Medical Marijuana Moratorium - What Happened and What`s Next

The City Council met last night (12/30/13) to, among other things, give final consideration to a proposed 6 month zoning moratorium on any activity related to the cultivation or dispensing of medical marijuana in Amesbury.  The moratorium failed on a technicality--state zoning law requires that any zoning measure must be heard in a public hearing by the local Planning Board.  The PB had been unable to hear this measure yet.  The meeting was scheduled as a joint meeting with the Planning Board, but the PB failed last night to raise a quorum, so they could not lawfully meet. Without a PB hearing on the measure, the Council could not legally vote on it and today marks the last day of this Council`s session, effectively ending any chance for the moratorium to be voted on.

Nonetheless, the evening was tremendously informative; it was a shame that it was not televised.  Both ATG and Greenheart - the two not-for-profit corporations applying for state licenses to cutlivate MM in Amesbury - were there to make presentations and answer questions.  There were about 40 members of the public there last night, a good crowd for a Council meeting, and 99% of them stuck it out until the meeting ended at 10:30 p.m.  The Council and members of the public asked excellent questions and the providers, to my mind, gave thorough and satisfying answers.  Though the Council could not formally vote on the measure, a public hearing by the Council was nonetheless held and quite a few members of the public stood up to speak on the moratorium.

I would estimate that the distribution of for/against a moratorium was about the same as the percent of Amesbury residents who supported medical marijuana in the first place.  2/3 of the public speakers and a majority of the Councilors were against the moratorium (and thus were for paving the way for these businesses to operate in Amesbury, should they receive state licenses) and 1/3 spoke in favor of the moratorium.  The public comments all around were thoughtful.  If the measure had come to a vote, it would have failed (as a zoning measure, it required a 2/3 vote in favor to pass).  I joined the good number of people who spoke against the moratorium.

What is next?  The MA Dept. of Public Health is scheduled to issue licenses at the end of January, 2014.  If neither ATG nor Greenheart are given licenses, then this question is moot in Amesbury....for now.  If one or both receive a license, then they have 180 days to open shop, start growing, and start dispensing MM products.  Along with several other Councilors, I will be introducing a Medical Marijuana Zoning Overlay District bylaw this coming Friday, the day after we are all sworn in.  This measure will give the community the framework that it has needed to fully review and discuss the relevant issues.  It will allow us to look ahead and tackle what I believe is of most concern to residents of Amesbury, the prospect of having a MM dispensary in Amesbury - but no entity has applied for a license to do dispense in town at this time. Councilor McClure has already re-introduced the 6 month moratorium as a "late file" for our first official Council meeting on 1/2/14, the night we are sworn in.

Cutting Through The Haze

So, in November of 2012, with 62% of the vote, the voters of Massachusetts approved a measure to allow the cultivation, production, prescription and dispensing of products derived from marijuana for narrow medicinal purposes.

The MA Department of Public Health released regulations implementing this measure in May and then began the process of issuing licenses to prospective businesses to operate as 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD)'.  DPH has put out clear information; you can find it HERE.

I will be writing more on this but here is some basic information for the residents of Amesbury on this, in hopes of dispelling some of the substantial fog that has been pumped out regarding this in the last month or so.

• Who can use medical marijuana products?  Only trained and certified physicians can prescribe it and only patients with specific 'Debilitating Medical Conditions' can take it. Debilitating Medical Condition means cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis (MS), when such diseases are debilitating, and other debilitating conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient’s certifying physician.  

• What 'products' are we talking about, anyway?  We are NOT talking about the kind of products that are smoked.  And we are not talking about the type of marijuana that will get you stoned.  We are talking about what the law calls MIPs (Marijuana-Infused  Products), such as edible products, ointments, aerosols, oils, and tinctures.  This means they are NOT producing weed for joints. Patients will not be benefiting from THC (a psychoactive chemical) so much as from other 'cannabinoid' chemicals found in the marijuana plant.  In fact, the plants that we can expect to be grown by licensed growers will be marijuana strains low in THC and high in these other compounds, to maximize the medicinal benefits.  

