| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Peter Napolitano
Member
11 Posts |
 Posted - 07/22/2011 : 01:26:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Poli Scientist
Anyone read Councilor Napolitano's letter in the paper? He has no idea what he is talking about. He asked "What happens if the Mayor pushes the budget each year to the maximum amount he can legally increase it to, like the current Administration has done for the last three years?". Only problem here is that the budget has been under the levy limit for the past three years. It is close to $800,000 under this year. Was he asleep at this meeting too? Or just trying to spin things?
He may mean business, but to me, it seams like business as usual.
Sick of hacks...
Hello. I do not usually take the time to respond to bloggers, especially when they obviously have no understanding of what they are speaking of. Let me try to explain this so even a highschool student can understand it. The tax levy limit is set based on the previous years budget. You can stay just under the 2 1/2 limit by, let's say $800,000 and still increase the budget which has happened by different amounts the past 3 years increasing the amount of taxes needed to fund those budgets. I have sat through 10 years of Everett City budgets, leading many necessary cuts over the years. The taxpayers of Everett are not a blank check. That's the point here. Thank you. |
 |
|
|
Peter Napolitano
Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 01:28:33 AM
|
| P.S. Thank you Poli Scientist for posting my letter on Everett Average Citizen. I wouldn't want anyone to miss it. |
|
|
|
Poli Scientist
Member
52 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 08:30:35 AM
|
How many necessary cuts did you "lead" this year? I am not talking about ones you spoke in favor of. But once again Councilor, everybody's a moron exept you.quote:
Originally posted by Peter Napolitano
quote:
Originally posted by Poli Scientist
Anyone read Councilor Napolitano's letter in the paper? He has no idea what he is talking about. He asked "What happens if the Mayor pushes the budget each year to the maximum amount he can legally increase it to, like the current Administration has done for the last three years?". Only problem here is that the budget has been under the levy limit for the past three years. It is close to $800,000 under this year. Was he asleep at this meeting too? Or just trying to spin things?
He may mean business, but to me, it seams like business as usual.
Sick of hacks...
Hello. I do not usually take the time to respond to bloggers, especially when they obviously have no understanding of what they are speaking of. Let me try to explain this so even a highschool student can understand it. The tax levy limit is set based on the previous years budget. You can stay just under the 2 1/2 limit by, let's say $800,000 and still increase the budget which has happened by different amounts the past 3 years increasing the amount of taxes needed to fund those budgets. I have sat through 10 years of Everett City budgets, leading many necessary cuts over the years. The taxpayers of Everett are not a blank check. That's the point here. Thank you.
Sick of hacks... |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 08:42:00 AM
|
Poli--
You earlier called me out for a perceived insult to you, so now is it OK for you to do the same to another. You have the right to disagree whether our current mayor is family, friend or employer, but let's keep this campaign nice. Don't we already have enough problems in this city without the additional nastiness. |
|
|
|
snoopy1
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 09:18:10 AM
|
| All I know is I have a 268.00 increase on my mortgage due August 1 for taxes. Is that fiscal year 10's assessment or fiscal year 11? If that's fiscal year 10's assessment this city is trouble. That 1.2 million should have never been pushed on to the taxpayer and for the mayor to call using stabilization and putting on the budget the same thing just proves how out of touch he really is. 268.00 a month is not pennies on the dollar for me. |
|
|
|
Poli Scientist
Member
52 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 09:48:00 AM
|
Cozulady - It wasn't an insult, it was an example of the mentality the Councilor displays.
Sick of hacks... |
|
|
|
cathyk
Member
97 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 10:44:48 AM
|
cozulady that's cause your dealing with a highschool like person who is being said what to write on the blog he should be lucky he has a job with the city. My child didnt' get a job with the city guess I don't count.
GO PETER I AM WITH YOU. |
|
|
|
Poli Scientist
Member
52 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2011 : 11:33:54 AM
|
First off, I am not told what to write and what not to write. I am my own person. Second, I am not employed by the City of Everett. If you know so much about me, call the personel department and ask if I am employed by the city.
Sick of hacks... |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 10:48:32 PM
|
We have serious issues in this city rather than nonsense. I too have a tax increase and the property value is low, which is not a good thing. A lot of people are stuck and not in a position to up & run since we will lose so much money to sell now.
None of this is right. I think the budget process is flawed and needs a different process. Unfortunately, we have a city council mostly filled of gutless people that are too timid to make any cuts........ and when ridiculous items are on the agenda.....like a CFO Office.......and the city council wants to rubber stamp it, enough is enough!
