A Slow Trickle in the Dark

The latest dismal financial news: Half the city's steetlights will be out in an effort to save $70,000.

Again, like last night's post, not good news.

I know there are a lot of people who are opposed to switching off the lights, for public safety reasons. Perfectly valid.

Let's do this here though: If you're opposed to a cut, whether it's the streetlights, PD, or somewhere else, that's cool. We all have priorities. But if you're against a cut, you have to realize that the money has to come from somewhere else. Where would you take money from to fund your priority? Or where would you find new money to pay for your priority? It's easy to say you want the streetlights on, but unfortunately we're at the point where you have to figure how to pay for something like that.

So, before you write a two-line rip job, think about it. Where would you get the $70,000 to fix the streetlights? And try to be specific. If you say "school dept.," that's fine, but say where. Two teachers? An adminstrator (one that isn't state mandated)? Maybe, just maybe, there's a good idea out there waiting to be discovered.

Layoffs? Layoffs?

So, it appears some layoffs in city government are in the cards. Not necessarily good news.

A couple of things:

I still think the union settlements last year were a good thing. Yes, I know, that was a lot of money. But at the end of the day, retroactive raises were off the table. Take the raises that were given out, and add a couple hundred grand. Happy now? Plain and simple, spending some money on raises saved at least as much on the retros. Long-term vision, people. That said, I still don't under stand the department head raises (sorry, department heads). That doesn't make as much long-term sense, unless you want to argue morale and keeping people on board. But...

I like Joe Solomito's work, and I'm not trying to pick on him here (although he did bring it up). But it might be time to stop thinking about back taxes as a way to fix some of this problem. Clearly, that money won't be easy to get. Why not target it for the rainy day fund, and then money that you budgeted for stabilization can be redirected when tax money comes in? First, it's one-time revenue, so you can't build a budget on it. Second, it's just not coming enough to be reliable. Go ahead, argue the city isn't pursuing hard enough, but what aren't they doing that they should be?

Here might be the most interesting thing about this long-term: What will the unions do? Will they make concessions to save members, or will the long-timers throw the young'uns overboard? You go to some other spots and see city employees argue for layoffs. Will there be a universal movement on that, or will different unions do it differently? Will there be furloughs?

Someone said four-day weeks should be instituted at City Hall. The Pride editorialized for that last year. It should be done.

* * * * *

Two more things: I'm befuddled by the Mylott situation. I really like the guy personally, and I think his political skills would make him a good city councilor. And then I look at his track as mayor. It will be very interesting to see how his summer and fall goes. Veeerrrrry interesting.

Part of my "sticking around" plan includes a monthly column in the Fitchburg Pride. The first one is in the paper this week. Check it out, won't you? And yes, I'll ask the editor to keep my face off the cover from now on. I'd steal Shaq's twitter term of "sugly," but it's more "ugly" than "s."

McKay to B.F. Brown?

OK, right off the bat, I have a vested interest in this one, with SF Thing 1 at the McKay School for kindergarten, and likely Thing 2 following her in a couple of years. The future of the McKay is important at the SF Mansion.

So, it didn't go unnoticed that School Committee member James Reynolds is talking about moving the McKay School to a renovated B.F. Brown Building.

At the crux, as in the past, is the nearly $1 million the city pays for rent to FSC for the McKay. Holy crap! $1 million! That's outrageous.

Is it?

I don't really know the answer, but I do know it would cost $5 million to renovate B.F. Brown (according to the super), so it might be awhile. But it's a good reminder that rent is out there.

So, is the city getting $1 million out of that rent? Again, I don't know, but consider:

Principal John Early is consider an associate dean at FSC, and the college pays at least part of its salary.

The electricity and heat are paid for.

The daily a.m. and p.m. police details at the parking lot entrance on Rindge Road are FSC.

FSC may handle custodian duties, and they certainly handle building repair and upkeep.

We toured all four elementary schools last spring. Far and away, McKay was in the best shape of all of them. It wasn't the deciding factor for us, but it certainly was a factor after Thing 1 went to school some days at South Street without heat. It was noticeable.

I guess the unknowable is, how much is the city saving on not owning and having to keep up another building? Consider this: According to my math, the city has $10 million in school repair projects on the stimulous wish list. That doesn't count B.F. Brown, which is in there. You can only assume at this point that if the city was running another school building, it would need repairs there, as well.

In some ways, it might not really matter for Thing 1 or Thing 2. They'd stay at McKay, or they'd get a renovated B.F. Brown (in theory). But before there's an overwhelming chorus of "Hey, $1 million in rent? WTF," there should be consideration as to whether or not it's a fair deal to the city. It's easy to get all fired up over the numbers, but is reality different from the dollar signs?

When Do You Say 'Ouch?'

So, here's the question:

What cut will be egregious that you'll be offended?

The PD "demotions" got some fire, but really, it wasn't that bad.

The school department's talk of merging BF Brown and Academy barely raised an eyebrow.

Last year's library cuts are certainly grist for the mills, but really, it's not like there was a big protest outside City Hall.

Mayor Lisa Wong told the City Council this week that the city will need to cut $4 million out of the budget for next year. Certainly, big cuts are going to come. With the chances of new revenue looking shaky, based on early reports, you can bank on more cuts than new money. And that's putting it lightly.

I guess it's kind of a hypothetical question that you can't really get a handle on right now, but it's worth asking not just here but throughout the city: When do you say "ouch?"

10 police department layoffs? Closing Summer St. fire station? Closing some parks for the summer? Turning streetlights off?

