Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 20, 2015

Catching Up on the Cambridge News (March 20, 2015)

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:47 am

City of Cambridge Health and Human Services Job Fair April 1

The City’s Office of Workforce Development is sponsoring a Health & Human Services Job Fair on Wednesday, April 1, from 11:00am-1:00pm at Central Square Library, 45 Pearl St., Cambridge.

This will be a great opportunity for job seekers to connect with employers such as Cambridge Health Alliance, Crittenton Women’s Union, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Perkins, Senior Whole Health, Spaulding Hospital/Cambridge, and many others.

Those who plan to attend should remember to research companies and job opportunities before the job fair and to apply for appropriate positions online. For more information, contact Josh Foley at 617-349-6259 or jfoley@cambridgema.gov.

Participating organizations include:Job Fair 2015

Cambridge Health Alliance Perkins
Spaulding Hospital / Cambridge Fenway Health
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health     Bay Cove Human Services
Arbour Counseling Services Nurtury
The Edinburg Center Senior Whole Health
Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries Crittenton Women’s Union

Tip: Take the time to apply for positions online and research companies before attending

How Would You Spend $500,000 to Improve Cambridge?
Vote on Participatory Budget Capital Project Proposals March 22-28

City HallIf you’re a Cambridge resident age 12 or older, YOU can VOTE on how to spend $500,000 in FY16 Capital Funds to improve the community! In December 2014, the City of Cambridge launched the Participatory Budgeting (PB) initiative inviting community members to share ideas on projects to improve Cambridge.

Participatory Budgeting is a democratic process through which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Cambridge’s pilot PB project will for the first time, directly involve residents in the budgeting and city-building process, foster civic engagement and community spirit, and help ensure that the city’s Capital Plan reflects the priorities of Cambridge residents.

From January-March, over 40 volunteer Budget Delegates evaluated the 380 ideas that were submitted, and developed project proposals to meet community needs. From March 22-28, 2015 Cambridge residents are invited to vote on which projects will get funded! Projects on the ballot will be for capital improvements related to:

  • Culture & Community Facilities
  • Environment, Public Health & Public Safety
  • Parks & Recreation
  • Streets & Sidewalks

Each voter can select 5 projects on the ballot, regardless of the amount they add up to. The city will allocate $500,000 for the winning projects. Vote week begins with a kickoff event Sunday, March 22, from 2-4pm, at Cambridge Public Library, 449 Broadway. Residents will be able to talk with Budget Delegates and view project displays at two Project Expos on Tuesday, March 24, from 5:30-8:30pm, at Windsor Street Health Center, 119 Windsor St., and on Saturday, March 28, from 10am-2pm, during the Winter Farmers’ Market at Cambridge Community Center, 5 Callender St. Paper ballots at voting events will be available in English, Haitian Creole, Mandarin, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Residents can also vote online, as long as they have a cell phone. Online voting will be text message authenticated. Voters will enter their cell phone number online and then will receive a code via text that must be entered for one-time access to the ballot. A link to the online ballot on the Participatory Budget webpage will be made available during the voting period March 22-28, 2015. The online ballot will be available in English and Spanish. For information on project proposals on the ballot and a full list of voting dates and locations, please visit www.cambridgema.gov/yourbudget.

Connect Kendall Square Competition Finalists to Present Open Space Plans

Connect KendallFour finalist teams will soon be presenting their visions for open space in Kendall Square and eastern Cambridge as part of the City’s Connect Kendall Square open space design competition.

This project presents a unique opportunity to create a framework for the entire open space network in Kendall Square and eastern Cambridge. The competition attracted a wide range of planning and design firms, which were encouraged to consider new thinking regarding not only open space design, but also connections, programming, place making, and the overall public realm.

The vision as well as the planning and design goals for the framework are the culmination of work by the Eastern Cambridge Kendall Square Open Space (ECKOS) Planning Committee, which began meeting in May 2013 and has worked closely with city staff and the community throughout the process.

The four multidisciplinary teams selected as finalists are Somerville based Richard Burck Associates, Cambridge and Brooklyn based Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., Seattle based Framework, and San Francisco based SITELAB. A public exhibition of the teams’ proposals is currently on display in the Google Connector lobby at 355 Main Street, Cambridge. The plans can also be viewed online at www.connectkendallsquare.com and www.cambridgema.gov/kendallopenspace.

The finalist teams will present their framework plans to the Competition Jury March 25-26 at Cambridge City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway, 2nd floor meeting room. Presentations are open to the public and are scheduled as follows: Wednesday, March 25 (SITELAB Urban Studio 1:00-2:30pm; Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc. 3:00-4:30pm), and on Thursday, March 26 (Richard Burck Associates 8:30-10:00am; Framework Cultural Placemaking 10:30am-12:00pm).

Over the past several decades, Kendall Square has transformed from a former industrial area into a world-renowned center of biotech, high tech research, and innovation. In the past few years, the City of Cambridge has acquired three parcels in the area, which will be part of more than 5 acres of new and redesigned public open space. The framework derived from this competition will help determine the character and role of the new public open spaces in the area (which will be designed as part of separate, subsequent processes), and guide private entities as to potential programming and design of both existing and future open space as part of private developments.

For more information, contact Taha Jennings, Assistant to the City Manager, at 617-349-4302, tjennings@cambridgema.gov.

Sidewalk Poetry is Coming to Cambridge!

Quick Chair!The City of Cambridge is pleased to announce the launch of a Sidewalk Poetry Program, designed to stamp poems written by Cambridge residents into freshly poured sidewalk locations throughout the City. A collaboration of the Department of Public Works, Cambridge Arts, and the Cambridge Public Library, the Sidewalk Poetry Program will launch with a Poetry Contest to select several poems for 2015.

The Cambridge Sidewalk Poetry Program was inspired by a similar ongoing program in St. Paul, Minnesota, begun in 2008 by artist Marcus Young as artist-in-residence in the St. Paul Department of Public Works. St. Paul has over 450 poems in St. Paul sidewalks to date. The Cambridge program will integrate poetry into its routine sidewalk repairs. The fresh concrete necessary when the City pours new sidewalk panels will provide an opportunity to stamp a poem in selected locations throughout the City.