• 'Pot Farms'?  Newspapers like headlines that sell papers and get web-site hits and by using terms like ‘Pot Farm’.  You'd get the impression that we are opening hippie communes in Amesbury.  What we are talking about, however, is best seen as a light industrial activity.  This is why the two possible cultivation sites in Amesbury are both located in buildings zoned for industrial/commercial uses.  Much like other light manufacturers, 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries' will need: space, security, and access commercial/industrial utilities (electricity, water, sewer). 
• Is there a difference between Growers and Dispensaries? Compliance with the MA regulations requires intense control systems and security measures and will be an entirely indoor activity.  One important part of the regulations is that all RMD licensees must have 'vertically integrated' operations.  That is, each RMD will be literally responsible every aspect of production from accounting for every plant seed, through fabrication and transportation of MIPs to the dispensing of products through licensed dispensaries. 

• So, what are we talking about for here in Amesbury?  There are 2 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD) applicants who are looking to site their cultivation and fabrication operations in Amesbury.  There are NO RMD license applicants who want to site a dispensary in Amesbury.  This is a key point.  DPH's RMD licensing process is very explicit in terms of the applicants indicating where each part of their operations will be.  As I understand it, an RMD approved to operate a dispensary in, say, Salem MA and cultivate in Amesbury does not have the option of portability with that license.  (Alternative Therapies Group has proposed just that arrangement: grow in Amesbury, dispense in Salem.)  So, no dispensaries for Amesbury anywhere on the horizon.  And approval to grow here does not open that door.  As mentioned already, this commercial activity (cultivating and fabricating MIPs) is really an industrial activity and will need to fit into locations with zoning that already allows for such uses.  This plus the operational needs (utilities, space) limits where these sites can be to existing industrial buildings and industrial parks.  We should review our current zoning for this use in light of this new activity.
• When might this happen? The MA Department of Public Health is in the final phase of vetting and approving non-profit applicants for licensing (only non-profits are eligible to apply).  'Phase II' applications were due November 21, 2013.  This is why the Council was considering a 'letter of support' for one of the applicants in the first place in November.  Now, the applications are in and the whole question of letters of support (or opposition) are moot.  DPH has indicated that RMD awards will be announced by January 31, 2014.
• I still don't like it--what can we do about it?  The short answer is: not much.  As the law of the land, the Commonwealth has made it abundantly clear that approved 'Registered Marijuana Dispensaries (RMD) will be able to operate throughout the Commonwealth (and remember, no RMD licenses have been awarded yet).  The Attorney General has nullified various by-laws and ordinances that were clearly designed to hinder or exclude RMDs from entering their community (whether for cultivation/fabrication or dispensing).  Communities can: a) adapt their existing zoning by-laws to incorporate this new type of activity and add restrictions that don't effectively make it impossible to operate in a community (for example, only allowing an RMD in a location that is a wetlands); and b) institute a time-limited zoning moratorium. But ultimately there is no way to block this legal activity.

So, the train left the station over a year ago on this issue and Amesbury is taking it up now.  On a personal level, from my own experience of working with people living with HIV/AIDS who were already able to take a prescribed cannabinoid in the form of Marinol, I need no convincing regarding the potential medical benefits for folks suffering from a number of conditions.  Looking at all the facts as an incoming Councilor, it is clear that there is not too much for the City of Amesbury to sort out or decide upon, in terms of regulating potential RMD activity.  The DPH regulations are extensive and the law is the law of the land.  That said, any time you have a new industry looking to locate in your community, it is a best practice to review your zoning for any updates that might be called for.  We can do this, moratorium or no.  In fact, a number of Councilors plan on introducing a measure to start that review process at our very first meeting as a Council in January.  And through that, we can begin educating the residents of Amesbury about what this all is and IS NOT all about.   

Words Matter

A lot of people are talking about the tone of our politics in Amesbury and it's important for all of us to remember that words matter.  And to tackle the many and complex challenges that our community faces, it means that we all have to listen to each other and be willing to learn.  That's why I participated as Chair in the 2010 Ad-Hoc Committee, even though I did not share the perspectives of some of my fellow committee members.

In case you aren't familiar with it, there is a group page on Facebook called 'Citizens for Lower Taxes in Amesbury.'  The page's mission is: 

• Purpose of group is to keep interested residents informed on budgetary issues, meetings and news related to property taxes and town expenditures. This group will not attack a specific person or group of people. If so, the group will be terminated.

When this group was started a few years ago (one of the Ad-Hoc Committee members among the initiators), its organizers invited elected officials and town employees to join and take questions from the public. Recently, the page has mainly served as an organizing and messaging space for Ken Gray, his supporters and several other folks running for office this year.  All of this is well and good and not necessarily noteworthy.  But a thread opened up a few days ago and it turned to how the current Mayor (Thatcher Kezer) and his department heads develop their annual budgets.

