CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA
1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following person as new members of the Planning Board for a term of three years, effective Apr 2, 2018: Nikolas Bowie and Corinne Espinoza
Placed on File

Mar 26, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I am hereby transmitting the notification of the appointments of the following new members of the Planning Board for a term of three years, effective Apr 2, 2018:

Nikolas Bowie
Mr. Bowie is a graduate of Cambridge Rindge and Latin School and Harvard Law School who has returned to Cambridge after serving as a clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Harvard Law School and Ph.D. candidate in history at Harvard College.

Corinne Espinoza
Ms. Espinoza lives and works in Cambridge, with a professional background in administration for higher education and research as well as social entrepreneurship. She has served in leadership roles for local community organizations including the Amigos School, Cambridge Community Center, and Friends of Cambridge Rindge and Latin.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-18, regarding a report on the success of the Polystyrene Ordinance.
Placed on File

Mar 26, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-18, regarding a report on the success of the Polystyrene Ordinance, received from Public Works Commissioner Owen O'Riordan.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

Mar 13, 2018
TO: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
FROM: Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner, DPW
Re: Report on Polystyrene Ordinance implementation Compliance:

The City of Cambridge polystyrene ordinance took effect on Oct 20th, 2016. Prior to the ordinance becoming effective, staff from the Department of Public Works visited nearly all 500 affected food establishments to inform them of the new ordinance, advise them about how to come into compliance and shared with them alternatives vis-à-vis non-polystyrene products.

http://www.cambridgema.gov/theworks/ourservices/recyclingandtrash

Prior to Oct 20th, 2016, Twenty-five (25) businesses applied for exemptions to the ordinance to drawdown their stock of polystyrene items (Section 8.70.060 para 3) and exemptions of various durations were granted in accordance with the ordinance and reflective of remaining volumes of inventory. All exemptions have now expired.

In conducting additional outreach and inspections during late-2017 and early-2018, DPW staff visited approximately 125 businesses throughout the City and of those visited 90% were found to be in compliance with the ordinance. We are presently working with those stores that continue to have difficulties so as to bring them into compliance as soon as possible. Starting again in April 2018, DPW will continue conducting random inspections of various food establishment that prepare food and provide such to their customers in various containers.

Continuing Non-compliance will be enforced under Section 8.70.070, Chapter A: “Any Food Establishment who shall violate any provision of this Chapter shall be liable for a fine of not more than $300 and each day’s violation shall constitute a separate offense.”

Feedback from Businesses:
As was indicated previously, the polystyrene ordinance has been met with some confusion, skepticism and some resistance from various business owners across the city. The confusion, skepticism and resistance are caused by a number of factors:

• Expanded Polystyrene vs Oriented Polystyrene. The Polystyrene Ordinance prohibits food establishments “from dispensing Prepared Food to customers in Disposable Food Service Containers made from Polystyrene.” The Ordinance defines Polystyrene as both “expanded polystyrene” and ‘oriented polystyrene.’ Most businesses understand what expanded polystyrene is (better known as Styrofoam), but many don’t understand how to determine if an item is oriented polystyrene (examples include hot cup lids, cold cup lids, and condiment cups) or not. This continues to be identified as a reason for noncompliance among businesses. While most of the plastics in service ware do have a recycle symbol with a number to indicate what type of plastic the item is composed of, there are those that don’t and such continues to cause confusion and frustration. At the outset it was noted that oriented polystyrene was much more prevalent than expanded polystyrene. Some businesses had more than 5 oriented polystyrene items but no expanded polystyrene.

• Financial Burden. We have heard from businesses concerning the cost of alternative products. For example; at a Harvard Square establishment, one service item increased in cost from $0.03/unit to $0.50/unit. In North Cambridge another retailer indicated that their new containers cost three times more after the ordinance went into effect.

• Alternative Products. At the outset a number of businesses found it challenging to source alternative compliant containers, such as coffee lids etc. DPW has distributed and posted information on the DPW website of vendors that food establishments may contact to find compliant products. DPW has also worked with popular food-service vendors for small businesses, such as Restaurant Depot in Everett who seem to be a commonly used vendor among small businesses and who can supply alternatives for most items that are sought.