Any Cambridge resident of any age is invited to submit up to two poems to the 2015 Sidewalk Poetry Contest. Poems will be reviewed by a selection committee composed of representatives from Cambridge Public Works, Cambridge Public Library, and Cambridge Arts, as well as a former Poet Populist and a Cambridge high school student. The deadline for submissions is 11:59pm on Sunday, April 12, 2015. Winners will be announced on Thursday, April 30, 2015. For more information on submission guidelines and how to submit poems, please visit www.cambridgema.gov/sidewalkpoetry

Cambridge Rolls Out Lovin’ Local Raffle Card to Encourage Patronage of Businesses

Lovin Local CardThis winter has been rough on both Cambridge residents and businesses. The good news is that spring is just around the corner. In an effort to encourage increased shopping at Cambridge businesses, the City of Cambridge is launching the Lovin’ Local raffle card game from March 16-April 3, 2015. Here’s how it works: download a raffle card at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/lovinlocal or pick up a game card at one of the following locations:

  • Mayor’s Office, Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave.
  • Cambridge Main Library, 449 Broadway (Q& Desk)
  • Cambridge Community Development Department, City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway

Follow these rules:
Step 1: Shop at a local business.
Step 2: Have the local business sign a cell on the card
Step 3: Take a picture of yourself visiting at least 1 business and tweet, Instagram or Facebook a picture using the hashtag #LovinCambMA. Please tag the business you are visiting, too!

Raffle cards can be emailed, dropped off to the Mayor’s Office or City Hall Annex, or mailed in by Friday, April 3, 2015. More information and how to participate are available at: http://www.cambridgema.gov/lovinlocal.

"The Lovin’ Local contest is a creative way for residents and area workers to come together and support our local, small business economy," said City Manager Richard C. Rossi.

For more information on Lovin’ Local, go to www.cambridgema.gov/lovinlocal or contact Pardis Saffari at 617-349-4654 or psaffari@cambridgema.gov.

Cambridge CityRun 5-Mile Road Race and Henrietta’s 3-Mile Fun Walk
Sunday, March 29, 10:30am, Russell Youth Center, 680 Huron Avenue

Tim Toomey, Ace RunnerCambridge CityRun, a 5-Mile Road Race and Henrietta’s 3-Mile Fun Walk, is a popular rite of spring that attracts over 1,500 participants annually and was named one of the top 10 road races in New England for the 12th consecutive year by New England Runner magazine.

Proceeds from the event will benefit Friends of Cambridge Athletics and The Andrea Harvey Memorial Fund. The first 1,000 pre-entrants will receive a free T-shirt.

Registration:
Entry Fee is $30 on or before March 21, $35 after. Register online at www.cambridgecityrun.com, in-person through March 21 at Marathon Sports, 1654 Mass. Ave., Cambridge. On the day of the event, register from 8:30-10am and race begins promptly at 10:30am.

Race Route:
The scenic, flat, tree-lined course starts and finishes at the Russell Youth Center, 695 Huron Ave. From the start point, turn right on Grove St., right on Blanchard Rd., right on Concord Ave., right on Fresh Pond Parkway, right into Cambridge Water Department, then right onto Fresh Pond Reservoir Loop, right onto Fresh Pond Parkway, right onto Huron Ave.

For more information or to volunteer at event, contact Paul Ryder, 617-349- 6229 or pryder@cambridgema.gov.

Fair Housing Award Nominations Sought

April is Fair Housing Month and the Cambridge Human Rights Commission is accepting nominations for its Innovations in Fair Housing Awards. Consider nominating individuals and/or groups who are working hard to continue Cambridge’s long history of fair housing and diversity.

Individuals or groups should be Cambridge-based, involved in the promotion of fair housing, and have had a significant achievement within the last two years, with a focus on innovative work in support of fair housing.

When submitting nominations, please tell us why you think this person or group deserves this award and provide a description of the work performed in Cambridge to promote Fair Housing. Selected nominees will be honored at the Fair Housing Month Awards Ceremony Tuesday, April 14, 5-7pm, at Cambridge City Hall, Sullivan Chamber, 795 Mass. Ave.

Please send nominations via mail or email by March 30, 2015 at 8pm to: Nancy B. Schlacter, Fair Housing Project Coordinator, Cambridge Human Rights Commission, 51 Inman Street, 2nd floor, Cambridge, MA 02139; Email: nschlacter@cambridgema.gov.

Affordable Rental and Homeownership Programs Information Session March 24

The City of Cambridge will be holding a free, walk-in informational session on affordable rental and homeownership programs Tuesday, March 24, 6-8pm, at the Central Square Branch Library, 45 Pearl St. Additional information sessions will be held in different locations.

Housing personnel from the Community Development Department will be available to discuss the City’s affordable rental and homeownership programs. For more information, please contact us at 617-349-4622.

May 8, 2014

FY2015 Budget Notes – and a comment on political patronage

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:26 pm

FY2015 Budget Notes – and a comment on political patronage

The first round of the City Council’s FY2015 Budget hearings took barely more than 3 hours today. After a brief (and accurate) statement by Councillor Craig Kelley opposing a proposal to convert the personal assistants for individual councillors into full-time (patronage) jobs, the only departments to have their budgets pulled for further discussion were: (1) Law Department, (2) Information Technology, (3) Public Celebrations, (4) Traffic, Parking & Transportation, (5) Inspectional Services, and (6) License Commission. Most of the inquiries from councillors were brief, and much of the commentary was more like expressions of thanks for how well these departments operate.

The FY2015 Budget Book lists 2 full-time staff positions for the City Council, but the City Council budget includes $1,386,180 to cover the salaries of the city councillors and their aides. These personal aide jobs first appeared in 2006 as part-time positions (without benefits) within the Mayor’s Office budget, but were later shifted to the City Council budget. From the start, almost all of these the jobs were given to individuals connected to the political campaigns of the councillors. Only Councillor Kelley has resisted the patronage urge and operates without a personal aide.

This topic was the first matter discussed at the Government Operations Committee meeting on Tues, May 6. The recommendation of the committee was never really in doubt – of course they want to grant themselves additional political privilege (at taxpayer expense). The City Council apparently is choosing to ignore the fact that the Plan E Charter explicitly says that the City Council can hire exactly 3 positions: City Manager, City Clerk, and City Auditor. Some will argue that it is not the councillors who are appointing the aides, but the councillors choose them, and it’s inconceivable that City staff would ever deny any councillor their personal choice. There are no public postings for these positions, and none of them are subject to the usual range of requirements of other City employees.

