Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

February 10, 2025

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.

The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband – regardless of cost.

Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)

Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity – but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.


Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district.   Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0

Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature – not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access – especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized – at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through – both nationally and locally.

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. – RW

March 21, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 583-584: March 21, 2023

Episode 583 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 21, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 21, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Cambridge Police Department (CPD) policies, analysis, bodycams, tasers, alternatives, rarity of officer-involved shootings; HEART, potential conflicts with CPD; PSL protests and threatened occupation; naiveté of the press and blogosphere. Hosts: Robert Winters, Judy Nathans [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 584 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 21, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 21, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Municipal Broadband, CCTV funding, Cable TV vs. Internet and streaming, financial exposure/risk, consumer viewpoint; Charter Review and request for extension; history of Cambridge Charter from Town to Plan E – video program coming; shoutout to the Office of the City Clerk. Hosts: Robert Winters, Judy Nathans [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 20, 2023

Spring Backwards – March 20, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Spring Backwards – March 20, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Spring officially begins Monday, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:24pm. Six minutes later the Cambridge City Council will spring backwards into Zoom isolation. Here are the agenda items that caught my attention:First Sign of Spring

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the new appointments of Maria Guadalupe Arlotto and Brendan Koscher as members of the Police Review and Advisory Board for terms of five years.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-05, regarding a report on beginning the process of obtaining police body worn cameras (BWC) for the Cambridge Police Department, and to work with all appropriate departments to produce policy recommendations that would allow body worn camera usage while also not violating civil liberties in compliance with the City’s Surveillance Ordinance.
pulled by Toner; comments by PT, DS, MM, PN (critical of previous city managers), QZ (opposed to body cameras); responses by Commissioner Christine Elow, and Superintendent Freddie Cabral; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-09, regarding a report on engaging a third party, independent firm/consultant or university partner to review and examine the Cambridge Police Department’s policies and practices regarding de-escalation methods, mental health calls for service, training, and more.
pulled by Zondervan; questions from Siddiqui; comments by QZ (concerned about bidding process for contract – curious that no such concerns about HEART funding and contract; also challenging use of a police entity doing review), DS (noting that CPD already intentional about deescalation methods), AM, DC, PN, SS; responses by Elow, City Manager Huang; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to fund the HEART initiative and negotiate a contract for services with HEART, to include but not limited to HEART responding to certain 911 calls. [Charter Right – Nolan, Mar 6, 2023]
Siddiqui again says “charterwritten”; Toner moves to also discuss Comm. & Rpts. #3; Nolan reads prepared statement, says HEART expects to be ready in Fall, proposes amendments; Zondervan supportive of amendments; Toner OK with amendments but questions HEART, prefers to develop a scope of services for others to bid on, questions about liability; McGovern says that Manager believes that contracts with a non-profit entity do not need to go out to bid, floats notion of $8 million funding for HEART, fully supports Community Safety Department but wants HEART to be outside of any City department; Simmons notes her letter with Toner expressing concerns about HEART, notes model for non-police response that grew from Task Force, wants assurance that any entity chosen is actually equipped to do the job; Zondervan expresses support w/o any questions; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Simmons – Present; Toner – No)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Toner, transmitting Questions regarding Requests to Fund Heart Using City Funds.
Discussed along with Charter Right #1; Placed on File 9-0

It seems all but certain that the reason the City Council meeting is taking place on Mount Zoom this week is because of the multiple police-related agenda items and the inevitability of a PSL invasion (Party for Socialism and Liberation). We may also see further evidence of the current Mayor’s differences of opinion with the City Administration (and perhaps a signal of how she might prefer to change the Charter to gain more authority). [“In Cambridge, our charter grants the City Manager power over the Police Department as well as oversight of personnel matters. There have been repeated demands from the community to release the name of the officer who shot Faisal, and I personally believe this is an important step for the sake of transparency, but a statement released last week made clear the City will not do so.”]. Ms. Siddiqui’s definition of “the community” is not so clear.

Regarding HEART: There’s something disturbing about the fact that city councillors are pressing the City Manager to award a contract to a particular vendor – and especially a vendor with zero track record other than the consistent hostility of its adherents toward the Cambridge Police Department.


Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2023 and ending Mar 31, 2024. [FY24 water/sewer charts]
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN; responses by Owen O’Riorden, Kathy Watkins (DPW); Placed on File 9-0

The notable increases in the water rate this year actually exceed the increases in the sewer rate, but it has generally been the reverse for some time. It costs far more to lose the water than to supply it.