4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-19, regarding Central Square pedestrian signals.
Placed on File

March 26, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-19, regarding Central Square pedestrian signals, received from Traffic, Parking & Transportation Director Joseph Barr.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

MEMORANDUM
To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager
From: Joseph E. Barr, Director
Date: March 21, 2018
Re: Awaiting Report 18-19 – Central Square Pedestrian Signals

This memorandum summarizes the analysis of the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue with Prospect Street and River Street, in response to the request from City Council Policy Order #28, adopted on February 5, 2018 (Awaiting Report 18-19). The order requested that the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department (TPT) consider implementing an ALL WALK pedestrian signal, also known as an exclusive pedestrian phase, to address concerns about conflicts between right turning vehicles and pedestrians. We understand that the most significant concerns with vehicle conflicts are between vehicles turning right from River Street northbound to Massachusetts Avenue and pedestrians crossing the east leg of the intersection (from Carl Barron Plaza to the corner where Starbucks Coffee is located). This concern is exacerbated by the volume of trucks making this turn, particularly as this turn is part of a designated truck route.

City Traffic Signal Policy
TPT follows a standard policy of providing concurrent pedestrian phases with through and right turning vehicle traffic at all locations where conditions permit safe pedestrian/vehicle interactions. Considerations as to when to separate the movements include:
  • Locations where unusual intersection or crosswalk alignment may result in unexpected conflicts,
  • Poor sight distance between pedestrians and vehicles, or
  • High volumes of turning vehicles (typically considered to be greater than 250 vehicles per hour).
In addition to the concurrent pedestrian phasing, we typically provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) of three to five seconds during which pedestrians are given the walk signal to begin crossing the intersection in advance of the vehicle green.

This pedestrian signal policy is considered a best practice for walkability and intersection safety across the country, and is endorsed by the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee and WalkBoston, the regional pedestrian advocacy group.

Exclusive pedestrian phases are typically used at locations with lower volumes of pedestrians where drivers may be less likely to expect a pedestrian in the crosswalk during the green phase. In locations of high pedestrian volumes, our experience shows that pedestrians will disregard the signal indications to cross parallel to vehicular movements if concurrent phasing is not provided, which can result in additional confusion and potentially unsafe conflicts (since drivers have the right-of-way when turning and may not be expecting pedestrians). Pedestrians waiting for an exclusive pedestrian phase experience considerably higher delay than in a concurrent system, as the walk signals display DON’T WALK indications in all directions for the majority of the signal cycle. The full traffic signal policy is available online: http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/Traffic/official-Signal-Policy.pdf

Existing Conditions
The intersection of Massachusetts Avenue, Prospect Street, and River Street provides crosswalks on all four legs of the intersection. The northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches each provide a through travel lane and a right turn lane for vehicles, while the southbound approach provides a single shared through/right-turn lane. Bike lanes are provided on Massachusetts Avenue in both directions. Left turns are prohibited on all four approaches in order to minimize both vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts.

The signal provides a 5-second LPI for both pedestrian phases. Pedestrians cross River Street and Prospect Street concurrently with the Massachusetts Avenue through and right turning traffic. Pedestrians cross Massachusetts Avenue concurrently with the Prospect Street and River Street through and right turning traffic. The signal provides a 90-second cycle during the peak hours.

TPT staff conducted field observations during both the morning and evening peak periods in order to observe behavior of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers and assess opportunities for improvements. During our field visits, we noted that drivers turning right always yielded to pedestrians in the crosswalk. During a typical signal phase, right turning drivers generally need to wait at least 15 to 20 seconds to allow the initial group of pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. At times when Red Line trains had recently arrived, pedestrian volumes are higher and vehicles may need to wait longer prior to finding a gap in pedestrian volumes.

Turning Volumes
Right turning traffic volumes on all four legs of the intersection are less than 250 vehicles per hour. The eastbound, westbound, and southbound right turning volumes are all below 100 vehicles per hour during the peak periods, while the northbound right turning volume is between 160 and 180 vehicles per hour during the peak periods. Intersection counts indicate that between 1,800 and 2,000 pedestrians per hour utilize the crosswalks. The east leg crosswalk is the busiest with 650 pedestrians per hour during the evening peak period.

Travel Delay
During the peak periods, drivers experience an average delay of 25 seconds per vehicle during the morning peak hour and 31 seconds per vehicle during the afternoon peak hour due to the traffic signal. Pedestrians experience an average delay of 16 seconds to cross a single leg, while pedestrians crossing two legs experience an average delay of 11 seconds. Vehicle queues do not typically extend beyond the adjacent signalized intersections on Prospect Street at Bishop Allen Drive or on River Street at Green Street except when downstream congestion from other intersections causes traffic to have to stop on green lights.

