NORTHAMPTON — During its Jan. 22 meeting the Northampton City Council approved six financial orders related to the city’s Capital Improvement Program and another order appropriating funds from free cash to various reserve accounts after a Charter Objection was filed on the orders.
The charter objections were led by Ward 3 Councilor Quaverly Rothenberg who stated she filed the objections to seek more clarity and information on the financials of these proposed orders.
“The charter objections for me are not reflective of and don’t accomplish delaying projects. The Charter Objections delay a vote to the next meeting,” Rothenberg explained about her decision. “Anything that got delayed to this point today, I don’t really feel like is a true delay. I feel like it’s like an extension of a conversation.”
All the financial orders submitted were eventually approved. Rothenberg said she wanted the time to allow for more conversation on what is most urgent. She then added it seemed like all her colleagues had decided they were ready to just approve all of them.
“I understand that, I understand that that’s your wishes on council. My wish would have been not only for Feb. 6 [to review] for anything nonurgent, but even further into that 90-day period,” Rothenberg said. “I am really concerned about the financial management of the city. I am not so concerned about the financial condition of the city and that remains my position.”
Rothenberg’s decision to file the charter objections was mostly opposed by fellow city councilors and all financial orders were eventually approved. Eventually before closing on the first six financial orders, At-Large City Councilor Marissa Elkins criticized Rothenberg for questioning this work and suggesting something nefarious could be happening.
“You can’t send something out to bid without knowing the money is there and what finance has approved, and we play an important part in that,” Elkins said. “It is clearly an insinuation that money is being misappropriated or misused. That is what is behind councilor Rothenberg’s charter objections and demand for more time. If you believe you have evidence of misappropriation, please bring it. But the insinuations are terrible. Terrible to those of us sitting in the room who said we are doing this service. It’s terrible for the professional reputation and credibility’s of the department heads and the people who come and work for our city. It is the thing that means we won’t have good people come here and work if they know they’re going to have to sit in front of a council, that insinuates, literally, that we would misspend money. Hide money. That we would not do the project to the best of the ability and that people’s good work would be used to mislead the people of Northampton.”
Ward 6 Councilor Marianne LaBarge credited the finance team for their efforts and added she could only remember one charter objection ever occurring during her years spent on the council.
Ward 2 Councilor Deborah Klemer responded to Rothenberg’s comments as well, saying, “When I get the agenda, and I know we’re going to be talking about something I talk to department heads and research the projects. I am on a lot of these committees that discuss these items. If I don’t understand something or I’m not sure about something, I talk to people about it. I’m not just voting with the mayor or the way other councilors want me to vote. I do a lot of research leading up to this … delaying these items till June is going to be detrimental to the projects because we won’t get a good bid, price or they probably won’t happen.”
Rothenberg responded by saying she had concerns about the city’s financial process and said the council doesn’t look well enough into how money already given is being utilized for projects.
“You don’t know the work is being done by looking at the account, you look at how the works being done by seeing the work. We see these projects over the last several years,” Elkins said. “It is not a mystery where this money is going.”
Council President Alex Jarrett said that as part of a future discussion, the committee should review its charter objections rules as they recently changed their council rules, and these objections may not apply the same.
The first order was divided at the request of Rothenberg, stripping the $309,670 listed for three police department cruisers from the order and making it a separate item to vote on. The first portion of the original order passed with highlights like $100,000 to go toward door and frame replacements at Smith Vocational Technical High School, $145,000 to information technology services for a city infrastructure upgrade, and $280,000 for fire rescue transport equipment. When focused on the funding for the cruisers, Rothenberg explained she would not prioritize this spending and would be voting no on the funding.
“This goes back to this sort of bigger question of operational audits. We’re running the cars hard 24/7. I would be very interested if finance had taken that sort of 90-day review period with this to have used some of this time to have done an operational audit, how we’re using the cars and whether we need to be working them that hard,” Rothenberg said. “It’s not possible for me to make an intelligent vote one way or the other tonight and this will be an abstention for Ward 3.”
City Councilor At-Large Garrick Perry responded saying he was in support as this was not an increase of funding for police but simply an effort to sustain the department’s fleet.
“I’ve worked with the chief over the last few years and have come to realize police cars and cruisers are basically their office. It’s really just where they do all their work,” Perry said. “While I do understand the calls to reimagine policing and what not, this is not giving anything to the police other than the tools that they need to do the basics of their job. If we do not approve new cruisers then we run the risk of other incidents happening, other maintenance and so for me it’s really just maintaining a level point.”
Elkins said from her understanding, following a conversation with Police Chief John Carteledge, was that this appropriation is in line with the department’s operating budget.
“It’s not a question I would have thought to ask in finance because I understand that to be the case,” Elkins said. “The operating costs come out of the operating budget.”
The divided item on the cruisers was ultimately passed.
When reviewing a further order seeking to appropriate $7.4 million in free cash to various capital projects, Rothenberg again raised concerns about the financial order and said it did not make sense to her to see so many different projects grouped together in one order.
More specifically, Rothenberg questioned the need to approve an item listed for $3.15 million in funding for utility infrastructure work on Main Street. She expressed concerns with the impact of the city’s finances and small businesses that some have speculated will follow the city’s Picture This Main Street project.
“It’s very clear that the constituents have serious concerns about it [the Main Street project],” Rothenberg said.
While she was once impressed and in favor of the project, Rothenberg said now she feels differently due to the potential implications it will have on small businesses on the street. She also recommended the city pause the project and revisit its resolution and review the best approach for the project.
Jarrett responded by saying the specific order mentioned had nothing to do with the picture main street project itself other than it was an opportunity for needed utility work to occur simultaneously to the state’s work on Main Street once the project is underway.
“We are voting on as part of this the water and sewer infrastructure on Main Street,” Jarrett explained. “This gives us an opportunity to replace that infrastructure at a lower cost because the street will already be dug up for us at the state’s expense. If the project somehow did not go forward we would probably not do the water and sewer infrastructure at this time. If we didn’t vote on this, it’s not like Picture Main Street wouldn’t go forward, we would just lose this opportunity to save money and repair the very much needed repair that has to happen for water and sewer infrastructure.”
Councilor Deborah Klemer echoed similar points made by Jarrett and said it would save the city money from coinciding the work for when the state has opened up the ground during the project. She added with the growing number of water main breaks, specifically on Main Street, getting to the infrastructure and resolving the issue will help save emergency costs from any potential future surprise breaks.
Mayor Gina-Louise Sciarra added that this funding was from ARPA lost revenue money and was being used correctly as an ARPA approved use of infrastructure.
“It’s very important that we do this work. This work has to go alongside Picture Main Street. It has to be done in general, this is very old infrastructure that does need to be replaced and this is an opportunity to do it at a far less cost,” Sciarra said.
Rothenberg stood firm and said she would still be voting no on the order as she had questions about the estimates and felt the financial burden for businesses during the Picture Main Street work would be more costly to the city than not approving this funding for infrastructure work now.
“I’m skeptical on where the estimate is [for the funding for the infrastructure work that would go alongside Picture Main Street work]. I think it’s probably low. I’m skeptical about our economy being able to survive the three years of construction. I think it would be wise to scale it back,” Rothenberg said. “I’m just disappointed that Finance Committee didn’t take more time with this.”
The funding was ultimately approved by the council. The full list of orders and the various items within them can be found on the agenda of the Jan. 22 meeting or on the city website.