The problem starts because a budget is put together. After the budget is done, THEN they look to see what’s coming in, and if enough is not coming in, we raise taxes even more than anticipated. That’s my take on Peter Napolitano’s statement about….. “What you need and what you want”….. There are a lot of “wants” in the budget.
My opinion is the process is a backwards one. You have all the councilors asking for the world, especially during an election year. It’s time for hard choices and Carlo would probably get more respect if he did make those hard choices.
I feel with the substantial increase people are getting on their taxes that the budget needs to be cut at minimum 10% across the board. City Services may not be at the best, but at least taxes would be lowered.
We have too many people added to the payroll and have too many out of control salaries and raises. The economy is bad but we have city hall employees making astronomical salaries. Where are the priorities here?
I heard the firefighters union got a 13% raise and the police 6%. We have more firefighters that live in Everett than we do police. It could be a political move, and maybe it’s not…but people will have to draw their own conclusions. I’ve also heard we are not top salary in the state, but certainly not the bottom. Why is no one defending the taxpayers to these unions? I don’t know anyone that is getting these types of raises. People I know are taking cuts, and these are union jobs.
The 1.2 million dollar capital improvement (blank check) should NEVER had been in the budget. The mayor should have come up with a plan (which he promises but NEVER delivers)
All he has to do is come up with a plan, list the streets and sidewalks he wants and come to the city council for an appropriation from stabilization. The same thing for the $250,000.00 for parks and playgrounds. It’s a one time thing and I doubt that anyone would say no….if there was a plan in place. Why be so secretive about it?
It’s too bad the business tax rate is so high that all the little Mom & Pop shops are shipping out. Look at Bucchi’s. They are open and closed all the time. Nobody new will be able to open doors in Everett, only powerhouses and that is a bad thing. If the 1.2 million is pennies on the dollars (quoting the mayor) then so is the meals tax that is hurting restaurants in Everett. He should go back to 5% and roll back the parking meter fees.
Cut the budget 10% across the board.
Roll back the meal and parking fees and that may help…..a little. Just wait until next year, this city is going to be a ghost town!
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
|
|
|
|
Poli Scientist
Member
52 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 10:53:07 AM
|
It bothers me when people throw out statements like "Cut the budget 10% across the board". What do you think should be cut? 73% percent of the budget is split between the School Department and Fixed Cost. Of the 27% that is left, which equals $35,334,958, $16,387,292 consist of Police and Fire, leaving $18,947,716. Then you have to factor in city services equipment and general operating expenses which is several million dollars, solid waste (which is 2 million, and I don't believe it's considered a fixed cost).
So where does this 10% come from?
If certain elected officials believe that "the Mayor pushes the budget each year to the maximum amount he can legally increase it to, like the current Administration has done for the last three years". Why have they voted for it in the past?
City Government needs to work together to solve our problems, and not just point fingers that further divide our city.
"United we stand; divided we fall"
-Aesop |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 11:40:24 AM
|
First of all, I think you numbers are a little on the high side saying 73% of the City budget is school department and fixed costs. I believe City Department costs alone are $35,000.00.
There’s plenty to cut if your not lazy about it.
I don’t have the privilege of having the “true” numbers in front of me. Just take the amount that you able to cut, come up with a percentage rate…..and divide that by each department and/or other areas in the budget that can be cut.
Then, each department makes those cuts. It could be personnel. If it is, then it’s an unnecessary position and it's also a position that we cannot afford. I see people sitting around everytime I go to city hall.
My pet peeve…. stop all the city services over time. There’s no need of it and no need to be watering flowers at 2:00AM. Why are city services working overtime with 10 brand new hires?
That’s all overtime taxpayer dollars ……that we have increases on our mortgage or tax bill. It’s going to be much worse next near thanks to these gutless morons on the city council that probably never even read the budget book and were told what to say.
Do you really call that "working together" and for the ones that DARE to question the mayor, they get berated and ridiculed by him. It's HIM that needs to work with people.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- Lord Acton
|
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 12:19:15 PM
|
Poli Sci's numbers are actually on the low side. The school department and fixed cost budgets add up to $104,382,000.00 . With a total budget of $139,387,000.00 , fixed and school costs are 74.86% of the total budget. I pulled these numbers off the city's website.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 10:47:46 AM
|
Just Wondering,
I believe that the numbers that you are quoting are from the FY11 budget, when the water and sewer expenses were included in the city's operating budget. I believe that Poli Sci was using numbers from the proposed FY12 budget and they are mostly correct; there appears to be a bit of a math issue calculating exactly "what's left" though. The actual percentage of fixed costs and the school department expenses for FY12 is actually fractionally more than 73% too; but what's rounding to no decimal positions among friends?
