| Author |
 Topic  |
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2012 : 06:52:12 AM
|
What's the "Special Municipal Employee Status" all about? How much is that going to cost us?
$19,500? They're not going to give it up are they? They're all determined to make sure none of us have two nickels to rub together!!
kittycat, I'm pretty sure you're referring to regular parking tickets requiring notification prior to towing. The street sweeping is a seperate issue. If they don't tag & tow, the streets will never be cleaned. It's a few months a year, a couple of ties a month. what's the big deal? |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2012 : 10:27:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by justme
What's the "Special Municipal Employee Status" all about? How much is that going to cost us?
$19,500? They're not going to give it up are they? They're all determined to make sure none of us have two nickels to rub together!!
kittycat, I'm pretty sure you're referring to regular parking tickets requiring notification prior to towing. The street sweeping is a seperate issue. If they don't tag & tow, the streets will never be cleaned. It's a few months a year, a couple of ties a month. what's the big deal?
I’m concerned about this "Special Municipal Employee Status" also. My main concern is some of the “names” there.
Why is Bob Joy (from Somerville) given “Special Municipal Employee Status” when he is a department head for the mayor and does not even live in Everett! I know I’ve made up my mind for what’s going on there…
Then you have:
Sam Amado
MaryAnn Sacamone
Evelyn Chase
John Burley
Theresa Shalsi
Alyson Dell Isola
Bob Joy, Sam Amado Alyson Dell Isola are all department heads for the mayor. This is wrong wrong wrong! I even have a problem with John Burley. His mother lives in Carlo’s house! It’s nothing personal…it’s just what’s right, morally and ethically.
The $19,500.00 should fail too. Not happy at all about people sponging off the taxpayers. Do people realize they are trying to give themselves close to a 40 PERCENT INCREASE? I implore anyone to prove how their workload will increase by 40 percent! I know one councilor wanted the salary higher so everyone will throw their names in, and the ones with name recognition will get in. Just like the Charter Commission...unfortunately.
It has to stop, but I understand where Mike Marchese is coming from. We have a do-nothing mayor, who boasts how he has 4 other successful businesses, and is never at city hall. The mayor is not even supposed to have another job….but he will get an increase of over $600.00 weekly?? For what?? If he is planning a re-election, he should decline this increase. Shame on him if he supports it.
So, why shouldn’t the city council go right for the gusto? They do more work than the mayor, that’s for sure. I feel it should not be one cent over $15,000.00 and that’s being generous.
I hope item 11 fails, but just do not see that happening. I know work needs to be done, but not to the extent being asked and the consequences. There are a lot of “extras” thrown into these projects based on what’s good for Carlo’s friends and that’s unacceptable.
The way the bonding is being asked for is a mistake.
The enterprise fund is not stable.
The budget is not stable.
We have issues with the pension fund.
You only bond if you know you have the money to pay. I know the financial advisor said if it does not work, you do not approve the following year…but we are still stuck with yet ANOTHER debt. There is no plan, and every decision that’s being made and voted on with this administration is reactionary.
The only plan I see is getting together based on what’s good for Carlo’s friends, and search for the money to do it. It’s not helping the economy or the homeowners. Most of the work is putting a band-aid on a wound… and the work that IS necessary, can be done with other sources of funding and maybe not borrowing at all. At minimum, it should go to committee and hash it out, line by line and have the entire city council go to every job site and investigate what exactly NEEDS to be done, and not the WANTS. The WANTS can wait.
|
|
|
|
kittycat
Member
66 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 07:30:55 AM
|
Dear Resident,
I am writing to bring your attention to a pressing issue in our City. This coming Monday night, the Board of Aldermen will vote whether or not to bond monies needed for our intended Capital Improvement Projects. Citizens in growing communities want and expect improvements to roads, sewer, and water systems. They want safe and functional fire trucks and police cars. They want schools, police stations, firehouses, parks, recreational facilities, and libraries that they can take pride in. And that is absolutely the case here in Everett. Residents want a City of value. I promised a City of pride, progress, and possibilities; and that is what I am constantly trying to deliver. This long-term strategy will not only greatly improve City infrastructure, but will also increase the quality of life for our residents, and it will do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
I am so pleased to see the first phase of the Capital Improvement Plan receive a unanimous vote by the Common Council. And I look to you to reach out to your respective Aldermen or attend their meeting this Monday night to express your support of these projects.
Recent economic adversity has had a significant impact on property values both nationally and at the local level. This has created unprecedented financial challenges for our local economies and, more importantly, has adversely impacted your investment in our community. Declines in property values in our community have been more severe than our neighboring communities and as I look around, I see one glaring difference. Those communities had more vibrant periods of capital investment, either through redevelopment authorities or aggressive planning departments. Those capital improvements were supported by the local legislatures and as a result those communities were more insulated from the adversities of the recent economic instability. From 2003 to 2009 investment in non-school capital improvement in Everett was virtually inexistent. This alternative, to “spend down” our infrastructure, can result in deterioration and poor service. It’s time for us to strike back and make every attempt possible to begin to recapture these critical declines in the market values of our homes. It’s time to make Everett an attractive investment to future homeowners and thereby positively impacting our citizen’s nest eggs. An aggressive capital improvement plan is the strongest solution.
