Capital Improvement For Police and Fire Departments

The Mayor has recently brought 2 capital improvement requests for the Police and Fire Department buildings to the Municipal Council, including one for $600,000.I fully support them both.

The first one has already been approved and is rolled into a second request, which the Finance Committee voted to recommend for approval at our 10/28/08 Meeting. You might recall that in 2006 the Mayor requested about $80,000 to grind and re-point the exterior of two sides of the Police Department building on School Street. After much arm-wrestling, the previous Council approved only $60,000 for the work. Unfortunately (and as was apparent at the time), this was insufficient funds to make the necessary repairs.

The building was leaking and the City used a portion of the funds (about $12K) to apply a temporary chemical seal to the exterior of the building, putting off the real needs of the facility until a new request for funds could be made. In the meantime, the building's heating system failed. The Mayor requested that the balance of the original appropriation (about $45K) be allowed to be used to help replace the heating system. (The Mayor had to get approval to use those monies for a purpose other than re-pointing the brick exterior.) We approved this request at our October MC meeting.

The Mayor then brought a large-scale request to the MC to comprehensively address the exterior and heating/cooling needs of the Police and Fire Department buildings. This request is for a $600,000 bond to finance the grinding and re-pointing of brick exteriors, the replacement of 36 windows with energy efficient units, the replacement of HVAC units in both buildings and the repair of the roof at the Fire Station.

It is important to note that this is a bond request, meaning that we will be borrowing the money for a 15 year term, rather than paying it out of a single year's budget. This is how all major capital improvements should be handled, spreading out the cost of the work to all of the 'users' (meaning, taxpayers) of the asset, including future ones. Amesbury enjoys a relatively low debt service-to-budget ratio and thus is in a good position to absorb this cost in its budget.

On 10/27, a number of us Councilors took a tour of both facilities at a posted meeting. This included a visit to the roof of the Firehouse. I can say in very good conscience that the building is in bad shape and it is in the taxpayers' best interest to invest in these properties and protect these major City assets. Here is just one (cell phone) photo from the tour, to give you an idea of the bad shape they are in:

Click HERE and hit the 'ready-only' button to see a whole Slideshow of photos. There were signs everywhere of extensive water infiltration and damage, especially in the Firehouse.

It is worth noting that these repairs were prioritized at the top of the list in this years Capital Improvement Plan (2009-13). This is one of the first things that I checked. It is good to see the CIP working as it should, to identify, prioritize and schedule funding for our capital needs as a community. Maintaining and investing in public facilities is also a priority of the Master Plan.

2nd Quarter FY09 Budget Cuts

At the October Council meeting, Mayor Kezer proposed $125,000 in budget cuts for the current year: $100,000 from the waste removal/recycling budget and $25,000 from Insurance. The good news is that there is room to cut these amounts from each line item without any change is services to the community. The bad news is that these cuts are a taste of things to come. Local revenues are principally made up of property tax and excise tax collection. Excise tax is variable and depends on the value of property subject to excise tax. As I noted back in January 2008, all of Massachusetts is experiencing a dip in excise tax, as folks put off buying new vehicles, making the taxable base go down. Amesbury is experiencing its share of this, with a decline in excise revenues.

Worse, the Commonwealth is experiencing significant drops in tax revenue collections, due to the downturn in the economy. As economic activity slows down, incomes dip and capital gains decline, the tax revenue from these sources will go down. In mid-October Governor Patrick announced wide-ranging 2nd quarter budget cuts. For the moment, local aid to cities and towns was spared any cuts. But as the downturn continues and the Commonwealth has more revenue drops, it is a real possibly that local aid cuts will be made.

You can read the Mayor's 10/14/08 letter to the Municipal Council about this situation by clicking here.

Energy Task Force Established

At the October Municipal Council meeting, we established an Energy Task Force. It is charged with reporting back to the Mayor and the Council with specific recommendations regarding municipal energy use. This is a time limited Task Force, with a commission ending at the end of December, 2009.