It’s always entertaining (and equally aggravating) to hear councillors testify about how much work they do and how they absolutely need more and more staff. So many birthday resolutions, so little time. By the way, almost all of the current group of councillors have other jobs, so most are drawing two salaries. I suppose this explains why they feel the need for additional staff, but an equally good argument can be made for having their salaries cut in half in order to cover the cost of people to write all those birthday resolutions (which would bring them more in line with comparable positions in other cities and towns in the area).

Political privilege is like entropy. It always increases. – Robert Winters

April 28, 2014

FY2015 Budget – Key Items on the April 28, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 2:25 am

FY2015 Budget – Key Items on the April 28, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The central item on this week’s agenda is the submission of the FY2015 Budget. The City Manager will present a Budget Overview at this meeting, and the series of Budget Hearings will take place over the next several weeks (May 8, May 15, and May 21). It is anticipated that the final vote to approve the budget will take place on June 2.

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the FY2015 submitted budget and appropriation orders.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
Mayor $430,035 $558,785 $589,680 5.5 37.1
Executive $1,353,140 $2,008,150 $2,298,685 14.5 69.9
City Council $975,570 $1,683,125 $1,711,115 1.7 75.4
City Clerk $720,925 $1,119,765 $1,240,705 10.8 72.1
Law $1,780,975 $2,163,240 $2,176,975 0.6 22.2
Finance $8,837,560 $13,292,350 $14,540,220 9.4 64.5
Employee Benefits $20,499,920 $32,787,200 $32,882,665 0.3 60.4
General Services $984,345 $732,695 $704,725 -3.8 -28.4
Election $756,540 $1,013,565 $1,072,390 5.8 41.7
Public Celebrations $671,505 $891,945 $874,335 -2.0 30.2
Reserve $37,500 $37,500 $37,500 0.0 0.0
TOTAL $37,048,015 $56,288,320 $58,128,995 3.3 56.9
           
PUBLIC SAFETY FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
Animal Commission $228,870 $309,700 $323,535 4.5 41.4
Fire $28,891,840 $43,350,275 $44,661,535 3.0 54.6
Police $31,515,220 $47,186,015 $49,260,625 4.4 56.3
Traffic, Parking & Transportation $8,175,095 $10,935,015 $11,088,415 1.4 35.6
Police Review & Advisory Board $77,210 $73,440 $75,235 2.4 -2.6
Inspectional Services $2,261,215 $3,180,045 $3,270,335 2.8 44.6
License $726,735 $1,030,970 $1,063,745 3.2 46.4
Weights & Measures $98,910 $138,540 $142,935 3.2 44.5
Electrical $2,239,640 $2,840,910 $2,767,880 -2.6 23.6
Emergency Management $137,820 – – – –
Emergency Communications $3,097,485 $4,434,425 $4,631,960 4.5 49.5
TOTAL $77,450,040 $113,479,335 $117,286,200 3.4 51.4
           
COMMUNITY MAINT/DEVELOPMENT FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
Public Works $23,648,125 $32,859,690 $33,634,490 2.4 42.2
Community Development $4,472,620 $5,676,340 $6,335,440 11.6 41.6
Historical Commission $457,580 $632,940 $687,860 8.7 50.3
Conservation Commission $89,760 $123,470 $127,770 3.5 42.3
Peace Commission $76,215 $143,940 $148,445 3.1 94.8
Cable T.V. $999,500 $1,474,795 $1,452,495 -1.5 45.3
Debt Service $23,917,070 $49,716,250 $50,446,035 1.5 110.9
TOTAL $53,660,870 $90,627,425 $92,832,535 2.4 73.0
           
HUMAN RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
Library $5,461,430 $8,946,395 $9,249,325 3.4 69.4
Human Services $14,581,590 $23,155,080 $24,225,290 4.6 66.1
Women’s Commission $155,860 $233,115 $241,295 3.5 54.8
Human Rights Commission $158,730 $249,380 $266,890 7.0 68.1
Veterans $510,885 $1,005,375 $1,092,655 8.7 113.9
TOTAL $20,868,495 $33,589,345 $35,075,455 4.4 68.1
           
CITY TOTAL $189,027,420 $293,984,425 $303,323,185 3.2 60.5
           
EDUCATION FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
Schools Operating (TOTAL) $122,053,195 $150,989,445 $156,669,635 3.8 28.4
           
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
MWRA $16,177,455 $21,346,815 $22,189,730 3.9 37.2
Cherry Sheet Assessments $11,569,960 $20,126,950 $21,504,975 6.8 85.9
Cambridge Health Alliance $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,750,000 3.8 3.8
TOTAL $34,247,415 $47,973,765 $50,444,705 5.2 47.3
           
GRAND TOTALS $345,328,030 $492,947,635 $510,437,525 3.5 47.8
            
  FY05 submitted FY14 adopted FY15 submitted 1 yr % change 10 yr % change
WATER $17,098,120 $14,238,700 $13,964,275 -1.9 -18.3
PUBLIC INVESTMENT $8,834,255 $34,407,930 $16,548,370 -82.2 87.3

Note 1: Though the City Council’s budget is up just 1.7% over last year, it rose 75.4% over the decade – faster that all other entities in the General Government category.

Note 2: The overall submitted budget is $510,437,525 representing a 3.5% increase over last year’s budget.

Note 3: The Public Investment Fund this year include $3,800,000 for Information Technology Initiatives – apparently a response to a variety of City Council Orders in this area.

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Chun, et al zoning petition with suggestions for a possible alternative approach.

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board Report on the 2014 Town-Gown Process.

No particular comments here – just two reports from the Planning Board worth noting.

Manager’s Agenda #9-15. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow:

(a) $1,150,000 to provide funds for the design, drainage, and installation of new synthetic field surfaces on the soccer fields at Danehy Park.

(b) $150,000 to provide funds for the purchase and installation of mechanical components to ensure the operational integrity of the elevator at the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Facility.

(c) $550,000 to provide funds for renovations to the Thomas P. O’Neil, Jr. Fresh Pond Golf Course.

(d) $2,600,000 to provide funds for planning and municipal building renovations, including a Comprehensive Facilities Improvement Plan, design and construction of improvements at the City Hall Annex and upgrades to the City Hall Third Floor Women’s Restroom.

(e) $750,000 to provide funds for building renovations, including water infiltration system repair at the Haggerty School, replacement of the emergency generator at the Graham & Parks, Tobin and Cambridgeport Schools, and boiler replacement at the Graham & Parks School.