I guess it's a different way of asking, what are the priorities? Seriously, I hope for some good feedback on this. Recent budget discussions have quickly devolved into "Lisa Wong sucks," and "the trash fee sucks almost as much." I'd like to move beyond that and get some kind of sense of what people think. What cut would make you stand up and say, "absolutely not." Consider stuff like: 3 cops OK, 5 no. Keep parks open, but don't maintain the fields. Stuff like that. What's your limit? You can't avoid them, you can only pick the ones you dislike least. Ready? Go.

The Unusual, the Not Good, the Phone Calls

So, what to make of the announcement this week that a handful of Police Department managers were getting demoted and taking a pay cut?

It’s unusual, it’s not good, and if I were a manager in another city department, I wouldn’t be taking too many calls from 345-9550.

First, the unusual. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of this before. It’s creative, I’ll say that. It’s obviously an effort to keep cops on the street, which everyone agrees is the top priority. It’s probably worth mentioning that the “demotions” aren’t based on job performance (obviously), but instead are a mechanism for lowering pay. I don’t know if maybe they’ll all get “promotions” in the future, but I do feel bad for the “demoted” and their families. A pay cut is never a happy affair. It would be good if they were given some preference on details (yes, more work, but more opportunity) to make up some of the difference. (Note: This is not an endorsement of details as presently constituted. But if we’re playing by the rulebook, use the rules to their advantage.)

Now, the not good. Obviously, this is in reaction to current and upcoming local aid cuts, and there’s more to come. These guys are the first victims, but there’s certainly more to come. I’m not sure if this is the final solution to keeping cops on the street, or if there’s more to come. There’s no way of knowing right now, but this is a sure sign that things are going to more difficult in the next five months. Layoffs were avoided, and hopefully that remains the case. It’s easy to hammer the classic city employee/donut-eating cop stereotype, but this is no time to be wishing someone out of a job. Put this way: If you lost your job tomorrow, how many options would you have for a new one? More and more, people are realizing the answer is “very few,” or “none.” While this is predominately about numbers and services, there’s also human decency involved, and I wouldn’t want to be the one handing out pink slips. That’s gotta play a role now, and later. But this doesn’t soothe any jagged nerves in City Hall and other departments.

Finally, that phone call. There’s a very interesting thought process that seems obvious here. The goal is to keep police officers on the street. How do we that? One way might be get higher-paid members to take a pay cut, and use that savings to keep offices out there. This wasn’t a random numbers cut. It had a direct purpose. You’d have to think that the Mayor’s Office might have similar ideas – or other department-specific ideas – up their sleeve. Are other department managers going to play the same ball? Will they have a choice? Chances are, the phone is going to be ringing soon, and their not going to have any choice but to answer it. I guess we’ll see.

Additionally, what’s up with the Police Department. I’ll admit it. A year, nine months ago, I was really turned off by the union’s moves on raises. Since then, they’ve led the way on contract negotiations by agreeing to no retroactive pay and taking a fairly modest annual percentage increase. (Note: I know people are hung up on those settlements, but please, please, please, don’t forget the general dismissal of retroactive pay. That is such a huge savings, and can’t be overlooked. I’d think we’d be doubling the numbers, if not more, if retro were included. It might not have been the best time to settle, but if you get nowhere, the unions dig in, and a year from now you’re paying the same raises PLUS another year of retro? Yikes.) Now, some of the highest-ranking members of the department are taking bumps down. Looking back, I still can’t get happy about the public tactics, but the contract and this move has me impressed with what they’ve done. Knowing the guys who took this cut, they’ve got a lot invested in the department and the community. It would be unfortunate if they left. Wouldn’t blame them, but it would be unfortunate. I guess we’ll have to see.

So, it begins. $250,000 or so down, $2,750,000 to go (probably actually more, but don’t let big math get in the way of a literary device, I always say).

Budget Blathering

So, here we are, looking at a loss of probably about $3 million in state aid in next year's budget. Let the screaming begin.

I'm not patient enough to wait for the city budget to download right now, but I'm willing to bet $3 million that the increase in tax levy and new growth won't cover that decrease. So, the city will have less money next year than this year.

A lot will be said and done between now and July 1. Some of it good, a lot of it bad, some of it just mind-numbingly repetitive and either unsubstantiated or just wrong.

In that spirit, I spent a chunk of my car ride home thinking of all the things I don't want to hear during this budget season. Part of that thinking was motivated by a comment I read somewhere else. It's #1 on this little list. I'm sure they'll all come here in the next five months, and some point said referring to these topics will make me lose my mind. But whatever. I don't have much to lose.

#1. The city should run like a business. Well, yes, it should. But what does that mean, exactly? What happens in business when it's not making enough money? It lays people off or it raises prices. Plenty of places are laying off. Jeez, McDonald's raised the price of a double cheeseburger this fall because costs were getting too high. My point? Business can do two things in tough times: cut, or raise more money. The city is in pretty much the same quandry. So when you say the city should run like a business, what does that mean, exactly?

#2. There are too many school administrators. This is an old-time favorite from last year. It got to the point last year where I started shyly asking spurters of this one, "So, um, like who?" I quickly realized that those who were spouting had no clue. I started asking it almost tauntingly, knowing those saying it couldn't support it. I never got bagged. Forget details like state-mandated positions that might be protected. These people couldn't name a position, forget a person. I asked this question last year here probably a half-dozen times, and never got an answer: Specifically, who? Please, I really do want to know. It will come up again, so let's go, people.

