Response to 5 CPA Misconceptions

As you may have already heard, I'm involved in an effort to get a question on the local November election ballot regarding the adoption of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in Amesbury.

The Community Preservation Act is a collaborative program between localities and the Commonwealth to raise funds locally for the purposes of:

• preserving open space and historic sites
• developing outdoor recreational facilities 
• creating affordable housing 

The question is not even on the November ballot yet but the debate here in Amesbury has already become quite lively and a good bit of the information I've seen in circulation has been a bit off in my estimation and I thought I'd respond to some of it. Without further ado, here are my comments on the  5 of the more questionable things that I've seen written on Facebook about the CPA so far. Along the way, I hope to highlight some important facts about the CPA program. I'll be writing in more detail about why I support CPA for Amesbury coming up next.

5. Supporters of CPA are like kids with ‘a Sears catalogue at Christmas’: Well, wanting to be in a community that protects and improves its historical assets (and Amesbury is full of them), conserves and improves its open spaces and natural resources, invests in its recreational facilities through continual improvement, and supports housing affordability for its seniors, veterans, and families - that sounds like the best Sears catalogue ever. Should we not want to aim to be a community that is an active custodian and protector of the very things that make it a great place to live? Is aspiring for these things supposed to be a bad thing?

4. “[T]he town loses control of it[self] and the future of our town's livablilty.”: This is an important misrepresentation that needs to be definitively laid to rest. This is exactly opposite of the reality of the CPA program. The fundamental structure of the program is local control of a community preservation fund, in terms of administration, planning, prioritization, and disbursement. True fact - number of personnel at the State level dedicated to 'running' the CPA statewide = 0. Funds are solely managed locally. How? A local committee is created with representatives from existing boards, committees, and commissions with relevant responsibilities - Parks and Recreation Commission, Housing Authority, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and Historical Commission. Citizens can also be appointed by the Mayor. The CPA Committee would set local guidelines, articulate local funding priorities, set the terms of applying for funds, review all applications for funds, and make recommendations for funding. All disbursements of CPA funds would be subject to City Council approval through a 2/3 vote. CPA is a tool for towns to take control over their 'livability'.

3. “Everything that could be delivered with the CPA could be done without the CPA”

Technically, that is true, so this isn't a misconception. However, the refrain has been that the types of things that CPA could pay for are usually 'wants not needs' and pushing for them are akin to dreaming about rainbows and unicorns. Here's just a few of the many things that CPA could be used for, and this is just based on my own top-of-the-head awareness of current needs, I'm sure others could identify more:

• Improvement of River Trail surface and drainage 
• Replacement of playground equipment at Cashman Elementary 
• Completion of improvements to Collins St. Park 
• Rebuild of Amesbury Skate Park 
• Improved drainage at Cashman ball fields 
• Roof improvements at Amesbury Public Library 
• Saving Whittier Hill from residential development
• Planning and creation of trail network in Amesbury 
• Planning and creation of bike lanes, esp. in the village center 
• Construction of soccer fields at Woodsom Farm 
• Improvements to Amesbury’s War Memorials 
• Improvement/reconstruction of Lake Gardner beach 
• Invasive plant mitigation in Lake Tuxbury, Lake Attitash, and Powow River, to protect out water source and improve their use

To me, these are not luxury items or frivolous expenses. They are the kinds of things that add tremendous social value to our community (and real property value to our homes). A favorite example of mine about how the City has typically approached these sorts of things (looking way back) is the roof at our historic Amesbury Public Library. I would have to go a ways back to find a year that this item was NOT on our city's 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. Interestingly enough, though, it always shows up as an item on the next year's budget, never on the current year. Next year comes, it has moved to the following year. I understand full well the budgetary constraints that we operate under and that the library roof will always be competing with other important capital needs. But, in the meantime, this community asset - the library - continues to degrade. The purpose of the CPA is to establish a Fund that can support the many projects that at best take years to come to fruition otherwise, while other assets also continue to languish, if not deteriorate. It's great that the youth soccer league leased space two years ago for new fields to be built at Woodsom Farm. How soon and how far into its lease will it go before it is able to identify the $800,000+ that it needs to build the fields? How many fund-raising triathlons will parents have to run to scrape together the estimated $60,000 to replace unusable and outdated playground equipment at Cashman School? The CPA can be a valuable tool to boost, leverage, and supercharge local volunteer efforts and make serious headway against this backlog of needs.