Crash Data
We obtained crash reports for the intersection for the period including 2015 through 2017 in order to assess any existing pedestrian crash patterns. Crash data indicate that there were only two pedestrian-involved crashes during that time period, one involving a pedestrian crossing River Street who was struck by a turning vehicle and one involving a pedestrian crossing the west leg of Massachusetts Avenue who was struck by a turning vehicle.

Alternative Pedestrian Phasing Options
Our staff analyzed two options to increase separation between pedestrians and turning vehicles; an exclusive pedestrian phase (the ALL WALK phase discussed in the Policy Order) and a Super LPI that involves a significantly lengthened Leading Pedestrian Interval.

Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
Implementation of an exclusive pedestrian phase would reduce the total amount of time for both vehicle phases and the total amount of time for pedestrians to access the intersection. Under this scenario, the signal would provide a 10-second WALK phase, 18-second FLASHING DON’T WALK clearance phase, and a two-second ALL RED phase. The remaining 60 seconds of the 90 second cycle would be divided up between the Massachusetts Avenue and Prospect Street vehicle phases. We did not consider extending the overall length of the cycle because our signal policy requires signal cycles of less than 90 seconds unless there is no other feasible alternative.

Under this scenario, pedestrian delay would be an average of 25 seconds per person, an increase of 56 percent for pedestrians crossing a single leg and 127 percent for pedestrians crossing two legs. Average vehicle delay would be nearly tripled over the existing condition to 68 seconds during the morning peak hour and 106 seconds during the evening peak hour. Vehicle queues would increase on all approaches, with northbound queues extending through the adjacent signalized intersection of River Street and Green Street, potentially compromising safety and operations at that already-complex intersection.

We expect that with this configuration, many pedestrians frustrated with the additional delay will disregard the DON’T WALK signal indications and continue to cross the road concurrently with through vehicle traffic. This is particularly likely given the high volume of pedestrians going to and from the Red Line station, particularly those rushing to make a train or a bus connection. Low compliance with the signals can cause unexpected conflicts as drivers assume pedestrians should not enter the intersection during the DON’T WALK phase, while pedestrians continue to expect drivers to yield.

Super LPI
TPT staff developed another alternative to increase separation for pedestrians while maintaining the current pedestrian phasing scheme which we are calling a “Super LPI.” This would involve separating the right turn vehicle movements from the through for the first portion of the cycle. Each phase would start with a 15-second lead phase during which through vehicles and concurrent pedestrian movements are able to start moving. During this phase, right turning drivers would see a red right arrow indication coupled with the existing NO TURN ON RED signs. The 15-second initial phase allows the first wave of pedestrians to get most of the way across the intersection without any vehicle conflicts. The right turn signal indication would then transition to a flashing yellow right turn arrow, indicating to drivers that they may turn but they are required to yield before completing the turn. This Super LPI operation provides greater protection for pedestrians while retaining the concurrent phasing that minimizes delay for pedestrians. A similar approach has been employed in other locations, including New York City, Montreal, and Charlotte.

This unique signal phasing scheme is only possible for approaches that provide separate through and right turn lanes in order to allow through vehicles to pass by stopped right turning vehicles. As such, this phasing could be implemented on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches. The southbound approach would not be changed under this scenario, however the right turning volume from Prospect Street onto Massachusetts Avenue is very low at less than 50 vehicles per hour.

Under this scenario, overall vehicle delay would decrease by 10 to 15 percent for through vehicles, as they will be able to start moving five seconds earlier on each phase compared to existing conditions (since through vehicles would no longer have to wait for the LPI prior to moving). Pedestrian delay would be unchanged, and pedestrian conflicts would be reduced.

Conclusions
Based on the analysis between the two alternatives and the existing conditions, the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department plans to implement the Super LPI signal phasing, which provides increased separation between pedestrians and turning vehicles while maintaining the current favorably low delay for pedestrians. The flashing yellow arrow indications will reinforce that drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.

It is also important to note that the Department of Public Works will soon be beginning the design process for the reconstruction of River Street, which will extend up to this intersection. Should the change we are proposing not fully address the current concerns at this location, the River Street project will provide another opportunity to look at this situation and determine whether additional improvements are needed.

5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2018 and ending Mar 31, 2019.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (McGovern ABSENT)

March 26, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached for your consideration, my recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2018 and ending March 31, 2019.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

---

March 26, 2018
To the Honorable, the City Council:

RECOMMENDATIONS
The City administration and City Council continue to recognize the importance of minimizing increases in water and sewer rates. I recommend that the City Council approve a 0% increase in the water consumption block rate and a 7.5% increase in the sewer use block rate, resulting in a 5.6% increase in the combined rate for the period beginning April 1, 2018 and ending March 31, 2019. This is the eighth consecutive year that the City has been able to produce a 0% increase in the water rate.