(f) $9,205,655 to provide funds for various water pollution abatement projects, including construction of sewer separation, stormwater management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the City’s Western Avenue and Agassiz areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and public toilet installation at Harvard Square.

(g) $1,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks.

These loan authorization orders are times to coincide with the FY2015 budget process.

Manager’s Agenda #16-17. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the rescission of the remaining amount:

(a) $1,000,000 of the loan order authorized by the City Council on May 21, 2012 for the City Hall Roof replacement project.

(b) $100,000 of the loan order authorized by the City Council on May 21, 2012 for the Ryan Garage and Simard Building Roof Replacement project.

We got lucky with a very favorable bidding environment for both of these roof replacement projects.

On The Table #5. That the Cambridge Community Development Department shall hold a series of public meetings to discuss the range of planning and zoning issues that have recently been in active discussion across the city, including, but not limited to, all varieties of housing (such as affordable, middle income, or other types of housing units), the amount, type and location of new and existing development, pre-fabricated units, transportation, congestion, open space, streetscape design, building design, sustainability, infrastructure and economic development with recommendations for moving forward on short range and long range planning work that is recommended as an outgrowth of these discussions. [Order Number Fifteen of Apr 7, 2014 Placed on Table on motion of Councillor Simmons on Apr 7, 2014.]

Communications & Reports from City Officers #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk transmitting a revised planning order submitted by Mayor David P. Maher and Councillor Dennis Carlone regarding the Master Plan.

MAYOR MAHER
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is required to have a comprehensive Master Plan to provide a basis for decision-making regarding the long-term physical development of the City; and
WHEREAS: The Master Plan should include: goals and policies, land use, housing, economic development, natural and cultural resources, open space and recreation, services and facilities, traffic and transportation, urban design plans, and implementation schedules; and
WHEREAS: According to the Community Development Department, the City’s Master Plan is composed of a growth policy document, the Zoning Map, Zoning Ordinances, and a variety of planning studies which in many cases have focused on specific neighborhoods within the City; and
WHEREAS: The City has experienced significant development and change in recent years making the need for periodic review of our current growth policies essential to our efforts to promote good urban planning; and
WHEREAS: The City Council understands that a balanced and sensible approach is necessary to better guide future development, and that the amount of development that has occurred in our community has provided social and economic benefits to our residents, while also understanding that residents have questioned or expressed concerns with several projects and issues related to citywide planning/urban design; and
WHEREAS: The City Council recognizes that a diverse set of values exists in our City and further recognizes that our City government must respond to the needs and viewpoints of all neighborhoods, residents and business partners; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to engage the services of an independent planning/urban design professional who will lead a community process beginning with a series of public meetings aimed at receiving public input and discussing the range of planning, urban design and zoning issues that have recently been in active discussion across the city, including, but not limited to, all varieties of housing (such as affordable, middle income, or other types of housing units), the amount, type and location of new and existing development, prefabricated units, building aesthetics, transportation, traffic and congestion, pedestrian and bicycle safety, open space, streetscape design, building design, community-building, sustainability, infrastructure, climate vulnerability and economic development; and be it further
ORDERED: That these initial meetings take place in a variety of neighborhoods throughout the city and that every effort be made to hold these meetings prior to June 30th, 2014; and be it further
ORDERED: At the conclusion of this series of meetings, the consultant along with CDD report their findings back to the City Council through the Ordinance Committee by July 31, 2014; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Council then consider recommendations and a strategy for moving forward on short and long range planning/urban design work based on these discussions, and that the Mayor schedule an upcoming Roundtable Discussion to include the City Council and the Planning Board to address the issue of a Master Plan and to help establish the city’s urban planning and community development priorities.

This was the central agenda item at the April 7 meeting at which the Mayor was requested to negotiate a substitute Order that might win the support of a clear majority of councillors. The essential difference between Order #14 and Order #15 at that meeting concerned whether any new look at comprehensive city planning should be a political process conducted within certain City Council committees (Order #14) or if it should be directed by those City entities (the Planning Board and the Community Development Department) whose job it is to carry out these activities.

It seems very unlikely that the proposed schedule can be met. It’s also not at all clear whether such a short time-frame is even a good idea. It may simply prove to be just a series of meetings in which activists opposed to new housing development send their troops to each and every meeting/workshop to create the (false) impression that the residents of the city are up in arms over the "tsunami of development." Hopefully some rational people will attend to help balance the tone. The intent of the proposed Order appears to be to conduct a short process that will then lead to a larger planning process. It seems likely, however, that some people will intentionally misinterpret this to imply that the goal of the short process is to produce a set of specific goals and that the larger process will then be for producing ways to implement those goals. This is NOT what the Order says.

I’m concerned that the Order calls for the short process to culminate in a report to the City Council via the Ordinance Committee by the end of July. The purpose of the Ordinance Committee is to deliberate on proposed ordinances, and these come to the committee as a result of City Council Orders. I cannot recall any precedent for the Ordinance Committee ever bypassing this protocol. It would be far better for the report to be delivered at a regular or special City Council meeting after which one or more Orders would be submitted and approved by a majority of the City Council to look into specific proposals or a plan for a larger process. I hope the City Council modifies the proposed Maher/Carlone Order accordingly.

The competing Orders of April 7 differed primarily in regard to which body should ultimately conduct a review of comprehensive planning for the city. The proposed Maher/Carlone Order only calls for a consultant to conduct the short process. It is silent on the matter of who shall conduct the longer process. The City Council will ultimately have to approve any significant proposed changes in policy, but any extensive process leading up to that approval should not be conducted by the City Council or any of its subcommittees.

Another aspect of this issue is whether there should be any kind of moratorium imposed on either new development or on changes to existing zoning that would allow any greater development. Though none of the proposed orders specifically call for such a moratorium, many activists who want to slow or stop housing growth have expressed this as a goal and they will continue to advocate for it. Other activists who favor new housing and "smart growth" will continue to advocate for their position. It seems likely that these competing points of view will not find resolution any time soon.

Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow an additional $11,000,000 to provide funds for construction and other associated costs of the King School project. The question comes on adoption on or after Apr 21, 2014.