Here's the heart of the measure:

3. The Task Force shall report to the Municipal Council and the Mayor regarding the following:

a) Strategies to reduce energy costs of city-owned facilities and vehicles through energy efficiency and renewable energy measures, including strategies to conserve electricity, vehicle fuel, natural gas and oil and identify cost-saving measures, such as performance management contracts or use of bio-diesel fuels;

b) Develop city-wide programs and measures to promote and facilitate smart energy strategies for Amesbury citizens, including energy saving programs and renewable energy generation projects on both public and private real property; and

c) To accomplish the above, identify state and federal grants and resources such as the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, UMass Amherst’s Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Executive Office of Environmental and Energy Affairs, the Department of Energy Resources and the Department of Environmental Protection to accomplish these goals and assist the city in applying for and implementing such grants and resources.

The Mayor is accepting applications now for this Task Force. You can find an application HERE. Please consider joining this and other Boards and Committees.

Eminent Domain & the Governor's Veto

Earlier this week, Governor Patrick vetoed the Eminent Domain bill that had been approved by Amesbury voters last November and approved by the MA legislature in late July. The Legislature had to vote on this bill because it represented a change from state-wide laws governing eminent domain and so was a 'home rule' petition. On 8/6/08, I sent a letter via email to the Governor expressing opposition to this bill and encouraging a veto. I always like to explain my positions on things and since my letter was in opposition to a measure that passed at the polls, I especially feel the need to explain myself.

Click here to read the original measure that passed at the polls.

Click here to read the Governor's veto letter.

And click here to read my letter to the Governor (typos and all). (Mayor Kezer and Councilor Neale also sent letters to the Governor.)

'Eminent domain' is the power of the government to take private property for a public purpose, even if the property owner objects. The primary purpose of Amesbury's Eminent Domain bill was to limit the 'taking' of property for economic development purposes. This was done in response to a 2005 US Supreme Court Case, Kelo v City of New London CT that infamously allowed the City of New London to take property for the purpose of putting up a mall, on property that was not 'blighted' and to be developed and owned by a private developer. Some states and communities have responded by making this type of taking difficult or impossible.

As you can see in my letter to the Governor, my objection to this measure was NOT with the limitation on taking for economic development but was ONLY with one part, but it's a significant part--the very first paragraph. In it, the Municipal Council is given absolute powers regarding all eminent domain issues. This might seem like inside baseball but its an important point. Massachusetts General Law distributes eminent domain power in a variety of ways, to legislative bodies, to commissions, to certain public corporations, etc. This granted authority is really related to the purpose for which property might be taken. So, a part of why this bill had to go to the Legislature and to the Governor is that it over-ruled this distribution of authority and gathered it all to the Municipal Council in Amesbury.

Currently, the Mayor has eminent domain power in Amesbury in relation to water/sewer and road betterments (mostly rights of way issues, expanding sidewalks and intersection profiles, that sort of thing). These types of takings represent the vast majority of all eminent domain activity in Amesbury and in the Commonwealth. A 2001 study by the Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston with a libertarian bent, stated:

Out of all the data that we collected, 53 percent of all takings were for road repair and road building. This has been the leading category since colonial times. Almost all the remaining takings were for traditional government purposes: municipal services, conservation, public transportation, public utilities.

I firmly believe that the primary purpose of this bill could have been met without making this other move to grab all eminent domain authority for the Council. In fact, when the last Municipal Council put this measure forward last year, the Mayor vetoed it based on legal advise from Town Counsel and offered a reasonable compromise bill that kept the protections around takings for economic development and removed the first part. The Council did not accept the Mayor's compromise bill, putting the original bill on the November ballot instead. You can read the Mayor's proposal and the legal opinion here. The Governor's veto does not close the door on this issue but rather gives Amesbury the opportunity to handle this issue is a measured way. As a member of the recent Charter Review Committee, I can say that we spent a lot of time trying to clarify the different powers of the Council and the Mayor. This vetoed bill undermines that whole idea and is an unnecessary power grab on the part of the Council.