In last year’s recommendation, the projected FY19 rate increases for water, sewer, and combined were 1.9%, 7.8%, and 6.3%, respectively, based on March 2017 consumption rates and projected budgets. We have been able to produce a lower water rate than estimated primarily due to lower operating budget projections in the Water Budget. The sewer rate is slightly lower than anticipated primarily due to the City issuing less sewer debt during the March 2018 bond sale than we anticipated at this time last year. WhiteIn March of each year, the City Council establishes water and sewer rates, which determine water and sewer revenues for the next fiscal year. Because of the timing requirements, water and sewer rates are set prior to the adoption of both the Cambridge budget and Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) budget; therefore, revenue needs are based upon estimated expenditures. Historically, water and sewer rates have been established so that revenues generated by them, when combined with other related revenue sources, cover projected annual costs.

WATER
Two major factors determine the rate necessary to generate sufficient revenues: water consumption and the budget. The total FY19 Water Budget reflects a slight increase from the FY18 Budget. The Water Department is able to offset costs related to cost-of-living allowances, pensions, and health benefits in the salaries and wages portion of the operating budget with decreases in debt service payments and chemical costs.

The planned FY19 capital allocation is $3,500,000 using pay-as-you-go capital funding based on current revenues. FY19 capital projects include waterworks construction, water treatment plant equipment and systems upgrades, reservoir facilities improvements, Fresh Pond Master Plan implementation and reservation projects, reservoir gaging station maintenance, water meter replacement, watershed consulting services, and hydroelectric renewable energy generation.

Water and sewer charges are directly linked to water consumption, with sewer costs comprising approximately 75.1% of total water and sewer expenditures. When consumption declines, revenues are negatively impacted. In the current fiscal year, water is being consumed at a slightly lower rate compared to the previous fiscal year.

Table 4 indicates the details of Water Fund projected revenues and expenditures for FY18-23. Table 7 shows actual Water Fund balances for FY13-17 and the projected balance for FY18.

SEWER
The FY19 Sewer Budget reflects a $2,693,038 increase from the FY18 Budget. This includes the MWRA assessment, debt service payments, and the sewer component of the Public Works budget. Debt service on sewer bonds and the MWRA assessment account for 90.3% of the total FY19 Sewer Budget.

The preliminary FY19 MWRA assessment is scheduled to increase by $995,110 from the final FY18 assessment. The MWRA rate increase projected for the City is subject to change based on the MWRA budget, which is adopted later in spring 2018. These changes have typically been minor in past years. Unlike the water budget, sewer revenues are credited to the general fund and not to a separate proprietary fund that can be drawn upon if the need arises.

Included in the sewer budget are debt service increases attributable to the $16,590,000 general obligation bonds issued in March 2018, which include sewer projects in Alewife, Cambridgeport, Harvard Square, and The Port, as well as capital repairs and climate change sewer projects.

The FY19 capital allotment of $1,250,000 in sewer revenues will continue to finance the remedial reconstruction program and development.

The City Council has authorized significant investments in the water and sewer systems to ensure Cambridge continues to benefit from a healthy and environmentally sound water and sewer system. In addition to the projects currently under way, the City’s five-year capital plan (FY19-23) calls for an additional investment of approximately $143.3 million (primarily sewer, $118.1 million) in the water and sewer systems. The City carefully monitors the issuance of debt to fund authorized sewer projects and makes adjustments to ensure that debt service cost increases, which impact the sewer rate, are moderate.

Subsidies from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program will cover only $44,374 or 0.2% of the total debt service of $23,841,310 for all FY19 sewer projects. The City will continue to receive state subsidies on existing debt. The FY20-23 capital plan includes other projects that may be eligible for subsidized loans from the state. As in past years, it is not certain that these projects will receive state subsidies and the debt service on these projects has been calculated based on funding through general obligation bonds. If state subsidies become available to the City, they will be used to lower the sewer rate in future years. Table 5 shows the detail of sewer-related expenditures and revenues for FY18-23.

COMBINED WATER & SEWER
The table below reflects the projected combined water and sewer metered revenue requirements needed to cover water and sewer expenditures.

TABLE 1

	FY18 Projected	FY19 Budget	% Change
Water	$17,495,000	$17,494,333	0.0%
Sewer	$50,332,185	$54,125,156	7.5%
Combined Water / Sewer Revenue	$67,827,185	$71,619,489	5.6%

FY19 projected revenues are based on FY18 projected collections and reflect our practice of conservative revenue projections.