2. “[I]f the CPA were in effect when we acquired Woodsom, no soccer fields. Ever.”: This is another case of opposite day. I believe that what the author had in mind with this comment is that indeed it is true that if land is purchased with CPA funds for the purpose of conserving 'open space', then the Community Preservation Act requires that a so-called 'conservation restriction' be placed on the property and recorded in the deed. What does this mean? Simply that if the purpose of a purchase is to conserve open space, then the property should be, well, conserved in the future (i.e. not developed for commercial or residential use). What's one of the main reasons we might want to conserve a property such as Woodsom Farm and prevent its development for private use? For recreational use by the public. And of course that use is right there in the definition of 'open space' in the Act itself:

“Open space”, shall include, but not be limited to, land to protect existing and future well fields, aquifers and recharge areas, watershed land, agricultural land, grasslands, fields, forest land, fresh and salt water marshes and other wetlands, ocean, river, stream, lake and pond frontage, beaches, dunes and other coastal lands, lands to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve and land for recreational use.

This sort of scarified (yet inaccurate) statement has been a hallmark of many comments that I've heard so far against the CPA. If CPA had been used to purchase Woodsom Farm way back when (leveraging additional match dollars from the state), nothing that we know about how it is used now - including the placement of soccer fields there - would be different, with one important exception. Right now, there is no protection on the property, nothing that prevents the City from selling it off for development the future, whereas theoretical use in the past of CPA funds to help purchase Woodsom Farm would have ensured its preservation for generations to come. Currently, we have no such assurance in place. Ironically, if CPA funds had been used, we could still have the lease for soccer fields AND the property would be better protected.

1.  “Under the CPA, we could lose control over what kind of lights we could install. That's not local control.” Coming in at #1. Presumably, the author here is talking about the use of CPA funds to rehabilitate historical properties (it seems to relate to a nearby comment on a Facebook thread that referenced lights at City Hall). As with open space purchases, there are some standards associated with use of CPA on historical properties. In particular, it requires that any historic "'rehabilitation' shall comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation stated in the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties codified in 36 C.F.R. Part 68." What does this mean? If a property is deemed 'historic' and CPA is being used for the restoration of a 'historic' property then, well yes, there is some expectation that the restoration would meet standard guidelines for historic restoration. Adoption of CPA by Amesbury, however, does not mean we are creating a city-wide historic district or that we all would need to worry about what kind of windows we can install or what color we can paint our house or that someone will control what kind of lights we can install. [Anyone else remember similar fears from when Amesbury adopted the now-popular Green Communities Act?] And I would think that if we have an desire to preserve (or restore/recreate) the historical integrity of a valued historical property, we'd want to do it in such as way as to preserve, well, its historical integrity.

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

I'm hopeful that the CPA question will get on the ballot and I welcome an open and lively debate about it, if it does. I've been discouraged by the level of fear-mongering that I've heard so far about it and hopefully these remarks are a start to setting the record straight on what CPA is (and is not). You can learn more about the Community Preservation Act HERE. Watch this space for more information.

"Why Don't We Riot?"

I came across a blog post today by 'Public School Mama', a blogger and parent who lives in Boston. She mostly blogs about the Boston Public School system but today's post, titled 'Why Don't We Riot?', struck a chord with me. In turn, I'm writing this longer-than-usual post on a similar theme.

The writer, pondering an example from her law school days about the 'show' of a deliberative process in the absence of the reality of it in a essentially hopeless court case, talks about 'normative legitimacy.'

This professor argued to me that I was missing the point. Allowing Mr. Kelly to participate gave the proceedings a normative legitimacy and people who were allowed to participate in the process had better feelings about the procedure and it’s adverse outcomes if they were given the chance to be heard.