#3. Throw the useless ones out of City Hall. Sounds good. Again, who are they? This goes with #2, and might seem a little more easy to figure out, but who is it? Can someone with real knowledge tell me?

#4. My special thing. Let's admit it, we all have it. I have mine. It's the schools. I've never shied away from it. You have your special thing. Likely, it's police or fire. You don't want it cut. Think the library folks are happy? No. You think the 90 percent of the population that is generally unaffected by the changes at the library care? No. That's an extreme example, but it's true across the board. Departments don't operate in vacuums. What happens over here effects stuff over there. The library changes saved the city $800,000. Think of the cop jobs it saved. It probably kept the Summer St. fire station open. At this point, every dollar kept in one department means one fewer dollar somewhere else. So, embrace your special thing and advocate for it. Try to come up with some way to preserve it. But if it gets cut, remember, there's, um, "revenue enhancements" on the table that can help out. Such is your choice.

#5. We're not Leominster. Agreed. This is not a condition that popped up last week, last month, last year, or last decade. It's been so long, the paths so divergent, that it's no longer acceptible to compare the two cities. It just isn't. Sure, you want to make the point that Fitchburg stinks, but the current situations in the two cities weren't born overnight. It's taken a long, long time to get here. To not recognize that and not consider it is just not very right. It sounds good, but at this point it means nothing.

#6. We can't afford it (Or, stupid Unitil). This one we'll hear this year -- a lot -- until the budget is settled. Trash fee? "No way. We're taxed up the ass as is." Override? "Have you seen my electric bill? No way." There's an emotional logic in that. But it has nothing to do with each other, except your wallet. Let's go back to the old McDonald's double cheeseburger reference from above. Do you think when Ronald McDonald convened his kitchen cabinet to discuss raising the price they said, "You know, Wendy's just raised the price on their burger. Maybe we should hold off on this." Hell, no. We have a lot of time to debate whether or not new fees and taxes are a good idea. But it really doesn't have much to do with Unitil. You might not believe this, but Unitil isn't the root cause of all things dark and evil in Fitchburg.

Look, the next five months are going to be a tough road. People are going to demand certain things don't get cut, and most of them aren't going to want to consider a trash fee, override, or anything else that cost more money. Just go into this knowing the city will have less money next year than it does now, and health insurance and other items are only getting more expensive. Just remember to think about the situation, remember that every action has consequences to the entire budget, and that this is most certainly not going to be easy. I look forward to reading many, many comments that tell me all the above is ridiculous.

How Much on Wednesday?

I know everyone is focused on tomorrow's frivolity with Unitil, but on Wednesday, the governor's budget comes out, and it will shed some light on the city's budget situation, for sure.

Patrick said last week he might cut up to $375 million from the current local aid figures. That doesn't include potential mid-year cuts.

Factoring in Lottery aid, this year's aid to be held harmless from Lottery shortfalls, and additional assistance, the total in those sections are roughly $11.1 billion this year. That means, roughly, Patrick is looking at a 25-30 percent cut in local aid. For Fitchburg, if it were equal across the board, the city would be looking at a $2 million to $3 million cut in state aid. Don't know what new growth is looking like this year, but I can't imagine it's very much.

In short, cuts are coming, and we can start trying to figure out from where on Wednesday.

What's 10 Percent Between Friends?

Sometime in the next two months there's a chance that local aid from the state is going to be cut. Some people say it's going to happen, some people think it's going to happen, pretty much everyone hopes it's not going to happen.

The buzz is building around 10 percent as a cut figure. No one is quite sure if this true or not -- and no one knows if that's even an accurate number.

But it's important to pay attention to that number and that background now, as the City Council wrangles with funding (or not) union contracts this week. For the councilors thinking about not voting for the contracts, the problems with those potential local aids are their chief source of concern (along with perks, although we discussed that last week).

First, let's dispel the myth that a 10 percent cut in local aid would equal a 10 percent cut in the city's services. The city government receives a grand total of $11.8 million in local aid, most of it in the $10.6 million in lottery aid, state aid to fill in for lottery decreases, and additional assistance. A 10 percent cut of the city's government aid would be about $1.2 million, or about 5 percent of the $51.9 million spent on city services.

Now, on the school side, a 10 percent cut of all local aid would equal about $4.2 million in a $46 million budget ($44.1 million not counting Monty Tech). That's a far tougher cut (just ask the 25-kid kindergarten class teachers how they feel about it). But honestly, not relative to this conversation. I can hyperventilate over that later.

OK, back to the city-side budget. Of that $52 million in play, $22 million is wrapped up in employee benefits. Let's say you're whacking 5 percent out of that. How many employees do you have to lay off to save $1 million? )Honestly, that's a question. I don't know the answer.) The next biggest area is the cops, at $6.2 million. That would be a $300,000 cut there. Then debt at $5.3 million, but I don't see how that's cut. Fire is next, also at $5.3 million. That's a $250,000-plus cut there. Next is DPW, at $3.3 million, or $150,000-plus. Would 5 percent be cut across the board? Who knows? Probably not.

The council has a bit of tough decision here. It would go a long, long way for the city to settle these contracts. Would the few hundred thousand it would cost to do it be devastating to the city if local aid cuts happen? What's the level of cuts, however, where it would be bad to approve these contracts? 10 percent? 5 percent? Anything? Does anyone really, truly, know what's going to happen with local aid? (And if someone says they do, they're either lying or have a good Tarot card reader around.) It's tough to not consider potential local aid cuts, but it's also tough to vote against something based on something that might or might not happen.