The table below reflects the FY18 actual and FY19 proposed water and sewer rates.

TABLE 2

	Annual Consumption*	FY18 Water Rate	FY19 Proposed Water Rate	FY18 Sewer Rate	FY19 Proposed Sewer Rate
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$3.02	$3.02	$10.23	$11.00
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$3.24	$3.24	$10.82	$11.63
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.44	$3.44	$11.62	$12.49
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.65	$3.65	$12.51	$13.45
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.96	$3.96	$13.30	$14.30

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons.

The table below reflects the average change to combined water and sewer residential bills.

TABLE 3

Residential Type	FY18 Average	FY19 Projected	Annual Variance	% Change
Single Family	$841	$888	$47	5.6%
Two Family	$1,060	$1,119	$59	5.6%
Three Family	$1,556	$1,643	$87	5.6%

SENIOR DISCOUNT PROGRAM
There are currently 2,650 homeowners who qualify for the age 65+ water/sewer 15% discount (not to exceed $90 annually), which is not tied to the homeowner’s income.

There are also 81 elderly homeowners who qualify for an income-based discount of 30% (not to exceed $180 annually). To qualify for the 30% discount, a homeowner must be 65 or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C elderly real estate exemption. For FY18, the income guidelines are as follows: single, income of $25,721 with assets of $51,439 or less; married, income of $38,582 with assets of $70,730 or less.

FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR RATES
Overall, the City has been extremely successful over the past five years in producing minimal water and sewer rate increases. The average annual increases for the FY15-19 period were as follows: water, 0.0%; sewer, 6.1%; and combined, 4.4%.

Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 contain five-year forecasts for water, sewer, and combined revenue estimates as well as Water Fund balances for the past five years and the projected FY18 Fund Balance. Although the City currently does not project the use of Fund Balance in the out years, it will continue to review appropriate use of Fund Balance for a specific project, or to lower the rate.

As can be seen in Table 6, the annual combined water/sewer rate is projected to increase by an average of approximately 4.8% for FY19-23. The projected increase is the result of the City’s commitment to bonding sewer infrastructure improvement projects and increases in the MWRA assessment (based on estimates received from the MWRA). MWRA increases are projected to be 3.8% in FY20-22 and 3.1% in FY23. If increases in the MWRA assessment are more moderate, the rate increases that are shown will be lowered. If consumption increases and therefore revenues increase, rate increases will be affected positively. Conversely, if consumption decreases, there will be a negative effect on water and sewer revenues.

Our water and sewer program is structured to produce reasonable rate increases in the future. The goal of the City Administration and City Council is to minimize the effects of water and sewer rate increases on residents as much as possible, while continuing to invest in our infrastructure.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

TABLE 4
FY18-23 Water Projections

	FY18	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23
	Budget/Recap	Projected	Budget	Projected	Projected	Projected	Projected
Water Expenditures:
Operating	11,349,345	11,164,790	11,470,350	11,929,164	12,406,331	12,902,584	13,418,687
Existing Debt	2,624,505	2,624,505	2,503,505	471,501	-	-	-
Subtotal Operating Budget	13,973,850	13,789,295	13,973,855	12,400,665	12,406,331	12,902,584	13,418,687
Capital	3,500,000	3,500,000	3,500,000	5,330,000	5,590,000	5,375,000	5,375,000
Finance	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000
Conservation	54,125	54,125	55,478	56,865	58,287	59,744	61,237
Public Works	400,000	400,000	400,000	400,000	400,000	400,000	400,000
Community Development	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000	30,000
Animal Commission	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000
Total Expenditures	18,192,975	18,008,420	18,194,333	18,452,530	18,719,618	19,002,328	19,519,924
Assumptions: 1) Operating Budget for FY19 is based on City Manager's Submitted Budget and increases 4% for FY20-23. 2) Debt Service decreases according to Debt Service Schedule. 3) Capital as shown. 4) All others remain constant from FY19-23, but Conservation will increase by 2.5%.
Financing Plan
Beginning Fund Balance	9,948,999	9,948,999	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579
Revenue:
Meter Revenue	17,492,975	17,495,000	17,494,333	17,752,530	18,019,618	18,302,328	18,819,924
Miscellaneous Water Charges	700,000	800,000	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000
From Fund Balance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total Revenue	18,192,975	18,295,000	18,194,333	18,452,530	18,719,618	19,002,328	19,519,924
Total Expenditures	18,192,975	18,008,420	18,194,333	18,452,530	18,719,618	19,002,328	19,519,924
From Fund Balance	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Ending Fund Balance	9,948,999	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579	10,235,579
Projected Rate Increase			0.0%	1.5%	1.5%	1.6%	2.8%