She was writing about the Boston Public School Committee but it got me thinking about the Commonwealth's Legislature and the apparent sham of a process that we all went through with the Legislature's own Foundation Budget Review Commission, tasked with reviewing and updating out of date elements in the Commonwealth's formula for funding local school districts.

Established by an Act of the Legislature in 2014, the Commission was created to “review the way foundation budgets are calculated and to make recommendations for potential changes in those calculations as the commission deems appropriate.”

"Chapter 70" is a shortcut term for the aid that the Commonwealth sends to local and regional school districts to support local public K-12 education. At the heart of Chapter 70 aid is a complex formula that yields an amount of school aid for each district. The formula makes a number of assumptions and applies them uniformly to each district. These include assumptions about health care costs, special education rates, and other factors.

It's no secret among our legislators and the administrators at the MA Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) that the formula's assumptions are outdated and generate flawed results. That is precisely why the Legislature enabled the Foundation Budget Review Commission.

How bad has the formula worked for Amesbury? Check out this graph, which tracks Chapter 70 aid to Amesbury in relation to the total Amesbury Public School budget, 1993 to 2016.[Thanks, School Committee member Rob Chamberlain, for the graphic]

You can see that while our total APS costs have gone up dramatically (red line), our amount of Chapter 70 assistance has not (yellow line). In fact, we receive over $300,000 LESS in Chapter 70 aid than we did in 2000 and that is NOT adjusted for inflation. At the same time, from 2000 to 2016, the total pool of Chapter 70 funding has gone up by 69% (or by a whooping $1.6 BILLION dollars). We are one of only six communities in the Commonwealth receiving LESS Chapter 70 aid than in 2000.

The GAP between those two lines is the difference that has been faithfully made up by the Amesbury taxpayers year after year in increased tax levies on property. [Click HERE for more info.]

That sounds terrible! Can't we do anything about that?

This is my third term on the City Council and for years I've heard Mayors and fellow Councilors bemoan the reality of the steadily rising school costs that have slowly cannibalized other parts of the municipal budget; it now comprises over half of our operating budget. And for years, I've heard that we need to direct our attention to the Governor and the Legislature, because the Chapter 70 framework is not working for Amesbury.

A number of us have done just that. State Reps and Senators have been contacted and letters written.

And when the Foundation Budget Review Commission was established in 2014, we leaped at the opportunity to follow its work and testify. Indeed, in the winter of 2014/15, a number of us presented testimony to the Commission at a regional hearing in Danvers, as well as presented a letter describing the local impact of the flaws in the formula, a letter signed by dozens and dozens of Amesbury residents. [READ the letter HERE.] A few residents even attended other regional hearings and worked closely with Commission staff to get a clear picture of where the Commission was headed. [Read more about the Amesbury School Coalition HERE.]  Make our local voices heard at the state level? Mission (perhaps) accomplished!! Warm fuzzies all around.

That's great! So, what did that Foundation Budget Review Commission do? What did it recommend?

The Commission published its report in late 2015. You can read it HERE. In the end, the Commission recognized that tackling the many flaws in the formula would cost quite a lot of money (say, if health care escalation cost assumptions actually connected with reality) and it made only 2 recommendations, to change 2 elements of the formula only very slightly and over a few years.

OK, dialed back and realistic recommendations, sounds promising, this might provide some real relief to Amesbury. Then what?

Then it was up to the Legislature and the Governor to act, primarily in the form of building the Commission's reforms into proposed FY17 budgets.

Governor Baker's budget did not fund any changes to the formula.

There were several opportunities for the House and Senate to fund the Commission's recommendations this year. Foremost among them was a bill by Rep. Rogers from Norwood. His bill rather simply enacted the Commission's recommendations to make minor but meaningful adjustments to the formula.

Over 100 School Committees, City Councils, and Boards of Selectmen across the Commonwealth passed resolutions this Spring calling on the Legislature and the Governor to implement the Commission's recommendations. Both the Amesbury School Committee and City Council unanimously passed this resolution, with copies sent to our local legislators and the Governor.