Anyway, if you decide to watch this go down, there's your background on where things stand.

Turning off the Lights

As you may have read today, Mayor Lisa Wong talked last night about turning off some streetlights to save some money.

Of course, the immediate reaction is that this will create further lawlessness in the city and we're all doomed. A silly overreaction.

This isn't an unusual idea. Communities all over the place are considering turning the streetlights off at night, and some are doing it. I'm not sure how many are urban communities like Fitchburg, but it is something that thoughtfully planned makes sense.

There are obviously some high-crime areas that shouldn't be touched, but there are plenty of quiet, peaceful side streets that would likely be unaffected if the streetlights were out. I'm thinking of my street. I don't think I'd mind if the lights were out. How about some high-traffic streets like John Fitch? There's always traffic on that road. How about creating a random turn-off system, where there's no distinguishable pattern? (What, are the bad guys going to drive around town and find the area with the lights out?) How about turning lights off all night in some areas, but only for a few hours -- like maybe 5-8 p.m. in the winter when there's still a lot of traffic or 3-6 a.m. year-round when no one is out -- in others?

From what I can tell, no one is calling for a blackout of the city. With some planning, some common sense, and some logic, it makes no sense not to try it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and the lights go back on again.

Wong Asks for Pay Cut

Mayor Lisa Wong is going to ask the City Council tonight to cut her pay by 2.5 percent. The money would be used to keep a fire engine operational.

You can read more about it here.

You'd have to think the Council will have no problem approving the request, right? More importantly, in the letter to the council seeking the change, Wong notes the city might be seeing a reduction in state and federal funding, and that annual raises might be a thing of the past. Or at least not of the near future. It's all in the story, which might be updated later, so peek back if you feel the urge.

Union, mayor back at it

If you didn't see Saturday's Sentinel, the police union wrote Mayor Lisa Wong a letter claiming she is out of touch and not properly funding the department. Wong said the out-of-touch claim is ridiculous.

Not good times for the mayor. The library folks are already displeased, and the union returns with more fire. And the police department got a little more money through the budget process.

So that's two departments that are looking for money, and are blaming Wong for the financial issues in their departments. There's probably a line where "no money" crosses into "out of touch." Has that line been crossed?

It appears pretty certain the police union is not buddies with Wong, and likely won't ever be. More bad news for Wong, especially in that they don't seem to feel the need to be shy about it. You'd have to think they'll be searching for a candidate to back next fall. You also have to wonder if other departments and unions are going to join the fun.

While we're here, it's worth noting that city councilors told the Sentinel they hadn't seen the letter. But the Sentinel had seen it, and I'm guessing it didn't come from the Mayor's Office. So you'd have to think the union is going to grind its ax in full public view the rest of the way.

But the bad news is now starting to back up on her. Her options are being reduced for next year. She can make run at overrides, or not. If she doesn't make a run at overrides, the library, police and others won't be getting more money and will likely get cut. If she does go for overrides, she'd going to tick off a whole lot of residents who don't want anything to do with an override. The likely outcome would be worst-case: She throws out override questions, everyone gets angry and shoots them down, and the departments still don't get any money, so everyone's angry.

So, what's she going to do? The original override plan went in the dumper with the deadline foul-up of earlier this summer. But at some point -- sooner rather than later -- she's going to have to decide one way or another which way to go on this. Either commit to an override effort or not. And by that I mean either move that way or don't. She can't wait until the holidays to roll out an override effort for February or March for next year's budget. It's gotta happen soon to get people prepared and understand what's going on. She talked about leadership a lot during the campaign, and now might be the time to show it.

Ugh

I don't really know what else to say today.

Let's start with the fact that today is the first day of the new Fiscal Year. Or, the day when all the horrible things in the budget start to take effect. Goodbye police officers and firefighters. The library cuts are in effect. And so on.

If that wasn't bad enough, there's a bunch of little financial news today, none of it good. The state is going to review changes, which isn't horrible news, but a reminder that times are bad.

The library wants the city to pay back a loan the city used to fix the library elevator. There might be an argument to make here that this was more an accounting maneuver than a loan, and the library did benefit from the loan, but I'm not sure it's a compelling argument. And now, of course, the library wants its money back. Can't say I blame them, but at some point this bickering needs to get resolved.

A new audit report discovers $8,000 found in a desk drawer. I don't whether to get supremely upset, or merely shake my head in quiet, shocked, disapproval. I guess it's more head-shaking, but good lord. Why can't that be my desk drawer?

Finally, someone was shot in the Parkhill Park yesterday afternoon. It's particularly troubling in that one of the Save Fitchburg tots was at the splash park during that time. From reports from her friend's mom, there was some confusion if there were even shots fired, which reinforces the feeling that the incident was far removed from the splash park, but there are a bunch of kids at that splash park every day, and this incident is disconcerting for every parent who has a kid that goes there. The SF clan goes there rarely, but it will do so probably only after second thoughts at this point.

Let's try to end on a high note: It looks like Sal's Pizza is opening any day now over near Twin Cities. Can't come soon enough. If you missed the news last month, Sal's Pizza is most tasty, and we'll be enjoying some tasty Sal's as soon as we can.

A Shove Toward Regionalization

Sometimes even good ideas need to be forced, and in the case of regionalization of government services, budget problems might finally be pushing forward the idea.