TABLE 5
FY18-23 Sewer Projections

	FY18	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23
	Budget/Recap	Projected	Budget	Projected	Projected	Projected	Projected
Sewer Expenditures:
Public Works	3,610,140	3,610,140	3,800,470	3,952,489	4,110,588	4,275,012	4,446,013
Capital	1,000,000	1,000,000	1,250,000	2,250,000	3,000,000	3,000,000	3,000,000
Existing Debt	22,344,312	22,344,312	21,116,253	22,842,824	24,180,239	24,484,746	25,454,495
New Debt			2,725,057	2,672,281	2,692,225	3,741,250	4,798,750
Finance	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000	225,000
Community Development	44,500	44,500	44,500	44,500	44,500	44,500	44,500
MWRA	24,952,540	24,713,140	25,708,250	26,685,164	27,699,200	28,751,769	29,643,074
Total Expenditures	52,176,492	51,937,092	54,869,530	58,672,258	61,951,752	64,522,277	67,611,832
Assumptions: 1) The FY19 MWRA assessment is based on the preliminary estimate received from the MWRA and reflects a 4.0% increase from the final FY18 assessment. FY20-23 assessments are based on annual rate increases of 3.8%, 3.8%, 3.8%, and 3.1% respectively (source: MWRA, February 2018). 2) Public Works allocation increases by 4% in FY20-23. 3) Capital as shown. 4) Debt Service increases according to Debt Service schedule. 5) All others remain constant.
Financing Plan
Revenue:
Sewer Service Charge	51,432,185	50,332,185	54,125,156	57,927,818	61,207,245	63,777,703	66,867,191
Non-Metered Sewer Revenues	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000	700,000
MWPAT Subsidy (existing)	44,307	44,170	44,374	44,440	44,507	44,574	44,641
Total Revenue	52,176,492	51,576,355	54,869,530	58,672,258	61,951,752	64,522,277	67,611,832
Projected Sewer Service Charge Increase			7.5%	7.0%	5.7%	4.2%	4.8%

TABLE 6
FY18-23 Combined Water and Sewer Projections

	FY18	FY18	FY19	FY20	FY21	FY22	FY23
	Budget/Recap	Projected	Budget	Projected	Projected	Projected	Projected
Metered Water Revenue	17,492,975	17,495,000	17,494,333	17,752,530	18,019,618	18,302,328	18,819,924
Metered Sewer Revenue	51,432,185	50,332,185	54,125,156	57,927,818	61,207,245	63,777,703	66,867,191
Total	68,925,160	67,827,185	71,619,489	75,680,348	79,226,863	82,080,031	85,687,115
% Increase	-	-	5.6%	5.7%	4.7%	3.6%	4.4%

TABLE 7
FY13-18 Water Fund Balances

	As of 6/30/13	As of 6/30/14	As of 6/30/15	As of 6/30/16	As of 6/30/17	As of 6/30/18
	(Actual)	(Actual)	(Actual)	(Actual)	(Actual)	(Projected)
Water Fund Balance	9,075,357	9,741,315	11,687,672	10,338,547	9,948,999	10,235,579

---

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6    MAR 26, 2018
ORDERED: That the following block rate for water consumption and sewer use in the City of Cambridge be in effect for the period beginning April 1, 2018 and ending March 31, 2019:

	Annual Consumption*	FY18 Water Rate	FY19 Proposed Water Rate	FY18 Sewer Rate	FY19 Proposed Sewer Rate
Block 1	0 – 40 CcF	$3.02	$3.02	$10.23	$11.00
Block 2	41 – 400 CcF	$3.24	$3.24	$10.82	$11.63
Block 3	401 – 2,000 CcF	$3.44	$3.44	$11.62	$12.49
Block 4	2,001 – 10,000 CcF	$3.65	$3.65	$12.51	$13.45
Block 5	Over 10,000 CcF	$3.96	$3.96	$13.30	$14.30

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons; and be it further
ORDERED: That the Senior Citizens Discount Program gives either a 15 percent or 30 percent discount on water/sewer bills, depending upon certain qualifications. Any resident who owns and occupies his/her own home and who is 65 or older on July 1 qualifies for the 15 percent discount. This discount may not exceed $90 for the fiscal year.