Our State Senator, Kathleen O'Connor-Ives signed on to Rep. Rogers' bill as Co-Sponsor. Our State Representative, James Kelcourse, did not. A few of us met with Rep. Kelcourse to discuss this issue and urge him to support adopting the Commission's recommendations but to no avail. The Representative was candid about his rationale: his leadership did not support the bill and thus neither did he. We also debated about how the changes would be paid for but I argued that by NOT acting, the Amesbury taxpayers were ALREADY paying for the formula's inadequacies (see chart above) and will continue to do so until its flaws are addressed. NOT changing the formula is continuing to transfer costs down to the Amesbury property taxpayer.

Another possible path for making changes to the formula is through the RISE Act that was passed by the Senate earlier this Spring. It is complex legislation but among its features was a full enactment of the Commission's recommendations. The House has shown little interest in taking the RISE Act up, however.

Where does that leave us?

Right now, we have Commission recommendations that appear to be Dead On Arrival at the doorstep of the very body that established the Commission in the first place. And that brings me full circle back to Public School Mama. I feel like the gentleman in the court case that she discusses. Our having been given the pretense of being heard "gave the proceedings a normative legitimacy and people who were allowed to participate in the process had better feelings about the procedure and it’s adverse outcomes if they were given the chance to be heard." Unfortunately, the warm fuzzies generated by putting in a lot of time and energy in to making our voices heard at the state level - as we've always been advised to do on the issue of school funding - have been short-lived...and the status quo remains firmly in place.

2016 seems to be a year when a lot of folks are feeling that the process of being heard in a democracy is more the performance of legitimacy and participation, than the reality of it. Changing Public School Mama's closing just a bit, I can't help but feel like that at the end of the day, the only purpose for the Foundation Budget Review Commission was to keep us from rioting, rather than to make any impact. School advocates in Amesbury and around the state will have to think of what hope there is of improving the formula, if even the Legislature doesn't have the nerve to take it's own advice.

FY17 School Budget Update

Well, it is that time of year again and May/June brings another annual School Budget review and vote. Here's my take, with a veritable treasure trove of linked documents.

You can see a complete copy of the FY17 School budget HERE. You can find additional support documentation on this page posted by Superintendent Reese. You can see the Superintendent's PPT initial budget presentation to the School Committee HERE.

The total School budget request for FY17 is $29,669,627. This is up $712,129 from FY16 (or, 2.46%). The School budget represents 51.8% of the overall General city budget (excluding Water and Sewer enterprise fund budgets). The School budget consistently represents over half of the city's operating budget.

Here's my nickel summary: due to a confluence of budget dynamics unique to this year, the School Committee was able to approve a budget that both grew at a lower amount than recent years and made incremental improvements/additions to staffing and programming.We still have a long ways to go to achieve the levels of programming and smaller classroom sizes from the last decade, but this budget at least represents a (quite) modest step forward.

First, what helped with this year's 'windfall' of cost savings? A few things. First and foremost, there are 13 retirements at the end of this school year. All of the positions will be replaced, but almost by definition, the replacements will come in at lower salaries. We also have some special education students returning to the district from costly out-placements, other out-placement special education students who have been re-assigned to other school districts, some student's 'aging out' of out-placements, and increased retention of special education students in-district (cost avoidance). The combination of savings in salary and savings in out-of-district placements 'freed up' funds to be re-directed to new positions or increased hours for other positions. This positive 'perfect storm' will likely NOT repeat next year; by comparison, we only have 3 retirements coming next year.

What was ADDED to the budget, over the current year? You can see the full list HERE of what was added. Here are my highlights, with AMS receiving the most new benefit:

• Cashman: increased Pre-K/K staffing (18 hrs/week) and increased clerical support
• AES: 1.0 FTE SPED teacher, increased clerical support
• AMS: 1.0 FTE 'EAST' teacher (English/Arts/Science Technology); 1.0 FTE SPED teacher. 0.5 of a new 1.0 FTE Adjustment Counselor, shared with High School
• AHS: 0.5 Adjustment Counselor (shared with AMS); 1.0 FTE Science/Tech teacher; 2 PT library aides
• Amesbury Innovation High School: increased SPED paraprofessional support
• Central Office: Increased clerical support to Superintendent

In a meeting that I had with Dr. Reese last week, he could assure me that with the staff additions at AMS, the Middle School will not face the threat of recent years of failing to make its 'time on learning' requirements for the Commonwealth.

