Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Nov 8, 2010 City Council Agenda – After capitulation, the post-recission Council moves on to other business

Last week’s meeting (sorry, I missed it) featured the recission of two provisions of the thoroughly misrepresented Ordinance No. 1335 amending the Sign Ordinance. The City Council, while expressing its disgust with the manner in which the petition campaign to challenge the Ordinance was conducted, voted 8-1 to rescind the two provisions and called for the establishment of a Task Force to further study the matter and make recommendations. This was a politically safe strategy and, except for Councillor Toomey’s NO vote, showed a willingness among councillors to not let any one of them be singled out for political retribution. It’s hard to say where things will go from here, but Council Order #4 this week gives a hint of potential volatility. Cambridge conspiracy theorists naturally assume that the new Task Force will be stacked to ensure a pre-determined end.

Meanwhile there’s this:

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation for the approval of a loan order in the amount of $14,535,000 as well as a vote relative to Chapter 2.110 ("City-Owned Land and Buildings".)

This is the Big Item on this week’s Agenda. Residents and elected officials have been waiting a long time to hear about what would eventually become of the former Police Station as well as a couple of currently surplus school buildings. This answers the Police Station part of the question – a proposed multiple use for the Cambridge Housing Authority, the Community Learning Center, and the City’s Multi-Service Center. This is a win-win-win solution if the details can be worked out – a Multi-Multi-Service Center.

Agenda Item No. 9A     Nov 8, 2010
ORDERED: That $14,535,000 is appropriated for remodeling, reconstructing, and making extraordinary repairs to the original police station at Five Western Avenue in Central Square, including HVAC, plumbing, and electrical system improvements as well as other interior and exterior renovations, including any and all incidental costs related thereto; and that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer with the approval of the City Manager is authorized to borrow $14,535,000 under Chapter 44 of the General Laws or any other enabling authority.

Agenda Item No. 9B     Nov 8, 2010
ORDERED: Pursuant to the provisions of G. L. c. 121B, § 23(d) authorizing the City to "establish exceptions to existing ordinances and bylaws regulating the design, construction and use of buildings" in order to work cooperatively with the Cambridge Housing Authority in the planning, construction and operation of a project, the City Council hereby establishes an exception to Chapter 2.110 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, to the extent that said Chapter may be applicable hereto, and orders that said Chapter shall not apply to the leasing and/or redevelopment of City property at the former Cambridge Police Department Headquarters at 5 Western Avenue, and hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Cambridge Housing Authority for the leasing and/or redevelopment of this property, as set forth in the City Manager’s Nov 8, 2010 letter to the City Council.

We’ll still have to wait and see what the future holds for the old Graham & Parks building on Upton Street as well as the old Longfellow School building on Broadway. The Longfellow building seems destined to be "swing space" for a parade of school building renovations around the City just as it is now serving as the temporary home of the CRLS 9th Grade during renovations at the high school. Many Mid-Cambridge residents hope that the old Longfellow building will once again become a permanent school building once all the system-wide renovations and consolidations have occurred. Mid-Cambridge is the most populous neighborhood in Cambridge and currently has no neighborhood elementary school.

Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Election Commissioner to look into the discrepancies of voters being "inactive" or registered under a misspelled or wrong address.   Councillor Cheung

This Order is singled out entirely for the humor contained therein. Councillor Cheung misspelled the word "mispelled" in the first WHEREAS.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to advise the City Council on how to facilitate a public yard sale.   Vice Mayor Davis

Craigslist? Posters? Flyers? C’mon, Henrietta, do you really need to seek the advice of City departments for an answer on how to do this? Besides, Cambridge residents seem to be rather expert on organizing community-wide yard sales without the need for nanny government to make it happen. In Mid-Cambridge, they do a great job on Fayette and Antrim Streets (and elsewhere). The same is true all over town. Perhaps the City would be well-advised to just get out of the way.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to set up a process to reach out to experts and the public in order to create a balanced panel to participate in the Sign Ordinance Task Force.   Vice Mayor Davis and Councillor Kelley

See remarks above. Balanced is in the eye of the beholder. Furthermore, even the most "balanced" of committees is guaranteed to be accused of bias if it recommends anything other than what the listener wants to hear.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Human Services Department about the feasibility of hosting a weekly contra dance at the West Cambridge Youth and Social Center and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Councillor Decker

Many of you may recall that the contra dancers were the biggest constituency who came out to protest the proposed arrangement between the Huron Ave. VFW Post and the City to reconstruct the facilty in order to house both a replacement for the VFW Post and the proposed West Cambridge Youth Center. The old VFW Post had been rented by the contra dancers who feared losing the dance hall. They frequently referred to the rare and marvelous "sprung floor" of the facility. Upon inspection, it turned out that there was no sprung floor at all – just greatly deteriorated support under the floor rendering it vulnerable to collapse. In Cambridge, we don’t like to allow facts to get in the way of an attractive argument. The City did eventually alter their plans to allow for a wider variety of uses in the new community center. It’s strange that the contra dancers are only now considering moving back to Cambridge.