Water Rates (per CcF) FY05 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF $2.73 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.02 $3.05 $3.11 $3.32
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF $2.94 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.24 $3.27 $3.33 $3.55
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF $3.11 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.44 $3.47 $3.54 $3.77
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF $3.31 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.65 $3.69 $3.76 $4.01
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF $3.58 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $3.96 $4.00 $4.08 $4.35
Sewer Rates (per CcF) FY05 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF $5.54 $8.19 $8.62 $9.21 $9.50 $10.23 $11.00 $11.77 $12.51 $13.51 $14.59 $15.34
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF $5.87 $8.67 $9.12 $9.74 $10.05 $10.82 $11.63 $12.44 $13.22 $14.28 $15.42 $16.21
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF $6.30 $9.31 $9.79 $10.46 $10.79 $11.62 $12.49 $13.36 $14.20 $15.34 $16.57 $17.42
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF $6.79 $10.02 $10.54 $11.26 $11.62 $12.51 $13.45 $14.39 $15.30 $16.52 $17.84 $18.75
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF $7.22 $10.66 $11.21 $11.97 $12.35 $13.30 $14.30 $15.30 $16.26 $17.56 $18.96 $19.93
Combined Rates (per CcF) FY05 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF $8.27 $11.21 $11.64 $12.23 $12.52 $13.25 $14.02 $14.79 $15.53 $16.56 $17.70 $18.66
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF $8.81 $11.91 $12.36 $12.98 $13.29 $14.06 $14.87 $15.68 $16.46 $17.55 $18.75 $19.76
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF $9.41 $12.75 $13.23 $13.90 $14.23 $15.06 $15.93 $16.80 $17.64 $18.81 $20.11 $21.19
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF $10.10 $13.67 $14.19 $14.91 $15.27 $16.16 $17.10 $18.04 $18.95 $20.21 $21.60 $22.76
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF $10.80 $14.62 $15.17 $15.93 $16.31 $17.26 $18.26 $19.26 $20.22 $21.56 $23.04 $24.28
Percent Increases (Water)   FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 10 Year 19 Year
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.8% 9.9% 21.6%
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.8% 6.6% 9.6% 20.7%
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.0% 6.5% 9.6% 21.2%
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.9% 6.6% 9.9% 21.1%
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 6.6% 9.8% 21.5%
Percent Increases (Sewer)   FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 10 Year 19 Year
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF 4.2% 5.3% 6.8% 3.1% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 5.1% 87.3% 176.9%
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF 4.2% 5.2% 6.8% 3.2% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 5.1% 87.0% 176.1%
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF 4.3% 5.2% 6.8% 3.2% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 5.1% 87.1% 176.5%
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF 4.2% 5.2% 6.8% 3.2% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 5.1% 87.1% 176.1%
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF 4.2% 5.2% 6.8% 3.2% 7.7% 7.5% 7.0% 6.3% 8.0% 8.0% 5.1% 87.0% 176.0%
Percent Increases (Combined)   FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 10 Year 19 Year
Block 1 0 – 40 CcF 3.0% 3.8% 5.1% 2.4% 5.8% 5.8% 5.5% 5.0% 6.6% 6.9% 5.4% 66.5% 125.6%
Block 2 41 – 400 CcF 3.0% 3.8% 5.0% 2.4% 5.8% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 6.6% 6.8% 5.4% 65.9% 124.3%
Block 3 401 – 2,000 CcF 3.1% 3.8% 5.1% 2.4% 5.8% 5.8% 5.5% 5.0% 6.6% 6.9% 5.4% 66.2% 125.2%
Block 4 2,001 – 10,000 CcF 3.0% 3.8% 5.1% 2.4% 5.8% 5.8% 5.5% 5.0% 6.6% 6.9% 5.4% 66.5% 125.3%
Block 5 Over 10,000 CcF 3.0% 3.8% 5.0% 2.4% 5.8% 5.8% 5.5% 5.0% 6.6% 6.9% 5.4% 66.1% 124.8%

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons


Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of Danielle Jones-McLaughlin, Deepti Nijhawan, Loring Brinckerhoff, Avril dePagter, Mary Devlin , Dan Stubbs as members of the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD).
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Salvation Army Shelter and Daytime Program.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ, MM, PT; responses by Yi-An Huang, Ellen Semonoff (annual cost $1,080,000); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#35, related to the Allocation Plan for Cambridge’s HOME-ARP funds.
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN, QZ, MM, DC, SS; responses by Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a summary of a Planning Board Meeting on the 2022 Town-Gown Reports and Presentations.
pulled by Carlone; comments by DC (graduate student housing, etc.), PN; Placed on File 9-0


Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report for the City’s comprehensive year-long municipal broadband feasibility study.
Placed on File 9-0

I am eager to be convinced that this is a worthwhile investment that won’t jeopardize the City’s financial standing. The $194 million estimate is almost certainly less that what the actual cost will be. I also have a lot of questions about what this initiative would mean in terms of residents who have their Internet, Cable TV, and phone bundled into a single Comcast package. For example, will a resident still have to contract with Comcast if they want to watch TV? Will the result actually be cost savings or additional cost? Will Cable TV simply dry up and blow away in a few years with everything shifting toward data-intensive streaming options? Even more fundamentally, were any of these questions raised in the supposedly “scientific survey” now being touted by some councillors in their pre-campaign email blasts?


Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#44, related to the Barrett, et al., Zoning Petition. [text of report]
Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to a Zoning Petition from Patrick Barrett et al. North Mass Ave BA-5 Zoning District Petition (Ordinance #2022-21). [Passed to 2nd Reading, Mar 6, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023; Expires Apr 3, 2023]


Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to ensure multi-family properties on the market are reviewed as quickly as possible as potential affordable housing acquisitions. [Charter Right – Simmons, Mar 6, 2023]
Remarks by Simmons, Nolan; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I don’t wish to infuriate anyone by saying this, but the notion that multi-family buildings, particularly two- and three-family buildings, should be removed from private ownership flies in the face of the reality that small property owners have been possibly the greatest source of affordable rents in Cambridge for well over a century. A nonprofit corporation is not an improvement over a good landlord or landlady and these properties have long been an essential part of securing a middle class of Cambridge residents.


Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Ordinance # 2022-6 Article III Green Jobs 2.66.100 Definitions. [Passed to 2nd Reading, Feb 27, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023]
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained 9-0

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Charles Jessup Franklin et al., regarding allowing new construction that is similar in size and shape as existing buildings for the purpose of promoting housing and first floor retail.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, BA (not enthusiastic, wants even higher density); Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 8-0-0-1 (Carlone – Present)

Perhaps we should call this latest variation the Missing Middle Revisited Petition. Variations on this theme by the densifiers seem endless. The suggested residential densities in this variant are in many ways even greater than those proposed in the previous “Missing Middle” attempt – and continue to be be somewhat oblivious to how housing on Cambridge streets actually functions. [Ref.: “A few observations on density”]


Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning Petition for the Central Square Cultural District.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, QZ, PT, PN, DS; Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager work with the Central Square Business Improvement District and provide a license agreement, as well as direct financial and regulatory support for the continued and uninterrupted operation of Starlight Square.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Siddiqui; remarks by Siddiqui, Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Zondervan, Carlone (consider redevelopment of the edges as well), Azeem, Mallon; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I greatly appreciate that we had Starlight Square during the pandemic, and I absolutely hope that we can have a suitable venue like this in the future. That said, Starlight Square as it is now is something of a relic that would need either a substantial upgrade or a relocation. Many of us view it as an experiment that strongly made the case for comparable and perhaps much better options in the future. Central Square needs options for vendors such as those provided by Popportunity, and we definitely need better gathering spaces for events or a rethinking of existing spaces. Dumping on the BZA (as some councillors are doing) is more of a cheap shot than an actual plan that can be sustained.


Resolution #1. Congratulations to Sara Reese on receiving the 2023 Exemplary School Champion Award for her leadership in workforce development in Cambridge.   Councillor Toner

Resolution #2. Gratitude to Margaret Drury for her many years of tireless service to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and to the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Simmons (notes Margaret’s three decades of service to the City); remarks by McGovern, Carlone; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council is requested to confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request to dedicate a street corner in honor of Ned Handy.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toner
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0


Order #1. That the City Council go on record supporting Enabling Legislation for a Real Estate Transfer Fee.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone (would generate $23 million more per year for affordable housing); Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. Policy Order for Garden Street Accommodations.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Toner; notable that there were many nearly identical comments during Public Comment from the “bike lobby” opposing this Order; Charter Right – Zondervan

This is a start – and hopefully not just ass-covering for some city councillors concerned about how West Cambridge residents might vote in November. Ensuring bicycle safety need not be a monolithic enterprise with little room for revision.


Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee met on May 7, 2019. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Reported Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee met on Feb 16, 2022 to consider the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee met on Feb 23, 2022 to reconvene its Feb 16, 2020 meeting to receive public comment regarding the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Finance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022 to discuss the city’s ARPA application/funding update status. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Finance Committee met on May 10, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #6. The Finance Committee met on May 11, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 school budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #7. The Finance Committee met on May 17, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #8. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on June 14, 2022 to receive an update on ARPA funding. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #9. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public meeting on Feb 28, 2023, to discuss the status of after school programming in Cambridge. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps Neil Sedaka should provide the soundtrack with “Catching Up Is Hard To Do”. My favorite case is the (March 6) adoption of the ordinance establishing the procedure for appointment of the Charter Review Commission as required by the Charter amendments adopted in 2021. The committee was appointed July 1, 2022 – more than 8 months prior to the adoption of the ordinance. – Robert Winters

March 13, 2023

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

March 13, 2023 – There’s a City Council Roundtable tonight that includes a presentation on “Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options”. Advocacy for municipal broadband has gained a lot of traction among city councillors over the last few years – perhaps even unanimous support – but the issue has always been about financial cost and exposure, i.e. the notion that a huge amount of money might be invested in a technology that might become obsolete with the next wave of innovation.City Hall

If surveyed, residents would likely be nearly unanimous in the view that having affordable alternatives for fast Internet access is very desirable – hence a winning position for city councillors to support. What is often not said is that municipal broadband would likely not include Cable TV access (unless you subscribe to one of the new streaming options), and if consumers who now bundle their phone, Internet, and TV access wanted municipal broadband there might not even be a financial benefit in doing so. More significantly, the full capital cost of such an investment is estimated to be $194 million with a City contribution estimated to be $150 million.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS

• The full capital cost is estimated at ~$194 million, incorporating a 30% contingency and inflation over a 5-year construction period, assuming a 40% take-rate.

• A City contribution of ~$150 million is required to establish a sustainable FTTP business from scratch, applying reasonable assumptions under a “base case”. This contribution is the investment the City would need to make for which there would likely be no return. The remaining capex can be supported from net revenues after operating costs.

• Entering into a partnership with one or more entities to lease fiber and run the business would reduce the City’s risks and potentially reduce costs. A partner could potentially leverage existing operations and assets, achieving economies of scale.

November 30, 2020

Leftovers – Highlights from the November 30, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Leftovers – Highlights from the November 30, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here are the items of interest this week:Leftovers

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Covid-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That City Manager be and hereby is requested to implement a program similar to the patio heater reimbursement program for purchasing air sanitizers that meet or exceed the above specifications for Cambridge businesses.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #3. Expanding Testing in Nursing Homes PO.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui
Withdrawn 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to present the City Council with a comprehensive data report on a weekly basis, for the duration of the pandemic emergency, including (but not limited to) regional and Cambridge-specific trends.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with relevant departments to implement comprehensive contact tracing in Cambridge including the ability to conduct backwards contact tracing facilitated with technology such as the use of QR codes, and to report back to the City Council on this matter as soon as possible.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. That the City Manager confer with the Cambridge Department of Public Health on the feasibility of launching mobile COVID-19 testing vans in December and report back to the City Council as soon as possible.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

I suppose all these ideas are great, but it sometimes feels as though everyone is just drafting Policy Orders as soon as they hear something they don’t understand. It’s interesting that we actually have a City Council subcommittee called the "Health & Environment Committee" (emphasis on "Health") that has met a total of four times this Council term on the topics of "Net Zero Action Plan" (once) and the "Tree Protection Ordinance" (thrice). That committee has never met on the topic of the pandemic and currently has no meetings scheduled. I guess it’s Trees > NetZero > Covid as the pecking order of priorities.

Meanwhile, businesses are closing for good and our "Economic Development and University Relations Committee" has met on the topics of "MWBEs and other historically disadvantaged businesses and non-profits", a "vacant storefront registration policy", a "Retail Land Use Initiative and Retail Table of Land Use update", and "updating the commercial land use classification system", and they have an upcoming meeting on "Vacant Storefront Policy." To their credit, they also met recently on the topic of "Cambridge higher learning institutions’ return to campus plans, policies, and health guidance". How reassuring to know that we may soon have a vacant storefront policy rather than concrete steps to prevent those vacancies.


Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to two appropriations totaling $9,500,000 related to the Foundry as follows: $6 million from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Department of Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures Account; and $3.5 million from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to the Public Investment Fund Department of Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures Account.
Order Adopted 9-0

I sincerely hope the Foundry project works out for the best, but perhaps we should rename "The Gift that Keeps on Taking" as simply "The Money Pit."

Charter Right #3. Policy Order to strengthen community bonds and ensure equitable access to neighborhood organizations. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR NOLAN IN COUNCIL NOV 23, 2020] [Original Order #4 of Nov 23, 2020]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0; Late Order Adopted 9-0

I have been largely staying out of the back-and-forth over this questionable policy order, so I’ll just make a few points that you can feel free to salute or ignore:

1) Neighborhood groups have no “official” standing or “privilege” in spite of what some well-orchestrated public commenters have suggested. They are just collections of individuals who offer points of view. The notion that the Cambridge City Council or any other government entity should have any dominion over them is simply absurd.