Sounds positive! Any other good news? A number of fees will be going down. Per student Athletics fees will be going down by $65, to $285. Co-curriculur activity fees will be going down by $30, to $50 per student. Family cap will be going down by $300, to $900. Bus fees will be dropping significantly, from $360 to $250, with the family cap at $450.

OK, any bad news? More a cautionary note but the gains in this year's budget will be challenging to repeat in FY18, since it is unlikely that we'll see the kind of one-time cost savings that it looks like we'll have for FY17. The challenges for ELL (English Language Learner) students at Cashman will continue. For next year, we'll have 1.0 FTE teaching a cohort that includes students with at last 30 different native languages, which is half that staffing recommended by the Commonwealth. Enrollment figures continue to show an upward trend in percent of students with special needs, this year topping 20% of our student population. Average classroom size at Cashman for Grades 2-4 will be 23-24. Most of the additions to staffing are not within mainstream curriculum offerings (with the exception of the two EAST teachers at AMS & AHS). The district dropped from having 3 of 4 schools at 'Level 1' to only having one school at 'Level 1', using this metric from the Commonwealth.

Finally, the district continues to chase its tail to an extent in regards to capital investment in educational technology. In the very near future, the district will have to meet steep demands for having technology in place that can handle required testing and this on top of the use of computer resources for day-to-day educational purposes. This means having enough units, adequate bandwidth and wireless access, and networking switching capacity to handle the volume. You can read the districts 5 year technology capital plan HERE. Read more about projected enrollment and class sizes HERE.

What else? The Innovation High School may be running into a jam with its facility. Currently, the district rents a building from All Saints Anglican Church (by the City Hall/Police Department rotary) but that lease is running up and the church is asking for an increase. They are currently there on a month-to-month lease basis only. There are no likely changes on the horizon for foreign language and arts offerings. Roof work at the Middle School is on this year's capital improvement plan; similar work needed at Cashman is slated for FY18 (you can read the current Capital Improvement Plan HERE). We continue to have a problem with attrition, especially around 9th and 10th grades, with substantial numbers of families opting to send their children to other schools (including Whittier Tech). We average about 70 students a year leaving our high school. That represents over 10% annual loss of enrollment and not because our population is shrinking but because students are opting to study elsewhere. Competition remains a real issue, especially with St. John's Prep in Danvers having recently expanded into offering Middle School education.

Summary - So, this is a good budget in the sense that it does not take steps backward. I applaud Dr. Reese and the School Committee for taking a more strategic approach than even last year. This year, they explicitly did NOT simply fund the top 1 or 2 priorities at each building but rather focused resources where it seemed the most benefit would be gained, which meant directing more resources to AMS and AHS than to other buildings. This will hopefully prevent some expensive out-of-district special education placements and might help with our attrition problems, but that remains to be seen.

Preserving Amesbury's Open Spaces

It's springtime in Amesbury and that has me thinking about the outdoors. The Amesbury Trails group had it's kick-off meeting for 2016 last weekend and there is a lot poppin' in town, regarding open space and our stewardship of it.

Whittier Hill

Our friends at the Essex County Greenbelt Association have recently made public the very exciting news that they have signed a Purchase and Sale agreement on a good chunk of the undeveloped Whittier Hill ridge line. Where is Whittier Hill?  It is the hill line that runs overlooks both Whitehall Road and Woodsom Farm.