Bartley Machine Building - Lower Millyard

Other Councilors and I have periodically received questions from folks about the Bartley Machine Co. building in the Lower Millyard and whether or not it would make a good site for relocated Town offices and perhaps even the Library. It's a good question and I'm glad folks are thinking about alternatives for Town offices and for better Library space. Bartley Machine has been public about selling the property for development. That said, I don't think that the Town buying the Bartley Machine property is in the cards.

This is true for 2 reasons, mainly. First, the asking price. BMC is seeking $8.28 million for the property. Even if the Town bought the property, it would likely have to spend millions more building out and adapting the industrial property to other civic functions. Such a project would dwarf the rejected costs of redeveloping the current library site. The second reason is connected to the price: the potential for dense mixed-use commercial/residential development at the site.

The property is in a special 'mixed use' overlay zoning district in the Lower Millyard. This means that BMC can sell the property for uses other than its current use for light industrial manufacturing. The overlay district actually adds value to the property beyond its current use, since it opens this (and other) lots up to development for dense commercial and residential development in the village center. This is all part of a larger plan for the Lower Millyard that the Town developed a number of years ago. The zoning overlay district was put in place to enable this mixed-use development.

The Bartley Machine Company has partnered with a real-estate firm to develop this property along the lines of this vision of mixed-use, dense development. You can see their plans for the site at: http://www.reinvestinc.com/amesbury/. This is part of the larger picture of relocating the DPW away from the Lower Mllyard (this will help spark new development down there) and putting in the new Transportation Center/Senior Center in the Lower Millyard.

So, in theory, the BMC building is definitely worth consideration for relocated Town services. Practically, though, it is both too expensive and not the best use of that revenue-generating property.

Governor Patrick's Visit to Amesbury

The turnout was great for Governor Patrick's visit to Amesbury last week. A few photos.

Roads and Sidewalks Workshop

Last night, July 23rd, the Master Plan Implementation and Oversight Committee hosted a public workshop, focused on 'Roads and Sidewalks'. Department of Public Works Director Robert Desmarais spoke. Despite the extreme thunderstorm that passed by, there were about 30 or so folks there, including a few current and former Municipal Councilors.

Mr. Desmarais talked about how the Town approaches road and sidewalk maintenance and repair. With the recent decision to take out a $15 million+ bond on water treatment and water line upgrades, we've taken a good step to start catching up on deferred investments in infrastructure. He identified about $66 million worth of needed infrastructure work:

*$17 million in Roads
*$14 million in Sidewalks
*$10 million in Drainage
*$20 million in Water
*$5 million in Sewer

And here is what we have budgeted for annual repair and maintenance work:

*$75,000 for Sidewalks
*$85,000 for Engineering
*$60,000 for Drainage
*$30,000 for Roads

Now, on one level, this makes some sense. For long-lasting major capital costs like water works, roads, and drainage systems, investment expenditures should be spread out over many years, just as benefits. So, major road or system work wouldn't be paid for out of the operating budget in one year but rather in long-term loans or bonds. That's what the Town did with the big Water bond this Spring, make a big investment through a low-interest, long-term bond. Still, $250,000 for all road and sidewalk work doesn't go to far even just for maintenance. If the Town wants to make progress with the backlog of work above, then it will need to consider making some major investments, which of course means $$$ and burden on the tax-rate. The eternal trade-off. There are options outside of an over-ride for this, such as using a debt exclusion, as our neighbors in Newburyport will have on their ballot this year for similar big investments in road repair.

Mr. Desmarais also talked about how the DPW approaches road maintenance. In line with one of the recommendations from the Master Plan, the Town is instituting a 'pavement management' plan takes an organized approach to approaching road repairs.

The need for some serious --- meaning expensive --- repairs is clear. As with the Water Bond bill, the big question is what can we afford and when, in terms of timing new with current debt. But the longer we take on it, the more it will add up.