primarily sets out to permit the Broad Institute to build another life science building instead of the housing previously permitted by the Planning Board. The height limit of the district is 230 feet – the highest in Cambridge.
The Committee Report indicates the City Council’s desire to repopulate the area, i.e. build housing in addition to tax-generating commercial buildings, yet no direction is provided. A proposed Order in the report asks the Community Development Department to identify housing sites in the MXD district, yet it seems likely that housing may never be built in this district. If it were to be built, Councillor Kelley wants to ban future residents from owning cars. Why stop there? Why not go for broke and dictate their diets as well? Sometimes it seems as though Cambridge elected officials will never be satisfied until they can control everything right down to the jokes you’re permitted to laugh at.
City Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Boston Properties Petition to amend the MXD District. [The Planning Board “enthusiastically” supports this zoning change which would facilitate the Broad Institute’s interest in expanding near its headquarters in Cambridge.]
Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 11, 2010 to consider proposed amendments to the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance in Article 14 Mixed Use Development Cambridge Center to create a “Smart Growth Underutilized Area” in the vicinity of Broadway, Main and Ames Streets and the site of the West parking garage on Ames Street.
Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and Boston Properties to report back to the Ordinance Committee of the City Council on June 9th, 2010, on whether the ground floor retail proposed by Boston Properties would be of the size and nature suitable for a grocery store, convenience store, or small foodstuffs boutique. Councillor Cheung
Councillor Cheung’s Order is well-intentioned, but it seems like the most that will come out of it would be a convenience store for the IPad crowd. Let’s not forget that there used to be an actual neighborhood in Kendall Square, including a school (and I don’t mean MIT).
City Manager’s Agenda #16. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the acceptance and approval of the layout of portions of certain street in the North Point area of Cambridge.
It will be interesting to see how North Point actually develops after the recession passes and the Green Line is relocated and extended. In spite of the seemingly nice landscaping, most plans I’ve seen suggest a sterile, isolated environment. The best thing, in my opinion, would be to create direct roadway connections through North Point to East Somerville, the Inner Basin area, and Charlestown, but the isolationist planners would never permit such a thing. It might cause people to actually cut through this new North Point neighborhood en route to other places – like almost all other non-gated neighborhoods.
Resolution #14. Best wishes to the Cambridge Consumers’ Council on their upcoming event to recognize Shredding Day and declare July 31, 2010 as “Shredding Day in the City of Cambridge.” Mayor Maher
The full text of City Council Orders is provided, but not so for resolutions. It makes you wonder what exactly Shredding Day is. Then again, we just celebrated Laser Day on May 16 as a result of a recent resolution from Councillor Cheung.
Resolution #24. Congratulations to Beth Rubenstein on her new position as Director of Campus Planning and Development at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell and thank her for her thirteen years to the City of Cambridge. Mayor Maher, Councillor Decker
This came as a bit of a surprise. Best wishes to Beth as she heads off to her next challenge. This is reminiscent of when Kathy Spiegelman made a similar move from the Community Development Department to Harvard University. Between these two heads of CDD, there was Michael Rosenberg (with whom I biked the route of the old Middlesex Canal last fall) and Susan Schlesinger (who still serves on the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Board and the Community Preservation Act Committee). It will be interesting to see who succeeds Beth Rubenstein as head of the Community Development Department – a position of considerable influence in determining the City’s prioritization of commercial development, housing, open space, transportation, and more.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to investigate establishing a Cambridge Carbon Offset Fund to receive contributions that may be used for the purpose of reducing Cambridge greenhouse gas emissions, including the possibility of using these funds for building retrofits, planting trees, or other relevant activities. Vice Mayor Davis
I’m only barely beginning to understand things like “cap and trade” and a possible “carbon tax” on businesses/industries, but if it’s appropriate to view such things as a kind of currency, then maybe it’s not such a good idea to create local currency. Things could get complicated enough if and when the U.S. Congress gets around to enacting something. As a side note, I recently attended a meeting organized by GreenPort of a panel of experts discussing various aspects of some proposed regulations growing out of concerns about climate change. It was interesting to see what are essentially capitalist solutions being presented to an audience that included some Marxist-leaning Cambridge activists who might well prefer to just nationalize every industry or regulate them into oblivion.
Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update on the City’s tree inventory and establishment of a “volunteer corps” of citizens interested in helping maintain and update the City’s tree inventory. Councillor Seidel
It’s a great idea to try to marshal volunteer labor to help the City in a number of areas. However, it is easy to imagine a situation where activists of one sort or another would use the opportunity to create conflict rather than cooperation. If that potential problem can be ironed out, there would be great benefit in having an unpaid army of residents acting cooperatively with City workers for the benefit of all.
Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update as to the status of the tents currently set up in Flagstaff Park, including the number of such structures allowed on the site, who is residing in them, and the length of time these structures are allowed to remain on the site. Councillor Seidel
The phrasing of this Order is curious. It asks about the number of structures allowed on the site and related matters, but one would surmise that the answer to that question is zero. The real issue is whether the City will ever take action to clear out the site – not the identity of its squatters or their residential tenure at that location. — Robert Winters
May 24, 2010
May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
May 24, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
Tonight is Budget Adoption Night at City Hall. The related Finance Committee reports are these:
Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for public hearings held on May 5, 2010, May 13, 2010 and May 19, 2010 relative to the General Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $426,629,125.
Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Water Fund Budget for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $16,416,120.
Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 13, 2010 relative to the Public Investment Fund for the City of Cambridge for Fiscal Year 2011 and recommending adoption of the budget in the amount of $9,935,015.
Committee Report #4. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Finance Committee, for a meeting held on May 12, 2010 for the purpose of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget.
This year’s budget hearings were not controversial except perhaps for the School Department budget which eliminates several clerical positions. That matter still lies “On the Table” though apparently some resolution must be in the works as indicated by the lack of rancor reported at the May 19 School Department budget hearing. Perhaps some contractual guarantees prevailed or maybe positions elsewhere in Cambridge government were found in response to lobbying by city councillors and school committee members.
City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-64, regarding the sale of the Sullivan Courthouse. [“In light of the courthouse’s great size (460,000 square feet), lack of parking associated with the building, and its out-of-date architectural style, I do not see any public reuse for the structure.” … “Should the property be sold to and redeveloped by a private entity local zoning would apply. We have expressed our willingness to work closely with any owner to develop a project of more moderate height and scale; with active ground floor uses; including some portion of residential use, in keeping with the neighborhood context; and with appropriate parking supply based on building uses.”]
The referenced courthouse building really is out of place and out of time – the product of a misplaced sense of progress decades ago. A modest-scale private mixed residential/commercial/office redevelopment is probably the best reuse for the site. Any proposals that have been floated for a public marketplace in the Lechmere area should happen in and around the existing commercial corridors along Cambridge Street and the O’Brien Highway (the former Bridge Street). There must surely also be a way to integrate the court functions that were previously in the Sullivan Courthouse into existing and new buildings adjacent to the historic court buildings in the Lechmere area.
City Manager’s Agenda #19. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-77, regarding a report on a review of investments and business practices engaged in by the City to determine what activities are conducted with the State of Arizona. [“Following a review of the City’s current listing of CD’s purchased through Morgan Stanley, it was determined that a $100,000 CD was purchased on Apr 9, 2009 from the Asian Bank located in Phoenix, Arizona. The CD has a maturity date of July 9, 2010, and will not be renewed after reaching maturity. Our representative at Morgan Stanley has been instructed to refrain from purchasing any further investments in the State of Arizona.”]
Not unexpectedly, the City’s Arizona investments amounted to pocket change. The City Council has (thankfully) not yet voted on a meaningless policy position on the recent Arizona law regarding suspected illegal immigrants.
