City Council Notes–27 May

Budget season is upon us! If you are interested in how the city spends your tax dollars, you’ll want to attend the up-coming Administration & Finance (A&F) committee meetings. The mayor gave a brief preview of the fiscal year 2022 operating budget. The local cannabis industry is outperforming expectation, which is a great help to offsetting fixed costs. Fixed costs, like healthcare and pension for city employees, increase year-on-year, so new growth often only covers the changes in those costs. In order for the city to invest and grow, they need to find other avenues of resource. I have long stated that a budget is a values document, and this year, the two items the mayor chose to highlight are climate resiliency and race equity. She mentioned the partnership with Beverly (the city) and we can also look forward to a joint city council meeting to review some of the ideas and initiatives under consideration on climate resilience. A note for you eager beavers who have already started to tuck into the numbers: Salem’s budget includes enterprise costs. Not all cities do that, so if you are comparing with other towns or cities, bear that in mind. All bond orders and capital improvement plan requests were also referred to A&F.

All the year-end, money-moving appropriations were approved without any drama. These include moving dollars from free cash to projects, buying car parts for council on aging vehicles, replenishing the ad budget for the city clerk’s office, upgrading police radios, and signage for the community life center. The nitty gritty is in the documentation. The amendments to water and sewer rates have been referred to the Ordinances, Licenses, and Legal Affairs (OLLA) committee.

There was a touching tribute to Turbo and Axel, two retiring Salem police K-9s, who are not only working dogs, but important to community engagement. Councilor Turiel is tapping his fellow councilors to pitch in for dog treats from Coffee Time because, “they are good boys.”

Speaking of Turiel, he introduced a zoning ordinance modification that would disallow “planned unit development” as a principal use in the waterfront industrial overlay district. It was referred to the planning board for a joint public hearing.

The Government Services committee will meet to review the rules pertaining to public testimony. Not much more was given than that and it was a late file, but my interest is piqued.

The council approved the tightened language in the short-term rental ordinance put forward by OLLA. 1) It disqualified accessory dwelling units as eligible and 2) it tightened the definition of “owner occupied” Councilor Hapworth recused himself, the others voted in favor. OLLA also approved seaworms…Councilor Morsillo? Council approved first passage of a modified resident sticker parking program. In short: resident parking will be open to all residents of Salem for $5, who will also be able to pick up two guest passes $10 for the first; $20 for the second. Each pass can be used for six days, down from 14; exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. College and university students who are not “residents” are also eligible for $10. Military personnel living in Salem can also qualify and will not be charged. Traffic and parking will collect fees. There are special rules for Derby St., and they were amended during discussion. If you’re on Derby, I’m sorry - I was distracted during that chatter. There is a Zone on Derby that will disallow visitor passes from 6PM–8AM, but I didn’t catch the parameters.

AFFORDABLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS passed down expected lines. (In favor: Councilors Turiel, Riccardi, Prosniewski, Morsillo, McCarthy, Hapworth, Madore; Opposed: Sargent, Flynn, Dominguez, Dibble). We have heard about this ordinance for two solid years now, so I won’t get into the nitty gritty of the last debates, but I will call out the most contentious amendment and something that happened right after the vote. AMENDMENT. The ordinance places a maximum rent on the ADU at 30% below fair market rent as defined by the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development. Councilor Dibble wanted to also cap the rent on the home, if the owners chose to move into the ADU and rent the house. That amendment was quashed. AFTER THE VOTE. Turiel called for immediate reconsideration, and one day in the future, I will revisit how this parlimentary hocus pocus is being abused by our council, but not today - I’m already going too long. The vote was 7 opposed to reconsideration; 1 in favor (Sargent); with Dibble, Flynn, and Dominguez not taking a vote. President Madore tried to move on, but the city clerk asked for clarification on the vote and Dibble, Flynn and Dominguez then said they had “been trying to vote in favor.” This vote more than any other confuses the council almost every time. The matter was not reconsidered and the council needs to stop using it to lock things in. The council moved on to the next agenda item and Dominguez raised his hand. Madore acknowledged him, and he started to make a motion. Councilors cannot randomly make motions. They have to be tied to an order of business and they have to be put forward when that matter is under discussion. Nevertheless, the council indulged him and he moved to put the ADU matter to the voters. The city council CAN put a proposed matter on the ballot or ask that voters repeal or amend any measure on the books. However, this should have been introduced at the next meeting and it should have been worded as a repeal. At any rate, it was not approved.

I’ll end on happy notes: the first block party (Federal St.) was approved in a long time, and road races are on the docket again! Miles Over the Moon was approved, but my beloved Devil’s Chase is held to the next meeting. (Don’t let me down, McCarthy!)

Respectfully submitted, Jen Lynch