This is about 20 acres of forested land that has a number of virtues as priority open space for the residents of Amesbury:

• It is perhaps the last unprotected and undeveloped ridge line in Amesbury.
• It abuts Cashman School land - there is already an existing trail from Cashman School leading onto this property, used by some educators at CES for science walks.
• It abuts Woodsom Farm land 
• It offers trail connections to: Woodsom Farm, Cashman School, Town Park (via Whitcher Court), and the recently purchased Quinn property at 116 Whitehall Road

If you look at this property in a larger perspective, you can see that it is a very nice link in what we can call Amesbury's 'Emerald Necklace', a circuit of open space that includes: Woodsom Farm, Whittier Hill, Cashman School, Town Park, the High School, the Great Swamp Area, and Town Forest. The vision (ok, maybe for just a few of us at this point) is to create a contiguous circuit of trails that connects all of these properties, for passive recreation use. 


The Greenbelt already owns or manages some properties in town (the boardwalk that was built Fall of 2015 connecting the Town Forest and Woodsom Farm was on a block of Greenbelt property).

They will be embarking on a fundraising campaign very soon for this purchase. You can view the website for this campaign HERE.

Open Space Committee

In February, I put forward an ordinance to the City Council that would establish an Open Space Committee for the City of Amesbury (you can read the original submission HERE, though the Ordinance Committee has proposed several amendments, including the retention of the Parks and Recreation Commission). With representation from the City Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, and general public, it would support the City in developing and implementing policy related to the stewardship of open space properties in Amesbury.

Amesbury owns approximately 1,100 acres of open space (view the database here). The two largest parcels are two of the lots that comprise most of Woodsom Farm but did you know that the third largest parcel of City-owned open space is the Merrimack Landing Conservation Area, at 102 acres? You might recall that I wrote about this property two years ago, in reference to the flagrant and unregulated abuse by the previous owners of the Amesbury Sports Park of this property. For me, those events were something of an awakening. On the one hand, even though I was an avid user of various trails in Amesbury, I had no idea about the open space available to the public in the Merrimack Landing Conservation Area. At the same time, it seemed clear that the City didn't really have any robust plans or means to oversee and steward its own open spaces. The Event Permit Ordinance that I submitted and that passed last year was an attempt to help the City regulate the use of its own property and city assets.

With the emergence of the active Amesbury Trails group, the time is right to take this a step further and set up a public body tasked with stewarding the 1,000+ acres of land that we own with active input from residents. We are the only community in the area (city OR town) that does NOT have an Open Space Committee in place to steward open space properties. As any good business owner (or homeowner, for that matter) will tell you, without good planning and active management, your assets will quickly go to waste and will deteriorate in value.

1,000+ acres of open space represents, in my view, a very tangible asset for economic growth and community development that we've barely begun to tap. Sure, a few people might know where the Town Forest is, or have visited Deer Island, or have wandered the trails from Battis Farm, to Po Hill, to Lake Gardner Beach. But our trails are poorly marked, if at all and are only sporadically maintained. We have no management plans in place for any of our open space properties. And we don't really have any priorities for what properties we might want to preserve in the future.

The Open Space Committee measure will come before the City Council for full consideration at our May 10th meeting. Please consider coming out to support this measure.
 +++++++++++++++
UPDATE: The Open Space Committee measure was unanimously adopted by the City Council. Invitations have been sent out to the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission, inviting them to appoint a member to the new Committee. We will be looking for three people from the community, as well, to join the Committee.

Preview: $250,000 Mid-Year Spending Request

For the City Council's final (planned) meeting of the current two year session this coming Tuesday, December 8th, there are a few items of note on our agenda.

First, we have everyone's favorite vote of the year: establishing the final property tax rate for FY2016 (which started on July 1, 2015). Though this vote often gets lots of attention and occasionally produces heat, the fact is, the property tax rate at this point is really 100% baked in the cake, once the City Council approved the FY16 annual budget for the city back in June of this year.

The ONLY substantial decision that we have to make with this vote is whether or not we should tax commercial and industrial properties at the same rate as residential properties. Under Massachusetts law, municipalities can 'split' the rate and tax commercial and industrial properties at a higher rate than residential properties, taking a little pressure off residential property owners (by adding even more pressure on commercial/industrial owners). Amesbury experimented with a split tax rate in 2006-07 and it proved to be a highly unpopular experiment. The rate was 'un-split' in 2008 (when I served on the Council the first time around). I don't expect a split rate to be proposed at our Tuesday meeting.