Resolution #22. Happy Birthday wishes to a special Cantabrigian. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Decker, Councillor Kelley, Mayor Maher, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Toomey
Hmmm….. Henrietta Davis had a birthday on May 18 and she’s the only city councillor not listed as a sponsor. Could she be that “special Cantabrigian?” Had this been Councillor Reeves’ birthday, he would have been the lead sponsor.
Resolution #36. Congratulations to Littane Bien-Aime on being selected a 2010 Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Fellow following a nationwide contest. Councillor Cheung
We hope that the Rangel award is not in recognition of ethical violations such as using political connections to evade New York City housing laws or accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean.
Order #7. That the City Council Committee on Transportation, Traffic and Parking schedule a public meeting on the City’s traffic calming and bike facility programs. Councillor Kelley
It’s likely nothing will come of this, but Councillor Kelley is to be commended for directing some attention toward the generally unquestioned and arbitrary decisions of City transportation planners.
Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the property known as the Norton Woods that has been reopened after being closed due to flooding with a newly instituted no dogs policy. Councillor Decker
The bottom line is that this area is not public property and the owners (American Academy of Arts and Sciences) can institute any rules they wish. They’ve been great in allowing public access to the property and though it may be worth politely asking a question or two about their policy on dogs, ultimately it’s their call.
Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to inform the City Council on how the Cambridge Historical Commission, the Cambridge Room of the Cambridge Public Library, the Cambridge Historical Society, and Cambridge Community Television might work together to digitize the various Cambridge historical collections and determine how these various entities will work together to preserve Cambridge history of the past, current happenings, social history, architectural history and preservation, and other matters of historical significance to Cambridge. Councillor Reeves
This is a timely and useful Order from Councillor Reeves. Though it’s unclear why CCTV is included in the mix, the fact is that we now have a proper Cambridge Room at the new Main Library and there’s a clear need to preserve and archive material and to make much of it digitally available. A professional archivist was reportedly to be hired, but it’s not clear from the FY2011 budget whether this has actually taken place or what the job responsibilities would be for this person and for others already working in the Historical Commission who might play a role in such a project. This is an area where volunteer assistance and a cooperative arrangement with the Cambridge Historical Society (which is already engaged in digital archiving) may be worth considering.
Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a delineation of the boundaries of Joan Lorentz Park. Councillor Seidel
Normally this might be just a formality, but with the new Library, reconstruction at the high school, and pedestrian connections being reconfigured around these tightly integrated uses, it’s worth clarifying who’s responsible for maintaining which pieces of this jigsaw puzzle. In some respects, everything outside of the buildings has the feel of a single contiguous park, but clarity today may be helpful 20 or 30 years from now should there be future plans to reconfigure the space.
Committee Report #6. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on May 6, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council on behalf of the Green Building/Zoning Task Force to amend the zoning ordinance to encourage green building practices in Cambridge.
Normally, a committee report like this doesn’t really stand out, but there is one notable record of public testimony in the report worth highlighting:
Guy Asaph, 29 Oakdale Street, said there is no reason for anyone to invest $30,000 in a solar system. A $25,000 investment would produce $25 in electricity. There is no incentive. He said that if we want to make energy issues seriously, there have to be real incentives. The proposals are nice, but they do not go far enough. The greenest buildings are big buildings, so up-zoning and providing incentives are the best ways to make Cambridge buildings more energy efficient.
Though the units of measurement are clearly misstated here (an investment of $25,000 is a one-time cost, but it’s unclear whether the $25 in electricity is per month, per year, or over the useful life of the investment), it is useful to be clear about whether there is much bang for the buck in some proposed energy projects like solar panels and wind turbines. I have heard credible testimony suggesting that the payback for energy generation projects like these are very minimal in a Cambridge context, while energy conservation measures (such as insulation and higher efficiency) usually have clear economic and environmental benefits. Where should the investment money be concentrated? Insulation and efficiency seem to be the smart choices much more than on-site power generation. Cambridge is not the same as Hull or Oklahoma (“where the wind comes sweeping down the plain”).
