Date

3/03/08

Resolution recommending that the Control Board rescind the trash fee.

Councilor Ferrera introduced a resolution which would have requested that the Control Board rescind the trash fee. In support of this resolution, he noted that the city now has significant financial reserves. I opposed the motion for two reasons. First, the current city budget relies on trash fee revenue. I am opposed to utilizing savings to fund operating expenses. Reserves ought to be utilized to address unforeseen events such as a significant decrease in state aid to cities and towns like that which occurred in 2003. If Springfield had a reserve in 2003, we could have used it, rather than a fifty-two million dollar loan from the state, to help us navigate through the last few years.

Second, I opposed the resolution because it essentially amounted to a passing of the buck. The Control Board recently returned authority over budgets (albeit with close oversight) to the city council. Many city councilors have objected to the Control Board's handling of budget matters. It would not reflect well on the city council if its first significant budget related act after budget authority was returned to it was to ask the Control Board to make a budget decision for it. If we want authority over the budget and if we want to demonstrate that we are capable of managing the city's finances, rather than punting tough budget issues like the trash fee to the Control Board, we need to take ownership of them.

I would like to explore the possibility of phasing out the trash fee over time. If it the trash fee is to be phased out, however, it needs be phased out in a responsible way. We need to review revenue streams and budget priorities. If the trash fee revenue stream is cut, we have two options: (1) replace that revenue stream with some other revenue stream, or (2) cut city services. With our roads in need of repair and Code Enforcement and other departments in need of additional resources, I do not see widespread cuts as a viable option. I am all for identifying additional revenue streams. We need to identify those revenue streams before we consider cutting the trash fee.

Since decisions regarding the trash fee and the budget are now the province of the city council, I voted in favor of sending the trash fee resolution to committee. If councilors are serious about rescinding the trash fee, they should work toward that end through the budget process and in committee. Empty resolutions requesting that the Control Board do that which councilors who favor rescinding should be doing themselves do nothing to demonstrate to the state, to the Control Board, or the public at large that we are capable of managing our own affairs.

Adoption of M.G.L. c. 148, §§ 26G and 26I.

Sections 26G and 26I of Chapter 148 of the Massachusetts General Laws are local option statutes which require fire sprinkler systems in certain constructions and renovations. We discussed their potential adoption at our meeting of February 4, 2008. There was some concern expressed at that meeting and at subsequent committee meetings regarding whether the statutes would be retroactive. Michael Mulcahy of the City Law Department researched that issue and determined that under state law, the statutes would not be retroactive in effect. Some were concerned that retroactivity would place an inordinate financial burden on many would be impacted by this statute. We again heard from Fire Marshall John Cossaboom and David Panagore. We also heard from Steve Desilets of the Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Desilets clarified that the renovations which would trigger the fire sprinkler requirement would be total guts. In essence, renovations that did not expose walls where sprinkler systems could be installed would not trigger the fire sprinkler requirement. I was in favor of adopting these statutes when they were first brought before the city council on February 4, 2008 and I voted in favor of adopting them this time around. The city council voted to adopt the statutes. I hope that they are effective in saving lives and property.

3/18/08

Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. petition for a special permit.

This matter was sent to committee after our meeting of February 25, 2008. I had concerns about the condition of the property adjacent to site proposed for an Omnipoint cell tower. Some neighbors had expressed concern that the property had not been kept up. We met with counsel for Omnipoint in a sub-committee meeting prior to the full council meeting on March 18, 2008. He agreed to my suggestions that we impose a number of conditions of the special permit. At the meeting of the council as a whole, I indicated that I would support the issuance of a special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the permit holder and/or the landlord maintain not only the leasehold, but that property owned by the landlord which was adjacent to but outside of the leasehold; (2) that the petitioner and/or the landlord include in their lease a provision that would impose on one or the other of them an obligation to keep up not only the leasehold but also that portion of the landlord’s property adjacent to but outside of the leasehold; (3) that the applicant and the landlord would work with the neighborhood civic association on a plan to plant shrubs/trees on that portion of the property outside of the leasehold which is owned by the landlord and which abuts residential properties. My colleagues accepted my additional conditions and the special permit issued.

Canadian prescription drugs.

After discussing Canadian prescription drugs in committee, the council discussed looking into Canadian prescription drugs for city employees and retirees. We need to do all that we can do to save money for the city. Some people believe that Canadian prescription drugs could save the city significant money. Switching to a Canadian drug prescription plan would not be feasible in the short term. Currently, the city participates in the state CIG insurance plan. The city pays a flat fee, based on past cost experience, for prescriptions under that plan. Immediately moving to a Canadian prescription plan would simply add to the city’s prescription drug costs. Participation in the Canadian plan only makes sense if the prescription portion of the insurance agreement with CIG is amended. Councilor Ferrera indicated that he would contact the state insurance commission with an eye toward exploring the possibility of Springfield participating in a Canadian prescription drug plan without jeopardizing the favorable arrangement that we have with CIG for broader health care coverage.

3/31/08

Special permit for 351 East Columbus Avenue.

The petitioner, William M. McCarthy, operates a gas station at 351 East Columbus Avenue. Citing the need to generate additional revenue in a competitive market for independent gasoline retailers, he sought a special permit to display three vehicles for sale. The Office of Planning and Economic Development reported that the station was well maintained and recommended approval of the special permit. I voted in favor of the special permit with the conditions that no more than three vehicles ever be displayed at any one time, that junk vehicles and parts not be stored on the property, that the site be maintained graffiti free, that the support structures for an existing sign be painted, and that landscape planters with seasonal plantings be placed along the corner of Bruno Street and East Columbus Avenue. The special permit was granted.

2. Special permit for 29 Chandler Street and 61 Chandler Street.

The petitioner, C.F., Inc. sought a special permit to operate a motor vehicle storage lot. After a competitive bidding process, C.F. was granted the city towing contract effective July 1, 2007. Pursuant to its contract with the city, it rents 29 Chandler Street and 61 Chandler Street from the city. The city used same the lots for the vehicle storage when it operated the towing concession on its own.

There was some debate as to whether a special permit was required since the lot was city owned rather than privately held. There was also some debate over an internal auditor’s report which was apparently released in error to the newspaper. Auditor, Mark Ianello, indicated that the report was not final and therefore should not be relied upon. While I did not see the report, the paper indicated that it suggested that C.F., Inc. was behind in its obligations to the city. C.F., Inc.’s attorney maintained that his client was current on its obligations under the terms of the contract and suggested that receivables and paperwork which have been received or would be received by the city prior to the report becoming final would support his assertions in this regard. I noted that if it turned out that the petitioner was not meeting its financial obligations to the city - a conclusion that we could not make based on the auditor’s testimony - the city would have remedies available to it under its contract with the petitioner. If C.F., Inc. was not meeting its obligations, it would be in breach and the city could take steps to compel its compliance with, and/or to terminate, the contract. I didn’t think that it made sense to delay issuance of the special permit and accordingly voted, along with seven of my nine colleagues, to issue it.