Of much greater interest is a mid-year appropriations request from Mayor Gray for $250,000 in unbudgeted expenses. These include:

• $40,000 to update the City's Housing Production Plan
• $10,000 for lighting improvements in the parking garage
• $10,000 for lighting improvements in public safety buildings
• $35,000 for capital assessment and planning for parks and recreation facilities
• $15,000 for a ridership study for potential bus connection from Amesbury to Newburyport Park & Ride and rail services
• $25,000 for preliminary study related to larger downtown planning effort and possible District Improvement Financing (DIF) proposal
• $20,000 for Middle School energy management planning
• $10,000 to complete Open Space and Recreation Plan
• $30,000 gap funding for DPW barn cleanup
• $55,000 gap funding for EPA cleanup

You can read the full request, along with accompanying letter from Mayor Gray and memo from Economic and Community Development Director Bill Scott HERE.

All of these expenses are to be appropriated out of a Smart Growth Housing and Expedited Permitting Stabilization account that the City Council established in 2007. That account was set up to receive and maintain any monies that the City might receive in relation to projects permitted under Chapter 43D (Expedited Local Permitting) and 40R (Smart Growth Housing). The City has received incentive payments from the Commonwealth under both programs (for the 43D expedited permitting process in place for the 'Golden Triangle' area and the 40R Amesbury Heights residential development that recently broke ground on Rt. 110).

As established by the City Council, monies from this stabilization account can be broadly used to 'offset the impacts' of 43D and 40R projects. We have $350,000 in the account currently; this would leave $100,000 in the account. The City expects to receive a substantial second incentive payment soon from the Commonwealth in relation to the Amesbury Heights project ($750,000).

Most of these requests are a great example of how a municipality (or a business, for that matter) has to often spend money to make money. The Housing and the Open Space/Recreation Plans are both required by the Commonwealth in order to obtain access to certain grant and incentive programs. The energy management planning at the Middle School is expected to pay for itself in anticipated energy savings. Same with the lighting improvements. I'm pleased to see these kinds of planning requests come before the Council.

Why is the Mayor campaigning against me?

First let me say, it is the right of the Mayor to campaign for whomever he wants. While I didn’t walk door to door with his predecessor (Mayor Gray is walking with my competitor), I was an avid supporter of the previous Mayor, so *I* would probably campaign against me too, if I were him. But all joking aside, who am I and what do I *actually* stand for?

Sometimes I’m portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal, aka wild-eyed and irresponsible, someone wanting no accountability, a ‘rubberstamp’, you’ve heard the names I and others have been called.

But the reality is, nothing could be further for the truth. I am someone who digs in deeply and takes the time to understand our city finances and our planning objectives – capital improvement plans, the Master Plan from 2004, Open Space plans, site-specific plans such as for the Lower Millyard. I spend lots of time talking to city staff, attending committee meetings (not just the ones I have to attend) and communicating what I’ve learned with my constituents. And my day job is about working with communities to help them develop intelligent affordable housing strategies.

I believe in economic development and creating an environment where businesses feel supported.

I fought hard against the split-tax (which raised taxes on local businesses back in 2006) and when I was elected for my first term in 2007, I voted to overturn it the first chance we had. And that is why I also voted in support of the two TIFF incentives for businesses that Mayor Gray has brought before the City Council.

Let’s talk straight for a moment. I’ve been hearing about the taxes being high in Amesbury since the day I moved here and that’s when the tax rate was 14.24.  This isn’t about tax rates, it’s about people not wanting to pay taxes; I get it. Sure the taxes are high, but most of us picked Amesbury because we could get more house for our money, can have a better quality of life for less, and it’s a beautiful community. 