This loan authorization order will likely get its final approval at this meeting.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to revisit the City’s policy of establishing Hubway stations in residential areas to determine whether this policy adequately balances the needs of the community and the desires of the residents and to report back to the City Council in a timely fashion.   Councillor Simmons

I suspect this Order grew out of the objections from some residents in the Dana Park area in Cambridgeport to a new on-street Hubway installation on Lawrence Street.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft a legal opinion on whether it is legally permissible to require a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) as part of the Board of Zoning Appeal special permit and variance application process and the Planning Board Project Review Special Permit application process and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Councillor Cheung

I’m guessing that this is not legal. There are plenty of worthy goals that cannot be turned into legally binding requirements. You will not, for example, find anything in the zoning code that mandates that union members must be employed in the construction of new buildings. A Memorandum of Understanding is one thing, but writing such agreements into zoning language is something entirely different.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel to determine what options may exist to provide dedicated office space to the members of the City Council.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Cheung and Councillor Carlone

Allow me to simply point out that during the last 15 years, city councillors have gained reserved parking spots behind City Hall that used to be available to full-time employees at City Hall; they saw their salaries rise dramatically; and they granted themselves the right to hire people from their political campaigns as taxpayer-funded "personal aides". In addition to the City Council office, the Sullivan Chamber, and relatively recent additional office space for councillors (and their "aides"), this Order now calls for there to be "dedicated office space to the members of the City Council". Almost all of the city councillors have other jobs. The job of a city councillor is not now and was never meant to be a full-time job. Adequate meeting space is what is needed – not private offices for individual councillors.

Order #11. That the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee is requested to provide an update to the City Council on any progress that has been made in drafting a Community Benefits & Mitigation Plan, and that an expected timeframe in which a formal recommendation on policy might be made to the City Council is also provided.   Councillor Simmons

I was wondering when this issue was going to find its way back into City Council consideration. It’s a tricky issue that’s been batted around now for a number of years without any serious movement.

Order #12. That the City Council hereby endorses the National Association of City Transportation Official’s Urban Street Design Guide.   Councillor Carlone

I hope the City Council takes the time to carefully go through this Design Guide before rubber-stamping it. For example, the NACTO website prominently features "cycle tracks" as their preferred facility for accommodating bicycle traffic. There are many people (including me) who disagree with this approach, and I have no doubt that if some of the designs were presented to the public there would be considerable debate. If one of the important roles of the City Council is to listen to the public, I would expect that at the very least this Design Guide should first get a hearing before the City Council’s Transportation & Public Utilities Committee prior to any approval.

Order #16. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department to work with the owner of 362 and 364 Rindge Avenue, non-profit housing agencies, the Affordable Housing Trust, and other potential public and private partners to develop a plan with the ultimate goal being the preservation of affordable units.   Councillor Mazen

These buildings were mentioned at a recent meeting of the City Council Housing Committee meeting as significant expiring-use residential buildings that were a high priority in retaining affordable housing in Cambridge. Though it’s good to have a City Council Order to emphasize this matter, it was already a top priority among the City’s various housing agencies and partners.

Order #28. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works and Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department on the feasibility of painting green all designated bicycle lanes on all major streets.   Councillor Cheung

It’s feasible to lay down paint, but it would then also have to be maintained. Most of the painted lanes the City has marked in the past have long since faded away, and except for key locations where they may be useful, they will again fade quickly. It’s better to provide this extra treatment at fewer priority locations that can be regularly maintained. – Robert Winters

September 29, 2013

Let’s Go Down to the Levy – Sept 30 City Council Agenda Notes

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 11:08 pm

Let’s Go Down to the Levy – Sept 30 City Council Agenda Notes

The most significant agenda item is the public hearing and vote relating to the proposed FY2014 tax rates.

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek approval from the Mass Dept. of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2014: [Full Report]

(1) The FY14 property tax levy of $328,544,945 reflects a $11,597,175 or 3.66% increase from FY13, the lowest increase since FY06.

(2) Pending approval from the Mass. Dept. of Revenue, the FY14 residential tax rate will be $8.38 per thousand dollars of value, a decrease of $0.28 or -3.23% from FY13. The commercial tax rate will be $20.44, a decrease of $1.06 or -4.9% from FY13.

(3) As has been the practice in recent years, $11 million in reserve accounts is being used to lower the property tax levy.

(4) Approximately 74.1% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100 in their FY14 tax bill. In addition, another 13.5% of residential taxpayers will see an increase between $100 and $250.

(5) The median tax bills show a 2.54% increase for single-family homes, a 2.54% decrease for condominiums, a 2.85% increase for two-family homes, and a 4.38% increase for three-family homes. These figures factor in the residential exemption ($215,649 for FY14).

(6) In large part due to new construction, the City’s excess levy capacity (as defined by Prop. 2½) increased by approximately $13.4 million, or 12.87%, to $117.5 million in FY14.

City Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a notification from the State Department of Revenue that as of July 1, 2013, the City of Cambridge certified free cash balance is $142,176,089.

This is the highest amount in the City’s history and represents a $26.3 million increase over last year.

City Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the proposed zoning petition regarding Medical Marijuana Regulations. [Full Report]

Basically, the plan is to create two "Medical Marijuana Overlay Zoning Districts" where dispensaries could be located. One area is on either side of Fresh Pond Parkway (including the Shopping Center) and the other is in the NorthPoint area. Related public health regulations governing these dispensaries are expected to follow.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Superintendent of Schools and the Assistant City Manager for Human Services with the view in mind of appointing a task force to recommend an approach to four year old education in Cambridge   Mayor Davis

This appears to be an outgrowth of last week’s Roundtable Meeting with the School Committee. Pretty soon we’ll have a record number of Task Forces.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to review the selection process for the Inclusionary Unit program with a view toward making the process favorable towards former and current Cambridge residents.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to establish an owner’s handbook to be given to all residents living in Inclusionary Units, and for the Community Development Department to establish formal, annual check-in meetings with all Inclusionary Unit residents.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to report back to the City Council on the style, quality, and long-term care of all Inclusionary Units.   Vice Mayor Simmons

This is a curious suite of Orders from Councillor Simmons reflecting questions and concerns about the operational aspects of the City’s generally very successful Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

It’s worth noting that the naysayers from the "Cambridge Residents Alliance" (CRA) recently stated: "We reject inclusionary zoning as the primary way to develop affordable housing by including a small percentage of affordable units in large towers of market-rate housing. In fact, those developments have a ripple effect on surrounding neighborhoods, driving rental prices up and leading to a net loss from the city of residents who need affordable units." The CRA’s preferred approach seems to be centered on policies designed to concentrate low income residents in specific areas, especially in and around Central Square. Their thesis that increasing the supply of housing causes housing prices to rise is questionable at best.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to evaluate new technology methods of communicating street sweeping to residents, with the specific request that an "opt-in" text alert be sent to residents who own parking passes (and resident guest parking passes) by linking geo-coded phone numbers with locations that are to be swept.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

"No parking on the Odd side of the street or your car will be tagged and towed." – I guess that’s not clear enough for the new wave of residents who can’t survive ten minutes without their blessed little iPhones.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Department of Public Works to devote a greater number of resources towards the challenge of improving the cleanliness of Central Square.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

I can’t argue with the intent of this Order, but it’s really more about how the available resources are deployed than just the raw amount of resources. Also, there has to be a lot more required of those property owners in Central Square who are not doing their fair share. For example, if the patrons of the Middle East cover every post and utility box with stickers and other graffiti doesn’t it make sense that the good owners of the Middle East should hire someone to clean up their mess? It’s not right to just dump all the responsibility on the DPW.