Order #9. That this City Council go on record recommending that Cabot, Cabot and Forbes reconsider naming Plumb House as the general contractor on the project on Fawcett Street.   Councillor Decker, Councillor Toomey and Councillor Reeves

Once again, the Cambridge City Council thrusts its collective nose into places it does not belong. The three sponsors of this Order state, "Plumb House has a history of bringing in its own workers and not utilizing the skill of local workers." So what? The property is being developed by Cabot, Cabot and Forbes who chose a general contractor whose workers are not, to the best of my understanding, indentured servants. They choose to work for this contractor and they receive wages in return – simple. They are not being forced to work. The sponsors state that Plumb House does not meet "community standards regarding wages and benefits," but it sure would be nice to see a sampling of the actual wages and benefits these workers receive rather than referencing "community standards" as though this actually means anything. My guess is that they’re OK with their wages and benefits even if the Cambridge City Council thinks otherwise.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, Chair of the Housing Committee, for a public meeting held on Aug 4, 2010 for the purpose of receiving an update from the Affordable Housing Trust.

This Report has lots of quotable quotes in it – mainly statements from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Catechism that states that all affordable housing developments are great and that anyone who raises any questions is evil. For example:

"Councillor Decker said that the City Council and the residents need to have more data about why Cambridge still needs affordable housing, and how many Cambridge residents are struggling to stay in Cambridge. Supporters of affordable housing also need the hard data and facts to counter the false assertion that the 80-10-10 split of CPA funds keeps Cambridge from acquiring and preserving open space. Councillor Decker expressed her grave concern with respect to political fear mongering regarding poor people and ‘those people’ who live in affordable housing."

There’s also this Committee Report on the "digital divide":

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor Henrietta Davis, Chair of the Cable TV, Telecommunications and Public Utilities Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 14, 2010 to discuss the digital divide and the potential for using teleconferencing in the schools.

Much of this report tells the tale of the City’s efforts to bridge the digital divide by arranging for free computers and free Internet and WiFi access in public housing developments. The report seems to suggest that those who planned these installations envisioned a population who could not afford computers and who would be using these resources to look for jobs and to access essential information. CCTV director Susan Fleischmann stated that "massive amounts of data are being downloaded and this could be why the system is slow. CCTV has no resources to do the monitoring." Seems like music and video downloads are what is actually being provided. Also contained in the minutes of this meeting is this delightfully cryptic statement from Councillor Cheung, most certainly garbled in translation:

"Councillor Cheung stated that not all search engines are created equal. Google, he said, is located next to a power plant."

Perhaps that’s the "engine" in the "search engine." — Robert Winters

Nov 1, 2010 City Council Agenda – Light agenda – Sign Ordinance reconsideration vote could happen this week or next

This week’s meeting has little on the agenda, but Unfinished Business #7 (reconsideration of two provisions of the recently enacted Ordinance No. 1335 relating to the Sign Ordinance) will surely elicit discussion and possibly a vote. If not voted this week, state law requires that the matter must be reconsidered no later than next week (by Nov 9). If the original vote stands, these provisions will remain suspended pending a ballot question to dispose of the matter. The most politically safe thing for the City Council to do would be to approve a Special Election on this single matter (thereby not confounding their own reelection campaigns next November). However, the City Manager has estimated that a Special Election would cost approximately $170,000 (an itemization would have been helpful, as this estimate seems unusually high). The Manager’s response (City Manager’s Agenda #10) is worth reading and broadcasting to others.

City Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-164, regarding a report on outlining the ordinance changes to the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to signs and the impact of repealing Paragraph D3 and E of Ordinance #1335.

Unfinished Business #7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting notification of the certification of 11,461 signatures of registered voters by the Election Commission of a referendum petition entitled "SAVE OUR SKYLINE" filed with the Election Commission on Oct 15, 2010. The petition protests Paragraph D.3 of Section 7.16.22, Building Identification Signs, and Paragraph E of Section 7.16.22, General Waiver of Sign Limitations, part of Ordinance No. 1335 amending Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge (the Sign Ordinance).

