Year in Review

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Free parking good for the short term, but costs down the road, Boston Globe

STARTS & STOPS


By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | December 20, 2009

Free parking good for the short term, but costs down the road
Merchants and shoppers cheered when Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino announced last month that he was giving away free parking during the holiday season for the 16th year in a row.

It’s become a holiday tradition - two hours at meters on Saturdays - gratis.

Who could possibly be against that, some kind of parking Grinch?

“I would rather think of myself as a parking Santa Claus,’’ said Mark Chase, a parking consultant who can explain why free parking is a really dumb idea. “You can put that as your title: ‘Parking Grinch or Santa Claus?’ You decide.’’

Chase thinks about parking all the time, mostly helping businesses and universities figure out how to avoid building more spots. Earlier this decade, when he worked for Zipcar, he designed the scheme that reserved spaces all over the city for the company cars, making the rest of us scared that the renters’ club was gearing up for some sort of military takeover of Boston and Cambridge. He is among a group of advocates and professionals who share the view, popularized in the 2005 book “The High Cost of Free Parking,’’ that parking costs need to be managed more intelligently to improve city life.

Chase says that when there is a parking shortage, giving it away free is about the worst thing you can do, for everybody. The lure of free parking draws more drivers who may have otherwise carpooled, walked, or taken public transportation. They all compete for fewer spots, driving in circles and spewing pollution in hopes of snagging one, and getting progressively angrier at the world when they don’t.

Eventually, they stop coming downtown, hurting the merchants as well.

Instead of giving it away free, charge enough for the good spots so there is always one or two of them available, he said. Charge less for the bad spots, so people will be willing to walk a little farther.

Employees usually take the free spots before shoppers, and then keep them all day anyway, he said. They got there first and many make only $7 an hour, he added.

“You can’t blame them,’’ he said.

But if you push the cheap or the free spots farther away, the employees will walk a few blocks, emptying spaces for customers.

Thomas J. Tinlin, Boston’s transportation commissioner, said the parking promotion is a gesture designed to persuade people who commute through the city to come back and shop. If they come for the promotion, maybe they’ll return the rest of the year.

It only lasts a few weeks, from late November through December 26 this year. Sundays are free year-round. Merchants have asked for more free Saturdays but the city has balked, in part because the meters raise $40,000 on average Saturdays the rest of the year.

“It’s all about balance,’’ Tinlin said.

Tinlin said parking officials are usually the ones called Grinches. Maybe with the free parking, he said, people will think of them as “good-intended elves.’’

So why does Chase one-up Tinlin, calling himself a Santa Claus? He suggests pooling all that money and then holding a holiday parking lottery.

“Give the money to one lucky customer,’’ he said.

Joy to the World....in the manner of the Beatles..crank up those speakers

The Return of the Two-Way Street | GOVERNING

The Return of the Two-Way Street | GOVERNING

The Return of the Two-Way Street

By Alan Ehrenhalt | December 2009

Why the double-yellow stripe is making a comeback in downtowns.

Over the past couple of decades, Vancouver, Washington, has spent millions of dollars trying to revitalize its downtown, and especially the area around Main Street that used to be the primary commercial center. Just how much the city has spent isn’t easy to determine. But it’s been an ambitious program. Vancouver has totally refurbished a downtown park, subsidized condos and apartment buildings overlooking it and built a new downtown Hilton hotel.

Some of these investments have been successful, but they did next to nothing for Main Street itself. Through most of this decade, the street remained about as dreary as ever. Then, a year ago, the city council tried a new strategy. Rather than wait for the $14 million more in state and federal money it was planning to spend on projects on and around Main Street, it opted for something much simpler. It painted yellow lines in the middle of the road, took down some signs and put up others, and installed some new traffic lights. In other words, it took a one-way street and opened it up to two-way traffic.

The merchants on Main Street had high hopes for this change. But none of them were prepared for what actually happened following the changeover on November 16, 2008. In the midst of a severe recession, Main Street in Vancouver seemed to come back to life almost overnight.

Within a few weeks, the entire business community was celebrating. “We have twice as many people going by as they did before,” one of the employees at an antique store told a local reporter. The chairman of the Vancouver Downtown Association, Lee Coulthard, sounded more excited than almost anyone else. “It’s like, wow,” he exclaimed, “why did it take us so long to figure this out?”

A year later, the success of the project is even more apparent. Twice as many cars drive down Main Street every day, without traffic jams or serious congestion. The merchants are still happy. “One-way streets should not be allowed in prime downtown retail areas,” says Rebecca Ocken, executive director of Vancouver’s Downtown Association. “We’ve proven that.”

The debate over one-way versus two-way streets has been going on for more than half a century now in American cities, and it is far from resolved even yet. But the evidence seems to suggest that the two-way side is winning. A growing number of cities, including big ones such as Minneapolis, Louisville and Oklahoma City, have converted the traffic flow of major streets to two-way or laid out plans to do so. There has been virtually no movement in the other direction.

Minneapolis opened its First Street and Hennepin Street commercial areas to two-way traffic on October 11, hoping to pump some life into a stagnant corridor. It’s too early to draw any firm conclusions, but the early responses were mixed. First Street is home to several nightclubs, and some of them complained that bringing in two-way traffic made it difficult for bands with large trucks to park. “The city has royally screwed us,” one club manager declared. The city basically shrugged those complaints off. Its planners claimed the clubowners were making self-interested arguments that ignored the common benefits of a healthier street life.

Before World War II, one-way commercial streets were pretty rare in the United States. People frequented downtowns in which buses and streetcars negotiated two-way traffic, and they got off to shop at the stores that lined both sides of the street. Those who drove could park right along the sidewalk.

After the war, a couple of things happened. Civil defense planners, taking seriously the threat of nuclear attack, worried that residents trying to escape would create gridlock on the crowded two-way streets, imprisoning themselves in smoldering cities and causing many more casualties. The arterial streets were the only escape routes they had. Making them one-way, on an alternating basis, would speed things up and save lives. Or so it was thought.

But atomic bombs were only one factor that made civic leaders and transportation planners partial to one-way streets in the postwar years. They were worried about congestion, period. Some thought that the frustrations of moving through downtown the old-fashioned way were driving people to do their shopping in the suburbs. More mobility might mean more customers. Others, in those pre-Interstate days, cared mainly about the satisfaction of the suburbanites themselves. These people were using the arterial roads to commute in and out of the city, and there was little dispute that one-way streets could get them back and forth more quickly.

By the 1970s, though, there were new urban realities. Large portions of the Interstate Highway System were built, so nobody would have to flee the Soviets on gridlocked city streets. More important, downtown retail customers were shopping at suburban malls no matter what the local chamber of commerce did to try and stop them. Downtown had begun its long, familiar decline. The one-way streets fashioned in the 1950s and 1960s were still pretty good at whisking people out of central cities, but far fewer area residents wanted to enter the cities in the first place. Many downtown one-way streets became miniature speedways that served largely to frighten anyone who had the eccentric idea of strolling down the sidewalk.

Anyone who travels a lot to the center of big cities has had an experience like this: You arrive at night, and start looking for your hotel. You find it, but you can’t drive to the entrance because the street is one-way the other way. Finally you come to a street that goes the way you want, but once you get close again, the signs won’t allow you to make the turn you need to make. You can waste 20 minutes this way. And as you keep driving, you notice that the streets are empty anyway. Any reason that might have existed for turning them into single-purpose speedways simply did not apply anymore.

Meanwhile, local governments were slowly learning that the old two-way streets, whatever the occasional frustration, had real advantages in fostering urban life. Traffic moved at a more modest pace, and there was usually a row of cars parked by the curb to serve as a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. If you have trouble perceiving the difference, try asking yourself this question: How many successful sidewalk cafés have you ever encountered on a four-lane, one-way street with cars rushing by at 50 miles per hour? My guess is, very few indeed.

So over the past 10 years, dozens of cities have reconfigured one-way streets into two-way streets as a means of bringing their downtowns to life. The political leadership and the local business community usually join forces in favor of doing this. There are always arguments against it. Some of them are worth stopping to consider.

Among the critics are traffic engineers and academics who were taught some fixed principles of transportation in school decades ago and have never bothered to reconsider them. Joseph Dumas, a professor at the University of Tennessee, argued a few years ago that “the primary purpose of roads is to move traffic efficiently and safely, not to encourage or discourage business or rebuild parts of town . . . . Streets are tools for traffic engineering.”

If you agree that streets serve no other purpose than to move automobiles, you are unlikely to see much problem with making them one-way. On the other hand, if you think that streets possess the capacity to enhance the quality of urban life, you will probably consider the Dumas Doctrine to be nonsense. That is the way more and more cities are coming to feel.

There are other arguments. It’s sometimes said that more accidents occur on two-way streets than one-way streets. The research that supports this claim is decades old, and to my knowledge, has not been replicated. Even if you accept this argument, though, you might want to consider that, at slower speeds, the accidents on two-way streets are much more likely to be fender-benders at left-turn intersections, not harrowing high-speed crashes involving cars and pedestrians.

Finally, there are complaints from fire departments that it takes them longer to reach the scene of trouble when they have to thread their way around oncoming traffic, rather than taking a straight shot down a one-way speedway. I can’t refute this, and in any case, I don’t like arguing with fire departments. But I have to wonder how many people have died in burning buildings in recent years because a fire truck wasn’t allowed to use a one-way street.

I wouldn’t argue that two-way streets are any sort of panacea for urban revival, Vancouver’s experience notwithstanding. And I understand that they are not always practical. Some streets simply are too narrow to have traffic moving in both directions; others have to be designated one-way because their purpose is to feed traffic onto expressways.

What I would say is this: When it comes to designing or retrofitting streets, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on those who want to use them the old-fashioned way. It should be on those who think the speedway ideology of the 1950s serves much of a purpose half a century later.

It's A Wonderful Life

In the little bio space that you get when you have a blog, I mention my family members. Many people have met my wife and daughters. Many people have met our dog through our twice a day walks in the neighborhood.


However not many people have met cat Theo, named after the Red Sox GM. Here he is, a Merrimack Valley Feline Rescue Society alum, enjoying the good life in Newburyport.

PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT For Newburyport Wastewater Treatment Facility Modernization Project

PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT

For

Newburyport Wastewater Treatment Facility

Modernization Project

Time: 6:30 p.m.

Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009

Location: City Hall Auditorium @ 60 Pleasant Street

The Newburyport Sewer Commission and its project design team will be hosting a Public Meeting to update residents on the design and bidding of improvements to the Newburyport Wastewater Treatment Facility located at 157 Water Street. The presentation will address concerns about traffic management, public access from Water Street to the walking path along the river, site aesthetics, fencing, and security, and the proposed layout for the new Process Operations Building. An update on the schedule for completing the design, bidding, and construction of the project will also be provided. All interested parties are encouraged to attend this presentation so that the project design team may answer your questions and address any of your concerns.

Capuano best choice

Capuano best choice

December 04, 2009 Published in Newburyport Daily News

—

To the editor:

I am writing to express my support for Congressman Mike Capuano in the race for U.S. Senate.

While there are other good candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination, I feel strongly that his personal qualities of passion and pragmatism would make Congressman Capuano a great senator for Massachusetts.

I had an opportunity to get to know the congressman from 2002 to 2005 while I worked as an advocate for homeless children. When it would have been easy for him to show us the door, the congressman was helpful to our cause. He gave us an honest assessment about the difficulties we faced, combined with a determination that something could be done.

On the most important votes of the last decade, Capuano voted for what was right, not what was politically expedient. He was one of only 41 House members to vote against the No Child Left Behind Act because he was convinced that school districts would not have enough money to implement the mandates of the legislation. He pushed for a response to the genocide in Darfur. He stood up for our civil liberties by voting against the Patriot Act. He voted against going to war in Iraq because it was a diversion of our struggle against al-Qaida.

Capuano has been endorsed by the Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters, which said "beginning with his time as mayor of Somerville, Capuano has been a passionate and early defender of the environment where he hired the state's first municipal environmental officer and was at the forefront of curbside recycling in Massachusetts."

His broad experience as an alderman, mayor and member of Congress speaks to his ability to make the connections between our lives and how local, state and federal government can either help us or hurt us.

The diverse group of local Mike Capuano supporters includes state Rep. Mike Costello, Mayor-elect Donna Holaday, Councilor Tom Jones, Councilor Barry Connell and Hailey Klein from Newburyport; Mayor Thatcher Kezer, Rebecca Jordan, and Tom Iacobucci from Amesbury; LuAnn Kuder and Nancy Weinberg from Newbury; Lou and Dianne Masiello, Walter and Lucille Sidley from Salisbury; and Democratic State Committeewoman Kathy Pasquina from West Newbury.

This group may not agree on every local and state issue, but we agree on Mike Capuano.

I hope Democratic and Independent/unenrolled voters will join me in voting for Mike Capuano on Tuesday, Dec. 8.

Ed Cameron

Newburyport City Councilor

Capuano

Dear Friend,

I'm supporting Mike Capuano's run for Senate. If you're with Mike, let me know (if I already don't know), so I can bug you to help out;-).

If you haven't made up your mind, I hope you'll consider giving him your vote.

If you're going with another candidate, good luck to you and yours.

Cheers, Ed Cameron

P.S.

Below you’ll find a list of publications and bloggers who have offered their endorsement of Mike’s campaign.

PUBLICATIONS

Boston Herald

It’s U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano who stands out as the best qualified of the Democratic candidates to fill that [Senate] seat at a critical juncture in this nation’s history. He is ready to do the job, because he has done the job. These aren’t theoretical issues to Capuano. [He] has also demonstrated throughout his decade of service in the House that he — and his staff — can deal with the nitty-gritty of constituent services the way Kennedy and his office were so good at. Read the editorial

Boston Phoenix

In his 11 years as a US congressman, Capuano has been a stalwart voice for liberal values, including a woman's right to choose and opposition to the death penalty. More important, he has stood firm for principles when others did not — notably, by voting against the Iraq War authorization and against the liberty-infringing PATRIOT Act. Read the editorial

The Somerville News

At the end of the day, standing shoulder to shoulder with the other candidates in this race, it is clear that they all have good intentions, but none of them can match up with Mike Capuano when it comes to proven experience in dealing with national and international issues - experience you can only get by serving in Congress. That is an inarguable fact and possibly the most advantageous attribute of anyone seeking to be elected to the Senate, period. Read the editorial

South End News

His knowledge and commitment to urban issues, including environmental challenges, health care, jobs, civil liberties, and education-as well as his on-the-ground experience as an urban mayor in Somerville, have earned him the endorsement of South End News. Read the editorial

Newton TAB and Daily News Tribune

Capuano’s 11 years in Congress can’t be underestimated at this time in our country’s history. His understanding of the give-and-take of compromise while passing legislation is essential... And his votes on key issues — No Child Left Behind, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act — show he is a man of conviction. Read the editorial

BLOGGERS

Kate — BlueMassGroup

I am supporting Capuano because I think he is the best person for the position. I believe that Mike Capuano's years as a member of Congress have given him the experience he needs to get things done in Washington from day one. Congressman Jim McGovern was influential in my endorsement and I trust his assessment of who will be effective in Washington, D.C. Read the post

Blue News Tribune

If Capuano is one thing, he is WYSIWYG (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get). Read the post

StarboardBroadside

For us, this was a pretty simple choice: U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano should be the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts. Capuano has an impressive, unabashedly progressive voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives. On the big issues of today, he is not only already engaged in working on them and ready to hit the ground running in the upper chamber, but he has the right positions. Finally, he is the best candidate to take up the banner of Ted Kennedy's vision for America. Read the post

Marry in Massachusetts

It is a much surer projection that Capuano will go from a solid Representative to a solid Senator. As others have said endorsing him, this is not the time for on-the-job training. Ted Kennedy may have started out green 47 years ago, but we don't have to take that chance in replacing him. Michael Capuano is by far the best choice to replace U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. Read the post

Blah Blah Ginger

He is the man best qualified to take on the imposing mantle of Ted Kennedy’s legacy, and is the one candidate who will need no ramp-up time to be an outstanding U.S. Senator from day one. Read the post

Lynne — LeftinLowell

Why should you vote for Mike Capuano? For me, it’s about the combination of practical attitude and steady principles. Read the post

Lowell Sun: Pepperell picks Newburyport mayor for administrator post

Another nice thing about working in Lowell is catching breaking Newburyport news in the Lowell Sun....

From this morning....
http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_13899310

Pepperell picks Newburyport mayor for administrator post

By Don Eriksson, Correspondent

Updated: 12/01/2009 07:01:45 AM EST

PEPPERELL -- Selectmen have unanimously voted to offer the job of town administrator to Newburyport Mayor John Moak. They plan to enter closed-door negotiations with Moak later this week.

Last night's vote considered both Moak and Jason Hoch, former administrator for the New Hampshire towns of Littleton and Plaistow.

Both men were at the top of a pool of candidates developed by a Search Committee. They were interviewed last week, after negotiations with Shirley Town Administrator Kyle Keady collapsed earlier this fall.

According to private comments from several Search Committee members, Pepperell would be well-served by either candidate.

Administrative Assistant Peggy Mazola has been acting as interim administrator while continuing to perform her duties as administrative assistant.

Selectmen Joseph Hallisey, Patrick McNabb and Joseph Sergi complimented Police Chief Alan Davis for conducting extensive background checks on both candidates, which were received yesterdays.

"For myself, it comes down to John (Moak) as a better fit for Pepperell," Hallisey said. "Both are extremely qualified. (Moak's) experience in Newburyport fits Pepperell issues -- a school was closed and revitalizing Town Hall."

McNabb lauded the qualifications of both candidates, saying "It boils down to who is best for Pepperell right now. Based on experience and positive feedback from the Newburyport City Council (regarding) strong fiscal budgeting and (having) a lot of drive ... (Moak) is someone who could step in right now."

Charter Commission Meeting

The nine new Charter Commission members have met and have chosen Steve Cole as Chair, Kathleen Bailey as Vice Chair, and Sheila Mullins as Clerk.

The next meeting will be on Tuesday November 24 at 7 p.m. at the City Hall Auditorium. The meeting is open to the public as will be all Charter Commission meetings. The public is most encouraged to attend.

FEMA Flood Map Information

Daily News article is here.

City of Newburyport has information including the map here at

http://www.nbpt.us/Planning/flood.html

Last Night's Mayoral Debate

If you weren't able to be there last night, it's worth watching. Daily News coverage is here and Mary Baker Eaton's blog post is here.

The schedule on Channel 9 is as follows:

10/22/2009 at 5:00 PM

10/23/2009 at 12:00 PM

10/24/2009 at 4:00 PM

10/27/2009 at 8:00 AM

10/30/2009 at 4:00 PM

Topics discussed were:

Budget

Infrastructure

Hotel/Meals Tax

Single Tax Rate

Senior Center

State Budget

Economic Development

Industrial Park

Wind Turbine

Green Communities

CPA

Local Historic District

Attracting Business to Newburyport

Impediments to Economic Development

Education and Superintendent

Chairing School Committee

City Council and School Committee

Waterfront

Parking

Leadership

Civil Service

"Proven Leadership"

Mayoral Debates

Mayoral Debate tonight (Wed, October 22) at 7pm at the High School.

Then next week

October 8, 2009

For Immediate Release

Contact:

Beth Simkins

Nock Middle School PTO President

978 549 7912

beth@nockpto.com

Ideas on Education: The Candidates’ Views

Public Debate and Q&A on October 28

NEWBURYPORT, MA--The Nock PTO will host an education-focused debate/Q&A session for Newburyport’s two mayoral candidates on October 28 at 7 p.m. at the Nock Middle School auditorium. The event is open to the public.

The Newburyport school system and educational funding is a hot topic for many residents and this venue will give candidates Donna Holaday and James Shanley an opportunity to express their individual philosophies, ideas and experiences on school issues. The audience will also earn more about what concerns the Newburyport community in the area of education.

“Whether you are a parent, life-long resident, or business owner, we all need to understand how our next mayor will handle issues around our schools,” said Beth Simkins, Nock PTO President. “This will be an objective, unbiased event open to the entire community.”

Questions will be pulled randomly the night of the event and read by a moderator. Each candidate will have equal time to provide their answer to each question. To submit a question, email info@nockpto.com or mail them to Nock PTO Mayoral Debate, 70 Low Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. All questions will be read anonymously.

###

The Nock PTO is a not-for-profit group whose focus is providing the Nock parent, teacher and student an enhanced educational environment. For more information on PTO activities, contact Beth Simkins at 978 549 7912; beth@nockpto.com.

Investing in Our Community and Decreasing Our Overreliance on Property Tax

One of the arguments I'm hearing against the LOCAL meals tax of .75% is that Newburyport residents eat at local restaurants.

I never said Newburyport residents don't eat downtown. What I did say on my blog:

"Much of the cost of the proposed meals tax will be paid by non-residents and virtually the entire hotel tax will be paid by non-residents. Because these excise taxes are small in nature – a $100 restaurant bill will be increased by 75 cents and a $200 B&B overnight will be increased $4 -- these incremental changes are not likely to have an impact on attracting tourists and diners to Newburyport."

So as you can see, I said that 'MUCH' of the cost would be covered by non-residents: I didn't say "most" and I didn't say "all".

I know Newburyport people go out to eat--I'm one of them. In the last month, we've been to many of them: Michaels (couple of times), Black Cow, Park Lunch (couple of times), Angie's, Upper Crust, Famous Pizza, Mission Oak Grill (hey, it was our anniversary).

I estimate that annually in Newburyport $37,000,000 (yes, that's $37 Million) is spent on restaurant meals. In Amesbury, roughly the same size in population as Newburyport, restaurants do about $13 Million in business. You could argue perhaps that people in Newburyport like to go out to eat more or have the ability to go out to eat more. I would argue that tourism explains a significant part of the difference.

Last night in the Grog parking lot, there were license plates from NH (3x) and New York, the rest Massachusetts. I was tempted to hector the New Yorkers about the Yankees but I kept quiet. Hopefully, the New Hampshire people will continue to come back if we raise the meals tax by .75% which would still be less than the New Hampshire meals tax of 9%.

I'm proposing a .75% tax to be kept LOCALLY. Not 75%, not 7.5%.

The state meals tax went up on August 1 by 1.25% to 6.25%. None of that 1.25% increase nor the original 5% goes directly to the community in which it was raised. In fact, 1% goes directly to the MBTA as it has for many years.

True, some of the current State meals tax (and sales tax and income tax) comes back indirectly to Newburyport but it's in arcane local aid and education funding formulas.

The data I'm relying on is from http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/mdmstuf/LocalOptions/MealsandRooms.xls That data assumes implementation from October 2009-June 2010 as 32 communities have done.

This local option is a way to diversify our overreliance on property tax as a way to fund local services.

When your average tourist (and I'm pro-tourist by the way) visits Newburyport their dollars support our local businesses and restaurants. Visitors enjoy our historic and natural environment. They leave nothing behind to fix our sidewalks, support our schools, or lower our property taxes.

I think the money from a slight increase in a local meals tax ought to be targeted on a few specific local benefits. What if the money could encourage more people to downtown, what if sidewalks could be improved, what if our parks could be improved, what if we could increase the elderly exemption for senior homeowners? What if we put the money into a capital improvement fund for needed infrastructure repair? The needs are great and the local resources at our disposal are stretched thin.

This is hardly a radical notion that will kill Newburyport restaurants-- it's a rational move taken by Boston, Brookline, Somerville, Cambridge and many other smaller communities and it's even higher in New Hampshire and Maine.

I spoke to a restaurant owner last week who said that an increase in the amount I'm proposing would not impact business.

I wanted to raise these issues now so that they can be discussed prior to the election. I'd encourage you all to contact your City Councilors or attend the City Council meeting and make your opinions known.

Local Excise Taxes

I think this is an important discussion for voters and elected officials. I welcome your thoughts on whether Newburyport should have a local meals tax of 0.75% and increase the lodging tax from 4 to 6%. As I've been saying, I would not want these funds to go into the General Fund but rather should be targeted to a few specific City priorities.

http://edcameron.blogspot.com/2009/10/orders-on-civil-service-and-local.html

Discussion and debate are alive and well in the comment section of the Daily News....

http://www.newburyportnews.com/permalink/local_story_280223810.html

http://www.newburyportnews.com/permalink/local_story_281234157.html

Thank you, Ed Cameron

Orders on Civil Service and Local Excise Taxes

This is background information on three orders which are on the Council agenda for the Tuesday, October 13 City Council meeting at 7:30PM at City Hall.

1) Civil Service

The first order would exempt the positions of Police Marshal and Fire Chief in the City of Newburyport from provisions of civil service law of Chapter Thirty-one of the Massachusetts General Laws. The civil service status of the persons currently in the positions of Police Marshal and Fire Chief would not be impaired; the change would take effect when these positions are next vacant. This is common practice in other municipalities which have pulled these positions out of civil service.

Without the constraints of the civil service laws for these two important positions, the City can select from a much broader and diverse group of candidates, which certainly increases the City’s ability to hire the best candidate for the position. For the Marshal position, the October 2001 Newburyport Police Management review recommended this change be adopted by the Council. As I've told the current Marshal and Chief, I'm proposing this change to put the City on the best footing possible going into the future and the proposed order is not a reflection on my perception of their performance. I appreciate their professionalism in protecting our public safety.