2) Neighborhood associations and other civic organizations are only as valuable or respected as the credibility that they either gain or squander. I have seen some of them manage to greatly grow their credibility, and I have also seen some that have squandered it. No need to name them here.

3) The problem of “lack of diversity” in neighborhood associations and other civic groups is really rooted more in the fact that most people really don’t want to be involved in civic affairs (which I think is a shame), and it always seems as though getting a representative cross-section of members is difficult if not impossible. If the interest is not there, that’s no reason to fold nor should it be the basis for criticism.

4) I have a particular disgust for the whole idea of “taking over a neighborhood association” in order to push any agenda. Forming a civic group (as opposed to a neighborhood association) is the better choice. Civic/political groups can and do maintain distinctive points of view – and people can feel free to join them or do battle with them. Neighborhood associations really should be different – and should be more like a forum for different points of view. I also think that those associations that provide resources and services are generally the better for it.

5) If a neighborhood association or civic organization wants to be taken seriously these days, they really do have to maintain some kind of web presence that not only keeps people informed about current matters but also historical matters. We are rapidly losing institutional memory in Cambridge and keeping good archives can help – a lot. Having regular public meetings is also pretty important, though obviously a lot of that is currently on hold now due to the pandemic.

6) Email listservs can often lead to squabbles that can quickly get out of hand. One way to handle this, though not ideal, is to have trustworthy moderation. Really personal squabbles (like serious insults or just getting really ticked off) should be taken offline. Everyone is capable of getting ticked off and that should not be disqualifying. Better to settle things over a game of pool or a few beers or just agree to disagree.

7) Don’t pour gasoline on fires.

Unfinished Business #6. That the enclosed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance be adopted to extend the temporary prohibition on tree cutting permits until Feb 28, 2021. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL NOV 16, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER NOV 30, 2020] [Order #5 of Nov 16, 2020]
Ordained 7-1-0-1 (Toomey – NO; Simmons – PRESENT)

Please stay out of my yard. I’ve been here over four decades and the last thing I need is to have uninformed Cambridge city councillors overruling necessary decisions I have to make about managing the trees on my property.

Order #2. Council Opposition to Comcast Data Cap.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

I’m also wary of Comcast instituting data caps, but even though we have a lot of web traffic in and out of my house we’re still nowhere near the proposed data cap. I’m more concerned that there’s 957 Channels and There’s Nothing On. That and the fact that my two-year "introductory rate" is about to run out and I may have to play hardball with The Evil Empire.

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee met on Nov 12, 2020 to conduct a public hearing on the PUD-CDK District Zoning Amendment.
Report Amended to Include Revised Language 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Just build something really great, will ya? – Robert Winters

Comments?

June 15, 2020

Budget Politics – Retail vs. Wholesale: What’s on Sale on the June 15, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Budget Politics – Retail vs. Wholesale: What’s on Sale on the June 15, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda?

Here a few agenda items of note:City Hall

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the Council on how some, or all, of the $4.1 million dollar increase in the Police Department budget between FY20 and FY21 may be redirected towards measures that promote public health and safety in other departments. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SOBRINHO-WHEELER IN COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2020]

Communications #2. A communication was received from Jae Storozum, 16 Whittier Street, regarding a response to Police Commissioner Bard’s statement.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting Amendments to Policy Order 2020 #133 (a.k.a. Order #7 from June 8 / Charter Right #1 on current agenda).

The June 8-10 City Council meeting provided an interesting study in Retail vs. Wholesale Politics. Most local candidates are familiar with retail politics – the kind of person-to person politics that involves lots of questions, conversations, coffee, shoe leather, and door-knocking. In contrast, there’s wholesale politics which many of us still associate with TV commercials, billboards, and mass mailings. The fact is that wholesale politics is now more likely to take the form of social media campaigns, ginormous email lists culled from various sources within your tribe, and devices like the "political action network" or something similar that can engineer a mass email campaign or drive people to a website or (in the pandemic world we now find ourselves) to a public meeting hosted in Zoom. There is a fundamental asymmetry between how activists at either end of the political spectrum democratically participate versus how moderates participate. Suffice to say that it’s unlikely that you’ll ever see a flood of moderates inundating a public meeting or laying down in the middle of a highway – even if theirs is the more common point of view. They do, however, vote.