Helpfully, Patty DiTullio, who was until recently the head a department as the Amesbury Public Library Director, piped in and explained the process that she and other department heads had used to develop their budgets. Her explanation was reasonable and straightforward and you'd think her participation would be welcome, fitting with the stated mission of the group.

But the response to her was anything but reasonable. 

Let me put on my Library Trustee hat for a moment and tell you a little about Ms. DiTullio.  If you have been a frequent visitor to the Amesbury Public Library in recent years, then you will already be familiar with the many improvements that Ms. DiTullio and her dedicated staff have brought to the APL.  Year over year expansion of educational and community programming.  Expanded involvement of library resources in meeting the social needs of the community (important these last years, with the economic downturn and the spike in unemployment).  Continuous year over year expansion of circulation (currently about 15,000 materials circulate per month out of the library to patrons).  Excellent short and long-term planning (and execution of those plans).  Increased physical accessibility to materials and resources, despite the constraints of an out of date building.  High staff morale and stability.  And all with annual budgets that have mostly remain level, if not been reduced.  And those budgets?  Always brought in under, at the end of the year.

In short, Ms. DiTullio was the kind of 'public servant' that every community craves to have: dedicated, creative, resourceful, inspiring, productive, efficient and an excellent steward of the community's resources.

And her thanks?  Being deemed "irrelevant", having her input dismissed out of hand and having her character attacked.

And they wonder why Councilors and City employees rarely, if ever, join in their 'discussions.'

Finally, it is impossible for me not to connect this attitude to what I heard from Mr. Gray at the recent Mayoral Debate (10/9/13).  In response to a question regarding the adequacy of funding for our schools, he stated that the School Committee, school administrators and our Superintendent all do a "horrible" job with planning and managing school resources, that they have a total "disconnect" between the needs of students and what their strategic plans are for the schools.  And he had also characterized our student performance as 'shameful.'

If any of you know someone on the School Committee or who works in the schools or if you have a child in the schools, you'll know how grossly inaccurate this all is.

So, it is important that we all be able to talk to each other.  You just have to look around to see that we are still in difficult times, with decreased state funding and rising costs of goods and services.  There are no easy fixes.  And lots of folks on all sides of issues get passionate and speak harshly at times.  But if we are to tackle our community's needs, we need to start by not tearing down our own house and tearing down each other.  We are all partners in this work.

If the sky is falling, why do we keep getting upgrades?

Here's some edifying reading, from an 11/12 Standard and Poor's bond rating note raising our rating up to A+ (we were at A- eight years ago), noting our many fiscal strengths and a caution on pensions.  This is worth considering, in an election season when you'd think we were about to declare bankruptcy and 'go over the cliff', from what some are saying.  Could not be more wrong and further from the truth. 

The liability noted - unfunded pensions - is an issue for most municipalities across the country, arising from a change some years ago in how generally accepted accounting practices required government entities to book pensions.  MA has basically put all municipalities, including Amesbury, on a multi-decade payment plan to get them fully funded.

[Highlights mine] 

+++++++++++++++++++ 

"BOSTON (Standard & Poor's) Nov. 30, 2012--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services 
has raised its long-term rating and underlying rating (SPUR) on Amesbury, 
Mass.' general obligation (GO) debt to 'A+' from 'A'. The outlook is stable. 
The upgrade reflects our view of the city's progress in improving reserves and 
the city's long-term projections of structural budget balance. At the same 
time, Standard & Poor's assigned its 'SP-1+' short-term rating to Amesbury's 
GO bond anticipation notes (BANs).

In our view, the city maintains a strong capacity to pay principal and 
interest when the BANs come due. Standard & Poor's has determined that the 
city maintains a low market risk profile. The long-term debt to retire the 
notes has been authorized and the city provides ongoing disclosure to market 
participants.

The long-term rating reflects our assessment of the city's:

Good access to job centers along Interstates 95 and 495 in northern 
Massachusetts;
Extremely strong tax base and strong median household income measures;
Good financial position; and
Low debt burden with modest future capital needs.

Somewhat offsetting these strengths are the city's significant unfunded 
pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) liabilities.

The BANs and bonds are general obligations of the city, for which its full 
faith and credit are pledged. The city will use BAN proceeds to retire BANs 
outstanding that were issued primarily for sewer upgrades and other capital 
projects. 