The following other items are at least somewhat interesting, though barely noteworthy.

Order #2. The City Council supports the mission of the Massachusetts Product Stewardship Council working with other Massachusetts municipalities and other states to move EPR policy forward, and supports the Framework Principles for Product Stewardship Policy.   Vice Mayor Davis

Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct City staff to investigate ways in which the City can work with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council on opportunities in Cambridge related to the grant which will support the implementation of MetroFuture.   Councillor Seidel

Order #4. That the City Council go on record acknowledging that the shared planning challenges of the Boston Metro area need to be addressed regionally, and appreciating that the grant from HUD will allow this important work to happen.   Councillor Seidel

Order #5. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the facade improvement program as part of the FY2011/2012 budget programs for reorganization and increase the funding if possible.   Councillor Reeves

In particular, a few additional notes have been appended after the text of Order #5 to clarify some of its shortcomings. Good help can be so hard to find in this down economy. — Robert Winters

Oct 25, 2010 City Council Agenda – Not your typical City Council meeting

This week’s meeting was supposed to be a Roundtable meeting complete with flipcharts and a facilitator. Thankfully, an Order from the previous week did away with that annoyance. There’s another reason for the switch to a regular business meeting – the referendum petition entitled "SAVE OUR SKYLINE" filed with the Election Commission on Oct 15, 2010. The petition protests Paragraph D.3 of Section 7.16.22, Building Identification Signs, and Paragraph E of Section 7.16.22, General Waiver of Sign Limitations, part of Ordinance No. 1335 amending Section 7 of the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge. That’s the technical name for the "Sign Ordinance" that was recently modified so that a party wishing to have a building identification sign would no longer seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals but would instead seek a Special Permit from the Planning Board subject to certain reasonable standards. If you think this sounds like a relatively minor technical change, you would be correct.

The "Save Our Skyline" group submitted a whopping 15,535 signatures (obtained in large part via paid signature gatherers) to the Cambridge Election Commission of which 11,461 were certified as valid. This represents about 18.2% of the current 62,947 registered Cambridge voters – well in excess of the 12% required under M.G.L ch. 43, sect. 42 for a referendum protesting a local ordinance. Having met the required threshold, the ordinance is now suspended and the City Council is required to reconsider its original 6-3 vote. If one councillor flip-flops on this matter from YES to NO, that ends it – the amendment is defeated (a two-thirds vote is required for a Zoning amendment). If the City Council maintains its 6-3 vote, then the matter will appear on next year’s municipal ballot, OR the City Council may vote to authorize a Special Election before then on this single issue.

Except for the seemingly boundless amount of money thrown at this campaign, this is a relatively unimportant matter that has been propagandized beyond belief via inflammatory mailings and robocalls. That said, some councillors are nervous about the potential political fallout. Ideally, we will be treated to a clear and a rational explanation by all of the councillors on what the amendment does and does not do and why they voted the way that they did. It is, however, just as likely that Monday will bring a Royal Flip-Flop with some nonsensical rationale explaining "why I was for it before I was against it."

The matter in question is on the Agenda under "Communications and Reports from City Officers" which normally would come up late in the meeting. However, with a sizable crowd likely, it’s quite possible thet the rules may be suspended to take this up earlier.

This isn’t the only item of note on this week’s Agenda. There are also these notable items:

City Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 10-127 and 10-151, regarding a report on plans for the Grand Junction Railroad.

Existing plans developed in recent years called for an Urban Ring bus rapid-transit service and a multi-use path along this corridor. It would seem that if Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is reelected in another week or so as part of the Patrick/Murray ticket, we may soon see between five and twenty trains per day between Worcester and Boston whizzing across Mass. Ave. and other heavily-trafficked streets at grade level as former Worcester Mayor Tim Murray’s dream is realized.