Whether you believe Cambridge Police are wonderful, are already making needed reforms, are in need of restructuring, or whether they should be outright abolished (a non-starter), it’s interesting to see how different people attempt to make their case. I won’t pretend to know where most people really stand on some of these policing issues – locally or elsewhere, but I do think it’s pretty clear that public opinion has been growing more firm in the belief that police departments everywhere need to be more accountable when it comes to the use of deadly force. The salient question in Cambridge is whether the Cambridge Police Department has been moving in a good direction and whether that should be supported. I believe that Police Commissioner Branville Bard and his department have been clearly moving in a good direction for some time now and that they should be supported. I would love to see a more broad discussion over this coming year on what other steps might be taken, including looking at overtime pay and the costs associated with police details, and not just on which functions might be outsourced. Commissioner Bard’s focus on "procedural justice" should absolutely be supported. I really would rather not see our elected officials carry out a "vote of no confidence" via a symbolic and purely political act of "defunding." If you want to cut budgets, look at the whole FY2021 Budget and don’t just single out the Police Department budget in the spirit of "Give us Barabbas" in order to placate the crowd.

Then there’s the matter of councillors continuing to engage in one-upmanship, but there’s not a hell of a lot we can do about that.


Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19.

Here’s one question that I hope someone will address: Now that the number of new cases of coronavirus per day has dropped considerably, is there any indication of how these new infections are most likely occurring? There recently was a chart circulating indicating relative risk of various activities. That was helpful in demystifying the threat. We could really use more information like that.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response to the City Council forwarding the ITD budget with an unfavorable recommendation.

Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $50,000 from Free Cash to the Grant Fund Executive Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will be used to support the City’s digital equity efforts to support qualifying families during the COVID19 pandemic who do not have Internet access at home.

This is progress. I’m not convinced either way what the best course of action will be regarding municipal broadband vs. making the best of available resources, but maybe this analysis (and the counter-analysis) will convince me one way or the other.


Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 26, 2020, June 2, 2020 and on June 3, 2020 to discuss the General Fund Budget.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Dennis Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 2, 2020 to discuss the Water Fund.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons and Councillor Dennis Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Finance Committee, for a public hearing held on June 2, 2020 to discuss the Public Investment Fund.

Unfinished Business #5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $6,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of various water pollution abatement projects, including but not limited to Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.

Unfinished Business #6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for various Schools for repairs to electrical service, roof replacement, chiller replacement, floor replacement and replacement of bi-directional amplifier and antenna in various school buildings.

Unfinished Business #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.

Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $16,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan which will support improvements at the Department of Public works Complex including the Ryan Garage, Lafayette Square Firehouse structural repair, and other municipal buildings.

Unfinished Business #9. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $9,000,000 to provide funds for the construction of improvements of the Lexington Avenue and River Street Firehouses.

Unfinished Business #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $237,000,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of the Tobin Montessori and Vassal Lane Upper School.

I suppose the only real questions re: the FY2021 Budget vote are (1) whether there will be a symbolic "defund the police" rescission; (2) whether the Council will "send a message" on the municipal broadband question; and (3) whether there will be any further gazing into the crystal ball about the continued impact of Covid-19 on residents, property values, rents, sustainability of businesses, tax revenue, and funding priorities. – Robert Winters

April 30, 2012

Budget Season – April 30, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,Comcast — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:59 pm

Budget Season – April 30, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The centerpiece of tonight’s meeting is the FY2013 Budget. The Budget Hearings of the Finance Committee will commence this week. See schedule below.

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board petition to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge for an area along North Massachusetts Avenue.

From the report: "The petition amends the Zoning Map by changing the zoning of an area in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B. This will allow a similar density to the current Business A-2 zoning district, but is limited to residential uses and provides increased setback and open space standards. The proposed map change is complementary to the proposed zoning text changes to the Mass. Ave. Overlay District previously submitted to the Council."

The meatiest items on the agenda are the annual Big Capital items to be financed by bonds. These are always introduced around the time of the submission of the annual budget. Here are this year’s Big Ticket items:

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,100,000 to provide funds for the replacement of the slate roof on City Hall and additional funds for the replacement of the roofs on the Ryan Garage and Simard Buildings at Public Works.

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for improvements to the Kendall Square area including Main Street between Broadway and Ames Street including the reconstruction of streets and sidewalks and the installation of new pedestrian-scale public lighting, street furniture, trees, and other beautification measures.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,245,000 to provide funds for the acquisition of a ladder truck and pumper to replace vehicles that have been in service since 1994 and 1991, respectively.

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,540,000 to provide funds for the design, regrade, drainage, and installation of new synthetic field surfaces on the soccer fields at Danehy Park.

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $7,557,670 to provide funds for construction of sewer separation, stormwater management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the City’s Alewife watershed.