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to review the permitting process and any zoning and building code barriers to greater adoption of solar energy.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Aug 21, 2013 to discuss the proposed "Net Zero" amendment to the Zoning Ordinance….

Councillor vanBeuzekom’s Order is the kind of energy efficiency initiative that actually makes sense in that it addresses what all property owners could potentially choose to do to conserve energy and save money. In the meantime, however, we have to suffer through the narrow focus and questionable legality of the election-motivated "Net Zero" proposal. – Robert Winters

May 20, 2013

Merry Month of May – Cambridge City Council May 20, 2013 Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,cycling,School Committee — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:00 am

Merry Month of May – Cambridge City Council May 20, 2013 Agenda Highlights

Amidst the flowering trees and the birds and the bees, springtime also brings the annual City Budget to the peaceful garden of Cambridge. The Big News is that the School Department Budget was not passed by the City Council’s Finance Committee amidst suggestions that important questions asked were not being answered. The 3-4-1-1 vote at the May 9 Budget Hearing [YES – Decker, Maher, Davis; NO – Simmons, Kelley, Cheung, vanBeuzekom; PRESENT – Toomey; ABSENT: Reeves] means that on the night when the final vote on the FY2014 Budget was expected to occur, the largest single component of the budget ($151 million) remains in committee. There appears to be trouble in the garden.

This might have been resolved on May 16 when there was a scheduled meeting of the Finance Committee if necessary, but Finance Committee Chair Marjorie Decker canceled that meeting. Instead of an actual meeting, we’ve been treated to a flurry of letters by city councillors and School Committee members posted here and on the Cambridge Chronicle website. [Mcgovern/Harding (May 13); Davis (May 13); vanBeuzekom (May 14); Cheung (May 14); Decker (May 15); Cheung, Kelley, Reeves, Simmons (May 16 and on this agenda); and Simmons (May 17).] Monday’s meeting agenda is interesting in that there are proposed policy orders that are incompatible. One order calls for the School Committee budget to be released from the Finance Committee and the unresolved issues discussed at a joint Roundtable meeting after the Budget is passed. The other order calls for the Finance Committee Chair to schedule a meeting of the committee before June 3 to resolve these matters prior to the Budget being passed by the City Council. The School Committee is not involved in these votes, but the co-chairs of their Budget Committee, Richard Harding and Marc McGovern, have been quite outspoken in characterizing the City Council’s actions as "reckless."

Here are the agenda items related to the current impasse:

Order #1. That the School Department budget be discharged from the Finance Committee and be referred to the full City Council for adoption at the City Council meeting of May 20, 2013.   Mayor Davis and Councillor Decker

Order #9. That the City Council schedule a Roundtable Meeting on June 10, 2013 at 5:30pm to meet with the School Committee members, the Superintendent of Schools and the School Department as a follow-up meeting to discuss issues raised in the FY14 School Department Budget hearing held on May 9, 2013.   Mayor Davis

Order #17. That the City Council respectfully urges the Chair of the Finance Committee to convene further budget hearings, to allow for additional discussions, with the hope of resolving any outstanding concerns that individual City Councillors may have regarding the FY2014 School Budget.   Vice Mayor Simmons, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Cheung

Communications & Reports from City Officers #2. A communication was received from Councillors Cheung, Kelley, Reeves and Vice Mayor Simmons transmitting a copy of a letter to Mayor Davis regarding the Cambridge School Department budget. [This communication gives a very detailed list of grievances/concerns.]

Communications & Reports from City Officers #3. A communication was received from Jeffrey M. Young, Superintendent of Schools regarding the Cambridge School Department Budget.

Communications & Reports from City Officers #5. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis regarding the School Budget.

Communications & Reports from City Officers #6. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis transmitting a copy of a memorandum from Carolyn L. Turk, Deputy Superintendent of Schools regarding Capital Improvements and Corresponding Educational Planning.

Late Communications & Reports from City Officers #7. A communication from Mayor Henrietta Davis regarding the FY2014 School Budget.

Letter from Massachusetts Association of School Committees (written by Glenn Koocher)

It will be interesting to see how this is resolved if, in fact, it is resolved. There has been a lot of talk around town about how the highly-touted Innovation Agenda may not be as rosy in its implementation as it was in its initial presentation. This may not be entirely apparent in the above communications, but the failure to pass the School Department Budget was most likely preceded by many phone calls and e-mail messages to city councillors from parents of children in the public schools.

In other matters, we have these items:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to develop a progress report on all of the non-zoning recommendations submitted by the Central Square Advisory Committee   Councillor Cheung, Councillor Reeves and Vice Mayor Simmons

This is important. Potential zoning changes to enhance retail and residential opportunities in Central Square will come before the City Council later this year and will hopefully pass in some form. However, many quality-of-life issues and actions that support the retail environment of Central Square are not part of the zoning code and should not be ignored while the zoning discussion continues.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to explore how the City of Cambridge can adjust the structure of its commissions to make them project-based and have the appropriate levels of funding for projects.   Councillor Cheung

It’s a little difficult to read between the lines of Councillor Cheung’s order. Taking a long, hard look at the structure and purposes of the City’s various non-regulatory borads and commissions is overdue, but this order could be little more than a prompt for the City Manager to hire an executive director for one particular board.

City Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-62, regarding a report on evaluating and incorporating traffic signaling during very low traffic volume times.

I found it interesting that the loop detector on Lee St. at Harvard Ave. is not on the list. Perhaps this is why it never registers the presence of my bicycle no matter how I position myself there. The loop detector on Lee St. at Broadway is on the list, but it does not detect bicycles. If you’re on a bike at a red light and there’s no way to make it turn green, what exactly are you supposed to do?