Recently, a company with over 100 years of history decided to make a $13.5 million investment in Everett. One of the reasons cited for this move was improvements to the infrastructure in the area in which they wished to locate. These improvements were made possible through grants from the Commonwealth. This is a major accomplishment for the City as it signifies that we may have finally reached a bottom on our commercial market. We are confident that this move will positively impact property values in the surrounding area and furthermore, this transaction prompted a favorable response from the Commonwealth, when Richard Pellagrini from the Massachusetts Office of Business Development identified Everett as having a business friendly climate. It is critical that we continue to maintain this momentum and become the beneficiary of many more of these types of strategic alliances with the commercial sector. This can only help the City as a whole moving forward.
That being said, with historically low interest rates due to the struggling economy, and our current favorable bond rating (AA3), now is the time to move forward with these capital goals. The City can take advantage of these exceptional market conditions and complete these much needed projects with no additional burden to the taxpayer. We’re starting our plan through issuing short term Municipal Notes. This will allow us to raise the revenue needed for the projects while keeping the bottom line of our budget secure. Over the course of the next five to seven years, we’re essentially going to replace current debt with new debt and phase down our budget line item committed to capital. This will allow our annual commitment to stay the same in our budget, thus keeping our taxes stable, while allowing us to complete these much needed projects such as the integration of updated water meters, repairs to the Parlin School, 911 Building, and the Police and Fire Stations, replacement of defunct city vehicles, the redesign and renovation of our major parks, and essential street, sidewalk, and crosswalk reconstruction, water and sewer main replacements.
The streets that are currently proposed per the pavement management plan are:
Ashland Street, Bradford Place, Emery Place, Garland Place, Garvey Street, Hancock Terrace, Highland Court, Locust Park, Robin Street, Russell Place, Silver Road, Young Terrace, B Street, Beacon Street, Bettinson Court, Bolster Street, Clark Street, Clifton Ave, Coolidge Street, Edith Ave, Fleet Court, Glen Street, Grover Street, Hancock Street, Hatch Street, Hawthorne Street, Irving Street, Miller Street, Norwood Street, Otis Street, Park Terrace, Parlin Street, Pleasant View Ave, Proctor Road, Prospect Street, Thurman Park, Vale Street, and West Street.
Water main improvements are currently proposed on the following streets:
Bennett Street, Cedar Street, Fremont Ave, Hancock Terrace, Harvard Street, Lawrence Street, Lincoln Street, Rich Street, Magnolia Court, and Rock Valley Ave.
All of the aforementioned improvement projects are essential in that they directly impact the future of Everett. Together we can create a city with improved appearance, increased property values, and first-rate facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. If we make the sound investments, we can build a better Everett.
Thank you,
Mayor Carlo DeMaria, Jr.
EMAILS BEING SENT OUT TO ANYONE WHO WILL LISTEN, I HOPE THEY SHOOT HIM DOWN, TO MUCH MONEY BEING SENT ALL AT ONCE. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 08:23:00 AM
|
kittycat,
That email was sent from Carlo's re-election website. Are you providing this information to keep us aware or to pass our responses on? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 08:43:55 AM
|
Tails, I think that you're wrong about at least some of the people who are receiving special municipal employee status so that they can work the polls in the election. The article that I read in the Advocate about it says that the majority of them are people that have worked the polls for a long time. Truthfully, the only department head position I see on the list is Human Services, not Human Resources. And I think that you have John Burley mixed up with Jim Marchant too. Most of the other ones are members of commission and boards. They used to do this by name and, that way, there would be no confusion. However, it was determined some time ago that state law requires them to grant special municipal employee status by position instead.
Does anyone else think that the current city council salary proposal of $19,500 was the highest that they thought they could get away with without breaking what they probably perceive as a stigma associated with a 20K or greater salary? I've got news for them; a lot of people will still bitch if they go back to the original finance committee proposal. As far as the current proposal goes, I just don't see how it will pass the BOA with a 2/3 vote. Stranger things have happened though.
I do believe that the finance committee proposal was fair though. A 108% increase over what an alderman gets today and a 173% increase over what a common council member gets today seems more than enough. If they want more than that, go out and prove to us that the new city council can do a better job than the current one does.
As far as the bond orders go, the e-mail from above sounds like an FFF move (don't worry, he'll have his forces there too) to pack the room to intimidate the BOA to pass this Monday night since the rumor that I've heard is that the BOA wants to send these pieces to the finance committee. IMHO, the city does need to invest a lot in infrastructure. But I agree with Tails, the investment needs to focus on the things that the city needs, not just what somebody wants. A wrought iron fence around Glendale Park? Is that really going to improve property values? If this is the amount of capital investment that the experts say the city can support without increasing taxes any more, I guess I could support it if it focused solely on needs. If the BOA does manage to send these pieces to committee, the city council needs to step up their game and really explore this plan in depth. Otherwise, it will just come off as a delaying tactic.