The central item on tonight’s agenda is the Budget Overview (672 KB PDF). It is always informative and usually very responsive to most of the concerns expressed by councillors during the months leading up to the submission of the budget. The Manager’s presentation is invariable followed by well-deserved praise from most of the councillors. Indeed, their jobs are made so much easier because of the efforts of the City Manager’s Office and the Finance Department to plan and provide adequate funding for all the services and programs that Cambridge provides. [Download the entire FY2013 Budget Book (18.2MB PDF)]

Unfinished Business #6. That the FY2013 City Budget be referred to the Finance Committee, with the exception that the Budget Overview be postponed to … the Apr 30, 2012 City Council meeting … at which time the City Manager will give an overview of the 2013 City Budget….

Then there’s this:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report to the City Council on appropriate regulation of satellite dishes, possibly through an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.   Mayor Davis

I don’t suppose anyone likes the idea of satellite dishes decorating the exterior of many residential buildings in Cambridge, but this is the consequence of the predatory pricing of Comcast’s Evil Empire. If the City Council acts in such a way as to make it difficult to find an affordable alternative to the Evil Empire, then they have indeed gone over to The Dark Side. – Robert Winters

Comments?


Schedule of Budget Hearings:

Wed, May 2

9:00am   The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the FY2013 City Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

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
License Commission
Animal Commission
Fire Department
Police Department
Traffic, Parking & Transportation
Inspectional Services
Weights & Measures
Electrical
Emergency Communications
Cable TV

Wed, May 9

9:00am   The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the FY2013 City Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Public Works
Cambridge Health Alliance
Water
Community Development
Historical Commission
Conservation Commission
Peace Commission
Police Review & Advisory Board
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 16

6:00pm   The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the FY2013 School Department Budget. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012 Cambridge City Council Meeting Highlights – featuring the Proposed FY2013 Budget

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,Comcast — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 1:48 pm

April 23, 2012 Cambridge City Council Meeting Highlights – featuring the Proposed FY2013 Budget

The FY2013 Budget for the City of Cambridge will be submitted this Monday, April 23 to the City Council. Here’s a table of the bottom line for all of the City Departments for FY2013 as well as FY2005 and FY2012 for comparison:

City of Cambridge FY2013 Budget

GENERAL GOVERNMENT FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
Mayor 430,035 587,235 554,040 -5.7 28.8
Executive 1,353,140 1,999,890 2,068,675 3.4 52.9
City Council 975,570 1,602,960 1,642,165 2.4 68.3
City Clerk 720,925 964,540 1,067,130 10.6 48.0
Law 1,780,975 2,112,790 2,061,495 -2.4 15.8
Finance 8,837,560 12,046,005 12,350,575 2.5 39.8
Employee Benefits 20,499,920 30,922,965 31,796,130 2.8 55.1
General Services 984,345 739,215 726,475 -1.7 -26.2
Election 756,540 1,062,480 1,004,285 -5.5 32.7
Public Celebrations 671,505 791,445 799,370 1.0 19.0
Reserve 37,500 37,500 37,500 0.0 0.0
TOTAL $37,048,015 $52,867,025 $54,107,840 2.3 46.0
           
PUBLIC SAFETY FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
Animal Commission 228,870 288,660 298,585 3.4 30.5
Fire 28,891,840 39,055,065 40,111,145 2.7 38.8
Police 31,515,220 43,496,275 45,643,095 4.9 44.8
Traffic, Parking & Transportation 8,175,095 10,294,470 10,551,435 2.5 29.1
Police Review & Advisory Board 77,210 103,745 70,730 -31.8 -8.4
Inspectional Services 2,261,215 2,992,440 3,115,045 4.1 37.8
License 726,735 931,910 986,140 5.8 35.7
Weights & Measures 98,910 130,025 134,325 3.3 35.8
Electrical 2,239,640 2,773,865 2,792,005 0.7 24.7
Emergency Management 137,820 0 0 -100.0
Emergency Communications 3,097,485 4,085,420 4,242,970 3.9 37.0
TOTAL $77,450,040 $104,151,875 $107,945,475 3.6 39.4
           
COMMUNITY MAINT/DEVELOPMENT FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
Public Works 23,648,125 30,397,855 31,945,265 5.1 35.1
Community Development 4,472,620 5,283,620 5,482,210 3.8 22.6
Historical Commission 457,580 571,470 587,025 2.7 28.3
Conservation Commission 89,760 100,305 101,925 1.6 13.6
Peace Commission 76,215 119,590 139,595 16.7 83.2
Cable T.V. 999,500 1,402,505 1,436,360 2.4 43.7
Debt Service 23,917,070 44,594,830 47,526,975 6.6 98.7
TOTAL $53,660,870 $82,470,175 $87,219,355 5.8 62.5
           