The idea that I don’t care about spending is silly—I chaired an ad hoc committee in 2010 just after the housing crash to better understand our taxes and spending. I fought against an under-ride ballot measure sponsored by, among others, Councilor McClure, that would have chopped $1 million dollars off of the top of our budget, because it had no rationale behind it. And I have supported many difficult measures through the years that cut spending. (Let’s remember that the only negative budget growth that we’ve seen in the last twenty years came under Mayor Kezer.)

The difference between me and the Mayor is I’m not fixated on taxes; I’m hung up on our services. I’m focused on making sure we are right-sized, that we are talking about the amenities that matter, whether that’s at the public library, the senior center, or our open space properties. I’m fiercely dedicated to educating our children and being a steward for our conservation land. You won’t see me making false promises about cutting your tax bill. Instead, I will fight for you. I will fight for what the things that I think define a healthy and vibrant community. My family is here for the long haul.   

So, I'm not really sure why he wants me out of office. I believe that we need a strong municipal Council that is independent and free-thinking, free to support the Mayor when it makes sense, and free to question him when necessary. 

Meeting with Interim Superintendent Reese

Photo via Twitter, '@AmesburySchools'

I had the opportunity to meet with Amesbury Interim Superintendent of Schools, Gary Reese this week. With the start of the school year, he seems to have hit the ground running. I wouldn't say that I envy Mr. Reese's position, coming to Amesbury as he did after something of a tumultuous and challenging year for the District: outside reports that identified substantial weaknesses and 'opportunities for growth' (Walker and DESE reports), an unpaid electric bill that grew into a veritable crisis of confidence for many, two finance related audits (one of which is still not final), and the resignation of Dr. Robinson from the Superintendent position, only months after her contract renewal was unanimously approved by the School Committee.

It was a good opportunity to establish a connection with Mr. Reese. One of the commitments that I made when I ran for City Council two years ago was to significantly increase my level of attention to School Committee and School District matters. With the School budget representing over half of the City's operating budget, relying on a single budget hearing to primarily guide one's understanding of this complex operation (the school district) is not a good idea. In the past two years, I've either attended in person or viewed on local cable access almost all of the School Committee's Finance Sub-Committee meetings regarding the annual budget. This past year, I met directly with all but one of the principals and both the Superintendent and Ass't Superintendent to understand the details of and rationale behind their various budget requests.

At a recent School Committee meeting, Mr. Reese present a year-long 'Entry Plan' to the School Committee. You can read the Plan HERE. The purpose of this plan is to guide Mr. Reese's work during this year as Interim Superintendent, as well as launch the District as a whole into a broad Strategic Planning process. Of course, the lack of a comprehensive District-level Strategic Plan was a short-coming noted in last year's DESE report. This basically means that his primary task this year will be to deliver this plan by the end of the school year. Here's how the Entry Plan describes the final phase of his process:

Beginning in February, a strategic planning committee will be established and will meet to review the key findings and to develop a strategic planning document. The strategic plan will utilize data to highlight the current status of the schools in meeting the needs of our students. This data will be used as the baseline for establishing measurable goals, the action steps that will be taken to achieve those goals, the individual(s) responsible for implementation/ monitoring of progress, and the ways in which progress will be measured. This plan will be presented to the school committee, school staff and the community in June 2016. [emphasis mine] 

Mr. Reese asked me what my priorities were for the District in the current year. Speaking as a Councilor (and less as a parent with a child at CES), they are:

• Prioritized, coordinated and strategic responses to the myriad reports and findings that have landed in the past year 
• Enhanced communication with the City Council (suggested a regular memo addressing budget/finance issues and progress addressing the various reports) 
• Improved budget process and budget documentation 

I was able to spend a few minutes with our Assistant Superintendent, Deirdre Farrell, as well. They have a lot on their plates but both were upbeat about the coming year. Mr. Reese's Entry Plan sketches out an ambitious program of listening, dialogue and information gathering from a multitude of stakeholders between now and January. For the time being, the wind coming from the community and from the City Council is positive and I hope that as a District and a community we can work together to support this comprehensive strategic plan development. The Plan won't be done in time to fully inform the school's next budget, but I hope that this process can help guide the budget process nonetheless, in terms of priorities and strategies in a constrained financial environment.