Unfinished Business #14. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Apr 3, 2013 to discuss an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Section 6.100 Bicycle Parking, and to create a new definition for Bicycle Parking in Article 2.000, modify the yard standards in Article 5.000 as they relate to bicycle parking and modifying various sections of Article 6.000 to remove references to bicycle parking. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after May 6, 2013. Planning Board hearing held Mar 19, 2013. Petition expires June 17, 2013. May 6, 2013 substituted language referred to Unfinished Business and remained on Unfinished Business.

Having spoken and written about this petition in the past, I’ll just make one simple suggestion for an amendment: Require that in any renovation of a residential or commercial property there be no net reduction in the potential for secure bicycle storage below the established minimum as proposed in this zoning amendment. That is, if basement or garage storage space is converted into living space this should not eliminate the potential of an appropriate amount of secure bicycle parking. – Robert Winters

May 16, 2013

Communication from Councillors Cheung, Kelley, Reeves and Simmons to Mayor Davis (May 16, 2013)

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,School Committee,schools — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:51 pm

May 16, 2013

Mayor Henrietta Davis
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear Mayor Davis:

With only three of all nine Councillors voting in favor of the Cambridge School Department budget on Thursday, it is clear that there is a heightened level of frustration and angst amongst the Council – one that should not go unnoticed. The principal duty of the Cambridge City Council is to exercise fiduciary control over the City of Cambridge to ensure that it is meeting and exceeding the goals set by the Council each session. As adopted in December of 2011, one of our principal goals is to "strengthen and support human services, public education, and out of school learning in Cambridge for the benefit of residents of all ages". On May 9, the will of the Council showed that questions and concerns remain as to whether the budget makes significant strides towards meeting this integral goal.

Many citizens throughout the City share this concern. In each of the last three Citizen Satisfaction Surveys, the quality of our public schools has been the top ranking concern amongst all Cambridge residents. It is crucial that all elected and appointed officials understand the importance of addressing the concerns that our community has expressed and that many Councillors raised in regard to the budget as it was presented at the May 9 Finance Committee meeting. We recognize that the wealth of concerns that were raised at this point may not be met in the next year, much less be solved during this current budget discussion, but it is important for the District to acknowledge that these concerns are real and that the District, coordinating with Cambridge’s elected officials and relevant City staff, will address them and develop a comprehensive, data-driven and outcomes-oriented long term plan to work towards accomplishing them in the years to come.

In particular, we think the District must make a clear and focused effort in these areas:

1. Research has time and time again demonstrated that youngsters who participate in a high-quality preschool program demonstrate higher levels of academic achievement, more socially responsible behavior, and make significantly higher earnings as an adult. We must invest in early childhood education to ensure that each and every child in Cambridge has the opportunity to attend preschool, and the current budget should more clearly explain how CPSD is supporting this notion now and how that support will be continued in the future. If the budget does not address this concern, it is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

2. Throughout discussions about CPSD with current, former, and prospective families, classroom management, school climate and teacher training are consistently recurring issues, as is supported by past CPSD parent surveys. We would like to see a budget that sets clear goals for teacher training as it relates to classroom management and school climate, along with associated data about student disciplinary issues. We understand that the CPSD budget cannot include every effort that the District is making, but it is important that the budget reflect the attempts made to address major concerns raised by the families it has been created to serve. A failure to assess these issues in the current budget is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

3. Family engagement has been another important issue that the FY2014 School Department budget appears to overlook. The Family Liaisons play critical roles in ensuring that parents have a steady guide through all school-related issues and concerns, and they are tireless advocates for the children they work with, often going above and beyond their job descriptions to ensure that our kids get the very best educational experience possible. Study after study has shown that children do better at school when there is an active partnership with the parents and the families, yet the money devoted to Family Liaisons and the family engagement process is nowhere as robust as it needs to be. A failure to assess this great need in the current budget is not in line with the Council’s goal of strengthening public education.

4. Understanding why students and families opt to leave the District, whether it be to attend a charter school, private school, or school in another district, is crucial for schools to improve. At present, the City spends approximately 9-11 million dollars annually, depending on state reimbursement formulas, on charter schools and a significant proportion of school-aged residents opt not to attend Cambridge public schools. Making an aggressive attempt to understand what educational needs that families perceive CPSD as not well-equipped to meet seems like a logical first step in figuring out how to address these concerns. If we do not address the concerns of residents who ultimately decide to send their children to academic institutions outside of CPSD, the Council is not furthering its goal of strengthening public education in the City of Cambridge.

5. The Council has committed to an extensive school building upgrade project that will add a quarter of a billion dollars to our City’s debt load, a figure that will bring our total debt load beyond the level at which we have traditionally set the limit. Additionally, we’ve discussed the potential of extended day, expanded pre-k, eventually expanding the wrap around program, giving computers to kids, broader world language offerings, an office of college success, and other potentially large programmatic expenditures which are not accounted for in the long-term budgetary plan. While we are fully in support of investing in programs and facilities to give our students and staff the facilities they need to grow and thrive, we need a more comprehensive long-term picture to make informed decisions about expenditures that will ultimately be reflected in higher taxes for our residents. We also need to understand the trade-offs and considerations that go in to thinking about how these programs and facilities will increase our return on investment, given that Cambridge already has one of the highest per pupil costs in the state. The failure of the budget to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal of "[evaluating] City expenditures with a view of maintaining a strong fiscal position and awareness of the impact on taxpayers while providing a high quality array of city services".

6. There is a concern that the population growth may not keep pace with the amount of building renovation called for in the proposed school budget. It would be most unfortunate if, after a decade of renovations, the City has four state-of-the-art school buildings with precious few students to occupy them. This is why it is important that we have at least a five-year projection for the Innovation Agenda. We would be much better served if we have a sense of how much this will cost going forward, if we can anticipate what additional expenses may need to be called for, what additional positions may be created that will need funding, how many students will be expected to be housed in these buildings, and so forth. The failure of the budget to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal of "[evaluating] City expenditures with a view of maintaining a strong fiscal position and awareness of the impact on taxpayers while providing a high quality array of city services".

7. Why, in a District that is very multi-cultural, do so many events, activities, programs and awards seem to be demographically disparate? The systemic inequities and racial unbalances that continue to exist between student populations strongly impact the ability of all of our children to reach their full potential. Failure to address this concern is not in line with the Council’s goal to "value and support the racial, socio-economic, cultural and religious diversity of our city".

Given the scope of the $150,000,000 CPSD budget, along with the roughly 22 million dollars in charter school payments and school construction debt service, it is clear to us that not all of our concerns will be able to be met immediately. We would like a clear commitment from the School Committee and CPSD staff that the next budget year will start with a focused discussion with the City Council and City staff of the above-listed concerns, and that measurable steps will be taken to ensure that additional concerns of families, students, and members of the community are addressed as well. If we can get that clear commitment, we would be willing to support this year’s CPSD budget and work with all concerned parties to make sure future budgets better reflect the fiscal and educational concerns of the City.

Several years ago, we initiated the practice of holding City Council-School Committee Roundtables to increase the amount of communication between these two bodies, in the hopes of avoiding the very situation in which we now find ourselves. It would appear that we either need to increase the number of Roundtables we hold each year, or we need to set aside specific Roundtables each year to devote exclusively to discussing drafting the school budget, to ensure that City Councillors are able to publicly provide feedback as a group and air concerns during the budget drafting process.

Please feel free to contact us directly should you have any questions or concerns about this communication.

Sincerely,
Councillor Leland Cheung
Councillor Craig Kelley
Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves
Vice Mayor E. Denise Simmons

Cc: Councillor Marjorie Decker, Finance Committee Chair
City Council
School Committee
Superintendent Jeff Young
City Manager Bob Healy
Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi

May 15, 2013

Letter from Councillor Leland Cheung – responding to Co-chairs of the Budget Subcommittee of the Cambridge School Committee

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,School Committee — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 10:18 am

Sometimes fighting for the greater good requires a willingness to say no to good enough.

I ran for the City Council to make the City of Cambridge a better place to live and raise a family – not to be a rubber stamp. During my time in office, I’ve held developers’ feet to the fire to improve community benefits, I’ve pressed city departments via Council Orders to better respond to resident concerns, and I’ve voted no on the Information Technology budget to pressure the City Manager to invest more in digitally connecting residents to their government.

Throughout the City’s budget process, my colleagues and I expect a data-driven, outcomes focused, long-term plan for excellence from the City Manager. I believe that the same standards should also apply to the School Committee’s budget. On Thursday, I heard great questions by my colleagues that were ultimately left unanswered by the Superintendent of the Cambridge Public Schools, so I voted to hold the budget in committee instead of rubber stamping it and referring it to the regular Council meeting for adoption. This was not a vote against students, the schools, or the programs therein; this was not a ‘gotcha’ vote; this was a procedural vote in response to unanswered questions saying we’re not ready. There is plenty of time to resolve these issues and I fully believe that the budget will eventually pass the City Council, but I wanted to send a message that I believe the City of Cambridge can do more for its kids and that I expect a budgetary plan that is focused on achieving that.

The Council has been raising these questions for years. For almost a decade, Councillor Toomey has been pressing on the systemic inequities in the schools closest to his home. Councillor Kelley has repeatedly called for exit interviews to help us compete with charter schools and other districts. During the School Department budget discussion last year, I asked the administration to tell the Council and the community what it would take for the Cambridge Public School System to become best in class. I asked to see a plan based on considered trade-offs that helped the Council anticipate what the impact on the overall budget would be if we were to implement some of the ideas under discussion, like universal early education, an extended school day, an Office of College Success, increased professional development for teachers, computers for students, broader world language offerings, expanded wrap-around services, and so on.

The Council has committed to a building upgrade program that is expected to cost Cambridge taxpayers upwards of a quarter of a billion dollars and risks exceeding our debt limit guidelines. To make informed financial decisions, the Council needs a better long term budget plan from the school administration. To make sure taxpayer money is being well spent, the Council needs a plan that adequately addresses all the concerns my colleagues raised. At a cost of $151 million for 6,000 students, every graduate of the Cambridge Public Schools should have all the tools they need to succeed, thrive, and prosper in an increasingly competitive world. If that’s not possible in the current budget, we need to see a roadmap for what it would take.

Contrary to statements made by the Finance Chairs of the School Committee, this was not a political maneuver by a handful of Councillors. After I heard so many of my colleagues’ great questions receive unsatisfactory answers, I asked for a named up/down vote because I felt in my heart of hearts that this budget was not ready to pass on its merits. I was surprised by the outcome, but in retrospect the fact that only 3 of 9 Councillors voted to say that the budget was ready to move on to adoption demonstrates a heightened level of frustration and angst amongst the Council. It demonstrates that the Council thinks the school system is failing to achieve the outcomes that we know our community is capable of.

I hope that instead of focusing on feelings of personal insult or anger with the process that the Finance Chairs will interpret the vote as constructive criticism on the presented budget and a signal that the Council is ready to better invest in our students if there is a data-driven, outcomes focused, long-term plan for excellence that holds us all accountable. The single most important responsibility of our society is to invest in the education of the next generation. When it comes to our schools, there is no such thing as good enough.

Leland Cheung
City Councillor

May 10, 2013

FY2014 School Department Budget Stalled by City Council

Filed under: City Council,School Committee,schools — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 9:14 am

The Cambridge City Council at its FY2014 Budget Hearing on May 9 failed to approve the School Department Budget of $150,989,445 on a 3-4-1-1 vote [YES – Decker, Maher, Davis; NO – Simmons, Kelley, Cheung, vanBeuzekom; PRESENT – Toomey; ABSENT: Reeves]. The budgeted amount represents a 4.1% increase over the previous year and is in line with the increases of other City departments. This should require at least one more meeting of the Finance Committee to take up the FY2014 Budget and, presumably, another meeting of the School Committee to respond to the rejection of its budget. [Update – The Budget was not rejected, but held in the Finance Committee pending the resolution of a variety of questions. It was subsequently discharged on May 20 without any of these questions being addressed.]

Under the Charter, the City Council may reduce any submitted departmental budgets but they may not increase them. On the other hand, requests can be made through the City Manager to adjust and resubmit budgets. Cambridge being Cambridge, it’s likely that the budget rejection is based on a desire to spend MORE money rather than less money. It is the responsibility of the Cambridge School Committee to determine how money is allocated within the School Department budget. The City Council can only vote on the bottom line. If the intention of the City Council is to now involve itself in specific School Department budget items, this represents a radical departure from what is permitted under the Charter and calls into question the role and responsibilities of the School Committee. – RW

Reference: Cambridge Chronicle story

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress