Feliz Navidad

Joy to the World.....a Beatlish version

Paid Parking

Last night I sent an email out to Ward 4 constituents asking their opinion on paid parking. In the interest of passing along information, here's what they said (with names removed)...with results still coming in;-).

Dear Ward 4 Constituent,

This Wednesday 12/1 at 6pm at City Hall the City Council's Public Safety Committee will again be meeting to discuss the Mayor's proposed paid parking plan.

Details of that plan can be found here:
http://cityofnewburyport.com/Planning/ParkingProgram.html

and a recent article in the Daily News is here:
http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x104130284/Officials-have-concerns-on-parking-plan

The ordinances associated with the parking plan will most likely be coming before the Council in the next few weeks.

Please let me know whether you are in favor of paid parking or not. Also let me know if you have questions or concerns.

Thank you,

Ed Cameron
Ward 4 Councillor

In favor.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have a problem with paid parking in lots and free on-street parking. I think it will lead to people driving their cars around blocks (more than they do already) looking for a free spot to open up. We want to encourage less driving rather than more!

I'd prefer to see parking treated consistently on the street or in a lot, but if we're charging for all parking, the rate could be less than fifty cents an hour.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Please represent that residents should have some preference such as free or reduced rate with a residence sticker.

Thank you,

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

Yes, I'm in favor of paid parking with the proviso that residents and employees can buy an annual parking sticker (Residents should pay a higher fee than employees. In fact, it would be a good idea for employers to pay the fee for their employees.)
-------------------------------------------------------------

I support it, but remain confused about where stickered residents may park.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, Ed. I am absolutely, positively against paid parking. It is by far the worst idea that has been proposed in the 30 years that I have lived in Newburyport.

I think that the Mayor and City Council should do their jobs and actually represent the citizens and taxpayers instead of constantly coming up with schemes to raise taxes and fees .

People can not afford to keep paying and paying!

Try cutting some of the waste, instead.

Remember when we discussed the 3 million of our taxpayer dollars that you all paid for 8 small apartments worth far less than 1/3 of that figure? Thank You
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ed,
Paid parking stinks, but it won't smell as bad if residents received stickers to park for free.
Also I wouldn't mind riding a shuttle into town if fact that would be better. Make Newburyport more of a walking city.
thanks for all you do,

##### says all the $$ the city gets from parking should go into local transportation & parking outside the city.
I agree.
Stay strong,

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

I am in favor of paid parking but would also include the streets, but I know I am a significant minority. Portsmouth charges 75 cents per hour, street or garage. The only thing you may have neglected is permits for volunteers. Many people from Newbury, West Newbury... volunteer at Firehouse, archive room at Library or perhaps Custom House regularly. I think they should be able to get some special rate, especially since they perform a great service for no money.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am against paid parking. In this economy, let us help our businesses by letting people park for free. If the ordinance does pass, let the parking cost $.05/hour!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ed,

I'm in accord with the passes for the lots, and think it's good that residents business people and seniors can purchase an annual pass. Not clear about whether there will be parking meters on the street. What if lots are full? Would all the public lots be available, and where would we go if lots are full?

Thanks.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

I am in favor of paid parking. It may encourage residents in our rather tight community to consider some healthier alternatives to driving, such as walking or bicycling, and will generate revenue the city needs.

The debate over this has run on long enough. Paid parking is inevitable, and like Health Care Reform, a program can't be fixed until there really is one.

Thanks for the communication and I hope the response helps.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ed,

I fully support paid parking in the downtown, but the proposed program is going in the wrong direction. Studies from other cities show that much of the traffic congestion on downtown streets is represented by drivers circling the block looking for an open parking space. Free on-street parking encourages this behavior, regardless of whether the time limit is 15 minutes or 2 hours. Charging for off-street parking and leaving on-street parking free will further drive people to look for on-street spaces, further congest the downtown streets, and use the City's available parking spaces inefficiently.

It is generally accepted that parking should be managed with the objective of an 85% occupancy rate. This is done by calibrating parking rates so that the most desirable spaces (on-street, closest to shops) cost more per hour. Here's an example of how this approach could be applied in Newburyport, as long as the NRA lots are available:

NRA East Lot: free, 12-hour limit

Library Lot: free, 2-hour limit

Other public lots: 50 cents/hour

On-street: 75 cents/hour

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

I would like you to vote in favor of paid parking with discount to residents. The cost is modest, it won't have an impact on visitors and it will bring in much needed revenue. As for the residents saying it will be a heartship, I don't agree. Most residents know where they can find free parking on the street. Really! We need to break through these barriers and get ourselves into the 21st century.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Ed, thank you for including me on this mailing list.

It's just one man's opinion but I strongly wish the city does not approve paid parking.

Not based on logic, just intuition, I cannot help but feel it will be yet one more significant measure detracting form "quality of life" in our small but beautiful city.

Remember the bike path on Hign Street? That was rather, well, not such a good idea.

Paid parking, it makes sense in a lot of municipalities. However, Newburyport is steadily losing much of it's "charm." Parking meters, the concept of building a parking garage and the like feel so user un-friendly to me. Just my opinion.

Regardless, let me assure you, you and city officials of every stripe do have my gratitude for serving, and putting in the time and energy for those the city

Merry Christmas

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Ed,

Thanks for taking the pulse. My own feeling on parking downtown is this: I think we *need* convenient parking downtown; that it’s gotten to the point where it’s choking business downtown. I had to go downtown the other week to pick up a couple of things – a random rainy weekday afternoon in mid-November, and there were a handful of cars continually circling the parking lot. How do we think this is *not* turning off out-of-towners from coming to Newburyport for a lunch date or a quick shopping stop? And this was not summer or holiday traffic.

That said, it’s about capacity to me, not revenue generation. This plan does nothing for parking capacity, it’s simply a naked revenue grab. And it will further alienate out-of-town visitors. Ultimately, (under this plan) I’d expect all the Newburyport residents to purchase the annual parking passes, so the inconvenience will be passed solely to visitors of our downtown.

Worse, by the plan’s own forecast, we’ll wind up with a system where half of the additional revenue will be eaten up by the additional headcount and operating expenses to maintain it. And, in my experience with forecasts like these, that’s an optimistic view.

So, I think this is short-sighted and bone-headed, and does nothing to alleviate the parking shortcomings we do have. For the record, I *am* in favor of a parking garage, even if that parking garage usage is fee-based, because we’ve then added value and convenience, which this plan does not.

Let me know if you feel differently. I’d be curious. Thanks Ed.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ed,

I am strongly in favor of a uniform paid parking system within the city. The Mayor's plan gives many options to residents, and will provide much needed revenue to the City....the bulk of which will come from visitors. We have a big problem in NBPT, in that we are a highly regarded tourist destination, that fails to capitalize on that fact! Yet....our services and public works are called upon to maintain our beautiful community. Hence, our tax dollars in effect, subsidize the benefits received by visitors. Pretty stupid if you ask me!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Ed,

A few points/questions:

* I still think it's a mistake not to charge parking for the 1000+ off street parking spaces. The city will lose money. The streets will be clogged with people cruising for free spaces. Yada, yada......
* I was happy to see the average occupancy expectancy was 28%. I thought I'd read 70% in teh paper, which is outrageous.
* I'm a little unclear on how the all day parking works in some lots (Tracey, NRA Lots). Does everyone pay one all-day flat fee upfront? Or do you have the option of paying hourly or daily?

Thanks Ed. Wish I could attend.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I am in favor of paid parking, if the funds can go towards new sidewalks throughout the city.

Thanks

-------------------------------------------------------------

I am in favor of this proposal.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

Yes I am in favor of paid parking.

Thanks, I appreciate the emails you send as a City Councilor to keep us informed and asking for our opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ed,

I am not in favor of paid parking. The net revenue estimates I've seen so far could be easily achieved through spending cuts in other areas of the city. For example, there is no need for the existence of the Molin Upper Elementary School within the Nock Middle School. I am really surprised that a new principal was hired for the Molin this year with absolutely no discussion about the necessity of the position.

In my view, paid parking is the equivalent of a tax. I simply can't support tax increases when there is still work to be done on the spending side of the ledger.

Thanks for soliciting my input.

Meals Tax

The City Council last night voted in favor of establishing a local meals excise tax. An amount equal to 50% of that new revenue will be targeted to repair of existing City-owned sidewalks.

The Daily News story is here http://www.newburyportnews.com/local/x1364888787/Council-OKs-local-meals-tax-option

In September 2010, I had sent a survey via email to 107 Ward 4 constituents.

These are constituents with whom I've had contact in my 3 years on the Council. They are not necessarily friends or supporters; in fact, many of them have had disagreements with me; they are of all political persuasions and ages ; most have been in Newburyport for at least 20 years.

I received 56 responses to the survey.

I don't claim to be a statistician. 56 opinions out of approximately 1900 registered Ward 4 voters might not seem like much. But I compare this to pollsters, such as Suffolk University which accurately predicted both the Scott Brown-Martha Coakley race and the Charlie Baker-Deval Patrick race with a survey sample of 500 out of 4.1 million registered voters. So I think my survey has some validity.

Based on these responses and many conversations with Ward 4 and other residents, I do believe there is broad support for the Local Meals Excise Tax.

On the floor of the Council last night during discussion, both Councillors Heartquist and Herzog stated that constituents they had asked were in favor of adopting the meals tax by a similar margin.

In the survey, I asked the following question about the Meals Tax proposal:

The City Council is considering whether Newburyport should adopt a 0.75% local meals tax to generate local revenue. This tax would be in addition to the 6.25% meals tax which goes to the State. Over 110 Massachusetts cities and towns have adopted the local meals tax including Boston. New Hampshire has a 9% meals tax. Proponents note that 75 cents would be added to a $100 restaurant bill and a local meals tax would generate over $300,000 for Newburyport with much of the revenue coming from tourists. Opponents say such a tax would have a negative impact on local restaurants and place an unfair additional burden on residents.

Do you favor, oppose, or are you undecided on whether Newburyport should adopt this tax?

Total Respondents 56

Favor-- 40 Respondents or 71.4%

Oppose-- 13 Respondents or 23.2%

Undecided-- 3 Respondents or 5.4%

Comments in Favor (16)

1. Does anyone really believe that adding 75 cents to a $100 restaurant bill will make a difference to a customer?

2. Good revenue source and will not affect restaurants.

3. I don't understand how it would unfair additional burden on residents.

4. I favor this *only* if the revenue is tied to something tangible, like improvements to sidewalks. I oppose this if it becomes simply an unfocused revenue grab.

5. If you can afford a $100 meal, you can afford 75 cents.

6. I've already given you my comments on this: Ridiculous to believe that an additional 75cents per $100 will cause someone to go elsewhere for a meal.

7. My decisions about going out depend on cost of whole meal, noy this piddling amount.

8. Perhaps slate this for a specific cause (s)

9. small potatoes, except to the business community which seems to run this city by influence

10. Soak the tourist bastards!

11. The amt. will barely be noticed on a bill - plus most residents don't eat at local restaurants!

12. The meals tax is much higher in neighboring states. The poorer folks won't likely be dining in restaurants with a $100. tab.

13. the money should go to the above mentioned important municipal services depts

14. This tax is not a burden on those who can dine out, buy liquor, and frequent hotels, B&B's, etc.

15. This would not stop my family from going out to the local restaurants.

16. Use some of the income for sidewalks as suggested

Comments Against (5)

1. Enough taxes, thats not the only answer. Or it is when you have no other idea how to generate money. Seems like the poor leaders always want to raise taxes, its their only answer.

2. Having to pay a local meal tax and paid parking it going to keep some people from going down town. People had express their feeling about on the DN blog.

3. Reighn in the gov't spending

4. Stop gouging the residents and visitors!

5. That would only drive people further away from Newburyport. It would go against the culture of the town a social, hospitable, fun place to spend time.

This was a contentious issue. I thank the people who spoke at Public Comment, attended a meeting, emailed their Councillors, or signed the petition against the meals tax.

Facts At a Glance: Demystifying the Chapter 70 Formula -- How the Massachusetts Education Funding System Works from Mass Budget and Policy Center

Facts At a Glance:
Demystifying the Chapter 70 Formula -- How the Massachusetts Education Funding System Works

Table of Contents

• How The Formula Works

• Isn't the Actual Formula Much More Complicated Than This?

• History

• Other Useful Resources on Chapter 70

next

PRINT THIS PAGE FULL REPORT IN PDF EMAIL A FRIEND BOOKMARK & SHARE

Friday, October 22, 2010

Table of Contents

• How The Formula Works

• Isn't the Actual Formula Much More Complicated Than This?

• History

• Other Useful Resources on Chapter 70

next

OVERVIEW

This Facts At A Glance is designed to demystify the Chapter 70 formula for distributing education aid to local and regional school districts, so that people can become better engaged in school finance discussions in Massachusetts. While understanding the formula may seem daunting, its basic structure is actually quite simple, as demonstrated by the four steps outlined below. (For further information on the formula’s more technical details and on changes made since 1993, please see a listing of additional resources at the end of this paper.)

WHAT IS CHAPTER 70?

Chapter 70 education aid is the Commonwealth’s primary program for distributing its portion of K-12 public education funding to the state’s 328 local and regional school districts.¹ The Chapter 70 formula aims to ensure that each school district has sufficient resources to provide an adequate education for all of its students, taking into account the ability of each local government to contribute. In short, the formula is designed to have an equalizing effect, with less wealthy districts receiving more state aid than wealthier ones.²

HOW DOES THE FORMULA WORK?

Chapter 70 aid allocations to school districts are determined through four basic steps:³

STEP 1: CALCULATE FOUNDATION BUDGET

The Massachusetts State Constitution requires that total K-12 spending in each district never falls below the amount needed to provide an adequate education to its students. Lawmakers developed the “foundation budget” as a way to calculate this funding level. A district’s foundation budget is determined by multiplying the number of students at each grade level and demographic group (e.g., low-income and limited English proficiency students) by a set of education spending categories (e.g., teacher compensation, professional development, building maintenance), and then adding together those total dollar amounts.⁴

This total “foundation budget” is designed to represent the total cost of providing an adequate education for all students, and it is often expressed as a per-pupil foundation budget by dividing the total foundation budget by the number of students (as we do in the graph below).

STEP 2: CALCULATE REQUIRED LOCAL CONTRIBUTION

Once the total foundation budget is established, the state calculates each city and town’s ability to contribute local revenue towards the operation of its schools. Local ability to contribute varies widely based upon the incomes and property values of different cities and towns. The state expects that each municipality can contribute the same share of local resources to the foundation budget by setting uniform contribution rates. In FY 2011, for example, local contributions were determined by adding 0.3 percent of each town’s total property values to 1.4 perecnt of the income earned by residents of the town.

The required local contribution is basically a measure of how much local tax revenue a city or town can reasonably raise and dedicate to the operation of its schools.

STEP 3: FILL THE GAP WITH CHAPTER 70 EDUCATION AID

Chapter 70 education aid is then determined by filling the gap between a district’s required local contribution and its foundation budget. Calculating state aid from the difference between steps 1 and 2 ensures that every district can fund the total baseline education determined appropriate by the foundation budget.

STEP 4: AFTER CHAPTER 70 AID IS DETERMINED, DISTRICTS MAY CONTRIBUTE MORE

The required local contribution is only a minimum amount that cities and towns must contribute to their school districts, and many wealthier communities opt to contribute significantly more. For this reason, the Chapter 70 formula provides a baseline school budget, but it does not ensure equitable total funding across the state. Please see the graph below for an example.

In the example above, Lynn has a higher foundation budget than Newton but a lower total budget. Lynn’s foundation budget is higher mostly because it has a higher proportion of low-income and limited English proficient students, two categories of students that have higher associated costs when determining a foundation budget. Newton, however, is able to supplement its smaller Chapter 70 state aid with significantly more local revenue.

Notice that for both Lynn and Newton total funding is at least as high as their respective foundation budgets. The major difference, however, is that Lynn’s total funding level is essentially equal to its foundation budget (only $23 higher per student), whereas Newton’s is 60 percent greater ($5,400 higher per student). So even though Newton receives roughly $7,300 less per student in Chapter 70 state aid, it has greater local resources at its disposal, enabling it to provide enough supplemental local funding to produce a total per-pupil budget that is roughly $3,200 higher than Lynn’s.

---

¹ The vast majority of education funding in Massachusetts comes from state and local government sources, with the federal government typically contributing only around 5 percent of school budgets. For more information on sources of education funding over time and to see how Massachusetts compares to other states, please see MassBudget’s Public School Funding in Massachusetts: Where We Are, What Has Changed, and How We Compare to Other States.

²Specific decisions about spending Chapter 70 aid money are left to districts themselves, and this form of state aid is separate from another form of state aid, “unrestricted general local aid,” which supports other local services like fire protection and road maintenance. The state does distribute additional money for other specific education programs, such as a pilot program for schools operating a longer school day, but Chapter 70 aid represents by far the largest portion of state K-12 education funding.

³ Technically speaking, Step 4 occurs after the full Chapter 70 formula has been run, rather than as a part of the formula itself. We include additional local contributions, Step 4, as a part of this Facts At A Glance since they are an important part of the overall education funding system in Massachusetts.

⁴ There is also a wage adjustment factor that increases the costs of salaries in parts of the state where wages are higher than average.

Boston Globe, NEWBURYPORT New tax options debated

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2010/09/23/newburyport_considers_local_meals_lodging_taxes/

Excerpt:

Newburyport residents are debating proposals to adopt a local meals tax and increase the city’s hotel/motel tax.

At issue is not just whether the city should approve the measures, but how it should spend the additional revenue.

The proposals, which call for levying a .75 percent local meals tax and raising the room occupancy tax from 4 percent to 6 percent, will be discussed at the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting next Monday at 7 p.m. in City Hall.

“To me, it’s another way we can diversify our tax base,’’ said Ward 4 Councilor Ed Cameron, who chairs the Budget and Finance Committee and proposed the two tax increases. “Right now, we’re overly reliant on the property tax. . . . Local aid has been declining or flat the last seven years.’’

He said the money that the two taxes would generate for the city — about $300,000 from the meals tax and $28,000 more from the hotel/motel tax — could help meet pressing needs.

“We’ve laid off over 30 teacher positions the last five years. We almost laid off firefighters the last budget round. Our sidewalks and roads are in deplorable condition,’’ said Cameron, who expects his panel to vote on a recommendation on the proposals to the full council as early as Monday’s meeting.

---------

...Cameron would like to see the city use the new revenue for infrastructure repairs, in particular sidewalk upgrades.

Les Petit Chanteurs & Chamber Ensemble, 7 pm Monday October 4, 2010

Les Petit Chanteurs & Chamber Ensemble
of Holy Trinity Music School
Port Au Prince, Haiti

Live in concert to raise funds to rebuild their school,
which was destroyed in the Earthquake earlier this year.

Tickets: $10.00/ Adult $5.00/Child 5 & Under Free
All proceeds (100%) go toward the building fund.
7 pm Monday October 4, 2010

at St Paul’s Episcopal Church
166 High St
Newburyport, MA 01950

978-465-5351

AGENDA-CITY COUNCIL MEETING –AUGUST 30, 2010

AGENDA-CITY COUNCIL MEETING –AUGUST 30, 2010

Version 1
______________________________________________________________________________________

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:30 PM
______________________________________________________________________________________

1. OPENING PRAYER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. CALL TO ORDER

4. LATE FILE ITEMS

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT AGENDA
NOTE: ALL ITEMS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 9, 2010 (Approve)

6. TRANSFERS
1. Mayor (Overlay Surplus) to Charter Commission (10,000) (B&F)

7. COMMUNICATIONS
1. Friends on the Council on Aging, Box Location (Approve)
2. Acting Out Studios/Roald Dahl Festival, Parade (PS)
3. Fuel Storage Change, Shell Station, Story Ave (PS)
4. Block Party, Purchase St, 9/11/2010 (Approve)
5. Block Party, Atkinson St, 9/11/2010 (Approve)

8. APPOINTMENTS
FIRST READING
RE-APPOINTMENTS
1. Thomas Howard 65 Middle Road Emergency Man Dir Concurrent w/
Newbury Marshall Appt

2. Julie Languirand 13 Cushing Street Treasurer/Collector Three Years
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
REGULAR AGENDA

9. APPOINTMENT – CITY COUNCIL - 2ND READING
¬RE-APPOINTMENTS

1. Alan Bull 103 Water Street Cultural Council 04/30/2013
2. David Hanlon 68 Warren Street Sewer Commission 08/01/2013
3. Sherry Moore 62 Marlboro Street Cultural Council 04/30/2012
4. John Tomaz 38 Storeybrooke Drive Water Commission 04/30/2015

APPOINTMENTS

1. Megan Muldowney 87 Fourteenth Avenue, Haverhill Special Police Officer

11. ORDERS
1. Bond Order, (500,000) Sewer Pump Station (2nd Reading)
2. Bond Order, (18,750,000) (2nd Reading)
3. City Hall Revolving Fund

12. ORDINANCES
1. Dog Licensing, Fee Increase, Sec. 3-27

13. COMMITTEE ITEMS
Budget & Finance
In Committee:
1. Room Occupancy Excise to 6% *1/11/2010
2. Local Meals Excise *1/11/2010
3. Hmaster Ret Earnings ($44,750) to Additional Equip *4/12/2010
4. Bond Authorization, WTP (18,750,000) *7/22/2010(8/9/2010
5. Bond Order, (500,000) Sewer Pump Station *8/9/2010

Joint Education
In Committee

General Government
In Committee
1. Atmospheric Pollution Ordinance *2/8/2010

License & Permits
1. In Committee:
2. Daily News vending machine requests *6/14/2010
3. Yard Sales, Amendment, Sec 9-2 *8/9/2010

Neighborhoods & City Services
In Committee:
1. Street Lighting Recommendation *5/10/2010
2. Outdoor Illumination Standards *7/12/2010
3. Newburyport Tree Ordinance *7/22/2010

Planning & Development
In Committee:
1. Residential Handicap Parking Ordinance *1/11/2010
2. Atmospheric Pollution Ordinance *2/8/2010
3. Green Communities Order *3/29/2010
4. Planning Board Report on Wind Energy *3/29/2010
5. Zoning Ord – Sec II Definitions/Sec VI Dimensional Controls
6. Expedited Permitting *4/26/2010
7. Stretch Energy Code *4/26/2010
8. Wills Lane Conservation Restriction *7/12/2010
9. Newburyport Tree Ordinance *7/22/2010
10. Ferry Road Conservation Restriction *8/9/2010

Public Safety
In Committee:
1. Civil Service Home Rule Petition *1/11/2010
2. Residential Handicap Parking Ordinance *1/11/2010
3. Handicapped Parking – Riverside Park *1/25/2010
4. One Hour Parking – Deletion, Riverside *1/25/2010
5. Paid Parking, Riverside Park *1/25/2010
6. Municipal Parking Lots *2/8/2010
7. Street Lighting Recommendation *5/10/2010
8. Two hours Time Restriction Sec 13 -175 *6/14/2010
9. One hour Time Restrictions Sec. 13-176 *6/14/2010
10. Central Business District Lot, Parking, Sec. 13-177*6/14/2010
11. Tracey Place Lot, Parking, Sec. 13-178 *6/14/2010
12. State Street Lot, Parking, Sec. 13-178.1 *6/14/2010
13. Nbpt Redevelopment Auth. Lot, Sec. 13-186 *6/14/2010
14. Resident Parking, Zone Permits Sec. 13-180 *6/142010
15. Res. and Sr. Paid Permits for Parking Sec13-180 *6/14/2010
16. Employee Paid Permits for Parking Sec 13-180B *6/14/2010

Public Utilities Committee
In Committee:
1. Stormwater Management Ordinance * 6/28/2010
2. Outdoor Illumination Standards * 7/12/2010
3. Bond Authorization, WTP (18,750,000) *7/22/2010(8/9/2010
4. Bond Order, (500,000) Sewer Pump Station *8/9/2010

Rules Committee

14. GOOD OF THE ORDER

15. ADJOURNMENT

Ward 4 Issues, August 2010

To Ward 4 residents:

I want to update you on matters related to Ward 4.

Please keep in touch with issues that concern you. Email is easiest (edcameronNBPT@gmail.com) and cell phone is fine too (978-518-0786). I try to use my blog http://edcameron.blogspot.com/ to communicate on general matters of concern.

Over the last several months, I've worked with City Departments on the following neighborhood issues:

Street Repaving: because of limited funding, the City is able to repave only a limited number of streets. In our Ward, Tyng (between High and Munroe) and North Atkinson (closer to High Street) are being repaved this summer. I advocated for others. I receive a lot of communication from constituents about their streets, so please continue to provide me with your input, so that I can work with the Mayor and the Highway Dept. I've heard from people about Arlington, Ashland, Jefferson and others so please keep communicating. The street paving list is updated every year, so the input is helpful.

Potholes: The Highway Dept is usually quite effective in doing these short term repairs. In fact, quite often, I will contact them about a pothole and find they've filled it the day before. However, because of utility trench work and the fact that we don't repave as much as we ought to, there are a lot of potholes and cracks. Over the last several months, I've contacted the Highway Dept to fill potholes on:

• Merrimac St
• High Street
• Jackson Street
• Collins Street
• Jefferson Street
• Ashland Street
• North Atkinson Street (I'm very pleased that a sunken manhole cover at Simmons Drive is being repaired)
• Dexter Street
  

Street Signs: The City has ordered these signs which are missing. I've noticed a few (Pleasant, Lafayette) which look like someone's tried to twist them off. Quite irritating...and costly to the City. The City attempts to make these very secure, but signs keep getting taken.

• Munroe Street (at corner of Oakland)
  
• Tracy Street (at intersection with Columbus)
  
• Jackson Street (at corner of Oakland)
  
• Walnut Street (at corner of Oakland)
• Carter Street (at corner of Merrimac)
• California Street (at corner of Merrimac)
• Savory Street

According to Tony Furnari of DPS, the signs which were ordered awhile ago have been received and we should start seeing them in the next few days.

Quick Update on Last Night's City Council Meeting of August 9, 2010

The official minutes will be approved at the next City Council meeting, but here are some quick updates from last night in roughly chronological order.

"Green Initiatives" Transfer
The Council agreed to transfer $2,500 from the Green Initiatives Special Revenue fund to complete a survey of Newburyport street lights. The City currently does not have accurate mapping of street light locations. National Grid can provide a list of street lights based on pole numbers; the City Planning Departments most recent list is from 1997. The transfer will be used to create an editable database and map with each light's GIS position. The money is coming from a $400,000 rebate from the Nock solar energy project, a fund which is to be used for 'green initiatives'.
The Council approved the transfer by a 6-5 vote. I voted to approve the transfer. Before we continue to talk about turning off streetlights or installing more efficient lighting, we need accurate information.

Clearwell Transfer
The Council approved by a 11-0 vote to transfer $50,000 for emergency repairs to the water treatment plant 'clearwell'. The clearwell is a critical part of our drinking water system. The transfer will enable the City to hire divers to enter the clearwell and repair cracks which have been discovered in recent months. Failure to make these emergency repairs could disrupt the City's water supply. The funds are being temporarily transferred within the Water Enterprise Fund from a line item to eventually repaint the Rawson Hill water tank near Anna Jaques Hospital. When the Water Enterprise Fund final FY 10 balance is certified in the Fall, the $50,000 will be transferred back to the painting project.
The Rawson Hill water tank painting project is tentatively planned for 2011 and will be done in such a way as to mitigate any impacts to the neighborhood and hospital.

Sewer and Water Bond Orders
The Councill agreed 11-0 and 11-0 to set in motion orders to finance $500,000 for improvements to the City's Crow Lane Sewer Pump Station and $18,750,000 for making major improvements to the City's water system, which is in major need of upgrade (see comments on clearwell above).
These matters have been referred jointly to the Council's Public Utilities and Budget & Finance Committees. A meeting has been set for Thursday, August 12 at 7PM at City Hall.

Community Preservation Act
The Council approved 11-0 the recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee.
Specifics on the projects can be found at http://www.nbpt.us/Planning/Community%20Preservation%20Committee/Documents/FY11%20Recommended%20Order%20for%20City%20Council%206-22-10.pdf
The CPC page can be found at http://www.nbpt.us/Planning/CPCPage.html

Disposal of Animal Waste
The Council voted to approve an increase for fines for failure to remove and dispose animal waste by the owners of their animals. The fine currently is $10 for first offense and $20 for subsequent offenses. The increase will be to $50 for first offense, $75 for second offense, and $100 for third and subsequent offenses. The Council also voted to remove language which made it illegal to dispose animal waste in municipal receptacles.

The current language is:

Sec. 3-2. Disposal of animal waste.

All persons owning or in custody of an animal will be responsible for the removal and disposal of that animal's waste which may not be placed in any receptacle owned by the city or in privately owned receptacles other than the owners. The fine for violation of this provision for the first offense shall be ten dollars ($10.00) and the second and subsequent offenses shall be twenty dollars ($20.00).

(Ord. of 11-14-84)

The new language will be:

Sec. 3-2. Disposal of animal waste.

All persons owning or in custody of an animal will be responsible for the removal and disposal of that animal's waste. The fine for violation of this provision for the first offense shall be fifty dollars ($50.00), the second offense shall be seventy-five dollars ($75.00) and subsequent offenses shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00).

Next Council meeting is Monday, August 30.