The stable outlook reflects Amesbury's sound economic measures and recent 
general fund improvements. We could raise the rating further if the city were 
to further strengthen its financial position while improving its funding of 
pension and OPEB liabilities. While we do not expect to lower the rating 
within the two-year outlook horizon, significant declines in the city's 
financial position, due to demands from long-term liabilities or other areas, 
could pressure the rating."

Source: www.standardandpoors.com

Let's Talk Taxes

I see lots of smoke but little fire when it comes to talking about Amesbury's taxes and finances.  So, let me take some time to explain how they look from where I stand. 

For as long as I have lived in Amesbury, there has been a dedicated and vocal group of residents that have cried that Amesbury's finances are on the edge of disaster!  Headed for bankruptcy! And that our financial situation is unique in all the Commonwealth, in terms of how dire it is and what is going on here.  We heard it with the Split Tax debates in 2006 and 2008 and we heard it with the Under-Ride vote in 2007 (http://nounderride.blogspot.com/).  So, let's look at what the claims are and what the data says.

• Amesbury has the highest taxes in Massachusetts.

Not quite true.  In 2013, our average single family residential tax bill ($5,984) was the 65th highest in the Commonwealth, which is up there.  Our tax rate is in the top ten, at $20.24 per $1,000 of value.  So, yes, we pay a lot of property tax here in Amesbury.  We live in Essex County, one of the most expensive counties in one of the most expensive states in the country.  In fact, 25 out of the 39 cities and towns in Essex County are in the top 1/3 in terms of average residential bill (including Amesbury).  And Amesbury sits just above the middle of the pack for the county, with 14 communities having higher average tax bills and 20, having lower.  Looking at our peers (and who we compete with to hire our employees), we're not that out of line.

• Amesbury's high tax rate is ruining our home values and keeping them low.  

This fits in the 'pants on fire' category, though you will hear it repeated very often.  It is no secret that Amesbury homeowners have lost literally millions of dollars in the value of their homes since housing market bubble burst last decade.  But so did virtually any American who owned real estate.  In fact, an estimated $6.5 to 7.5 TRILLION dollars in equity was wiped out in the crash.  But maybe there is something to this claim, maybe we are even worse off then our fellow citizens beyond the walls of our castle here.  Fortunately, the facts don't bear this out.  If you plot the rise, fall, and recovery of assessed value in Amesbury from 2006 to 2013, it tracks the fate of Essex County and of the Commonwealth as a whole almost to the percentage point.  In fact, the Warren Group recently reported that Amesbury was among the 25 'hottest real estate towns' in the Commonwealth (http://bit.ly/16AIMsT).

• Amesbury's taxes make it a bad value to buy into.

Remarkably, this claim is being made by at least one person who is actually a realtor here in town (note to self, don't hire them to sell my home).  This is an easy one.  Amesbury is an excellent community to buy into.   Let's look at a simple comparison: Newburyport. We have almost the exact same population (about 17,000) and almost the exact same average residential tax bill.  That should come as no surprise, since we are providing services to roughly the same size population (buyer beware: I've posted previously about how shaky these town-to-town comparisons can be).  The average single family home value in Amesbury in 2013 is $265; in Newburyport, it is $435,000.  You would pay basically the same tax bill on each home.  And on a 30 year mortgage at the current rate of 4.5%, you will pay over $256,000 more in principal and interest (about 50/50) to have the privilege of paying the same taxes as Amesbury.  Is living 10 minutes closer to Plum Island and having a Starbucks in your downtown worth $256,000 more?  The affordability of Amesbury was the very thing that brought my wife and I to Amesbury.  We lived in a tiny condo in Newburyport, in fact, and could not afford to buy a home there.  We found a lovely house in Amesbury and haven't looked back since. I can't tell you how many people I've met here had that same experience - what brought them here was the value they could get for their money.  And maybe, if someone bought here at the top of the market and hoped to flip a home for a gain, then yes, Amesbury may not have worked out for you as planned, but that happened most everywhere in the last decade.  But if you are here for the long haul, then Amesbury is an excellent value.