Resolution #11. Congratulations to Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves and Gregg Johnson on their recent marriage.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Decker, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Seidel, Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Kelley and Mayor Maher

After 36 years as a couple, I’d say congratulations are in order. That’s a pretty good run for any couple.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested, to the extent allowed by relevant law, to ensure that Cambridge does not approve any permits that the developer of the Belmont Uplands may request or require from the City of Cambridge until all legal proceedings surrounding this project have been resolved.   Councillor Kelley

I have to admit that for some time I have not been entirely convinced of the merits presented by those trying to save the "silver maple forest" that abuts Little Pond just west of the old Arthur D. Little site along Route 2. However, I attended a presentation the other day by Charles Katuska about the important role that a modest-sized forested area (17 acres) can play in terms of habitat and I find myself now favoring preservation of this open space. On the other hand, this is privately owned land. The proper way to have preserved this habitat would have been for the state and/or the Town of Belmont to have purchased the site. Current plans call for building about 300 units of housing on the site, much of which is located in a flood-prone area. The Belmont Conservation Commission opposed the project, but the developer (O’Neill Properties) appealed to the state and prevailed. In addition, the developer has secured other necessary local permits. The permitting is now under appeal. It’s not clear how much leverage Cambridge has in this, but the developer does apparently need to tie the project into Cambridge’s municipally owned sewers.

Order #4. That the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee is requested to hold a hearing(s) with the intention of developing a more effective method for the City Council and Cambridge residents to discuss mitigation concerns during zoning discussions.   Councillor Kelley

It’s interesting that we have now reached the point where the appropriateness of a development proposal is now regularly eclipsed by consideration of what kind of mitigation can be squeezed out of the developer or owner of the property. It makes you wonder if "Long Term Planning" plays any role at all any more or if it’s all about using zoning restrictions to determine the price of doing business. This somehow does not seem consistent with the original intent of the legislation (M.G.L. Chapter 40A) that enabled local zoning ordinances.

Order #7. That the City Council go on record encouraging voters to vote no on Ballot Question 3 in the Nov 2 election.   Councillor Simmons

Order #8. That the City Council go on record encouraging voters to vote no on Ballot Question 1 in the Nov 2 election.   Councillor Simmons

It should come as no surprise that the City Council as well as other government officials here and elsewhere are opposed to the ballot questions being put to voters this November, and Questions 1 and 3 in particular. Question 1 would eliminate the sales tax on alcoholic beverages. Question 2 would effectively end the Chapter 40B "snob zoning" law that’s been used to promote low-income housing projects in cities and towns with little "affordable" housing. Question 3 would cut the state sales tax from the current 6.25% down to 3%.

The unfortunate thing about ballot questions like these is that voters often have to choose between two extremes. The argument against Question 1 is that it would result in the loss of revenue to support treatment programs for people with alcohol and drug addiction. However, are all revenues raised by this tax actually dedicated toward this purpose or just a portion of the revenue? If one could be assured that worthwhile programs could be preserved and nonspecific revenue curtailed, now that would be a good choice. Ideally, Question 2 would not call for the end of Chapter 40B, but rather the curtailment of its abuse by developers who use it as a bludgeon against local objections. Most significantly, Question 3 might call for a rollback of the state sales tax to the 5% rate that most residents had grown accustomed to rather than down to 3%.

This is the dreadful thing about "direct democracy." The public is often not given a proper choice other than what advocates on one side of the other wants. On the other hand, that’s why we supposedly have representative government – to elect representatives who will carefully consider all matters and reach compromises that most residents can live with. Unfortunately, in a state where one party controls virtually everything, there is little in the way of dynamic balance to ensure the kind of middle ground that many of us would prefer. I wouldn’t mind seeing some political diversity grow out of the upcoming election.

Specifically on the sales tax question, I will likely vote NO for entirely selfish reasons. If the sales tax is cut in half, it is doubtful that the City of Cambridge will slash all programs in the wake of reduced local aid. Property taxes will therefore rise closer to the levy limit. As a relatively low-level consumer, sales tax does not add up to a whole lot for me in a given year. On the other hand, I would really not like to see my property taxes leap up to cover the costs of the various necessary and unnecessary programs that will doubtless continue to be funded. It will likely cost me more if the sales tax is slashed. — Robert Winters

Oct 4, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Today we’ll be having two City Council meetings. At 3:00pm there will be a Special City Council meeting to discuss the costly Cambridge Review Committee Report that grew out of the absurd Gates-Crowley kerfuffle of Summer 2009. There are indications of efforts to pack this meeting with partisans on one side of this dated conflict so, as is usually the case, attendance at this meeting will be indicative of nothing. Frankly, we’d be better served if we all went out for a few beers. I hear Obama’s buying.

Far more significant is the Regular City Council meeting that will follow at 5:30pm. There will be a 6:30pm hearing on the City’s recommendations to the Department of Revenue that will determine the property tax rates for FY11. According to the City Manager’s communication, a 5.69% increase in the property tax levy is anticipated for a total levy of $283,961,699. The residential tax rate is expected to be $8.16 per thousand dollars of assessed value and the commercial tax rate is expected to be $19.90 per thousand.