Most famously in Fitchburg, Police Chief Robert DeMoura is pushing for regionalized dispatch services. The goal is to get some of the nine officers put into dispatch shifts back on to the streets. Of course, DeMoura is losing patrol officers due to budget cuts, so the idea of regionalizing gains new urgency due to limited resources.

We've talked about regionalization in the past here, and I'm going to maintain my cynical "I'll believe it when I see it stance." It's an idea that has been kicked around without progress for far too long to get all geeked up about it happening. I don't know if it's inbred parochialism, an inability to get a near-deal finished, or something else. All I know is that whether it's sharing dispatchers, snow salt, or school bus contracts, the history of regionalization ideas end up in the dumper when it's all said and done.

That said, I'm hanging some hopes on this gaining traction because of the money situation. Desperate times, desperate measures, and all that. I know there's a lot of internal stuff that goes into figuring all this out, but if the current situation isn't enough motivation to make something happen, I'm not really sure what will be.

The Library

OK, I'm going to write about the budget and the library for a little bit today. It's probably not going to seem this way when it's all said and done (yes, I do go into these ramblings with a semi-plan), but I think it's very unfortunate the library budget was cut so steeply, and I'm very open to considering options (that's a funky way of saying, yeah, I'd probably vote for a library override today).

While I don't cling to the emotional "great center of knowledge" as tightly as hard-core library folks, I will say that there's some amount of civic pride invested in the library. No way around it: It's embarrassing to say the city doesn't have a library that's open full-time, or even state accredited (although the two kind of go hand-in-hand). An active, vibrant library is a symbol of, well, an active and vibrant community.

We should be doing better by the library, but we aren't. And some folks would say we can't. Some will say we can. But the situation is pretty complex, when you think about it.

It's still considered gospel in these parts that an override might as well be stamped "DOA" on the ballot. So that means when going into the budget process this year, the mayor and City Council were in cut mode, not "let's try to find areas that might be override-palatable."

Big cuts are hard to come by. The schools are pretty much off-limits, due to state mandates, minimum funding standards, and the huge proportion of state funding that goes to the schools. That, and the schools should be priority number one for the city (yes, that's my priority, and I don't want to have this fight again. And if you're getting ready to type the "too many administrators in schools" arguement, please, finally, come with titles that can go, and the state would allow cut).

The next biggest departments are police and fire. We've seen in the last two months how much of a premium the City Council puts on those departments. Would Wong have been able to get a big through in either of those departments? Negative. Next is DPW, probably. People already hate the condition of the roads. 'Nuff said.

In some ways, making a big cut in the library is a logical -- although difficult -- idea. While there has been much tsk-tsking and what-not, note the relative lack of outrage from the City Council. They're on board with this. This thing is falling into the "fact of life" category, unfortunately.

Importantly, this isn't a short-time issue. It seems unlikely -- impossible? -- that the library is suddenly going to get a $800,000 boost in next year's budget. It's best chance of full funding if an override. And while it's possible, I wouldn't be betting the homestead on folks bucking up via an override. Maybe things will be better in six months or so, but if it was today, I wouldn't see it happening.

Now, all that said, there's been some, eh, fuzziness on the part of the library fandom. For starters, inevitably, someone says something like "It's horrible the library is closing. We're losing such a vital resource." That's not true. The library is staying open, just not seven days a week. Is it inconvenient? You bet. Is it lock the doors and try to read e-books? Nope.

The biggest issue here is the loss of inter-library loaning. If the FPL doesn't have a book, it's off to amazon with you, because most local libraries aren't going to give it to you (Leominster's vote is pending, but that sounds like an iffy situation for Fitchburg). That's really the biggest problem here.

I'd also question the decisions the library leadership has made in terms of hours. If inter-library loaning is issue number one, access is number two (although the two might be flip-flopped). Tuesday-Thursday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., might be the worst possible times for most people to get to the library. How about noon to 8 p.m. one day? Even better, why not go Thursday, noon to 8, Friday, 9 to 5, and Saturday, oh, 10 to 4. It might be a little crowded in the evening and on Saturday, but isn't that a good problem? Why can't this happen? There might be a reason, but I don't know it.

Next week, the library goes to its new hours. As these things often do, the issue will probably die down. Regular library-goers will notice the change, but most people won't. The issue will come back in the winter or spring, as override talks get going again. For library lovers, the bitterness of the situation needs to get swallowed, and it's time to put on a charm offensive and convince the city that the library is a worthy target of the city's first override approval, or some other plan needs to be cobbled together. The hand-wringing must end and the work must start, or the only way to get to the library will be to go during lunch or take the morning off to get there.

UPDATE, Thursday, 4:03 p.m. -- The Telegram has a story on the library today. I refer to it for two reasons. First, the library hours will be noon to 7 p.m., which I didn't know when I wrote yesterday. I'm an idiot. Second, it doesn't take long in the story for someone to say the changes will "shutter" the library. Why does this get said so often. It's not being shuttered. It's being reduced. Jeez. The truth is bad enough.

Meanwhile...

You're not going to believe this, but other stuff has been happening besides basketball the last two weeks (or, two months if you're me). I was surprised to hear it, to be honest.

The council continues to grind through the budget, with a handful of cuts ready to go. There's also more focus on boosting the Police and Fire departments.

Certainly, police and fire are two of the city's core services, and every effort needs to be made to keep those departments functioning top-notch. There's more than just level of service at play here. The city's public safety is chronically a sore spot for residents (some deserved, some not, as we've discussed in the past), so there's some political expediency that helps things out.