Other communities have made this change:

Somerville
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060183.htm

Salisbury
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw05/sl050153.htm

Lowell
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw07/sl070046.htm

If approved by our Council, the State Legislature would need to pass a Home Rule Petition to enact this change.

2) Local Meals Tax

The second order concerns whether Newburyport should impose a local meals excise of 0.75%. Recently, the State increased the state meals tax from 5% to 6.25% and gave municipalities the option of adding an additional 0.75% which would stay in the community.

The following 32 communities have adopted a local meals tax effective October 1^st, 2009:

AMHERST

AUBURN

BEDFORD

BLANDFORD

BOSTON

BROOKLINE

CAMBRIDGE

CHELMSFORD

CHICOPEE

DARTMOUTH

DEERFIELD

EVERETT

FRANKLIN

GILL

HADLEY

MEDFORD

MELROSE

NANTUCKET

NORTHAMPTON

PALMER

PLAINVILLE

RAYNHAM

SAUGUS

SOMERVILLE

SOUTHBRIDGE

SPRINGFIELD

SUNDERLAND

TAUNTON

TYNGSBOROUGH

WEST SPRINGFIELD

WINTHROP

WORCESTER

3) Local Hotel Tax

The third order concerns whether Newburyport should amend its local room occupancy excise from 4% to 6%.

Taken together, the adoption of the local meals tax and the amending of the local hotel tax would be a step to diversifying the City’s revenue stream. Make no mistake about it--these are tax increases. But what is important to note is that now - with the Governor and Legislature approving these changes effective this Fiscal Year - the locally generated revenue stays here in town rather than go into State coffers. So we in Newburyport decide how we want to spend it.

Many cities and states have higher meals and hotel tax rates. For example, the state of New Hampshire recently increased its meals tax to 9% with no local option. The state of Rhode Island has a meals tax of 7% with a local option of 1%. Vermont is 9% and Maine will be increasing to 8.5%.

Much of the cost of the proposed meals tax will be paid by non-residents and virtually the entire hotel tax will be paid by non-residents. Because these excise taxes are small in nature – a $100 restaurant bill will be increased by 75 cents and a $200 B&B overnight will be increased $4 -- these incremental changes are not likely to have an impact on attracting tourists and diners to Newburyport.

The impact on residents will be real but this additional recurring revenue will help achieve important City priorities that will benefit residents and local business. Estimated annualized meals tax revenue for Newburyport, according to DOR, would be $282,658. Estimated hotel tax revenue with a 2% increase could be on the order of $30,000.

My recommendation to my fellow Councillors is that this additional revenue be targeted to specific City priorities rather than directed into the General Fund. For example, funds could be directed to downtown improvements including park, parking, and transportation; funds could be directed to neighborhood street and sidewalk repair; funds could be used to increase property tax exemptions for seniors or funds could be directed to specific education priorities.

Information from MA DOR on the administrative steps necessary to enact these changes is here http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/publ/bull/2009/2009_15B.pdf

Public input on these matters will be important as the Council discusses these issues.

Sincerely,

Councillor Ed Cameron

edcameronNBPT@gmail.com

Candidates Forum

Thanks to Larry Giunta and the local Republican Committee for sponsoring last night's candidate forum in which 11 candidates, 2 for Mayor and 9 for City Council, each had 5 minutes to present their visions and ideas for the City.

The story on the Mayoral candidates is here.

The event was well attended and, believe me, it will be worth checking on out local cable or on demand on http://portmedia.org/ It was veeeerrrrrryyyyy interesting.

City Parks’ Grand Rebirth

Some interesting thoughts on downtown parks. Hey we have one of those....and someday we might have a better one!

Complete post at http://citiwire.net/post/1293/

But there’s no single formula for new parks. Just climb up a short flight of stairs to the newly-opened “High Line” park on Manhattan’s West Side. You’ll find clusters of families and couples strolling, chatting, sipping lemonade and nibbling on waffles or sandwiches along what for years constituted a desolate and weed-choked stretch of abandoned elevated freight railroad track.

Now, from the meandering concrete walkways of this sliver of protected park space in the sky, the visitor catches stunning views of the Hudson, the Statue of Liberty, Midtown and Wall Street skyscrapers, plus amazingly intimate glimpses into the forbidden interiors of nearby apartments, stately townhouses, and offices.

Or check auto-happy, sprawling Houston. Two-term Mayor Bill White has made parks a top priority. Lead example: Discovery Green, 12 once-industrial acres on the east side of downtown. Among Discovery Green’s features: a shaded walkway featuring 100-year-old oak trees, thematic gardens with native Texas plants, birds and butterflies, fountains and spacious green lawns, a model boat basin, a children’s stage, WiFi everywhere, and two restaurants. Plus lots of people watching.

Indeed, if there were ever a bonanza decade for America’s parks, this is surely it. Add stunning new parks in Boston, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Denver and Santa Fe, plus the success of conservancies in revamping great old parks in such cities as Pittsburgh, Brooklyn and San Francisco.

And by good fortune, there’s a skilled chronicler tracking and analyzing the wave–Peter Harnik, parks expert for the Trust for Public Land and author of a soon-to-be published Island Press book on today’s parks phenomenon.

For amost a half century, Harnik notes, the reigning American park model was Disneyland– “corporate, programmed, extravagant, rural, flawless and electrifying.” City parks “began grinding down relentlessly everywhere” as people realized “the park experience could be sanitized, social classes could be segregated.”

So why the big turnaround now? Partly it’s the “wow” in the new city parks–fascinating gardens, theaters, concerts, fountains, ice skating. That’s why, says Harnik, the 2004 opening of the Millennium Park in Chicago had the biggest impact on the American parkland scene since New York’s great Central Park opened in 1873.

But Harnik insists there’s more to the revival–that we’re seeing a revival of factors “ignored in the din of massive suburbanization and sprawl–human scale, walkability, efficiency, and respect for ecological principles and democratic ideals.” Or put another way, we’re reawakening to parks’ ultimate value: “an interplay–a conversation–between people and nature.”

Charter Review Information Session, Thursday, September 10

On Thursday, September 10 at 7:00PM there will be a meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers to shed further light on the City Charter ballot question. Over 2200 citizens of Newburyport have signed petitions calling for a review of the city charter. The question will appear on the ballot in November. If the question is approved by the voters, a 9-member commission will also be elected.

Attending the September 10 meeting will be Steve McGoldrick of the UMass Collins Center for Public Management. McGoldrick is an expert on options for structuring forms of city governance. The president of the Winthrop City Council, Tom Reilly, will also be attendance. Winthrop is a community that has recently gone through the charter review process.

The meeting will be purely informational, and will be covered by local news outlets, including Port Media cable TV.

The public will be invited to ask questions regarding the Ballot Question, the Charter Commission or the review process.

Looking forward to seeing you on September 10, 7-9 PM in City Hall.

The Committee to promote City Charter Review
Ed Cameron
Judith Grohe
Hugh Kelleher
Bonnie Sontag
Chip Wyser

City Council Planning and Development Committee meetings

The following three Planning and Development Committee meetings have been scheduled and have also been posted as Committee of the Whole so other Councillors can attend.

• Thursday, August 20th at 7pm to discuss NRA appointment (Council Chamber, City Hall)
• Wednesday, August 26th at 6pm to discuss Parks and Rec regulations, Wind Energy ordinance, and other matters (Auditorium, City Hall)
• Thursday, August 27th at 6pm to discuss 'small wind' turbine with Mass Audubon (Council Chamber, City Hall)

The meetings are open to the public.

Crow Lane Landfill Update — August 15, 2009

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ruch, Susan (DEP)
Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Crow Lane Landfill Update — August 15, 2009
To: "Information, Crowlane (DEP)"

Key Date & Other Important Information:

· November 2009 — The Final Judgment entered by the Superior Court requires New Ventures (NV) to cap the Crow Land Landfill by November 2009. Among other things, New Ventures is specifically required to install the gas blanket and fabric membrane liner (FML) layer on the landfill. Installation of the FML is critical to capturing and controlling fugitive emissions from the Landfill.

· MassDEP continues to actively monitor conditions at the Landfill and in the neighborhoods, and directing the activities of our consultant, Shaw Environmental.

· MassDEP continues to closely review complaints and, whenever possible, to deploy Shaw to investigate, document and control odor problems, and to provid real-time communications to New Ventures about what we are seeing and smelling on the ground.

· MassDEP continues to explore with New Ventures what additional measures can be implemented to reduce odors during the closure.

· MassDEP is looking into discrepancies between the number of complaint reports received by MassDEP from New Ventures and the number of complaints that some citizens report (through e-mail) they have called into the answering service. MassDEP is actively investigating this discrepancy, as well as reports about the answering service, together with the Attorney General’s Office.

· This update is being provided as part of MassDEP’s commitment to more frequent communications with the residents and officials of Newburyport concerning the capping and closure of Crow Lane Landfill. Please send your questions, comments and suggestions to: crowlane.information@massmail.state.ma.us. In addition to these email updates, correspondence and reports are posted in the MassDEP Northeast Region web site at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/about/region/crowlane.htm

Landfill Update — August 15, 2009:

· Conditions at the Landfill: Conditions at the Landfill this past week were generally good. Shaw inspects the Landfill and marks any breakouts first thing each morning and throughout the day. This week, there were fewer breakouts and these were small in size. New Ventures promptly addressed these breakouts. Since MassDEP deployed Shaw to closely monitor conditions at the Landfill and provide real-time communication to New Ventures, there has been a reduction in the number and severity of gas and leachate breakouts at the Landfill.

· Flare Problem Detected and Corrected on Thursday: As part of MassDEP’s routine inspections of the landfill gas pretreatment and flare system, Shaw observed that the flare was operating below design temperature on Thursday, August 13^th. MassDEP immediately directed New Ventures to quickly implement measures to restore the flare to the proper operating temperature.

o New Ventures took prompt action to temporarily shut down the flare. Under observation of Shaw, New Ventures inspected the flare and found that the damper control arm had come loose, resulting in improper operation of the damper. In addition, New Ventures then experienced a problem with the ignition plug.

o In addition to correcting the damper control arm and ignition plug problems, New Ventures took the opportunity of the flare being down to replace the thermal couple sensor and clean the screen at the damper. The flare was down for about three (3) hours, from approximately 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

· Additional Survey Work Conducted: New Ventures provided a current conditions survey plan to MassDEP. Pursuant to MassDEP’s request, New Ventures had its surveyors return to the Landfill at the end of the week to take a few additional survey points. These surveys reflect current contours of the Landfill.