Budget and Finance Committee: Community Preservation Act

Last night the Budget and Finance Committee approved the recommendations of Newburyport's Community Preservation Committee (CPC) to fund the following projects:

Project Title	Applicant	Category	CPC Rec. Amt.
Andrews Branch Library	City of Newburyport	Historic Resource	$ 5,000
Newburyport City Trees Historic Restoration Project	Newburyport Tree Committee	Historic Resource	$ 10,000
Highland Cemetery Gravestone Restoration and Preservation	City Improvement Society	Historic Resource	$ 2,475
Beach Management Plan Priority Recommendations	Newburyport Beach Management Committee	Open Space	$ 45,000
Open Space Reserve Fund	City of Newburyport Open Space Committee	Open Space	$ 50,000
Downtown Project/Inn Street Mall	Downtown Group	Historic Resource	$ 62,500
St. Anna's Chapel Restoration	St. Paul's Church	Historic Resource	$ 23,000
Atkinson Common	Belleville Improvement Society	Historic Resource	$ 10,000
Clipper City Rail Trail Project	City of Newburyport	Recreation	$ 60,000
Preliminary Feasibility Study	Custom House Maritime Museum	Historic Resource	$ 20,000
Belleville Congregational Church Restoration Project	Belleville Congregational Church Restoration Group	Historic Resource	$ 40,000
Newburyport Powder House Restoration Project	Newburyport Preservation Trust	Historic Resource	$ 27,000
Congregation Ahavas Achim Restoration	Congregation Ahavas Achim	Historic Resource	$ 20,000
Community Housing Reserve	CPA Housing Reserve or Transfer to NAHT	Affordable Housing	$ 10,000
Newburyport Affordable Housing Trust	Newburyport Affordable Housing Trust	Affordable Housing	$ 70,000
City Hall Bond Payment	City of Newburyport	Historic Resource	$ 213,188
Open Space Bond Payment	City of Newburyport	Open Space	$ 140,819
Administrative Expenses	City of Newburyport	Admin	$ 12,000
		Total	$ 820,982

Specifics on the projects can be found at http://www.nbpt.us/Planning/Community%20Preservation%20Committee/Documents/FY11%20Recommended%20Order%20for%20City%20Council%206-22-10.pdf

The CPC page can be found at http://www.nbpt.us/Planning/CPCPage.html

These recommendations will be brought before the full Council on Monday night.

Boston Globe: Energy efficient streetlights coming to....

Energy efficient streetlights coming to Lexington

Posted August 3, 2010 08:58 AM

By Sara Brown, Town Correspondent

Lexington’s streetlights are slated for energy-efficient upgrades this fall, as the Board of Selectmen approved $930,500 for the town-wide conversion at their Monday meeting.

According to William Hadley, the director of public works, installing more energy efficient bulbs and fixtures for the town’s 3,400 streetlights will save Lexington almost $190,000 a year, offsetting the cost of the project in 3.6 years.

The town will also receive $237,724 from energy company NStar for replacing the old incandescent lights with the more efficient lights by November 30.

About 700 streetlights have already been fitted with compact florescent light bulbs, the bulb recommended by the Department of Public Works and the Electric Utility Committee. Paul Chernick represented the Committee at the meeting.

With the change, Hadley said, the streetlights’ energy use would shrink by an estimated 1.3 million kilowatt-hours each year, from 1,989,243 to 668,556.

“Energy efficiency is something that is a goal for the community,” said Selectman Deborah Mauger.

The initiative will also help the town meet their Community Energy Reduction Plan, which was established by the Selectmen. The plan calls for reducing the total town government energy use by 20 percent over five years.

Rob Addelson, the town’s finance manager, said the project would be funded by a third party lease financial agreement, costing the town about $100,000 for the current fiscal year.

After a nearly hour-long discussion about the switch, selectman Peter Kelley said he “didn’t feel comfortable with voting on this tonight,” considering the nearly million dollar initial cost and the “gray areas” involved.

The selectmen eventually agreed to the proposal, with a 4-0 vote and Kelley abstaining. The agreement to proceed came with the condition that the selectmen would monitor the process and discuss it at their next meeting, August 30.

Public Input: Local Meals and Local Room Occupancy Taxes

The City Council's Budget and Finance Committee (Councillors Cameron, Cronin, and Herzog) will meet Tuesday, July 20th at 7PM in the Program Room of the Library.

The purpose of the meeting will be to get public input on the proposed local meals excise tax and the proposed increase of our current local room occupancy excise from 4% to 6%.

The meeting has also been posted as a Committee of the Whole, so that other Councillors can participate.

Ed Cameron

Important Video for IPhone Users

NAMI: "In Our Own Voice" Program, Thursday, July 1, 2010, 7:00pm - 8:30pm

From a friend....NAMI stands for National Alliance on Mental Illness, a nonprofit, grassroots, self-help, support and advocacy organization of consumers, families, and friends of those with mental illness.

NAMI: "In Our Own Voice" Program by NAMI Northeast Essex Thursday, July 1, 2010, 7:00pm - 8:30pm

Newburyport Five Cents Savings Bank, 63 State St., Newburyport, MA FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT MENTAL ILLNESS IS ALL ABOUT.