So, every conversation about TAXES is really a conversation about SPENDING and FINANCES.  And every conversation about SPENDING is one about VALUES and PRIORITIES.  I am of the conviction that our fiscal record has been pretty solid in the last years, especially during the tough ones in the last 5 years.  During the worst economy since the Great Depression, our:

• bond rating has gone up, saving us big on interest payments (bond rating is basically our municipal 'credit' rating)
• our reserve account has soared from next to nothing to north of $1M
• our stabilization funds have grown
• our 'excess capacity' under the Proposition 2 1/2 Levy Limit has grown, meaning we have more room for absorbing future spending needs without resorting to an over-ride
• non-school costs have been tightly contained, if not reduced

But all that is material for another post, coming soon.

VIEW SLIDES W/ DETAIL HERE
 

How Can Taxes Go Up If Spending Goes Down?

I posted some comments on the 'Ken Gray for Amesbury Mayor' Facebook page recently. Evidently, they were all removed on the morning of the Preliminary Election. Mr. Gray can do what he wants with his campaign page, that's fine, but I find myself perplexed and put off by this. Here is my best recollection/recreation of my last deleted post. I was responding to a comment from a Gray supporter (Dave Haraske, my opponent in District 6), who was asking how, if we see new revenues from projects like the Upper Millyard renovation, the residential tax rate has still gone up and was also asserting that Mayor Kezer has done nothing to control spending. Here it is:

"As you know, Dave, from the data that we looked at when we were both on the 2010 Ad-Hoc Citizen's Committee, Amesbury was the only community out of the 13 comparison communities that we looked at that had *negative* budget growth between the years 2008 and 2010. And yet, in those same years and even as our operating budget decreased, our tax rate and average residential property tax bill went up. How could that possibly be? Simple. The operating budget has a stew of revenues, including property tax. During those same years and following the global market crash, we saw reductions in Local Aid and excise tax receipts (as folks held off on buying new cars or a boat, etc). So, even as our spending decreased, our property tax increased, in order to maintain the level of services that we want as a town. And looking at 2008 - 2012, the operating budget only increased by 4.1% over 5 years, or 0.8% a year. US inflation across those same years was 6.6%, so in real dollars, our budget grew slower than inflation, even as inflation drove up our operating costs, such as health care benefits, increased cost of goods, etc. At the same time, between 2010 and 2013, the portion of our budget that goes to schools increased from 49% to 55%. Our bond rating has gone up two notches (thus lowering our interest costs on capital debt service). Our reserves have increased from next to nothing to over a million dollars. And we have retained a gap under our Prop 2 1/2 levy limit that gives us future budgetary flexibility without resorting to an over-ride. That sounds like good fiscal management and good priorities to me."

2010 Ad-Hoc Committee: What It Was and What It Wasn't

In early 2010, the Amesbury Municipal Council established a temporary 'ad-hoc' committee of nine Amesbury residents for the purpose of "discussing among themselves, and providing the opportunity for other residents of Amesbury to communicate information and ideas relative to the manner in which excellent municipal services could best be provided in a cost-effective manner at an expense level affordable to the residents of Amesbury...and to issue a report to the Municipal Council as soon as possible prior to April 1, 2010."

I chaired the Committee. Information produced by the Committee can be found here:

https://sites.google.com/site/2010amesburyadvisorygroup/

The Committee did a lot of work in that short period and everyone involved pitched in.  It was a great example of engaged residents citizens responding to a specific and limited task.  

Our report still gets mentioned and I am asked about it, so here's my point of view.

We focused on the question of 'affordability.'  We quickly settled on a basic method: we looked at data from the MA Department of Revenue for twelve communities - the next six larger in population from Amesbury, and the next six smaller.  

While this was one way to look at it, it is a flat view of a very complex picture. Making apt comparisons among disparate communities is challenging.  Comparing communities based solely on population is a bit like comparing houses solely on the basis of square footage.  Is it near the ocean?  Does it have a failing septic system? Or does it have a pool?  Is it 150 years old or brand new? Is it in a safe neighborhood, etc.  You get the point.  There is no such thing as a generic 1,500 sq/ft house and there is no such thing as a generic town with generic needs.  Our comparative data was helpful, but limited in what it can reveal.

We came to a handful of conclusions, which can be read in the report.  And while it was a great exercise, it was limited in scope and I do not agree with some of the broad assertions some are making about its results. 

At least one of the recommendations has been implemented (regionalizing emergency dispatch) and two more, I am particularly interested in pursuing, if elected: exploring with the School Committee more cost-effective ways of providing services to special needs students in our schools and re-invigorating the Master Plan committee (if not updating the Plan itself).  I will be posting more about those issues in the future.