Blessing of the Big Budget – June 3, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
Unless the government is overthrown before Monday night, this week’s City Council meeting will have as its central feature the series of votes for approving the FY2025 Budget as well as the major loan authorizations that accompany it. Here are the agenda items I thought significant this week:
The FY2025 Budget and Loan Authorizations
Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2024, regarding the City budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report ]
Nolan notes ignorance of some people re: when Budget comes to a vote, anticipation of more difficult financial decisions in future; Pickett notes that Budget vote will be better advertised in future, concerns about coming tax rates and need to curtail spending, desire to take closer look at capital spending; Wilson has procedural questions and possibility of delaying vote (due to uninformed public comment by one individual); Yi-An Huang expresses concerns about re-opening these matters so late in process; Taha Jennings notes that state law requires budget votes within 45 days of budget submission; Comments by Nolan, Pickett on Public Investment budget; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
General Fund Budget of $939,336,875 Adopted 9-0
Water Fund Budget of $16,247,475 Adopted 9-0
Public Investment Budget of $38,432,720 Adopted 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2024, regarding the School Department budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 14, 2024, regarding the City budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Unfinished Business #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the appropriation and authorization to borrow $11,500,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Nolan; Loan Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,350,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support significant building improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Proposed projects include but are not limited to upgrades of Public Works facilities, municipal offices, youth centers, branch libraries and fire stations, renovations to 105 Windsor Street and upgrades of HVAC and electrical systems. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $3,000,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of open spaces at the Peabody School Playground, Corcoran (Raymond Street) Park, Rafferty Park, Wilder-Lee Park, and 359 Broadway. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Nolan, Pickett; Loan Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,560,000 to provide funds for financing school building upgrades. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Pickett, Simmons; Loan Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of and authorization to borrow $6,550,000 to provide funds for the Ozone Generator Replacement; Water Treatment Plant equipment and systems upgrades and water works construction projects in coordination with DPW street restoration projects, which include Massachusetts Ave 4, Chestnut, Dana, Sciarappa and Winter Streets. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $8,500,000 to provide funds for the sewer Capital Repairs Program and projects related to climate change preparedness efforts. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0
| GENERAL GOVERNMENT | FY2024 adopted | FY2025 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| City Clerk | $1,818,560 | $2,162,335 | 18.9% |
| City Council | $2,649,690 | $2,817,000 | 6.3% |
| Election Commission | $2,408,620 | $2,447,755 | 1.6% |
| Employee Benefits | $28,241,740 | $27,111,425 | -4.0% |
| Equity and Inclusion | $2,270,380 | new | |
| Executive (*) | $8,467,495 | $6,845,075 | -19.2% |
| Finance | $24,714,165 | $26,479,690 | 7.1% |
| Human Resources (Personnel) | $4,160,630 | $5,513,370 | 32.5% |
| Law | $4,152,645 | $4,356,320 | 4.9% |
| Mayor | $973,255 | $1,306,905 | 34.3% |
| Public Celebrations | $1,621,360 | $1,793,575 | 10.6% |
| Reserve | $40,000 | $40,000 | 0.0% |
| TOTAL | $79,248,160 | $83,143,830 | 4.9% |
| PUBLIC SAFETY | FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| Animal Commission | $673,010 | $706,165 | 4.9% |
| Community Safety | $3,036,620 | $3,090,825 | 1.8% |
| Emergency Communications | $10,346,540 | $10,930,090 | 5.6% |
| Fire | $70,461,720 | $74,755,005 | 6.1% |
| Inspectional Services | $5,228,140 | $5,544,615 | 6.1% |
| License Commission | $1,706,185 | $2,009,740 | 17.8% |
| Police | $78,367,440 | $80,945,830 | 3.3% |
| Police Review & Advisory Board | $9,900 | $9,900 | 0.0% |
| Traffic, Parking & Transportation | $16,998,910 | $18,077,040 | 6.3% |
| TOTAL | $186,828,465 | $196,069,210 | 4.9% |
| COMMUNITY MAINT/DEVEL. | FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| Cable T.V. | $1,813,725 | $1,880,965 | 3.7% |
| Capital Building Projects | $1,574,415 | $1,872,660 | 18.9% |
| Community Development (**) | $40,890,300 | $11,257,750 | -72.5% |
| Conservation Commission | – | – | – |
| Debt Service | $89,585,875 | $101,890,280 | 13.7% |
| Historical Commission | $1,040,215 | $1,096,310 | 5.4% |
| Housing | $27,834,470 | new | |
| Office of Sustainability | $3,143,675 | new | |
| Peace Commission | $228,225 | $237,210 | 3.9% |