It's no big surprise that preserving police services is a top priority for city officials. It's been that way for years. Hopefully those departments can be stabilized a little bit this year, and other departments can be focused on in the future. At some point, the focus needs to expand.

While we're here, I'm still wondering what the overall preference is among the city's residents. Cuts, or saving services? I get the feeling that the overwhelming feeling is cuts, but then you hear groups of folks talking about preserving the library, or preserving public safety (where's the folks trying to save the pool at Coolidge Park, by the way?). What if all those little groups got together? Would their combined voices (and mutual but competing interests) come close to the folks who are perfectly OK with the cuts? Is this even a discussion at this point?

Certainly, the city can't save all of the services in danger, but how deep is the incentive for folks to demand some of them be saved? Or is the level of frustration with government and taxes so deep that they don't care, they just want the cuts? It's kind of an important question going forward that the city is going to have to figure out as it moves forward.

A Different Override Question; About Last Night

Mayor Lisa Wong said this morning she wants to put non-binding override questions on this fall's ballot, and then proceed with perhaps some binding override questions early next year. You can read all about it at the Fitchburg Pride website.

It's an interesting move. It opens the override discussion, but doesn't create a one-and-done atmosphere that makes override debates so heated. How hard to advocates push in November? What's the threshold for getting onto the early-'09 ballot? Has this ever been done before?

It does give residents a clear say in what they funded. Even if nothing passes in the end, it gives some a road map to city officials of what people want to see money put toward.

It will be very interesting to see how this turns out. In November, voters would be essentially given a wishlist. Do you want money to be spent on X, Y and Z? But early in '09, it will be, do you want to spend money on X, Y and Z? That's a big different. I'm guessing a solid majority of people support the idea of spending more money on the library. But would a majority of people actually support the funding? I'm sure there will also be a bloc of folks who will vote "no" on everything through sheer principle.

I'm not sure if this has been done anywhere else, but it should be an intriguing experiment.

-----

If you're a Celtics fan, you have to pleased with how last night turned out. The Celtics and Lakers both played well, and except for the back end of the second quarter, you felt like the Celtics were either in control or close to taking control of the game. The last three minutes of the third and the first 10 minutes of the fourth were particularly well-played by the Celtics. In short, if the Celtics play well, they can win games.

Some interesting stuff out of L.A. in the aftermath. After spending almost the entire night outside of the paint, Kobe Bryant said he just missed a lot of "bunnies," and he was getting good looks. Of course, SportsCenter then shows a series of 15-foot fadeaways with a hand in his face (including that second-half airball) and other tough shots. Will Bryant go 9-for-26 again? God, I hope so. But that's kind of unlikely. But was shooting 49.7 percent in the playoffs before last night, so what is it? Bad shooting night, or good defense? Or both?

Also, Bill Plashke falls for Phil Jackson's bizarre whining after the Paul Pierce episode last night. Jackson questioned how hurt Pierce actually was. Plashke takes it a step further in his column this morning. I don't know how hurt Pierce is, but Mike and Mike were on point his morning when Golic questioned how Pierce could have the presence to fall down, immediately act very hurt, and know that his triumphant return would get the place charged up. That's a lot of scheming in about a half-second. But whatever. As a Celtics fan, I'm hoping Pierce was faking it, because they won't this series without him. They get an extra day off with Game 2 on Sunday, so hopefully he's ready to go.

In the end, a good start last night for the Celts. Now they have to take care of business Sunday night and really put the pressure on the Lakers.

Cats and Dogs Living Together

As Jack Buck once said, "I can't believe what I just saw."

The City Council, during the budget process, moved money from one area to another through free cash and cuts. They can do more than "only cut the budget." Who knew?

In case you missed it, the council used some free cash and a cut or two from some other areas to fund new cruisers for the Police Department. These were the new cruisers that had funding cut under duress in 2006, and never had a chance last year.

This is good news for a couple of different reasons that have nothing to dollars and cents.

First, I feel like I spent the second half of last year howling into the wind that the council's hands were not as tied on budget matters as they claimed. One mayoral candidate in particular tried to wash his hands of all things budget problems while on the trail, leaning on the "the council can only cut" mantra. Then, and now, I argued the council has political power and legislative maneuvering to get stuff done. Ta-da. Look at this week's action.

Second, on some level, this council has some priorities. If they did in the past, it wasn't always clear. There was a feeling of 11-councilors-and-11-cabs no one really tried to refute. Clearly, public safety is a chief concern for this council. They targeted the PD, and are making noises about Fire. Let's see what happens there. Can this council do it again?

All of this is good news for the city. Watching the council over the last 18 months or so has been fairly interesting. You could kind of sense it was trying to figure out last year how to get going, but was so busy squabbling with Dan Mylott that it couldn't quite get there. Now, it's picking priorities and making things happen.

I like a proactive council, and I like what happened this week if only because this council is proving that it can pick a target and hit it. And it's only been together five months, which is also encouraging. The next step: being proactive on something other than budget survival. But I like this first step.

I have some questions on this, purely in the wondering sense. I wonder if this gets done if Marcus DiNatale isn't on the council. By all reports, it sounds like he was the driving force on this. I wonder what kind of signal we should take from this on the council-mayor relationship. She could have told them to stick it (although she said from the outset she'd go along with reasonable changes). You'd have to think everyone is getting along right now.