Poli Sci,
My view is that some of those that speak out against the budget don't always vote against it because no one is looking for a repeat of what happened with Hanlon's last budget. That was embarassing for all concerned, taxpayers included.
The composition of the City Council is the key to the issue at this time. The Common Council is clearly dominated in shear numbers by staunch supporters of the Mayor; the Board of Alderman can usually muster enough votes to block things that some of their members don't agree on with the Mayor. If all of the members of the Board of Alderman truly voted their conscience on the budget, it could easily lead to budget gridlock. Remember, the attempt to put city council rules/an ordinance (can't remember which it was) in place that could resolve that kind of gridlock was soundly defeated in the Common Council.
I think that those members that disagree with the budget try to make some cuts in the hearings; but they fail a lot of the time due solely to the disproportionate representation by body on the Committee of the Whole. (Not complaining about it: it just is what it is, for now anyways.) In the end, the dissenters, in a lot of cases anyways, just seem to vote for the budget in an effort to "go along to get along". Are they hacks for that? Or just perpetuating a myth of almost total, complete "collegial co-operation"?
Again, just my opinions. |
|
|
|
snoopy1
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 10:20:53 AM
|
Dear Editor,
I have been asked by many people why I am running for Mayor. When you serve on the City Council like I have over the years, you start to notice that how the City is managed is like a jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes the pieces fit very nicely and sometimes you cannot find the right pieces no matter how hard you try. You would think that it would be easier with so many members on the Common Council, but there are too many members who think they are there to back the Mayor on all his endeavors. It seems at times that they forget that they are there to represent you and you alone, to be checks and balances to the Mayor. The majority of the Common Council blocked every attempt by me, and the Aldermen to try to reduce this last budget. The Mayor and the majority of the Common Council are spending more money than the residents and taxpayers can afford with no plan in the event things get financially worse.
Do not be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, times can and possibly will get worse.
I was raised by parents who survived the Great Depression, to always be prepared for the worst case scenario. This does not mean not to be optimistic, it means prepare for the worst but expect the best. Moody’s Investors Service has assigned a “negative outlook” to the credit ratings of a dozen affluent Massachusetts communities and two regional school districts. This is an ominous sign of how the national debt crisis and the potential down grade in federal aid threaten the financial health of our City. According to a recent article in the Boston Globe, The Moody’s review found Massachusetts was second only to Virginia in the number of communities at risk, largely because the Massachusetts economy is highly dependent on federal spending. When you start to put the puzzle pieces together, you find a City government aggressively spending money during an election year with no plan for tomorrow except to hire more people and create more projects than the taxpayers can afford to pay while praying for additional revenue like health insurance reform and the sale of the old high school. There was a $6.2 million dollar increase in this year’s budget. What do you think your taxes will be like this November after the election? If the Federal government starts cutting spending, it is going to put the squeeze on cities like Everett and the City will have to put the squeeze on you. Too many of our residents and businesses have read the writing on the wall and are abandoning our City for less expensive communities which there are many.
The developers on the Air Force road project are finding it hard to attract new business because our commercial tax rate of $43.74 per thousand is almost double our neighbors (Malden is $23.68 per thousand and Medford is $22.98 per thousand).
A 198-unit apartment complex is being driven down our throats while overtaxing our city resources. The August meeting of the Planning Board to review this project was delayed again after over 40 residents turned out to oppose it. It almost seems like a shell game. The next meeting is September 26 at 7:15 p.m. in the Keverian Room at City Hall. Our residents are not blind or stupid to what is going on in Everett. You deserve as stable a city economy as
can be provided during these tough times, not a house of cards.
In closing, I am asking the taxpayers and voters of Everett to maintain an open mind and not believe everything you read being put out by the Mayor’s publicist who happens to be on the City payroll.
I am asking for your vote for Mayor to lead the City down a more cautious approach during these tough times. To that end, I will be formally serving notice to the Mayor that I challenge him to a one on one debate on the financial condition of the City, his “vision” for Everett and his plans to get the City through the tougher times ahead. My goal is to re-store the sense of community that has made Everett a great community for everyone who lives or works here. As always, thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Councilor
Peter A. Napolitano
Candidate for Mayor
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2011 : 11:21:54 AM
|
| I would love to see a debate but I doubt it will ever happen. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Everett Independent