Mr. Aseph doesn’t stop at questioning the economics of solar installations. He also makes the case for packing more and more higher density buildings into the City. Considering the fact that he develops real estate for a living, this is a rather self-serving vision (to say the least) even if there may be a grain of truth in his wish to upzone the city ever higher. — Robert Winters
May 10, 2010
May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
The City Manager’s Agenda tonight features significant public investment items – primarily authorizations to borrow for infrastructure projects. Here’s the list:
Mgr #8. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,250,000 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Cambridgeport, and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.
Mgr #9. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $700,000 to provide funds to replace the existing artificial turf on the soccer field at Danehy Park as well as resurfacing the 400 meter running track.
Mgr #10. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,000,000 to provide funds to fund the reconstruction of JFK Street between Eliot and Brattle Streets.
Mgr #11. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds to fund the first phase of the reconstruction of the Harvard Square Tunnel (Cambridge Street Underpass).
Mgr #12. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $500,000 to provide funds to fund the design of the restoration of the Kendall Square area on Main Street between Broadway and Ames Street.
Mgr #13. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,500,000 to provide funds for improvements to several City buildings including the East Cambridge and Inman Square Fire Stations, Ryan Garage at Public Works, Central Square Library, and several elementary schools.
There should be “suitably engrossed” awards in gilded folders given to city councillors who generate excessive numbers of suitably engrossed resolutions at (I believe) around $5 a pop. This week’s runner-up award goes to Mayor Maher for his 11 identical resolutions to various people for “passing the Massachusetts Department of Public Health written and performance test for the position of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).” The top prize this week goes to Councillor Simmons for her 51 (I’m not kidding) nearly identical resolutions to people for their “work on the Prince Hall Memorial Committee.” Good thing she has that aide to help with such important “research” matters like this. By the way, did I mention that the single biggest jump in department budget over a five year span was for the City Council. So many resolutions, so little time.
Councillor Decker has another Vanity Order this week:
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to determine with due consideration for, among other things, return on investment, to what extent it is reasonable to not participate in any business activities substantially connected with the State of Arizona, municipalities in Arizona, and other business entities in Arizona or conducting substantial business in Arizona. Councillor Decker
Regardless of the merits of the Arizona law, it’s arrogant for an elected official in the northeast to weigh in on matters in a border state whose issues she can’t even begin to appreciate. Besides, it’s hard to imagine the City of Cambridge having any investments in Arizona, so this really is just a Vanity Order.
Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and commission heads to develop a standard set of resources, facility privileges, tools, and barebones operating budget the unfunded commissions may use in their work of enacting Council policy. Councillor Cheung
Essentially all Cambridge citizen boards and commissions work closely with one or more City departments which provide support for these boards. Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses primarily on “the capability for all commissions to post and maintain an email distribution list” and seems to suggest that the capacity for this should be made available on City servers rather than via such services as YahooGroups and GoogleGroups. This does raise the inevitable issue of public records. Clearly, if City servers are involved then any and all communications are potentially available as public records. It’s not clear if this is the case for communications among members on outside servers. Another consideration is that with an outside service the group “owner” can freely moderate the group and even delete some communications. This probably would not be permitted if hosted on City servers as it may constitute “destroying a public record.” Perhaps things are better left as they are.
Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to update the City Council on the impact of the MWRA water pipe rupture on the Charles River in Cambridge. Councillor Seidel
Actually, Councillor Seidel’s Order asks about two incidents: the recent MWRA break in Weston and a February 2010 diesel spill in the Lower Charles River Basin. While I cannot speak to the latter, I can say with some confidence that the Weston break had no impact whatsoever on Cambridge other than to highlight the great advantage of having our own independent water supply. As it turns out, I was leading a group of 40 hikers that day (May 1) along a section of the Sudbury Aqueduct in Wellesley and telling the history of Boston Water and about how this aqueduct was last used about 35 years ago and was still maintained for use in a “catastrophic emergency”. Little did I know that such an emergency was unfolding even as I spoke and that by day’s end the Sudbury Aqueduct would be back in service during the emergency. — Robert Winters
May 3, 2010
May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
May 3, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
The City Manager will give an overview of the FY2011 City Budget early in tonight’s meeting followed by the usual platitudes from councillors. The Budget Hearings start this Wednesday (see schedule below). Word is going around that hordes of townies will be at tonight’s meeting for Councillor Toomey’s tabled Order from the previous meeting. [That the City Manager is requested to restore funding for School Department clerical positions until a proper and negotiated process can be achieved with the Cambridge School Department and Unions representing the employees, and to report back to the City Council on the progress.] School Committee members have commented that these changes occurred only after appropriate process and that these staff reductions are consistent with a long-held commitment to cut back on excesses in central administration within the School Department. It would seem that some of these jobs may have their roots in political friendship. More significant is the question of whether it is appropriate for the Cambridge City Council to intervene in personnel issues within the School Department and under the supervision of that other elected body – the Cambridge School Committee.
There are also these other items of minor interest:
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of offering closed captioning for streaming video on the City’s website. Councillor Cheung and Councillor Decker
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of updating the City of Cambridge’s website with automatic translation software. Councillor Cheung
Very well to make this information accessible to all, but it does raise the issue of diminishing returns. How much additional investment and staff support will it take to provide these marginal benefits?
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to investigate the possibility of making the property at 93 Kirkland Street part of Cambridge’s affordable housing stock through purchase and renovation by the City or by a qualified non-profit. Councillor Seidel
Once again, the knee-jerk response is that taxpayer money should be spent without question on “affordable housing” projects. Maybe it’s a good idea, but taxpayers should really question where their money is going.
Communications and Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from Mayor David P. Maher, transmitting changes in the membership of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee. [Councillor Decker has been removed from this committee, per her request. Councillor Simmons has been appointed to this committee. The committee now consists of Councillors Seidel (Chair), Cheung, and Simmons.]
The entertaining thing about this communication is that Councillor Decker wishes to cut down on her committees because of “the breadth of work I expect to be engaged in as Chair of the Housing, Health, and Finance Committee.” Suffice to say that Councillor Decker’s record of attendance at Council committees has been at or near the bottom for as long as she’s been on the City Council. It will be interesting to see the “breadth of work” of which she speaks. She will now serve on just 6 committees while all of her Council colleagues will serve on 8, 9 or 10 committees. — Robert Winters
Wed, May 5
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)
| Police Department License Commission Mayor’s Office Executive City Council City Clerk Law |
Finance Admin. Budget Personnel Assessing Purchasing Auditing Treasury/Revenue |
Information Technology Employee Benefits General Services Election Commission Public Celebrations Reserve Animal Commission |
Fire Department Traffic, Parking & Transportation Police Review & Advisory Board Inspectional Services Weights & Measures Electrical Emergency Communications |
Date changes for individual departments may occur.
Wed, May 12
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public meeting for the purposes of providing a summary to community leaders of the city’s current and proposed budget and an explanation of how state and federal budget cuts have impacted the city’s budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)
Thurs, May 13
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)
| Cambridge Health Alliance Public Works Water Community Development Historical Commission |
Conservation Commission Peace Commission Cable TV Debt Service Library |
Human Services Women’s Commission Human Rights Commission Veterans MWRA |
Cherry Sheet Summaries Section Revenue Section Public Investment |
Date changes for individual departments may occur.
Wed, May 19
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 School Department Budget. This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)
Thurs, May 20
9:30am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY10 City Budget (if necessary). This hearing to be televised. (Sullivan Chamber)
Mon, May 24
5:30pm City Council meeting (Sullivan Chamber) – Expected date of Budget Adoption.