To qualify for the 30 percent discount, a homeowner must be 65 years of age or older and must have been granted the Clause 41C Elderly Real Estate Exemption, which is based on the demonstrated financial need. This discount may not exceed $180 for the fiscal year.

---

TEXT OF ORDERS
O-1     Mar 26, 2018
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
WHEREAS: Intergenerational living is a policy alternative used to combat the affordable housing crisis in many cities, both nationally and internationally; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is home to a large number of graduate and post-doc students attending local universities who compete for market rate housing, which often results in long term family units becoming short term rentals; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is also home to a large population of seniors, many of whom want to “age in place” but face the challenges that come with being “overhoused”, such as high tax bills, trouble with day-to-day maintenance, and loneliness; and
WHEREAS: Pilot programs in New York, Cleveland, Boston, and elsewhere have been created to facilitate intergenerational living arrangements, which involve seniors renting spare rooms in their homes at below market rates to graduate or post-doc students, and on a case-by-case basis, these arrangements can include assistance with household tasks for an even lower rate; and
WHEREAS: These pilot programs have shown numerous positive benefits of intergenerational living, particularly for senior participants; and
WHEREAS: The City of Boston is in the midst of piloting such a program; and
WHEREAS: Many of the graduate and post-doc applicants involved in Boston’s pilot are attending Cambridge universities, leading the City of Boston to explore extending an invitation to participate in its pilot to the City of Cambridge, should Cambridge accept that offer; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to consult with the Community Development Department, Council on Aging, community liaisons of Harvard, MIT, and Lesley Universities, our affordable housing nonprofits, and other relevant parties to explore the possibility of joining the City of Boston in expanding its intergenerational housing pilot program to the City of Cambridge; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner.

O-2     Mar 26, 2018
COUNCILLOR MALLON
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge owns a number of vacant properties, including abandoned or empty buildings, municipal parking lots, and empty parcels of land; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge is in need of additional affordable housing units, and to meet this critical need, the City must be creative, innovative, and aggressive in developing alternative housing solutions; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge does not have a complete inventory of its vacant properties and the City’s plans for them; and
WHEREAS: Non-profit developers such as Just-A-Start and Homeowners Rehab Inc. have inquired about the use of these City-owned properties, specifically the municipal lots in Central Square; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with all relevant City departments to conduct, compile, and publish an inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots with the City’s plans for them, if any; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager complete this inventory and report back to the City Council in a timely manner.

O-3     Mar 26, 2018
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
WHEREAS: Mr. Cato Freeman, a person of color who was born into slavery and who remained enslaved throughout his life, fought valiantly during the Revolutionary War, helping this country win its independence from British rule in the late 1700s; and
WHEREAS: It has recently come to light that Cato Freeman – sometimes identified by his slave name of “Cato Stedman” – was buried in Cambridge alongside his owner, Captain Ebenezer Stedman, at the Old Harvard Square Burial Ground, yet he has never been given a fitting burial marker of his own to note his contributions to this country’s founding; and
WHEREAS: Similarly, it has come to light that Mr. Neptune Frost, another person of color who fought during the Revolutionary War and was buried at the Old Harvard Square Burial Ground, has nearly been lost to history and has never had a proper memorial marker noting his presence or his contributions to this country’s founding; and
WHEREAS: It has also come to light that Thaddeus Kosciuszko, who has a marker on the rotunda of the historic Cambridge Common to note his critical contributions during the Revolutionary War era, was accompanied by Agrippa Hull, a person of color who was born free and who served for six years and two months in General Washington's Continental Army, ultimately earning the Badge of Honor for his service; and
WHEREAS: Similar to the cases of Cato Freeman and Neptune Frost, no memorial markers or plaques have been placed upon the Cambridge Common to note Agrippa Hull’s contributions during the Revolutionary War era; and
WHEREAS: There were possibly thousands of cases of men and women of color – some born into slavery, some who spent a portion of their lives in bondage as slaves, and some who never lived in bondage – who fought bravely and valiantly alongside the other patriots in General Washington’s Army, yet the majority of their contributions have largely been lost to history; and
WHEREAS: As we strive to shine a bright light to achieve a fuller, more accurate sense of our history, and as part of our efforts to bring these individuals out of the shadows and into the proper recognition they deserve, it is only right that the City of Cambridge should seek to create historical markers that note the brave men and women of color who walked these streets and gave so much of themselves in order to help give rise to the greatest democracy the world has ever known; and
WHEREAS: During the course of this process of deepening our historical understanding, we may well uncover evidence of other unsung men and women of color who contributed to this nation’s founding, and it would be only fitting to ensure that proper historical markers are erected in their names as we become aware of them; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint an appropriate City representative to work with the Historical Commission, the Veterans Services Department, representatives of the Cambridge African American Heritage Trail, Cambridge Historian Jon Hill, and any other appropriate parties in an effort to place markers on the graves of Mr. Cato Freeman and Mr. Neptune Frost at the Old Harvard Square Burial Ground, a marker for Mr. Agrippa Hull on the Cambridge Common, and markers for any other early unsung patriots of color that we may yet determine have been hidden in the shadows of history for far too long.