The median tax bills are expected to rise 8.59% for single-family homes, 5.96% for condominiums, 3.80% for two-family homes, and 3.73% for three-family homes. (These figures include the residential exemption.) The overall valuation of the City’s residential property decreased 0.47% during Calendar Year 2009 while commercial property decreased 0.41%. As is always the case, changes in property values were not the same throughout Cambridge. Single family homes saw the greatest increase (+5.5%) along Grove Street at the western edge of Cambridge and the greatest decrease (-9.06%) in the Shady Hill neighborhood. Condominiums saw the greatest increase (+0.96% – barely noticeable) in Area 4 and the greatest decrease (-5.62%) in East Cambridge. Two-families increased in only one district (+2.87%) around Huron Village and saw the greatest decrease (-9.98%) in Neighborhood 10 (Brattle Street area). Three-families saw the greatest increase (+5.23%) in Shady Hill and the greatest decrease (-8.60%) in the vicinity of Fresh Pond.

The required roll call votes are as follows:

A. Authorize the use of Free Cash of $11,400,000 to reduce the FY11 tax rate;

B. Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/revenues to be used for reducing the FY11 tax levy;

C. Authorize $8,300,000 from the Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

D. Authorize $1,198,615 from the School Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

E. Classify property into five classes;

F. Adopt the minimum residential factor of 56.3344%;

G. Approve the maximum residential exemption factor of 30% for owner-occupied homes;

H. Vote to double the normal value of the statutory exemptions;

I. Vote the FY11 exemption of $280.00 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D;

J. Vote the FY11 asset limits of $55,775 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E;

K. Vote the FY11 income and asset limits allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D as follows: Income limits of $23,061 for single and $34,592 for married; and asset limits of $46,122 for single and $63,418 for married;

L. Vote the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of MGL Chapter 62, Section 6, subsection (k) for a single person ($51,000) and for married ($77,000);

M. Vote to lower the interest rate by 4% to 14% for overdue water and sewer bills in FY11; and

N. Vote to accept MGL Chapter 200A, Section 9A, which allows for an alternative procedure for disposing of abandoned funds held in custody by the City as provided for in the recently enacted municipal relief legislation.

Otherwise, the meeting agenda is very light with no controversial items. The interesting Orders are as follows:

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department on how the transition of the Grand Junction Rail Road to Commuter Rail traffic could impede the implementation of the Grand Junction Rail Trail and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

This evolving issue promises to be a source of controversy as the Tim Murray Express rolls on through Cambridge. Councillor Toomey’s latest Order on this matter focuses on other uses that have been proposed for this rail corridor – most notably the idea of a Grand Junction Rail Trail. It’s hard to imagine commuter rail trains whizzing through the eastern part of Cambridge with six at-grade street crossings – some in pedestrian intensive areas.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back on the language in the noise ordinance as it relates specifically to the noise of car radios and what steps the police can take and what steps residents can take to combat and end this disturbance.   Councillor Decker

O-8     Oct 4, 2010
COUNCILLOR DECKER
WHEREAS: The decibel level of the bass of some car radios is at such a level that it causes an enormous disturbance and distress when said cars are in motion, stopped at traffic lights, and idling; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on the language in the noise ordinance as it relates specifically to the noise of car radios and what steps the police can take and what steps residents can take to combat and end this disturbance.

Some of us have been bringing up this matter for years only to have it fall on deaf City Council ears. Maybe Marjorie will be the one to finally convince her colleagues that the scourge of these vehicles is far more annoying and ever-present than signs on commercial buildings or the occasional leaf-blower. As a resident who lives on a street (Broadway) close to a traffic light, I would be happy to have the traffic light removed just to eliminate the annoyance of loud sound systems in cars driven by people with tiny brains. My recollection is that when Councillor Davis tried to bring up this issue of "boom cars" several years ago, she was stonewalled by Councillor Reeves. Let’s hope everyone has learned a thing or two since then. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that most of the city councillors live on relatively quiet streets and don’t appreciate just how invasive these idiot cars can be. As a Walden Street resident, my guess is that Councillor Decker is treated to a front row seat just like those of us who live on Broadway, or Cambridge Street, or Mass. Ave., etc. Indeed, I believe Marjorie is the only one of the nine who is regularly treated to this abuse.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Public Health Department and ask for a report back on the feasibility of Cambridge following suit with banning smoking in public parks, beaches and other public places.   Councillor Decker

I believe the City Council already voted to ban smoking in public parks, but it’s doubtful that it was ever enforced. [Section 8.28.090 of the Municipal Code – Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places: A. Smoking Prohibited: No person shall smoke nor shall any person be permitted to smoke in any public place or municipal facility.]

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Sept 23, 2010 to continue to consider a proposed amendment to Chapter 10.17 of the Municipal Code entitled Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance to increase the residential permit parking fee from $8 to $20 effective in 2011 and $25 effective in 2013, and to clarify that the fee revenue can be expended on "other actions addressing climate change."

This matter awaits a vote at the next regular City Council meeting (October 18). The fee is not excessive, but the earmarking toward "other actions addressing climate change" deserves some discussion. — Robert Winters

May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Manager’s Agenda tonight features significant public investment items – primarily authorizations to borrow for infrastructure projects. Here’s the list:

Mgr #8. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,250,000 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Cambridgeport, and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.

Mgr #9. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $700,000 to provide funds to replace the existing artificial turf on the soccer field at Danehy Park as well as resurfacing the 400 meter running track.

Mgr #10. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,000,000 to provide funds to fund the reconstruction of JFK Street between Eliot and Brattle Streets.

Mgr #11. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds to fund the first phase of the reconstruction of the Harvard Square Tunnel (Cambridge Street Underpass).

Mgr #12. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $500,000 to provide funds to fund the design of the restoration of the Kendall Square area on Main Street between Broadway and Ames Street.

Mgr #13. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,500,000 to provide funds for improvements to several City buildings including the East Cambridge and Inman Square Fire Stations, Ryan Garage at Public Works, Central Square Library, and several elementary schools.

There should be “suitably engrossed” awards in gilded folders given to city councillors who generate excessive numbers of suitably engrossed resolutions at (I believe) around $5 a pop. This week’s runner-up award goes to Mayor Maher for his 11 identical resolutions to various people for “passing the Massachusetts Department of Public Health written and performance test for the position of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).” The top prize this week goes to Councillor Simmons for her 51 (I’m not kidding) nearly identical resolutions to people for their “work on the Prince Hall Memorial Committee.” Good thing she has that aide to help with such important “research” matters like this. By the way, did I mention that the single biggest jump in department budget over a five year span was for the City Council. So many resolutions, so little time.

Councillor Decker has another Vanity Order this week:

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to determine with due consideration for, among other things, return on investment, to what extent it is reasonable to not participate in any business activities substantially connected with the State of Arizona, municipalities in Arizona, and other business entities in Arizona or conducting substantial business in Arizona.   Councillor Decker

Regardless of the merits of the Arizona law, it’s arrogant for an elected official in the northeast to weigh in on matters in a border state whose issues she can’t even begin to appreciate. Besides, it’s hard to imagine the City of Cambridge having any investments in Arizona, so this really is just a Vanity Order.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and commission heads to develop a standard set of resources, facility privileges, tools, and barebones operating budget the unfunded commissions may use in their work of enacting Council policy.  Councillor Cheung

Essentially all Cambridge citizen boards and commissions work closely with one or more City departments which provide support for these boards. Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses primarily on “the capability for all commissions to post and maintain an email distribution list” and seems to suggest that the capacity for this should be made available on City servers rather than via such services as YahooGroups and GoogleGroups. This does raise the inevitable issue of public records. Clearly, if City servers are involved then any and all communications are potentially available as public records. It’s not clear if this is the case for communications among members on outside servers. Another consideration is that with an outside service the group “owner” can freely moderate the group and even delete some communications. This probably would not be permitted if hosted on City servers as it may constitute “destroying a public record.” Perhaps things are better left as they are.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to update the City Council on the impact of the MWRA water pipe rupture on the Charles River in Cambridge.  Councillor Seidel

Actually, Councillor Seidel’s Order asks about two incidents: the recent MWRA break in Weston and a February 2010 diesel spill in the Lower Charles River Basin. While I cannot speak to the latter, I can say with some confidence that the Weston break had no impact whatsoever on Cambridge other than to highlight the great advantage of having our own independent water supply. As it turns out, I was leading a group of 40 hikers that day (May 1) along a section of the Sudbury Aqueduct in Wellesley and telling the history of Boston Water and about how this aqueduct was last used about 35 years ago and was still maintained for use in a “catastrophic emergency”. Little did I know that such an emergency was unfolding even as I spoke and that by day’s end the Sudbury Aqueduct would be back in service during the emergency. — Robert Winters