April 26, 2010
April 26, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights – The FY2011 Budget Arrives
April 26, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
Tonight’s the night when the voluminous annual Budget Book arrives on the desks of each city councillor. This marks the official start of “Budget Season” at City Hall where councillors often use the opportunity of the Budget Hearings to grill City department heads on operational details of their departments whether or not they are related to their budgets. The bottom line (literally) is that this year’s total recommended FY2011 operating budget is $443,288,905 plus $16,416,120 for the Water Fund plus the capital budget of $9,935,015. The previous FY2010 recommended operating budget was $426,226,960 plus $17,985,890 for the Water Fund plus the capital budget of $29,360,780.
The comparison by general categories from last year to this year is as follows:
| Category | FY2010 Budget | FY2011 Budget | 1 yr % Change | 5 yr % change |
| General Government | $45,627,180 | $47,778,775 | 4.7 | 23.4 |
| Public Safety | $97,169,260 | $101,163,395 | 4.1 | 24.1 |
| Community Maintenance & Development | $79,033,800 | $82,475,075 | 4.4 | 40.3 |
| Human Resource/Development | $28,232,600 | $30,102,300 | 4.6 | 30.2 |
| Education | $133,563,880 | $137,492,275 | 2.9 | 10.8 |
| Intergovernmental | $42,600,240 | $44,277,085 | 3.9 | 15.9 |
| Grand Total | $426,226,960 | $443,288,905 | 4.0 | 22.1 |
| Water Fund | $17,985,890 | $16,416,120 | -8.7 | -4.0 |
| Capital Budget | $29,360,780 | $9,935,015 | -66.2 | 10.2 |
There are some notable differences in specific departments and assessments as well.
| Department | FY2010 Budget | FY2011 Budget | 1 yr % Change | 5 yr % change |
| Executive | $1,841,390 | $1,980,195 | 7.5 | 34.7 |
| City Council | $1,461,370 | $1,518,725 | 3.9 | 49.2 |
| Election | $799,490 | $897,050 | 12.2 | 22.4 |
| License | $830,755 | $902,730 | 8.7 | 22.0 |
| Emergency Management | $156,230 | $0 | -100.0 | -100.0 |
| Peace Commission | $111,745 | $116,580 | 4.3 | 46.7 |
| Library | $7,450,945 | $8,135,070 | 9.2 | 43.7 |
| Human Rights Commission | $210,355 | $190,005 | -9.7 | 14.3 |
| MWRA Assessment | $21,333,055 | $21,617,305 | 1.3 | 35.2 |
| Cherry Sheet Assessments | $15,267,185 | $16,659,780 | 9.1 | 4.4 |
Note, in particular, that the single biggest jump in department budget over a five year span was for the City Council itself. You can download the 5-year summary spreadsheet here: http://rwinters.com/docs/bottomlineFY2011.xls.
Elsewhere on the Agenda, there are these items worthy of comment:
Resolution #28. Congratulations to a special person. Councillor Toomey, Councillor Decker, Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher, Councillor Seidel
Resolution #50. Resolution honoring a great supporter of the Portuguese community. Councillor Toomey
The whole idea of a public meeting seems to suggest that the identity of this “special person” and this “great supporter” should be made known. The City Council is a publicly elected body, not a private social club.
Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to confer with appropriate departments to determine whether the city can submit a proposal for use on the Sullivan Courthouse and to report back to the City Council. Councillor Toomey
It’s a long stretch to imagine the City making use of a building of this size, especially in light of the considerable abatement costs that would likely be associated with any renovation and reuse of the building. It also seems doubtful that Councillor Toomey would be advocating packing another major “affordable housing” development into East Cambridge in light of his recent Order.
Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to restore funding for School Department clerical positions until a proper and negotiated process can be achieved with the Cambridge School Department and Unions representing the employees, and to report back to the City Council on the progress. Councillor Toomey
There was a day when the School Committee concerned itself with matters such as this. Is it really proper for the Cambridge City Council to direct the City Manager to restore funding for positions under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Schools who is hired by the duly-elected Cambridge School Committee? Question this matter during the School Department Budget hearing if you must, but doesn’t this just stink of micromanagement – and not even by the proper elected body? — Robert Winters
April 12, 2010
April 12, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
April 12, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights
The agenda is relatively light but the tension should be palpable on the eve of the Special State Senate Primary. As a courtesy, if there is still such a thing in the Cambridge political world, this meeting should open and shut in a half hour so that candidate Denise Simmons can attend to her campaign. Therefore I expect we’ll see Councillor Reeves, Craig Kelley, and former and future Senate candidate Marjorie Decker engage in extensive questions and comments just to extend the meeting for hours. Councillor Simmons should just check in and check out or exercise her Charter Right liberally at the first hint of nonsense.
[Postscript (8:25pm) – The predictions turned out all wrong – it was Simmons supporter Councillor Davis who spoke and lengthened the meeting the most. Marjorie Decker was concise and to the point. So much for fanciful predictions.]
On the agenda, we have the following items of interest:
City Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-52, regarding a report on the possibility of structuring the parking ticket system in a way that would increase parking tickets as people stay longer at expired meters or general no-parking spots.
Short answer – this is prohibited under state law: “all such fines shall be uniform for the same offense committed in the same zone or district“. One wonders how this applies to Somerville’s posted practice of permitting residents to park for free for several hours at parking meters in some areas at the edge of commercial zones. It’s a good idea, but is it legal under state law?
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to make City staff available to the Economic Development Committee to look at current real and personal property taxation issues which affect entrepreneurial businesses within the city. Councillor Cheung
Councillor Cheung is diving right in as the new Chair of the Council’s Economic Development Committee. The key phrase in the Order is: “That staff review and report back to the Economic Development Committee of the City Council on state taxation guidelines and statutes that could potentially be adopted or changed to impact new business development, including but not limited to the taxation of R&D related personal property, economic distress regulations, and real estate related tax increment financing, for the purpose of encourage new business growth and job creation.” Councillor Cheung may soon discover how restricted City officials are in matters such as real estate taxation. Good ideas surfaced several years ago when multi-family residential property taxes were escalating with condominium real estate taxes relatively flat, but it went nowhere without changes in state law.
Order #2. That the City Council reappoint D. Margaret Drury as City Clerk for a term beginning June 1, 2010 and ending May 31, 2013. Mayor Maher
Order #3. That the City Council reappoint James Monagle as City Auditor for a term beginning June 1, 2010 and ending May 31, 2013. Mayor Maher
The City Council has authority under the Plan E Charter to appoint only the City Manager, the City Clerk, and the City Auditor. Tonight they’ll extend the appointments of two of these. Though not specified in the Charter, the City Council also formally appoints the Deputy City Clerk and, whether official or not, they now get to “appoint” their own patronage personal assistants, almost all of whom are City-funded campaign workers. On a brighter note, both City Clerk Margaret Drury and Auditor Jim Monagle are well deserving of reappointment.
Order #4. That the City Council place a temporary moratorium on designating any location under its control as “in memoriam” until such time as naming criteria are developed by the Government Operations Committee and adopted by the City Council. Mayor Maher
If passed, this represents a victory of sorts for Councillor Kelley who has played like a broken record on this issue. Annoyance aside, the substance of his argument is correct. This practice has been too long abused.
Order #5. That the City Council go on record urging Cambridge’s Delegation to the Great and General Court to support Section 25, the Municipal Early Retirement Incentive Program, contained in the HB4526. Mayor Maher
The key phrase in the Order is: “This program would allow a limited number of long term employees to receive early retirement benefits, while restricting the City’s ability to refill those same positions to no more than 30%, 45% and 60% of the former total salaries over the next three years, respectively.” Seems like a good option in tight financial times. – Robert Winters