| Public Works | $69,094,590 | $73,911,430 | 7.0% |
| TOTAL | $204,227,345 | $223,124,750 | 9.3% |
| HUMAN RESOURCE/DEVEL. | FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| Commission on Women | $345,945 | $493,220 | 42.6% |
| Human Rights Commission | $874,840 | $878,550 | 0.4% |
| Human Services | $59,224,695 | $73,251,275 | 23.7% |
| Library | $18,950,730 | $19,391,415 | 2.3% |
| Veterans | $1,067,600 | $1,360,950 | 27.5% |
| TOTAL | $80,463,810 | $95,375,410 | 18.5% |
| CITY TOTAL | $550,767,780 | $597,713,200 | 8.5% |
| EDUCATION | FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| Schools Operating (TOTAL) | $245,000,000 | $268,250,000 | 9.5% |
| INTERGOVERNMENTAL | FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change |
| Cambridge Health Alliance | $8,316,000 | $8,671,170 | 4.3% |
| Cherry Sheet Assessments | $33,586,010 | $33,101,520 | -1.4% |
| MWRA | $30,601,130 | $31,600,985 | 3.3% |
| TOTAL | $72,503,140 | $73,373,675 | 1.2% |
| GRAND TOTALS | $868,270,920 | $939,336,875 | 8.2% |
| FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | 1 yr % change | |
| WATER | $15,502,965 | $16,247,475 | 4.8% |
| PUBLIC INVESTMENT | $18,056,905 | $38,432,720 | 112.8% |
| FY24 adopted | FY25 proposed | ||
| Loan Authorizations for Capital Budget | $50,000,000 | $11,500,000 | |
| $35,350,000 | $4,350,000 | ||
| $2,500,000 | $3,000,000 | ||
| $1,800,000 | $2,560,000 | ||
| $51,500,000 | $6,550,000 | ||
| $26,000,000 | $8,500,000 | ||
| Total Loan Authorizations | $167,150,000 | $36,460,000 |
* 7.7% combined increase for Executive/Equity-Inclusion
** 3.3% combined increase for CDD/Housing/Sustainability
All this should breeze through on either unanimous votes or the typical protest vote from any DSA-affiliates who want to continue beating that old “defund the police” horse. I am far more concerned about the residential tax bills we’ll be seeing in late October when all this has to be funded. Single-, two-, and three-family homeowners may be in for quite a shock based on indications so far.
Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization of $15,000,000 to provide additional funds for the construction of improvements at the Fire Station Headquarters Building located at 491 Broadway. [Passed to 2nd Reading May 20, 2024; Eligible for Adoption June 3, 2024]
Appropriation Adopted 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Adam Westbrook and Diego Macias as members and Daniel Anderson and Joy Jackson as associate members of the Planning Board for a term of five-years.
pulled by Nolan (on representativeness of appointees); comments by Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; Nolan wants balance on approach to development; Siddiqui wants to know rubric used to select appointees, wants Boston Society of Architects to be involved; Azeem notes charter change, importance of ideology, wants Planning Board to be aligned with City Council; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants data on number of applicants over time and if stipends have affected this, wants to have City Council confirmation process or opportunity to interview applicants prior to appointment; Toner OK with prior process but would prefer to be consulted on applicants prior to appointment; Wilson concerned about diversity of candidates, also wants to be consulted prior to appointments, wants to know how many of the applicants were “persons of color”, when next appointments will occur (three in Aug, Nov 2026); responses by Swathi Joseph re: vetting by Diversity & Inclusion Office; Simmons also wants to know how many of the applicants were “persons of color”; Wilson wants this information in writing; Yi-An Huang describes and defends process, expresses concerns about possible effect of City Council inquisition on willingness of residents to apply; Farooq says 5 of 11 interviewed were “persons of color”; Simmons questions what “persons of color” entails, wants further discussion of Council role in appointments; Appointments Approved 9-0
Making Cambridge More Like Flushing – Or Not
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding the Ronayne, et al., Zoning Petition. (CM24#115) [text of report]
Referred to Petition 9-0
Committee Report #5. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on May 8, 2024, to discuss allowing multifamily housing in all neighborhoods of the city. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #6. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on May 22, 2024, to continue the May 8, 2024, discussion on allowing multifamily housing in all neighborhoods of the city. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I attended a recent Ordinance Committee meeting on this petition. It’s actually a pretty good zoning petition, but apparently Mr. Azeem and the ABC crowd will have none of it because it doesn’t go nearly far enough toward making all of Cambridge more like Flushing, NY. I am a graduate of Flushing High School, by the way, and I watched how entire blocks of mixed-scale housing were wiped clean and uniformly replaced by 6-story boxes with near-zero setbacks. This has not stabilized rents there, and it’s a far more hostile place than what I remember. I almost feel as though Flushing has finally followed me to Cambridge – even though it took a while.
Other than the fact that both the Ronayne Petition and the nascent “Azeem-Siddiqui-Cotter-Farooq” petition both call for legalizing multi-family housing in all residential zones, these are two radically different proposals and visions. The former still maintains good neighborhood-scale heights and densities in many residential areas, but the latter would drop all residential zones into a blender and permit the same significantly greater heights and densities across all residential areas of the city. Say what you will but I actually appreciate the current diversity of residential densities and housing types that can currently be found in Cambridge.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request – if necessary – to move to Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as Dalkia Energy Services v. Cambridge, Kendall Green Energy Holdings LLC v. Cambridge, and Southern Energy Kendall v. Cambridge, (Appellate Tax Board Dockets F325664, F325663, F325665, F328941, and all related Appellate Tax Board Docket Numbers for these cases), which are appeals before the Appellate Tax Board.
pulled by Nolan; relates to prior Mgr #7; Solicitor Megan Bayer explains; Executive Session not needed; Placed on File 9-0
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to clarify why the Wage Theft Enforcement Committee has not yet been appointed and to swiftly appoint the committee as called for in the Wage Theft Ordinance. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to explore the feasibility of delaying the Mass Avenue reconstruction project to minimize its impact upon the busy season for restaurants and other affected businesses, and, should this not be found feasible, a method of providing financial assistance to the impacted businesses to cover the costs of removing their outdoor dining structures, designed to mitigate some of the financial impacts upon them, should be established. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Pickett, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Nolan; Wilson add as sponsor 9-0; Charter Right – Simmons
Central Square Table-Setting
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to provide a list of current zoning initiatives along with CDD’s recommendations for a timeline for completing each of the zoning initiatives in order for the Council to confirm zoning priorities. Councillor Pickett, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Toner; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD to provide a written outreach plan for engaging the community related to the processes underway in Central Square. Councillor Pickett, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Nolan, Simmons; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #7. That the City Manager is hereby requested to provide the draft Request for Information for the 84 & 96 Bishop Allen Drive to the City Council for review and comment. Councillor Pickett, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett; Order Adopted 9-0
I have been closely following the current discussions about possible Central Square rezoning and the Central Square Lots Study. Perhaps more than anything, I find the whole paradigm of Central Square advocacy to be rather wrong-headed. Too many people think of Central Square as though it’s a utility meant to provide for much of what the rest of the city would never dream of hosting, e.g. low-income housing and social services. Even the “outreach plans” so far adhere to this flawed paradigm. Historically, Central Square was a major draw for all of Cambridge and greater Boston for shopping and recreation. There are now many people who purposely avoid “Central Scare” due to either real or perceived safety concerns. Nowhere on the list of “target groups” for outreach about Central Square planning did I see any mention of the thousands of people who now avoid Central Square because of these concerns or because Central Square simply doesn’t currently have a whole lot to offer them or their families. My vision of the future Central Square would have a lot of families with children, people of all ages, and ample recreation for everybody.
Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to provide to the City Council a detailed justification for the increased fees for Youth Centers for the 2024-2025 school year. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan (PO24#75)
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Toner, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Simmons, Azeem, Ellen Semonoff, Yi-An Huang; add Wilson, Nolan as sponsors 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Charter Right #1. City Council support of the Act Establishing Protections and Accountability for TNC and DNC Workers (S.627/H1158), which would allow TNCs to sustain worker benefits and protections that maintain a level playing field across transportation industries. [Charter Right – Toner, May 20, 2024]
I have been seeing advertisements on the TV that make it difficult to take a side on this issue. I have no love for the Uber and Lyft companies and I think they should have to play by rules comparable to taxi companies, but I can really sympathize with drivers who like having some independence and choice and who would rather not see themselves as traditional employees of these companies. When was the last time we heard the phrase “gig economy”?
49 Communications – quite tame in comparison to recent weeks. Based on some of the current zoning proposals, Central Square discussions, and more, I suspect the template emails to pick up again soon. – Robert Winters
Perhaps this is the year we’ll march in like a lamb and out like a lion. There are some interesting things circling around – notably the recent Feb 28 Finance Committee meeting where City staff made it abundantly clear that the City Council might want to be just a bit less ambitious and expansive in their requests to fund everything under the sun. They are anticipating tax levy increases for the next few fiscal years in excess of 10%, and this may translate into very large jumps in property taxes – especially for single-, two-, and three-family homes. [Don’t worry, condo owners, you will likely continue to get the sweetest deal in town. The main message was “The City is at a critical inflection point and will need to take action to preserve future financial stability.”
The previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.