Activities at the Landfill during the Week of 8/17 — 8/21:

· Ambient Air Sampling to be Conducted Early this Week: Ambient air sampling will be conducted by Shaw early this week, under the supervision and direction of MassDEP staff. Samples will be taken both at the Landfill and in surrounding neighborhoods. Originally been scheduled for last week, this sampling was postponed due to wet weather and wind directions. The weather forecast suggests good conditions for sampling early during the week of 8/17.

o With respect to sampling in the neighborhood, we plan to take samples when odors can actually be detected. If we are in the neighborhood but cannot detect odor, we will take a single air sample at that time. We will return to the neighborhood again, as necessary, until we are able to take some samples under actual odor conditions.

o If you smell an odor early this week, please call the New Ventures complaint line and, if you are able to do so, send an e-mail as soon as possible. Your calls to New Ventures, together with your e-mails, will assist us in obtaining samples when odors are occurring.

· Groundwater, Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Scheduled: Sampling of groundwater, surface water and sediments are scheduled for Thursday or Friday of this week, contingent upon weather conditions. This sampling will be conducted by Shaw under the supervision and direction of MassDEP staff.

· Actions Taken to Install Jerome Meter Network: MassDEP is installing additional Jerome Meters in neighborhoods around the Landfill. Early this week, MassDEP staff and Shaw will visit several proposed locations to confirm that such locations are appropriate and workable.

o Shaw is constructing cases to house and protect the meters.

o Shaw will install the cases and meters. We hope to complete installation by the end of the week.

· Inspection of Flare Being Scheduled for Late August: Shaw is finalizing the sub‑contract with Highland Power to inspect the flare.

o Highland Power designed and built the flare and previously performed a flare inspection in 2008. The purpose of Highland’s inspection is to ensure the flare system is operating as designed and for Highland Power to provide any recommendations concerning operation and maintenance of the flare system.

o Scheduling of this inspection is based upon the availability of key Highland personnel. The inspection will likely occur the week of August 24^th.

###

The Finances of a Senior Center

A few thoughts after reading today's Daily News and Tom Salemi's blog:

Currently, the City has a General Fund Operating Budget of $46.6 Million. We spend $21.0 Million on the School Department, $3.0 Million for the Police Department, $2.9 Million for the Fire Department, $1.1 Million for the Library and $183,190 on Council of Aging services.

In terms of the operating budget after a Senior Center is built, there will be a slight increase but it is more likely in the several thousands range rather than the tens of thousands range. Of the $183,190 we spend on Council of Aging services, $14,000 is for rent of Salvation Army space. So assume the $14,000 goes into building operating costs and then add some additional funds for heating, cooling, and upkeep: we're still talking a pretty small operating cost annually. That marginal increase in cost will be offset by programming efficiencies from running services in one site versus rented and borrowed spaces.

The Senior Center construction is a one time cost.

The original $5 Million figure was based on a very simple feasibility study, which basically tested whether a Senior Center would fit on the site.

The current $6.8 Million ESTIMATE from the architect factors in what construction costs might be in three years (post recession) as well as plans to create a basement (with elevator) where in the future more space can be had without expanding the footprint. The Senior Center Building Committee wants to build the Center in a way which enhances the park and playground uses at Cushing Park, and not expand the footprint in 20 years when we will have more seniors living in Newburyport. I think Tom Salemi will then be in his mid-forties.

In terms of the capital outlay, the City has never been 'on the hook' for a certain amount of the capital cost of a Senior Center.

The path to funding this project has always included Federal, State, City (meaning you all and me voting for some amount of debt exclusion), and private donors---the funding mix percentages have always been uncertain. See my post from over a year ago: http://edcameron.blogspot.com/2008/06/cushing-park-and-senior-center-why-i.html

The more successful the private fundraising and grant writing, the smaller will be the local burden. Now that the design phase is completed, the private fundraising needs to begin. That will take some time, then we'll see what is needed from the City side. Mayor Moak has consistently said that the City (ie we taxpayers) would have to kick in if this is to happen. Newburyport voters have approved what they have seen as necessary capital projects in the past: Library, High School, Police Station.

My own guess is that a debt exclusion of $1 to 2 Million might be acceptable to voters; more than that would be a difficult sell. As with any debt exclusion or override, the voters have the final say in how their tax dollars are spent.

Whether NBPT voters will approve this down the road, whether the Friends of the Council on Aging are able to find donors, whether the Commonwealth's Dept of Housing and Community Development would approve a substantial grant from CDBG, whether our elected Federal officials can direct funding to this project-----all remains to be seen.

What is clear to me is a Senior Center is an important vehicle for basic services and programming for isolated and vulnerable seniors---there are a lot of these folks living here. You might be surprised. I think it's the least we can do.