This isn't good news for everyone. If you're a library supporter, it's pretty clear that the council's general "public safety first" philosophy was more than talk, it was an action plan. While there may be some dollars here and there to shuffle around, clearly moving them toward the library isn't a top priority. And considering the library's big cut, I'm not sure there's enough dollars out there to fill in that hole.

While we're on the topic: the library folks will be out tonight, picketing during First Thursday and protesting the cuts. I'm not sure I'm a fan of that move. On the one hand, public protest is all well and good, but usually those protests are centered around political events, like a council meeting. This is a community event. But a high-visibility one. I can't say I blame them, but I think there's something to be said for keeping the politics with the politics. It certainly didn't hurt trash fee opponents to plan their protest around a council meeting.

---------

If you're tired of the Celtics, stop reading. If not, let's get ready for tonight.

First, here's what I wrote right after Garnett got traded to the Celtics. After, a few thoughts on those first thoughts.

UPDATE (4:55 p.m.) There's a slight change in the Garnett deal from what I have below. Rajon Rondo stays, Bassy Telfair goes. So long, Bassy, we hardly knew ye. That said, the more I think about it, the more I like that trade. A bunch of people have mentioned it to me today, and it's great that the Celts are relevant again. That alone might make it a great trade.

More importantly at this point, the Sox just finished a trade for Eric Gagne. That means in October, you'd better be beating the Sox after six innings, because Okijima, Gagne and Papelbon are waiting after that. Yikes. Sure, Gagne's back my cripple him any day now, but whatever. That bullpen is now ferocious.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear it. If you don't want to read about the Celtics, you're free to go. But....

My first reaction to the megatrade for Kevin Garnett was immediate anger. I didn't want to see Al Jefferson go away. Throw in two serviceable players (Gerald Green and Ryan Gomes), the C's best trade bait (Theo Ratliff's contract) and apparently the starting point guard (Rajon Rondo) -- and a top pick, and that's quite a bounty.

My negativity -- Rick Pitino would be so proud -- was that fact that the Celtics traded away the future we've had to sit through and nurture over the last few years. Coming on the heels of the Ray Allen trade, I was done with Danny Ainge yesterday afternoon.

In the long term, this might not be a good trade for the Celtics. In three years or so, when Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen are all in their mid-30s, this will be an old team (hello, late 80s/early 90s Celts). There is so much money wrapped up in those three players that there will be little cash to flesh out the roster. By the way, who's the point guard? The team's two "best," Delonte West and Rondo, are gone.

But for the next two or three years, the Celtics suddenly matter. A lot. And for 82 games a year, we get to watch a star (Pierce) and a superstar (Garnett) on the same court for the same team. Cool.

More importantly, for the next two or three years, the Celtics are in fact contenders to at least make the Finals, if not win them. Part of that is because the Eastern Conference stinks. Bad. A Celtics team of its latter-day Big Three, me, and Dan Mylott would make the playoffs (allegedly Mylott is a great spot-up shooter).

Cleveland won the conference this year, and that team was a one-man band. Detroit's on the downside, Chicago is a player short (Allen or Garnett would be huge there, in fact), Miami could be dangerous if Shaq muscles up, but that mystique is fading fast. In short, the Celtics are suddenly in the mix.

So, today, fresh off a mini-vacation, I'm taking the optimistic outlook. Even at best, a fully matured Jefferson with Pierce and other parts would be looking at a two- or three-year window to compete -- in two or three years. That timetable just got moved up, and this team is more solid.

Obviously, it's better to have your teams always competitive and able to just reload through its monster resources (the Red Sox) or its smarts (the Patriots, although they're not my team. I'm a Raiders fan). To think Ainge and Doc Rivers will be able to reload this team is still not a trustworthy situation. So you have a two-year window to sit back and watch three stars try to get the Celtics back to basketball's biggest stage. That would be cool.

OK, thoughts...

I'm still pissed at how far off I was on Gagne. Boy, did he suck. I was so psyched when they got him, though. I'm a silly boy.

Nearly a year later, I'm also pissed I was upset for even 20 seconds about this trade. Hindsight is grand, but I should have been more excited at the time. I'm almost there back then (it was July 31, by the way), but didn't have it figured out then.

I think the one thing that was a big problem then, without an obvious solution, was the rest of the roster. Posey, Eddie House, P.J. Brown, none of those guys were even on the radar at that point. Glen Davis was optimistic potential. Somehow, Ainge pieced it all together. It's one thing to make a couple of good trades, but to fill in the back half of the roster the way Ainge did was a great job -- and probably a tougher one.

As you can see through the update, the rumor mill got the trade wrong at first. Obviously, hanging on to Rondo was gigantic, and probably allowed the Cs to get this far. Would Bassy Telfair have gotten into the Finals? Ugh. Looking back on this year, Rondo's growth has been the one of the best things to see this year. He's not all the way there, but he's significantly better than he was in November. Hell, in February, when Cassell jumped on, there were still questions about Rondo. I think at this point Cs fans are perfectly fine having Rondo on the court for 40 minutes, even when he's not playing his best. If nothing else, he just doesn't turn it over. After wrangling with Billups the last two weeks, he should have a little more freedom this go-around. He'll be a key, as usual.

I still think there's a two- or three-year window, and God knows what happens when Pierce, Allen and Garnett get creaky, but they're taking advantage of the window, and that's all that matters.

So, tonight's the night. For the first time in 21 years there's June basketball in Boston. I can't stinking wait. Let's Go Celtics.

Last Gasp of the Annual Fee

There may or may not be a trash fee when all is said and done, but I'd be willing to bet that if there is, an annual fee won't be part of it.