O-4     Mar 26, 2018  Amended
COUNCILLOR MALLON
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
MAYOR MCGOVERN
WHEREAS: Central Square is designated by the State of Massachusetts Cultural Council as an Arts and Culture District within the City of Cambridge; and
WHEREAS: This State designation requires that the City actively support and promote artists, their diverse crafts, and public consumption of them; and
WHEREAS: The unique needs of artists regarding their live/work space, studio space, gallery space, and performance space are not currently included in the City’s current version of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS: The creation of an Arts Overlay District specific to Central Square would allow artists to thrive in affordable live/work spaces, provide the necessary relief for the unique structural needs of studios, galleries, and performance spaces, create new venues for public consumption of art, and demonstrate the City’s ongoing support for and promotion of local artists; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the Executive Director of the Cambridge Arts Council, and the City Solicitor with a view in mind of drafting of an Arts Overlay District ordinance that would achieve the goals of creating and preserving spaces for the arts in the Central Square Cultural District, and to report back to the City Council with recommendations; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee.

O-6     Mar 26, 2018  Charter Right - Zondervan
COUNCILLOR TOOMEY
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City of Cambridge is facing an affordable housing crisis and the City needs to foster bold, innovative, and most importantly aggressive strategies to provide affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: In January 2015, the City Council unanimously approved an order of setting a goal of the creation of 1,000 new affordable units by 2020 and the City Manager’s report back on the feasibility of this goal acknowledged the need for “new tools” to help the City achieve this goal; and
WHEREAS: Housing Cooperatives (Co-ops) have been utilized in other cities to provide affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: Single-Room Occupancies (SROs) are an essential component of the City’s affordable housing stock and these forms of housing are increasingly scarce; and
WHEREAS: Currently the waiting list for an SRO through the Cambridge Housing Authority is 1,920 people which is a 55% increase from the 1,235 people in 2017; and
WHEREAS: SROs/Co-ops could provide transitional housing options Cambridge residents, veterans, the homeless, immigrants, seniors who have been displaced and starter apartments for young adults; and
WHEREAS: Zoning regulations have made the purchase of these single-family homes to be converted to SROs/Co-ops not feasible in certain neighborhoods which do not provide any affordable housing; and
WHEREAS: Affordable housing opportunities leads to a more socio-economic diverse community; and
WHEREAS: A stated mission of the Affordable Housing Trust is the protection and the expansion of affordable housing opportunities; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Department of Community Development to compile a list of single-family homes available on the market in Residential A1, A2, and B zones; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft zoning language with the intent to provide a provision for the conversion of these single-family homes into single-room occupancy units and/or co-ops; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Affordable Housing Trust to aggressively bid on these properties; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Executive Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Department of Housing and Community Development on what grants could be utilized to purchase these buildings; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to further confer with the Executive Director of Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of providing project based housing vouchers for these units and compiling a list of non-profits that the Cambridge Housing Authority could rent to; and be it further
ORDERED: That this matter be referred to the Housing Committee.

O-9     Mar 26, 2018
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: Short-term rentals in Cambridge are currently regulated by the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to go into effect Apr 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS: Cambridge considers local regulation of short-term rentals essential to maintaining residential housing stock, stabilizing neighborhoods, and mitigating housing costs; and
WHEREAS: Proposed state legislation currently under consideration might impact the ability of Cambridge to regulate short-term rentals; and
WHEREAS: Proposed state legislation may limit the ability of municipalities to tax short-term rentals in a manner similar to taxes levied on hotels and motels, giving short-term rentals a potentially unfair market advantage; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council go on record in opposition to any legislation that would remove or limit the options of municipalities to pass local ordinances regulating short-term rentals to include accessing tax revenue similar to what is done with hotels and motels; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Clerk be and hereby is requested to forward suitably engrossed copies of this resolution to the Cambridge State Delegation on behalf of the entire City Council.