HUMAN RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
Library 5,461,430 8,398,455 8,710,520 3.7 59.5
Human Services 14,581,590 21,227,585 22,480,760 5.9 54.2
Women’s Commission 155,860 217,720 225,425 3.5 44.6
Human Rights Commission 158,730 222,615 220,160 -1.1 38.7
Veterans 510,885 1,033,660 981,165 -5.1 92.1
TOTAL $20,868,495 $31,100,035 $32,618,030 4.9 56.3
           
CITY TOTAL $189,027,420 $270,589,110 $281,890,700 4.2 49.1
           
EDUCATION FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
Schools Operating (TOTAL) 122,053,195 140,719,260 144,987,705 3.0 18.8
           
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
MWRA 16,177,455 21,699,800 21,006,055 -3.2 29.8
Cherry Sheet Assessments 11,569,960 18,285,305 19,700,025 7.7 70.3
Cambridge Health Alliance 6,500,000 6,000,000 6,500,000 8.3 0.0
TOTAL 34,247,415 45,985,105 47,206,080 2.7 37.8
           
GRAND TOTALS $345,328,030 $457,293,475 $474,084,485 3.7 37.3
         
FY05 submitted FY12 submitted FY13 submitted 1 yr % change 8 yr % change
WATER $17,098,120 $14,902,620 $14,144,080 -5.1 -17.3
PUBLIC INVESTMENT $8,834,255 $11,613,225 $21,277,065 83.2 140.8

PDF of this Chart    Open Chart on separate page

Note 1: There’s nothing special about FY2005 for making comparisions. That’s just the earliest year with available online budget summaries.

Note 2: Don’t jump to conclusions about the apparent jump in budget for the Peace Commission or the apparent drop in budget for the Police Review Advisory Board. They now share an Executive Director, so the changes are most likely related to which budget is covering that salary.


The proposed FY2013 Budget is City Manager’s Agenda #1. There are a few other items on the agenda as well. For example:

City Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Police Review & Advisory Board for a term of five years, effective Apr 17, 2012:
Ann Coyne,
Laurance Kimbrough,
Lucy Murray-Brown

City Manager’s Agenda #12. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals effective Apr 18, 2012:
Lindsey Thorne-Bingham (Full Member, 5-year term);  Janet Green (Associate Member, 2-year term)
Andrea Hickey (Associate Member, 2-year term);  Kevin McAvey (Associate Member, 2-year term)

City Manager’s Agenda #13. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Human Rights Commissioner for three year terms effective Apr 18, 2012:
Brendan St. Amant,
Adrian Velazquez

It’s apparently catch-up time for appointments to City boards and commissions.

City Manager’s Agenda #15. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $11,917,462 from Free Cash to the General Fund Law Department Travel and Training (Judgment and Damages) account.

This is the formal balancing of the books to account for the payment out of free cash to cover the legal settlement costs relating to the unfortunate outcome of the lawsuits of Monteiro, Wong, and Stamper. Hopefully we’ll not see any other opportunistic lawsuits like these any time soon.

Resolution #11. Resolution on the death of Timothy J. Decker.   Vice Mayor Simmons, Councillor Maher, Councillor Cheung, Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Toomey and Councillor vanBeuzekom

Sincere condolences to Marjorie Decker on the loss of her father.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the feasibility of converting portions of the 4th floor of City Hall, or some other under-utilized building space already owned by the City, into office space for the eight members of the City Council who do not currently have office space within City Hall.   Vice Mayor Simmons and Councillor Cheung

This unnecessary Order will likely be approved on a unanimous or near-unanimous vote. It should be noted that during course of the last decade or so, city councillors were granted exclusive parking spaces behind City Hall (usually vacant), their own personal assistants (primarily campaign workers), and magnificent salary increases. The job description remains the same as it was in 1941. Note that the City Council budget has also increased 68% in 8 years. This Order rather absurdly asserts that city councillors lack sufficient space in City Hall. This doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Order #6. That the matter of Reconsideration in Rule Sixteen of the City Council Rules be referred to the Government Operations and Rules Committee for review.   Councillor Maher

This is a good idea, especially since at least one councillor has chosen to file Reconsideration purely to delay matters that have been overwhelmingly supported. Some councillors appear to have never been acquainted with Robert’s Rules or Order or even the City Council’s own adopted rules. This is good for occasional comedy, but not so great for efficient meetings.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to determine if Cambridge can take similar steps towards being re-certified to regulate basic cable costs in the City of Cambridge and to report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

I won’t hold my breath expecting anything to come of this. The Evil Empire of Comcast shall not yield. Besides, it’s not the "basic cable" costs that are the big problem with Comcast. It’s the fact that all the other cable packages are absurdly overpriced and the City is not legally permitted to negotiate any of those rates or selections. That’s why I dumped Comcast and use a roof antenna. – Robert Winters

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress