Springing Forward – March 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
Here are the things I found interesting this week:
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. (CM24#42) [text of reports]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Claire Spinner, Toner on OPEB, Michele Kincaid, Taha Jennings, McGovern, Nolan, Yi-An Huang, JSW [24 triple AAA cities in USA], Azeem, Simmons (notes what happens when ARPA funds no longer available); Placed on File 9-0
This is almost routine at this point. I can’t even remember when we last failed to get a “triple triple”. One thing that struck me in the Moody’s report was: “Cambridge’s assessed value projected to decline by 2% in 2025 before recovering in 2026.” I don’t believe there’s any way that residential assessed values could be falling, so any drop is likely due to lower commercial assessed values. There’s also this: “The city’s assessed value is projected to flatten over the next couple years including a 2% decline in total assessed value that is projected in 2025. The decline in total AV is driven by a projected 7% decline in commercial value in 2025 and projected 2% decline in 2026. The declines are driven primarily by the challenges in the commercial office space sub-sector as a result of work-from-home options that have taken hold in many companies and industries in the city and across the nation. The residential sector is projected to see no change in 2025 values followed by a projected 2% increase annually beginning in 2026 through 2028.” The S&P report has this cautionary note: “We could lower the rating if reserves were to decrease significantly without a plan for restoration or if debt service and retirement costs were to pressure the city’s finances.”
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 April 1, 2024 and ending March 31, 2025. (CM24#43) [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett on use of ARPA funds for new filter media at Fresh Pond, Owen O’Riordan notes ARPA will again be used next year to keep water rates from rising even more, need for upgrades on our (relatively young) 25-year-old treatment plant, cost of water main replacements; Mark Gallagher (Acting Managing Direct, Water Department) notes increases in labor costs and supply chain cost increases; Pickett asks if any ARPA funds available to be reallocated to these purposes, O’Riordan responds affirmatively; Nolan on PFAS, effects of minerals in water on plumbing fixtures; O’Riordan notes long-term strategy on chlorides, Gallagher concurs re: chlorides, hardness; Toner on problems with plumbing fixtures and remediation, Gallagher reminds that HW heaters should be drained once/year; Order Adopted 9-0
The notable increases in the water rate last year and 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 water than to supply it.
*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and meet with the MBTA and City of Boston in advance of the July Red Line shutdown about the implementation of a fare-free 1 bus program. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; uptalking comments by JSW, Siddiqui (notes meet w/JSW and her w/Livable Streets), Toner, Azeem; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Pickett; comments by JSW, Nolan, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett
I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.
Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide. Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Pickett; comments by Azeem, McGovern (connecting this to “Missing Middle” zoning petition), Wilson, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett
While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.
Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and report back to the City Council with recommendations for adjusting parking permit fees to better align with associated costs. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan (suggesting doubling fee except for low-income residents, charging more for larger vehicles); Toner, Pickett object to suggestion to charge more based on vehicle size; Azeem complains about increasing size of vehicles; Simmons OK with reviewing fees, concerns about charging more for larger vehicles and effect on families who may need a larger vehicle; Nolan additional concerns about larger vehicles; Order Adopted 9-0
Once again, if this is simply a matter of adjusting fees to cover the administrative costs of the resident parking permit program, then fine. On the other hand, if the intention is to use increased fees to carry out yet another social engineering program, then I hope this goes nowhere fast.
Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop ways to fund support of decarbonization and clean energy projects and technical assistance for property owners of all types especially those with limited resources, with an initial focus on work associated with BEUDO emissions reduction requirements. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Pickett, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
As I have said before, if the City wants to provide incentives to change energy sources or provide greater efficiencies for homeowners, then I’m totally on board with that. I am, however, mindful of the woefully inadequate electrical infrastructure in Cambridge (look up sometime to see how many streetlights are connected to extension cords over the street to get their power) and the potential consequence of increased electrification. I also encourage everyone to read the recent March 14 New York Times article “A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals”. – Robert Winters
Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that there are really about 10 changes – mostly suggested by City Clerk, additional comments on codifying how much time allotted for Public Comment and other rules changes; Simmons notes that process requires this to be Laid on Table; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses Public Comment time limits; Nolan favors longer time limits during Public Comment; McGovern wants 2 minute limit for all meetings, says Public Comment has changed over time from individuals (notes Roy Bercaw) and how it is now dominated by organized groups with many speakers having little or no knowledge of what they are speaking about, problem of same speakers every week; Azeem comments on time limits and predictability of commentary from organized groups and frequent speakers – would prefer a separate meeting just for public comment; Pickett notes value of Zoom as well as the added commitment associated with actually showing up; Wilson also notes changing nature of Public Comment; JSW clarifies that nobody is suggesting different time limits for different people, potential value of separate meeting for public comment; Toner expresses openness to future changes in Public Comment; Simmons notes that Open Meeting Law does not require public comment, and that we allow it under our rules, notes many other opportunities for offering citizen input, notes past practice of sometimes taking City Council meetings to the neighborhoods, allowance for public comment via interpreters, role of time of meeting in access; Late Policy Order from Toner calling for two sponsors for any policy order; McGovern expresses confusion of “Resolutions” vs. “Policy Orders & Resolutions” – amplified by Toner, Simmons; Toner notes that most Resolutions are non-controversial, but controversial Resolutions appear with Policy Orders; Nolan OK w/requiring two sponsors but wants to exercise Charter Right; Simmons, McGovern explain that if Charter Right exercises cannot be part of Rules Changes to be considered at next meeting; City Clerk Diane LeBlanc concurs that this is necessary under current Rules; Tabled 9-0
Late Order #11. That the City Council Rules be amended to require at least two City Councillors supporting a proposed policy order and/or resolution before filing and including as part of the City Council Agenda. Councillor Toner
Tabled 9-0
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.
The first thing that struck me when I looked over the meeting agenda was the list of 387 Communications – more than twice anything I’ve seen before (except for that Bergman stunt many years ago with messages submitted on paper plates – but that’s another story). So I decided to look them over in some detail. The main thing is that 288 of them were nearly identical concerning that Gaza order from the Nov 20 meeting and were sent via a robot (from “actionnetwork.org”) and addressed to “City Clerk Alex Geourntas” – who happens to be the City Clerk for Boston. [Our actual City Clerk is Diane LeBlanc, by the way.] So much for doing your homework, but I suppose even robots may have dogs who like to eat their homework. Perhaps the funniest of these was the one signed by former Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury who apparently didn’t take notice of the addressee in the robotic message that was sent under her name to the wrong City Clerk.