In Our Own Voice (“IOOV”) is a free presentation given by two people living with mental illness about their journey with their diseases. The hour-long talk is appropriate for family members, friends, professionals, lay audiences and other people living with mental illness. It includes a videotape, personal testimony, discussion and enriches the audience’s understanding of how people with these serious disorders cope with reality of their illnesses while recovering and reclaiming productive lives.

For more information and to see a brief video please click here http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=In_Our_Own_Voice

Local Excise Taxes: Meeting of Budget and Finance Committee

The City Council's Budget and Finance Committee (Councillors Cameron, Cronin, and Herzog) will meet Tuesday, July 20th at 7PM in the Program Room of the Library.

The purpose of the meeting will be to get public input on the proposed local meals excise tax and the proposed increase of our current local room occupancy excise from 4% to 6%.

The meeting has also been posted as a Committee of the Whole, so that other Councillors can participate.

Ed Cameron

Mass Municipal Association: Legislature OK’s budget with no further cuts in main local aid accounts

Legislature OK’s budget with no further cuts in main local aid accounts

June 24, 2010

Both branches of the Legislature today approved the $27.6 billion fiscal 2011 state budget released by the House-Senate Budget Conference Committee 24 hours earlier.

The budget cuts the main local aid accounts by 4 percent, but makes deeper cuts to numerous other programs throughout the budget due to the possible loss of federal aid.

For the second year in a row, disagreement between the branches sidetracked legislation to allow municipalities to implement changes to health insurance plan designs in order to save taxpayers and communities up to $100 million a year.

Budget negotiations were disrupted earlier this month when the fate of $687 million in expected federal Medicaid funds became unclear, threatening to remove a vital revenue source upon which the governor, House and Senate all built their budget plans.

Thirty states have banked on receiving a share of $24 billion in temporarily higher federal Medicaid reimbursement (FMAP) percentages that Congress, the U.S. Senate and the president have all supported at various times. Congressional leaders, however, have been unable to secure the necessary votes to approve the funding in recent weeks, derailing budget planning in many states. Every member of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation is on record in support of immediate passage of the FMAP funds with the exception of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown.

Preparing for the potential loss of the $687 million in FMAP funds, the spending plan cuts tens of millions of dollars below the budgets approved in the House in April and the Senate in May, draws $100 million from the state stabilization fund, defers the transfer of another $95 million to the rainy day fund, and axes significant health access programs for immigrants and MassHealth recipients.

The Legislature, however, protected the Unrestricted General Government Aid and Chapter 70 accounts from any cuts beyond the 4 percent included in spending plans passed in the House and Senate earlier this spring. Gov. Deval Patrick has already announced that he would not impose any additional cuts on these accounts.

The Conference Committee crafted a framework that would add or restore funds to many budget accounts if the FMAP funds do materialize during the year. This is accomplished by creating an FMAP stabilization fund into which any additional FMAP funds would be deposited, and using that fund to supplement appropriations from the state’s General Fund for certain accounts identified throughout the budget.

Other than UGGA and Chapter 70, key municipal and school accounts are funded as follows:

• Regional school transportation reimbursements are level-funded at $40.5 million, though this account would be increased by $3.5 million if the state receives the full FMAP increase.

• The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes program is funded at $25.27 million, a decrease of $2 million compared to fiscal 2010, but the $2 million would be restored if the state receives the full FMAP increase.

• The Special Education Circuit Breaker program is level-funded at $133.1 million, though this account would be increased by $12.5 million if the FMAP funds materialize.

• Kindergarten Development Grants are funded at $22.95 million, a cut of $2.75 million below fiscal 2010, but $3 million would be added to the account if the state receives the full FMAP increase.

• The Shannon Anti-Gang Grant Program is level-funded at $4.5 million, though $2 million would be added if the state receives the full FMAP increase.

• Charter School Reimbursements are funded at $71.5 million, a $3 million reduction below fiscal 2010 levels.

• The Police Career Incentive Pay Program is funded at $5 million, down from $10 million in fiscal 2010.

• Library aid accounts are funded at $15.6 million, a $3 million reduction below fiscal 2010 levels.

Municipal health insurance reform
The Senate budget bill had included a provision that would allow municipalities to make changes to insurance plans outside of collective bargaining, but the MMA and other organizations argued that the proposal had serious flaws that needed to be addressed. The Senate proposal would have guaranteed too little savings for communities and taxpayers, required permanent acceptance of Section 19 coalition bargaining, which would have given unions permanent control over every other aspect of health insurance, and would have instituted binding arbitration, which would have allowed an outside authority to impose costs on cities and towns.

The MMA had urged legislators to address these and other flaws so that meaningful reform could pass this year and local leaders would be able to implement cost savings immediately. The House and Senate could not reach agreement, however; advocates for reform pushed for a stronger bill, and union allies looked to further water down the measure.

The MMA will continue to work aggressively with all cities, towns and stakeholders to keep this top priority front and center, as taxpayers are demanding reform that will reduce costs and protect local budgets.

The passage of the conference committee budget today gives the governor seven days to review the budget before the beginning of the new fiscal year on July 1.

• Link to DLS website for local aid estimates based on Legislature’s budget

• Download full text of the conference committee’s fiscal 2011 state budget bill (2.4M PDF)