Sadly, space constraints left out the following from my story in Friday's Pride from Tom Conry:

"I think if that $100 fee would drop, and maybe if there was a slight increase in bags, maybe it would be easier to see. We just can’t break the backs of some of these people. I really don’t’ think it is a bad idea, but I think really needs fine tuning."

So that's coming from the president of the City Council, and there's going to be some options delivered to the Council for review. Does anyone really think that with options, they'd take the original version of the fee proposal?

I'm guessing for most residents, you have an all-or-nothing attitude about all of this. If you favored it before, you'll be fine with the changes. If you were against before, a reduced proposal won't make you slam the trash can lids together in celebration. I don't think there were too many folks before who were on the fence by this point.

However, for 11 people, this is an interesting situation now made even more interesting. You'd have to assume there's some council-mayor negotiations going on that will iron all this out. You'd also have to assume that with some "more attractive" options on the table, a trash fee is becoming more and more a reality.

The School Budget

The School Department budget has been a popular spot for folks hollering for cuts. Sometimes it's a general "it's the biggest budget in the city. Cut it." Sometimes it's the wonderful, old "cut the administrators. They aren't needed."

The administrator situation is too convoluted to really get into with any kind of deep understanding. I talked to a very high-ranking DOE official today who is a pal, and some admin positions are state-required at a certain level of student use. My pal, of course, doesn't know all the ins and outs of what positions Fitchburg must have, what it doesn't. Sure, I could call the School Department, but I'm feeling a little lazy today. That said, my phone convo with my buddy is more research than 95 percent of the "cut the administrators" crowd has done. Here's my threshold: Tell me what job isn't needed or state mandated, and why. But the blanket "too many administrators" is as much urban myth as it is fact in my view right now.

Now, as for the money. There's been some talk here recently about minimum spending and things of that naturem but no one (including me) was really sure what the deal is. I said earlier this week that I thought the city was just at its minimum spending. I'm a silly boy. For this fiscal year, the city is $1.1 million under the state's required spending. Here's the link. That number seems to include some non-school budget items (like health insurance), which makes it difficult for me to say off the top of my head if the city is reaching its minimum next year. I'd be willing to bet on "no," and I'd be willing bet big on "if so, not by much."

My point? The city is falling short of state minimum requirements for education money, which is a shame. Or just making it, which is OK, I guess. In either case, it's not a place open for cuts. I'd love to say something like "this is an area where we can discuss the state's not stepping up and helping out," but it already throws $41 million into the pot next year, an overwhelming amount of the operating budget. It's tough to criticize the state on this one.

I know a lot of people out there want to gun for the School Department in times like this, but the blanket statements need to be backed up by facts some times.

Why I Favor the Trash Fee

I know I said last week I was pretty much against it, but (with a few caveats), I've come around to the trash fee. Here's why:

In short, somebody has to do something.

For too long, we've complained about what's wrong with the city. The schools stink. The roads don't get plowed. The library is being cut back. Police officers aren't getting raises and are being laid off. The sidewalks aren't disabled-friendly. We complain, we vote, but we don't make changes.

While it's not anyone's idea of a perfect solution, it's a chance to start making those changes. In the Police Department, the change would be real and immediate, with officers left on the street. Other areas of the city would be bolstered.

If you have a couple of days (weeks), you can find long-time commenters on this site who oppose the trash fee talking about the faults in city services. I intentionally mentioned two of them above. This is a time to start to putting it back together. It's time to stop complaining and do something.

How did I come to this decision? I was thinking about the school budget, and the terrible job the city does funding the School Department. About 90 percent of the schools is state-funded. Wouldn't be good if we could put more money in the schools, create a better school system, and create something that would make the city better, make it more attractive, make one more thing to be proud of? Instead of admiring Andre Ravenelle's bailing-wire-and-bubble-gum approach, why not give him the tools to make an A-1 system?

But that desire to improve the School Department can be extended to a lot of city services. It's a desire to do better that we all have to embrace.

Here are the caveats: There needs to a promise/language that freezes the fees for 10 years. I'd be willing to consider five. There needs to be a promise that there will be no other new fees created. It would be disingenuous to use this as a doorway to other fees or bigger trash fees in the near future.

I know this trash fee isn't a savior, but it is a helping hand to the city that needs all the help it can get. I'm not a legal scholar, but it isn't unconstitutional or illegal. Otherwise 129-odd communities wouldn't have one already. Is it a financial run-around? There is an argument for that. But sometimes the decisions aren't that attractive.

We talk about political officials making "tough choices," but now it's time for us to make a tough choice. Fewer cops and firefighters, or fewer bucks. I'm voting for the cops. It all comes down to that questions: More services, or more bucks.

I figure, even with the annual fee, I'm looking at $200 a year, tops. That's at a trash bag a week, which seems easily doable based on current Save Fitchburg Mansion trash usage. That's just under $17 a month.

This site is littered with the complaints and the comments about things that don't work right in the city. Next year's budget isn't going to make things any better. The goal, always, is to make things better. To go back to the top of the page, to Save Fitchburg. So, I'm on board.

I know this won't change any minds, and I know this is going to set off a firestorm like none other. I'm trying to do the first, and while I don't welcome the latter, that's OK.

There was a lot of talk last year about taking back the city. It's time to extend that responsibility a little bit more. We're all in this together, even when the times suck and the decisions suck even harder. But it's time to suck it up, and I'm ready to do my little bit.