It's too bad that the Parlin repairs are a part of this package; it will just add to the circus atmosphere this Monday night. Councilor Miller was right the other night when she asked why that project wasn't done with either stablization money or free cash. I believe that there was more that 500K left in free cash at the end of the year and it would have allowed the project to start during the summer when the school wasn't in session. Now, according to school department propaganda piece that appeared in every paper this week, they have to put up fences and other safety equipment until the project gets rolling, increasing the cost of the project. Good planning there. Now free cash can't even be considered as an option until it gets certified. I suppose that they could do what they did one other year and borrow from the stabilization fund until free cash gets certified. It's probably an option that they should explore on Monday night. |
|
|
|
kittycat
Member
66 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 09:46:34 AM
|
| keep everyone aware don't belong to his web site never did but got it last night, I hate the mayor he is runing the city into the ground |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 10:44:34 AM
|
| Is it ethical, or even legal, for the mayor to send letters and/or emails to residents on streets he proposed to have work done and ask/tell them to call their ward reps and tell them to vote to spend money? I really find this disturbing. Any comments or thoughts? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 11:58:18 AM
|
| Yes, it is targeted but is it really a lot different than the op-eds that appear in the papers. IMHO, a proposal like this ought to be able to stand on its own merits; but that's not the way that the game is played here in Everett. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2012 : 8:50:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tetris
Yes, it is targeted but is it really a lot different than the op-eds that appear in the papers. IMHO, a proposal like this ought to be able to stand on its own merits; but that's not the way that the game is played here in Everett.
There's the rub............. it shouldn't be a game, but it is!! |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2012 : 6:33:24 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tetris
Tails, I think that you're wrong about at least some of the people who are receiving special municipal employee status so that they can work the polls in the election. The article that I read in the Advocate about it says that the majority of them are people that have worked the polls for a long time. Truthfully, the only department head position I see on the list is Human Services, not Human Resources. And I think that you have John Burley mixed up with Jim Marchant too. Most of the other ones are members of commission and boards. They used to do this by name and, that way, there would be no confusion. However, it was determined some time ago that state law requires them to grant special municipal employee status by position instead.
Does anyone else think that the current city council salary proposal of $19,500 was the highest that they thought they could get away with without breaking what they probably perceive as a stigma associated with a 20K or greater salary? I've got news for them; a lot of people will still bitch if they go back to the original finance committee proposal. As far as the current proposal goes, I just don't see how it will pass the BOA with a 2/3 vote. Stranger things have happened though.
I do believe that the finance committee proposal was fair though. A 108% increase over what an alderman gets today and a 173% increase over what a common council member gets today seems more than enough. If they want more than that, go out and prove to us that the new city council can do a better job than the current one does.
As far as the bond orders go, the e-mail from above sounds like an FFF move (don't worry, he'll have his forces there too) to pack the room to intimidate the BOA to pass this Monday night since the rumor that I've heard is that the BOA wants to send these pieces to the finance committee. IMHO, the city does need to invest a lot in infrastructure. But I agree with Tails, the investment needs to focus on the things that the city needs, not just what somebody wants. A wrought iron fence around Glendale Park? Is that really going to improve property values? If this is the amount of capital investment that the experts say the city can support without increasing taxes any more, I guess I could support it if it focused solely on needs. If the BOA does manage to send these pieces to committee, the city council needs to step up their game and really explore this plan in depth. Otherwise, it will just come off as a delaying tactic.
It's too bad that the Parlin repairs are a part of this package; it will just add to the circus atmosphere this Monday night. Councilor Miller was right the other night when she asked why that project wasn't done with either stablization money or free cash. I believe that there was more that 500K left in free cash at the end of the year and it would have allowed the project to start during the summer when the school wasn't in session. Now, according to school department propaganda piece that appeared in every paper this week, they have to put up fences and other safety equipment until the project gets rolling, increasing the cost of the project. Good planning there. Now free cash can't even be considered as an option until it gets certified. I suppose that they could do what they did one other year and borrow from the stabilization fund until free cash gets certified. It's probably an option that they should explore on Monday night.
I know. I said it to see a reaction (not yours) and I got it. FYI Bob is sticking his nose in it. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2012 : 8:10:22 PM
|
| Oh no! wer're not playing games too? We must be from Everett!! |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 08:54:51 AM
|
| I miss the meeting last night can someone fill me in on that big 14Million borrowing and on Sal with the tickets |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2012 : 11:53:40 AM
|
The question on the general fund borrowing was split. Glendale Park at $2.1M and the Parlin at 500K were approved. The remainder of both bonding items sent to the Finance Committee, which is to meet ASAP but not probably not before next Tuesday.
Discontinuing towing for street sweeping was sent to R & O but may not belong there. DiPerri argued that it belonged with the Traffic Commission. He may be right; I searched the ordinances and couldn't find any references to it. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2012 : 1:34:22 PM
|
| I thought there was a Board of Alderman meeting tonight... |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2012 : 1:42:11 PM
|
| There is. The agenda is on the website |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 Board of Alderman
